Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2015 December Final Transit Mobility StudyPrepared by:December 2015 Village ofKEY BISCAYNE TRANSIT MOBILITY STUDY DRAFT 1 SECTION 1 Yet as the county has grown over the past several decades, the transportation chal- lenges faced by Key Biscayne residents have become more pronounced. With 13,000 residents, changing demographics, and one ingress and egress point, the Village’s quality of life is beginning to suffer. What must be realized is that the volume of traffic using the roadway system that Key Biscayne relies on is quickly reaching a crit- ical mass at specific periods of time. While marginal, temporary improvements defi- nitely can be made, the capacity gained will be quickly consumed. For decades, planners have advocated walk- ing, biking and transit as an alternative to the car. Today, this cultural shift, which enables and encourages people to move about the community without a car, is one that is nat- urally occurring in society. The difference is that now it is gaining momentum more out of necessity than choice because our roadway systems are running out of capac- ity. The shift is inevitable because contin- ued expansion of the roadway systems are costly, both in financial and political terms. If multimodal infrastructure is not built to absorb the overflow as the shift occurs it is likely that the roadways of the future will resemble Calcutta, with all modes vying for roadway travel lanes, rather than an orga- nized, segregated, safe multimodal system that can be seen in progressive communi- ties. This shift can be accelerated through the implementation of the multimodal infra- structure and projects presented herein. In reviewing this report the management of expectations is critical. The changes that are occurring are incremental. In all likelihood, roadway congestion may never improve. But it will worsen more slowly than if alternative transportation solutions are found. Any freed up roadway capacity I. Executive Summary Island living in Miami-Dade County is one of the most unique residential experiences in the world. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 2 SECTION 1 VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan gain with these multimodal options will likely be consumed by more cars. However, through the implementation of projects such as those suggested in this study, because the additional capacity needed to accommodate them will be built in to the pedestrian, bicycle and transit systems, and supplemented by services and policies. The Corradino Group was commissioned to develop a Transit Mobility Study to begin to address these transportation concerns. This project was developed with a number of distinct tasks: public involvement; significant data collection and analysis; and, multimodal project recommendations. Through the course of the evaluation it was discovered that there are four distinct transportation populations in the Village including: Local Residents (and their sub groups, including students) Seasonal Residents Tourists and Visitors Workers There are five transportation modes that were examined including: Cars Bikes Walking Transit Golf Carts With two transportation types that need to be treated: Internal (circulating within the Village) External (getting in and out of the Village) Transportation Master Planning is both an art and a science. The artistic aspect is finding out what people want through community conversations about transportation preferences. The scientific aspect is finding out what is needed through data collection and analysis. There are many ways in which to solve transportation problems. No funding agency would ever give a 3VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan community a project that is only wanted but was not needed to solve a specific problem, and be developed efficiently and effectively. In a similar vein, government should not offer people a solution they do not want, especially when alternatives that they do want exist. This study strives to build consensus on a set of multimodal projects that are both wanted and needed. The public engagement portion of this effort focused on multiple levels including meetings with staff, elected officials and community stakeholders. A public workshop and public hearings were held. A web based program called Community Remarks was placed on the Village’s Website so that people could provide comments. This resulted in over 300 remarks and suggestions. The primary concern for those who commented is traffic and congestion. This matches well with an independent survey conducted by the Village, which indicated 47% of the people believed that traffic and congestion should receive the most emphasis over the next several years. MANAGING EXPECTATIONS The most difficult aspect of addressing the transportation issues lies in managing expectations. The Village is an island. There is one way in and one way out. The population has grown sig- nificantly over recent years, and today, what was predominantly a seasonal population has become a permanent population consisting of families with multiple vehicles and golf carts. Over the last 11 years there have been 15 similar efforts to study traffic and transportation. In each, their conclusion has been…that there is a lot of traffic. These studies have searched for more transportation capacity in one form or another. For a citizens, staff members or elected officials, a natural question is how this effort will be any different than the previous ones. The answer is that this will be different because it is understood that the planning is being done for a different market. The planning effort will be undertaken to mitigate the bottlenecks of congestion that exist in the community. Finally, this study looks at the Village as a campus. EMERGING TRENDS The problems on Key Biscayne are directly related to the fact that the demographics in the Village have changed. Residents have moved to the Village to take advantage of the schools, community, government, and all that makes the Village one of the best places to live in all of Florida. This change comes with growing younger families, often with multiple vehicles. These are a necessity for people getting on and off the island, but almost discretionary on the island. Traffic is noticeably now year around. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 4 SECTION 1 Executive Summary Employment of the Villages citizens occurs almost entirely off the island, while nearly all of the workers on the island come from the mainland. There are many gated communities, particularly on the east side of the Village. These barriers make mobility dif- ficult. This often encourages the unwavering reliance on cars. In Miami-Dade County a car is a necessity. It is almost the culture that people rely so heavily on them that they are reluctant to move any distance without them. It is this trend that must be reversed. The trending is positive. A survey taken at the Key Biscayne K-8 Ceschool shows that nearly 90% of the children have asked for permission to walk or bike to school. Young people are very willing to move without a car. Nationally, it can be shown that younger people are less reliant on cars, consuming less vehicle miles each year than their older counterparts. MANAGING EXPECTATIONS The most difficult aspect of addressing the transportation issues lies in managing expectations. The Village is an island. There is one way in and one way out. The population has grown signifi- cantly over recent years, and today, what was predominantly a seasonal population has become a permanent population con- sisting of families with multiple vehicles and golf carts. Over the last 11 years there have been 15 similar efforts to study traffic and transportation. In each, their conclusion has been… that there is a lot of traffic. These studies have searched for more transportation capacity in one form or another. For a cit- izens, staff members or elected officials, a natural question is how this effort will be any different than the previous ones. The answer is that this will be different because it is understood that the planning is being done for a different market. The plan- ning effort will be undertaken to mitigate the bottlenecks of con- gestion that exist in the community. Finally, this study looks at the Village as a campus. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 5 SECTION 1 Executive Summary EMERGING TRENDS The problems on Key Biscayne are directly related to the fact that the demographics in the Village have changed. Residents have moved to the Village to take advantage of the schools, community, government, and all that makes the Village one of the best places to live in all of Florida. This change comes with growing younger families, often with multiple vehicles. These are a necessity for people getting on and off the island, but almost discretionary on the island. Traffic is noticeably now year around. Employment of the Villages citizens occurs almost entirely off the island, while nearly all of the workers on the island come from the mainland. There are many gated communities, particularly on the east side of the Village. These barriers make mobility difficult. This often encourages the unwavering reliance on cars. In Miami-Dade County a car is a necessity. It is almost the culture that people rely so heavily on them that they are reluctant to move any distance without them. It is this trend that must be reversed. The trending is positive. A survey taken at the Key Biscayne K-8 Center shows that nearly 90% of the children have asked for permission to walk or bike to school. Young people are very willing to move without a car. Nationally, it can be shown that younger people are less reliant on cars, consuming less vehicle miles each year than their older counterparts. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 6 SECTION 1 Executive Summary MANAGING EXPECTATIONS The most difficult aspect of addressing the transportation issues lies in managing expectations. The Village is an island. There is one way in and one way out. The population has grown significantly over recent years, and today, what was predominantly a seasonal population has become a permanent population consisting of families with multiple vehicles and golf carts. Over the last 11 years there have been 15 similar efforts to study traffic and transportation. In each, their conclusion has been… that there is a lot of traffic. These studies have searched for more transportation capacity in one form or another. For a citizens, staff members or elected officials, a natural question is how this effort will be any different than the previous ones. The answer is that this will be different because it is understood that the planning is being done for a different market. The planning effort will be undertaken to mitigate the bottlenecks of congestion that exist in the community. Finally, this study looks at the Village as a campus. EMERGING TRENDS The problems on Key Biscayne are directly related to the fact that the demographics in the Village have changed. Residents have moved to the Village to take advantage of the schools, community, government, and all that makes the Village one of the best places to live in all of Florida. This change comes with growing younger families, often with multiple vehicles. These are a necessity for people getting on and off the island, but almost discretionary on the island. Traffic is noticeably now year around. Employment of the Villages citizens occurs almost entirely off the island, while nearly all of the workers on the island come from the mainland. There are many gated communities, particularly on the east side of the Village. These barriers make mobility difficult. This often encourages the unwavering reliance on cars. In Mi- ami-Dade County a car is a necessity. It is almost the culture that people rely so heavily on them that they are reluctant to move any distance without them. It is this trend that must be reversed. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 7 SECTION 1 Executive Summary The trending is positive. A survey taken at the Key Biscayne K-8 Ceschool shows that near- ly 90% of the children have asked for permission to walk or bike to school. Young people are very willing to move without a car. Nationally, it can be shown that younger people are less reliant on cars, consuming less vehicle miles each year than their older counterparts. THE PROBLEMS Transportation on Key Biscayne can be viewed as the people who use the system, and the modes available for them to use. EXTERNAL TRAVEL, WHERE ARE PEOPLE GOING It is crucial to distinguish between internal and external travel, as they both present unique and often mutually exclusive problems. Both types of travel are complex and may rely on vastly different solutions. While examining external travel, it is known that people are going from Key Biscayne to relatively few areas of the County, including the Airport, Downtown Miami, Coconut Grove, South Miami and Dadeland. These are all areas connected by high capacity transit like Metrorail. Yet to get to and from those destinations, they must use the Rickenbacker Causeway. The local perception is that this causeway is always congested, however analysis shows that the causeway during non-event days operates at a level of service (LOS) “C” indicating acceptable traffic flow with relatively minor delays if they occur. Conversely, when events occur, like a tennis tournament, etc., the Causeway operates at a level of service “F” indicating heavy congestion and congestion delays. The issue is that there are so many event days that untenable congestion is a regular occurrence. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 8 SECTION 1 Executive Summary INTERNAL TRAVEL Internal travel is focused on the bottlenecks at certain intersections, primarily at Crandon Boulevard and Harbor Drive. However, parking, walking, biking, transit and golfcarts also play a component at other intersections where the cross interaction between the various modes raises questions of safety and points of intermodality within the Village. Transit coverage in the community is relatively poor because it only adequately serves the commercial areas surrounding Crandon Boulevard and is geared towards on-/off-island travel, not internal circulation. The primary issue impacting traffic flow and congestion occurs at a number of Crandon Boulevard intersections, where intersection congestion, not roadway capacity, influences traffic. While it is not inherently recognizable through technical analysis, signal timing issues are at fault. Congestion in much of the Village is exacerbated by people searching for parking. Within the Village center area there is a parking deficit of up to 124 spaces. To mitigate this there have been discussions regarding the construction of a parking garage. The heavy reliance on automobiles creates additional issues with congestion, location circulation, and parking. Drivers will drive to otherwise walkable short distances to go to and from school, the parks and the shopping areas. It is believed that this is done because there is a perceived lack of adequate and safe pedestrian ways, and that there are safety issues when crossing Crandon Boulevard. The previous Safe Routes to School Study sought to remedy much of these issues. That study won a grant in excess of $800,000 to build adequate pedestrian ways and bicycle infrastructure. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 9 SECTION 1 Executive Summary Yet the parking deficiency and congestion have begun to change behavior. This is evidenced by the fact that people are cycling. The bike racks at the shopping areas and schools are regularly filled up. The key to this effort will be to leverage the natural tendencies of certain groups of people to move without a car, by assuring that the multimodal infrastructure is in place and in excellent condition. SOLUTIONS – THE CULTURAL SHIFT A cultural shift to walking, biking or using larger capacity vehicles is critical, if not inevitable in order to maintain mobility on Key Biscayne. Transportation and mobility is predicated on moving people and goods through a system. All systems have capacities, not unlike a water pipe, which is much more well defined in terms of capacity, where a certain diameter pipe will carry a certain number of gallons per hour. The roadway network is no different. As the number of vehicles reaches the capacity threshold, the system slows down. The good thing about transportation on Key Biscayne, is that it has not really begun to tap into the capacity of the sidewalks, and bikeways. Further, carrying multiple people in a vehicle, can more efficiently use the roadways. Whether this cultural shift away from the single occupancy automobile happens naturally or is incentivized is a key policy aspect of this project. SOLUTIONS FOR EXTERNAL CONGESTION Solving external congestion is complex, long term, and depends heavily on huge sums of money and intergovernmental coordination. Projects listed herein are visionary, may be controversial, and are definitely intended to stimulate conversation. As previously determined, the issue is congestion on the Rickenbacker Causeway, which occurs during special events, increasing traffic by up to 44% with no alter-native routes. These events are frequent and year round. Two primary ways to mitigate this is to provide alternatives which lower general traffic, allowing for more capacity to absorb part of the special events traffic. Multiple projects have been developed which could be used, including: VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 10 SECTION 1 Executive Summary Dedicated Key Biscayne Lanes Event Traffic Demand Management -Park and Ride Facilities Daily Travel Demand Management Minimizing Lane Closures -Sobriety checks west of toll Mass Transit -Light Rail -Bus Rapid Transit Micro Transit -Water Taxi -Gondola Diversification Local Services In general these are larger cost projects that are complex relative to planning, design, permitting, construction and intergovernmental coordination. Again the issue is capacity. Perhaps the most logical recommendation would be to suggest a dedicated lane for Key Biscayne drivers, which would enable them to bypass event traffic. These would only be active during event days and may be able to be placed to avoid specific bottlenecks. Less intrusive but symbiotic to the other suggested items here is the ability to provide travel demand management for special events. Each event should have a detailed maintenance of traffic plan, shuttle services, and parking limitations. Overall travel demand management relies on intelligent transportation systems, real-time messaging of parking capacities, roadway conditions, etc. Today many crowd-sourcing applications similar to “WAZE,” do much of what may be necessary. Often times when thinking of moving large numbers of people longer distances, the traditional method of thinking is Mass transit, typically in the form of Heavy Rail, like Metrorail, Light Rail, or Bus Rapid Transit, like the Busway. The cost of these systems is prohibitive in many cases, as they can be between $50 and $250 Million per mile. The concept of Micro Transit, more similar to a people mover in Downtown Miami, a gondola, water taxi or sky taxi, all move smaller numbers of people in smaller vehicles. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 11 SECTION 1 Executive Summary They can be significantly less expensive with price tags between $4 and $10 Million per mile. We know that quick connections from Key Biscayne to the Coconut Grove or Brickell areas would get most people to their destinations and connect them with the Metrorail system, providing regional access. SOLUTIONS FOR INTERNAL CONGESTION Internally, Key Biscayne is congested. There are multiple, cumulative, interconnected reasons for this. They are based on failing intersections which cause bottlenecks in the system. Signal timing is not adequate or coordinated effectively. Many people have the strong desire to travel short distances. The lack of parking makes them drive around more, creating more congestion. The key to relieving congestion internally is in advancing the cultural shift of people being more willing to travel without the single occupancy vehicle. This approach is iterative and predicated on providing options and additional capacity in all the alternative modes, while streamlining the components of the existing roadway system. Additional lane miles are not planned. This will be done with projects that include: Intersection enhancements Increased Golf Cart Access Parking Transit Facility Improvements Bicycle Facilities Pedestrian Facilities Elderly services The primary aggravation is where congestion occurs at the bottlenecks caused by the traffic signals. Signal timing and progression needs to be evaluated and coordinated at all of the Crandon Boulevard intersections. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 12 SECTION 1 Executive Summary Real-time adaptive signal controls are recommended. Adaptive use of a computer algorithm to detect vehicles at each intersection in real time, which can manipulate the timing of the signals based on the traffic using it at every cycle of the light. They can also be programed to give signal priority to emergency and transit vehicles. This can increase intersection efficiency significantly. Golf carts add capacity to the system by moving people in smaller vehicles. It is important to provide increased access to golf carts from Fernwood Drive. Priority golf cart parking is recommended in the shopping areas and parks. Parking is a definite issue. This can be handled with a combination of solutions, including: the construction of new garages; providing alternatives to the automobile with better bicycle, pedestrian and transit infrastructure so people don’t have to drive, implementing designated waiting areas for pickups; more parking enforcement, and, a parking valet. A policy decision that should be considered is that of additional parking, because it is the most costly aspect of parking management. While pedestrian infrastructure exists and is of high quality, there are several opportunities that present themselves related to providing better perception of the safety of the pedestrian system and encouraging people to use it, as opposed to very short automobile trips. This aspect of the project would focus on installing missing gaps in sidewalks, completing lighting and mitigating flooding, all in an attempt to make walking a viable option. Enhancements to intersections along Crandon Boulevard are a top priority. Installing high visibility crosswalks, crosswalk lighting and ADA complaint facilities is important. Pedestrian access to the commercial area from Fernwood Road is recommended. Programs that would further encourage parents to allow their children to walk and bike to school are important in marketing the system and perpetuating this behavior. Bicycle safety and its viability as an alternative transportation mode is also a critical component of a multimodal transportation system, giving people options. Multiple issues exist when dealing with cycling. There are two distinct user groups. 13 The recreational cyclist, who uses the Causeway and Crandon Boulevard as a training corridor. These users ride in large pelotons, often at odd hours, and often more than two-abreast, which is not legal and creates a safety hazard. This is an enforcement issue that should be acted upon. A second group of users are local people moving from place to place within the Village for various reasons. While Key Biscayne is not devoid of cycling infrastructure, and most of the island does not need additional on road infrastructure such as bike lanes, it does need attention to address speeding and safety, which should include the reduction of conflict points between cyclists/pedestrians and automobile traffic. Additional bicycle parking amenities should be encouraged in shopping areas or mandated as part of new development. More specifically the concept of a “cycle track” has been examined on Crandon Boulevard. Preliminary examinations show that Crandon Boulevard can accommodate cycle tracks, largely within its right of way, but would require some redesign, and perhaps some encroachment into the Village Green area depending on nuances of the design. As part of this, intersections can be enhanced by installing corner refuge islands to shield cyclists from turning traffic. The signals themselves would be bicycle friendly, with an entire signal head dedicated to bicycle VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 1 Executive Summary VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 14 SECTION 1 Executive Summary movement. The pedestrian and bicycle crossing, would be set back up the intersection to provide a clear box in the intersection. Finally, bicycle stop bars, would be installed ahead of the vehicular stop bars into the intersection and protected by the corner refuge islands and the pedestrian island. This simple design would immensely improve safety at the intersections. For many people living on Key Biscayne, transit is not a viable option. The transit coverage is very low, and only covers the commercial areas. While residents are serviced by a spur route, this route is too infrequent to be a viable transit route. Gaps in the system are compounded by the relative lack of pedestrian and bicycling infrastructure that allow walking or biking to the bus system. To address this problem it is suggested providing transit access and viability by infilling missing links in the pedes- trian and cycling system, and by making bus rides more comfort- able. Where appropriate, bus stops need to provide shelter, be connected by sidewalks and have adequate signage and seating. Internal transit should be viewed as micro transit as opposed to mass transit. This means providing mobility with smaller more appropriate vehicles, and not large 45 or 75 seat transit buses. One option is to localize the Uber concept, which is essentially a computerized demand response transit model that has been a viable option recently gaining in popularity. This concept is one that is usually employed on college campuses, and essentially functions as an internal circulator. The idea is to have a series of smaller vehicles, like low speed vehicles, (golf carts) distributed around the community. This service can be customized in a vari- ety of ways. It is believed that this concept would be effective on Key Bis- cayne. It is suggested that it be tested. If successful, there is a burgeoning technology, currently called “Easy Mile”. This is an VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 15 SECTION 1 Executive Summary automated driverless bus, which can carry up to 12 passengers. It responds to GPS locations via the internet, is battery powered, fully automated, safe and easily maintained. The technology is coming on line this year in select locations in the United States. A variation of this can be used to service the Village’s senior population. More than 20% of the population are seniors and face mobility issues that are different from the majority of the population. This includes the ability to drive, access medical care, and in some instances difficulty in walking. In these cases additional assistance may be required. Extending independent living is an issue we are all going to face as the Baby Boomer generation ages. Doing this requires multimodal options which do not currently exist. These may include shopping delivery services, door to door transportation through the KB Uber concept and supplemental funding for special transportation series for medical appointments. It is recommended that the Village consider these each year as funding permits, and annually move projects from either of the suggested time horizon tables into the capital improvements program. The cultural shift, enabling and encouraging people to move about the community without a car, is one that is naturally occurring in society today, necessitated by the roadway system reaching a critical mass, and running out of capacity. The shift is inevitable, because continued expansion of the roadway network is costly, both in financial, and political terms. The shift can be accelerated through the implementation of multimodal infrastructure and projects presented in this report. As stated at the onset of this project, managing expectations is critical. Additional capacity needed to accommodate them will be built in to the pedestrian, bicycle and transit systems, and supplemented by services and policies. With the implementation of projects, quality of life will increase. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 16 SECTION 1 Executive Summary VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 17 SECTION 1 Executive Summary VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 18 SECTION 1 Executive Summary VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 19 SECTION 1 Executive Summary VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 20 SECTION 1 Executive Summary VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 21 SECTION 1 Executive Summary VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 22 SECTION 1 Executive Summary VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 23 SECTION 1 Executive Summary VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 24 SECTION 1 Executive Summary VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 25 SECTION 1 Executive Summary 26 As unique as the Village of Key Biscayne is, the same can be said for the existence of traffic and congestion and how best to deal with it. Key Biscayne’s traffic exists on two distinct levels: one of internal circula- tion, and one of external connectivity con- strained by the fact that for Key Biscayne, there is only one road into and out of the island community and the paths surround- ing it. What is known about Key Biscayne from a demographic standpoint is that it has a pop- ulation of about 13,000 people, in about 4,300 households (US Census 2013). Each day, this population shrinks as about 4,000 workers leave the community, and about 2,700 come in to work. Less than 500 res- idents report working on Key Biscayne, not including those who report working from home. The working population is thus high- ly mobile, creating congestion. On any giv- en day, 2/3 of the total population does not follow regular commuting patterns, which shows that peak hours may be different than in traditional communities. Key Biscayne is also unique in the level of recent and pro- jected construction activity. At the point, nearly 60 projects are under construction, drawing construction workers and their equipment onto and around the island. Compared to Miami-Dade County, the pro- portion of children and elderly as portions of the population in Key Biscayne are higher (Figure below) and significantly so for chil- dren. SECTION 2 II. Community Overview Age (US Census 2013)Key Biscayne Miami-Dade Florida 17 and younger 25.7%15.3%15.3% 18-44 28%38.2%34.3% 45-64 29.4%32.1%32.6% 65 and Older 16.9%14.4%17.8% VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 27 SECTION 2 Community Overview Key Biscayne is increasingly becoming a community with families and children. Over the past decade, the Village has seen a significant increase in population (10,507 pop, in 2000), par- tially due to the fact that the economic downturn was not as pronounced in the area as evidenced by the construction of several condominium complexes in that time period. With the advent of the opening of the new high school (MAST Academy) the population makeup has begun shifting. Families with children have moved into the community, transforming a neighborhood formerly with more seasonal residents into a more permanent, year-round constituency. This population brings with it multiple vehicles, so that its family members can get to where they need to go on and off the island. Vehicles are not in short supply on Key Biscayne. Of the 4,347 households, all but 166 of them have cars. 2,189 households or 50.3% of all households, have more than 2 cars. 2,766 households or 63.6% of these households have 2 cars or more. This equates to, at a mini- mum, at least one car for each resident aged 18-64 within the Village. This is not unusual given the lack of or perceived lack of transportation options and the need for vehicles may be further exacerbated by the fact that Key Biscayne, given its low altitude and exposure to the Atlantic Ocean, is generally one of the first communities to be evacuated in hurricane weath- er. In addition to these vehicles, the Village allows golf carts on local roads. The number of registered golf carts has risen steadily since 2010. There were 229 in 2013, this number has nearly doubled to 445 in 2014. Key Biscayne, in regards to transportation planning, has 4 distinct populations: 1) Local residents (and their subdivided groups, including students); 2) Seasonal residents; 3) Tourists/visitors (which may be further subdivided into those with Key Biscayne as a destination and flow-through traffic to Bill Baggs State Park to the south); and, 4) Workers. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 1 Subheading 28 SECTION 2 Community Overview Effective transportation planning is both an art and a science. The artistic aspect is finding out what the community feels its issues are and how they believe best to fix them. This defines the projects and determines what is wanted. The scientific aspect is in collecting and analyzing data to determine the severity of the issues and how efficient and effective various mitigating strategies are in ameliorating them. This defines what is needed. In any effort similar to this there are multiple methods of attaining success. The resulting plan will be a prioritzed listing of preferred projects by modal category, with detailed opin- ions of cost. Each will be able to form the basis of annual capital improvements elements. Emphasis is placed on making this plan sustainable. Formulas and data collection will be replicable and more easily updated in the future. The first aspect of this project was to interact with the users of the system. These stake- holders consisted of staff, elected officials and stakeholders. In addition to one on one interviews, an interactive web based program called Community Remarks was developed and placed on the Village’s web site so the public could provide comments. The issues and potential solutions are diverse. They can be broken down in to several primary categories. Obviously, the major point of emphasis stems from traffic congestion: First as it impacts Crandon Boulevard Second how it impacts the interior roads of the Village A major source of congestion is not really within the control of the Village, as it relates to traffic congestion on the Causeway generated by other destinations. Traffic and congestion creates issues across the Village, specifically with the use of each of the alternative modes including pedestrianism, cycling, transit, the use of golf carts, and parking. This negatively impacts quality of life. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 29 SECTION 2 Community Overview This congestion concern is reflected in the location of employment and travel time to work. Local knowledge of Key Biscayne residents indicates short distances to work. Yet, the proportion of the Key Biscayne population with a 30 minute or less commute to work is generally higher than the National, State, and Miami-Dade County averages, indicating localized mobility issues which add to travel time. The solutions to these problems will vary greatly and ultimately their implementation will be one of community preference. Suggested solutions will multi-modally deal with physical, technological, cultural and policy improvements. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 30 SECTION 2 Community Overview EMERGING TRENDS The problems on Key Biscayne are directly related to the fact that the demographics in the Village have changed. Formerly a community of more seasonal residents, over the past decade it has transitioned into a more full time population. Locally, Miami-Dade County residents have moved to the Village to take advantage of the schools, community, government, and all that makes the Village one of the best places to live in all of Miami- Dade County. This change comes with growing younger families, who often have multiple vehicles. These are a necessity for people getting on and off the island, but almost discretionary on the island. Traffic is noticeably now year around. Today, the population is young, affluent, educated and highly mobile. Nearly 100% of the households have cars. Nearly 70% have more than one car, and nearly 70% drive alone. While 37% of the population is in the work force, only 3% work in the Village. Each day the equivalent of over half the population move through the intersection of Crandon Boulevard and Harbor Drive in the morning and again in the evening. Employment of the Village’s citizens occurs almost entirely off the island, while nearly all of the workers on the island come from the mainland. There are many gated communities, particularly on the east side of the Village. These barriers make mobility difficult. This often encourages the unwavering reliance on cars. In this county a car is a necessity. It is almost the culture that people rely so heavily on them that they are reluctant to move any distance without them. It is this trend that must be reversed. That opportunity does exist on Key Biscayne. It is a compact area, of about 1.5 square miles, and has a density of about 6,600 people per square mile. This is roughly the density of Los Angeles, San Francisco, or some larger college campuses. Comparatively, Pinecrest has a population density of about 2,500 people per square mile, and Coral Gables, has a density of 3,500 people per square mile. Both of these communities have well-connected grid roadway systems, yet are still experiencing congestion. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 31 SECTION 2 Community Overview The trending is positive. A survey taken at the Key Biscayne K-8 Center school shows that nearly 90% of the children have asked for permission to walk or bike to school. Younger people are very willing to move without a car. Nationally, it can be shown that younger people are less reliant on cars, consuming less vehicle miles each year than their older counterparts. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT Citizens were engaged through the use of online media, such as Community Remarks, a web-based tool which allow residents to provide feedback on transportation in the Village. Over 250 comments were recorded. Additionally, each member of the Village Council was met with to discuss their constituents concerns Meetings with local community groups, such as the Chamber of Commerce were conducted to obtain a better gauge on existing local issues. The concerns from the various stakeholders have been organized into logical categories and summarized below. These were initially presented at a public workshop which was held in November of 2015. During this meeting a summary of the project was provided as were the conceptual projects by mode. A lengthy discussion was held and individual projects were debated. There was a consensus on the list of projects, and to proceed with the final costing and prioritizing of the efforts. AUTOMOBILE CONGESTION The effects of the traffic and its resulting congestion is first noticed on Crandon Boulevard. This congestion then creates a backflow across the community, impacting many aspects of mobility and everyday life. As traffic worsens over time, congestion will increasingly impact the interior roads of the Village. This will not only change how cars move but impacts the use and patterns of pedestrians and bicyclists. A more onerous problem is traffic on the causeway. The slightest disturbance in the capacity of the causeway for a special event or an accident has sever effects on ingress and egress of the residents. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 32 SECTION 2 Community Overview Several locations along Crandon Boulevard have been noted as problematic. Site visits and traffic counts support these observations. The intersection of Crandon Boulevard and Harbor Drive, has particularly been observed to be congested. The area near St Agnes Church is congested mainly in the morning peak hours. There are multiple schools and shopping plazas that contribute to this. An observation of signalization and signal function shows that there appears to be a lack of coordination of these signals. This creates issues entering and exiting this intersection in the morning. Better synchronization of the signals at each intersection along Crandon Boulevard would go far in mitigating residents’ concerns. It has been suggested that multiple ingress and egress points at Key Colony should be examined. As traffic on Crandon Boulevard worsens, human nature and traffic behavior dictate that people spill onto or back up onto the interior roads. Fernwood Road is one of these transitional streets that plays multiple roles, separating residential and commercial areas. Considering whether or not to allow vehicular access to shopping areas from Fernwood Road would impact the flow of traffic and the nature of the road and have varying effects for differing user groups. PARKING The commercial areas are said to be plagued by a lack of parking, particularly around lunch time. There have been discussions related to the construction of a new parking garage. The police parking lot has been identified as a desirable location. This would serve to potentially provide parking at ground level for police, and on the second level for Village employees. The third level would be for residents. There is a definite desire to find more parking spaces. Funding and plans already exist for such a facility. All the congestion on Crandon and on the interior roads creates and compounds a secondary problem. A solution would be that encouraging people to walk would minimize congestion, yet the congestion has made crossing intersections and walking along streets feel dangerous and serves as a deterrent to pedestrianism. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 33 SECTION 1 Community Overview WALKING The most significant walking population are those doing it to get to and from school. Not coincidentally, the pedestrian’s main problem appears to be on Crandon Boulevard. Pedestrian crossings here are not necessarily where people want to be crossing. Thus pedestrians don’t cross at the designated crosswalks. The police have observed that the signage has changed some behavior, but pedestrians are getting complacent, and putting themselves in dangerous situations. As the population shifts to younger families with school aged children there is definitely a need to create safe pedestrian routes and crossings for this group. Observations show that much of the morning traffic is fueled by the schools. Access to schools is hampered by a lack of adequate paths, crossings, striping, signage and street furniture, like bike racks. To solve this problem each street that connects to the school should have a sidewalk. There has been talk of incentivizing biking and walking to school. This would need to be coupled with safe paths and other policies like early dismissal or no vehicular zones. Children also have been seen getting around via skateboard. Yet, even on streets with sidewalks, pedestrians have been noticed walking in the street. A more adequate pedestrian network will serve in drawing choice walkers, those with access to vehicles out for more than exercise. BIKING Cycling is a multi-faceted issue. Cyclists come in many forms. The most basic form is the cyclist who is using the mode for transportation. These people, including school children are most comfortable on multi use paths or bike lanes. The more sophisticated cyclists, which use the community to train or for long distance speed rides, are not satisfied with paths or physically separated lanes, and even have a difficult time confining themselves to a single bike lane. Law dictates that they should not ride more than two abreast, yet large pelotons can be seen in violation of this on a regular basis. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 34 SECTION 1 Community Overview TRANSIT A third way of moving people without cars would be with a transit system or circulator route. This is being examined. Routing focused on schools or shopping trips can be developed. There are no transit dependent riders living on Key Biscayne, so any system would need to be competitive in the travel time, convenience and cost of use of a private automobile or golf cart. GOLF CARTS As an alternative to the automobile for internal circulation, there is emphasis placed on golf carts. This is a viable alternative largely because they are smaller and take up less space. There are inherent issues with this. It has been observed that these can be overloaded with passengers not safely belted in. The proper use of these vehicles coupled with policies to accommodate them and incentivize them can be helpful. 35 III. Background Information COMMUNITY DIMENSIONS AND LAND USE Key Biscayne is a small community of 1.5 sq. miles, approximately 1.4 miles in length N-S and E-W at its widest points. Crandon Boulevard provides the only arte- rial for the community. Most of Key Biscayne is within a 1/2 mile radius of Crandon Boulevard, indicating that if the correct destinations exist, there should theoret- ically be high levels of pedestrians coming from and to the neighborhoods. The majority of the road network is comprised of small residential streets. The commercial area of the Village primarily exists along Crandon Boulevard. Con- figuration of the commercial area is primarily strip mall in design, with parking lots in front. Parking is at a premium within Key Biscayne. Crandon Boulevard provides an E-W split in land use. The west side of the island are more detached family housing, low density in nature, with the east part of the island primarily medium and high density multi family residential and hotel uses. The Existing Land Use Map and the Future Land Use Map for 2025 show no change for the community. Though technically built-out, continuous construction/reconstruction of housing currently brings additional workers into the area. Population density, while technically higher on the east side due to the high-rises, is spread out throughout the island. This is due to the concentration of small lots on properties west of Crandon Boulevard, resulting in a moderate density area. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan is less than that experienced outside of Key Biscayne, while the carpool population’s percentage is consistent with trends seen outside of Key Biscayne. Public trans- portation usage is low, at 1.0%. 3.7% of the population walk, which is somewhat consistent with areas outside of Key Biscayne. 5.5% traveled by some other means ac- cording to census data. 36 SECTION 3 Background Information WORKFORCE AND SCHOOL TRAVEL CHARACTERISTICS Key Biscayne has a population of 8,894 persons 16 and older; of these, 4,843 constitute its resident workforce. Inflow/Outflow analysis of the community indicates that only 477 people work and live in Key Biscayne. There is a net outflow of people in the community when it comes to the workforce, with 2,737 people coming into the community but 4,183 people leaving for work. However, Key Biscayne is surrounded by county and state parks which are popular tourist destinations, and thus have a large number of people coming in from outside of the community. As expected given the land-use distribution, the areas of highest density for the workforce are along Crandon Boulevard, with a higher concentration in the eastern part of the community, where the Commercial and hotel industry exist. 3.82% of the population is aged 15 to 17 (US Census 2013), and thus constitute part of the daily traffic out of the community, as some of these students will commute to Coral Gables or the MAST Academy for school. An additional portion of the student population that elects to attend Ponce De Leon Middle School in Coral Gables would also add to this number. The workforce above vary in terms of modes, 70.6% drive alone, 4.1% of the overall population carpool with approximately 75% of workers driving. This trend 37 WHY THIS PROBLEM There is a distinction between internal circulation and external ingress and egress. The internal circulation problems may be able to be mitigated though cultural, physical, or technological changes to how and why we get around. Is- sues of external flow are beyond the direct control of the Village. It will take high levels of coordination with parties that may not share the same goals as the Village, and to truly mitigate can be extremely costly. Internally, the issue relates to the new demographics. Key Biscayne has 13,000 inhabitants and nearly as many cars. Using those cars is a necessity in South Florida, particularly for local residents when they need to get to destinations off the Island. Using these vehicles to circulate to within the local area can be utterly overwhelming to the system. Even the conversion of internal automobile trips to golf cart trips can still cause congestion. It is also true that few people who live in the Village, work in the Village. It is an absolute necessity for them to use a car to travel on and off the island for activities like school and shopping. A cultural shift to walking and biking or larger capacity vehicles is inevitable in order to maintain mobility. Whether this shift happens naturally or is incentivized is the essence of this project. A preponderance of the issues related to traffic stem from external sources. There is one way in and out. Weekend and weekday traffic pose different problems. Bill Baggs State Park creates a tremendous draw of over a million people per year. This consumes a large amount of capacity. Additionally, both regular activity and special events create additional pressures on the local network, especially at the ingress and egress to the Crandon Park facilities, including the marina, golf course, beach and tennis center. The Miami Seaquarium, Virginia Key Beaches and potential use of the Marina Stadium add to this. Each of these have special events, most notably frequent triathlons, the tennis tournament, etc. Add to this an accident and traffic flow can be shut down quickly. Residents are significantly impacted on a regular basis. SECTION 3 Background Information VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 38 SECTION 3 Background Information During almost any of these events Crandon Boulevard between Bear Cut Bridge and Harbor Drive can be con- gested. The issue of adding capacity is prevented by the Matheson Park Master Plan. Coordination with the County, City of Miami and event holders therefore is crit- ical. Exploration of tunnels or pedestrian bridges across Crandon Boulevard for the Tennis Tournament should be examined. It has even been mentioned that the Village explore taking control of this road within the Villages boundaries. A multijurisdictional Causeway Authority could be explored to consider the impacts of the events on all the populations. It is critical to the lives and safety of everyone on Key Biscayne, whether residents or visitors, that emergen- cy services function within a 15 minute threshold. Even multijurisdictional policing activities can have a negative impact on flow for residents. It has been observed that DUI Checkpoints happen at an inappropriate time such as +- 8:00 PM which can slow flow for Key Biscayne Res- idents. All those involved in emergencies that happen in the Vil- lage need to be taken off the Island to reach care facilities. With congestion on the causeway this task is complicat- ed. Bottlenecks occur at Bear Cut and the Rickenback- er Toll. The Fire Station, proximity of the traffic signals and the emergency light all create issues for emergency movement and pedestrianism. As part of the background information analysis, the fol- lowing plans as they relate to Key Biscayne’s land use and transportation planning were reviewed. As can be seen from these studies, many of the issues have been raised in the past: congestion, signal timing and others. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 39 SECTION 3 Background Information CRANDON BOULEVARD MASTER PLAN | 2004 C3TS This master plan for Crandon Boulevard had the following goals: improved public safety, easing of traffic congestion, traffic calming, pedestrianization, improved mass transit, and streetscape improvements. The study examined trolley service on the island, but recommended further study in the future. The study examined golf cart use in the Village and recommended allowing access to commercial centers on Crandon Boulevard from Fernwood Road. The study examined the Harbor Drive/ Crandon Boulevard intersection and recommended a redesign that was completed in 2005. The Plan recommended widening Crandon Boulevard to accommodate 4ft wide bicycle lanes on both sides. The Plan recommended increasing the Village’s tree canopy, especially along Crandon Boulevard to encourage pedestrian activity. The plan recommended changes to the signal timing system on Crandon Boulevard to ease congestion. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE 2020 VISION PLAN | 2006 WRT The 2020 Vision Plan was conducted in close collaboration with the Village’s 2007 EAR, but was intended to be the Village’s “sounding board” for future planning and policy making decisions, promoting the community’s collective values and aspirations. The Vision Plan recommended a tram/shuttle to provide connectivity among Village destinations, and a water taxi to provide non-automobile access to employment, shopping and entertainment in Coconut Grove, downtown Miami, and Miami Beach. The plan also has specific recommendations for new sidewalks and intersection improvements to encourage pedestrian activity. One important piece of the Vision Statements was “Encourage redevelopment of outdated commercial areas to preserve and expand local-serving retail and professional businesses and services in well-designed, accessible and interconnected centers.” VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE MASTER PLAN EAR | 2007 WRT The 2007 EAR was developed in conjunction with the 2020 Vision Plan. The EAR included an update to the comprehensive plan calling for access points at the rear of Crandon Boulevard commercial centers from Fernwood Road for golf carts, bicycle, and pedestrians. The EAR also called for a change in the land use and zoning map to limit commercial and office development to Crandon Boulevard and Harbor Drive between Crandon Boulevard VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 40 SECTION 3 Background Information and Fernwood Road. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT PLAN | 2007 WRT The landscape master plan was “designed to establish a Village environment that can be successfully managed as a visually pleasing and environmentally sound landscape with a moderate-to-high level of maintenance needs.” The Plan suggested affording safe, convenient and universal mobility for pedestrians and cyclists while complying with federal, state and local requirements regarding handicap accessibility. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE MASTER PLAN AMENDED | 2008 The Key Biscayne Master Plan was amended in 2008, however this amended Master Plan did not include recommended updates from the 2007 EAR. This Plan recognized many of the challenges related to bicycles and pedestrians. The plan recommended reassessing the addition of bike lanes if the number of cyclists “begin to adversely impact the Crandon Boulevard Level of Service.” VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE RECOMMENDATIONS | 2009 IBI This study examined Key Biscayne’s current and future parks and open space needs. The report offered a specific recommendation for a Civic Center Park on the 520 Crandon Boulevard Site, adjacent to the Village Center at the intersection of Crandon Boulevard and McIntyre Street and a series of other recommendations to address the needs of Key Biscayne residents. One of the recommendations involved an interlocal agreement allowing the Village to develop ball fields on Virginia Key, obviously requiring non-pedestrian transportation options for Village residents. GOLF CART / PEDESTRIAN / BICYCLE FERNWOOD ROAD AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY SAFETY AND ACCESS PLAN | 2009 C3TS This golf cart study resulted in a golf cart ordinance and a plan for improving access to key locations along Crandon Boulevard from Fernwood Road for golf carts, bicycles, and pedestrians. It also recommended amending the zoning code to require 3 golf cart spaces per 50 vehicular parking spaces. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 41 SECTION 3 Background Information MIAMI BICYCLE MASTER PLAN| 2009 HNTB This plan serves as Miami’s guidebook for improving its bicycle infrastructure. The plan’s study area did not include Key Biscayne, however it did reference the importance of Rickenbacker Causeway and its bike lanes in the city’s bicycle network. 2040 LRTP | 2014 The Miami-Dade MPO’s Long Range Transportation does not include any projects for Key Biscayne. VIRGINIA KEY MASTER PLAN | 2010 The Virginia Key Master Plan hoped to revitalize Virginia Key as a recreation destination. Several recommendations for improved and new recreation facilities were in the plan and included a recommendation for additional ball fields, similar to the recommendation in the Key Biscayne Recreation and Open Space study. The Plan also included a recommendation for water transit service to the island that would also serve Key Biscayne, Coconut Grove, and Downtown Miami. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE EAR | 2012 This document is an update to the Goals, Objectives, and Policies section of the Village Comprehensive Master Plan. The updates included in this document are based on the 2007 EAR. This update to the Master Plan included amendments related to mixed-use development, affordable housing, and bike/ped facilities that if followed would improve mobility. TRAFFIC CALMING MASTER PLAN | 2012 C3TS This plan included a comprehensive analysis of identified streets that did not have any traffic calming measures and provided recommendations for various safety and traffic calming improvements. Additionally, the Plan offered traffic calming policy guidelines for the Village. The report included recommendations for several traffic tables, a few lane width reductions, and a few intersection modifications. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 3 Background Information 42 MIAMI-DADE TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN | 2013 This Transit Development Plan presented the operational and capital improvement needs of Miami-Dade Transit (MDT) and served as the planning tool to project future MDT needs for implementation and operation for 10 years. The plan included a recommendation to improve headways to eight (8) minutes during peak periods for Route 102 B serving Key Biscayne. KEY BISCAYNE SUSTAINABILITY PLAN | 2014 The Sustainability Plan was intended to help the Village of Key Biscayne develop and implement policies and initiatives consistent with responsible stewardship of Key Biscayne’s environment and infrastructure. The Plan includes a series of short- and long-term goals with the purpose of helping the community live responsibly and sustainably, protecting the heath, well-being, and viability of the community for present and future generations. The Plan included a few recommendations related to transportation options. One for encouraging electric vehicle charging stations in multi-family buildings and one encouraging the Village to invest in electric golf carts for Village use. PLAN Z | 2015 ZYSCOVICH Plan Z is proposed plan by a local architect and cycling advocate group concerned about bicycle safety on the Rickenbacker Causeway. The Plan calls for lowering the functional classification for the Causeway to minor arterial, reducing it to a consistent two travel lanes in each direction, with protected bike lanes, and designating the entire Causeway a park. The plan approaches development from a park system standpoint. Source: Plan Z 43 Key Biscayne’s transportation issues, while diverse as described by residents and data, fall into 2 distinct categories, internal and external, with specific considerations within each of these two broader categories, ranging from congestion to safety. While inherently connected and having a compounded effect on the entrance to the Village, where most of Village’s congestion is observed, each set of problems are distinct and may need to be addressed separately. ISSUES OF EXTERNAL CONNECTIVITY AND MOBILITY For the purposes of this study, external connectivity for Key Biscayne consists of Crandon Boulevard from the entrance to the Village to the Toll Booth area for the Rickenbacker Causeway. Transit Connectivity at this point allows for further connections to the MetroRail’s various destinations. Congestion Congestion on the Rickenbacker Causeway, which normally operates at a LOS C, occurs primarily during the hours of 8 -9 AM in the morning, and 5:30-6:30 PM. Specifically, congestion on the Rickenbacker is related to three major considerations of mobility for the residents of Key Biscayne: Mobility during special events, quality of life/time loss due to congestion, and emergency services access. Of these three issues, emergency services access is the more severe given the effects during times of threats to life or property. Average Mobility Issues On average, Key Biscayne residents should experience relatively few traffic delays along the Rickenbacker Causeway, based on peak hour peak time analyses of the roadway linkages. IV. Issue Diagnostic and Needs Assessment VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 4 VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 44 SECTION 4 Issue Diagnostic and Needs Assessment However, the special nature of the ingress/egress of the community means that it also affected by planned checkpoints, such as lane closures or sobriety checkpoints. These checkpoints, if placed at certain junctures, produce high and potentially disproportionate impact on Key Biscayne residents. When these checkpoints are set during rush hour, the roadways become constrained, and the LOS degrades from C to F on some portions of the Causeway during these instances. MOBILITY DURING SPECIAL EVENTS Mobility issues during Special Events occur periodically through- out the year. These events occur between the mainland and the Village of Key Biscayne, and can be either high profile or high at- tendance events, such as the Miami Tennis Open. The influx of additional traffic during these events results in less roadway ca- pacity on the Rickenbacker Causeway, pushing the LOS from C to E or F, depending on the section of the roadway. This level of impact reduces the mobility of the residents and is a major cause for concern. Some of this traffic does reach the Village of Key Bis- cayne, as seen by traffic counts taken when the events were in session versus when they were not. During these events, traffic rises by upwards of over 4000 vehicles entering the Village daily, raising overall Village traffic by 13%. At the entrance to the Village at Crandon Boulevard, this additional traffic reduces the LOS from E to F. Recently, the Village encountered the issue of moving additional events to Virginia Key. One core issue for the Village is that it has little control over the use of Virginia Key’s facilities as they are outside of Key Biscayne’s jurisdiction, but must absorb the exter- nality effect of these events. Emergency Services Access One of the most concerning issues regarding congestion is the lack of alternatives to bring someone to a local emergency room. Key Biscayne has no emergency care centers on the Island; thus, in emergency situations, there is a primary reliance on the Ricken- backer Causeway route. This has two implications: first, potential VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 45 SECTION 4 Issue Diagnostic and Needs Assessment delays may result during life-threatening situations, and second, additional return times after the patient has been delivered to the emergency care centers negatively impacts emergency ser- vices staffing, and reduces overall service flexibility and respon- siveness time. At a minimum, a maximum 15 minute threshold should be maintained for emergency services, but this ability is threatened at levels of delays with LOS F. In addition, this prob- lem is further exacerbated by the level of traffic generated by special events. Bicycle Infrastructure and Safety Bicycles are easily accessible on the island of Key Biscayne. At least three locations on the island provide some form of bicycle rentals, and residents, even of higher density and mixed-residence developments, such as the Ritz-Carlton, store their bicycles on- site. However, bicycle racks tend to full at commercial and other locations such as the school, and visual observation at multiple times through the year indicate a persistent deficit in bicycle parking facilities. Bicycling safety on the Rickenbacker is affected by both motorist and bicyclist behavior; thus enforcement and education must be implemented in tandem with any necessary infrastructural improvements. Ridership along the Rickenbacker is diverse, ranging from tourists to local population. Bicycling along the Rickenbacker noticeably takes form with regular riders, and group riders who organize into pelotons. Currently, Miami-Dade County is beginning to launch a new program, with colored striping and increased emphasis on the separation of traffic, with implementation in Fall 2015. Review of data resulting from this pilot initiative should be reviewed; ultimately, a decision should be made regarding whether physical barriers should be installed between the bicycle lanes and the roadway. Transit Transit service runs on an approximately 15 minute peak hour timetable, with service slowing to occur once an hour during VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 46 SECTION 4 Issue Diagnostic and Needs Assessment the course of the day. Route B, the route servicing Key Biscayne, serves as the Village’s link to the MetroRail. This route leaves the Brickell Metrorail Station and travels south to either Cape Florida State Park or Mashta Drive in Key Biscayne. Peak season generally runs January-May for ridership, with ridership peaking in March. Ridership range runs anywhere from 45,000-61,000 riders each month. It is important to note that during construction of Rickenbacker Bridge, which closed two lanes, ridership held steady from the prior year for much of the year. This consistency in ridership indicates that transit users utilize the bus because of need. These are not choice riders. The current ridership numbers indicate potentially an influx of domestic help or construction workers during the day as the primary ridership of the system. At the same time, this is noteworthy because the trip generation model indicates that there is significant trip generation between Key Biscayne and Downtown Miami and the Coconut Grove and surrounding areas. The question then becomes, “Why are others not taking transit? Is there a demand for it or is it a matter of constrained convenience?” In addition, it is likely the answer for off-island services is a different answer for on-island services, though a shuttle should be explored for the MAST Academy as well for local students, to reduce any additional trips created from school traffic. Pedestrian Pedestrian connectivity is good along the Rickenbacker Cause- way; however, the system could benefit from better lighting, which in turn will benefit bicycling safety as well. Existing lighting is geared towards vehicular traffic. From a connectivity stand- point, however, the pedestrian network is sufficient for its cur- rent and potential future users – the distance between the main- land and the Village of Key Biscayne indicates that the route is more likely to attract recreational users, with parks or the ac- tual walk being the destination. A main issue, however, is the consideration of continued modal separation from bicycling in the form of differentiated systems as opposed to a shared-use VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 47 SECTION 4 Issue Diagnostic and Needs Assessment pathway. Crossings are also an issue at specific points along the route, such as at the Tennis Center, given perceptions of speed and the effect of pedestrians on vehicular traffic flow-through when vehicles have to stop for pedestrians. INTERNAL CONNECTIVITY From the viewpoint of accessibility and mobility, Key Biscayne residents generally have high mobility, with an overwhelming reliance on vehicular transit. Accessibility to goods and services are also high from a vehicular standpoint. Accessibility from a bicycling and pedestrian standpoint, however, has traditionally been lacking, with systemic gaps in the infrastructure. At the same time, vehicular mobility, while traditionally high, has been eroded over time by the impact of increased residential development and demographic shifts. Congestion Each day, the community of Key Biscayne generates upwards of close to 8000 trips. These trips generally circulate around the community; that is, Key Biscayne residents are responsible for a significant portion of trips internally circulating within Key Biscayne. The perception of internal circulation issues drives concern over the worsening congestion. Overall, the congestion is not necessarily severe in Key Biscayne. Most of the roads operate at a LOS C, with some at D, during both AM and PM peak hours. Signalization at intersections, which will be discussed in a later section, seems to be the driving factor of driver frustration. Unsurprisingly, the intersection of Harbor Drive and Crandon Boulevard fails to meet standards both in the morning and in the evening. Future congestion is expected to become worse even in the absence of actual population growth. This is due to the high proportion of children within the community as compared to other areas. As these children become teenagers, they may begin to drive; while general national and regional trends indicates that these children, under current conditions, will drive by necessity VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 48 SECTION 4 Issue Diagnostic and Needs Assessment due to the current levels of multi-modal transportation infrastructure. Without additional investment to allow for a modal shift, additional traffic will accrue with an overwhelming effect on vehicular usage. INTERSECTION LOS AND LIGHT SIGNALIZATION Issues of traffic flow along Crandon Boulevard are exacerbated by the current signalization of key intersections with high levels of ingress and egress, such as Key Colony and at Crandon Boulevard and Harbor Drive. These signalization issues are noted by the community as well, and while normally traffic would adjust around these intersections, the roadway network does not allow this option. The natural “chokepoint” tendencies of these intersections result from a lack of additional alternative routes. Currently, all signalization programs are con- trolled by the Miami-Dade County Public Works Department, and the Village must work with the County is altering the signalization. The Village is currently pursuing smart signalization as a means to relieve circulation and congestion issues. Delays at intersections are a concern. Roadway level of service indicates that the congestion issue is not severe from a linkage standpoint. However, intersection Level of Service may in- dicate traffic issues, and is independent of Roadway Level of Service. 3 specific intersections were evaluated based on citizen and Council concerns regarding congestion and in relation to observed Roadway Level of Service. To begin, the evaluated intersections LOS below were: 1. Harbor Drive and Crandon Boulevard: LOS F 2. Harbor Drive and Fernwood Road: LOS C 3. W. McIntyre Street and Crandon Boulevard: LOS C What these intersections tell us is that the traditional modeling for intersections is not providing the entire picture. Certainly, local knowledge and the analysis both align to indicate that the intersection of Harbor Drive and Crandon Boulevard has a failing LOS. However, other intersections register at an acceptable level of service C. Yet, during the field review, multiple light cycles, including pedestrian crossing signals, would occur at several intersections before the traffic signals allow a driver to turn. This would occur when there was no oncoming traffic, resulting in a situation which is frustrating for many drivers, and a condition which can be ameliorated through appropriate signal timing. With other intersections, the same situation is reported by residents, so that a signal progression issue is inherent by local knowledge and which has been verified by multiple field visits. This is not necessarily inherent by solely looking at intersection VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 49 SECTION 4 Issue Diagnostic and Needs Assessment numbers taken at one point in time. For some of these intersections, however, such as Key Colony Drive, while signal optimization may ameliorate some of the conditions, the inherent problem is that for this community, there is a “chokepoint” situation exacerbated by a changing population. This volumetric problem creates a strain on the one- way in, one-way out gated community’s ability to leave their homes in a timely manner, and for which signal optimization may only be one component of the overall solution. Further, signalization issues pose problems for emergency service vehicles, which may be mired in traffic with limited leeway in maneuverable space on the vehicular right of way. Technology allowing for these vehicles to alter signalization patterns should be explored to allow for triggered changes in signalization during emergencies. CONNECTIVITY Key Biscayne, internally, is overall a highly connected community from a vehicular standpoint. The roadway network is a mixture of a grid system with two major spines, and with a parallel, minor spine along Woodcrest Road as a relief path for Crandon Boulevard. Along Crandon Boulevard, there are several gated developments. At high stress levels for the roadway network, access to these specific developments are constrained by the lack of additional alternate egresses. As noted from the issue of the light signalization, these chokepoints may benefit from VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 50 SECTION 4 Issue Diagnostic and Needs Assessment better signalization. However, alternatively, the underlying issue is one of accessibility, and thus additional connections. Multi-modal connectivity to commercial areas are also primarily car based and limited. The commercial areas of Key Biscayne are located along Crandon Boulevard with residents as the primary consumers and some additional shopping tourists en route to Bill Baggs State Park. The pedestrian network for Key Biscayne, however, is one with low levels of connectivity to residential areas, as the system is rid - dled with gaps in the sidewalk system. Of concern are the lack of sidewalks to the Key Biscayne K-8 Center. The lack of grade separation throughout the Village is the result of history and op- position. While sidewalks are built on the right-of-way, owners generally perceive the grassy areas, despite their status as Village easements, as an unalienable part of their property. Opposition also results because of Key Biscayne’s lack of parking for visitors. These visitors, based on field reviews, tend to park on the swale; this would be not be possible if sidewalks were in place. The need for grade separation along roads in Key Biscayne is a matter of safety, due to the speeding on local roads. New sidewalks enjoy support among parents, who want a safe walking environment for their children. PARKING An evaluation of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual was performed. For each use in the area, the parking generation number was provided and it was determined that 416 spaces were needed. The Village has 292 spaces in the area, leaving a deficit of 124 spaces. In undertaking the analysis a distinction of usable public versus reserved spaces was done. Due to the mixing of reserved parking and public parking, the available non-employee parking (on and off street) for these facilities equals 210 (total spaces minus 82 spaces for staff). VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 51 SECTION 4 Issue Diagnostic and Needs Assessment While the Village has, approximately 131 on-street parking spaces and 161 off street spaces, (292 total) it should be noted that of these off street spaces, 62 are essentially reserved and/ or controlled spaces, and should not be considered as part of the overall available parking for visitors from an analysis perspective. Staff parking is accommodated within these 62 spaces, which is insufficient for staff. Based on employment numbers the Village has a need for 92 staff spaces, for a deficit of 30 spaces. Additionally, the Community Center also employs contractors for various recreational activities. These contractors are highly likely to drive, and amount to approximately 10 equivalent auxiliary employees. Parking was observed on multiple occasions during the peak hours. Actual occupancy resulting from usage of reserved spaces, park usage, overflow from commercial areas and visitors to residential units account for some of the on street parking demand as some of the spaces are restricted spaces. ), It has been conservatively estimated that the peak adjusted parking demand for these spaces is 295 spaces, resulting in a deficit of 85 spaces. Combined with the employee parking deficit of 20 spaces, the total space deficit including staff, is 105 parking spaces. The study area acts as one area-wide shared parking system. A review of actual operations in the field indicates that in the study area people having business at Village Hall, the Community Center, and the park, drive around and search for spaces closest to their destination. This accounts for the observation that the underground parking at the Community Center is regularly full. Observed behavior includes crossing from the Community Center parking structure to reach Village Hall during government business hours. This, combined with the consistent counts Facility/Area Off-Street Spaces On-Street Spaces Village Green 0 78 (69 regular spaces, 7 golf cart & 2 handicap spaces) Village Hall 47 12 (11 regular spaces & 1 handicap space) Fire Station 15 double spaces 1 15-min space Community Center 84 24 530 Crandon Boulevard Park Area 0 0 (shared with Community Center, Vil- lage Green, Village Hall) On-Street East Enid 0 78 On-Street West Enid 0 11 VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 52 SECTION 4 Issue Diagnostic and Needs Assessment for parking with parking immediately adjacent to the Village Hall, supports the indication of a Village Hall parking deficit. In addition, during the parking study, during peak times of activity, double parking could be observed along the park at Crandon Boulevard, and also resulted in 7 standing cars on Village Green Way at a loading/pick-up only zone, indicating an overflow effect onto the Community Center and Village Green’s parking supply. The fire department was the only facility that had a parking demand that was continually at the facility’s regular parking capacity. This is attributable to the fire department’s low visitor rate compared to other facilities, and the tandem parking, which, though inconvenient, allows for the department’s staff to fully park within the facility. However, the building also houses the Council Chambers. While not a regular use, this parking can and needs to be accounted for via usage of other available space in a shared parking system. From the field review, several locations outside of a 0.25 mile walking radius (see map for radius) were selected to evaluate potential parking overflow issues, since on-street parking is shared and can have a cascading effect. For this purpose, Mashta Drive and East Enid Drive were counted. From the counts, it has been concluded that Mashta Drive does not have overflow from the north, but also does not have overflow from the south, so it does not have an effect on parking on Westwood Drive, and by consequence, W Enid Drive. Further, this lack of effect on Westwood Drive, combined with the parking counts on West Wood Drive, strongly indicates the possibility that the extent of a “willingness to walk” ends at West Enid Drive for the park and recreation sites, especially given West Enid Drive’s counts. For East Enid Drive, south of West Enid Drive, overall parking can accommodate approximately 78 vehicles. However, this is for the extent of the street, whereas the 0.25 mile walking distance ends midway on the street (see map), allowing for 45 spaces. For most of the counts, we find that the parking is either tilted towards the eastern end, outside the 0.25 mile walking area for VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 53 SECTION 4 Issue Diagnostic and Needs Assessment the civic center area, or evenly distributed along the street. This would tend to indicate highly localized parking related to the residences in the area. Based on the data, it is unlikely that we would find a substantiated effect from this parking area that would relieve parking pressures from the demand generated by the sites in question. In fact, demonstrated field behavior indicates that most drivers will not walk more than 0.10 to 0.15 miles to their destination (approximately two small blocks). Thus, the inclusion of these 45 parking spots located within the 0.25 mile radius is not supported by field counts, and is thus excluded from the pool of available parking. This desire not to walk is the genesis of the congestion problems on the Island. Observed behavior during the counts also indicated that people will park in the space closest to their need; however, this becomes an issue when golf carts are involved, as the golf carts have taken spaces which could be utilized by vehicles, while golf spaces were empty in some cases. Golf carts also seem to try for the Civic Center underground parking structure when possible. This observed behavior artificially reduced the parking counts noted in the charts, but not the actual observable parking demand, as cars were noticeably circling for parking, or on Fernwood Road with blinkers. In other cases, double parking occurs, as demonstrated in the Community Center parking structure. Thus, while it looks like the Village is meeting demand because there are some empty spaces, actual parking demand is slightly higher than observed in the counts as a result. For delineated parking facilities with marked stalls, field counts also noted a number of incorrect parking such as double parking or occupying two spaces with one vehicle. When this parking occurs, it eliminates available space, and thus has an effect on the parking supply availability as well. Safety VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 54 SECTION 4 Issue Diagnostic and Needs Assessment Several issues of safety were noted during the Village’s recent Safe Routes to School Study, and continue to exist based on field observations and resident concerns acquired during the public engagement process. These issues include distracted driving at intersections, speeding in the neighborhood, and other issues requiring traffic law enforcement. Crash data for this study was collected for the years 2010 through 2015. Within the study area, 803 crashes occurred in the five year period, with 426 accidents occurring within the hours of 7:00 to 14:59 (7 AM to 2:59 PM). Overall, in the five year analysis period there have been 145 injuries and 1 fatality due to crashes in the area. Of these accidents, 39 involved injuries to bicyclists, and 5 involved injuries to pedestrians. Crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians tend to be higher profile, and have a disproportionate impact on perceptions of bicycling and pedestrian safety. For pedestrians, the lack of sidewalks as a form of grade separation from vehicular and other traffic creates the sense that some roadways are not safe to walk on; roadways with speeding discourages pedestrians – this is then reflected in short drives in the Village, sometimes to a place of recreation and exercise (park, community center). Some of these roadways are on direct paths to Key Biscayne K-8 Center, and should be quickly addressed. The Village recently completed a Safe Routes to School Study, which enabled it to receive approximately $ 837,000 in grant money for improvements. ADA compliant infrastructure is generally good along Crandon Boulevard. Corner ramps have detectable warning incorporated into their design. Further improvements could be effected through the installation of voice systems with audible countdowns. As additional infrastructure is provided around the Village, however, the usage of ADA compliant design should be encouraged and incorporated into future transportation plans. Golf Carts safety issues also exist - golf cart drivers exhibit, based on field observations, the same patterns of behavior as car drivers, with texting while driving, a need to better check VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 55 SECTION 4 Issue Diagnostic and Needs Assessment for bicyclists and pedestrians before proceeding, and in some cases needing to wear their seat belts. Lighting The Village is currently in the process of implementing new lighting along some its roadways. However, lighting is an issue across the Village, and deters bicycling and walking in the evenings. As a residential community, Key Biscayne has observed physical activity in the evenings; particularly, this can be seen in the Village Green area, with soccer games at night. The lack of appropriate lighting through the Village also results in a higher rate of vehicular use during these times. At the same time, most of the participants for these activities would at most walk 15 minutes to reach their event. There are concerns about lighting at night for bicycling as well. A perception among citizens is the notion that the more severe bicycling accidents occur at night. Transit MDT route B services Key Biscayne; ridership peaks around March of each year (approximately 65,000 riders in March 2015). Bus shelters are generally shaded and well maintained. Generally, people board and alight at the stops on Crandon Boulevard north of Harbor Drive, by Key Colony Drive, at Village Green Park, Westwood Drive by Winn-Dixie, and Bill Baggs State Park, with boardings and alightings highest at Crandon Boulevard and Harbor Drive. From a ¼ mile walking distance standpoint, transit coverage is 63.4% of the Village’s area, reaching 73.5% of all properties. However, this coverage area includes the spur section of Route B, which does not always run. Regular full service results in a service coverage area that is less than half of aforementioned numbers, reaching 26% of the properties on Key Biscayne. Thus, VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 56 SECTION 4 Issue Diagnostic and Needs Assessment transit access is low within the Village of Key Biscayne. Transit development is dependent on providing not only access, but timely and appropriate access. For Key Biscayne, this is not achieved on either level for residents. While transit service does exist for Key Biscayne, the nature of the route, as well as the timing of the Miami-Dade Transit routes, combine to provide relatively low ridership. Thus, for most of Key Biscayne’s residents, the options are either to drive or plan around the schedule for Route B, which is infrequent and constrained. While they can walk further to reach Crandon Boulevard, this option is hampered by the additional distance as well as the lack of sidewalk connections. This lack of options is particularly evident for the elderly population, who may not be able to walk longer distances. Within the island, there are calls for the development of an internal circulator system from the Chamber of Commerce and private citizens. The development of internal alternative mode transit can come in varied forms, ranging from trolleys to on demand services, as well as tram shuttles. Bicycle Infrastructure and Safety Bicycles are easily accessible on the Village of Key Biscayne. At least three locations provide some form of bicycle rentals. Higher density and mixed-residence developments, such as the Ritz-Carlton, store their bicycles on-site. However, bicycle racks tend to be full at commercial and other locations such as the Key Biscayne K-8 Center, and visual observation at multiple times through the year indicate a persistent deficit in bicycle parking facilities. Bicycles at the school can be found overflowing from the bicycle parking area, resulting in sidewalks which have been blocked by fallen bicycles, and utilization of fences as hitching posts. The Village does not have bikeshare stations that are available in other parts of Miami-Dade County. Bikesharing is not likely to be of high value to Key Biscayne, with one exception – connectivity to existing stations in Miami. In this regard, a bicycle trip to Bill Baggs State Park would result in one less vehicle on the roadway; however, the effect of incorporating bikeshare for this is not high. Elsewise, internal to Key Biscayne, VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 57 SECTION 4 Issue Diagnostic and Needs Assessment are bicycle rentals which provide an existing, on-going service within the Village. Bicycle lanes in Key Biscayne exist on Crandon Boulevard, and are not separated from vehicular traffic. There are concerns about lighting at night for bicycling as well. For many cyclists, particularly children who use this as a mode of travel to school, a north- south pathway is not the main concern, especially if it is along Crandon, which has bicycle lanes. Rather, parents are more concerned about the effects of speeding in the local neighborhoods, and the crossing of Crandon Boulevard, especially when heading in an east-west direction to and from the Key Biscayne K-8 School. Because the Key Biscayne grid ultimately resembles a modified square, with a partial circle, there are similarities to a spine road system that intersects a ring road. In this comparison, we realize that from an infrastructural standpoint, Key Biscayne’s bicycle network suffers from the flaws seen in similar systems elsewhere. While Harbor Drive, a vital road, provides an alternative route around the community and a longer route for a leisure ride, the lack of solid east-west connectivity, with minimalized speeding, within the island’s network hinders effective traveling for local bicyclists seeking to reach the commercial areas of the Village in a direct manner. This same issue also applies to the recreational center and the K-8 Center. However, because most of the island is “pourous,” in that one can ride through areas like the Village Green, and because of Crandon Boulevard’s equidistant location relative to the rest of the island, it can serve as an effective spine for the bicycle network as well enhancements to east-west routes allowing for direct travel paths. Future enhancements to this system can then be effected through the inclusion of alternate routes made viable through safety improvements, . Viability is the key here; from a mobility standpoint, if bicycles share the road, then it is not to say that these routes do not already exist; rather, why would one utilize them when bicycle racks at the destination are consistently full/ overflowing, and where safety issues on the streets is a concern? Modal shift, then, does not happen without addressing key concerns that create issues for the utilization of that VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 58 SECTION 4 Issue Diagnostic and Needs Assessment particular mode of travel. For bicyclists, safety and perception thereof is key. External Travel, Where Are People Going It is crucial to distinguish between internal and external travel, as they both present unique and often mutually exclusive problems. Both types of travel are complex and may rely on vastly different solutions. While examining external travel, it is known that people are going from Key Biscayne to relatively few areas of the County, including the Airport, Downtown Miami, Coconut Grove, South Miami and Dadeland. These are all areas connected by high capacity transit like Metrorail. Yet to get to and from those destinations, they must use the Rickenbacker Causeway. Local perception is that this causeway is always congested. However, analysis shows that the Causeway during non-event days operates at a level of service (LOS) “C” indicating acceptable traffic flow with relatively minor delays if they occur. Conversely, when events occur, like a tennis tournament, etc., the Causeway operates at a level of service “F” indicating heavy congestion and congestion delays. The issue is that there are so many event days that untenable congestion is a frequently regular occurrence. Internal Travel Internal travel is focused on the bottlenecks at intersections, particularly at Crandon Blvd and Harbor Drive. However, parking, walking, biking, transit and golfcarts also play a component at other intersections where the cross interaction between the various modes raises questions of safety and points of intermodality within the Village. Signal timing adjustments, either through a signal progression analysis or adaptive signalization is necessary to resolve these issues. Internally, it is shown that the primary bottleneck is at the intersection of Crandon Boulevard and Harbor Drive. The VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 59 primary issue impacting traffic flow and congestion occurs at the Crandon Boulevard intersections, where intersection congestion, not roadway capacity, influences traffic. While it is not inherently recognizable through technical analysis, signal timing issues are at fault. It has been observed that drivers would regularly have to wait at red lights for up to 3 minutes with relatively little cross traffic. This leads to high levels of frustration. Congestion in much of the Village is exacerbated by people searching for parking. A study conducted during this process shows that in the Village center area there is a parking deficit of up to 124 spaces. To mitigate this there have been discussions regarding the construction of a parking garage. It was discov- ered during the analysis that the heavy reliance on automobiles creates additional issues relative to parking. People like to get as close as possible to their destination before parking. They have been observed by-passing open parking spaces to get a block closer. People will double park on the roadways instead of park- ing to run quick errands. Adequate parking must be provided to meet local needs in order to reduce congestion and increase ac- cessibility. Likewise, people in Key Biscayne will drive to otherwise walkable short distances to go to and from school, the parks and the shopping areas. It is believed that this is done because there is a perceived lack of adequate and safe pedestrian ways, and there are safety issues when crossing Crandon Boulevard. The previous Safe Routes to School Study have sought to remedy much of these issues. That study won a grant in excess of $800,000 to build adequate pedestrian ways and bicycle infrastructure. Yet the parking deficiency and congestion have begun to change behavior. This can be evidenced by the fact that people are cycling. Bike racks at the shopping areas and schools are regularly filled up. The key to this effort will be to leverage the natural tendencies of certain groups of people to move without a car, by assuring that the multimodal infrastructure is in place VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 60 SECTION 4 Issue Diagnostic and Needs Assessment and in excellent condition. Transit coverage in the community is relatively poor because it only adequately serves the commercial areas surrounding Crandon Boulevard. As a supplement to this, people have taken to using golf carts. In the constricted environment of Key Biscayne these enable more vehicles to use the space, thereby increasing capacity of the roads and parking areas. A further look into these numbers shows that on days in the peak season, when school is in session and the tennis tournament is not occurring, traffic volumes on the Causeway are at about 41,000 vehicles, equating to a LOS C. When school is in session and there is a tennis match, volumes rise to 59,000 vehicles per day equating to a LOS F. Similarly when there is no school and a tennis match volumes are at 56,000 per day or LOS F. Special events like the Tennis Tournament can increase volumes on the Causeway by 18,000 vehicles per day, a 44% increase from non- event days. Yet these events only increase traffic on Crandon Blvd by about 3,300 vehicles per day. Schools account for nearly 4,000 trips per day. Solving external traffic issues can be undertaken by providing people options as to how to get to the event destination. Solutions – The Cultural Shift A cultural shift to walking, biking or using larger capacity vehicles is critical, if not inevitable in order to maintain mobility on Key Biscayne. Transportation and mobility is predicated on moving people and goods through a system. All systems have capaci- ties, not unlike a water pipe, which is much more well defined in terms of capacity. A certain diameter pipe will carry a certain number of gallons per hour. The roadway network is no differ- ent. As the number of vehicles reaches the capacity threshold, the system slows down. The good thing about transportation on Key Biscayne, is that we have not really begun to tap into the capacity of the sidewalks, and bikeways. Further, if multiple people are carried in a vehicle, we can more efficiently use the roadways. Whether this cultural shift away from the single oc- VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 61 SECTION 4 Issue Diagnostic and Needs Assessment cupancy automobile happens naturally or is incentivized is a key policy aspect of this project. Solutions for External Congestion Congestion on the Rickenbacker Causeway, which occurs during special events, increases traffic by up to 44%. And, there are no alternative routes. Two primary ways to mitigate this is to pro- vide alternatives which lower general traffic, allowing for more capacity to absorb part of the special events traffic. Multiple projects have been developed which could be used, including: Dedicated Key Biscayne Lanes Event Traffic Demand Management Park and Ride Facilities Daily Travel Demand Management Minimizing Lane Closures Sobriety checks west of toll gantry Mass Transit Light Rail Bus Rapid Transit Micro Transit Water Taxi Gondola Diversification of Local Services In general these are larger cost projects that are complex rela- tive to planning, design, permitting, construction and intergov- ernmental coordination. Implementing them relies on a variety of external parties, since all land north of Harbor Drive is under the jurisdiction of other entities. The issue is capacity. Perhaps the most logical recommendation would be to suggest a dedicated lane for Key Biscayne drivers, which would enable them to bypass event traffic. These would only be active during event days and may be able to be placed to avoid specific bottlenecks. Implementing temporary dedicated lanes or something more permanent may also require the estab- lishment of a multi-jurisdictional causeway authority. Currently VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 4 Issue Diagnostic and Needs Assessment 62 it appears that sufficient right of way exists to develop a solution; however, these may infringe on current greenspace or other pro - tected land. Similarly, it would take a redesign of the causeway, but reversible lanes which increase capacity on a directional ba- sis would add capacity. It is important to locate park and ride facilities west of the Toll. This would enable drivers to park off site and shuttle in on higher capacity vehicles, thereby replacing 20 to 30 cars per bus. On non-event days, these could be used to shuttle people to Cran- don Park and Bill Baggs State Park, which does not always have adequate parking. Another concept would be to shuttle people to events using water taxis, with launching points at each of the County Marinas. This would enable parking at these counties as seen at Haulover, Coconut Grove, Matheson Hammock, Black Point and Homestead Bayfront Marinas, further dispersing traf- fic. Used for special events, this could act as a pilot program for a more permanent system. It is recommended that a concept similar to this be implemented for the Boat Show. Less intrusive but symbiotic to the other suggested items is the ability to provide travel demand management for special events. Each event should have a detailed maintenance of traffic plan, shuttle services, and parking limitations. Overall travel demand management relies on intelligent transpiration systems, real time messaging of parking capacities, roadway conditions, etc. Today, many crowd sourcing applications like ”WAZE,” do much of what may be necessary. Similarly, moving the sobriety check points west of the toll gantry or at alternative times would keep the causeway flowing. Often times when thinking of moving large numbers of people longer distances, the traditional method of thinking is Mass tran- sit, typically in the form of Heavy Rail, like Metrorail, Light Rail, or Bus Rapid Transit, like the Busway. The cost of these systems is prohibitive in many cases, as they can be between $50 and $250 Million per mile. The concept of Micro Transit, more similar to a people mover in Downtown Miami, a gondola, water taxi or VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 4 Issue Diagnostic and Needs Assessment 63 sky taxi, all move smaller numbers of people in smaller vehicles. They can be significantly less expensive, with price tags between $4 and $10 Million per mile. We know that quick connections from Key Biscayne to the Coconut Grove or Brickell areas would get most people to their destinations and connect them with the Metrorail system, providing regional access. Solutions for Internal Congestion Internally, Key Biscayne is congested. There are multiple, cumu- lative, interconnected reasons for this. They are based on fail- ing intersections which cause bottlenecks in the system. Signal timing is not adequate or coordinated effectively. Many people have the strong desire to travel short distances in their cars. The lack of parking makes them drive around more, creating more congestion. The key to relieving congestion internally is in ad- vancing the cultural shift of people being more willing to travel without the single occupancy vehicle. This approach is iterative and predicated on providing options and additional capacity in all the alternative modes, while streamlining the components of the existing roadway system. Additional lane miles are not planned. This will be done with projects that include: Intersection enhancements Increased Golf Cart Access Parking Transit Facility Improvements Bicycle Facilities Pedestrian Facilities Elderly Services A primary aggravation to resident and the most obvious cause of congestion is at the bottlenecks caused by the traffic signals. Signal timing and progression needs to be evaluated and coordi- nated at all of the Crandon Boulevard intersections. Real time adaptive signal controls are recommended. Traditional signal timing is done by setting the light timing for certain hours VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 4 Issue Diagnostic and Needs Assessment 64 of the day and certain days of the week. They don’t easily ac- commodate frequent changes. A computer algorithm can detect vehicles at each intersection in real time and can manipulate the timing of the signals based on the traffic using it at every cycle of the light. It can also be programed to give signal priority to emergency and transit vehicles. This can increase intersection efficiency significantly. Golf carts add capacity to the system by moving people in small- er vehicles. It is important to provide increased access to golf carts off of Fernwood Drive. Priority golf cart parking is recom- mended in the shopping areas and parks. Parking is a definite issue. This can be handled with a combi- nation of solutions, including the implementation of a new ga- rage; providing alternatives to the automobile with better bicy- cle, pedestrian and transit infrastructure so people don’t have to drive; implementing designated waiting areas for pickups; more parking enforcement and a parking valet. A policy decision that should be considered is that of additional parking, because it is the most costly aspect of parking management. There is a park- ing deficit in the Village center area of more than 100 spaces. One school of thought is to use that deficit as an incentive to get people to walk, bike or transit into the core civic area. An alter- native approach is to maximize the capacity of traditional auto- mobile oriented infrastructure like travel lanes and parking, then shift to alternative modes. A new parking garage should be built to maximize the capacity of all types. These can be underground with civic space on top, or above ground with athletic fields on the roof. While pedestrian infrastructure exists and is of high quality, there are several opportunities that present themselves relat- ed to providing a better perception of pedestrian safety. People should be encouraged to use it, as opposed to very short auto- mobile trips. This aspect of the project would focus on install- ing missing gaps in sidewalks, completing lighting and mitigating flooding, all in an attempt to make walking a viable option. The VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 65 SECTION 4 Issue Diagnostic and Needs Assessment Safe Routes To School grant, developed as a precursor to this study, has won over $800,000 in funds to implement that pro- gram. Enhancements to intersections along Crandon Boulevard are a top priority. Installing high visibility crosswalks, crosswalk lighting and ADA complaint facilities is important. Pedestrian ac- cess to commercial areas from Fernwood Road is recommended. Programs that would further encourage parents to allow their children to walk and bike to school are important in marketing the system and perpetuating this behavior. Additional crossing guards would lend safety to the mix. Programs like Bike Rodeos, bike to school days, walking school buses, and other safety and educational programs that are educational, and offer rewards are encouraged. Bicycle safety and its viability as an alternative transportation mode is also a critical component of a multimodal transporta- tion system, giving people options. Multiple issues exist when dealing with cycling. There are two distinct user groups. The recreational cyclist, who uses the Causeway and Crandon Bou- levard as a training corridor. These users ride in large pelotons, often at odd hours, and often more than two-abreast, which is not legal and creates a safety hazard. This is an enforcement is- sue that should be acted upon. A second group of users are local people moving from place to place within the Village for various reasons. While Key Biscayne is not devoid of cycling infrastruc- ture, and most of the island does not need additional on road in- frastructure such as bike lanes, it does need attention to address speeding and safety, which should include the reduction of con- flict points between cyclists/pedestrians and automobile traffic. Additional bicycle parking amenities should be encouraged in shopping areas or mandated as part of new development. 66 SECTION 5 This chapter introduces the actual projects, each of which are listed in the accompanying Project Bank with a stated purpose, need, description of the project, and an estimated cost. The Transit Mobility Plan has identified multimodal transportation and mobility issues across the community by talking with the citizens and analyzing transit and roadway data and existing pedestrian and bicycling facilities. A set of multimodal projects were developed based on both of these levels of analysis, focused on identifying the major facilities or the movement of people. The development of projects for implementation is both an art and a science. Planners, decisions makers, and citizens all dream of what can be, and all of these stakeholders may hold differing viewpoints of how to progress into the future. To gain consensus and implement projects, a community must agree to, and want, what is being planned. This project placed great effort into both the art (finding out what is wanted), and the science (finding out what is needed). Through the analysis of existing conditions and needs, the Needs of the community from a technical standpoint are developed. What is wanted then stems from discussions and feedback resulting from significant engagement of the public in building consensus. As part of this process the issues that were initially discussed and presented in the previous chapter were organized, streamlined and defined as projects. First, the projects were evaluated based on cost, benefits, needs, and community desire in the creation of the overall project bank. After detailed consideration of these criteria, ideas from the initial lists were either utilized, consolidated, or dropped. In creating a formal project listing, projects from the initial lists that had no significant impact because they were not addressing a formal need were generally dropped from consideration. V. Project Development VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 67 VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 5 Project Development Some projects fell into the same overall category but were consolidated in order to create a more easily read report. These may have individual components which may be implemented separately, such as the infill of specific gaps in the sidewalk system, addressing crosswalk issues at intersections, and implementation of various aspects of the bicycle network system. Projects or ideas that approached a similar problem in different ways were also consolidated after evaluation. The projects developed on a Village-wide basis are attached as project bank items. In Task V, these projects were then grouped further into specific corridor and hub areas for prioritization and implementation purposes. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 1 Subheading 68 SECTION 5 Project Development | Internal Projects VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 1 Subheading 69 SECTION 5 Project Development | Internal Projects VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 1 Subheading 70 SECTION 5 Project Development | Internal Projects VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 1 Subheading 71 SECTION 5 Project Development | Internal Projects VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 1 Subheading 72 SECTION 5 Project Development | Internal Projects VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 1 Subheading 73 SECTION 5 Project Development | Internal Projects VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 1 Subheading 74 SECTION 5 Project Development | External Projects VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 1 Subheading 75 SECTION 5 Project Development | External Projects VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 1 Subheading 76 SECTION 5 Project Development | External Projects VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 1 Subheading 77 SECTION 5 Project Development | Internal-External Projects VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 1 Subheading 78 SECTION 5 Project Development | Bicycle-Pedestrian Projects VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 1 Subheading 79 SECTION 5 Project Development | Bicycle-Pedestrian Projects VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 1 Subheading 80 SECTION 5 Project Development | Bicycle-Pedestrian Projects VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 1 Subheading 81 SECTION 5 Project Development | Bicycle-Pedestrian Projects VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 1 Subheading 82 SECTION 5 Project Development | Bicycle-Pedestrian Projects VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 1 Subheading 83 SECTION 5 Project Development | Transit Projects VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 1 Subheading 84 SECTION 5 Project Development | Transit Projects VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 1 Subheading 85 SECTION 5 Project Development | Roadway Projects VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 1 Subheading 86 SECTION 5 Project Development | Roadway Projects VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 1 Subheading 87 SECTION 5 Project Development | Roadway Projects VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 1 Subheading 88 SECTION 5 Project Development | Policy Projects VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 1 Subheading 89 SECTION 5 Project Development | Policy Projects VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 1 Subheading 90 SECTION 5 Project Development | Policy Projects 91 SECTION 6 VI. Implementation Implementation of the projects will vary based on local preference. While projects internal to the Village can be effected by the Village, external projects cannot, and thus cannot be easily prioritized. For projects internal to the Village, funding is the main consideration, along with safety. Implementation of items for which there are secured funds, such as the Safe Routes to School program, is of the first priority. In developing the other projects, such as infilling sidewalks or implementing cycle lanes along Crandon Boulevard. Some of these projects are segmentable and in proximity to other projects. These should then be considered along the Safe Routes to School project. While they have to remain separate for budgeting reasons, if there are portions which can be a phase of the same overall project, then cost savings may result. SIgnalization and the reduction of immediate problems are also of the highest priority, and projects affecting safety should be implemented immediately. For other projects, further review during the design phase of project development will yield more information about phasing. A second priority is the infilling of the pedestrian network. Projects external to the Village, as previously discussed, are outside the Village’s jurisdiction. However, the Village may choose to incentivize their development by proffering funding, as it has in the past with projects such as the development of MAST Academy on Virginia Key. The nature of the recommendations was to provide the Village with viable options from which it can choose to implement. However, further complicating the selection of projects are their relative costs, as well as the state of some existing technology. Yet, picking the alternatives with the lowest cost has tradeoffs not necessarily inherent, with complications resulting from the multi-jurisdictional nature of Rickenbacker Causeway. Just because a VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 92 SECTION 6 Implementation project is viable from a technical standpoint does not mean that it will be approved when negotiations begin. Ultimately, because these projects are outside of the Village’s control, prioritization is unlikely to assist the Village; rather, these options become a vital starting point in negotiations with Miami-Dade County and the City of Miami. In addition, in cases such as with the driverless shuttles and the aerial cars, monitoring pilot programs as they appear in the United States is essential to identifying potential programmatic pitfalls to, allowing for a more smooth implementation of the project by Key Biscayne. Implementation of these projects will require key policy decisions made by local leadership which is beyond the purview of this report. Ultimately, the projects were designed with creating alternative modes of transportation as the primary impetus for change, to ensure a cultural shift away from single occupant automobile usage. Whether this cultural shift occurs naturally or is incentivized through the financing of various transportation projects is a key policy aspect of this Study. The determination of which will result in the actual implementation plan for the Village moving forward. As each project is selected based on local policy decisions and subsequently funded, it should be placed into the Vilage’s Capital Improvements Plan. SOURCES OF FUNDING Funding for transportation projects comes from three primary sources: Local, State and Federal. Yet each year funding is more difficult to come by. Local governments and counties, face the dilemma of rising costs of transportation projects, increasing traffic volumes and limitations on their ability to generate revenue. The cost of construction and materials increased by 44 percent between 2000 and 2013, more than the 35 percent rise in the overall rate of inflation. Fast changing economic environments put pressure on local governments to keep up with growth and congestion. At the same time, most states limit counties’ ability to raise revenue. In Florida in recent VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 93 SECTION 6 Implementation years, the State Legislature has capped property tax, lowered property taxes and has attempted to take away the ability of local governments to tax. Faced with rapidly increasing construction costs and traffic vol- umes local governments are finding new funding and financing solutions for transportation. Often, these solutions involve part- nerships with other jurisdictions, the private sector and most of all county residents. Unfortunately Florida is a donor state, giv- ing more into the federal system than it gets back. Most monies for large projects are collected locally, provided to the Federal Government, and then reallocated to the states to be adminis- tered to agencies like FDOT. Below is a description of relevant funding opportunities at all levels. Local Funding Local funding is money that is generated from within a local government or county. These sources generally rely on proper- ty taxes or other funds. Many communities have concurrency fees or impact fees, which can be applied to local infrastructure projects. In high growth communities it is advised that they consider these, in the form of mobility fees, as fair share fee assessments have the capability to provide that developments fund their fair share of the infrastructure needed to support their development. Miami-Dade Municipal Grant Program The Municipal Grant Program (MGP) was developed to have municipalities within Miami-Dade County submit transportation planning proposals to the Metropolitan Planning Organization to receive funding on a competitive basis. Participation in the program requires a minimum 20% funding commitment from the municipality. Selection criteria include: Level of Service (LOS) benefits of the proposed project. Impact of mobility/traffic circulation gains Intermodal nature of proposal VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 94 SECTION 6 Implementation Support of the approved countywide activities of the Unified Planning Work Program Consistency with the applicant’s local comprehensive plans Miami-Dade County’s Peoples Transportation Plan, ½ Penny Sales Tax The People’s Transportation Plan (PTP), the half-penny transportation surtax approved by Miami-Dade County voters in November 2002, included $476 million for public works projects. The PTP funds to be provided were for major highway and road improvements totaling $309 million, and for neighborhood improvements totaling $167 million. Twenty percent of the total funding is provided to municipalities, based on their population. Each must spend at least 20% of their funds on transit projects. Importantly this source of funds can be used for a local match to federal funding, an advantage many local areas do not have. Local Option Gas Taxes County governments are authorized to levy up to 12 cents of local option fuel taxes in three separate levies on fuel sold within the county. The funds are used for transportation expenditures. The ninth-cent fuel tax is a tax of 1 cent on every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. A tax of 1 to 6 cents on every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold within a county. A tax of 1 to 5 cents on every net gallon of motor fuel sold within a county. Diesel fuel is not subject to this tax. The funds may also be used to meet the requirements of the capital improvements element of an adopted local government comprehensive plan. State The State of Florida has several funding sources that primarily come from FDOT. The Governor’s newly proposed FY 2016/2017 transportation budget makes the following investments: $3.3 billion for construction of highway projects to keep Florida’s transportation infrastructure among the best in the country. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 95 SECTION 6 Implementation $153.9 million in seaport infrastructure improvements to keep Florida First in the world for ocean cruise passengers and a major U.S. cargo gateway. $237.6 million for aviation improvements to keep Florida First in airport infrastructure investments. $731.9 million for scheduled repair of 48 bridges and replacement of 21 bridges to keep Florida’s bridges among the best structures in the country. $963.4 million for maintenance and operation to keep Florida’s infrastructure among the best maintained in the country. $574 million for public transit development grants to keep Florida’s growth in transit ridership over the last five years among the best in the country. $159 million for safety initiatives to continue to improve the safety of families and visitors on our roads. $46.6 million for bike and pedestrian trails to keep Florida’s trail development among the best in the country. Economic Development Transportation Fund The Economic Development Transportation Fund, commonly referred to as the “Road Fund,” is an incentive tool designed to alleviate transportation problems that adversely impact a specific company’s location or expansion decision. The award amount is based on the number of new and retained jobs and the eligible transportation project costs, up to $3 million. The award is made to the local government on behalf of a specific business for public transportation improvements. The Transportation Regional Incentive Program (TRIP) The TRIP fund was created as part of major Growth Management legislation enacted during the 2005 Legislative Session (SB 360). The purpose of the program is to encourage regional planning by providing state matching funds for improvements to regionally significant transportation facilities identified and prioritized by regional partners. Eligible partners must form a regional transportation area, pursuant to an interlocal agreement, and develop a regional transportation plan that identifies and prioritizes regionally significant facilities. To qualify for TRIP VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 96 SECTION 6 Implementation funding, partners must sign an interlocal agreement that: Includes development of the regional transportation plan Delineates the boundaries of the regional transportation area Provides the duration of the agreement and how it may be changed Describes the planning process, and defines a dispute resolution process TRIP funds are to be used to match local or regional funds up to 50% of the total project costs for public transportation projects. In-kind matches such as right of way donations and private funds made available to the regional partners are also allowed. Federal funds attributable to urbanized areas over 200,000 in population may also be used for the local/regional match. FDOT Programs The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Safety Office funds subgrants that address traffic safety priority areas including: Aging Road Users Community Traffic Safety Impaired Driving Motorcycle Safety Occupant Protection and Child Passenger Safety Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Police Traffic Services Speed and Aggressive Driving Teen Driver Safety Traffic Records Traffic Record Coordinating Committee (TRCC) Subgrants may be awarded for assisting in addressing traffic safety deficiencies, expansion of an ongoing activity, or development of a new program. Grants are awarded to state and local safety-related agencies as “seed” money to assist in the development and implementation of programs that address traffic safety deficiencies or expand VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 97 SECTION 6 Implementation ongoing safety programs activities in safety priority program areas. Funding for these grants are apportioned to states annually from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) according to a formula based on population and road mileage. Funding may be available for projects in other program areas if there is documented evidence of an identified problem. Through the public rule making processes conducted in 1982, 1988, 1995 and 1998, it has been determined that certain highway safety program areas have proven to be more effective than others in reducing traffic crashes, injuries, and fatalities. These programs, designated as National Priority Program Areas are: Impaired Driving, Police Traffic Services, Speed Control, Occupant Protection/Child Passenger Safety, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, Motorcycle Safety, Traffic Records, and Community Traffic Safety. It is expected that programs funded through these grants will become self-sufficient and continue when grant funding terminates. To promote self-sufficiency, agencies are expected to provide a local funding match when personnel costs are included in second and third year projects. The local match is normally 25% of eligible costs for second year projects and 50% for third year projects. Government agencies, political “subdivisions” of the state, local city and county government agencies, state colleges and state universities, school districts, fire departments, public emergency services providers, and certain qualified non-profit organizations are eligible to receive traffic safety grant funding. These grants are awarded on a Federal fiscal year basis, and can be funded for a maximum of three consecutive years in a given priority area. Federal Programs Federal programs make up the bulk of the funding for large projects. This is so because state governments contribute to the federal government, which in turn provides those funds back to the state. Florida is a donor state, which means it receives less than it contributes each year. There are competitive grant programs which often require local matches. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 98 SECTION 6 Implementation The US Department of Transportation helps communities fund transportation projects by issuing grants to eligible recipients for planning, vehicle purchases, facility construction, operations, and other purposes. The USDOT administers this financial assistance according to federal transportation authorization, MAP-21. There are a large number of programs and grants within the Department of Transportation that support projects that enhance or relate to livability. Grants and Programs: Surface Transportation Improvement Accessibility to Disadvantaged Populations Fixed Guideway Systems Rail Surface Transportation Planning Bike/Pedestrian Marine Transport Air Transport Research & Miscellaneous Surface Transportation Program (STP) The Surface Transportation Program (STP) is one of the main sources of flexible funding available for transit or highway purposes. STP provides the greatest flexibility in the use of funds. These funds may be used as capital funding for public transportation capital improvements, car and vanpool projects, fringe and corridor parking facilities, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and intercity or intracity bus terminals and bus facilities. As funding for planning, these funds can be used for surface transportation planning activities, wetland mitigation, transit research and development, and environmental analysis. Other eligible projects under STP include transit safety improvements and most transportation control measures. STP funds are distributed among various population and programmatic categories within a State. Some program funds are made available to metropolitan planning areas containing urbanized areas over 200,000 population; STP funds are also set aside to areas under 200,000 and 50,000 population. The largest portion of STP funds may be used anywhere within the State to which they are apportioned. State and local governments are eligible for these funds. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 99 SECTION 6 Implementation Bus and Bus Facilities Program The Buses and Bus Related Equipment and Facilities program provides capital assistance for new and replacement buses, related equipment, and facilities. Eligible capital projects include the purchasing of buses for fleet and service expansion, bus maintenance and administrative facilities, transfer facilities, bus malls, transportation centers, intermodal terminals, park- and-ride stations, acquisition of replacement vehicles, bus rebuilds, bus preventive maintenance, passenger amenities such as passenger shelters and bus stop signs, accessory and miscellaneous equipment such as mobile radio units, supervisory vehicles, fare boxes, computers and shop and garage equipment. Funds are allocated on a discretionary basis. Eligible recipients include public bodies and agencies (transit authorities and other state and local public bodies and agencies thereof) including states, municipalities, other political subdivisions of states; public agencies and instrumentalities of one or more states; and certain public corporations, boards and commissions established under state law. Private companies engaged in public transportation and private non-profit organizations are eligible sub recipients of FTA grants. Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Program The Transportation, Community, and System Preservation (TCSP) Program is a comprehensive initiative of research and grants to integrate transportation, community, and system preservation plans and practices that improve the efficiency of the transportation system of the United States; reduce environmental impacts of transportation; reduce the need for costly future public infrastructure investments; ensure efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade; and examine community development patterns and identify strategies to encourage private sector development patterns and investments that support these goals. States, metropolitan planning organizations, local governments, and tribal governments are eligible VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 100 SECTION 6 Implementation Bicycle and Pedestrian Program The Federal Highway Administration’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Program promotes bicycle and pedestrian transportation use, safety, and accessibility. The Program is responsible for implementing Federal transportation legislation and policy related to bicycling and walking. This s not a funding program. Pedestrian and bicycle projects and programs are eligible for almost all Federal-aid highway funding categories. Each State has a Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator in its State Department of Transportation to promote and facilitate non-motorized transportation, including developing pedestrian and bicycle facilities and public educational, promotional, and safety programs. Pedestrian and bicycle projects and programs are eligible for almost all Federal-aid highway funding categories. Applicants should consult program eligibility criteria available in their State. The State Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinators can help with questions specific to each State. Transportation Enhancement Activities Transportation Enhancement (TE) activities offer funding opportunities to expand transportation choices and enhance the transportation experience through 12 eligible TE activities related to surface transportation, including pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and safety programs, scenic and historic highway programs, landscaping and scenic beautification, historic preservation, and environmental mitigation. TE projects must relate to surface transportation and must qualify under one or more of the 12 eligible categories. Each State develops its own procedures to solicit and select projects for funding. States may make funds available to Federal, Tribal, State, or local government agencies. A few States allow private nonprofit organizations to apply in partnership with a government agency. Transportation Alternative Program The Transportation Alternative Program was developed as a result of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21). Eligible activities for funding include: 1. Construction, planning and design of on and off road facilities for bicyclists, pedestrians, and other forms of non-motorized transportation; 2. Construction, planning and design of infrastructure related projects/systems to provide safe routes for non-drivers; 3. Conversion and use of abandoned railroad corridors for non-motorized use; 4. Construction of turnouts, overlooks, and viewing areas under community improvement activities; 5. Inventory, control or removal of outdoor advertising; 6. Historic preservation and rehabilitation of historic transportation facilities; 7. Vegetation management practices in transportation rights of way; 8. Archeological activities related to impacts from transportation projects eligible under Title 23; and 9 Environmental mitigation activities. As a cost reimbursement program, projects must go through multiple levels of review and VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan SECTION 6 Implementation 101 approval to become eligible for reimbursement. Once the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has authorized a project, project costs may be incurred and ultimately reimbursed. Costs incurred prior to FHWA authorization are not eligible for reimbursement. In addition, the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program and Recreational Trails Program (RTP) were both consolidated within the nine (9) activities under the TAP. The planning, designing, and constructing of boulevards and other roadways largely in the right of way of former Interstate System routes or other divided highways are also eligible as well. The Safe Routes to School Program The purpose of the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program is to enable and encourage children, including those with disabilities, to walk and bicycle to school; to make walking and bicycling to school safe and more appealing; and to facilitate the planning, development and implementation of projects that will improve safety, and reduce traffic, fuel consumption, and air pollution in the vicinity of schools. The SRTS Program makes funding available for a wide variety of programs and projects, from building safer street crossings to establishing programs that encourage children and their parents to walk and bicycle safely to school. The Federal- aid Safe Routes to School program was created by Section 1404 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act The SRTS Program is funded at $612 million and provides Federal-aid highway funds to State highway agencies over five fiscal years (FY 2005 - 2009), in accordance with a formula specified in the legislation. Funding which was unspent has been carried over, resulting in available funding in Florida. The national SRTS program is federally funded, but managed and administered by each State Department of Transportation (DOT). Funds are made available for infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects, and to administer Safe Routes to School programs that benefit elementary and middle school children in grades K-8. Each State is responsible for hiring a full-time Safe Routes to School Coordinator to implement a SRTS statewide program. Recreational Trails Program The Recreational Trails Program, (RTP) provides funds to the States to develop and maintain recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both non-notarized and motorized recreational trail uses. Each State develops its own procedures to solicit and select projects for funding. States may make funds available to Federal, Tribal, State, or local government agencies. Some States allow private nonprofit organizations to apply directly. 102 SECTION 7 A cultural shift towards walking, biking and large capacity vehicles in critical, if not inevitable, in order to maintain smooth mobility on Key Biscayne. Transportation and mobility are the foundations of moving people and goods through a system. All systems have capacities. Not unlike a water pipe, which is much more well defined in terms of capacity, a certain diameter pipe carries a certain number of gallons per hour. The roadway network is similar. As the number of vehicles reaches the maximum roadway capacity, the system slows down. The good thing about transportation on Key Biscayne, is that we have not really begun to tap the capacity of the sidewalks and bikeways, and utilize multiple occupancy vehicles, this would allow more efficient use the roadways. Whether the cultural shift away from the single occupancy automobile happens naturally or is incentivized, it is a key policy aspect of this project. Transportation solutions have been developed into internal and external categories of projects. Internal efforts will be easier to implement and should be undertaken annually as part of the Villages budgeting process. External solutions should be evaluated and initiated though coordination with external agencies and governments. A technically viable project will not necessarily gain approval when negotiations begin. We recognize that there are some items which overlap, such as the various potential projects along the Rickenbacker Causeway. In moving forward, Key Biscayne’s traffic issues are not likely to go away. Rather, the expectation is that the of choices which currently do not exist will allow for growth in vehicular traffic to be properly managed. It is neither reasonable nor realistic to believe VII. Conclusion VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 103 SECTION 7 Conclusion that in the short term, long range travel from Key Biscayne to other parts of Miami-Dade County can be easily serviced by regional transit. Vehicular travel to places such as the airport, and further destinations, will most likely require vehicles for which future planning on the Rickenbacker Causeway must accommodate. Addressing periodic issues with mid-range travel to places such as Coconut Grove and Downtown Miami will require thorough thought and cooperation with entities outside of Key Biscayne. This intergovernmental aspect of development will have to result from collective policy development, a process which understandably will have to involve the consideration of tradeoffs and compromise between all parties. To assume that this, too, will occur without considerable time and monies is unrealistic. What is more realistic is ensuring that choices made today which allow travel for where driving is not a necessity. Short trips with- in the community, provided appropriate infrastructure, do not require driving, rather the usage of the private automobile is a conscious “choice,” albeit one with community consequences. Of course, choice is a relative word, one contingent on the ability of alternatives to be viable; in Key Biscayne, the aim in the future is to ensure the viability of safe bicycling and walking through the implementation of appropriate infrastructure. While completing the pedestrian network has historically been one fraught with lo- cal opposition, it is time to recognize that there are consequenc- es to each policy decision, and the Village must take ownership of such consequences moving forward. Without completing the pedestrian infrastructure, surely some property owners will be appeased, but that comes at a cost to the safety and ability to walk for the greater community, and those who come after as people enter and leave the Village. While the Village can provide increased parking, easing driving issues will make that mode of travel much more attractive, thereby in- centivzing that choice. Comfort and effort would be satisfied, and perhaps lowered, but at the cost of perhaps encouraging short term driving. Comfort, cost, safety and other factors are not always complimentary, and while they do not always require VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE Transit Mobility Plan 104 SECTION 7 Conclusion tradeoffs, they do at times require holistic considerations in our decision-making processes. How we address the interplay of each factor in our choices creates, in turn, the alternatives by which an intermodal system works. Decisions at the policy level thus affect future mobility through its influence on choice. A cultural shift, enabling and encouraging people to move about the community without a car, is one that is naturally occurring in society today, necessitated by the roadway system reaching a critical mass, and running out of capacity. The shift is inevitable, because continued expansion of the roadway network is costly, both in financial, and political terms. What is changeable through action or inaction is the speed by which this shift occurs. This shift can be accelerated through the implementation of the multimodal infrastructure and projects presented in this report. As stated in the onset of this project, managing expectations is critical. The change is incremental. In all likelihood, roadway congestion may never improve (but it will get worse more slowly than it would if not treated at all), as the desire to drive is perva- sive, and the freed up roadway capacity gained with these multi- modal options will likely be consumed by more cars. Utimately, more people will be moving about the community faster than they would otherwise, because the additional capacity needed to accommodate them will be built in to the pedestrian, bicycle and transit systems, and supplemented by services and policies. Quality of life will increase. It is not within the purview of this study to dictate such paths for the Village, but rather, to light the way by noting the issues and the requirements to fix those issues. What is acceptable and not acceptable, has always, through the various studies, been within the full purview of the Village and its decision making bodies. Decisive action one way or decisive inaction will pave the way for calculated choices for the future of the Village of Key Biscayne.