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.