Miami Shores Multimodal Mobility StudyMIAMI SHORES VILLAGE
Mobility Study
Multimodal
MiamiShoresVillage
presents
MiamiShoresVillageMultimodalMobilityStudy
Preparedby:
Kimley-HornandAssociates,Inc.
Kimley-HornandAssociates,Inc.
2015
044448003
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction...............................................................................................................................................................1
Context...................................................................................................................................................................1
PublicEngagement................................................................................................................................................3
TransportationMobilityAnalysis...............................................................................................................................5
BicyclingandWalkingActivityLevels.....................................................................................................................5
GISDataMapSeries...............................................................................................................................................6
LiteratureReview.................................................................................................................................................19
MiamiͲDade2040LongRangeTransportationPlan(LRTP).................................................................................19
2015TransportationImprovementProgram(TIP)..............................................................................................20
MiamiͲDade2040Bicycle/PedestrianPlan..........................................................................................................21
MiamiͲDadeMPOBicycle/PedestrianSafetyPlanUpdate..................................................................................22
MiamiͲDadeCountyParkandOpenSpaceSystemMasterPlan(OSMP)............................................................22
RecommendedImprovements................................................................................................................................24
BikeLanes............................................................................................................................................................27
Applications......................................................................................................................................................27
Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................28
Considerations.................................................................................................................................................28
SharedLanes........................................................................................................................................................29
Applications......................................................................................................................................................29
Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................30
Considerations.................................................................................................................................................30
NeighborhoodGreenways...................................................................................................................................31
Applications......................................................................................................................................................31
Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................32
Considerations.................................................................................................................................................33
SharedUsePath...................................................................................................................................................34
Applications......................................................................................................................................................34
Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................34
Considerations.................................................................................................................................................34
BarryUniversityTrail............................................................................................................................................35
Applications......................................................................................................................................................35
Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................35
Considerations.................................................................................................................................................36
RoadDiets/LaneReductions................................................................................................................................37
Applications......................................................................................................................................................37
Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................37
Considerations.................................................................................................................................................37
FlaglerTrail...........................................................................................................................................................39
Recommendations...........................................................................................................................................39
Considerations.................................................................................................................................................39
iii
Crosswalks ......................................................................................................................................................39
Applications ................................................................................................................................................40
Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................40
Considerations ............................................................................................................................................41
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs)...................................................................................................42
Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................42
Considerations ............................................................................................................................................42
High-Emphasis Intersections ...........................................................................................................................43
Applications ................................................................................................................................................43
Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................43
Considerations ............................................................................................................................................43
Bicycle Parking Hubs .......................................................................................................................................44
Applications ................................................................................................................................................44
Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................44
Estimated Project Costs ..................................................................................................................................45
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Village Overview Map ........................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2: Walking Distance from DowntownFigure 3: Biking Distance from Downtown ........................................ 8
Figure 3: Biking Distance from Downtown ........................................................................................................... 9
Figure 4: Walking Distance from Recreation Complex .........................................................................................10
Figure 5: Biking Distance from Recreation ComplexFigure 6: Transit Ridership Range per Stop ...........................11
Figure 6: Transit Ridership Range per StopFigure 7: 2010 Census Population Density .........................................12
Figure 7: 2010 Census Population Density ..........................................................................................................13
Figure 8: Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS) .............................................................................................................14
Figure 9: Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) ........................................................................................................15
Figure 10: Bicycle/Pedestrian Crashes (2008-2013) .............................................................................................16
Figure 11: Strava Data ........................................................................................................................................19
Figure 12: Recommended Non-Motorized Network ............................................................................................26
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Journey to Work Data............................................................................................................................. 6
Table 2: Evaluation Criteria for On-road and Off-road facilities ...........................................................................21
Table 3: Miami Shores Village Recommendation Summary .................................................................................25
Table 4: Linear Improvement Cost Estimates ......................................................................................................46
Table 5: Intersection and Crossing Improvements, and Bicycle Parking Hubs ......................................................47
iv
APPENDICES
Appendix A:LRTP Projects
Appendix B:TIP Projects
Appendix C:Project Cost Estimates
Appendix D:Prioritization Supplemental
1
INTRODUCTION
The Village of Miami Shores conducted a Multimodal Mobility Study with the primary goal to increase bicycle and
pedestrian mobility and safety in the Village through identifying projects and recommendations that the Village
Council can consider for programming and implementation. A safe, convenient, and accessible series of
pedestrian and bicycle facilities were planned through this study that connect local neighborhoods, provide access
to Downtown Miami Shores, and allow residents the opportunity to enjoy active transportation while gaining the
health and social benefits that bicycling and walking has to offer. The plan identifies facilities that allow the Village
to invest in accessible and accommodating bicycle and pedestrian facilities on local streets and identifies projects
that can be coordinated with other transportation partners such as Miami-Dade County and the Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT).
Context
Miami Shores Village is a great place to walk or ride a bicycle. The Village has a fairly well-connected network of
local streets with relatively low speeds and beautiful tree canopies.
These local streets serve as “shared lanes” where bicyclists and
motorists mix and share the same space. Focused, low-cost
improvements that utilize existing streets such as the shared-lane
marking, bicycle wayfinding signage, traffic calming where
warranted, and neighborhood greenway improvements could
improve the functionality that these “shared lanes” are part of the
multimodal transportation network.
Miami Shores’ downtown area along NE 2nd Avenue is an important
economic resource and a key destination for residents. Improving non-
motorized transportation connectivity from the surrounding
residential neighborhoods would improve quality of life for residents in
being able to conveniently walk or ride a bicycle to the businesses and
restaurants within the downtown area. Residents can also access
2
public transportation and several parks along NE 2nd Avenue. Downtown Miami Shores is a popular destination
for students from Barry University to be able to access as well.
Many residents walk with children to the Miami
Shores Recreation Complex to participate in
activities such as youth soccer. However, far more
residents drive and park around the Recreation
Complex. Providing bicycle and pedestrian
improvements targeted at connectivity to parks
will give residents enhanced opportunity to walk
or ride a bicycle to parks and recreation activities.
3
Public Engagement
The development of the Multimodal Mobility Study occurred
with direct engagement from residents and stakeholders of
the Village. These meetings allowed the study team and the
public to exchange ideas and learn from each other. The
public meeting attendees provided valuable input about local
travel patterns, key destinations, and the perception within
the community about which streets are most comfortable and
convenient to walk or bike, and which streets are typically
avoided due to busy traffic.
A public meeting was held on February 26, 2015, at the Miami Shores Community Center. The public meeting
was attended by approximately 30 residents. Support was high for establishing a multimodal mobility study and
providing facilities that would enhance walking and bicycling mobility within the Village. Residents provided input
on the first draft of the network plan recommendations, noted key destinations and attractions to connect,
highlighted streets that need improvements, and
provided additional thoughts and recommendations on
improving transportation in Miami Shores. All
recommendations were evaluated for incorporation into
the Multimodal Mobility Study. Public comment cards
were distributed at the public meeting and feedback
received was also evaluated for inclusion into the Study.
In addition, representatives from the local bike shop took
blank comment cards to place in their business as well for
further input opportunities.
A meeting with Barry University staff and students was held on March 27, 2015. The Barry University community
provided a wealth of information related to walking and bicycling at Barry, the percentage of walkers, typical
circulation patterns including origins and destinations, and insight into the development of the campus master
4
plan. The meeting included a discussion of students’ walking and bicycling mobility needs and ideas for points of
connectivity between the University and the Village walking and bicycling network.
In addition, three meetings were held with the Miami Shores Bicycle Committee to provide input to the study
development throughout the course of the process including reviewing the draft network plan recommendations.
5
TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY ANALYSIS
A general transportation mobility analysis was conducted to build upon the existing bicycle and pedestrian
mobility context within Miami Shores Village and identify opportunities through data analysis. The purpose of this
task is to collect data that will allow the study team to properly assess the existing conditions of alternative travel
modes in Miami Shores Village, and to analyze the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure needs.
Bicycling and Walking Activity Levels
USDOT data from the National Household Travel Survey
(2009) indicate that bicycling and walking account for
approximately 10 percent of all trips in the Miami-Dade
urbanized area, with walking representing approximately 9
percent and bicycling representing approximately 1 percent.
The USDOT NHTS data are collected on daily trips through
random sample travel surveys. Participants record all trips,
all modes, all purposes, and all trip lengths. Florida’s
participation in the NHTS Add-On Program allows sufficient
data collection to be analyzed at the urbanized area level, but not at the municipal level. Therefore reporting data
at the Miami-Dade urbanized area level is the appropriate level of geographic detail.
The United States Bureau of the Census measures transportation data for work trips only using a sampling of
respondents that complete the census long form as part of the annual American Community Survey (ACS).
Updated socioeconomic, demographic, and housing information is now available on an annual basis. The 2009-
2013 ACS 5-Year Estimates were used for this analysis.
Work trip characteristics in Miami Shores Village demonstrate that residents are more likely to make work trips
on foot or by bicycle than in the County, State, and Country as a whole. The percentage of work trips made by
bicycle is approximately 0.45% higher in Miami Shores than in the County as a whole, and the percentage of work
trips made on foot is 0.22% higher in Miami Shores than Miami-Dade County as a whole, and nearly 1.10% higher
than in the State of Florida. However, “Drove alone” is still the dominant journey-to-work mode within Miami
6
Shores, with the percentage of trips in single occupant vehicles over 6% greater than in the County, and nearly
3.5% higher than in the State as a whole.
Table 1: Journey to Work Data
Miami Shores
Village
Miami-Dade
County State of Florida United States
Description Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Car, truck, or van 4,531 90.89%967,049 86.16%7,235,750 89.39%120,551,904 86.17%
Drove Alone 4,13682.97%861,03576.72%6,436,311 79.52%106,519,50876.14%
Carpooled3957.92%106,0149.45%166,0279.88%14,032,099 10.03%
Public Transportation 78 1.56%60,428 5.38%166,027 2.05%6,967,689 4.98%
Taxicab 0 0.00%1,423 0.13%6,424 0.08%159,486 0.11%
Motorcycle 0 0.00%2,479 0.22%27,853 0.34%316,992 0.23%
Bicycle 52 1.04%6,721 0.60%53,403 0.66%785,665 0.56%
Walked 132 2.65%26,291 2.34%126,018 1.56%3,938,418 3.27%
Other means 0 0.00%11,404 1.02%90,918 1.12%1,195,856 0.85%
Workedat home 192 3.85%46,544 4.15%387,827 4.79%5,977,629 4.27%
GIS Data Map Series
Using geographic information systems (GIS), a map series was prepared to illustrate existing transportation
mobility conditions and community features in Miami Shores Village that help form the background conditions for
improving the Village’s bicycle and pedestrian mobility.
Figures 1 through 10 present the GIS Data Map Series.
Figure 1: Village Overview
Figure 2: Walking Distance from Downtown
Figure 3: Biking Distance from Downtown
Figure 4: Walking Distance from Recreation Complex
Figure 5: Biking Distance from Recreation Complex
Figure 6: Transit Ridership Range per Stop
Figure 7: 2010 Census Population Density
Figure 8: Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS)
Figure 9: Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS)
Figure 10: Bicycle/Pedestrian Crashes (2008-2013)
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
St
.
R
o
s
e
o
f
L
i
m
a
Sc
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
C
o
u
n
t
r
y
Da
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
Mo
n
t
e
s
s
o
r
i
S
c
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
Pr
e
s
b
y
t
e
r
i
a
n
S
c
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Ch
u
r
c
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
o
c
t
o
r
s
C
h
a
r
t
e
r
Sc
h
o
o
l
o
f
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
Ho
r
a
c
e
M
a
n
n
M
i
d
d
l
e
La
k
e
v
i
e
w
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Va
n
E
.
B
l
a
n
t
o
n
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Hu
b
e
r
t
O
.
S
i
b
l
e
y
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Ph
y
l
l
i
s
R
u
t
h
M
i
l
l
e
r
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Ba
r
r
y
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
MI
A
M
I
S
H
O
R
E
S
RE
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
CO
M
P
L
E
X
Mu
l
t
i
m
o
d
a
l
M
o
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
!I
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
Vi
l
l
a
g
e
O
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
M
a
p
0
2
,
0
0
0
4
,
0
0
0
1,
0
0
0
Fe
e
t
Mi
a
m
i
-
D
a
d
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
F
L
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
M
a
p
Le
g
e
n
d
^_
Pu
b
l
i
c
S
c
h
o
o
l
s
^_
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
s
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
)L
J
X
U
H
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
St
.
R
o
s
e
o
f
L
i
m
a
Sc
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
C
o
u
n
t
r
y
Da
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
Mo
n
t
e
s
s
o
r
i
S
c
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
Pr
e
s
b
y
t
e
r
i
a
n
S
c
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Ch
u
r
c
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
o
c
t
o
r
s
C
h
a
r
t
e
r
Sc
h
o
o
l
o
f
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
Ho
r
a
c
e
M
a
n
n
M
i
d
d
l
e
La
k
e
v
i
e
w
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Va
n
E
.
B
l
a
n
t
o
n
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Hu
b
e
r
t
O
.
S
i
b
l
e
y
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Ph
y
l
l
i
s
R
u
t
h
M
i
l
l
e
r
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Ba
r
r
y
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
MI
A
M
I
S
H
O
R
E
S
RE
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
CO
M
P
L
E
X
Mu
l
t
i
m
o
d
a
l
M
o
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
!I
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
Wa
l
k
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
f
r
o
m
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
0
2
,
0
0
0
4
,
0
0
0
1,
0
0
0
Fe
e
t
Mi
a
m
i
-
D
a
d
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
F
L
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
M
a
p
Le
g
e
n
d
^_
Pu
b
l
i
c
S
c
h
o
o
l
s
^_
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
s
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Wa
l
k
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
5
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
10
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
20
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
)L
J
X
U
H
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
St
.
R
o
s
e
o
f
L
i
m
a
Sc
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
C
o
u
n
t
r
y
Da
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
Mo
n
t
e
s
s
o
r
i
S
c
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
Pr
e
s
b
y
t
e
r
i
a
n
S
c
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Ch
u
r
c
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
o
c
t
o
r
s
C
h
a
r
t
e
r
Sc
h
o
o
l
o
f
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
Ho
r
a
c
e
M
a
n
n
M
i
d
d
l
e
La
k
e
v
i
e
w
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Va
n
E
.
B
l
a
n
t
o
n
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Hu
b
e
r
t
O
.
S
i
b
l
e
y
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Ph
y
l
l
i
s
R
u
t
h
M
i
l
l
e
r
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Ba
r
r
y
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
MI
A
M
I
S
H
O
R
E
S
RE
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
CO
M
P
L
E
X
Mu
l
t
i
m
o
d
a
l
M
o
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
!I
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
Bi
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
f
r
o
m
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
0
2
,
0
0
0
4
,
0
0
0
1,
0
0
0
Fe
e
t
Mi
a
m
i
-
D
a
d
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
F
L
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
M
a
p
Le
g
e
n
d
^_
Pu
b
l
i
c
S
c
h
o
o
l
s
^_
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
s
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Bi
k
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
5
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
10
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
)L
J
X
U
H
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
St
.
R
o
s
e
o
f
L
i
m
a
Sc
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
C
o
u
n
t
r
y
Da
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
Mo
n
t
e
s
s
o
r
i
S
c
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
Pr
e
s
b
y
t
e
r
i
a
n
S
c
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Ch
u
r
c
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
o
c
t
o
r
s
C
h
a
r
t
e
r
Sc
h
o
o
l
o
f
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
Ho
r
a
c
e
M
a
n
n
M
i
d
d
l
e
La
k
e
v
i
e
w
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Va
n
E
.
B
l
a
n
t
o
n
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Hu
b
e
r
t
O
.
S
i
b
l
e
y
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Ph
y
l
l
i
s
R
u
t
h
M
i
l
l
e
r
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Ba
r
r
y
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
MI
A
M
I
S
H
O
R
E
S
RE
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
CO
M
P
L
E
X
Mu
l
t
i
m
o
d
a
l
M
o
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
!I
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
Wa
l
k
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
f
r
o
m
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
m
p
l
e
x
0
2
,
0
0
0
4
,
0
0
0
1,
0
0
0
Fe
e
t
Mi
a
m
i
-
D
a
d
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
F
L
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
M
a
p
Le
g
e
n
d
^_
Pu
b
l
i
c
S
c
h
o
o
l
s
^_
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
s
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Wa
l
k
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
5
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
10
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
20
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
)L
J
X
U
H
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
St
.
R
o
s
e
o
f
L
i
m
a
Sc
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
C
o
u
n
t
r
y
Da
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
Mo
n
t
e
s
s
o
r
i
S
c
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
Pr
e
s
b
y
t
e
r
i
a
n
S
c
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Ch
u
r
c
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
o
c
t
o
r
s
C
h
a
r
t
e
r
Sc
h
o
o
l
o
f
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
Ho
r
a
c
e
M
a
n
n
M
i
d
d
l
e
La
k
e
v
i
e
w
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Va
n
E
.
B
l
a
n
t
o
n
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Hu
b
e
r
t
O
.
S
i
b
l
e
y
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Ph
y
l
l
i
s
R
u
t
h
M
i
l
l
e
r
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Ba
r
r
y
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
MI
A
M
I
S
H
O
R
E
S
RE
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
CO
M
P
L
E
X
Mu
l
t
i
m
o
d
a
l
M
o
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
!I
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
Bi
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
f
r
o
m
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
m
p
l
e
x
0
2
,
0
0
0
4
,
0
0
0
1,
0
0
0
Fe
e
t
Mi
a
m
i
-
D
a
d
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
F
L
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
M
a
p
Le
g
e
n
d
^_
Pu
b
l
i
c
S
c
h
o
o
l
s
^_
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
s
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Bi
k
i
n
g
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
5
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
10
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
)L
J
X
U
H
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(!(!(
!(!(!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
St
.
R
o
s
e
o
f
L
i
m
a
Sc
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
C
o
u
n
t
r
y
Da
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
Mo
n
t
e
s
s
o
r
i
S
c
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
Pr
e
s
b
y
t
e
r
i
a
n
S
c
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
h
u
r
c
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
o
c
t
o
r
s
C
h
a
r
t
e
r
Sc
h
o
o
l
o
f
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
Ho
r
a
c
e
M
a
n
n
M
i
d
d
l
e
ar
y
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Va
n
E
.
B
l
a
n
t
o
n
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Hu
b
e
r
t
O
.
S
i
b
l
e
y
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Ph
y
l
l
i
s
R
u
t
h
M
i
l
l
e
r
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Ba
r
r
y
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
MI
A
M
I
S
H
O
R
E
S
RE
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
CO
M
P
L
E
X
Mu
l
t
i
m
o
d
a
l
M
o
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
!I
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
R
i
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
P
e
r
S
t
o
p
0
2
,
0
0
0
4
,
0
0
0
1,
0
0
0
Fe
e
t
Mi
a
m
i
-
D
a
d
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
F
L
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
M
a
p
Le
g
e
n
d
Av
e
r
a
g
e
D
a
i
l
y
R
i
d
e
r
s
h
i
p
!(
0
-
5
!(
6
-
1
0
!(
11
-
2
5
!(
26
-
5
0
!(
51
-
1
0
0
!(
>
2
0
0
^_
Pu
b
l
i
c
S
c
h
o
o
l
s
^_
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
s
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
)L
J
X
U
H
Ba
r
r
y
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
MI
A
M
I
S
H
O
R
E
S
RE
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
CO
M
P
L
E
X
Mu
l
t
i
m
o
d
a
l
M
o
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
!I
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
20
1
0
C
e
n
s
u
s
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
0
1
,
9
0
0
3
,
8
0
0
95
0
Fe
e
t
Mi
a
m
i
-
D
a
d
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
F
L
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
M
a
p
Le
g
e
n
d
Po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
P
e
r
s
o
n
s
/
A
c
r
e
)
1
-
5
6
-
1
0
11
-
2
5
26
-
5
0
>
2
0
0
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
)L
J
X
U
H
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
St
.
R
o
s
e
o
f
L
i
m
a
Sc
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
C
o
u
n
t
r
y
Da
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
Mo
n
t
e
s
s
o
r
i
S
c
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
Pr
e
s
b
y
t
e
r
i
a
n
S
c
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Ch
u
r
c
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
o
c
t
o
r
s
C
h
a
r
t
e
r
Sc
h
o
o
l
o
f
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
Ho
r
a
c
e
M
a
n
n
M
i
d
d
l
e
Gr
a
t
i
g
n
y
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
ta
r
y
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Va
n
E
.
B
l
a
n
t
o
n
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Hu
b
e
r
t
O
.
S
i
b
l
e
y
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Ph
y
l
l
i
s
R
u
t
h
M
i
l
l
e
r
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Ba
r
r
y
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
MI
A
M
I
S
H
O
R
E
S
RE
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
CO
M
P
L
E
X
Mu
l
t
i
m
o
d
a
l
M
o
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
!I
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
(
L
O
S
)
0
2
,
0
0
0
4
,
0
0
0
1,
0
0
0
Fe
e
t
Mi
a
m
i
-
D
a
d
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
F
L
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
M
a
p
Le
g
e
n
d
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
L
O
S
S
c
o
r
e
A B C D E F
^_
Pu
b
l
i
c
S
c
h
o
o
l
s
^_
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
s
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
)L
J
X
U
H
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
St
.
R
o
s
e
o
f
L
i
m
a
Sc
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
C
o
u
n
t
r
y
Da
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
Mo
n
t
e
s
s
o
r
i
S
c
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
Pr
e
s
b
y
t
e
r
i
a
n
S
c
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Ch
u
r
c
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
o
c
t
o
r
s
C
h
a
r
t
e
r
Sc
h
o
o
l
o
f
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
Ho
r
a
c
e
M
a
n
n
M
i
d
d
l
e
Gr
a
t
i
g
n
y
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
ta
r
y
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Va
n
E
.
B
l
a
n
t
o
n
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Hu
b
e
r
t
O
.
S
i
b
l
e
y
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Ph
y
l
l
i
s
R
u
t
h
M
i
l
l
e
r
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Ba
r
r
y
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
MI
A
M
I
S
H
O
R
E
S
RE
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
CO
M
P
L
E
X
Mu
l
t
i
m
o
d
a
l
M
o
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
!I
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
(
L
O
S
)
0
2
,
0
0
0
4
,
0
0
0
1,
0
0
0
Fe
e
t
Mi
a
m
i
-
D
a
d
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
F
L
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
M
a
p
Le
g
e
n
d
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
L
O
S
S
c
o
r
e
A B C D E F
^_
Pu
b
l
i
c
S
c
h
o
o
l
s
^_
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
s
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
)L
J
X
U
H
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
&-
St
.
R
o
s
e
o
f
L
i
m
a
Sc
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
C
o
u
n
t
r
y
Da
y
S
c
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
Mo
n
t
e
s
s
o
r
i
S
c
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
Pr
e
s
b
y
t
e
r
i
a
n
S
c
h
o
o
l
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
h
u
r
c
h
S
c
h
o
o
l
D
o
c
t
o
r
s
C
h
a
r
t
e
r
Sc
h
o
o
l
o
f
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
Ho
r
a
c
e
M
a
n
n
M
i
d
d
l
e
ar
y
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Va
n
E
.
B
l
a
n
t
o
n
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Hu
b
e
r
t
O
.
S
i
b
l
e
y
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Ph
y
l
l
i
s
R
u
t
h
M
i
l
l
e
r
El
e
m
e
n
t
a
r
y
Ba
r
r
y
Un
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
MI
A
M
I
S
H
O
R
E
S
RE
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
CO
M
P
L
E
X
Mu
l
t
i
m
o
d
a
l
M
o
b
i
l
i
t
y
S
t
u
d
y
!I
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
a
n
d
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
C
r
a
s
h
e
s
(
2
0
0
8
-
2
0
1
3
)
0
2
,
0
0
0
4
,
0
0
0
1,
0
0
0
Fe
e
t
Mi
a
m
i
-
D
a
d
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
F
L
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
M
a
p
Le
g
e
n
d
&-
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
C
r
a
s
h
e
s
!(
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
C
r
a
s
h
e
s
^_
Pu
b
l
i
c
S
c
h
o
o
l
s
^_
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
S
c
h
o
o
l
s
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
V
i
l
l
a
g
e
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
)L
J
X
U
H
17
As shown in Figures 2 and 3, the majority of the Village is accessible within a 20 minute walk or 10 minute bike
ride from downtown Miami Shores. Of particular interest, the Barry University campus and the Miami Shores
Recreation Complex, both key attractions/trip generators within the Village, are within these ranges of downtown.
A similar analysis was conducted to determine walking and biking distance to the Miami Shores Recreation
Complex. As demonstrated in Figures 4 and 5, the majority of the Village is within a 20 minute walk or 10 minute
bike ride of the Miami Shores Recreation Center.
Figure 6 provides an overview of transit ridership data in Miami Shores Village. As seen in Table 1, transit ridership
represents approximately 1.5 percent of all trips made by residents of Miami Shores Village. The transit corridors
that can be identified from Figure 6 are US 1/SR 5/Biscayne Boulevard, NE 96 th Avenue, and NE 2nd Avenue. These
corridors serve as the primary north-south connections to adjacent municipalities. NE 2 nd Avenue provides stops
along the entirety of the corridor within the Village boundary, and provides a connection between downtown and
Barry University. N Miami Avenue and NE 96th Street are also corridors that serve the transit network, though
ridership along those is lower, as seen in Figure 6.
Population data from the 2010 US Census is provided in Figure 7. As can be seen, Miami Shores Village is mostly
a low-density urban area, best represented by a population density less than 10 residents per acre. Miami Shores
has a relatively high degree of walking and bicycling to work, as reported in the Census data, when compared to
its low population density.
A preliminary bicycle level of service (BLOS) analysis was conducted for major roadways based on the available
GIS data. As can be seen in Figure 8, the majority of the Village has BLOS D, with BLOS E on N Miami Avenue, NE
2nd Avenue, and US 1/SR 5/Biscayne Boulevard. Grand Concourse, which runs from the intersection of NE 2 nd
Avenue and NE 92nd Street diagonally north towards SR 915/NE 6 th Avenue, has BLOS B for the majority of the
corridor, and A between NE 95 th Street and NE 96th Street.
Similarly to BLOS, a pedestrian level of service (PLOS) analysis was conducted. As can be seen in Figure 9, Miami
Shores Village has PLOS C or better on the majority of the arterials, with the exception of US 1/SR 5/Biscayne
Boulevard, NE 2nd Avenue between NE 103rd Street and NE 111th Street, and NE 111th Street, which provide PLOS
D. The section of NE 2nd Avenue that serves the downtown (between NE 103rd Street and NE 92nd Street) has PLOS
18
C, likely as a result of the “road diet” improvements that have been implemented in the past few years. However,
the remainder of the connection along NE 2 nd Avenue between downtown and Barry University has a significantly
lower PLOS. Grand Concourse is a divided two-lane roadway that provides a PLOS A.
Bicycle and pedestrian crashes that occurred between 2008 and 2013 are mapped in Figure 1. As can be seen,
fewer than 20 crashes involving a cyclist or pedestrian occurred during the six-year period. While the vision should
be that no crashes occur, given the urban context of Miami Shores Village and when compared to the rest of the
Miami-Dade urbanized area, the number of crashes in Miami Shores Village is relatively low. Among the crashes
identified within Miami Shores Village, one resulted in a fatality and the remainder resulted in injuries or property
damage only. There does not seem to be a high concentration of crashes on any particular corridor.
A review of data available through Strava.com was also conducted as a tool to study bicycle trip patterns. Strava
is a smartphone-based application that uses GPS location to track data about bike rides taken by its members. The
data available through Strava provide an overview of popular routes for cyclists. Smartphone-based applications
such as Strava are largely used by experienced on-road bicyclists who use their bike for recreational activity. Figure
11 identifies U.S. 1 (Biscayne Boulevard), SR 915 (NE 6 th Avenue), and NE 2nd Avenue as primary north/south routes
used by Strava users. Local routes can also be seen with the Strava user data, such as NE 5 th Avenue, NE 12th
Avenue, and Grand Concourse.
19
Figure 11: Strava Data
Literature Review
Miami-Dade2040LongRangeTransportationPlan(LRTP)
A few projects identified in the Miami-Dade 2040 LRTP are located within the boundary of Miami Shores Village.
LRTP projects are prioritized on a scale of 1 to 4, where Priority 1 projects are to be implemented between 2015-
2020, Priority 2 projects are to be implemented between 2021-2025, Priority 3 projects are to be implemented
between 2026-2040, and Priority 4 projects between 2031 and 2040. Furthermore, the LRTP identifies projects
that have partial or no funding, as well as bicycle/pedestrian specific projects.
One project was identified as Priority 2 that directly impacts Miami Shores Village. This is the incremental
improvement of bus service along Biscayne Boulevard.
20
The Tri-Rail Coastal Link project is a partially funded project that will provide Tri-Rail service between Miami and
Pompano along the existing FEC corridor that runs through Miami Shores.
Among unfunded projects, the following are identified in Miami Shores:
A pedestrian facility improvement project is identified along NE 2 nd Avenue, between NE 111 th Street and W Dixie
Highway. The southernmost end of this project will be located on the border of Miami Shores Village.
Furthermore, a few projects are identified in Miami and El Portal that should be considered when developing a
multimodal plan such as bicycle facility improvements along NW 2 nd Avenue from NW 20 th Street to NW 79th Street
and NE 2nd Avenue from NE 62nd Street to NE 84th Street. All LRTP projects relevant to Miami Shores Village are
provided in Appendix A.
2015TransportationImprovementProgram(TIP)
TheMiami-Dade MPO prepares the annual Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) consistent with federal
guidelines. The TIP in effect at the time of this Plan is the FY 2014/15 to FY 2018/19 TIP approved by the Miami-
Dade MPO Governing Board on June 19 th, 2014. The TIP specifies proposed transportation improvements to be
implemented in Miami-Dade County over the coming five years. The most recent TIP was reviewed to identify
programmed projects within Miami Shores Village. The project that was identified within the Village limits is the
maintenance and resurfacing of SR 915/NE 6 Avenue from US 1/SR 5/Biscayne Boulevard to NE 110 Terrace.
Details regarding this improvement are provided in Appendix B.
21
Miami-Dade2040Bicycle/PedestrianPlan
The Miami-Dade 2040 Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan presents a vision and improvement strategies developed through
public engagement activities and technical analysis to enhance the non-motorized transportation network of the
Miami-Dade County, and serves as an important element of the County’s 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan
(LRTP). The plan establishes evaluation criteria specific to on-road and off-road bicycle and pedestrian facilities,
and projects were categorized into four priority levels using a Needs Assessment processes established by the
Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC).
The evaluation criteria used in the 2040 Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan is summarized in Table 2. Based on this criteria,
and weights assigned by the BPAC, the plan was able to establish a Minimum Revenue Plan. This plan consisted of
all projects that were identified as Priority 1. It was found that approximately 56 miles (roughly 44%) of the on-
road network improvements were classified as Priority 1, while around 48 miles (approximately 34%) of the off-
road network improvement projects fell under this category.
Table 2: Evaluation Criteria for On-road and Off-road facilities
On-Road FacilitiesOff-Road Facilities
Existing
Conditions
Pedestrian & Bicyclist Crash Data Unpaved Path
Pedestrian and Bicycle LOS
Connectivity
Schools, Employment Centers, Residential, Public
Transit, Parks and Recreation Areas
Schools, Employment Centers, Residential, Public
Transit, Parks and Recreation Areas
Existing Pedestrian and Bicyclist FacilitiesExisting Pedestrian and Bicyclist Facilities
Local Support Funding Funding
Cost
Feasibility
ROW (Right-of-Way) Availability ROW (Right-of-Way) AvailabilityComponent of an LRTP Project
Additionally,the2040Bicycle/PedestrianPlan,throughpublicengagementandcoordination
efforts,identifiedseveralshowcaseprojectsasprioritiesforimplementation.
AtlanticTrailSchooSafetyEnhancementProgram
RickenbackerCauseway FlaglerTrail
BiscayneBoulevard LudlamTrail
SnakeCreekTrailNeighborhoodGreenways
M-PathBicycleCommuterStations
MiamiAvenue/NE1st AvenueMoreandSaferCrosswalks
22
Miami-DadeMPOBicycle/PedestrianSafetyPlanUpdate
The Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Plan Update is an initiative that aims to reduce bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities in
Miami-Dade County. The Safety Plan Update identifies and recommends pedestrian focused improvements,
bicycle focused improvements, and general improvements that can target certain types of crashes. The plan
suggests using “Pork Chop” island refuges, restricting right-turns on red (RTOR), and providing a leading pedestrian
interval (LPI) to reduce right-turn crashes. Many of the improvements geared towards preventing bicyclist crashes
involve education and enforcement. Some examples of other general improvements include road diets/lane
reductions to help reduce midblock crashes, speed feedback signs to reduce high-speed crashes, and improved
lighting to reduce nighttime crashes.
Miami-DadeCountyParkandOpenSpaceSystemMasterPlan(OSMP)
The Miami-Dade County Park and Recreation Department developed the most recent OSMP in 2007, and it was
approved in early 2008. This plan provides a 50-year vision to guide the development in the county in order to
build more sustainable, livable communities in the county. The OSMP identifies six major goals: Sustainability,
Seamlessness, Beauty, Equity, Access and Multiple Benefits. Within each goal, the OSMP provides a number of
strategies to guide the implementation. The key goals that impact the Non-Motorized Network Connectivity Plan
are: Seamlessness, Beauty, Access and Multiple Benefits. Relevant actions for each of these goals are as follow:
Goal 2: Seamlessness
Strategy #1: develop, implement greenways, trails and bicycle facilities. This strategy identifies initiated
Greenway Master Plans as well as greenway and bicycle trail projects that required immediate attention.
Furthermore, greenway/trail wayfinding signage should be completed.
Goal 3: Beauty
Strategy #1: Design parks, public spaces, natural and cultural areas, greenways and streets to create a
sense of place for neighborhood stabilization and/or redevelopment
Strategy #2: Design streets to create a sense of place. This is done through a Great Streets Program that
was initiated. Furthermore, Connectivity requirements for new developments are identified and include
greenways and trails to connect people to parks, schools and work.
Strategy #3: Manage and operate greenways and bicycle facilities to promote beauty and sustainability.
23
Goal 5: Access
Strategy #1: Create Parks and Open Space Activity Access Criteria. This includes identifying access
measures for neighborhoods and regional activities as well as connectivity gaps for recreation
opportunities.
Strategy #2: Secure safe routes to parks.
Goal 6: Multiple Benefits
Strategy #1: Improve health, wellness, and social well-being through greenway and bicycle trails
implementation and future development.
24
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Several types of improvements were identified and are recommended based on the review of existing conditions,
analysis of transportation plans and policies impacting the Village, feedback from the public, and a field review.
All improvements have been developed an overarching principle to support and prioritize pedestrians and
bicyclists within the area through the use of context sensitive solutions (CSS). Improvements include the following
types:
Bicycle Lanes,
Shared Lanes,
Neighborhood Greenways,
Shared Use Paths,
Barry University Trail,
Road Diet / Lane Reductions,
Flagler Trail
Crosswalks,
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB),
High-emphasis Intersections, and
Bicycle Parking Hubs.
A map displaying the Recommended Non-Motorized Network is provided in Figure 12. Neighborhood greenways
are identified by a green band, bicycle lanes are depicted in blue, the brown lines represent shared lanes, and the
purple line along the west side of NE 2nd Avenue represents a shared use path. Longer term improvements such
as the Flagler Trail (yellow band) and road diets/lane reductions are represented by hatched markings along NE
2nd Avenue and NE 6th Avenue.
Different types of crossing improvements have also been identified in the map. Locations that need a new
crosswalk or the addition of a traffic signal improvements are identified by a pink circle, while high-emphasis
intersections are represented by a grey pentagon. These high-emphasis intersections will likely be stamped
asphalt, and may include additional signals and/or pavement markings.
25
The following section describes each type of improvement in more detail, and outlines key corridors that will serve
as the backbone for the non-motorized network of Miami Shores Village. Table 3 below provides a summary of
total improvements within the Miami Shores Village boundary.
Table 3: Miami Shores Village Recommendation Summary
Improvement Type Length (miles)
Bicycle Lanes 5.94 lane-miles
Shared Lanes 10.33 lane-miles
Neighborhood Greenways 15.46 miles
Shared Use Path 1.14 miles
Barry University Trail 2.33 miles
Flagler Trail 1.39 miles
Road Diet 1.92 miles
26
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
2
:
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
N
o
n
-
M
o
t
o
r
i
z
e
d
N
e
t
w
o
r
k
27
Bike Lanes
Bike lanes provide an exclusive space for bicyclists on the roadway
surface. Identified through the use of edge lines and pavement marking
symbols, bike lanes are intended for one-way travel and are usually
provided on both sides of a two-way street.
Applications
Bike lanes are normally placed on the right-hand side of the road to reflect the general traffic principle of
slower traffic keeping to the left.
The minimum width of a bike lane next to an on-street parking space or right-turn lane is five feet. Lanes
on open shoulders or adjacent to curb-and-gutter drainage system may be a minimum of four feet wide.
Bike lanes are typically installed by relocating existing street space through road diets or lane reduction
(includes narrowing of travel lanes, removing travel lanes, and/or reconfiguring parking lanes).
Bike lanes require on-going maintenance to ensure debris is not collected in them causing hazards to
bicyclists.
On FDOT maintained roadways, a buffered bicycle lane that provides a four-foot bicycle lane and a three-
foot buffer is the standard.
Refer to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and AASHTO Guide for the Development
of Bicycle Facilities for more information on bike lane design.
28
Recommendations
The following bike lane projects are recommended as a part of the Miami Shores Village Multimodal Network.
Depending on the available travel right-of-way, improvements on some facilities may require lane width
narrowing or lane reduction to accommodate the addition of the bicycle-only facility. These facilities are geared
more towards bicycle commuters travelling into/out of/through Miami Shores Village.
NW 2nd Avenue – from NW 103rd Street (Miami Shores Village boundary) to NW 111 th Street
NE 2nd Avenue – from NE 103rd Street to NE 115th Street (Miami Shores Village boundary)
Grand Concourse – from NE 96 th Street to Park Drive
NE 6th Avenue – from Biscayne Boulevard to NE 107 th Street (Miami Shores Village boundary)
Considerations
Buffered bike lanes can be considered anywhere a
standard bike lane is being considered.
Buffered bike lanes should be provided on streets with
on-street parking, high travel speeds, high traffic
volumes, and streets with extra space within the
traveled way.
Bicycle lanes may be painted green to provide a more
visual warning to motorists.
Bicycle lanes may be implemented in the short term (1-3 years) if no milling and resurfacing is necessary.
For bicycle lane facilities on roads that require resurfacing, typical implementation timeline is 3-5 years.
29
Shared Lanes
Shared lane markings, or sharrows, are pavement markings that
are placed within the vehicular travel lane of the roadway to
indicate a shared lane. Shared lane markings do not provide
bicyclists with an exclusive right-of-way, but rather alert
motorists that bicyclists are welcomed on the roadway. They
can also be used to direct bicyclists to a proper lateral position
and direction of travel within the travel lane in order to
encourage safer passing behaviors.
Applications
Shared lane markings are typically used on streets where
space constraints make it impractical to provide designated
bicycle lanes
Sharrows should not be used on streets with speed limits
higher than 35 MPH.
On streets with narrow lanes, the shared lane marking is
typically placed in the center of the lane to indicate that
motorists must change lanes to pass bicyclists.
Refer to the MUTCD and the AASHTO Guide for
Development of Bicycle Facilities for more information on
the application of shared lane markings.
30
Recommendations
The following shared lane markings projects are recommended as a part of the Miami Shores Village Multimodal
Network. These facilities are geared more towards bicycle commuters travelling into/out of/through Miami Shores
Village.
N Miami Avenue – from N 91 st Street (Miami Shores Village boundary) to N 111 th Street
NE 2nd Avenue – from NE 91st Street (Miami Shores Village boundary) to NE 93 rd Street
N 103rd Street – from NW 2 nd Court (Miami Shores Village boundary) to NE 6 th Avenue
NE 96th Street – from NE 2nd Avenue to NE 12th Avenue
Biscayne Boulevard – from NE 87th Street (Miami Shores Village boundary) to NE 105 th Street (Miami
Shores Village boundary)
Considerations
Shared lane markings can be used in constrained corridors as a
temporary solution to complete connections between bike lanes
and other facilities.
Shared lane markings should be accompanied by a “Bicycles May
Use Full Lane” sign (MUTCD R4-11 sign).
Shared lane markings can be used as the standard element in the
development of neighborhood greenways (bicycle boulevards),
which are discussed in greater detail in the next section.
Shared lane improvements can be implemented in the short term (1-3 years).
31
Neighborhood Greenways
Neighborhood greenways, also known as bicycle
boulevards, are enhanced shared streets that will serve
as the backbone for Miami Shores Village’s Multimodal
Network. Neighborhood greenways incorporate a
variety of elements including shared lane markings,
traffic calming, and bike route and wayfinding signage to
provide a comfortable and low-stress environment that
encourages the use of non-motorized modes of
transportation. Ideally, they are designed to minimize
the number of stops that a bicyclist must make along the route through the use of neighborhood traffic circles or
re-orienting stop signs at intersections. Separated bicycle facilities are not necessary on neighborhood greenways
because motor vehicle speeds and traffic volumes are low.
Applications
At major street crossings, neighborhood greenways may need additional crossing
measures for bicyclists such as bicycle-sensitive loop detectors (at signalized
intersections), actuated flashing beacons (at unsignalized intersections), and
median refuge islands. These improvements are discussed in the intersection
improvement section.
High emphasis intersections (using stamped asphalt or other form of aesthetic
improvement) should be considered at locations where two or more
neighborhood greenways meet, especially when vehicular traffic on one of the roadways is higher. For
more details, refer to the high emphasis intersection section that follows.
Traffic calming measures such as neighborhood traffic circles, speed
cushions, and diverters can be used to maintain low speeds (ideally 25
MPH or less) on neighborhood greenways.
Green background should be added to the ‘Sharrow’ pavement
markings to improve visibility.
32
Recommendations
The following neighborhood greenways are recommended as a part of the Miami Shores Village Multimodal
Network. These facilities are primarily intended for bicyclists and pedestrians residing and traveling within Miami
Shores Village. Users of this neighborhood greenway network will usually make shorter trips to/from recreation
activities, schools, and shopping. Neighborhood greenways that are listed in bold are considered the primary
corridors that will serve as the backbone for the greenway network.
North-south Greenways:
NW 5th Avenue – from NW 112 th Terrace to NW 113th Street
NW 1st Avenue – from NW 91st Street (Miami Shores Village boundary) to NW 109 th Street
NE 1st Avenue – from NE 91st Street (Miami Shores Village boundary) to NE 109 th Street
NE 4th Avenue – from NE 91st Street (Miami Shores Village boundary) to NE 107 th Street (Miami Shores
Village boundary)
NE 5th Avenue – from NE 91st Street (Miami Shores Village boundary) to NE 107th Street (Miami Shores
Village boundary), along NE 4 th Avenue Road and NE 5th Avenue Road approaching Grand Concourse
NE 7th Avenue – from NE 97th Street to NE 101st Street
Park Drive – from NE 96 th Street to NE 97th Street
Park Drive – from Grand Concourse to NE 101 st Street
NE 10th Court – from NE 92nd Street to NE 94th Street
NE 12th Avenue – from NE 92nd Street to NE 104th Street
NE 13th Avenue – from NE 97 th Street to NE 100th Street
NE 13th Avenue – from NE 101st Street to NE 103rd Street
N Bayshore Drive – from NE 91 st Terrace to NE 93rd Street
N Bayshore Drive – from NE 94th Street to NE 96th Street
33
East-West Greenways:
NE 91st Street – from NE 10th Avenue to N Bayshore Drive
NE 92nd Street – from NE 10 th Court to N Bayshore Drive
NW/NE 93rd Street – from NW 3rd Avenue (Miami Shores Village boundary)
to NE 6th Avenue
NE 93rd Street – from NE 12th Avenue to N Bayshore Drive
NE 94th Street – from NE 10th Court to N Bayshore Drive
NW/NE 96th Street – from NE 2 nd Avenue (Miami Shores Village boundary) to NE 2 nd Avenue
NE 96th Street – from NE 12th Avenue to N Bayshore Drive
NE 97th Street – from NE 12th Avenue to NE 13th Avenue
NE 100th Street - from NE 12th Avenue to NE 13th Avenue
NW/NE 101st Street – from NW 2nd Avenue (Miami Shores Village boundary) to Park Drive
NE 101st Street – from NE 12th Avenue to NE 102nd Street
NE 102nd Street – from NE 12th Avenue to NE 101 st Street
NE 103rd Street – from NE 12th Avenue to cul-de-sac
NE 104th Street – from NE 12th Avenue to cul-de-sac
NE 107th Street – from NE 2nd avenue to Flagler Trail
NW/NE 109th Street – NW 2 nd Avenue to NE 2nd Avenue (Miami Shores Village boundary)
NW 112th Terrace – from NW 5 th Avenue to NW 2 nd Avenue
NW 113th Street – from NW 6 th Avenue to NW 5th Avenue
Considerations
Ideally, neighborhood greenways should not carry more than 3,000 motor vehicles per day to be
compatible with a broad range of bicyclist skill levels.
Each neighborhood greenway may be designed with different elements. However, shared lane markings,
“Bicycles May Use Full Lane” signs (MUTCD R4-11 signs), wayfinding sings, and bicycle crossing
improvements where neighborhood greenways cross major roadways should be considered basic
elements consistent with all neighborhood greenways.
Neighborhood greenway improvements can be implemented in the short term (1-3 years).
34
Shared Use Path
Shared use paths are non-motorized transportation trails that
are typically used by bicyclists and pedestrians. Shared use
paths may vary from a wide sidewalk in the street’s right-of-
way to a paved trail separate from the roadway.
Applications
Shared use paths are distinct from wide sidewalks in that they are designed to accommodate shared use
for both cyclists and pedestrians
Modern shared use path design guidelines call for a minimum width of 10 to 14 feet that would permit
striping that designates direction of travel.
Recommendations
The following shared use path project is recommended as a part of the Miami Shores Village Multimodal Network.
NE 2nd Avenue – from NE 93rd Street to NE 111th Street.
This facility would be implemented as a wide sidewalk on the west side of NE 2 nd Avenue and aims to connect
Barry University Campus with the downtown area of Miami Shores Village, extending down to Memorial Park.
Considerations
Due to existing trees and utility poles, the path would
need to be designed with covered tree wells to
ensure that bicyclist and pedestrians are able to
travel with minimal horizontal restriction.
The proposed shared use path can be implemented
in 3-5 years.
35
Barry University Trail
The Barry University trail will be comprised of wide sidewalks surrounding the university’s campus, as well as
Doctors Charter School. This trail was initially proposed, and will be funded, by the Barry University Master Plan.
Applications
Sidewalks should be a minimum of 6 feet wide.
Sidewalks should be provided on both sides of the street
except on residential streets where pedestrians can
comfortably walk within the street due to the low-volume,
low-speed characteristics of the street (some neighborhood
greenways, for example).
Sidewalks shall conform to the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) requirements with regards to slope, ramps, etc.
Recommendations
The Barry University Trail will be made up of the following sidewalks.
NW 6th Avenue – from NW 113 th Street to NW 115th Street (west side of NW 6 th Avenue, along park)
NW 2nd Avenue – from NW 111th Street to NW 115 th Street (east side of NW 2nd Avenue, adjacent to Barry
University campus)
NE 2nd Avenue – from NE 111th Street to NE 115th Street (west
side of NE 2nd Avenue, adjacent to Barry University campus)
NW/NE 111th Street – from NW 2nd Avenue to NE 2 nd Avenue
(north side, adjacent to Barry University campus)
NW/NE 115th Street – from NW 6th Avenue to NE 2nd Avenue
(south side, adjacent to Doctors Charter School and Barry
University campus)
36
Additionally, the Barry University trail will make
use of the neighborhood greenways along NW
112th terrace, NW 113th Street, and NW 5th Avenue
(identified in the neighborhood greenways section
of this report).
Considerations
Sidewalks should be implemented at locations where a ‘goat trail’ exists as a result of high pedestrian
usage.
If possible, existing trees or vegetation should be used as a natural buffer between the sidewalk and the
vehicle travel way. This is especially important along roadways that do not have a curb and gutter that
clearly define the vehicle roadway limits.
Improvements such as the Barry University Trail can be implemented in 3-5 years.
37
Road Diets/Lane Reductions
A road diet/lane reduction refers to the repurposing of a roadway’s right-of-way resulting in a reduction of through
motor vehicle travel lanes. Road diets and lane reductions may be implemented for a few different reasons such
as the addition of bicycle lanes, widening of sidewalks, implementation of on-street parking, or for traffic calming
purposes. Miami Shores Village has already implemented road diets in two locations: NE 2 nd Avenue from NE 96 th
Street to NE 103rd Street, and Grand Concourse Avenue south of NE 96 th Street.
Applications
The following elements should be considered when reducing travel lanes on streets:
Four-lane roads with annual average daily traffic (AADT)
below 20,000 and six-lane roads with AADT below 35,000
vehicles per day are candidates for road diet treatments.
On four-lane undivided roadways, road diets typically
remove two travel lanes and convert the road to a two-
lane road with a center two-way left-turn lane, freeing up
right-of-way for the addition of bicycle lanes.
Recommendations
The following road segments were identified as having potential for road diet implementation:
NE 2nd Avenue from NE 103rd Street to NE 115 th Street
NE 6th Avenue from Biscayne Boulevard to NE 107 th Street
Considerations
The two locations recommended for a road diet are County and State maintained, respectively. Therefore,
implementation will need to be approved and/or handled by Miami Dade County Department of Public
Works or FDOT, respectively.
Road diets are considered long-term improvements, and are likely to be implemented in six (6) or more
years.
A low-cost road diet reconfigures existing roadway space and does not require curb reconstruction.
38
Where a left turn lane already exists on a roadway, additional right-of-way could be used to widen
sidewalk, add a buffered bicycle lane, provide on-street parking, or add transit lanes.
Road diets require special attention to public involvement of the surrounding communities. Public support
is a key aspect in the success of a road diet.
The addition of bicycle lanes will need periodic maintenance to ensure debris is removed from the new
facility.
Even on roadways where AADT volumes support the implementation of a road diet, an intersection
capacity analysis may be necessary to ensure that the reduction of travel lanes does not create significant
delays for motor vehicles.
NE 2nd Avenue (2011) before road diet
NE 2nd Avenue (2015)afterroad diet
39
Flagler Trail
The Flagler Trail is a long-term improvement
that would provide regional connectivity to
the east part of Miami-Dade County. The trail
would run along the existing Florida East Coast
Railway (FECR).
Recommendations
Within Miami Shores Village, the Flagler Trail would go from NE 87 th Street (Miami Shores Village boundary) to NE
107th Street (Miami Shores Village boundary). This results in approximately 1.4 miles of trail within Miami Shores
Village.
Considerations
The addition of the Flagler Trail is a regional project that would be implemented
by an outside agency, possibly as a part of the Tri-Rail Coastal Link project.
40
Crosswalks
Crosswalks should be implemented to
improve pedestrian connectivity throughout
the village. The intent is to warn motorists of
locations where pedestrian activity is more
likely to occur, as well as guide pedestrians
towards established and predictable
crossings. Intersections between two or more
corridors along which bicycle and pedestrian
facility improvements are recommended were
analyzed.
Applications
Crosswalks should either be painted with thermo-plastic paint or other textured material that
may provide improved visibility for motorists.
Crosswalks shall be the width of the approaching sidewalks, or a minimum of 10 feet wide.
Crosswalks shall be connected to sidewalks by ADA-compliant access ramps (4’ wide
minimum).
Crosswalks along a shared use path should provide ramps that are the width of the shared
use path.
Recommendations
The following intersections were identified as needing crosswalk improvements:
NW 1st Avenue and NW 103rd Street (east and west legs of intersection)
N Miami Avenue and N 111th Street (south leg of the intersection only)
N Miami Avenue and N 109th Street (north and south legs of the intersection)
N Miami Avenue and N 101st Street (north and south legs of the intersection)
N Miami Avenue and N 96th Street (north and south legs of the intersection)
N Miami Avenue and N 93rd Street (north leg of intersection only)
41
NE 2nd Avenue and NE 101 st Street (south leg of intersection only)
NE 2nd Avenue and NE 93 rd Street (north leg of intersection only)
NE 4th Avenue and NE 103rd Street (west leg of intersection only)
NE 4th Avenue and NE 101st Street (all legs of intersection)
NE 4th Avenue and NE 93rd Street (all legs of intersection)
NE 5th Avenue and NE 101st Street (all legs of intersection)
NE 5th Avenue and NE 93rd Street (all legs of intersection)
NE 6th Avenue and NE 101st Street (south leg of intersection only)
NE 6th Avenue and Grand Concourse (north and south legs of
intersection)
NE 6th Avenue and Park Drive (south side of intersection only)
NE 96th Street and Club Drive (south and east legs of intersection)
Considerations
Crosswalks along a shared use path shall
provide ADA-compliant ramps that are
the width of the shared use path.
Crosswalks should be implemented in
conjunction with warning signs to
motorists (MUTCD W 11-2 and W16-7).
At uncontrolled crossings (such as mid-
block), crosswalks should be installed in
conjunction with Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) (discussed in the next section), and when warranted by traffic volumes, a
pedestrian hybrid beacon.
42
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs)
A rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) is a pedestrian-activated warning beacon
for use at mid-block crossings or uncontrolled intersection crossings. When
activated, the RRFB does not require motorists to come to a stop, but it visibly
notifies motorists of a pedestrian either in the crosswalk or requesting to cross. The
RRFB uses rectangular-shaped high-intensity LED-based indications, flashes rapidly
in a wig-wag flash pattern, and is mounted immediately between the crossing
warning sign and the sign’s supplemental arrow plaque. The RRFB offers significant
potential safety and cost benefits, because it achieves high rates of motorist yielding compliance at a relative low
cost in comparison to other more restrictive devices, such as full mid-block signalization.
Recommendations
The following were identified as potential locations for RRFBs:
NW 1st Avenue and NW 103rd Street (Crossing NW 103rd Street)
N Miami Avenue and N 93rd Street (crossing N Miami Avenue)
N Miami Avenue and N 96th Street (crossing N Miami Avenue)
N Miami Avenue and N 101st Street (crossing N Miami Avenue)
N Miami Avenue and N 109th Street (crossing N Miami Avenue)
NE 2nd Avenue and NE 93 rd Street (crossing north leg of NE 2 nd Avenue)
NE 2nd Avenue and NE 101 st Street (crossing south leg of NE 2 nd Avenue)
NE 4th Avenue and NE 103rd Street (crossing NE 103 rd Street)
NE 6th Avenue and Park Drive (crossing NE 6 th Avenue)
NE 6th Avenue and Grand Concourse (Crossing NE 6 th Avenue)
NE 6th Avenue and NE 101st Street (crossing NE 6 th Avenue)
Considerations
For roadway crossings across more than two lanes without a median refuge, an overhead RRFB should be
used. Of the recommended projects listed above, all but the NE 103 rd Street crossing will require overhead
RRFB signalization.
Schematic of overhead-mounted
rectangular rapid flashing beacon
(RRFB)
43
High-Emphasis Intersections
At locations where neighborhood greenways intersect higher traffic roadways such as collectors or arterials, a
high-emphasis intersection is recommended. The purpose of this improvement is to provide motorists traveling
along the roadway with a visual cue that they are crossing a neighborhood greenway.
Applications
Intersections should be visually different from travel lanes through the use of stamped asphalt or pavers.
The color of the intersection should contrast with the existing roadway surface.
Crosswalks along the high emphasis intersection should be a different color or painted to stand out.
An RRFB or a pedestrian hybrid beacon should be installed at intersections that are currently uncontrolled,
particularly on high-traffic, high-speed roadways.
Recommendations
The following intersections were identified as needing crosswalk improvements:
N Miami Avenue and N 93rd Street
N Miami Avenue and N 96th Street
N Miami Avenue and N 101st Street
N Miami Avenue and N 109th Street
NE 2nd Avenue and NE 93 rd Street
NE 2nd Avenue and NE 101 st Street
NE 4th Avenue and NE 96th Street (and Grand Concourse)
NE 5th Avenue and NE 96th Street
NE 5th Avenue and Grand Concourse
Considerations
Pavers or stamped asphalt improvement should provide visual difference from typical roadway.
Texture of intersection should keep bicyclists in consideration, and ensure that a smooth ride is still
provided.
Tabled (or raised) intersections could be provided to act as a traffic calming feature that enhances safety.
Textured asphalt with specialty paving for
crosswalks
44
Bicycle Parking Hubs
It is encouraged that bicycle racks be provided by business and attractions throughout Miami Shores Village.
However, bicycle parking hubs are locations where larger numbers of bicycle parking is provided.
Applications
Bicycle racks should be securely affixed with theft-resistant
hardware to a paved surface.
The rack should support the frame of the bicycle at two
points.
The rack should be simple and easy to use.
Each rack should permit the parking of a minimum of two
bicycles parallel to each other facing in opposite directions.
The rack should meet ADA guidelines to be detected with a cane.
Recommendations
The following intersections were identified as needing crosswalk improvements:
Northwest corner of NE 2nd Avenue and NE 101 st Street (across the street from Miami Shores Village Hall)
At Miami Shores Village Memorial Park (NE 2 nd Avenue and NE 93rd Street)
At Miami Shores Village Constitution Park (NE 7 th Avenue and NE 5th Avenue Road)
N Bayshore Drive, north of NE 96 th Street (at the dead end)
45
Estimated Project Costs
Preliminary cost estimates were compiled for each project type. Some improvements, such as bicycle lanes and
intersection improvements, vary significantly in cost depending on the facility on which they are to be
implemented on. Total construction costs assumes 10% mobilization costs, 10% fee for scope contingency, 15%
fee for preliminary engineering design, and 10% fee for construction engineering inspections. For projects on
County and State roadways, an additional 10% fee is added for maintenance of traffic (MOT).
Bicycle Lanes
Providing a bicycle lane on Grand Concourse requires only striping, pavement markings, and sign panels. On NW
2nd Avenue, a shoulder needs to be added on both sides of the road to allow space for a bicycle lane. A road diet
would be required on NE 2nd Avenue and NE 6 th Avenue, which will include milling and resurfacing of the roadway,
and restriping of lanes. For the purpose of this study, it is assumed that green paint is provided only at conflict
zones, approximately 20% of the total length of the bicycle lane.
Shared Lanes
Shared lanes require the addition of ‘sharrow’ pavement markings, and “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” (R4-11) signs.
Neighborhood Greenways
Neighborhood greenways require the addition of ‘sharrow’ pavement markings, green background for the
‘sharrows’, “Bicycles May Use Full Lane” (R4-11) signs, neighborhood greenway signs, and the occasional stop
sign and stop bar relocation to facilitate bicycle travel.
Shared Use Path
The shared use path along NE 2nd Avenue requires capital improvements between NE 103 rd Street and NE 111 th
Street. Cost items as a part of this project include ADA detectable warnings, widening the sidewalk and
reconstruction of the concrete curb on the west side of NE 2 nd Avenue, and the provision of tree grates/covers.
Barry University Trail
The Barry University Trail will require between 8’-12’ concrete sidewalk. ADA and crossing improvements along
the trail were not included in this cost estimate.
46
Crossing Improvements
Crossing improvements include installation of new crosswalks, Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons, and ADA
ramps. For roadways with less than 4 lanes, two ground mounted RRFBs are required (one on each side). For
roadways with 4 or more lanes, an overhead RRFB should be installed as well as well as two ground-mounted
RRFBs at the crossing and two advanced warning RRFBS.
Bicycle Parking Hubs
For bicycle parking hubs, it was assumed that some locations may require some concrete to be poured for the
platform, while others may be placed on existing sidewalks or parking spaces. It was assumed that for each hub,
10 bicycles would need to be accommodated.
Cost Summary
A summary of costs for linear improvement, as well as agency that would be responsible for funding and/or
implementation, is provided in Table 4 below.
Table 4: Linear Improvement Cost Estimates
Facility
Responsible
Agency
Total
Miles Cost/mile
Construction
Cost Total Cost
Bicycle Lanes
Striping, pavement marking,
bicycle lane signs
Miami Shores0.53$20,784.00$ 11.015.52$ 15,328.10
With adding a paved
shoulder
Miami Shores0.51$60,784.00$ 30,999.84$46,887.26
With road diet and milling
and resurfacing roadway
County /FDOT1.93$710,497.20$1,371,259.60$2,262,578.33
Shared Lanes
On local roadMiami Shores1.36$ 9,000$ 12,240.00$ 17,031.96
On County or State roadCounty /FDOT3.81$ 9,000$ 34,290.00$56,578.50
Neighborhood Greenway
On local roadsMiami Shores15.46$ 18,000$ 278,280.00$387,226.62
Shared Use Path
On local roadMiami Shores0.5$ 302,400.00$ 151,200.00$ 210,394.80
Barry University Trail
Around University CampusBarry University 2.33$235,276.80$548,194.94$762,813.26
Flagler Trail
Along FECROthers / Regional1.39$ 400,000.00$556,000.00$ 917,400.00
47
Costs for intersection and crosswalk improvements, as well as bicycle parking hub installation, are summarized in
Table 5 below.
Table 5: Intersection and Crossing Improvements, and Bicycle Parking Hubs
Facility
Responsible
Agency Number Cost/unit
Construction
Cost Total Cost
High Emphasis Intersection
Withoverhead RRFB (on
State/County road)
County / FDOT4$ 194,900.00$ 779,960.00$ 1,286,340.00
With overhead RRFB (on
local road)
Miami Shores1$ 194,900.00$ 194,900.00$ 271,203.35
With Regular RRFB (on local
road)
Miami Shores3$ 50,900.00$ 152,700.00$ 212,482.05
Without RRFB (on local
road)
Miami Shores1$ 27,850.00$ 27,850.00$ 38,753.28
Crossing Improvement (at Non-High Emphasis Intersections)
With overhead RRFB (on
State/County road)
County / FDOT4$ 169,450.00$ 677,800.00$ 1,118,370.00
With Regular RRFB (on local
road)
Miami Shores1$ 25,450.00$ 25,450.00$ 35,413.68
Without RRF (on
State/County road)
County / FDOT1$ 1,450.00$ 1,450.00$ 2,392.50
Without RRFB (on local
road)
Miami Shores1$ 1,450.00$ 1,450.00$ 36,318.15
Bicycle Parking Hub
10 Bicycle CapacityMiami Shores4$ 800.00$ 3,200.00$ 3,872.00
IT should be noted that the costs provided above are intended to provide a rough estimate for planning purposes.
A more detailed breakdown of unit costs and costs associated with project implementation is provided in
Appendix C.
APPENDIX A:
LRTP PROJECTS
MIAMI-DADE LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE TO THE YEAR 2040
Chapter 6 | Multimodal Solutions
EYES ON THE FUTURE | 6-9
Figure 6-4 | Priority I Project Map
MIAMI-DADE LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE TO THE YEAR 2040
Chapter 6 | Multimodal Solutions
EYES ON THE FUTURE | 6-17
Figure 6-7 | Priority II Project Map
Table 6-7 | Priority II Projects (Values in Millions $)
6-18 | MOBILITY OPTIONS
Bolded phase funds are included in the 2015/2019 Miami-Dade TIP
* denotes portions of phase values are included in both the TIP and 2040 Plan
** denotes Operations and Maintenance is funded via MDT system efficiencies
79 St Causeway (JFK Cwy) Enhanced
Bus Northside Metrorail Station Miami Beach Convention
Center Improve/implement transit service $ $55.457 $ $218.876
Busway Park-and-Ride FacilityUS-1 BuswaySW 104 St Park-and-Ride facility with 250-300 surface
parking spaces $ $0.116 $ $1.581
Direct Ramps to Dolphin Station
Transit Terminal
SR-821 (HEFT) Managed
Lanes
Dolphin Station Transit
Terminal Direct access ramps for transit and trucks $ $45.000 $ $60.750
Dolphin Station Transit Terminal Park-and-Ride with kiss-and-ride, 12 bus
bays & 1000 parking spaces $ $25.000 $ $31.425
Douglas Road Corridor (37 Ave)
Enhanced Bus US-1 Miami Intermodal Center
(MIC)Incremental improvement on PTP corridor $ $13.200 $ $17.820
Expand Overcapacity Park-and-Ride
lot at SW 152 St
New parking garage with 500 parking
spaces $ $16.250 $ $22.333
Golden Gladed Interchange: Florida
Turnpike SouthBound revoylF enaL sserpxE59-I tA $ $3.413 $ $64.683
Golden Glades Interchange: I-95Biscayne River CanalMiami Gardens DrAdd 2 auxiliary lanes $ $2.791 $ $35.980
Golden Glades Interchange: I-95 SR 916/Opa-Locka Boulevard Golden Glades
Interchange New road construction $ $3.672 $ $70.916
Golden Glades Interchange: SR-826
(Palmetto)NW 17 Ave Golden Glades
Interchange Managed lanes $ $104.639 $ $103.289
Golden Glades Interchange: SR-826
(Palmetto)59-I no spmar enal sserpxe weN59-I tA $ $11.388 $ $228.120
evA 2 E59-I59-I Ramp reconstruction/ reconfiguration of I-
95 ramps $ $29.614 $ $39.979
evA imaiM S59-I59-I Ramp reconstruction/ reconfiguration of I-
95 ramps $ $29.614 $ $39.979
Kendall Corridor (Kendall Enhanced
Bus)**West Kendall Transit Terminal Dadeland North Metrorail
Station Incremental improvement on PTP corridor $ $6.609 $ $8.800 $ $11.880
spots sub teerts-ffo lla ecnahnEmetsyS TDMstnemecnahnE potS suB TDM $ $2.500 $ $3.375
Medley Bridge/Canal Improvement
Program
Improvements at; NW 121 Way, NW 116
Way, NW 105 Way, NW 79 Ave $ $5.000 $ $6.750
Medley Freight Access Roadway
Improvements US-27 (Okeechobee)MedleyBridge widening and canal improvements $ $ 0.263 $ $2.073
Metrorail Park-and-Ride Facilityat Dadeland South Expand Park-and-Ride facility with 1000
parking space garage $ $25.000 $ $34.541
Northeast Corridor (Biscayne)
Enhanced Bus**Miami Downtown TerminalAventura TerminalIncremental improvement on PTP corridor $ $4.500 $ $14.000 $ $17.293
tcurtsnocer dna senal 2 ddAtS 52 WNtS 14 WNevA 701 WN $ $12.873 $ 018.61 $
tS 47 WNtS 21 WNevA 701 WN Operational and capacity improvements
where feasible $ $0.263 $ $1.091
tS 14 WNtS 52 WNevA 711 WN New 2 lane road to support the flow of
truck traffic to SR-821 (HEFT) $ $2.500 $ $9.153
gninediW)ottemlaP( 628-RSevA 701 WNtS 21 WN $ $20.000 $ $26.476
tS 14 WNtS 21 WNevA 221 WN New 2 lane road to support the flow of
truck traffic from SR-821 (HEFT) $ $11.635 $ 752.41
stnemevorpmi erutcurtsarfni yawdaoR59-IevA ht72 WNtS 02 WN $ $0.566 $ 1. 552
stnemevorpmi lanoitarepo dna yticapaC)TFEH( 128-RStC 98 WNtS 52 WN $ $24.336 $ $32.853
elbissop fi stniop ssecca ecuder dna egreMtS 63 WNyaW 84 WNevA 97 WN 452.0 $ 791.0 $
noitcurtsnoc daor enal 4 weNtS 21 WNtS ht8 WNevA 28 WN $ $2.977 $ 999.3
NW South River DrNW 107 AveNW 74 AveRoadway and operational improvements $ $5.000 $ $6.750
Project Costs Funded
via 2040 Plan
(Y-O-E $)
Project Limits FromLimits ToDescripƟon
Total Capital Cost
Funded via TIP
(Y-O-E $)
Total Capital
Cost
(2013 $)
West of SR-821 (HEFT) and
North of NW 12 St
$
$$
$
$
MIAMI-DADE LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE TO THE YEAR 2040
Chapter 6 | Multimodal Solutions
EYES ON THE FUTURE | 6-23
Figure 6-10 | Priority III Project Map
MIAMI-DADE LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE TO THE YEAR 2040
Chapter 6 | Multimodal Solutions
EYES ON THE FUTURE | 6-29
Figure 6-13 | Priority IV Project Map
MIAMI-DADE LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE TO THE YEAR 2040
Chapter 6 | Multimodal Solutions
EYES ON THE FUTURE | 6-35
Figure 6-16 | Partially Funded Project Map
Table 6-10 | Partially Funded Projects (Values in Millions $)
6-36 | MOBILITY OPTIONS
Bolded phase funds are included in the 2015/2019 Miami-Dade TIP
* denotes portions of phase values are included in both the TIP and 2040 Plan
** denotes Operations and Maintenance is funded via MDT system efficiencies
***Project would require amendment of the Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Plan Development Master Plan
Beach Connection (fka Baylink) Miami Downtown Terminal Miami Beach Convention
Center Premium transit service $ $532.132 $$161.273
Douglas Rd Corridor BRT(SW 27/37
Ave) Dedicated Lanes US-1 Miami Intermodal Center
(MIC)Full bus rapid transit $ $166.400 $$36.378
Golden Glades Multimodal Terminal
(Phase 2)
Park-and-Ride facility with 1,800 space
garage $ $45.000 $$6.075
stnemevorpmi yticapac dna lanoitarepOeniL ytnuoC draworBSouth of SR836/I-39559-I $$13.035 $$13.035
stnemevorpmi yticapac dna lanoitarepO593-I/638 RS fo htuoS1-SU59-I $$10.200 $$10.200
MDX Connect 4 ExpressCentral Miami-Dade CountyNorth Miami-Dade County New expressway connecting SR-836, SR-
112 , SR-924, and SR-826 $$7.300 $ $150.000 $$323.800
MDX SR-924/Gratigny Parkway East
Extension
New expressway extension of SR-924 East
to I-95 $$0.240 $ $477.000 $$296.500
MDX SR-836 SouthWest Extension***Western Terminus of SR-836
(Dolphin)SW 136 St Extend SR-836 from NW 137 Ave to the
Southwest Kendall area $$7.490 $ $808.000 $$681.900
pirtS )enueJeL( evA 24 WN)CIM( )CIM( retneC ladomretnI imaiM $$0.012
NW 36th /NW 41 StSR-821 (HEFT)NW 42 Ave (LeJeune)Redesign NW 36 St/41 St as a superarterial
express street $ $397.051 $$509.504
SR-826 (Palmetto)West Flagler StNW 154 StOperational and capacity improvements $$2.080
SR-826 (Palmetto)US-1/S Dixie HighwaySR-836 (Dolphin)Managed lanes $$7.150
SR-826 (Palmetto)East of NW 67 AveEast of NW 57 AveCapacity and operational improvements $$5.500
SR-826 (Palmetto)West of NW 32 AveEast of NW 27 AveCapacity and operational improvements $$6.900
SW 117 Ave/SW 152 St (Coral Reef)
Grade Separation
Grade separate SW 117 Ave over SW 152
St (Coral Reef) $ $39.705 $$7.060
SW 7 St/ SW 8 StBrickell AveSW 27 AveOperational and capacity improvements $ $0.278 $$0.093
SW 88 St ( Kendall)/SW 127 Ave
Grade Separation
Grade separate SW 88 St (Kendall) over SW
127 Ave. $ $39.705 $$7.060
Reconstruct bridgeegdirB keerC naidnI fo nwoT $$1.515 $ $13.860
ecivres liaR-irTonapmoPimaiMkniL latsaoC liaR-airT $$5.566
US-1 - Managed Lanes*** SW 344 St (Palm)Dadeland South Metrorail
Station
Add 2 /1 reversible new managed lanes
within the ROW of the Busway $$1.809 $ $367.000 $$139.700
US-27 (Okeechobee)SR-997 (Krome)NW 79 Ave Operational/capacity improvements with
grade separated intersections $$1.130
US-27 (Okeechobee)West of SR-997 (Krome)East of 117 Ave Operational/capacity improvements with
grade separated intersections $$5.550
US-27 (Okeechobee)East of NW 87 AveNW 79 Ave Operational/capacity improvements with
grade separated intersections $$2.600
US-27 (Okeechobee)East of NW 116 WayEast of 87 Ave Operational/capacity improvements with
grade separated intersections $$13.100
US-27 (Okeechobee)East of NW 107 AveEast of NW 116 Way Operational/capacity improvements with
grade separated intersections $$5.350
US-27 (Okeechobee)East of NW 117 AveEast of NW 107 Ave Operational/capacity improvements with
grade separated intersections $$3.600
Project Costs Funded
via 2040 Plan
(Y-O-E $)
Project Limits FromLimits ToDescripƟon
Total Capital Cost
Funded via TIP
(Y-O-E $)
Total Capital
Cost
(2013 $)
Table 6-12 | Unfunded Projects (Values in Millions $)
6-40 | MOBILITY OPTIONS
107 Ave Enhanced Bus Miami Dade College SW 104
St
Palmetto Intermodal
Terminal Implement limited stop enhanced bus service $ $58.890
17 Ave Enhanced BusVizcaya Metrorail Station Golden Glades Interchange
Terminal Implement limited stop enhanced bus service $ $56.160
183 St Enhanced Bus Miami Gardens/I-75 Park-and-
Ride Aventura TerminalImplement limited stop enhanced bus service $ $56.550
22 Ave Enhanced Bus Coconut Grove Metrorail
Station
Golden Glades Interchange
Terminal Implement limited stop enhanced bus service $ $53.430
295 Express ImprovementsNW 215 St TerminalDowntown MiamiExpress bus service $ $0.156
2nd Ave Enhanced Bus Miami Beach Convention
Center Aventura TerminalImplement limited stop enhanced bus service $ $69.030
37 Ave Enhanced Bus (North)Miami Intermodal Center
(MIC)NW 215 St TerminalImplement limited stop enhanced bus service $ $56.550
NW 57 Ave (Red) Enhanced Bus (North)US-27 (Okeechobee)Miami Lakes TerminalImplement limited stop enhanced bus service $ $30.030
SW 57 Ave (Red) Enhanced Bus (South)South Miami Metrorail Station Miami Intermodal Center
(MIC) (MIC)Implement limited stop enhanced bus service $ $32.760
72/67 Ave Enhanced Bus Dadeland North Metrorail
Station Miami Lakes TerminalImplement limited stop enhanced bus service $ $67.860
87 Ave Enhanced BusPalmetto Intermodal Terminal US-1 Busway at SW 136 St
Park-and-Ride Implement limited stop enhanced bus service $ $56.160
SW 40 St (Bird) Enhanced Bus SW 8 St (Tamiami)/ SW 147
Ave Douglas Metrorail StationImplement limited stop enhanced bus service $ $60.060
Brickell Metrorail Station ImprovementsBrickell Metrorail Station Improve; Metromover & Metrorail connection, bus capacity,
and area bus circulation. $ $3.900
Busway extension to Dadeland North Dadeland South Metrorail
Station
Dadeland North Metrorail
Station
Extend busway to Dadeland North (approximately one-half
mile) $ $26.000
Busway Park-and-Ride FacilityUS-1 BuswaySW 136 StPark-and-Ride with 50-75 surface spaces No Capital
Cost
Busway Park-and-Ride FacilityUS-1 BuswaySW 312 St (Campbell)Park-and-Ride facility with 90 surface spaces $ $1.073
Project Limits FromLimits noitpircseDoT
Total Capital
Cost
(2013 $)
Figure 6-18 | Unfunded Projects Quick Facts
$17.431 Billion
UNFUNDED SNAPSHOT
6-42 | MOBILITY OPTIONS
ytilicaf edRi-dna-kraPtS 97 EN dna 1-SU ediR dna-kraP reviR elttiL No Capital
Cost
lanimret gnitsixe evorpmIlanimreT saciremA eht fo llaM $ $2.000
Marlins Stadium Premium Transit
Connection DowntownMarlins Stadium Expand Metrorail service to connect Downtown with FIU and
Marlins Stadium $ $409.839
MDT Bus Acquisition Bus purchases for existing & new routes $ $20.000
margorp lawener erutcurtsarfnImargorP laweneR erutcurtsarfnI TDM $ $12.500
pool llekcirB eht ot revomorteM dnapxEllekcirBllekcirB :serusolC pooL revomorteM $ $331.000
pool inmO eht ot revomorteM dnapxEinmOinmO :serusolC pooL revomorteM $ $588.494
Metrorail/Tri-Rail Bus Hub
Improvements
Increase bus terminal capacitya and add mixed use TOD with
ground floor retail $ $2.600
Miami Beach Convention Center
Terminal New terminal similar to Miami Downtown Terminal $ $3.900
Miami Beach Intermodal Center63 St (Collins)87 St/West Bay DrNew North Beach bus transfer Station $ $2.699
Miami Beach LRT Collins Extension Miami Beach Convention
Center 71 StExtend light rail north to 71 St $ $400.400
Miami Lakes Terminal SR-826 (Palmetto) and NW 154
St
Add new transit terminal, Kiss-and-Ride, and Park-and-Ride
facility $ $2.600
Miami Streetcar (Downtown-Little
Havana) SW 27 AveMiami AveStreetcar $ $284.587
Project Limits FromLimits noitpircseDoT
Total Capital
Cost
(2013 $)
Table 6-12 | Unfunded Projects (continued) (Values in Millions $)
MIC-Port Miami Rail Connection Miami Intermodal Center
(MIC)Port Miami Passenger rail connection between the MIC & Port Miami,
using the SFRC & FEC corridors $ $25.000
Middle Beach CirculatorDade Blvd72 StCirculator bus $ $0.820
Midtown Light Rail (East)Miami Beach Convention
Center
Midtown at Biscayne Blvd/
NW 36 St Light rail $ $391.300
Midtown Light Rail (West)Allapattah Metrorail Station Midtown at Biscayne Blvd/
NW 36 St Light rail $ $154.700
Miller Dr (SW 56 St) Enhanced Bus SW 8 St (Tamiami)/ SW 147
Ave University Metrorail StationImplement limited stop enhanced bus service $ $62.010
stnemevorpmi noitcesretnIywH eixiD W/evA 6 EN/tS 521 EN $ $5.654
NE 163 St (Sunny Isles Blvd) / 167 StGolden Glades InterchangeSunn Isles Blvd / Collins AveImprove/implement transit service $ $24.570
New Tri-Rail Station in Northern Miami-
Dade New Tri-Rail Station in the vicinity of Ives Dairy Rd $ $20.000
North Corridor (NW 27 Ave) Metrorail
Extension
Miami Intermodal Center
(MIC)NW 215 StConvert to full bus rapid transit to heavy rail $ $1,747.200
Northeast Corridor (Biscayne BRT)
Dedicated Lanes Downtown MiamiAventura TerminalConvert to full bus rapid transit $ $369.200
NW 103 St Enhanced BusOkeechobee Terminal US-1/ NE 79 St (Little River
Park-and-Ride)Implement limited stop enhanced bus service $ $57.330
NW 199/ 203 St Enhanced BusNW 215 St TerminalAventura TerminalImplement limited stop enhanced bus service $ $29.640
NW 215/203 Elevated ExpyTurnpike (Mainline)Lehman CausewayNew elevated East/West exressway construction $ $858.274
NW 21 St/ NW 32 AveNW 37 AveNW 28 StConstruct high level bridge $ $62.771
ecivres sub decnahne pots detimil tnemelpmI1-SUnoitatS liarorteM eebohceekOsuB decnahnE tS 26 WN $ $30.030
Next Generation of Traffic Controllers $ $65.000
Miami Streetcar (Downtown-Midtown) NE 36 StFlagler StStreetcar link from Downtown to Midtown Miami $ $351.168
MIAMI-DADE LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE TO THE YEAR 2040
Chapter 6 | Multimodal Solutions
EYES ON THE FUTURE | 6-47
Figure 6-21 | Bicycle/Pedestrian Project Map
Table 6-15 | Bicycle/Pedestrian Priority II Projects (Values in Thousands $)
6-54 | MOBILITY OPTIONS
stnemevorpmI ytilicaF elcyciBtS 63 ENtS 02 ENevA 2 EN $82.400 $124.136
tS 26 ENevA 2 EN West Little River Canal/NE
84 St Bicycle Facility Improvements $108.800 $163.907
Federal HighwayNE 36 StNE 38/39 StBicycle Facility Improvements $47.600 $71.709
)gnipirtseR( stnemevorpmI ytilicaF elcyciBtS 381 WNtS 111 WNevA 22 WN $44.810 $67.506
teiD daoR / stnemevorpmI ytilicaF elcyciBtS 111 WNtS 63 WNevA 22 WN $355.360 $535.350
stnemevorpmI ytilicaF elcyciBtS 97 WNtS 02 WNevA 2 WN $366.800 $552.584
Commodore Trail
improvements Darwin StMercy HospitalTrail Improvements $377.000 $567.951
stnemevorpmI liarTkraP nosillA / kcolB 0046kraP hcaeB naidnI / kcolB 0064liarT citnaltA $927.500 $1,397.279
SW side of SW 117 AveRoberta Hunter Park South Dade Trail & Black
Creek Trail junction Trail Improvements $151.200 $227.783
Snapper Creek Trail "A"K-Land Park / SW 88 StSW 72 StTrail Improvements $1,040.000 $1,566.760
Snapper Creek Trail "A"SW 72 StSW 8 St / FIUTrail Improvements $2,451.000 $3,692.432
Dade Blvd Bike PathMeridian AveAtlantic Trail / BeachwalkTrail Improvements $307.200 $462.797
Beachwalk Greenway/5th StOcean DriveAtlantic Trail / BeachwalkTrail Improvements $19.600 $29.527
Black Creek Trail "B"Larry and Penny Thompson
Park Krome TrailTrail Improvements $3,140.000 $4,730.410
Miami River Greenway
(complete missing segments)NW 36 StNW 12 AveTrail Improvements $840.250 $1,265.837
stnemevorpmI ytilicaF nairtsedePevA 42 WevA 82 WtS 301 WN $79.000 $119.014
stnemevorpmI ytilicaF nairtsedePtS 94 WevA 42 WtS 301 WN $130.500 $196.598
Biscayne BoulevardNE 191 StAventura BoulevardPedestrian Facility Improvements $134.250 $202.248
stnemevorpmI ytilicaF nairtsedePtS 8 WStS 62 WSevA 241 WS $563.250 $848.536
Granada BoulevardPonce De Leon BoulevardBlue RoadPedestrian Facility Improvements $265.500 $399.976
stnemevorpmI ytilicaF nairtsedePnoeL eD ecnoPevA ht75 WSdaoR eulB $763.000 $1,149.460
stnemevorpmI ytilicaF nairtsedePdaoR 62 WSyawhgiH eixiD SevA imaiM S $19.000 $28.624
Alhambra CircleBlue RoadSW 40 StPedestrian Facility Improvements $269.000 $405.249
Urban Center Pedestrian
Safety/Mobility Improvements stnemevorpmI ytilicaF nairtsedePsnoitacoL suoiraV $1,000.000$1,506.500
Lehman Causeway
Pedestrian Facility AventuraSunny Isles BeachPedestrian Facility Improvements $411.750 $620.301
Non-motorized Facility
Improvements sloohcS ot setuoR efaSsnoitacoL suoiraV $1,000.000 $1,506.500
Improve safety by public outreach
initiatives Various Locations Improve safety through public outreach
initiatives $1,000.000 $1,506.500
Project HandleLimits FromLimits To ĞƐĐƌŝƉƟŽŶ
Total Capital Cost
Funded via TIP
(Y-O-E $)
Total Capital
Cost
(2014 $)
Project Costs Funded
via 2040 Plan
(Y-O-E $)
Project
Table 6-17 | Bicycle/Pedestrian Priority IV Projects (continued) (Values in Thousands $)
6-62 | MOBILITY OPTIONS
Project HandleLimits FromLimits To ĞƐĐƌŝƉƟŽŶ
Total Capital Cost
Funded via TIP
(Y-O-E $)
Total Capital
Cost
(2014 $)
Project Costs Funded
via 2040 Plan
(Y-O-E $)
stnemevorpmI ytilicaF nairtsedePevA 71 WNevA 22 WNtS 761 WN $130.500 $295.648
stnemevorpmI ytilicaF nairtsedePtS 02 WNtS 71 WNevA 2 WN $62.000 $140.461
W Okeechobee RoadW 8 AveW 4 AvePedestrian Facility Improvements $170.000 $385.135
stnemevorpmI ytilicaF nairtsedePtS 191 ENtS 781 ENdaoR enyacsiB $59.750 $135.364
stnemevorpmI ytilicaF nairtsedePdaoR enueJ eL NevirD tsaEtS 63 WN $129.750 $293.949
stnemevorpmI ytilicaF nairtsedePevA 76 WSevA 27 WStS 46 WS $129.750 $293.949
stnemevorpmI ytilicaF nairtsedePtS 97 WNtS 17 WNevA 73 WN $139.000 $314.905
Hialeah ExpresswayNW 72 Ave N Royal Poinciana
Boulevard Pedestrian Facility Improvements $131.000 $296.781
stnemevorpmI ytilicaF nairtsedePevA 76 WSevA 27 WStS 27 WS $143.000 $323.967
Hialeah ExpresswayW 10 AveW 8 AvePedestrian Facility Improvements $63.500 $143.859
stnemevorpmI ytilicaF nairtsedePtS 76 WStS 27 WSevA 76 WS $121.750 $275.825
stnemevorpmI ytilicaF nairtsedePevA 72 WNevA 23 WNtS 17 WN $127.500 $288.851
stnemevorpmI ytilicaF nairtsedePevA 63 WNevA 73 WNtS 18 WN $26.500 $60.036
stnemevorpmI ytilicaF nairtsedePtS 73 WtS 33 WevA 4 W $55.750 $126.302
stnemevorpmI ytilicaF nairtsedePtS 51 ENtS 8 ENevA 21 EN $122.500 $277.524
stnemevorpmI ytilicaF nairtsedePevirD tsaEevA 1 EdaoR eebohceekO E $134.500 $304.710
stnemevorpmI ytilicaF nairtsedePtS 35 WtS 94 WevA 4 W $84.000 $190.302
stnemevorpmI ytilicaF nairtsedePyawhgiH eixiD WtS 111 WNevA 2 EN $262.000 $593.561
stnemevorpmI ytilicaF nairtsedePtS 59 ENtS 28 ENevA 01 EN $450.000 $1,019.475
stnemevorpmI ytilicaF nairtsedePdraveluoB hcaeB imaiM NtS 951 ENevA 21 EN $127.500 $288.851
Non-motorized Facility
Improvements sloohcS ot setuoR efaSsnoitacoL suoiraV $1,000.000 $2,265.500
Improve safety by public outreach
initiatives Various Locations Improve safety through public outreach
initiatives $1,000.000 $2,265.500
Project
APPENDIX B:
TIP PROJECTS
MI
A
M
I
-
D
A
D
E
M
E
T
R
O
P
O
L
I
T
A
N
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
O
R
G
A
N
I
Z
A
T
I
O
N
T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
TI
O
N
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
P
R
I
M
A
R
Y
S
T
A
T
E
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
S
A
N
D
I
N
T
E
R
M
O
D
A
L
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
S
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
(
i
n
$
0
0
0
s
)
20
1
4
-
2
0
1
5
20
1
5
-
2
0
1
6
20
1
6
-
2
0
1
7
20
1
7
-
2
0
1
8
20
1
8
-
2
0
1
9
>2
0
1
9
<2
0
1
5
Al
l
Y
e
a
r
s
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
So
u
r
c
e
MP
O
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
N
u
m
:
Ty
p
e
o
f
W
o
r
k
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
:
DT
4
2
9
3
4
4
1
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
:
Co
u
n
t
y
:
MA
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
R
E
S
U
R
F
A
C
I
N
G
(
F
L
E
X
)
SR
9
1
5
/
N
E
6
A
V
E
N
U
E
FR
O
M
B
I
S
C
A
Y
N
E
B
O
U
L
V
A
R
D
TO
N
E
1
1
0
T
E
R
R
A
C
E
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
I
D
:
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
L
e
n
g
t
h
:
1.
4
2
3
La
n
e
s
E
x
i
s
t
:
La
n
e
s
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
d
:
La
n
e
s
A
d
d
e
d
:
4 4 0
MI
A
M
I
-
D
A
D
E
LR
T
P
R
e
f
.
:
87
0
3
4
0
0
0
06
p.
F
-
9
SI
S
o
r
N
o
n
-
S
I
S
:
No
PH
A
S
E
:
Ex
t
r
a
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
:
DD
R
0
0
0
0
0
25
3
0
25
3
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
DS
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
8
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
DI
H
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
45
PR
E
L
I
M
I
N
A
R
Y
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
6
30
6
To
t
a
l
RE
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
L
E
A
G
E
N
C
Y
:
MA
N
A
G
E
D
B
Y
F
D
O
T
DS
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
RA
I
L
R
O
A
D
&
U
T
I
L
I
T
E
S
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
To
t
a
l
RE
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
L
E
A
G
E
N
C
Y
:
MA
N
A
G
E
D
B
Y
F
D
O
T
DS
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
RI
G
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
DI
H
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
5
RI
G
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
DD
R
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
4
RI
G
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
30
0
0
0
0
0
9
39
To
t
a
l
RE
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
L
E
A
G
E
N
C
Y
:
MA
N
A
G
E
D
B
Y
F
D
O
T
DI
H
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
DD
R
1,
3
2
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,
3
2
5
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
DS
12
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
4
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
1,
4
7
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,
4
7
4
To
t
a
l
RE
S
P
O
N
S
I
B
L
E
A
G
E
N
C
Y
:
MA
N
A
G
E
D
B
Y
F
D
O
T
Se
c
t
i
o
n
A
1
-
P
a
g
e
3
4
3
o
f
7
5
0
FY
2
0
1
5
-
2
0
1
9
A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
J
u
n
e
1
9
,
2
0
1
4
APPENDIX C:
PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
A
g
e
n
c
y
Le
n
g
t
h
(m
i
l
e
s
)
Ba
s
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Co
s
t
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
MO
T
(1
0
%
)
Mo
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
(1
0
%
)
Su
b
T
o
t
a
l
Sc
o
p
e
Co
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
/
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Un
k
o
w
n
(1
0
%
)
To
t
a
l
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Co
s
t
PE
D
e
s
i
g
n
(1
5
%
)
CE
I
(1
0
%
)
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Co
s
t
(P
r
e
s
e
n
t
D
a
y
Va
l
u
e
)
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
L
a
n
e
s
St
r
i
p
i
n
g
,
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
,
s
i
g
n
s
(
o
n
l
o
c
a
l
r
o
a
d
s
)
L
o
c
a
l
0.
5
3
20
,
7
8
4
.
0
0
$
1
1
,
0
1
5
.
5
2
$
-
1
,
1
0
1
.
5
5
$
1
2
,
1
1
7
.
0
7
$
1
,
2
1
1
.
7
1
$
1
3
,
3
2
8
.
7
8
$
1
,
9
9
9
.
3
2
$
-
1
5
,
3
2
8
.
1
0
$
Ad
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
,
s
t
r
i
p
i
n
g
,
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
,
s
i
g
n
s
(
o
n
l
o
c
a
l
r
o
a
d
s
)
L
o
c
a
l
0.
5
1
60
,
7
8
4
.
0
0
$
3
0
,
9
9
9
.
8
4
$
-
3
,
0
9
9
.
9
8
$
3
4
,
0
9
9
.
8
2
$
3
,
4
0
9
.
9
8
$
3
7
,
5
0
9
.
8
1
$
5
,
6
2
6
.
4
7
$
3
,
7
5
0
.
9
8
$
4
6
,
8
8
7
.
2
6
$
Ro
a
d
D
i
e
t
,
m
i
l
l
i
n
g
&
r
e
s
u
r
f
a
c
i
n
g
,
s
t
r
i
p
i
n
g
,
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
,
s
i
g
n
s
(
o
n
S
t
a
t
e
/
C
o
u
n
t
y
r
o
a
d
s
)
S
t
a
t
e
/
C
o
u
n
t
y
1.
9
3
71
0
,
4
9
7
.
2
0
$
1
,
3
7
1
,
2
5
9
.
6
0
$
1
3
7
,
1
2
5
.
9
6
$
1
3
7
,
1
2
5
.
9
6
$
1
,
6
4
5
,
5
1
1
.
5
2
$
1
6
4
,
5
5
1
.
1
5
$
1
,
8
1
0
,
0
6
2
.
6
7
$
2
7
1
,
5
0
9
.
4
0
$
1
8
1
,
0
0
6
.
2
7
$
2
,
2
6
2
,
5
7
8
.
3
3
$
Sh
a
r
e
d
L
a
n
e
s
Pa
v
e
m
e
n
t
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
,
R
4
-
1
1
s
i
g
n
s
(
o
n
l
o
c
a
l
r
o
a
d
s
)
L
o
c
a
l
1.
3
6
9,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
2
,
2
4
0
.
0
0
$
-
1
,
2
2
4
.
0
0
$
1
3
,
4
6
4
.
0
0
$
1
,
3
4
6
.
4
0
$
1
4
,
8
1
0
.
4
0
$
2
,
2
2
1
.
5
6
$
-
1
7
,
0
3
1
.
9
6
$
Pa
v
e
m
e
n
t
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
,
R
4
-
1
1
s
i
g
n
s
(
o
n
S
t
a
t
e
/
C
o
u
n
t
y
r
o
a
d
s
)
S
t
a
t
e
/
C
o
u
n
t
y
3.
8
1
9,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
3
4
,
2
9
0
.
0
0
$
3
,
4
2
9
.
0
0
$
3
,
4
2
9
.
0
0
$
4
1
,
1
4
8
.
0
0
$
4
,
1
1
4
.
8
0
$
4
5
,
2
6
2
.
8
0
$
6
,
7
8
9
.
4
2
$
4
,
5
2
6
.
2
8
$
5
6
,
5
7
8
.
5
0
$
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
G
r
e
e
n
w
a
y
s
Pa
v
e
m
e
n
t
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
,
g
r
e
e
n
w
a
y
s
i
g
n
s
,
R
4
-
1
1
s
i
g
n
s
L
o
c
a
l
15
.
4
6
18
,
1
9
2
.
0
0
$
2
8
1
,
2
4
8
.
3
2
$
-
2
8
,
1
2
4
.
8
3
$
3
0
9
,
3
7
3
.
1
5
$
3
0
,
9
3
7
.
3
2
$
3
4
0
,
3
1
0
.
4
7
$
5
1
,
0
4
6
.
5
7
$
-
3
9
1
,
3
5
7
.
0
4
$
Sh
a
r
e
d
U
s
e
P
a
t
h
Wi
d
e
n
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
,
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
c
u
r
b
,
t
r
e
e
g
r
a
t
e
/
c
o
v
e
r
s
,
A
D
A
d
e
t
e
c
t
a
b
l
e
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
s
L
o
c
a
l
0.
5
30
2
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
5
1
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
-
1
5
,
1
2
0
.
0
0
$
1
6
6
,
3
2
0
.
0
0
$
1
6
,
6
3
2
.
0
0
$
1
8
2
,
9
5
2
.
0
0
$
2
7
,
4
4
2
.
8
0
$
-
2
1
0
,
3
9
4
.
8
0
$
Ba
r
r
y
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
T
r
a
i
l
In
s
t
a
l
l
8
-
1
2
-
f
o
o
t
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
a
r
o
u
n
d
B
a
r
r
y
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
C
a
m
p
u
s
B
a
r
r
y
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
2.
3
3
20
5
,
3
3
3
.
3
3
$
4
7
8
,
4
2
6
.
6
7
$
-
4
7
,
8
4
2
.
6
7
$
5
2
6
,
2
6
9
.
3
3
$
5
2
,
6
2
6
.
9
3
$
5
7
8
,
8
9
6
.
2
7
$
8
6
,
8
3
4
.
4
4
$
-
6
6
5
,
7
3
0
.
7
1
$
Fl
a
g
l
e
r
T
r
a
i
l
Ra
i
l
w
i
t
h
T
r
a
i
l
St
a
t
e
1.
3
9
40
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
5
5
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
5
5
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
5
5
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
6
6
7
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
6
6
,
7
2
0
.
0
0
$
7
3
3
,
9
2
0
.
0
0
$
1
1
0
,
0
8
8
.
0
0
$
7
3
,
3
9
2
.
0
0
$
9
1
7
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
$
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
F
r
o
m
A
g
e
n
c
y
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
Ba
s
e
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Co
s
t
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
MO
T
(1
0
%
)
Mo
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
(1
0
%
)
Su
b
T
o
t
a
l
Sc
o
p
e
Co
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
/
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Un
k
o
w
n
(1
0
%
)
To
t
a
l
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Co
s
t
PE
D
e
s
i
g
n
(1
5
%
)
CE
I
(1
0
%
)
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Co
s
t
(P
r
e
s
e
n
t
D
a
y
Va
l
u
e
)
Hi
g
h
E
m
p
h
a
s
i
s
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
Wi
t
h
O
v
e
r
h
e
a
d
R
R
F
B
(
o
n
S
t
a
t
e
/
C
o
u
n
t
y
r
o
a
d
s
)
S
t
a
t
e
/
C
o
u
n
t
y
4
34
9
,
9
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
,
3
9
9
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
1
3
9
,
9
6
0
.
0
0
$
1
3
9
,
9
6
0
.
0
0
$
1
,
6
7
9
,
5
2
0
.
0
0
$
1
6
7
,
9
5
2
.
0
0
$
1
,
8
4
7
,
4
7
2
.
0
0
$
2
7
7
,
1
2
0
.
8
0
$
1
8
4
,
7
4
7
.
2
0
$
2
,
3
0
9
,
3
4
0
.
0
0
$
Wi
t
h
O
v
e
r
h
e
a
d
R
R
F
B
(
o
n
l
o
c
a
l
r
o
a
d
s
)
L
o
c
a
l
1
34
9
,
9
0
0
.
0
0
$
3
4
9
,
9
0
0
.
0
0
$
-
3
4
,
9
9
0
.
0
0
$
3
8
4
,
8
9
0
.
0
0
$
3
8
,
4
8
9
.
0
0
$
4
2
3
,
3
7
9
.
0
0
$
6
3
,
5
0
6
.
8
5
$
-
4
8
6
,
8
8
5
.
8
5
$
Wi
t
h
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
R
R
F
B
(
o
n
l
o
c
a
l
r
o
a
d
s
)
L
o
c
a
l
3
20
5
,
9
0
0
.
0
0
$
6
1
7
,
7
0
0
.
0
0
$
-
6
1
,
7
7
0
.
0
0
$
6
7
9
,
4
7
0
.
0
0
$
6
7
,
9
4
7
.
0
0
$
7
4
7
,
4
1
7
.
0
0
$
1
1
2
,
1
1
2
.
5
5
$
-
8
5
9
,
5
2
9
.
5
5
$
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
R
R
F
B
(
o
n
l
o
c
a
l
r
o
a
d
s
)
L
o
c
a
l
1
2,
8
6
2
.
0
0
$
2
,
8
6
2
.
0
0
$
-
2
8
6
.
2
0
$
3
,
1
4
8
.
2
0
$
3
1
4
.
8
2
$
3
,
4
6
3
.
0
2
$
5
1
9
.
4
5
$
-
3
,
9
8
2
.
4
7
$
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
Wi
t
h
O
v
e
r
h
e
a
d
R
R
F
B
(
o
n
S
t
a
t
e
/
C
o
u
n
t
y
r
o
a
d
s
)
S
t
a
t
e
/
C
o
u
n
t
y
4
16
9
,
4
5
0
.
0
0
$
6
7
7
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
6
7
,
7
8
0
.
0
0
$
6
7
,
7
8
0
.
0
0
$
8
1
3
,
3
6
0
.
0
0
$
8
1
,
3
3
6
.
0
0
$
8
9
4
,
6
9
6
.
0
0
$
1
3
4
,
2
0
4
.
4
0
$
8
9
,
4
6
9
.
6
0
$
1
,
1
1
8
,
3
7
0
.
0
0
$
Wi
t
h
R
e
g
u
l
a
r
R
R
F
B
(
o
n
l
o
c
a
l
r
o
a
d
s
)
L
o
c
a
l
1
25
,
4
5
0
.
0
0
$
2
5
,
4
5
0
.
0
0
$
-
2
,
5
4
5
.
0
0
$
2
7
,
9
9
5
.
0
0
$
2
,
7
9
9
.
5
0
$
3
0
,
7
9
4
.
5
0
$
4
,
6
1
9
.
1
8
$
-
3
5
,
4
1
3
.
6
8
$
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
R
R
F
B
(
o
n
S
t
a
t
e
/
C
o
u
n
t
y
r
o
a
d
s
)
S
t
a
t
e
/
C
o
u
n
t
y
1
1,
4
5
0
.
0
0
$
1
,
4
5
0
.
0
0
$
1
4
5
.
0
0
$
1
4
5
.
0
0
$
1
,
7
4
0
.
0
0
$
1
7
4
.
0
0
$
1
,
9
1
4
.
0
0
$
2
8
7
.
1
0
$
1
9
1
.
4
0
$
2
,
3
9
2
.
5
0
$
Wi
t
h
o
u
t
R
R
F
B
(
o
n
l
o
c
a
l
r
o
a
d
s
)
L
o
c
a
l
18
1,
4
5
0
.
0
0
$
2
6
,
1
0
0
.
0
0
$
-
2
,
6
1
0
.
0
0
$
2
8
,
7
1
0
.
0
0
$
2
,
8
7
1
.
0
0
$
3
1
,
5
8
1
.
0
0
$
4
,
7
3
7
.
1
5
$
-
3
6
,
3
1
8
.
1
5
$
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
H
u
b
s
10
B
i
c
y
c
l
e
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
Lo
c
a
l
4
80
0
.
0
0
$
3
,
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
-
3
2
0
.
0
0
$
3
,
5
2
0
.
0
0
$
3
5
2
.
0
0
$
3
,
8
7
2
.
0
0
$
-
-
3
,
8
7
2
.
0
0
$
Bi
k
e
L
a
n
e
U
n
i
t
C
o
s
t
Co
s
t
/
U
n
i
t
U
n
i
t
U
n
i
t
s
p
e
r
m
i
l
e
p
e
r
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
*
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
p
e
r
m
i
l
e
C
o
s
t
/
M
i
l
e
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
6"
S
t
r
i
p
i
n
g
0
.
7
0
$
L
i
n
e
a
r
F
o
o
t
1
0
,
5
6
0
2
1
4
,
7
8
4
.
0
0
$
3
,
6
9
6
.
0
0
$
p
e
r
l
i
n
e
a
r
m
i
l
e
x
4
s
t
r
i
p
e
s
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
L
a
n
e
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
M
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
1
5
0
.
0
0
$
U
n
i
t
1
0
2
3
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
Si
g
n
P
a
n
e
l
s
3
0
0
.
0
0
$
U
n
i
t
5
2
3
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
Gr
e
e
n
T
h
e
r
m
o
-
p
l
a
s
t
i
c
p
a
i
n
t
2
.
1
2
$
S
q
u
a
r
e
F
o
o
t
2
1
,
1
2
0
2
8
9
,
5
4
8
.
8
0
$
(
o
p
t
i
o
n
a
l
)
Ad
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
M
i
l
e
1
2
4
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
(
I
f
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
)
TO
T
A
L
(
w
/
o
u
t
g
r
e
e
n
p
a
i
n
t
)
20
,
7
8
4
.
0
0
$
TO
T
A
L
(
w
/
o
u
t
g
r
e
e
n
p
a
i
n
t
+
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
)
60
,
7
8
4
.
0
0
$
TO
T
A
L
(
w
/
g
r
e
e
n
p
a
i
n
t
a
t
c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
z
o
n
e
s
~
2
0
%
o
f
a
m
i
l
e
)
38
,
6
9
3
.
7
6
$
TO
T
A
L
(
w
/
g
r
e
e
n
p
a
i
n
t
a
t
c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
z
o
n
e
s
~
2
0
%
o
f
a
m
i
l
e
+
s
h
o
u
l
d
e
r
)
78
,
6
9
3
.
7
6
$
Ne
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
G
r
e
e
n
w
a
y
Sh
a
r
r
o
w
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
M
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
1
5
0
.
0
0
$
U
n
i
t
2
0
2
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
Gr
e
e
n
w
a
y
S
i
g
n
3
0
0
.
0
0
$
U
n
i
t
8
2
4
,
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
A
t
m
a
j
o
r
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
t
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
a
n
o
t
h
e
r
g
r
e
e
n
w
a
y
Gr
e
e
n
S
h
a
r
r
o
w
B
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
2
.
1
2
$
S
q
u
a
r
e
F
o
o
t
8
0
0
2
3
,
3
9
2
.
0
0
$
4
'
x
1
0
'
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
b
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
Bi
k
e
s
M
a
y
U
s
e
F
u
l
l
L
a
n
e
(
R
4
-
1
1
)
3
0
0
.
0
0
$
U
n
i
t
5
2
3
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
St
o
p
B
a
r
R
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
U
n
i
t
2
2
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
St
o
p
S
i
g
n
R
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
5
0
.
0
0
$
U
n
i
t
2
2
2
0
0
.
0
0
$
F
D
O
T
L
R
E
(
$
1
8
.
3
8
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
)
TO
T
A
L
18
,
1
9
2
.
0
0
$
Sh
a
r
e
d
L
a
n
e
s
Sh
a
r
r
o
w
P
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
M
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
1
5
0
.
0
0
$
U
n
i
t
2
0
2
6
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
Bi
k
e
s
M
a
y
U
s
e
F
u
l
l
L
a
n
e
(
R
4
-
1
1
)
3
0
0
.
0
0
$
U
n
i
t
5
2
3
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
TO
T
A
L
9,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
Sh
a
r
e
d
U
s
e
P
a
t
h
AD
A
D
e
t
e
c
t
a
b
l
e
W
a
r
n
i
g
n
s
3
0
0
.
0
0
$
U
n
i
t
2
8
1
8
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
$
M
i
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
T
A
P
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
S
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
(
4
"
t
h
i
c
k
)
3
5
.
0
0
$
S
q
u
a
r
e
Y
a
r
d
2
,
4
0
0
1
8
4
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
M
i
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
T
A
P
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
C
u
r
b
1
5
.
0
0
$
L
i
n
e
a
r
F
o
o
t
4
,
0
0
0
1
6
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
M
i
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
T
A
P
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Tr
e
e
G
r
a
t
e
/
C
o
v
e
r
2
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
U
n
i
t
6
0
1
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
M
i
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
T
A
P
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
TO
T
A
L
30
2
,
4
0
0
.
0
0
$
Ba
r
r
y
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
T
r
a
i
l
10
'
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
i
d
e
w
a
l
k
(
4
"
t
h
i
c
k
)
3
5
.
0
0
$
S
q
u
a
r
e
Y
a
r
d
5
,
8
6
7
1
2
0
5
,
3
3
3
.
3
3
$
1
.
1
L
i
n
e
a
r
f
e
e
t
p
e
r
s
q
u
a
r
e
y
a
r
d
Co
s
t
/
U
n
i
t
U
n
i
t
U
n
i
t
s
p
e
r
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
/
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
C
o
s
t
/
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
Hi
g
h
-
E
m
p
h
a
s
i
s
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
Te
x
t
u
r
e
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
1
2
.
0
0
$
S
q
u
a
r
e
F
o
o
t
1
5
,
0
0
0
1
8
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
Cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
RR
F
B
(
o
v
e
r
h
e
a
d
)
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
1
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
T
A
P
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
RR
F
B
1
2
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
u
n
i
t
2
2
4
,
0
0
0
.
0
0
$
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
T
A
P
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Cr
o
s
s
w
a
l
k
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
1
5
0
0
.
0
0
$
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
T
A
P
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Co
n
c
r
e
t
e
C
u
r
b
R
a
m
p
1
7
5
.
0
0
$
U
n
i
t
2
3
5
0
.
0
0
$
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
T
A
P
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
AD
A
d
e
t
e
c
t
a
b
l
e
w
a
r
n
i
n
g
3
0
0
.
0
0
$
U
n
i
t
2
6
0
0
.
0
0
$
Mi
a
m
i
S
h
o
r
e
s
T
A
P
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
H
u
b
Bi
k
e
R
a
c
k
s
(
1
0
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
s
)
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
U
n
i
t
1
8
0
0
.
0
0
$
APPENDIX D:
PRIORITIZATION SUPPLEMENTAL
1
PRIORITIZATION SUPPLEMENTAL
Implementation of the Miami Shores Village Multimodal Mobility Study will likely occur over time through a
variety of different projects, funded through a broad range of sources, and built by several different agencies
including the Village and its transportation partners at FDOT and Miami-Dade County. The implementation plan
respects the limits of affordability and provides a strategy that the Village could potentially follow to maximize
the user benefit while keeping costs within reason of available funding sources.
It should be noted that many of the recommendations may be implemented through resurfacing, maintenance,
or other transportation projects that would occur anyway and would therefore incur only an incremental cost
associated with the additional intermodal transportation infrastructure. In addition, the Village along with public
and private sector stakeholders should seek grant funding to implement key components of the Multimodal
Mobility Study. The future availability of grant funding could impact the timing and priority order of the projects
listed herein.
The following scenarios represent potential directions that the Village may choose for prioritizing the
recommended improvements. This document is a supplemental to the full study; for more information please
see the Miami Shores Village Multimodal Mobility Study.
Priority One Scenario
The priority one scenario assumes the Village has approximately $100,000 to implement “early-win” projects in
advance of receiving any outside grant funding or assistance from transportation partner agencies.
NeighborhoodGreenways
Project:Implement “early-win”neighborhood greenways on priority local streets including NW 1 st
Avenue, NW/NE 101st Street, and NE 5th Avenue. Neighborhood greenways are described in more
detail in the Miami Shores Village Multimodal Mobility Study.
Implement crossing improvements at key intersections along the “early-win” neighborhood
greenways.
2
Neighborhood greenways form the primary local network of the proposed Miami Shores Village Multimodal
network. Neighborhood greenways are characterized by creating comfortable walking and bicycling routes along
local low-volume, low-speed streets to provide an alternate to traveling on busier roadways. Connectivity
between neighborhood greenways and key destinations is key. Crossing improvements, such as textured-surface
intersections and actuated flashing beacons, are recommended where neighborhood greenways cross major
roadways such as NE 2nd Avenue and Grand Concourse.
3
Priority Two Scenario
MiamiShoresTAPApplicationImplementation
Project:Implement projects included in the Miami Shores Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP)
application.
NE 2nd Avenue shared use path
Intersection crossing improvements on Miami Avenue at NW/NE 111th Street
Crosswalk with overhead flashing beacon on NE 6th Avenue at NE 103 rd Street
The proposed NE 2 nd Avenue shared use path would allow bicyclists and pedestrians to travel north-south
throughout the Village. Of primary importance is the connection between Barry University and Downtown Miami
Shores. The shared use path can be created by widening the 5-foot sidewalk on the west side of NE 2 nd Avenue
to 10 feet, bifurcating the path around obstacles such as utility poles, and maintaining trees through the use of
permeable-surface, ADA-compliant tree wells. The proposed shared-use path connects to the existing wide
sidewalk in Downtown Miami Shores.
4
5
Priority Three
HighEmphasisIntersections
Project:Construct high emphasis intersections as
recommended in the Study to facilitate
crossing movements across high volume
roadways such as Miami Avenue, NE 2nd
Avenue, NE 96th Street, and Grand
Concourse.
Provide crosswalks for locations that do
not currently have crossing facilities.
NeighborhoodGreenways
Project:Continue to implement additional neighborhood greenways recommended in the Plan to fill in
the network.
6
BicycleParkingHubs
Project:Install bicycle parking hubs at key attractions
around town such as Constitution Park, Recreation
Complex, Bayshore Park, Memorial Park, and
Village Hall.
Install a kiosk with a map of Miami Shores’
neighborhood greenways and suggested bicycle
routes at Constitution Park.
Remaining Projects
The remaining projects not listed in Priorities One through Three identified in the Recommended Non-Motorized
Network Plan map of the Multimodal Mobility Study are important to the mobility of the Village and should be
implemented by the Village or its transportation partner agencies as funding becomes available in future years or
through grant funding.
Partner Agency Projects
Projects for which implementation will occur by other agencies or be significantly coordinated through other
agencies are listed below. Note that inclusion in the Plan does not represent acceptance by partner agencies.
NE 2nd Avenue “road diet” between NE 103 rd Street and NE 115th Street (4 lanes to 3 lanes) to provide
on-road buffered bike lanes and to facilitate crossing movements.
NE 6th Avenue “road diet” (4 lanes to 3 lanes) to provide on-road buffered bike lanes and to facilitate
crossing movements.
North Miami Avenue shared lane markings.
U.S. 1 (Biscayne Boulevard) shared lane markings.
Barry University Trail.
Flagler Trail regional greenway alongside the Florida East Coast (FEC) Railroad.