51
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
RESOLUTION NO. ----------------
A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of South Miami
endorsing the Miami-Dade County complete streets design guidelines and
requesting that the City Manager incorporate, wherever possible, the complete
streets design guidelines into the everyday operations of departments responsible for
transportation, public works, planning, design, construction, operations and
maintenance of local roads.
WHEREAS, the City Commission recognizes the City's growing population will require the
efficient use of all public rights-of-way that balances all modes of transportation and meets the needs of
people of all ages and all abilities; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission recognizes the importance of being proactive in developing a
greener, healthier, aesthetically pleasing, dynamic, vibrant, and cosmopolitan community; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to create livable, safe and connected streets with an
efficient, multimodal transportation network that promotes the health and mobility of all citizens and
visitors of all ages and abilities while reducing the negative impacts on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission will work with Miami-Dade County in adding bicycle and
pedestrian facilities to capital improvement projects when possible; and
. WHEREAS, the City of South Miami Planning and Zoning Department finalized the Complete
Streets Policies and Design Manual for the City of South Miami.
WHEREAS, through a grant funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the
Florida Department of Health in Miami-Dade, Miami-Dade County developed a set of Complete Street
Design Guidelines specifically for use by the County and its 34 municipalities; and
WHEREAS, Section 335.065 of the Florida Statutes states that bicycle and pedestrian ways shall
be established in conjunction with the new construction, reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration,
rehabilitation, traffic operating intersection improvements, or other change of any state transportation
facility, and special emphasis shall be given to projects in or within I mile of an urban area; and
WHEREAS, municipalities across Miami-Dade County are planning, designing constructing
Complete Streets that accommodate residents' preference for walkable, bikable and livable communities;
and
WHEREAS, endorsement of the "Miami-Dade Complete Streets Design Guidelines" will
empower a collaboration of all engineers and planners to design, construct and operate roads in a way that
balances all modes of transportation within a context sensitive approach that takes Street Typology and
Land Use types into consideration when planning street enhancements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI, FLORIDA, THAT:
Section 1. The City Commission hereby recognizes the importance of endorsing the "Miami-
Dade Complete Streets Design Guidelines" planning document, which encourages a countywide
planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of streets for all users, including pedestrians,
bicyclists, motorists, and public transit riders, and people of all ages and abilities, including children,
youth, families, older adults, and individuals with disabilities.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Section 2. The City Commission further affirms that "Complete Streets" type infrastructure
addressing the needs of all users, should be incorporated into all planning, design, approval, and
implementation processes for any construction, reconstruction, retrofit, maintenance, alteration, or repair
of streets, bridges, or other portions of the transportation network, including pavement resurfacing,
restriping, and signalization operations if the safety and convenience of users can be improved within the
scope of the work.
Section 3. The City Commission further resolves that all appropriate departments should
recognize the "Miami-Dade Complete Streets Design Guidelines" and recommend the adjustment of any
impacted standards in the City's Complete Streets Guidelines to the extent the County version is more
advisable based on the philosophy of the Complete Streets principals and so that they are consistent with
the recommendations set forth in the County Guidelines as advisable.
Section 4. Severability. If any section clause, sentence, or phrase of this resolution is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, the holding shall not affect
the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution.
Section 5. Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this __ day of _____ , 2017.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM,
LANGUAGE, LEGALITY AND
EXECUTION THEREOF
CITY ATTORNEY'
Page 2 of2
APPROVED:
MAYOR
COMMISSION VOTE:
Mayor Stoddard:
Vice Mayor Welsh:
Commissioner Harris:
Commissioner Edmond:
Commissioner Liebman:
-
l/)
I-
LU
LU
0..
:::) o
0::
~
o z
>-= 0 ~
a::l c::( 0 a 0:: N
L.U 0:: ~
0::0 ~ U N
L.U UJ ~
0:: I -== 0.. f-oC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 05
INTRODUCTION AND VISION 07
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY 09
EXISTING STANDARDS 19
DESIGN PLAN 33
FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION 71
APPENDIX A 77
APPENDIX B 83
The Miami-Dade MPO complies with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states: No person in the United States shalf. on
grounds of race, CO/Of, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits ot or be subjected to discrimination under an y
program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. It is also the policy of the Miami-Dade MPO to comply with all of the requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act. For materials in accessible format please call (305) 375-4507.
The preparation oj this report has been financed in part from the U.S. Department of Transportation (U5DOT) through the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and/or the Federal Transit Administration (FTA)J the State Planning and Research Program (Section 505 of Title 23, U.S.
Code) and Miami-Dade County, Florida. The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the U.S. Department of
Transportation.
z -< ...J a..
~ w w a:
""" Vl
w
""" W
...J a.. ::;: o u
:E -<
:E
~
::J o
Vl
>-a::
<C
:E
:E
:::)
\n
W > -~
:::) u w
X w
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
What are Complete Streets, and why are they important? From a technical
standpoint, Complete Streets are the inclusion of all modes of traffic, including
walking, biking, transit riding, and driving. From a policy standpoint, it's about
creating choices, allowing for a more complete community with enhanced
neighborhood characteristics and heightened quality of life. Not all Complete
Streets are the same, though they may feel like they are when we look at other
examples. In adopting Complete Streets Plans, however, communities have
similar goals and in when implemented with land use in mind, effect positive
changes in transportation, urban design, health, aesthetics, and safety in the
City.
In looking across various Complete Streets plans and how communities strive
to make their urban environments complete, we find that planning for the
roadways follow similar principles:
.. Are designed for people of all ages and physical abilities regardless of
the travel mode taken -walking, biking, tranSit, vehicular
.. Provide opportunities for connections through interpersonal interaction
.. Can encourage "Active transportation" which promote healthy lifestyles
.. Are responsive to local needs in the design of the streets
.. Create safe and inviting places to bicycle and walk through the
implementation of pedestrian and bicycle friendly design and amenities
.. Create space through the addition of landscaping, wayfinding, street
furnitu re , and public art
Encouraging more walking and bicycling enhances the local quality of life, and
create incentives for local economic development.
For South Miami, the implementation of Complete Streets is a natural
evolution of existing progressive policies as it seeks to enhance local quality
of life. Concepts of Complete Streets are not new to the City -in fact, it had
incorporated various elements in the past, ranging from Bicycle Lanes on Red
Road to Bulb-outs on Sunset Drive to create a more pedestrian and bicycle
friendly community. In planning for the future, South Miami recently adopted
its Intermodal Transportation Plan, w hich provides for the City an analysis
of its needs and wants. However, the implementation of this plan requires
a realignment of the roadways, and an understanding of the space required
to im plement the City's vision and bring it from Plan into reality. This plan, a
Policy and Design Manual, is therefore structured to provide an organized,
logical approach to restructuring the Streets based on the needs noted in the
Intermodal Transportation Plan and existing Comprehensive Plan policies.
In implementing Complete Streets in South Miami, the policies recommended
and design standards herein are designed to allow a range of options for the
City to choose from, enabling the imp lementation of Complete Streets to be
context sensitive to the surrounding land uses and urban landscape. This plan
begins with the premise that the City w ill adopt Comprehensive Plan policies
which will minimize the size of the travel lanes, and maximize the amount of
space necessary to implement facilities for alternative modes of transportation.
Implementation must be context sensitive to existing land use ; what belongs in
a dense commercial area may not be needed in a residential neighborhood with
bungalows. To account for this, the City was analyzed using a Transect Model,
and each portion of the City was mapped and assigned to a suburban, general
urban, or urban center zone. As the City eVOlves, this map may be amended
based on new land uses and changes in urban form, including building size. By
comparing the Zones to how local , collector, and arterial streets are designed,
9 primary roadway plans were created as templates for future improvements.
Within these 9 primary plans, the creation where possible of a "Flex Zone" will
allow the City to choose from a menu of options, ranging from parking spaces
to benches and transit shelters, to meet the needs of a diverse City.
SOUTH MIAMI COMPLETE STREETS PLAN -2 ~ 51:~: '"
Ultimately, when we look at all physical space, including roadway design, it is
not that we made a road, or a sidewalk. It's that we programmed that particular
space for a vehicle, and this particular space for a sidewalk. Understanding
this concept and allowing ourselves to break free of the constraints of current
planning, which have very linear, segregated modes of transportation, allows for
innovative usage of space that allows for adaptability and creation of place, one
that will be able to more inexpensively adapt to as the City continues to mature,
grow, and define and redefine its identity and urban form. In implementing
Complete Streets, South Miami is partaking in place making, ensuring that the
City remains a desirable place to live.
Soura:'llrrp;!jv..ww.dec.ny,go'J/doa/odministfotion ...Pdf/C%pOnis,pdf
z o -~ -> c z
c:(
z o -t-
U
:::)
C o
Q:
t-
Z -
COMPLETE STREETS
South Miami streets are public spaces. Every day, thousands of people drive,
bike and walk throughout the City including the downtown area, Metrorail
Station , medical district and its neighborhoods. The City's streets provide
transportation routes not only for its residents, but for neighbors, visitors and
workers. These streets are mostly vehicle-focused, creating challenges within
the transportation system such as pedestrian and bicycle connectivity issues ,
traffic and vehicular congestion, and limited access to transit facilities among
others.
This study and the resulting manual aims to design streets that adhere to a
v ision of complete Streets. Complete Streets will vary based on the surrounding
neighborhoods by function and design, and ultimately must be context sensitive
and connected to surrounding urban design and land use. In looking across
various Comp lete Streets plans and how commun ities strive to make their
urban environments complete, we find that planning for the roadways follow
similar principles:
COMPLETE STREETS
~ Are designed for people of all ages and physical abilities regardless of
the travel mode taken -walking, biking, transit , vehicular.
~ Provide opportunities for connections through interpersonal interaction
~ Can encourage "Active transportation" which promote healthy lifestyles
~ Are responsive to local needs in the design of the streets
~ Create safe and inviting places to bicycle and walk through the
implementation of pedestrian and bicycle friendly design and amenities
~ Create space through the add ition of landscaping, wayfinding, street
furniture, and public art
Encouraging more walking and bicycling enhances the local qua lity of life,
and create incentives for local economic development. Ultimately, the goal of
Complete Streets is to create a livable environment where people can interact
with the built environment through a variety of means, enhancing the diversity
of mobility and by extension , increasing accessibility. In the past century, the
private automobile has dominated the landscape and planning, resulting in
wider roads , and at times, a decrease in priorities for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Today, congestion is an issue with increasing traffic. Space, then, is an issue. How
much more do we dedicate to the automobile, when other modes, including
bus transit, take up less space to transport the same amount of people.
South Miami has taken the lead in recognizing that we can no longer rely on
the vehicle. But, to move towards a safer, healthier, and greener multi modal
environment, the City has to implement the projects identified in the South
Miami Intermodal Transportation Plan. The question is, what are the constraints,
and how will the City be able to implement these ideas?
In South Florida , a community long reliant on the vehicle, the implementation
of Complete Streets involves the long term retrofitting of the existing right of
way. What fits? What does not? In planning, we come up with lofty ideas -we
should make sidewalks available everywhere. In practical application of t hese
ideals, we face constraints of space and the inherent trade-offs in providing for
different transportation facilities. Ultimately, to implement plans such as the
South Miami Intermodal Transportation Plan, a reconfiguration of the right of
way is necessary.
To ensure that the plan was context sensitive to South Miami's streets, we first
reviewed existing land use. Throughthis review, this study was ableto distinguish
the character of the neighborhood, recognizing that an urban core area as can
be seen around Sunset Place will have very different transportation needs
when compared to residential areas elsewhere in the City. Likewise, residential
deve lopments within the City will have different transportation needs as well
based on type of residence (multifamily, single-family) and density. Through
this analysis, the City was divided into transect based sectors, based on local
character.
A core principle of this approach was that the transportation fac ilities must be
tied into the land use and available right-of-way. At the same time, in looking
at the diversity of the roadway network within South Miami, we realized that
there were large differences in rights-of-way. To resolve this issue, the design
manual took the approach of first determining the absolute needs -corridors
oftravel for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles, including buses. The remaining
space was then organized into "Flex" spaces, which could be utilized for various
improvements as deemed necessary by adjacent land use or local preference.
To create this "Flex" space, there are two options. First, is to expand the Right-
of-way. For South Miami, this is not an option, as they are already wide and
more than adequate . The other option is to realign how space is divided on the
current right-of-way. In some cases, this simply required looking at the street
and narrowing the travel lanes, allowing for that space to be reassigned.
Using a modular approach, like working with Legos, allows the City certain
advantages. By setting aside the appropriate space for later, it can avoid having
to reconstruct the road in its entirety as conditions change. Further, it can
incrementally implement based on existing and evolving need as well as available
funds. Perhaps, today, the City doesn't need as many benches or bicycle racks.
However, this may change in the future . Allowing this flex space to be used for
parklets or green space with options for pop-up programming also lets the City
create a pedestrian and bicycling environment in a more meaningful way than
simply prescribing trees, set in a pattern, or a wider sidewalk when a sidewalk
may already be wide enough to serve the community. It is not simply enough
for Complete Streets that the minimum requirements for alternative modes are
put in place. The result must be aesthetically pleasing, and allow for people to
desire to walk and bike.
The best Complete Streets, the ones which people point to as examples, are far
more than just looking at the mode -they create a sense of place. Within the
Flex space, we can be creative. We can design an urban linear pa rk, or a parking
space. Alternatively, we can make a meandering path with trees, or util ize the
extra space for a shared-use path. We can even twist the idea of a parklet by
creating a seating area, perhaps with a vending machine as a library, thereby
SOUTH MIAMI COMPLETE STREETS PLAN -2 ~ 7!:~: """
implementing tactical urbanism and allowing for the activation of space and
creation of community gathering points that truly make a street Complete.
Ultimately, when we look at all physical space, including roadway design, it isn't
that we made a road, or a sidewalk. It's that we programmed that particular
space for a vehicle, and this particular space for a sidewalk. Understanding
this concept and allowing ourselves to break free of the constraints of current
planning, which have very linear, segregated modes of transportation, allows
for innovative usage of space that allows for adaptability and creation of place,
one that will be able to more inexpensively adapt as the City continues to
mature, grow, and define and redefine its identity and urban form.
Souru. Hollywood. FL eRA
> c:: o
~
~ -J:
o
Z
<C
o
Z
:J o c::
C)
~ u
<C
al
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The City of South Miami is located in the middle of a major met ropolitan area.
The City is mostly composed of residential (single fam il y) districts divided in ten
different neighborhoods as well as multiple-family and mixed-use designated
areas. The City also has a downtown area which includes seve ral uses such
as commercial, retail, offices and res idential mixed-uses, as well as a transit-
oriented development district intended to provide for the development of
multi-story and mixed use commercial and residen tia l projects. US1/ South
Dixie Highway traverses the downtown area and is where the Metrorail station
is located, making it the City's most transited corridor for vehicles, cyclists and
pedestrians al ike.
During the extensive public input process conducted while developing the
South Miami Intermodal Transportation Plan (SMITP), sign ificant support was
expressed for expanding the range of transportation options, as well as for
land development forms that are walk and bi ke-friend ly and easil y served by
transit . South Miami citizens' perception and use of transportati on included
the supp ort of sustainable economic development, the support of complet e
streets that encourage citizen safety, public health , and economic viabilit y by
promoting pedestrian safety, limiting w idening of existing streets, and providing
public transportation options, and the support of publ ic-pri vate partnerships
for the implementation of complete streets. Given these responses from South
Miami residents, it is obvious that providing safe and healthy al t ernatives to the
City's current transportation system is critical.
With the increase in population, housing density and commercial demand,
along with the increaSing frustration with t raffic and the interest in supporting
green sustai nable values, there is a strong movement to create multi-modal
accommodations to add ress all of these concerns by ensuring that the streets
are des igned to accommodate walking, biking, transit, and vehicle access.
Therefore the need for Complete Streets.
In the past, South Miami has been proactive in how it approaches Complete
Streets. Examples such as wider sidewalks and curb extensions on Sunset Drive,
bicycle lanes on Red Road , and other facilities exist within South Miami, and
positively add to the walking and bicycling experience within the City.
COMPLETE STREETS AND LAND USE
Complete Streets design considers the interaction of many different roadway
users, elements of streets des ign and surrounding land uses. In residential!
urban communities like South Miami, a mix of well-connected residential
neighborhoods and compact mixed-use developments makes walking, cycling
and transit use practical travel choices. The loca tion of a Metrorail station
on US 1 and Sunset Drive and the density of housing within the downtown
area provides important commercial opportunities. Although the city has the
framework of a grid of streets, and a mix of land uses , there is a need to ensure
that the street design is safe, that it accommodates all types of users and
alternative modes oltransportation, that it incorporates green design, and that
it complements surrounding land uses , the environment and the community.
DATA COLLECTION, REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
Prior planning within and outside of Sou th Miami were reviewe d as part of this
study to determine local needs, options, and best practices:
South Miami Intermodal Transportation Plan (SMITP) -
A review of this plan was also performed under this task. The SMITP provides
an in-depth analysis olthe City's existing sidewalks, trails, bicycle path s, activity
nodes and roadway networks, as well as transit related studies and capital
imp rovement projects . In addition, this plan sets goals and objectives to
develop an intercon nected network plan of mu lti modal streets that promote
sustainab le transporta ti on, as well as recommendations for a future network of
non -motorized transportation facilities.
Essential Complete Streets information such as its benefits and recommendations
are liste d in this plan. However, Comp lete Streets policies and des ign standards
as well as specific goals , objectives and poliCies needed incorporated in the
City's Comprehensive Plan have not bee n yet established; therefore the need of
the South M iami Comp lete Streets Policy and Design Standards Manual.
Savr~: City South Miami
Downtown Miami Pedestrian Priority Zone -
Plan created by the Miami Dade County MPO for the Miami Downtown
Deve lopment Authority with the purpose of enhancing pedestrian comfort and
safety standards for the design of all public right-of-ways. The main goal of this
plan is to promote sa fety, health, amenity, economic vita lity and genera l welfa re
of the public, important elements of Complete Streets principles. By re vi ewing
this plan, general des ign sta nd ards for complete streets were examined, as well
as best practices, policies implementation, procedures and adoption .
Sour<%: Downfown Miami DOlI
SOUTH MIAM I COMPLETE STREETS PLAN -2~ 9/:~~ ~~~
In addition to the above, this study evaluated existing plans and design standards
from the Los Angeles County Living Streets Manua l, M ia mi21 guidelines, the
Fort La ude rdale Complete St reets Man ual, the City of Sunrise Bicycle and
Pedestrian Greenways & Trai ls Master Plan, the CNU /ITE Designing Walkable
Thoroughfares: A Context Sens itive Approach, the Boston Comp lete Streets
Manual and the Miam i-Dade MPO Complete Streets Manual, among others.
These best practices were then compared with existing minimum standards
based on existing design standards and regulations. Th is comparison is enclosed
as Append ix A of this report.
South Miami's streets traffic conditions are characterized by a significant
amount of t hrough t raffic on the road network inclu ding arterials, collectors
and local streets. The City's road network consists of one arterial and two
collectors serving north/sout h, and three arterials and two collectors serving
east/west. The classification of the City's network are:
Principa l Arteria l -roadways defined as major highways serving regional
activity centers. These facil ities accommodate heavy volumes of traffic and
channel traffic between other prinCipal arterials and through the urban area.
In South Miami they are:
~ U.S. 1
~ Bird Road
~ Kendall Drive
Minor Arterials -roadways defined as carrying moderately heavy traffic and
channel traffic to community activity centers.
~ Sunset Drive
~ Red Road
Collecto r Streets -roadways defined as carrying moderately lowtrafficvolumes
and serve to channel traffic from neighborhoods to the arterial network or to
other neighborhood activit y centers. These residential st reets should not be re-
designated to avoid potential road wid enings.
~ Miller Road
~ David Road (S.w. 80 Street)
~ Ludlam Road (S .w. 62nd Aven ue)
~ S.w. 48th Street
l oca l Streets -roadways not defined as arterials or collecto rs; primarily
providing access to land wit h li ttle or no through movement. This class of roads
usually have direct property access as their primary purpose.
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
10 II 85
TRANSECT ZONES
The entire city was analyzed using a trans ect or context zone approach which
classifies urban transect into distinct types, rang ing from lower to higher
density and in t ensity of development. Characteristics such as density, bu ilding
placement, height, frontage type, public open spaces were initially examined
throughout the City allowing us to identify and map al l the applica ble transect
zones. (See Figure 01). This analysis was then refined through compa rison with
the Future Land Use Plan. (See Figure 02).
This method was utilized with the purpose of being context-sensitive to the
City's land use. By examining and comparin g the area's components of the bui lt
world such as dens ity, buildings, lots, open space, land use patterns and street s
we were able to identify and categorize di fferent areas within the City into
three transect zone categories: T-3 Suburban, T-4 General Urban and T-S Urban
Center. These zones were identified by considering both the existing conditions
and the plans for the future (by reviewing the City's Comprehensive Plan). In
application of a Complete Streets Plan, we recognize that thoroughfares often
last longer than adjacent buildings. We also recognized that ur ban form changes
as new developments are built, and we structured· this plan in such a way so
that as land is redeve loped and rezoned, an amendment to the transect map
will allow South M iami to apply Complete Streets in a consistent manner, tying
together urban form and roadway design.
The table below presents the full range oftransect zones; however, this report
focuses on urban transects T-3 through T-S. The "distinguishing characteristics"
column in the table describes the overall relationship between buildings
and landscape that contributes to context. In add ition to the distinguishing
characteristics and general character, four attributes he lp in identifying a
context zone: (1) building placement -how bu ildings are oriented and set back
in relation to the thoroughfare; (2) frontage type-what part of the site or
building fronts on t o the thoroughfare; (3) typical building height; and (4) type
of pub lic open space.
@
o 0.175 0.35
--Attenal~ --LCf;81 Roads South Miami
Collector -Other Streets .. Willer
0.7 1.05 1.4 Prepared By: x ... ~'~!JI~H"!lIN() l HOUP
Figure 01
FlgUr(!02 1 .1;~;-~~ii~.;: ... _~_J ~-~~;~: ;~ ~-_ ~-.:;,~,~~r _ .~!~~. :-I '·:~I
SOUTH MIAMI COMPLETE STREETS PLAN -2 ~ 11 /:~: ~~~
Transect Zone Qualities
Agricultural with scattered development Agricultural activity and natural I Large setbacks I Not applicable I Not applicable I Ag ricultural and natural I Rural
features
Primarily single family residential with walkable Detached buildings with landscaped Residential uses
development pattern and pedestrian facilities, yards, normal ly adjacent to C-4 zone. include lawns, porches,
dominant landscape character. Includes scattered Commercial uses may consist of Varying front and side fences and naturalistic 1 1 to 2 story with some I Parks, green-belts I Local, express bus
commercial uses that support the residential uses, and neighborhood or community shopping yard setbacks tree planting. 3 story
connected in walkable fashion. centers, service or office uses with Commercia l uses front
side or rear parking. onto thoroughfare.
Mix of housing types includi ng attached units, Predominantly detached buildings, Shallow to medium 2 to 3 story with some Local, limited stop bus
with a range of commercial and civic activity at the balance between landscape and front and side yard Porches, fences variation and few taller Parks, green-belts rapid tranSit, express
neighborhood and community scale buildings, presence of pedestrians setback workplace buildings bus; fixed
Small or no setbacks, Local bus; limited stop
Attached housing types such as townhouses and Predominantly attached buildings, buildings o ri ented to Stoops, dooryar ds, 3 to 5 story with some Parks, plazas and rap id transit or bus
apartments mixed with retail , workplace and civic landscaping w ithin the public right of street with placement storefronts and variation squares, boulevard rap id transit; fixed-
activities at the community or sub-regional scale. way, substantial pedestrian activity and character defining arcaded walkways median landscaping guideway transit
a street wall
Attached buildings forming sense of Small or no setbacks, 1 Local bus; limited stop
Highest-intensity areas in sub-region or region, I enclosure and continuous street wall building oriented t o 1 Stoops, dooryards, 1 4+ story with a few 1 Parks, plazas and rapid transit or bus
with high-density residential and workplace uses, landscaping within the public right of street, placed at front forecourts, storefronts shorter buildings squares, boulevard rapid tranSit; fixed-
entertainment, civic and cultural uses way, highest pedestrian and transit property line and arcaded walkways median landscaping guideway transit
To be designated and described locally, districts are areas that are single-use or multi-use with low-density deve lopment pattern and vehicle mobility priority thoroughfares. These m ay be large f acilities such I As applicable
as airports) business parks and industrial areas.
Transect Zone T-3 -is primarily suburban and is characterized by single-family
residential uses with walkable development patterns and dominant landscape
patterns. Almost two-thirds of South Miami consist of low density residential
districts with detached single-family developments connected through local
streets. This type of development is usually linked to varying front and side
yards , and frontage types such as lawns, porches, fences and landscaping.
Transect Zone T-3 also includes scattered commercial uses that support the
residential uses. In South Miami, this transect zone is the most predominant
and is main ly composed of the following residential zoning districts: Rs-1, Rs-2,
RS-3 , RS-4, RS-5, Residential Office (RO), and General Retail (GR) among others.
The South Miami Intermodal Transportation Plan (SMITP) developed
Complete Streets project improvement recommendations to promote safe,
healthy, and sustainable bicycle and pedestrian mobility within the City. The
recommendations within the T-3 transect zones are:
.. Bike lanes along SW 40th Street, SW 48th Street, SW 56th Street, SW
64th Street, SW 57th Avenue, SW 62nd Avenue, SW 67th Avenue
~ Shared-Use Path along SW 56th Street and Snapper Creek
.. Neighborhood Greenways along
T Manor Lane/SW 63rd Avenue -between SW 80th Street and SW
74th Street
T SW 64th Court/SW 64th Avenue/SW 63rd Court -between Manor
Lane and SW 44th Street
T SW 59th Place -between Sunset Drive and SW 64th Street
T SW 59th Avenue -between SW 87th Street and Sunset Drive
T SW 58th Avenue/SW 70th Street/Commerce Lane/ SW 58th Place/
SW S8th Court/SW 58th Avenue -between SW 87th Street and SW
40th Street
T SW 78th Street/SW 77th Terrace -between U.S. 1 and SW 57th Avenue
T SW 68th Street -between SW 64th Avenue and SW 57th Avenue
T SW 50th Street -between SW 64th Avenue and SW 57th Avenue
Source: Insritut~ofT(onsportarion Engineers {rt1!.Of'gJ
.. New sidewalks along SW 62nd Avenue, SW 56th Street, SW 80th Street
.. Crosswalks along SW 57th Avenue and SW 40th Street
~ Green Bike Lane and/or Bike Box on SW 57th Ave at SW 40th Street, SW
48th Street and SW 56th Street
.. Neighborhood Greenway Crossing Treatments along SW 58th Avenue ,
SW 62nd Avenue, SW 67th Avenue, SW 69th Avenue, SW 80th Street,
SW 64th Street, SW 56th Street, SW 50th Street
.. Neighborhood traffic circle on SW 58th Ave and SW 50th Street, SW
56th Avenue and SW 44th Street, SW 69th Ave and SW 75th Terrace,
SW 62nd Ave and SW 85th Street
.. Traffic circles on SW 62nd Avenue at SW 56th, 64th and 80th Street
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
12 II 85
Transect Zone T-4 -General Urban, is characterized by a mix of housing types
including attached units with a range of commercial and civic activity at the
neighborhood and community scale. This zone can be considered a middle
point between a suburban environment with the benefit of walkabil ity to a fairly
more dense and dynamic urban setting. T-4 zones are found in South Miami in
areas transitioning from residential/suburban to compact and dense uses such
as Downtown South Miami. The areas and neighborhoods that show these
characteristics are those with multi-fam ily uses such as zoning districts RT-6,
RT-9, RM-18 and RM-24, Residential Office (RO), Low and Medium Intensity
Offices (LO, RO), Neighborhood Retail (NR) and Specialty Retail (SR). and are
mainly located along local streets such as SW 66th and 68th Street, SW 57th
and 58th Place, and collector streets such as SW 64th Street (Hardee Drive) and
SW 80th Street (Davis Road).
Some of recommended projects for T-4 , based on the SMITP, are:
~ New sidewalks along SW 80th Street, SW 62nd Avenue (both sides
between SW 80th Street and SW 78th Street)
~ Signage and wayfinding
~ Trees and green space to provide shade , buffer pedestrians from
passing vehicles and provide aesthetic enhancements
~ Neighborhood greenways along SW 58th and 59th Place and SW 68th
Street
~ Standard and buffered bicycle lanes along SW 64th Street
~ Sharrows along SW 57th Avenue (Red Road)
~ Green Bike Lane and/or Bike Box along SW 64th Street and SW 57th
Avenue
~ Neighborhood Greenway crossing treatments along SW 64th Street
~ Traffic Circle on SW 57th Ave and SW 68th Street
Transect Zone T-5 -Urban Center, is characterized by attached housing types
such as mixed-use development with a strong retail and entertainment emphasis
on the ground floors and an equal mix of residential and/or commercial office
or services on the upper floors. A big presence of pedestrian activity and transit
service are also common. South Miamils downtown area is a great example of
a District T-5 due to its characteristics such as compact land use, closely spaced
low-scale buildings (generally one to four stories), and public parking (on-street
and garage). These characteristics can be seen on Sunset Drive (east of Dixie
Hwy), which serves this area with streetsides that support restaurants, street
cafes, social interactions, strolling and window shopping.
Transect Zone T-5 is comprised by Local Streets, such as SW 58th and SW 59th
Avenues, Collector Streets such as SW 62nd Avenue, and Arterial Streets such
as South Dixie Highway.
5ource: Google Streetview
5W67thA\I~jusrsaurhof62ndAvt'(fadng$Ourh)
SoUfct!: Google SrrMvi~ sw 72nd ST,jusr ~sr a/58th Alii! (faong east}
Some of the recommended projects for this area, included in the SMITP, are:
~ Pedestrian wayfinding sign system within downtown to id entify streets,
walking routes and direct pedestrians to pOints of interest
~ Street furniture such as benches, trash receptacles, bicycle racks and
shelters.
~ Bus stops and bus shelters
~ Buffered bicycle lane additions
~ Green color pavement backing shar rows along Sunset Drive to make
motorists aware ofthe expectation to find bicyclists sharing the travel lane
~ Parklets along Sunset Drive serving as an extension of the sidewalk to
provide amenities, green space and additional space for seating while
maintaining pedestrian walking zones on the sidewalks
~ On-street parking along Sunset Drive to provide traffic calming effects
and convenience to local shops
~ Mid-block curb extensions along S Dixie highway, north of South Miami
Hospital exit driveway, to enhance pedestrian safety by lowering motor
vehicle speeds
LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS
Level of Service (LOS) refers to the speed, convenience, comfort and security of
transportation facilities and services as experienced by users. Level of service
ratings, typically from A (best) to F (worst), are widely used to evaluate problems
and potential solutions. Such ratings systems can be used to identify problems,
establish performance indicators and targets, evaluate potential so lutions,
compare locations, and track trends.
Typically, cities should not adopt LOS A for roadways. This is counterintuitive
to what we are taught in schools -that A is the best and the standard. At t his
level of service, we are facing overinvestment of scarce resources into the
roadway network. However, this is different for bicycling and walking level of
service standards. For these , we need to be able to provide safe, adequate
environments, so that Level of Serv ice A for bicycling and walking are not only
acceptable, but necessary standards.
While thousands of drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians converge on the city each
day, the roadway system lacks the capacity to maintain an adequate level of
service at peak periods. Since the City of South Miami has a clear goal of not
adding capacity by widening roadways, a solution is to use alternative modes of
transportation to add capacity into the system. By assessing tranSit, bicycle and
pedestrian usage and linking the modes together, multimodal transportation
can be addressed , greater mobility can be achieved, and the quality of life for
the citizens and businesses in South Miami will be improved.
Roadway Level of Service
As stated in the City's Comprehensive Plan, a roadway level of service is defined
as the ability of a maximum number of vehicles to traverse a roadway segment
while maintaining a given operating condition. The standard descriptions of
service levels utilized in the South Miami Comprehensive Plan are as follows:
LOS "A" describes a condition of free flow, with low volumes and high
speeds. Traffic density is low, with speeds controlled by driver desires, speed
limits, and physical roadway conditions. There is little or no restriction in
vehicle maneuverability due to the presence of other vehicles, and drivers
can maintain their desired speeds with little or no delay.
LOS "8" describes a condition where operating speeds are beginning to
be restricted somewhat by traffic conditions. Drivers still have reasonable
freedom to select their speed and lane of operation.
LOS "C" describes an operating condition where speeds and maneuverability
are more closely controlled by high volumes of traffic. Most drivers are
restricted in their freedom to select their speed, lane of operation or ability
to pass. A satisfactory operating speed is maintained.
LOS "0 " approaches an unstable flow of traffic. Tolerable operating speeds are
maintained though considerably affected by changes in operating conditions.
Fluctuations in volumes and temporary restrictions to flow may cause substantial
drops in operating speeds. Drivers have little freedom to maneuver, comfort and
convenience are low, but conditions can be tolerated for short periods of time.
lOS "E" represents operations at even lower speeds than LOS "D." Flow is
unstable and there may be stoppages of momentary duration.
LOS "F" describes forced flow operation at low spee ds. Speeds are
reduced substantially and stoppages may occur for short or long periods
of time. In the extreme, both speed and volume can drop to zero.
Except for Bi rd Road, al l South Miami roadways are at LOS "0" or worse and
Kendall Drive, Red Roa d and U.S. 1 are operating in the LOS "E" and "F" ranges .
It is the City's vision and goal not to expand cap acity or widen roadways,
therefore the LOS "0" standard is not accepted as City of South Miami policy
since it would require major widening's that would adversely affect the
residential character ofthe City. It would also further congest the downtown
area due to additional traffic using Sunset Drive and Red Road. Instead,
this commuter traffic should use higher capacity arteria ls that do not pass
through residential areas. The following service leve ls are set for both 24-
hour and peak-hour periods:
~ Principal Arterials LOS "F"
~ Minor Arterials LOS "F"
~ Collectors LOS "F"
Bicycle and Pedstrian level of Service
Through field reviews and surveys, the City's bicycle and pedestrian Leve l of
Service were assessed as part of the South Miami Intermodal Transportation
Plan (SMITP). The determ ination of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Level of Service
for each segment of the City's Bicycle and Pedestrian Network was based on the
operational level of service methodology adopted by the Florida Department
of Transportation (FOOT). The Bicycle and Pedestrian Level of Service (BLOS)
(PLOS) Models identify the level of service for a segment of the network on a
scale of A to F based on a numerica l model score. An LOS of "A" indicates good
cycling or walking conditions and "F" indicates the least favorable conditions,
and are a measure of the quality ofthe environment based on measured physical
attributes including the vehicle volume and speed on the adjacent roa dway,
the presence or absence of striped bike lanes, sidewalks, and the presence
or absence of occupied on-street parking. For each segment, a LOS score was
assigned for both Pedestrian and Bicycle LOS. The segments were broken up
at logical points, usually section or half section line roads, if applicable. The
smaller, more residential, st reets were generally taken as a single segment. Th is
is not a level of service evaluation as is done for a road, which rates the road
on how much volume it can handle. This measures the quality of service of a
particular street.
Bicycle LOS is based on bicyclists' percep ti ons of the roadway environment and
is based on the following five variables :
~ Average effective width of the outside though lane
~ Motorized vehicle volumes
~ Motorized vehicle speeds
SOUTH MIAMI COMPLETE STREETS PLAN -2 ~ 13 /~~~ '"
~ Heavy vehiCle (truck) volumes
~ Pavement condition
Pedestrian LOS is also based on the pedestrians' perceptions of the roadway or
nearby roadside environment. It is based on the following four variables:
SOUTH MIAMI INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Ikyc:'-LOS $CO ••
--A
--D
--E
--F
!!I """',
In WooopQlo.
./"'V MlJOf MOe"
/'V OIhofAcaclI ..
~
~ Cit)'oISoo ....... bmi
!!'!
o 0.125 0.25 o.~11t!I
SourO!: South Miomllnrermodal Transportation Plan
BACKGROUND AND HISTOR Y
'4 II 85
.. Existence of a sidewalk
.. Lateral separation of pedestrians from motorized vehi cles
.. Motorized ve hicle volumes
.. Motorized vehicle speeds
SOU TH MIAMI INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN
FIGURE 9: PEDESTRJAH LEVEL OF SERVICE (PlO~
lfGE ND
PeclQtllon LOS $<;ole
--0
-< --,
m u..o ., ..
m I_p_
,/'./,....;orR ......
,/"../'O ...... Ao .... ..
l!io
'11 CityorSOUlIlr.tiam!
III OIrmJunldieto.1,
•. , "-
Source: South Mioml Intermodal Tronsporronon PIon
CURRENT CONDITIONS
Most of the major roadways within the City of South Miami have a Bicycle LOS
of D or E and a Pedestrian LOS of D or better, indicating the result of a much
greater investment over the years in pedestrian infrastructure than bicycle
facilities, which is cons istent with findings from Miami-Dade County as a whole.
However, the aim of the Bicycle and Pedestrian LOS should be at LOS A. While
some roadways have LOS A for pedestrians, there is room for improvement,
especially along places like Miller Drive, where the pedestrian LOS is F. For
bicycling facilities, improvements have to be made to reach a LOS A.
EXisting Facilities
The City of South Miami has a few dedicated facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists
and transit users, however the coverage of the network is low relative to the
entire roadway network.
South Miami is unique in that a large section ofthe p roposed 10-mile mobility
corridor, "The Underline" traverses through the City along the Metrorail lines,
connecting many communities w hile integrating transit, car, biking and walking
in a safely and appealing manner. Access to this corridor is a new category
of fac ilities considered for Bicycle Friendly Community designations. These
facilities provide an opportunity for recreation and physica l activity and can be
a venue for community events.
Bicycle lanes exist only alo ng SW 57'" Ave from SW 40'" St to SW 64'" Street and
. on SW 62,d Ave from SW 64'h Street to SW 70'" Street.
SOUTH MIAM I INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATIO N PLA N
FIGURE I: NETWO RK PlAN
LEGEND
Futu,.f llClItIn
4h FW..C....-II<
C 0. .... 8OUlan. ......... 0<81b8(lr
m M.P",thC,"~I"'~nts
• N~G,._y c:; .... P>gTl .. .urwnl
II N.~Tt::If'lltCln:Ht
• N!m-MotorlmlConncttion •
es~I"1MId";ocr,
til Mc,· .. ".UOlMt.V.,
..
~
Q CI\y"'$oWlMI~"'1
d
~:,,;:......:,.~.
Sourer: South Miami Intmnodal Transportation Plan
LOCAL POLICY
The following provides sample language for Complete Streets Policies which
may be adopted in the South Miami Comprehensive Plan .
South Miami's Complete Streets initiative aims to improve the quality of life in
South Miami by creating streets that are more walkable and pedestrian-friendly
throughout the City. The Complete Streets approach places pedestrians ,
bicyclists , and transit users on equal footing with motor vehicle users , and
embraces innovative designs and technologies to expand mobility options for
residents and visitors through the utilization of local multi-modal transportation
systems and connectivity to regional mobility networks within Miami-Dade
County.
The South Miami Complete Streets Policy and Design Standards Manual builds
on and supports several major City policy and planning initiatives. Data was
obtained from the Comprehensive Plan to review policies and determine any
changes.
SOUTH MIAMI COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Adopted in 1989 and amended in 2010, the South Miami Co mprehensive
Plan provides a consensus vision for South Miami that is based on the ideals
and goals residents have for the City's future. This plan provides the overall
policy framework to guide decisions over time toward achieving the City's
vision. The Comprehensive Plan guides decisions made in regard to land use,
transportation , housing, infrastructure, conservation, open space and capital
improvements. The Future Land Use and Transportation Elements set policy
for achieving more walkable and pedestrian-friendly development throughout
the City. A review and analysis of the Comprehensive Plan was performed from
w hich various goa ls, objectives and policies relating to Complete Streets were
identified. It is crucial to review and identify all the existing policies related
to complete streets policies at the initial stage of this plan in order to better
accommodate and accomplish the City's set goals and objectives. The following
were the Goals, Objectives and Policies identified:
Transportation Element
The Transportation Element (TRA) consists of six objectives designed to maintain
an overall transportation system which does not adversely affect residential
neighborhoods , discourages cut-through traffic via traffic calming techniques,
and that provides for the circulation needs of all sectors of the community in a
safe, effiCient , cost-effective and aesthetically pleasing manner.
The Transportation Element also provides guidance for the City on land-use to
transportation linkages, parking, Level of Service Standards, traffic calming, and
policies aiding modal demand shift, including improvements to pedestrian and
bicycle environments and enhanced transit. The following goals, objectives and
policies related to Complete Streets were identified :
.. TRA Goa l 1 -To maintain an overall transportation system which
does not adversely affect residential neighborhoods , discourages cut-
through traffic in residential neighborhoods v ia traffic calming and
other appropriate techniques, and that provides for the circulation
needs of all sectors of the community in a safe, effiCient, cost effective
and aesthetically pleasing manner.
.. TRA Obj ective 1.1 -Undertake only those improvements that
both facilitate traffic flow and reduce adverse traffic impact on
the neighborhoods, thereby making neighborhood streets safer.
Measurability shall be no major street widenings. See Objective 1.S
for non-motorized transportation systems and 1.3 for convenient and
efficient transportation.
.. TRA Policy 1.1.1 -The City of South Miami, in its entirety, is located
within the Miami-Dade County's Urban Infill Area, which is des ignated
as Transportation Concurrency Exception Area. The City's level-of-
service standards for roadways are as follows:
'I' Principal Arterials "F"
'I' Minor Arterials "F"
'I' Miller Drive "F"
.. TRA Policy 1.2.1 -Avoid adding any additional traffic lanes , with the
exception of minor non-intrusive intersection improvements that foster
improved traffic operations and management, in conformance with the
Land Use Plan recommendations that call for protecting and enhanCing
both the neighborhoods and downtown.
.. TRA Policy 1.2.4 -The City shall investigate strategies to increase public
awareness of the availability of parking facilities in the City, and the
linkages between these parking facilities and destinations .
.. TRA Policy 1.2.7 -The City shall seek to reduce negative transportation
impacts on neighborhoods through such strategies as traffic calming,
re duced travel lanes, wider Sidewalks, medians, and landscaping. In
school areas, strategies to reduce adverse impacts of bus traffic through
the provision of sidewalks, bicycle paths, and reconfigured bus loading
areas should be considered and coordinated with Miami-Dade County
Public Schools as appropriate.
.. TRA Pol icy 1.3.2 -The City shall undertake facility and program
improvements (such as the Trolley and other transportation modes), as
necessary and in coordination with other agencies, to enhance use of
MetroRaii and buses including adequate access to the Metrorail Transit
Station to faci litate convenient and effiCient "motorized" transportation .
.. TRA Policy 1.3.6 -The City shall coordinate with the Miami-Dade
SOUTH MIAMI COMPLETE STREETS PLAN -2 ~ 15 /~~~ ~~~
County MPO, MDT, FDOT and other agencies as appropriate in order to
ensure the timely provision of a pedestrian overpass that will connect
the Metrorail Station to the downtown area east of US-1. In addition,
the City shall provide pedestrian frie ndly crosswalks at all intersections.
.. TRA Policy 1.4.1 -Although no collector or arterial widenings are
recommended by the City at this time, use development plan reviews
and other means to protect existing rights-of-way, in order to prohibit
any further pavement widening.
.. TRA Policy 1.5.1 -Continue to refine and update a detailed bikeway
plan including access to the Metrorail Transit Station and adequate
on-site storage requirements through development code site
plan requirements and as part of the Comprehensive Long Range
Transportation Study.
Future Land Use Element
The Future Land Use element (FLU) consists of five goals and thirteen objectives
developed to guide the use of public and private land in South Miami through
the Future Land Use Map and through the goals, objectives and policies . The
Transportation Element olthe Comprehensive Plan is developed in coordination
with the Land Use Element , as aspects of development affect transportation
planning and mobility greatly. South Miami wishes to discourage street
widenings and urban commercial sprawl, and will move toward the development
of compact, mixed-use development where appropriate , which will help with
developing densities needed to support mass transit. The following policies
related to Complete Streets were identified :
.. FLU Po licy 1.3.2 -The City shall seek to ensure bicycle and pedestrian
connectivity in all areas within its bounda ries, in accordance with
neighborhood plans and the Comprehensive Long Range Transportation
Plan.
.. FLU Policy 2.1.2 -Oppose street widenings that would either feed
more through traffic into the downtown area or adversel y impact its
pedestrian amenities in downtown South Miami.
.. flU Policy 2.1.3 -Discourage urban commercial sprawl by promoting
growth in the core area surrounding the Metrorail Transit Station
by creating a district for new growth which is contained and transit-
oriented, thereby relieving the pressure for commercial rezonings
outside ofthis core area.
.. FLU Policy 3.1.3 -Pursue traffic policies, parking policies and pedestrian
amenity policies that enhance downtown, and thereby the tax base.
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
16 II 85
Conservation Element
South Miami's Comprehensive's Plan Conservation Element (CON) consists of
four objectives and thirteen policies designed to guide the City to address the
conservation and use of local resources. The policies among these objectives
direct the City of South Miami to expand mobility options for residents and
visitors through the utilization of local multi-modal transportation systems
and connectivity to regional mobility networks within Miami-Dade County
such as the Metrorail. Evaluation of this objective's success is measured by the
development of bicycle paths, bus-route miles, landscaping improvements and
the level of increase in mobility within the City. The following objective and
policy related to Complete Streets were identified:
.. CON Objective 1.1 -In order to help achieve compliance with Sta te
Departmental Environmental Regulations on air quality, include
appropriate landscaping provisions in a revised development code, and
include public landscaping and bike-way improvements in the general
fund .
.. CON Policy 1.1.3 -Continue to encourage the use of Metro-rail,
bicycles and other alternatives to the automobile through capital
improvements.
Recreation and Open Space Element
The Recreation and Open Space Element (REC) consists of three objectives and
twelve policies designed to serve as a guide for public policy decisions regard in g
the provision of a wide variety of local recreation facilities and programs to
ensure the adequacy of future recreational and leisure-time opportunities for
all residents and visitors. The following policy related to Comp lete Streets was
identified:
.. REC Policy 1.2.3 -Participate in planning for green-ways and trails, in
conjunction with State, County and other local government jurisd ictions.
Capital Improvement Element
The South Miami Capital Improvement Element (CIP) along with the five-year
Capital Improvements Schedule and Plan provide for the basis and polic ie s for
detailing the City's public facility deficiencies and planning corrective capital
improvements. The following policy related to Complete Streets was identified :
.. CIP Policy 1.1.4 -(2) Level of service or capacity problems: Next in
priority would be projects needed to maintain the stated Level-of-
Service Standard or that otherwise further the goals, objectives and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
The City of South Miami is committed to a safe and sustainable transportation
system for all of its residents, visitors and businesses. The City is also committed
to supporting and encouraging the use of non-motorized transportation.
These goals, however, exist in the context of a street system that has since
been engineered to facilitate and prioritize the movement of people in and
out of the city via motor vehicles, resulting in the reduction of non-motorized
transportation and related land uses.
It is evident that maintaining and furthering this current transportation model is
cost ly to the City in many different ways such as increase in air pollution, more
potential crashes and injur ies, increasingly sedentary lifestyle and deteriorating
human health, maintenance and operations costs, sprawl and inefficient urban
land use, etc.
z «
...J
0..
V)
f-
LU
LU
~
V)
LU
f-
LU
...J
0.. ::; o u
-I-
'" ->< w
PRINCIPLES OF PEDESTRIAN
DESIGN
Within various p lanning for greenways, pedestrian master plans , and other
aspects of pedestrian infrastructure de velo pment are principles which serve
to enhance the safety of pedestrians, and which formulate the thought process
behind how we should be designing pedestrian space.
Through review of standards and other documents, we find that there
are principles to adhere to for crossings and to ensure adequate spaces for
pedestrians . Yet, merely providing adequate space for pedestrians does not
create true walkability. Accessibility to destinations, co nsiderati ons of safety,
and oft-forgotten lighting are key elements. Wayfin ding, too, serves to enhance
the walking experience. Ul timately, we find through various literature that the
walking environment is best enhanced through the provision of an aesthetically
pleasing, safe environment that provides opportunity for interactions with
other people.
Each category also has their own principles , based on the intent of the facility.
SIDEWALKS
We ll -des igned sidewalks at minimum ten d to have accessibility for all users,
including the handicapped; adequate width, generally at least 2 people
standing side-by-side in one direction and wi th room to pass walkers in the
opposite direction; continuous from block to block; safety in the form of not
only perception, based on predictability, bu t also shelter from tra ffi c; and
appropriate drainage , to prevent sta nding water and slipping. Invariably,
sidewalks are noted to vary based on location. The City of Sunrise Bicycle and
Pedestrian plan, for example uses the following for Sidewa lk Widths:
~ Local Streets: 5-6 feet
~ Commercial Areas: 6-12 feet
~ Arterials and Collectors: 6-8 feet
Standard thoughts on sidewalks include four distinct zones: the frontage zone,
the pedestrian (aka wa lki ng) zone, the furniture zone, and the curb zo ne . The
minimum widths of each of thes e zones vary based on street classifications as
well as land uses . The table at the end of this chapter recommends minimum
widths for each zone for different street types and land uses.
Frontage Zone
The frontage zone is the portion of the sidewalk loca ted immediately adjacent
to buildings , and provides shy distance from buildings , wal ls, fences, or
property lines. It includes space for building-related features such as entryways
and accessible ramps . It can include landscaping as well as awnings, signs,
news racks, benches, and outdoor cafe seating. In single family res id ential
neighborhoods, landscaping typically occu pi es the frontage zone.
Pedestrian Zone
The pedestria n zone, situated between the frontage zo ne and the furniture
zone, is the area dedicated to walk ing and should be kept clear of all fixtures and
obstructions . Within the pedestrian zone, the Pedestrian Access Route (PA R) is
the path that provides continuous connectio ns from the public right-of-way to
building and property entry paints, parking areas, and public transportation.
This pathway is required to comply with ADA guidelines and is intended t o be
a seamless pathway for wheelchair and w hite cane users. As such, this route
should be firm, stable, and slip-resistant, and should comply with maximum
cross slope requirements (2 percent grade). The walkway grade shall not exceed
the general grade ofthe adjacent street. Aesthetic textured paveme nt materials
(e.g., brick and pavers) are best used in the frontage and furniture zones, rather
than the PAR. The PAR should be a minimum of 4 feet, but preferably at least 5
feet in width to provide adequate space for two pedestrians to comfortably pass
or wa lk side by side. All transitions (e.g., from street to ramp or ramp to landing)
must be flush and free of changes in level. The engineer should determine the
pedestrian zone w idth to accommo date the projected volume of users. In no
case will this zone be less than the width of the PAR.
Non -compliant driveways often present signi fic ant obstacles to whee lcha ir
users. The cross slope on these driveways is often much steeper than the 2
percent maximum grade. Drivewa y aprons that extend into the pedestrian
zone can render a sidewa lk impassable to users of wheelch airs , walkers, and
crutches. They need a flat plane on which to rest all four sup ports (two in the
case of crutches). To provide a continuous PAR across driveways, aprons should
be confined to the furniture and curb zones.
Furniture Zone
The furniture zone is located between the curb line and the pedestrian zone.
The furniture zone should contain all fixtures, such as street trees, bus stops
and she lters, parki ng meters, utility poles and boxes, lamp posts, signs, bike
racks, news racks, benches, waste receptacles, drinki ng fountains, and other
street furniture to keep the pedestrian zone free of obstructions. In residential
neighborhoods, the furniture zone is often landscaped. Resting areas w ith
benches and space for wheelchai rs should be provide d in high volume pedestrian
districts and along blocks w ith a steep grade to provide a place to rest for older
adults, wheelchair users, and others who need to catch their breath.
Curb Zone
The curb zone serves primarily to prevent w ater and cars from encroaching on
the sidewalk. It defines where t he area for pedestrians begins, and the area for
cars ends. It is the area people using assistive devices must traverse to get from
the street to the Sidewalk, so its design is critical to accessibility.
Each category also has their own principles, based on the intent of the facilit y.
CROSSINGS
Inevita b ly, pedestrian access involves crossing to get to t he other side, either to
reach your destination, or a transit location. Pedestria ns must be able to cross
safely at these points, and planning for a community implies that we must also
design for more vulnerable groups. Id eas such as bulbouts which can reduce
SOUTH M IAM I COMPLETE STREETS PLAN -2 ~ 19/:~~ ~~~
crossing lengths, can be considered a good usage of space when designing
Complete Streets.
As with other fo rm s of the pedestrian environment, accessibility guidelines
such as the provision of ramps must be incl uded , and both the real and
perceived levels of safety must be considered. Each crossing, just like roadway
intersection de sign, must be custom fit to the surrounding environment -
inclu ding considera tions of local vehicular speed. However, there are specific
requirements, such as high emphas is crosswalks within 0.25 miles of schools,
wh ich are speci fied and are incorporated into this design manual by reference.
Space permitting, median refuge island s can provide pedestrians and bicyclists
space t o perform the safe crossing of one side of the street at a time . This is
important for wider roads, where v ulnerable populations may not be able to
cross in a single time cycle.
Within South Miami, frequent, safe street crossings shou ld be provided ,
especially around bus stops and in more commercial areas, w ith the exception
of US-I, w he re crossings sho uld be more controlled due to vehicu lar usage and
speed. Crossings can be utilized to shorten pedestrian distances, especially with
larger blocks, increasi ng mobility and perceived accessibility. Midblock crOSSings
should be located as to provide safe , sign ali zed crossi ngs. At times, these can
be emplaced to allow for more immediate crossings after alighting from a bus.
In designing crossings, it is important t o make sure that the area is clear of
obstructions and is accessible; is visible for both drivers and pedestrians to
see each other, including good lighting as needed; with legible signs that offer
direction for the traveler.
Wayfinding :
Inclus ion of wayfinding helps to complete the pedestrian environment, and
should be included in any Complete Streets plan. Wayfinding which is clear will
allow both residents and visitors to find key destinations within the City. Travel
times or distance can be used t o inform the publ ic.
Lighting :
Lighting can serve multiple modes of trans portation . It serves to provide a
better sense of safety for transit riders waiting at a stop . It provides additional
visibility for bicyclists, pedestrians, and drivers, and is particularly important
at intersections. Lighting, however, can have different scales. Pedestrian scale
lighting can further define pedestrian areas a separate from the vehicular travel
lanes, and should be utilized in areas with higher pedestrian activity.
Seating :
As the de velop ment of pedestria n infrastructure should be for those of all ages,
the provision of amenities where one can rest is important, especially for the
very young and the elderly. Providing benches encourages people of all ages to
use the wa lk ways . Benches shoul d be a maximum 20" seat height in order to
comfortably accommodate the elderly.
Bringing it together is Key :
Pedestrian infrastructure begins with a Sidewalk, but that does not mean that
people w ill necessarily wa lk. There must be a level of comfort in addition to the
EXISTING STANDARDS
20 II 85
need to cause a shift in behavior. We know that ideas like safety is key. In the
end, all are related and must be cohesively combined.
One such example of a more cohesive look can be found with the Downtown
Miami Pedestrian Priority Zone Plan, which noted the following 10 principles
for development of the pedestrian realm within their zone:
1. Create a Clear Pedestrian Path
2. Align Curb Ramps with Sidewalks
3. Require Crosswalks at all Intersections
4. Provide Automatic Countdown Timers with More Crossing Time
5. Red uce Drive lane Widths
6. Extend the Sidewalk at all Intersections
7. Enhance Mid-block lighting
8. Provide Shade at Sidewalks
9. Designate 25 MPH Speed limit
10. Prohibit Right Turns On Red
Soura: Bcsron CompI~~ Streets Gwt:idmes
PEDESTRIAN CROSSING TOOLBOX
Desp ite understanding the principles, one must still then appropraitely apply
tools and methods in order to ensure that the pedestrian infrastructure is
appropriated improved. Engineering standards may be more stringent or
loose depending on jurisdiction, but generally, overall, the available toolbox
of options remains the same. The following is derived from the los Angeles
County living Streets Manual, adapted based on Miami·Dade County and FDOT
standards, and provides a detailed description of various pedestrian crossing
improvements which may be emp loyed.
Many engineering measures may be used at a pedestrian crOSSing, depending
on site conditions and potential users. Marked crosswalks are commonly used
at intersections and sometimes at mid-block locations. Marked crosswalks are
often the first measure in the toolbox followed by a series of other measures
that are used to enhance and improve marked crosswalks. The decision to mark
a crosswalk shou ld not be considered in isolation, but rather in conjunction
with other measures to increase awareness of pedestrians. Without additional
measures, marked crosswal ks alone may not increase pedestrian safety,
particularly on multi-lane streets.
MARKED CROSSWALKS
Crosswalks are present by law at all
intersections, whether marked or
unmarked, unless the pedestrian
crossing is specifically prohibited.
At mid-block locations, crosswalks
only exist where marked. At these
non-intersection locations, the
crosswalk markings legally estab li sh
the crosswa lk. Crosswalks should be
considered at mid-block locations
="m"~ -'-.... . ..;;;,.. ----=
where there is strong evidence that TYPlcmcrosswolkmQtd.,~:,;;n~!::;::/:a~
pedestrians want to cross there, due to
origins and destinations across from each other and an overly long walking
distance to the nearest controlled crossing. Marked crosswalks alert drivers
to expect crOSSing pedestrians and direct pedestrians to desirable crossing
locations.
Crosswalk Markings
According to the MUTCD, the minimum crosswa lk marking shall consist of solid
white lines. They shall not be le ss than 6 inches or greater than 24 inches in
width.
Placement
The best locatio ns to install marked crosswalks are
~ All signalized intersections
~ Crossings near transit locations
~ Trail crossings
~ High land use generators
~ School wa lking routes
~ When there is a preferred crossing location due to sight distance
~ Where needed to enable comfortable crossings of multi-lane streets
between controlled crossings spaced at convenient distances
Controlled Intersections
Intersections can be controlled by traffic signals or STOP signs. Marked crosswalks
shoul d be provided on all intersection legs controlled by traffic signals, unless
the pedestrian crossing is specifically prohibited. Marked crosswalks may be
considered at STOP-controlled intersections. Factors to be considered include
high pedestrian volumes, high ve hicle volumes, school zone location, high
vo lume of elderly or disabled users, or other safety related criteria.
Uncontrolled Intersections and Mid-block Crosswalks
Intersecti ons without traffic signals or STOP signs are considered uncontrolled
intersections. The decision to mark a crosswa lk at an uncontrolled location
shou ld be guided by an engineering study. Factors considered in the study should
include vehicular vo lumes and speeds, roadway width and number of lanes ,
stopping sight distance and triangles, distance to the next controlled crOSSing,
night time visibil ity, grade, origin·destination of trips, left turning conflicts,
and pedestrian volumes. The engineering study should be based on the FHWA
study, Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled
locations. The following list provides some of the key recommendations from
the study:
l e Si a § • 1 1";-~
Unct)f1tT~/eda~ O[four~on~ SO't'erS am bedijJiculr to cross WIthout ~aI treotmmts
lite medians and cum exrmll0fl5 .(Ct~t Mich~e Wtisbart}
It is permissible to mark crosswalks on two-lane roadways.
~ On multi-lane roadways, marked crosswalks alone are not recommended
under the following conditions (the other tools listed in this section can
be considered to enhance the crosswalk):
T ADT> 12,000 wlo median
T ADT> 15,000 wi median
T Speeds greater than 40 mph
~ Raised medians can be used to reduce risk.
~ Signals or other treatments should be considered where there are
many young andlor elderly pedestrians.
Frequency of Marked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations
Marked crosswalks should be spaced so people can cross at preferred locations.
If people are routinely crossing streets at non-preferred locations, consideration
should be given to installing a new crossing. Pedestrians need crossings with
appropriate devices (islands, curb extensions , ad vanced yield lines, etc.) of
multi-lane streets where there are strong desire lines. Along urban streets, a
well-designed crossing should be prov ided at least every 1/8 mile .
High-Visibility Crosswalks
Because of the low approach
ang le at which pavement
markings are viewed by
drivers , the use of longitudinal
stripes in addition t o o r in
place of transverse markings
can Significantly increas e
the visibility of a crosswalk
to oncoming traffic. While
research has not shown a
direct link between increased
crosswalk visibility and
increased pedestrian safety,
high-visibility crosswalks have
Longitudinal aosswol/c marlrings ort! mort! visible rhon
lot~ol aosswaik mari6n gs (c'~r' Mid'lde Wd sbart)
been shown to increase motorist yielding and channelization of pedestrians,
leading the Federal Highway Administration to conclude that high-v isibility
pedestrian crosswalks have a positive effect on pedestrian and driver behavior.
Colored and stamped crosswalks should only be used at controlled locations.
Staggered longitudinal markings reduce maintenance since they avoid vehicle
w heel path s.
CROSSWALKS AND ACCESSIBILITY
The Pedestrian Access Route continues through the crosswalk and must
conform to the surface condition, Width, and slope requirements as mandated
by FOOT and Miami-Dade County.
Longitudinal crosswalk markings provide the best visibility for pedestrians with
limited vi sion.
Decorative crosswalk pavement materials should be chosen with care to ensure
that smooth surface conditions and high contrast with surrounding pavement
1-I .-J -~,-.
"
~'II-r . 'J "i I. 'I ; \ ~ I:~~i l~~ , !tt ) ... ~.~): ~~.~ . 1-~
~ --, 0.'1
--g~:~,c "~ -.-:--:~--'·'--1
.. _~ ",",~cc~ ~=~-.~
..
are provided. Textured materials within the crosswalk are not recommended.
Without reflective materials, these treatments are not visible to drivers at
night. Decorative pavement materials often deteriorate over time and become
a maintenance problem while creating uneven pavement. The use of color
or material to delineate the crosswalks as a replacement of retro·reflective
pavement marking should not be used, except in slow speed districts where
intersecting streets are designed for speeds of 20 mph or less .
RAISED CROSSING ISLANDS/MEDIANS
Raised islands and medians are the most important, safest , and most adaptable
engineering tool for improving street crossings. Note on terminology: a median
is a continuous raised area separating opposite flows of traffic. A crossing
island is shorter and located just where a pedestrian crossing is needed. Raised
medians and crossing islands are commonly used between intersections when
blocks are long (500 feet or more in downtowns) and in the following situations:
~ Speeds are higher than desired
~ Streets are wide
~ Traffic volumes are high
~ Sight distances are poor
Raised islands have nearly universal applications and should be placed where
there is a need for people to cross the street. They are also used to slow traffic.
REASONS FOR EFFICACY
Their use changes a complex
task, croSSing a wide street with
traffic coming from two opposing
directions all at once, into two
simpler and smaller tasks. With
their use, conflicts occur in only one
direction at a time, and exposure
time can be reduced from more
than 20 seconds to just a few
seconds.
On streets with traffic speeds higher than 30 mph, it may be unsafe to cross
without a median island . At 30 mph, motorists travel 44 feet each second,
placing them 880 feet out when a pedestrian starts crossing an 80·foot wide
multi·lane road. In this Situation , this pedestrian may still be in the last travel
lane when the car arrives there; that car was not within view at the time he
or she started crossing. With an island on multi-lane roadways, people would
cross two or three lanes at a time instead of four or six. Having to wait for a
gap in only one direction of travel at a time significantly reduces the wait time
to cross. Medians and crossing islands have been shown to reduce crashes by
40 percent (Federal Highway Administration, Designing for Pedestrian Safety
course).
As a general rule , crossing islands are preferable to signal'controlled crossings
due to their lower installation and maintenance cost, reduced waiting times, and
SOUTH MIAMI CO M PLETE STREETS PLAN -2~ 21 /:~~ ~~~
their safety benefits. Crossing islands are also used with road diets, taking four·
lane undivided, high·speed roads down to better performingthree·lane roadways
(two travel lanes and a center turn lane); portions of the center turn lane can be
dedicated to crossing islands. Crossing islands can also be used with Signals.
Angled pedestrian crossings through pedestrian refuges (as shown in the
adjacent photo) force pedestrians to look for oncoming vehicles . Where to
Place CrOSSing Islands
Crossing islands are often used for trails, high pedestrian flo w lones, t ransit
stations, schools, work centers, and shopping districts.
Design Detail
Crossing islands, like most traffic calming features, perform best with both
tall trees and low ground cover. This greatly increases their visibility, reduces
surprise, and lowers the need for a plethora of signs. When curves or hill crests
complicate crossing locations, median islands are often extended over a crest
or around a curve to where motorists have a clear (six second or longer) sight
line of the downstream change in conditions. Lighting of median islands is
essential. The suggested minimum width of a crossing island is 6 feet. When
used on higher speed roads , and where there is space available, inserting a
4s·degree bend to the right helps orient pedestrians to the risk they encounter
from motorists during the second half of their crossing.
Multiple rods con bt!mtp/oy~ (oimprove uncontroll~ aossi~s. (Cr~t: Dan Burden)
RAISED CROSSWALKS
Raised crosswalks slow traffic and
put pedestrians in a more visible
pOSition. They are trapezoidal in
shape on both sides and have a flat
top where the pedestrians cross.
The level crosswalk area must be
paved with smooth materials; any
texture or special pavements used
for aesthetics should be placed on
the beveled slopes, where they will
be seen by approaching motorists.
They are most appropriate in areas
with significant pedestrian traffic R",,,,,,,,,,,,,,",UN<; Ch,pelHiIl. NC(""",Ryoo5nyd«1
and where motor vehicle traffic should move Slowly, such as near schools,
on college campuses , in Main Street retail environments, and in other similar
EXISTING STANDARDS
22 II 85
places. They are especially effective near elementary schools where they raise
small children by a few inches and make them more visible.
CURB EXTENSIONS
Curb extensions extend the sidewalk or curb line out into the parking lane,
w hich reduces the effective street width. Curb extensions significantly improve
pedestrian crOSSings by reducing the pedestrian crossing distance, visually and
physically narrowing the roadway, improving the ability of pedestrians and
motorists to see each other, and reducing the time that pedestrians are in the
street. Reducing street widths improves signal timing since pedestrians need
less time to cross.
Motorists typical ly travel more slowly at intersections or mid-block locations
w ith curb extensions, as the restricted street width sends a visual cue to slow
down. Turning speeds are lower at intersections with curb extensions (curb radii
should be as tight as is practicable). Curb extensions also prevent motorists
from parking too close to the intersection.
Curb extensions also provide additional space for two curb ramps and for level
sidewalks where existing space is limited, increase the pedestrian waiting
space, and provide additional space for pedestrian push button poles, street
f urnishings , plantings, bike parking and other amenities. A benefit for drivers is
that extensions allow for better placement of signs (e.g., stop signs and signals).
Curb extensions are generally only appropriate where there is an on-street
parking lane . Where street width permits, a gently tapered curb extension
can reduce crossing distance at an intersection along streets without on-street
parking, without creating a hazard. Curb extensions must not extend into travel
lanes or bicycle lanes .
ExomP~ of curb erten.sions (Crecir: Marcel SdJmoecick)
Curb extensions can impact other aspects of roadway design and operation as
follows:
.. May impact street drainage and require catch basin relocation
.. May impact underground utilities
.. May require loss of curbside parking, though careful planning often
mitigates this potential loss , for example by relocating curbside fire
hydrants, where no parking is allowed, to a curb extension
.. Ma y complicate delivery access and garbage removal
.. May impact snow plows and street sweepers
.. May affect the turning movements of larger vehicles such as school
buses and large fire trucks
PEDESTRIAN 'SCRAMBLES '
Exclusive pedestrian phases (i.e. pedestrian 'scrambles') may be used where
turning vehicles conflict with very high pedestrian volumes and pedestrian
crossing distances are short. Although pedestrians can cross in any direction
during the pedestrian phase, pedestrians typically have to wait for both vehicle
phases before they get the walk signal again. This creates delay for pedestrians
travelling straight, but can be mitigated by allowing pedestrians continuing
along the same direction to get a WALK signal during the green signal phase
and while turns are prohibited for traffic.
SIGNS
Signs can provide important information to improve road safety by letting people
know what to expect, so they can react and behave appropriately. Sign use and
placement should be done judiciously, as overuse breeds noncompliance and
disrespect. Too many signs create visual clutter.
Regulatory signs , such as STOP, YIELD, orturn restrictions, require driver actions
and can be enforced. Warning signs provide information, especially to motorists
and pedestrians unfamiliar with an area.
Advance pedestrian warning signs should be used where pedestrian crossings
may not be expected by motorists, espec ially if there are many motorists who
are unfamiliar with the area. The fluorescent yellow/green color is designated
specifically for pedestrian, bicycle, and school warning signs (Section 2A.I0 of
the 2009 MUTCD) and should be used for all new and replacement installations.
This bright color attracts the attention of drivers because it is unique.
Sign RI-S should be used in conjunction with advance yield lines, as described
below. Sign R1-6 may be used on median islands, where they will be more
visible to motorists than signs placed on the side of the street, especially where
there is on-street parking.
All signs should be periodically checked to make sure that they are in good
condition, free from graffiti, reflective at night, and continue to serve a purpose.
All sign installations need to comply with. the provisions of the MUTCD .
ADVANCED YIELD/STOP LINES
Stop lines are solid white lines 12 to 24 inches wide, extending across all
approach lanes to indicate where vehicles must stop in compliance with a
stop sign or signal. Advance stop lines reduce vehicle encroachment into the
crosswa lk and improve drivers' view of pedestrians. At signalized intersections
a stop line is typically set back between 4 and 6 feet.
Vl
HERE ~
PEDESTRIA NS
• HERE ~
PEDESTRIANS
V
HERE ...
~I\
G
HERE ... ~RI\
At uncontrolled crossings of multi-lane roads, advance yield lines can be an
effective tool for preventing multiple threat vehicle and pedestrian collisions.
Section 38.16 of the MUTCD specifies placing advanced yield markings 20 to 50
feet in advance of crosswalks, depending upon location-specific variables such
as vehicle speeds, traffic control, street width, on-street parking, potential for
visual confusion, nearby land uses w ith vulnerable populations, and demand
for queuing space. Thirty feet is the preferred setback for effectiveness at many
locations . This setback allows a pedestrian to see if a car in the second (or third )
lane is stopping after a driver in the first lane has stopped.
LIGHTING
Lighting is important to include at all pedestrian crossing locations for the
comfort and safety of the road users. Lighting should be present at all marked
crossing locations. lighting provides cues to drivers to expect pedestrians
earlier.
FHWA HT-OS-OS3, The Information Report on Lighting Design for Mid-
block Crosswalks, found that a vertical illumination of 20 lux in front of the
crosswalk, measured at a height of 5 feet from the road surface, provided
adequate detection distances in most circumstances. Although the research
was constrained to mid -block placements of crosswalks, the report includes
a brief discussion of considerations in lighting crosswalks co-located with
intersections. The same principle applies at intersections. Illumination just in
front of crosswalks creates optimal visibility of pedestrians. -r r---. ,. -. ,.-:;:.., ..
", ...
~ ~ ~
/// ....... /,/",// .... -.... ··'~-..r",IIII.IlH '[f .-, ... •
Fe stands for "foot candle" and is defined as the amount of illu m inance on a 1 square foot surface of which there is uniformly distributed flux of one lumen.
Other good guidance on crosswalk lighting levels comes from the Illuminating
EngineeringSociety of North America (IESNA) intersection guidance to illuminate
pedestrians in the crosswalk to vehicles (see the adjacent image). Crosswalk
lighting should provide color contrast from standard roadway lighting.
PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON
A pedestrian hybrid beacon is used to warn and control traffic at an unsignalized
location so as to help pedestrians cross a street or highway at a marked
crosswalk.
A pedestrian hybrid beacon can be used at a location that does not meet traffic
signal warrants or at a location that meets traffic signal warrants but a decision
has been made to not install a traffic control signal. A minimum number of 20
pedestrians per hour is needed to warrant installation. This is substantially less
than the 93 minimum needed for a signal installation.
If beacons are used, they should be placed in conjunction wi th signs, crosswalks,
and advanced yield lines to warn and control traffic at locations where
pedestrians enter or cross a street or highway. A pedestrian hybrid beacon
should only be installed at a marked crosswalk.
Installations should be done according to the MUTCD Chapter 4F, "Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacons." Cities should follow the formal experimental process to use
these.
Rmon9ulor ropid-flosil beacon (Credr : SPOT Dtvices)
RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASH BEACON
The Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon (RRFB) uses rectangular-shaped high-
intensity LED-based indications, flashes rapidly in a wig-wag "flickering" flash
pattern, and is mounted immediately between the crossing sign and the sign's
supplemental arrow plaque .
FHWA Evaluation of Results
The Office of Transportation Operations has reviewed available data and
considers the RRFB to be highl y successful for the applications tested
(uncontro lled crosswalks). The RRFB offers significant potential safety and cost
benefits because it achieves very high rates of compliance at a very low cost
compared to other more restrictive devices such as full mid-block Signalization.
The components of the RRFB are not proprietary and can be assembled by any
jurisdiction with off-the-shelf hardware. The FHWA believes that the RRFB has
a low risk of safety or operational concerns. However, because proliferation of
RRFBs in the roadway environment to the point that they become ubiquitous
could decrease their effectiveness, use of RRFBs should be limited to locations
with the most critical safety concerns, such as pedestrian and school crosswalks
at uncontrolled locations, as tested in the experimentation.
At a recent meeting of the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices, the Signals Technical Committee voted to endorse the future inclusion
ofthe RRFB for uncontrolled crosswalks into the MUTCD and recommended that
FHWA issue an Interim Approval for RRFB. This Interim Approval allows agencies
to install this type of flashing beacon, pending official MUTCD rulemaking.
PRINCIPLES OF BICYCLE
ENVIRONMENT DESIGN
Compared to walking, bicyclists have more mobility, and the provision of
bicycling facilities in a community allows for greater accessibility over a wider
area. Ho wever, to encourage bicycling as a form of transportation, it must be
viewed as safe, convenient, and comfortable. The ability to secure one's bicycle
at the destination, or on transit is a consideration which many bicyclists have.
Every street can accommodate bicycles, but the type of facilities utilized should
be based on the roadway and potential usage. These types of facilities vary
SOUTH MIAMI COMPLETE STREETS PLAN -2 ~ 23/:~: ~~~
from on-road to off-road faCilities. Most bicycle trips are short, allowing for a
grid of Y, mile to be sufficient in completing a local network. As planned, South
Miami's grid allows for the y, mile network development, and the grid as noted
in the SMITP wo uld complete the system.
Often, as will be the case with some part of South Miami, the inclusion of bicycle
facilities in the roadway will be contingent of securing the right-of-way from the
ve hicle, either through lane configuration or road diets.
Bicycles provide an alternative means of reach transit. Encouragement of bicycle
usage in this regards involves safe access and secure parking. Paths should
include amenities such as lighting, signage, and fencing (where appropriate),
w hich enhance safety.
When possible, bicycle park should be provided free of charge, and where
possible, off-street parking should be utilized.
WAYFINDING
Similarly to walkers, bicyclists can benefit from a co hesive wayfinding system
as we ll. These signs can also include both distance t o destination and expected
time to destination. Generally, signs, should be placed at the convergence of
two or more routes, and assist bicyclists in finding their w ay t o key destinations.
The inclusion of bicycle wayfinding should be implemented in the City as this
improvement allows for motorists to be aware of bicyclists in the area. However,
care must be taken to not clutter the right-of-way with sign age.
Generally, Bicycle facilities should be visibly marked. Bicycle lanes and Cycle
Tracks should all therefore be marked with green lanes where possible.
BICYCLE FACILITIES DESIGN
As with pedestrian facilities, one must still then apply appropriate tools in order
to ensure that bicycle infrastructure is improved. Engineering standards may
be more stringent or loose depending on jurisdiction, but generally, overall,
the available toolbox of options remains the same in developing for bicycle
infrastructure. As different options exist, design is contingent on the availability
of space. For example, two bicycle lanes and two sidewalks will at minimum
take approximately 18' of right of way, but a shared-use facility and a sidewalk
on the other side of the road may reasonably fit on 13' -15' of right of way.
The following bikeway design standards are derived from the MUTCD, AASHTO,
and Miami-Dade and FOOT standards and are modified categorically from the
Los Angeles County Living Streets Manual to fit Florida and Miami-Dade County
requirements to become applicable for South Miami.
EXISTING STANDARDS
24 II 85
BIKEWAY TYPES
A designated bikeway network provides a system of facilities that offers
enhancement or priority to bicyclists over other roadways in the network.
However, it is important to remember that all streets in a city should safely
and comfortably accommodate bicyclists, regardless of whether the street is
designated as a bikeway. Several general types of bikeways are listed below
with no implied order of preference.
Shared Roadways
A shared roadway is a street in which bicyclists ride in the same travel lanes as
other traffic. There are no specific dimensions for shared roadways. On narrow
travel lanes, motorists have to cross over into the adjacent travel lane to pass a
cyclist. Shared roadways work well and are common on low-volume, low-speed
neighborhood residential streets, rural roads, and even many low-volume
highways.
8kyd~rolJte (Credit: Marty Bruinsma)
Bicycle Boulevards
A bicycle boulevard is a street that has been modified to prioritize through
bicycle traffic but discourage through motor vehicle traffic. Traffic calming
devices control traffic speeds and discourage through trips by automobiles.
Traffic controls limit conflicts between automobiles and bicyclists and give
priority to through bicycle movement at intersections.
Shoulder Bikeways
This facility accommodates bicycle travel on rural highways and country roads
by providing a suitable area for bicycling and reducing conflicts with faster
moving motor vehicles.
Bike lanes
Portions of the traveled wa y designated with striping, stenCils, and signs
for preferential use by bicyclists, bike lanes are appropriate on avenues and
boulevards . They may be used on other streets where bicycle travel and demand
is substantial. Where on-street parking is provided, bike lanes are striped on the
left side of the parking lane.
Cycle Tracks
"<.r~..:.:;---':,;',
~~> '.0_ c~·.,t
Cycle tracks are specially designed bikeways separated from the parallel motor
vehicle travelway by a line of parked cars, landscaping, or a physical buffer that
motor vehicles cannot cross. Cycle tracks are effective in attracting users who
are concerned about conflicts with motorized traffic.
Shared Use Paths
Shared use paths are facilities separated
from motor vehicle traffic by an open
space or barrier, either within the
highway right-of-way or within an
independent right-of-way. Bicyclists,
pedestrians, joggers, and skaters often
use these paths. Shared-use paths are
appropriate in areas not well served
by the street system, such as in long,
relatively uninterrupted corridors like
waterways, utility corridors, and rail
lines . They are often elements of a E.xompleofOshored-u~~:::a~~~
community trail plan . Shared use paths may also be integrated into the street
network with new subdivisions as described in Chapter 3, "Street Networks and
Classifications."
Bike Routes
A term used for planning purposes or to designate recommended bicycle
touring routes, a bike route can be any bikeway type.
INTEGRATING WITH THE STREET SYSTEM
Most bikeways are part of the street; therefore, well-connected street systems
are very conducive to bicycling, especially those with a fine-meshed network
of low-volume, low-speed streets suitable for shared roadways. In less well-
connected street systems, where wide streets carry the bulk of traffic, bicyclists
need supplementary facilities, such as short sections of paths and bridges, to
connect otherwise unconnected streets.
There are no hard and fast rules for when a specific type of bikeway should be
used, but some general principles guide selection. As a general rule, as traffic
volumes and speeds increase, greater separation from motor vehicle traffic is
desirable. Other factors to consider are users (more children or recreational
cyclists may warrant greater separation), adjacent land uses (multiple driveways
may cause conflicts with shared-use paths), available right-of-way (separated
facilities require greater width), and costs.
As a general rule, designated bicycle facilities (e.g., bike lanes and cycle tracks)
should be provided on all major streets (avenues and boulevards), as these
roads generally offer the greatest level of directness and connectivity in the
network, and are typically where destinations are located. There are occasions
when it is infeasible or impractical to provide bikeways on a busy street, or the
street does not serve the mobility and access needs of bicyclists. The following
guidelines should be used to determine if it is more appropriate to provide
facilities on a parallel local street:
~ Conditions exist such that it is not economically or environmentally
feasible to provide adequate bicycle faCilities on the street.
~ The street does not provide adequate access to destination pOints
within reasonable walking distances, or separated bikeways on the
street would not be considered safe.
~ The parallel route provides continuity and convenient access to
destinations served by the street.
~ Costs to improve the parallel route are no greater than costs to improve
the street.
~ If any of these factors are met, cyclists may actually prefer the parallel
local street facility in that it may offer a higher level of comfort (bicycle
boulevards are based on this approach).
Off-street paths can also be used to provide transportation in corridors otherwise
not served by the street system, such as along rivers and canals, through parks,
along utility corridors, on abandoned railroad tracks, or along active railroad
rights-of-way. While paths offer the safety and scenic advantages of separation
from traffic, they must also offer frequent connections to the street system
and to destinations such as residential areas, employment sites, shopping, and
schools. Street crossings must be well designed with measures such as signals
or median refuge islands.
DESIGN OF EACH BIKEWAY TYPE
The following sections provide design guidance for each type of bikeway.
Shared Roadways
Shared roadways are the most common bikeway type. There are no specific
width standards for shared roadways. Most are fairly narrow; they are simply
the streets as constructed. Shared roadways are suitable on streets with low
motor vehicle speeds or traffic volumes, and on low-volume rural roads and
highways. The suitability of a shared roadway decreases as motor vehicle traffic
speeds and volumes increase, especially on rural roads with poor sight distance.
Many local streets carry excessive traffic volumes at speeds higher than they
were designed to carry. These can function better as shared roadways if traffic
speeds and volumes are reduced. For a local street to function acceptably as
a shared roadway, traffic volumes should not be more than 3,000 to 5,000
vehicles per day, and speeds should be 25 mph or less. If traffic speeds and
volumes exceed those thresholds, separated facilities (e.g., bike lanes) should
be considered or traffic calming should be applied to reduce the vehicle
speeds/volumes. Many traffic-calming techniques can make these streets more
amenable to bicycling.
Wide Curb lanes
On streets where bike lanes would be more appropriate but with insufficient
width for bike lanes, wide curb lanes may be provided. This may occur on
retrofit projects where there are physical constraints and all other options,
such as narrowing travel lanes, have been pursued. Wide curb lanes are not
particularly attractive to most cyclists; they simply allow a passenger vehicle
to pass cyclists within a travel lane, if cyclists are riding far enough to the right.
Wide curb lanes may also encourage higher motor vehicle speeds, which is
contrary to the design principles of this manual; wide lanes should never be
used on local residential streets. A 14 to is-foot wide lane allows a passenger
car to pass a cyclist in the same lane. Widths 16 feet or greater encourage the
undesirable operation of two motor vehicles in one lane. In this situation, a bike
lane should be striped .
Sharrows
Shared-lane marking stencils ("SLMs," also commonly called "sharrows") may
be used as an additional treatment for shared roadways. The stencils can serve
a number of purposes: they remind bicyclists to ride further from parked cars to
prevent "dooring" collisions, they make motorists aware of bicycles potentially
in the travel lane, and they show bicyclists the correct direction of travel.
Sharrows installed next to parallel parking should be a minimum distance of 11
feet from the curb. Installing farther than 11 feet from the curb may be desired
in areas with wider parking lanes or in situations where the sharrow is best
situated in the center of the shared travel lane to promote cyclists taking the
lane. Placing the sharrow between vehicle tire tracks increases the life of the
markings and decreases long-term maintenance costs.
Centerline Removal
On streets with one travel lane in each direction, removal of the centerline is
recommended to facilitate passing of bicyclists by motor vehicles. Motorists
may be unwilling to cross over a centerline to pass a cyclist, resulting in
instances where motorists feel like they are stuck behind a slower moving
cyclist and attempt to pass the cyclist too closely. Cyclists in these situations
may feel pressured to ride to the extreme far right or in the gutter to allow
motorists to pass. Removal of the centerline opens the entire traveled way for
passing, and allows bicyclists to position themselves at a safe and comfortable
distance from the curb. Lack of centerlines is also a traffic-calming technique,
as drivers tend to drive slower without the visible separation from oncoming
traffic. The MUTCD mandates centerline stripes on urban streets with ADT of
6,000 or more; most neighborhood streets suitable for sharing are well below
that threshold
BICYCLE BOULEVARDS
A bicycle boulevard is an enhanced shared roadway; a local street is modified
to function as a prioritized through street for bicyclists while maintaining local
access for automobiles. This is done by adding traffic-calming devices to reduce
motor vehicle speeds and through trips, and installing traffic controls that limit
conflicts between motorists and bicyclists and give priority to through bicyclist
movement. Components of bike boulevards (Credit: Michele Weisbart)
Components o{bike boulevards (Cted;t: Michele Wesbart)
One key advantage of bicycle boulevards is that they attract cyclists who do
not feel comfortable on busy streets and prefer to ride on lower traffic streets.
Bicycle travel on local streets is generally compatible with local land uses (e.g.,
residential and some retail). Residents who want slower traffic on neighborhood
streets often like measures that support bicycle boulevards. By reducing
traffic and improving crossings, bicycle boulevards also improve conditions
for pedestrians. Successful bicycle boulevard implementation requires careful
planning with residents and businesses to ensure acceptance
Elements of a Bicycle Bo u levard
A successful bike boulevard includes the following design elements:
~ Selecting a direct and continuous street, rather than a circuitous
route that winds through neighborhoods. Bike boulevards work best
on a street grid. If any traffic diversion will likely result from the bike
SOUTH MIAMI COMPLETE STREETS PLAN -2~ 25 /:~: ~~~
boulevard, selecting streets that have parallel higher-level streets can
prevent unpopular diversion to other residential streets.
~ Placing motor vehicle traffic diverters at key intersections to reduce
through motor vehicle traffic (diverters are designed to allow through
bicyclist movement)
~ Turning stop signs towards intersecting streets, so bicyclists can ride
with few interruptions
~ Replacing stop-controlled intersections with mini-circles and mini-
roundabouts to reduce the number of stops cyclists have to make
~ PlaCing traffic-calming devices to lower motor vehicle traffic speeds
~ Placing wayfinding and other signs or markings to route cyclists to key
destinations, to guide cyclists through difficult situations, and to alert
motorists of the presence of bicyclists
~ Where the bike boulevard crosses high-speed or high-volume streets ,
providing crossing improvements such as
T Signals, where a traffic study has shown that a signal will be safe
and effective. To ensure that bicyclists can activate the signal , loop
detection should be installed in the pavement where bicyclists ride .
T Roundabouts where appropriate.
T Median refuges wide enough to provide a refuge (8 feet minimum)
and with an opening wide enough to allow bicyclists to pass through
(6 feet). The design should allow bicyclists to see the travel lanes
they must cross.
SHOULDER BIKEWAYS
Paved shoulders are provided on rural highways for a variety of safety,
operational, and maintenance reasons; they also provide a place for bicyclists
to ride at their own pace, out of the stream of motorized traffic.
When providing shoulders for bicycle use, a minimum width of 6 feet is
recommended. This allows a cyclist to ride far enough from the edge of
pavement to avoid debris and far enough from passing vehicles to avoid
conflicts. On roads with prevailing speeds over 45 mph, 8 feet is preferred. If
there are physical width limitations, a minimum 4 foot shoulder may be used.
BIKE LANES
Bike lanes are a portion of the traveled way designated for preferential use by
bicyclists; they are most suitable on avenues and boulevards. Bike lanes may
also be provided on rural roads where there is high bicycle use. Bike lanes are
generally not recommended on local streets with relatively low traffic volumes
and speeds, where a shared roadway is the appropriate faCility. There are no
EXISTING STANDARDS
26 II 85
hard and fast mandates for providing bike lanes, but as a general rule, most
jurisd ictions consider bike lanes on roads with traffic volumes in excess of
3,000-5,000 ADT or traffic speeds of 30 mph or greater.
Bike lanes have the following advantages:
• They enable cyclists to ride at a constant speed, especially when traffic
in the adjacent travel lanes speeds up or slows down (stop-and-go).
• They enable bicyclists to position themselves where they will be visible
to motorists.
• They encourage cycl ists to ride on the traveled way rather than the
sidewalk.
Bike lanes are created with a solid stripe and stencils. Motorists are prohibited
from using bike lanes for driving and parking, but may use them for emergency
avoidance maneuvers or breakdowns. Bike lanes are one-way facilities that
carry bicycle traffic in the same direction as adjacent motor-vehicle traffic.
Bike lanes should always be provided on both sides of a two-way street. One
exception is on hills where topographical constraints limit the width to a bike
lane on one side only; the bike lane should be provided in the uphill direction
as cyclists ride slower uphill, and they can ride in a shared lane in the downhill
direction .
---.~
The minimum bike lane width is 5 feet from the face of a curb, or 4 feet on open
shoulders. If on-street parking is permitted, the bike lane should be placed
between parking and the travel lane with a preferred width of 6 feet so cyclists
can ride outs ide th·e door zone. Streets with high volu mes of traffic and/or
higher speeds need wider bike lanes (6 feet to 8 feet) than those with less traffic
or slow speeds . On curbed sections, a 4-foot (minimum 3 feet) wide smooth
surface should be provided between the gutter pan and stripe. This minimum
width enables cycl ists to ride far enough from the curb to avoid debris and
drainage grates and far enough from other veh icles to avoid conflicts. By riding
away from the curb , cyclists are more visi ble to motorists than when hugging
the curb . Where on-street parking is permitted, delineating the bike lane with
two stri pes , one on the street side and one on the parking side, is preferable to
a single stripe.
Bike lanes on Two-Way Streets
Basic bike lanes on two-way streets comprise the majority of bike lanes. They
should follow the design guidelines for width w ith and without on-street
parking.
Bike lanes on One-Way Streets
Bike lanes on one-way streets should generally be on the right side of the
traveled way and should always be provided on both legs of a one-way couplet.
The bike lane may be placed on the left of a one-way street if it decreases the
number of conflicts (e.g., those caused by heavy bus traffic or parking) and if
cyclists can safely and conveniently transition in and out of the bike lane. If
sufficient width exists, the bike lanes can be striped on both sides.
Contra-Flow Bike lanes
Contra-flow bike lanes are provided
to allow bicyclists to ride in the
oppOSite direction of motor vehicle
traffic. They convert a one-way traffic
street into a two-way street: one
direction for motor vehicles and bikes
and the other for bikes only. Contra-
flow lanes are separated with yellow
center lane striping. Combining both
directions of bicycle travel on one
side of the street to accommodate
contra-flow movement results in a
two-way cycle track.
Contra-flow bike lanes are useful
where they provide a substantial
savings in out-of-direction travel with
direct access to high-use destinations , Contro-flowbik~/on~deSlgn (Cffljt:M;chri~Wl!'isbort)
and safety is improved because of reduced conflicts compared to the longer
route. The contra-flow design introduces new design challenges and may create
additional conflict points as motorists may not expect on-coming bicyclists.
Bike lanes and Bus lanes
In most instances, bicycles and buses can share the available road space. On
routes heavily traveled by both bicyclists and buses , separation can reduce
conflicts (stopped buses hinder bicycle movement and slower moving bicycles
hinder buses). Ideally, shared bicycle/bus lanes should be 13 feet to 15 feet
wide to allow passing by both buses and bicyclists.
Separate bus lanes and bike lanes should be considered to reduce conflicts
between passengers and bicyclists, with the bus lane at the curbside. Buses will
be passing bicyclists on the right, but the fewer merging and turning movements
reduce overall conflicts.
Buffered Bike lanes
Buffered bike lanes provide a painted divider between the bike lane and the
travel lanes. This additional space can improve the comfort of cyclists as they
don't have to ride as close to motor vehicles. Buffered bike lanes can also be
used to slow traffic as they narrow the travel lanes. An additional buffer may
be used between parked cars and bike lanes to direct cyclists to ride outside of
the door zone of the parked cars . Buffered bike lanes are most appropriate on
wide, busy streets. They can be used on streets w here physically separating the
bike lanes with cycle tracks is undesirable for cost, operational, or maintenance
reasons.
Raised Bike lanes
Bike lanes are typically an integral portion of the traveled way and are delineated
from motor vehicle lanes with painted stripes. Though most bicyclists ride
on these facilities comfortably, others prefer more separation. Raised bike
lanes incorporate the convenience of riding on the street with some physical
separation. This is done by elevating the bicycle lane surface 2 to 4 inches above
street level, while providing a traversable curb to separate the bikeway from
the motor vehicle travelway. This treatment offers the following advantages:
• Motorists know they are straying from the travel way when they feel
the slight bump created by the curb.
• The mountable curb allows motorists to make turns into and out of
driveways.
• The mountable curb allows cyclists to enter or leave the bike lane (e.g.,
for turning left or overtaking another cyclist).
• The raised bike lane drains towards the centerline, leaving it clear of
debris and puddles.
• Novice bicyclists are more likely to ride in the bike lane, leaving the
sidewalk for pedestrians.
Raised bike lanes can be constructed at little additional expense for new roads.
Retrofitting streets with raised bike lanes is more costly; it is best to integrate
raised bike lanes into a larger project to remodel the street due to drainage
replacement. Special maintenance procedures may be needed to keep raised
bike lanes swept.
CYCLE TRACKS
Cycle tracks, also known as protected bike lanes, are bikeways located on or
adjacent to streets where bicycle traffic is separated from motor vehicle traffic
by physical barriers, such as on-street parking, posts/bollards, and landscaped
islands. They can be well suited to downtown areas where they minimize
traffic conflicts with pedestrians. Streets selected for cycle tracks should have
minimal pedestrian crossings and driveways. They should also have minimal
loading/unloading activity and other street activity. The cycle tracks should be
designed to minimize confl icts with these activities as well as with pedestrians
and driveways .
Cy cle tracks can be provided on new facilities, but they require more width
than other types of bikeways. They are best suited for existing streets where
surplus width is available; the combined width ofthe cycle track and the barrier
is more or less the width of a trave l lane. The area to be used by bicycles should
be designed w ith adequate width for street sweep in g t o ensure that debris
will not accumulate. Cycle tracks tend to work most effectively where there
are few uncontrolled cross in g points wi th unexpected traffic con flicts. Cycle
track concerns include treatment at intersections, uncontrolled mid block
driveways and crossings , w ron g-way bicycle traffic, and difficulty access ing or
exiting the facility at mid block locations. There is some controversy regarding
the comparative safety of cycle tracks. Recent studies have concluded that
cycle tracks are as safe as other treatments when high usage is expected and
when measures such as separate signal phases for righ t -turning motor veh icl e
and through cyclists , and left-turning cyclists and through motor vehicles, are
deployed to regulate crossing traffic.
Cycle tracks requ ire at least 10' of ROWand curb and gutter re qUire me nts, and
unlike Shared-use paths, stil l require a separate sidewalk facility.
SHARED USE PATHS
Shared use paths should be a minimum of 8 feet wide with 2 feet of graded
shoulder on each side . This width is suitable in rural or small-town se ttings.
Generally, 12 feet of paved path is preferred. Wider pavement may be needed
in high-use areas. Where significant numbers of pedestrians, bicyclists, skaters,
and other users use the paths , either wider pavement or separate walkways
he lp to elim inate conflicts. Most important in designing shared use paths is
good design of intersections where they cross streets. These crossing shou ld be
treated as intersections with appropriate treatment.
INTERSECTIONS
Inte rsections are junctions at which different modes of transportation meet
and facilities overlap. A well-designed intersection facilitates the interchange
between bicyclists, pedestrians, motorists, and transit so traffic flows in a safe
and efficient manner. Designs for intersections with bi cycle facilities should
reduce conflicts between bicyclists (and other vulnerable road users) and
vehicles by heightening visibility, denoting a clear right of way, and ensuring that
the variou s users are aware of each other. Intersection treatments can resolve
both queuing and mergin g man euvers for bicyclists, and are often coordinated
with timed or specialized signals.
Chapter 5, "Intersection Design," provides general principles of geometriC
design; all these recommendations will benefit cyclists. The configuration of a
safe intersection for bicyclists may include additional elements such as co lor,
signs, medians, sig nal detection, and pavement markings. Inte rsection design
should take into considera tion existing and antiCipated bicyclist, pedestrian, and
motorist movements. In all cases, the degree of mixing or se paration between
bicyclists and other modes is intended to reduce the risk of crashes and increase
bicyclist comfort. The level of treatment required for bicyclists at an intersection
w ill depend on the bi cycle facility type used, whether bicycle facilities are
in tersecting, the adjacent street function, and the adjacent land use
Bik~markingsQtint~(Cr~:Mich~~WesbarT)
BIKEWAY MARKINGS AT INTERSECTIONS
Bicycle Lanes can be marked green to better denote the facility. Continuing
marked bicycle facilities at intersections (up to the crosswalk) ensures that
separation, guidance on proper positioning, and aw areness by motorists are
maintained through these potential conflict areas . The appropriate treatment
for right-turn only lanes is to place a bike lane pocket between the right-
turn lane and the rightmost through lane . If a full bike lan e pocket cannot be
accommodated, a shared bicycle/right turn lane can be installed that places
a standard-width bike lane on the left side of a de dicated right-turn lane. A
dashed strip delineates the space for bicyclists and motorists within the shared
lane . This treatment includes signs adviSing motorists and bicyclists of proper
pOSitioning within t he lane. Sharrows are another option for marking a bikeway
through an intersection where a bike lane pocket cannot be accommodated.
BIKE SIGNAL HEADS
Bicycle signal heads may be installed at signalized intersections to improve
identified safety or operational problems for bicyclists; they provide guidance
for bicyclists at inte rsections where bicyclists may have different needs from
SOUTH MIAMI COMPLETE STREETS PLAN -2 ~ 27/:~~ """
other road users (e.g., b icycle -onl y movements and leading bicycle intervals)
or to indicate separate bicycle signal phases and other bicycle-specific timing
strategies. A bicycle signa l should on ly be used in combination with an existing
conventional or hybrid beacon. In the United States, bicycle signal heads
typically use standard thre e-lens signal heads in green , ye llow, and red with a
stencil of a bicycle.
BICYCLE SIGNAL DETECTION
Bicycle detection is used at actuated traffic signals to alert the Signal controller
of bi cycle crossing demand on a particular approach. Bicycl e detection occurs
either through the use of push bu ttons or by automated means (e.g ., in-
pavement loops, v ideo, and microwave). Inductive loop vehicle detection
at many signalized intersections is calibrated to the size or metallic mass of
a veh icle, meaning that bic ycles may often go undetected. The result is that
bicyclists must either wait for a vehicle to arrive, dismount, and push the
pedestrian button (if available), or cross illegally. Loop sensitivity can be
increased to detect bicycles.
Proper bicycle detection must accurately detect bicyclists (be sens itive to the
mass and volume of a bicycle and its rider); and provide clear guidance to
bicyclists on how to actuate detection (e.g., what button to push or where to
stand).
BIKE BOXES
A bike box is a deSignated area at the head of a traffic la ne at a signalized
intersection that provides bicyclists with a safe and visible way to get ahead of
queuing traffic during the red signal phase. Appropriate locations include:
.. At signal ized intersections with
high volumes of bicycles and/or
motor vehicles, especially those
wi th frequent bicyclist left-turns
and/or motorist right-turns
.. Where there may be right or
left-turning conflicts between
bicyclists and motorists Sicyde box: Portland. OR (Credit: Ryan Snyder)
.. Where there is a desire to better accommodate left-turning bicycle
traffic
.. Where a left turn is required to follow a deSignated bike route or
boulevard or access a shared-use path, or when the bicycle lane moves
to the left side of the street
.. When the dominant motor veh icle traffic flows right and bicycle traffic
continues through (such as at a Y intersection or access ramp)
EXISTING STANDARDS
28 II 85
BICYCLE COUNTDOWNS
Near-si de bicycle signals may incorporate a "countdown to green" display to
p rov ide information about how long until the green bicycle indication is shown,
en abling riders to push off as soon as the light turns green.
LEADING BICYCLE INTERVALS
Bas ed on the Leading Pedestrian Interval, a Leading Bicycle Interval (LBI )
can be implemented in conjunction with a bicycle signal head. Under an LBI ,
bicyclists are given a green signal while the vehicular traffic is held at all red
for several seconds, providing a head start for bicyclists to advance through
the intersection . This treatment is particularly effective in locations where
b icyclists are required to make a challenging merge or lane change (e.g., to
ac ces s a left turn pocket) shortly afte r the intersection, as the LBI would give
them sufficient time t o make the merge before being overtaken by vehicular
t raffic. This treatment can be used to enhance a bicycle box.
TWO-STAGE TURN QUEUE BOXES
On ri ght side cycle tracks , bicyclists are often unable to merge into traffic to turn
left due to physical separation. This makes the provision oftwo-stage left turns
critical in ensuring these facilities are functional. The same principles for two-
st ag e turns appl y to both bike lanes and cycle tracks . While two-stage turns ma y
incre ase bicyclist comfort in man y locations, this configuration w ill typically
result in highe r average signal delay for bicyclists due to the need to recei ve
t wo separate green signal indications (one for the through street, follow ed by
one for the cross street) before proceeding.
COLORED PAVEMENT TREATMENTS
Pa ve ment coloring is useful for a variety of applications in conjunction with
bicycl e facilities. The primary goal of colored pavements is to differentiate
spec ifi c portions of the traveled way, but colored pavements can also visibl y
reduce the perceived width of the street.
Co lored pa vements are used to highlight conflict areas between bicycle lanes
and turn lanes , especiall y where bicycle lanes merge across motor vehicle turn
lane s. Co lored pavements can be used in conjunction with sharrows (shared
lane markings) in heavily used commercial corridors w here no other provisions
for bicycle facilities are evident.
While a variety of colored treatments have been used, the trend is for spring
green as the preferred color for bicycle facilities of this type, especially in areas
where conflicts or shared use is intended . Maintenance of color and surface
condition are considerations . Traditional traffic paints and coatings can become
slippery. Long life surfaces w ith good wet skid resistance should be considered.
WAYFINDING
The ability to navigate through a region is informed by landmarks , natural
features, signs, and other visual cues . Wayfinding is a cost-effective and highly
visible way to improve the bicycling environment by familiarizing users with
the bicycle network, helping users identify the best routes to destinations,
addressing misperceptions about time and distance, and helping overcome a
barrier to entry for infrequent cyclists (e.g., "interested but concerned" cyclists).
wayfinringsigns: S~rti~, WA (Credit:Ryan~)
A bikeway wayfinding system is typically composed of signs indicating direction
of travel, location of destinations, and travel time/distancetothose destinations;
pavement markings indicating to bicyclists that they are on a designated route
or bike boulevard and reminding motorists to drive courteously; and maps
providing users with information regarding destinations, bicycle facilities, and
route options.
Legal Status -As of the writing of this manual, a number of the designs discussed
above, including cycle tracks, buffered bike lanes next to on-street parking,
conflict zone colored bike lanes, bike boxes, and colored treatments of travel
lanes with sharrows, have not yet been recognized by the Federal MUTeD and
AASHTO and are considered experimental treatments. These devices appear to
be promising Improvements in bicycle access and safety as they have been widely
used in Europe and experimented with in the U.S. Any jurisdiction wishing to use
these treatments should follow the appropriate experimental procedures.
BICYCLE PARKING
Secure bicycle parking at likely destinations is an integral part of a bikeway
network. Bicycle thefts are common and lack of secure parking is often cited
as a reason people hesitate to ride a bicycle . The same consideration should be
given to bicyclists as to motorists, who expect convenient and secure parking
at all destinations. Bicycle parking should be located in well-lit, secure locations
close to the main entrance of a building , no further from the entrance than
the closest automobile parking space. Bike parking should not interfere with
pedestrian movement.
Bike racks along sidewalks should support the bicycle well, and make it easy to
lock a U-shaped lock to the frame of the bike and the rack. The two samples
below show an "inverted _U" rack and an art design rack: both meet these
criteria. Refer to the APBP Bike Parking Guidelines for additional information.
MAINTENANCE
Maintenance is a critical part of safe and comfortable bicycle access. Two area s
that are of particular importance to bicyclists are pavement quality and drainage
grates . Rough surfaces, potholes, and imperfections, such as joints, can cause
a rider to lose control and fall. Care must be taken to ensure that drainage
grates are bicycle-safe; otherwise a bicycle wheel may fall into the slots of the
grate, caus ing the cyclist to fall. The grate and inlet box must be flush w ith the
adjacent surface. Inlets should be raised after a pavement overlay to the new
surface. Ifthis is not possible or practical, the new pavement should taper into
drainage inlets so the inlet edge is not abrupt.
The most effective way to avoid drainage-grate problems is to eliminate them
entirely with the use of inlets in the curb face. This may require more grates to
handle bypass flow, but is the most bicycle-friendly design.
IMPLEMENTATION
Implementation of a bikeway network often requires an implementation
plan. Some bikeways, such as paths, bicycle boulevards, and other innovative
techniques described in this guide, will require a capital improvement project
process, including identifying funding, a public and environmental review
process, and plan preparation . Other bikeway improvements piggy-back onto
planned construction, such as resurfacing, reconstruction, or utility work.
The majority of bikeway facilities are provided on streets in the form of shared
roadways or bicycle lanes. Shared roadways usually require virtually no change
to existing roadways, except for some directional signs , occasional markings,
and minor changes in traffic control devices; removing unnecessary centerline
stripes is a strategy that can be implemented after resurfacing projects . Striped
bike lanes are implemented on existing roads through use of the strategies
below.
RESURFACING
The cost of striping bic ycle lanes is negligible when incorporated w ith
resurfacing, as this avoids the high cost of stripe removal; the fresh pavement
provides a blank slate. Juris dictions will need to anticipate opportunities and
synchronize restriping plans with repaving and reconstruction pla ns. If new
pavement is not anticipated in the near future, grinding out the old lane lines
can still provide bike lanes.
There are three basic techniques for finding room for bike lanes:
• Lane narrowing. Where all existing or planned travel lanes must be
retained, travel lanes can be narrowed to provide space for bike lanes .
Recent stud ies have indicated that the use of 10-foot travel lanes does
not result in decreased safety in comparison with wider lanes for vehicle
speeds up to 35 mph. Eleven-foot lanes can be used satisfactori ly at
higher speeds especially where trucks and buses frequently run on
these streets. However, where a choice between a 6-foot bike lane and
an l1·foot travel lane must be made, it is usually preferable to have the
6-foot bike lane. Parking lanes can also be narrowed to 7 feet to create
space for bike lanes.
• Road diets. Reducing the number of travel lanes provides space for
bicycle lanes. Many streets have more space for vehicular traffic than
necessary. Some street s may require a traffic and/or environmental
analysis to determine whether additional needs or impacts may be
anticipated. The traditional road diet changes a four-lane undivided
street to two travel lanes, a continuous left-turn lane (or median),
and bike lanes. In other cases, a four·lane street can be reduced to a
two-la ne street w ithout a center-turn lane if there are few left turns
movements, One-way couplets are good lane-reduction candidates if
they have more travel lanes in one direction than necessary for the
traffic vol umes , For example, a four-lane one-way street can be re duced
to th ree lanes and a bike lane, Since on ly one bike lane is needed on a
one-way street, removing a travel lane can free enough room for other
features, such as on -st reet parking or wider sidewalks, Both legs of a
couplet must be treated equally, so there is a bike la ne in each direction,
• Parking Removal. On-street parking is vital on certain streets (such
as residential or traditional cent ral business districts with little or no
off-street parking), but other streets have allowable parking without a
significant visible demand, In these cases, parking prohibition can be
used to provide bike lanes with minimal public inconvenience,
For much of South Miami, a simp le road diet will yield the space necessary to
create bicycle and other space for Comp lete Streets facilities,
BEFORE ROAD DIET AFTER ROAD DIET
Fitting In bicyde/ones with road di~ (Ct~t: Michell! Wdsbort)
UTILITY WORK
Utility work often requires reconstructing the street surface to complete
restoration work, This provides opportunities to implement bike lanes and
more complex bikeways such as bike boulevards, cycle tracks, or paths, It is
necessary to provide plans for proper implementation and design of bikeway
facilities prior to the utility work, It is equally necessary to ensure that existing
bikeways are replaced where they exist prior to utility construction,
REDEVELOPMENT
When streets are slated for reconstruction in conjunction with redevelopment,
opportunities exist to integrate bicycle lanes or other facilities into the
redevelopment plans, During redevelopment, as bicycle facilities are
incorporated, they should be reviewed as to ensure continuity from adjoining
sections of the network,
PAVED SHOULDERS
Adding paved shoulders to existing roads can be quite expensive if done as
stand-alone, capital improvement projects, especially if ditch lines have to be
moved, or if open drains are changed to enclosed drains, But paved shoulders
can be added at little extra cost if they are incorporated into projects that
already disturb the area beyond the pavement, such as laying utility lines or
drainage work.
PRINCIPLES FOR ROADWAYS IN
SOUTH MIAMI
While it may seem odd to include principles for roadways in a plan which seems
to be designed towards ensuring multimodal transportation , the reality is that
vehicular travel rem ains a vital component of the transportation network, It is
not the purpose of a Complete Streets program to eliminate the automobile
entirely, but to have it coexist in a better balance with other modes of
transportation,
In designing roads for Complete Streets, the first determination is to determine
how many lanes there should be, based on local needs or wants, A community
may choose to have less lanes , going on a road diet, while accepting that traffic
SOUTH M IAMI COMPLETE STREETS PLAN -2 ~ 29!:~: ~~~
may worsen as a result . Floridian communities with traffic concurrency, like
South Miami, will have to adopt LOS F stand ards for all its roadways, For South
Miami, this is already the case,
For South Miami, after determining the amount of travel lanes, it is important
to only assign the space necessary for the roadway, allowing for additional room
for the other modes, In other cities, review of plans find that travel lanes can
range from 11 feet to 14 feet. Yet, on a local roadway, the minimum standard is
10 feet, For Collectors and Arterials, the standard is 11 feet, While higher speed
would require more space, in some parts of South Miami, a shift in the space
utilized for travel lane will allow for multimodal infrastructure to be emplaced.
In many cases, the City can therefore hold to the prinCiple of allowing adequate
flow-through without compromising multi-modality,
Additionally, because roadways do interact with pedestrians and bicyclists, the
design offuture roadways on a Complete Street network should ensure visibility
for both driver and pedestrian or cyclist, Achieving this may require improving
safety at conflict pOints, such as the implementation of safe crOSSings and
improved lighting in the community,
Speed also is important, Research shows that the higher the speed, the more
likely for a pedestrian fatality with impact, While this is inherently obvious, the
exponential nature of the curve shows that the likelihood of serious injury or
death greatly rises when the speed goes above 20 mph, Going from 20 mph to
40 mph changes the survival rate from 85% to 1S%, Control of speed through
the usage of traffic calming, and reduction of conflict points are tools which
can be utilized to promote safety in South Miami.
PRINCIPLES OF DESIGN FOR
TRANSIT
Principles of design for transit primarily revolve around the provision of bicycling
and pedestrian infrastructure from an initial standpoint, After all, transit is one
of those modes where one generally may need to travel the "first" and "last"
mile to and from their destination, Transit accessibility is heavily dependent on
the provision of safe environments to access pick-up pOints, For bicycle riders,
the level of safety and accessibility will dictate whether bicycling is a viabl e
mode of transportation; further, planning for bicycle connections to transit
allows for a reduction in the need for parking spaces, which are more expensive
and space consuming,
Once there, amenities such as shelter from the elements in case of rain , places
to sit and rest, trash cans to ensure cleanliness -an aspect of comfort; and at
times, availability of transit information all serve to make transit a more usable
mode, To emplace these shelters or benches and information spaces, space
must be provided; otherwise, these amenities would end up in the sidewalk or
impeding the pedestrian or bicycle path of travel. As a general rule of thumb,
the provision of bus amenities should be emplaced based on the headways,
as this indicates the potential wai t time a person will have, Benches should be
emplaced at stops with longer than 5 minute headways, Shelters should be
EXISTING STANDARDS
30 II 85
emplaced at stops with 10 minutes or greater headways. All of South Miami's
bus stops thus should be equipped with a bus shelter, space permitting.
Transit stops should be easily accessible. ADA compliance, allowing for landing
pads for wheelchairs and appropriate ramps, and safe access, including
appropriate places to cross before and after bus travel , are both vital as well.
Bus stops can be located at various areas of a roadway. Three locations for bus
stops are far-side, near-side , and mid block. Each has its own benefits:
.. Far-side bus stops : Far-side bus stops are the most common type, and
are generally preferred for safety reasons. These bus stops are located
after the intersection, past the crosswalk . Thus, this allows pedestrians
to cross behind a bus after al igh ting. Als o, these pedestrian who do
cross are not being blocked visually by the bus -this increased visibility
allows for increased safety.
.... Near-side bus stops : Near-side bus stops are gene ra ll y used when
far-side sto ps are no t feasible. Located before an intersection and
crosswalk, this causes pedestrians to have to cross in front of the bus.
However, there are situations w here the nea r-si de stop provides better
access to specific pedestrian destinations.
.. Midblock bus stops : Midblock bus stops are located in the middle of
the block segment; are generally used in areas where there are long
blocks, when there are important destinations in the mid block area,
and with transfer paints or locations where there is a need to allow
multiple buses to pull into ta stop.
Of course, there is also the vehicular aspects of bus transit to consider. Is there
space for people for wait for a bus? Is there space to safely board? Generally,
bus stops spaces should be designed with readership demand in mind.
How many people are being picked up at the bus stops? In a heavily urbanized
area, there w ill be a longer queue, and thus a longer time. In a suburban area,
with less density, the opposite is true. Each person also creates a needed
boarding time which will not only affect the bus schedule , but also increases
the need for a bus pull-in so that the stopped bus does not impeded travel flow.
Various option s exist to help develop transit systems . With bus transit, the
usage of vehicular lanes is a necessity. However, whether the bus system
sha res or does not share with the priva te ve hicle is another consideration.
With appropriate spacing, bus lanes can be included. And ultimately, as the City
develops, the busiest transit lines should be considered for dedicated bus lanes.
The following, from the Los Angeles Cou nty Living Street Manual, provide
BUS BULBS
Bus bulbs are curb extensions that extend the length of the transit stop on
streets with on-street parking . They improve transit performance by eliminating
the need for buses to merge into mixed traffic after every stop. They also
facilitate passenger boarding by allowing the bus to align directly with the curb;
waiting passengers can enter the bus immediately after it has stopped. They
Improve pedestrian con ditions by providing additional space for people to wait
for transit and by allowing the placement of bus shelters where they do not
conflict with a sidewalk's pedestrian zone. Bus bulbs also reduce the cross ing
distance of a street for pedestrians if they are located at a crossing . In most
situations, buses picking up passengers at bus bulbs block the curbside travel
lane; but this is mitigated by the reduced dwell time, as it takes less time forthe
bus driver to position the bus correctly, and less time for passengers to board.
One major advantage of bus bulbs over pulling over to the curb is that they
require less parking removal: typically two on-street parking spots for a bus
bulb instead of four for pulling over.
The following conditions should be given priority for the placement of transit
bus bulbs:
.. Where transit performance is significantly slowed by the transit
vehicle's merging into a mixed-flow travel lane
.. Roadways served by express or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lines
.. Stops that serve as major transfer points
.. Areas with heavy transit and pedestrian activity and where narrow
sidewalks do not allow for the placement of a bus shelter without
conflicting with the pedestrian zone
Bus bulbs should not be considered for stops with any of the following:
.. A queue-jumping lane provided for buses
.. On-street parking prohibited during peak travel periods
.. Near-side stops located at intersections with heavy right-turn
movements, except along streets with a "transit-first" policy
Characteristics
At a minimum, bus bulbs should be long enough to accommodate all doors of
a transit vehicle to allow for the boarding and alighting of all passengers, or
be long enough to accommodate two or more buses (with a 5-foot clearance
between buses and a 10-foot clearance behind a bus) where there is frequent
service such as with BRT or other express lines. Bus bulbs located on the far
side of a signalized intersection should be long enough to accommodate the
complete length of a bus so that the rear of the bus does not intrude into the
intersection.
Standard Transit Vehide and Transit Bus Bulb Dimensions
60
120
August 2004. Characte ristics of Bus Rapid Transit for
Decision Making Project NO: FTA-VA-26-7222-2004 .1
BUS LANES
Bus lanes provide exclusive or semi -exclusive use fortransit vehicles to improve
the transit system's travel time and operating efficiency by separating transit
from congested travel lanes. They can be located in an exclusive right-of-way
or share a roadway right-of-way. They can be physically separated from other
travel lanes or differentiated by lane markings and signs.
Bus lanes can be located within a roadway med ian or along a curb-side lane,
and are identified by lane markings and signs. They should generally be at least
11 feet wide, but where bicycles share the lane with buses, 13 to 15 feet wide is
preferred. When creating bus lanes, cities should conside r the following:
.. Exclusive transit use may be limited to peak travel periods or shared
with high-occupancy veh icles.
.. On-street parking may be allowed depending on roadway design,
especially with bus lanes located in the center of the street.
.. A mixed-flow lane or on-street parking may be displaced ; this is
preferable to adding a lane to an already wide roadway, which increases
the crossing distance for pedestrians and creates other problems
discussed in other chapters.
.. Within a mixed-flow lane, the roadway can be delineated by striping
and signs.
.. High-occupancy vehicles and/or bicycles may be permitted to use bus
lanes.
Pedestrian access to stations becomes an issue when bus lanes are located in
roadway medians.
ACCOMMODATING LIGHT RAIL, STREET CARS, AND BUS RAPID
TRANSIT (BRT)
A growing number of streets have light rail lines , street cars , or BRT. These need to be carefully designed into the street .
The foll owing standards are included should South Miami need to consider BRT or other facilities in the future .
The various options for accommodating light rail , street cars , and BRT within streets are as follows:
.. Ce nt er-runnin g
Two-way sp lit-side , with one direction of transit flow in each direction
Street Types and Tran sit Configuration s
Boulevard y N N Y Y N
Multi-way y N' Y Y Boulevard N N
Avenue y y y. y y. N
I Street N y Y Y N' N
Notes
Y = Recommended st reet type/trans it configuration comb ination
N = Not recommended /possible street type /transit configuration combination
"'Denotes configurations thot mot be possible under ce rtain circumstances, bur are not us ually optim al
SourO!!: Inr~ration a/Transit mto Urban Thorough/ore DesIgn, DRAFT loVhite Peper prepared by rheC~rer for Transir-Onenred Development, updated: November 9, 2007.
SOUTH MIAMI COMPLETE STREETS PLAN -2~ 31 /:~: ~~~
.. Two-way single-side , with both directions of transit flow on one side of the street right-of-way
.. One-way single-side, with transit running one direction (e ither with or against the flow of vehicular traffic) and
usually operating in a one-way couplet on parallel streets.
For each configuration , transit can operate in a reserved guideway or in mixed street traffic. When installing light rail or
street cars within streets, the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists needs to be fully provided for. If poorly des igned , thes e
transit lines introduce hazards and serve to divide neighborhoods where crossings are highly limited and /or difficult or
inconvenient (see Chapter 7, "Pedestrian Crossings" for more guidance). In genera l, in areas of high pedestrian activity,
the speed of the transit service should be compatible with the speed of pedestrians .
The potential for each configuration is influenced by the street type. Some transit configurations will not w ork effectivel y
in combination with certain st reet types. The table below outlines the compatibility of each configuration w ith the four
street types .
y' Y
y ' Y
Y Y
Y Y
z «
...J c..
Z
\.!' -~ w
C
THE DESIGN MANUAL
COMPLETE STREETS
Complete Streets, as mentioned earlier in the pan, are designed for people of
all ages and physical abilities, regardless of the travel mode taken -walk ing,
biking, transit, or driving. The implementation of Comp lete Streets therefore
requires the organiza tion of space based on the needs of these four spaces.
The facilities which allow for each mode to be a via ble choice starts with the
minimum design standards, which are based on engineering to ensure safety,
mobility, and accessibility. Thi s design manual is based on exactly that -it is a
set of engineering standards for the elements of the pedestrian, transit, bicycle,
and roadway infrastructure, in order to effect an organized, structure approach
to imp leme nting these facilities. The standards within took into account
Miami-Dade County and Florida Department of Transp ortation requirements,
which the City of South Miami must adhere to, in order to create a plan which
provides guidance for the implementation of Comp lete Stree ts when there
are questions. In looking at the standards, the Florida DOT Pla ns Preparations
Manual, Green Book, and Miami-Dade regulations we re all cons idered along
with AASHTO requirements.
The development of the Design Manual took into acco unt not only the
standa rd minimum, but the potential options for facilities which will encourage
walking and pedestrian activities, and by extens ion , "Active Transportation." In
reviewing other plans , it was inherent that sufficient space which exists, but
is not organized for this purpose, had to be set aside in t he futu re for these
facilities to be implemented. To create this "Flex Zone" that will allow for
amenities such as bicycle racks and landscaping, which encourage bicycling
and pedestrian behavior, the thought was to minim ize the space in order to
maximize the space for alternative modes of infrastructure.
This plan recognizes the need for vehicular travel within and through the
comm unity of South Miami. It started off by stil l noting the need for travel lanes,
but essentially effects a road diet on ex isting lanes to reorganize space, so that
where it can, the City can look to exceed the minimum standards for alternative
modes in order to crea te a better facility that was great and encouraging of a
shift in behavior, not one that was mere ly rigid ly adequate. Even for alternative
modes, minimum standards such as 4' bicycle lanes exist, but if we take the
principles espoused earlier in this report, comfort necess itates an effort for
more than the minimum standards to exist.
In developing this Manual, a review of the various roadways and associated
urban form led to discussion on the interacti ons between land use, the
availability of transportation right-of-way, and urban design. We have to
recognize that, even by looking at the land, a single family bungalow is not
going to have the same needs as an urban area with restaurants along what
should be a walkable neighborhood. A local road is not going to have the same
space availability or usage density as an arterial roadway. Taking these into
consideration, the Design Manual split up the standards based on community
qualities. The resulting plan is therefore organized by:
.. Location w ithin South Miami
.. Facility Type
.. Mode
There are therefore 9 sections, 3 categories each based on urban form and
land use (T-3 Suburban, T-4 General Urban, and T-S Urban Center). with each
of these categories then further divided into three types by roadway (Local,
Collector, and Arterial).
The resulting plan provides the City a look at how space can be reorganized
for the sma ll est roadways w ithin each functional classification (Local, Collector,
and Arterial) w ithin the City. For la rger roadways, the extra right-of-way may
be taken up by the number of lanes and medians, w ith the rem ainder going
to the Flex Zone. This is parti cularly important as wi thin every design plan,
design constraints lead to tradeoffs, and there is need to recog ni ze that street
frontages are important. Crea ting this space thus assigns importance to the
ideas behind Complete Streets. This space, in the future, will be designed and
filled from a menu of options, which the City can expand upon over time. These
Flex Zone items, include different options for transit, parking, se ating, and
others and these ame nities' associated spatial requirements, so that the City
ca n apply them functiona lly and geographically as warranted by the needs of
the local community.
SOUTH MIAMI COMPLETE STREETS PLAN -2 ~ 33!:~~ ~~~
I-
U w
'" z «
0:::
I-
Z «
al
0:::
:::>
al
:::>
'" M
I
I-
T-3 SUBURBAN TRANSECT
Generally, the T-3 Suburban district for this Plan includes the southeastern, nothern, and west portions of the City. These
areas generally have single family res idences of varying but generally low density. In South Miami, the nature of the
existing right of way tends to vary, but generally, there are large setbacks from the property lines. Sidewalks exist in some
parts of the current T-3 area, but in other areas the y are absent . The map to the right notes the areas in South Miami
designated as T-3 for the purposes of this Plan.
T-3 is primarily suburban and is characterized by single-fami ly residential uses with wa lkable development patterns and
dominant landscape patterns. Almost two-thirds of South M iami consist of low density residential districts w ith detached
single-family developments connected through local streets. This type of development is usually linked to varying front
and side yards, and frontage types such as lawns, porches, fences and landscaping .
Development within the T-3 Subu rban area for South Miami generally include single family residential designations. In
the future, this should remain the same. Transect 3 zones may also include institutions such as schools servicing the local
neighborhood.
Needs within Transect 3 identified within the South Miami Intermodal Transportation Plan include:
~ Shared-Use Paths
~ Neighborhood Greenways
~ Neighborhood Greenway Crossing Treatments
~ New sidewalks
~ Crosswalks
~ Green Bike Lane and/or Bike Boxes
~ Neighborhood traffic circles
~ Traffic circles
SOUTH MIAMI COMPLETE STREETS PLAN -2 ~ 3S/:~: ~~~
(~ ~ iami
-Arte rials --Local Road s South Mi ami
_ 1-4 __ US-1 (A rterial) --Collector --OlherStreets _ water
a 0.175 0.35 0 .7 1.05 1.4 . Pnopa red By: ~~ -CHORRAOINO GROUP
FiglJre03
D ESIGN PLAN
36 II 85
Sel Back Depending
on Zoning
RJW
VARIES
5.0' TO 6.0'
Sidewalk
VARIES
5.0' TO 9.0'
Flex Zone Travel Lane Travel Lane
VARIES
5.0' TO 9.0'
Flex Zone
VARIES
5.0' TO 6.0'
Green
"'I 0( 2/~~IE~S.0' .. I 0( 20 .V~~IE~S .O' .. I ~
~ .. ~ I'::~"~ \;.)~~l
\f.: .. ~:~;.~'.,;/
N rOG~ STREET
.,..-. +_ T HE
}t ',' CORRADINO GROUP
L-"~In~~" • f' •• "".,. .I':<>~"m "'~n~lIO" • I n""~'·n ,."r .r ~<i.,"r,.h
7'7"--._-------~.--'r
Sal Back Depending
on Zoning
LINE
40'-50'
Pedestrian/Sidewalk
FLEX ZONE
TRAVEL
LANE
Vehicle
Pedestrian
Bicycling
Transit (Bus)
Transit (Bus)
Vehicle
Bikes
Pedestrian
Clear path w ay (mayor may not have sidewalk)
See Optional
None required
10' Minimum for Travel lanes
None required
Crosswalks within 0.25 miles of a school or as identified
within a Safe Routes to School Plan should be high emphasi s
SOUTH M I AM I COM PL ET E ST REETS PLAN -2 ~ 37/:~: ~~~
Pedestrian lighting
Pedestrian Signal Crossings
Curb Ramps (As needed)
Pedestrian lighting
landscaping or Swale
Benches
Bicycle Pa r king
Shared-use path (S' minimum, replaces sidewalk)
Transit wayfinding signage
None required
2' curb and gutter (Flex zone area will be reduced to 3' for 40 ' R/W
and 7' for SO' R/W)
Consider on appropriate circumstances : Roundabout, curb
extensions / bump outs, parallel parking, speed humps, raised table
intersections, chicanes and diverters
Shar row/Shared l ane
In street pede strian crossing lighting
(when appropriate)
Marked crosswalk at controlled intersections
(la' Min. w idth) when appropriate
Parking Spaces
Bike Lanes
Bus TUinouts
Bus shelters and Benches
N/A
Bike Lanes
N/A
DESIGN PLAN
38 II 85
Set Back Depending
on Zoning
RJW
VARIES
S.O' TO 6.0'
Green
VAR IES
5.0' TO 9.0'
Flex Zone Travel Lane Travel Lane
VARIES
5 .0' TO 9.0'
Flex Zone
VARIES
S.O' TO 6 .0'
Green
...... 1 • 20 ' V~~IE~s .o' .. I • 20' V~~IE~s.o' .. I~
:r~l T-3 kdGAbSrREET [.w/~SidewaIks \~,'~~.~~;;;,A ... ____________ _
. ~"_" THE Ji.' ,~ CORRADINO GROUP
f"iJ'''Mn • i'J~,,,,.,,. r>'~~I ~'~ 1.I.,n.;;« •• I ,;,,,,,,,",,,,,',, ';, "·"r",,
Set Back Depending
on Zoning
LINE
40'-50'
Pedestrian/Sidewalk
FLEX ZONE
TRAVEL
LANE
Vehicle
Pedestrian
Bicycling
Transit (Bus)
Transit (Bus)
Vehicle
Bikes
Pedestrian
Clear pathway (mayor may not have sidewalk)
See Optional
None required
10' Minimum for Travel Lanes
None required
Crosswalks within 0.25 miles of a school or as identified
within a Safe Routes to School Plan should be high emphasis
SOUTH MIAMI COMPLETE STREETS PLAN -2 ~ 39 /:~: ~~~
Pedestrian Lighting
Pedestrian Signal Crossings
Curb Ramps (As needed)
Pedestrian Lighting
landscaping or Swale
Benches
Bicycle Parking
Shared-use path (8' minimum, replaces sidewalk)
Transit wayfinding sign age
None required
2' curb and gutter (Flex zone area will be reduced to 3' for 40' R/W
and 7' for 50' R/W)
Consider on appropriate circumstances: Roundabout, curb
extensions/ bump outs, parallel parking, speed humps, raised table
intersections, chicanes and diverters
Sharrow/Shared Lane
In street pedestrian crossing lighting
(when appropriate)
Marked crosswalk at controlled intersections
(10' Min. width) when appropriate
Parking Spaces
Bike Lanes
Bus Turnouts
Bus shelters and Benches
N/A
Bike Lanes
N/A
D ESIGN PLAN
40 //85
Set Back Depending
on Zoning
RIW
VARIES
S.O'TOB .O'
Sidewalk
VARIES
B.O' TO 18.0'
Flex Zone Travel Lane Travel Lane
VARIES
8.0' TO 18.0'
Flex Zone
VARIES
S.O' TO 8.0'
Sidewalk
VARIES I VAR IES I~ "I II( 25' TO 35 .0' .. II( 25' TO 35.0' ..
·i1~~ ~\~. l ;'/~.~I~.~$./.'
T -3 CObbECTOR
. ,.--•.• :;. TH E
}~ .. : CORRADINO GROUP
L".""·.-,, . l'IJ''''d'~. 1'1"~'4~' ~"'J1J'" • [" ','''';'-1<'01.1 :;"~"r"i'
Set Back Depending
on Zoning
LINE
Pedestrian/Sidewalk
Dimensions
Vehicle
Pedestrian
FLEX ZONE
Bicycling
50'-70' Transit (Bus)
Transit (Bus)
Vehicle
TRAVEL LANE
Bikes
Pedestrian
6' sidewalk for 50' R/W
8' sidewalk for 70' R/W
8 ' for 50' R/W; 16' for 70' R/W
None required
Curb ramps as necessary
Pedestrian lighting
Optional
At bus stops: A boarding and alighting area of 8' (measured from the curb)
by 5' (measured parallel to the roadway) shall be provided and shall be
connected to streets, sidewalks, or pedestrian paths by an accessible
route.
None required
11' Minimum for Travel Lanes
Optional
Marked crosswalk at controlled intersections (10' Min. width)
Pedestrian sign crossings
Crosswalks within 0.25 miles of a school or as identified within a Safe
Routes to School Plan should be high emphasis
SOU TH M IAMI COMPLETE STREETS PLAN -2 ~ 4 1 /:~: ~~~
Curb Ramps (As needed)
Parallel parking 7' min when next to curb and gutter
For high pedestrian areas street furniture should be provided
Landscaping or Swale
Bicycle Racks
Shared-use (Merge with Sidewalk, min. 10' total)
Bus Shelters
Bus Benches
Transit Signage
Transit Sign age
N/A
Consider on appropriate circumstances: Roundabout and curb extensions/
bump outs
• 2' curb and gutter (Furnishing area will be reduced to 6' for 50' R/W and
14' for 70' R/W)
Bike
Uncontrolled mid-block crosswalks (when appropriate)
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (when appropriate)
Rectangular rapid flashing Beacon (when appropriate)
In street pedestr ian crossing lighting (when appropriate)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Bus Turnouts
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
------------T-r--"1 4'·· t·
D ESIGN PL AN
42 II 85
8.0' 16.0' 16.0' 8.0' Set Back Depending
on Zoning I ... .. I .... :. I 0( 11.0' ... 0( 11.0' ... I 0( ... I ... ... I
R/W LINE Sidewalk Flex Zone Travel Lene Travel Lene Flex Zone Sidewalk
35.0' 35.0'
f~~ \~:.:f ______ _ x.r ,~;, ~~RRADINO GROUP
("J-"'." . n. "<,,. r'r""~' .... ~.~." . r ~,',-~,~,"", .. ,Ie",,,, T-3ARTERIAL
100' SW72nd
Street
Pedestrian/Sidewalk
Vehicle
Pedestrian
FLEX ZONE Bikes
Transit (Bus)
Vehicle
Bikes
TRAVEL LANE
Pedestrian
8' sidewalk
None Required
Pedestrian Signals at Crossings
For high pedestrian areas street furniture should be provided
Pedestrian Lighting
Bus Shelters
A boarding and alighting area of 8' (measured from the curb) by 5'
(measured parallel to the roadway) shall be provided and shall be
connected to streets, sidewalks, or pedestrian paths by an accessible
route.
Transit Information and Wayfinding
4' bike lanes (Or option -See Flex Zone, Optional Criteria)
Colored Pavement in Bike lanes (If Bike Lane)
If Bike lanes, Bicycle Boxes at Signalized Intersections
Marked crosswalk at controlled intersections (10' Min. width)
Pedestrian Signal at Crossings
In street pedestrian crossing lighting (when appropriate)
Crosswalks within 0.25 miles of a school or as identified within a Safe
Routes to School Plan should be high emphasis
SOUTH MI AMI CO M PLETE STREETS PL AN -2 ~ 43 /:~: ~~~
Curb Ramps (As needed)
Parallel parking 8' min width (7' min when next to curb and gutter)
Parkets
landscaping
Benches
Bicycle Parking
Shared-Use
Tracks
Bus Turnouts (10' width w /curb and gutter, 12' otherwise, requires
narrowing of sidewalk at pull-in location)
Cons ider on appropr iate circumstances: Roundabout
For Heavy Bike use, bike signal accomodations should be considered
N/A
N/A
N/A
Uncontrolled mid block crosswalks
100'
D ESI GN PL A N
44 II 85
Pedestrian/Sidewalk
SW 56th
Street
FLEX ZONE
TRAVel LANE
Vehicle
Pedestrian
Bikes
Transit (Bus)
Transit
Vehicle
Bikes
Pedestrian
8' sidewalk (North side 01 the Road)
12' Shared use path (South side olthe Road)
None Required
Pedestrian Lighting
Wayfinding
Bus Shelters
A boarding and alighting area of 8' (measured from the curb) by 5'
(measured parallel to the roadway) shall be provided and shall be
connected to streets, sidewalks, or pedestrian paths by an
accessible route .
Transit information and Wayfinding
N/A
Marked crosswalk at controlled intersections
(10' Min. width)
Pedestrian Signal at Crossings
In st reet pedestrian crossing lighting (when appropriate)
Crosswalks within 0.25 miles of a school or as identified within a
Safe Routes to School Plan should be high emphasis
Parallel parking 8' min width (7' min when next to curb and gutter)
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons
Rectangular rapid flashing Beacon (when appropriate)
Benches
For Heavy Bike use, bike signal accomodations should be considered
Cycle Track (South Side -Add 7' to 12' used by shared use path (10' lor
bike lanes,S' for pedestrian path, 4' for curb and gutter and buffer)
Bicycle Parking
N/A
4' bike lanes (North Side -Take Irom Flex Zone)
Colored Pavement in Bike lanes (If Bike lane)
If Bike lanes, Bic ycle Boxes at Signalized Intersections
Uncontrolled mid block crosswalks appropriate)
Controlled mid block crosswalks (when appropriate)
N/A
N/A
Bike Lane (South Side)
Bus Turnouts
N/A
N/A
N/A
70' SW67th
Avenue
Pedestrian/Sidewalk
Vehicle
Pedestrian
FLEX ZONE
Bikes
Transit (Bus)
Vehicle
Bikes
TRAVEL LANE
Pedestrian
SOUTH MIAMI COMPLETE STREETS PLA N -2 ~ 45 /:~: ~~~
T-3 ARTERIAL
8' sidewalk
Pedestrian lighting
For high pedestrian areas street furniture should be provided
Bike route signs
Bus Shelters
A boarding and alighting area of 8' (measured from the curb) by 5'
(measured parallel to the roadway) shall be provided and shall be
connected to streets, sidewalks, or pedestrian paths by an
Transit information and Wayfinding
11 ' Minimum for Travel lanes
Colored Pavement in Bike lanes
Bicycle Boxes at Signalized Intersections
Marked crosswalk at controlled intersections (10' Min. width)
Pedestrian Signal at Crossings
In street pedestrian crossing lighting (when appropriate)
Crosswalks within 0.25 miles of a school or as identified within a
Safe Routes to School Plan should be
Parallel
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (when appropriate)
Rectangular rapid flashing Beacon (when appropriate)
Benches
Landscaping
For Heavy Bike use, bike signal accomodations shou ld be considered
Bus Turnouts (10' width w/curb and gutter, 12' otherwise, requires
narrowing of sidewalk at pull-in location)
Uncontrolled mid block crosswalks (when appropriate)
Controlled mid block crosswalks (when appropriate)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
« w ex: « z « co ex:
::;)
...J « ex: w
Z w
\..?
q-
I ....
T-4 GENERAL URBAN AREA
General ly, the T-4 General Urban district for this Plan incl udes the parts of the eastern and so uthe aste rn portions of the City,
and is ad jacent to the T-5 Urban Center area, sharing many similar characteristics. In South Mia m i, the nature of the existing
right of way tends to vary in T-4 as with T-3, but gene rally, there are less setb ac ks f rom t he pro perty lines. Si dewalks exist in
most parts of the current T-4 area, and because of t he higher intenSity of land use, these areas should expect more traffic,
including more pedestrian and bicycle use in the future. The map to the right notes t he areas in South Miami designated as T-4
for the purposes of this Plan.
T-4 is characterized by a mix of housing types including attached units with a range of commercial and civic activity at the
neighborhood and community scale. This zone can be considered a m iddle point between a suburban environment with t he
benefit of walkability to a fairly more dense and dyn amic urban setting.
Development within the T-4 General Urban area for South M iami generally includes some single fam il y residences, although in a
more compact pa ttern than with T-3 Suburban Area, such as w ith duplexes and m ulti-story townhouses. The T-4 Genera l Urban
".rea within South M iam i is notable because it makes up about half of the CRA area. Th e T-4 General Urba n Are a also incl ude
areas planned for limited commercial/residential, mixed-use reSid ential/commercial, resi dentia l office, and education buil d ings
as noted in the Future Land Use Map.
Needs within T-4 General Urban Area identifi ed within t he South M iami Intermodal Transportation Plan include:
• New sidewalks
• Sign age and wayfinding
• Trees and green space to provide shade, buffer pedestria ns from passing vehi cles an d provide aest h etic enhancements
• Neighborhood greenways
• Neighborhood Gree nway crossing treatments
• Sta ndard and buffered bicycle lanes
• Sharrows
• Green Bike Lane and/or Bike Boxes
• Traffic Circles
SOUTH M IAM I COMP LETE STREETS PLAN -2~ 47/:~: ~~~
~""~ ~ City of South Miami
T-4Areas
.. T-5 .. T-3 -Arterials --Local Roads South Miami
_ T-4 --US-, (Arte,;al) --CoIlec1or --OlherSlreets iii Water
o 0.175 0.35 0 .7 1.05 1.4 P",pared By; rr .... CHORRADINO GROUP
Figure 04
DESIGN PLAN
48 II 85
Set Back Depending
on Zoning
RlWLlNE ~
8.0'
Sidewalk
'k'~;'~r------~--\~r:l1 N . bOOAb'S1iREET
~~:.:~~~;.~~._~ ___________ .J
Travel Lane Flex Zone
2.0' 1 ... .. 1 ... 12.0'
Travel Lane
5.0'
25.0'
_ . ...-.... ;," THE
}'f -·· CORRADINO GROUP
~~~,rQ." . I';.""q,,. 1',,,_,.,,, """O.~H • f:~"'~""'opl.1 ~,;:o<,'ri,~.
-I 5 .0' 2.0 '1 • ..
Flex Zone
25.0'
8 .0'
Sidewalk
Set Back Dependlng
on Zoning
RIW LINE
50'
Pedestrian/Sidewalk
Flex Zone
TRAVEL
LANE
Dimensions
Vehicle
Pedestrian
Bicycling
Transit (Bus)
Transit
Vehicle
Bikes
Pedestrian
8' sidewalk
10' R/W
None required
Pedestrian Lighting
None requ ired
None required
None required
10' Minimum for Travel Lanes
2' curb and gutter
None required
Marked crosswalk at controlled intersections (10' Min . width)
Pedestrian Signal Crossings
In st reet pedestrian crossing lighting (when appropriate)
SOUT H M IAM I COM PLETE STREETS PL AN -2 ~ 49 /:~~ ~~~
N/A
For high pedestrian areas street furniture should be provided
Pedestrian Signal Crossings
Landscaping or swale
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (when appropriate)
Rectangular rapid flashing Beacon (when appropriate)
Benches
Bike Lanes (4' minimum each lane)
Shared-Use Path
Racks
Transit Wayfinding
None
Consider on appropriate circumstances: Roundabout, curb
extensions/ bump outs, parallel parking, speed humps, raised
table intersections, chicanes and diverters
Sharrows
uncontrolled mid block crosswalks (when appropriate)
Parallel parking (7' width x 22' length)
N/A
N/A
Bus shelters and Benches
Bus Turnouts
N/A
N/A
N/A
DESIGN PLAN
50 II 85
8.0' 4.0'
RlWLlNE I 011( ... III( ~ I
Sidewalk Fie, Zone Travel Lane
11 .0' 4.0' B.O'
Travel Lene Flex Zone Sidewalk
~ .. 35.0' .. I ... 35.0' .. I
~~~.:.~-", i";;-;~\,
~. . "l ' ...... , ... ¥ ~.~~;.~.;.~s.:;./ J
14 t:OL.I1EeTOR
.,r-"." TH E
.P.,". CORRADINO GROUP
r"g 'ot •• 'O • PJ~ .. "a". r'rll"'~' _'.n.~." . [rt,,·,e ~"'."J" ~<I .'""'J'
Pedestrian/Sidewalk
Vehicle
Pedestrian
FLEX ZONE
Bikes
70'
Bus
Transit (Bus)
Vehicle
TRAVEL LANE Bikes
Pedestrian
None required
Pedestrian Lighting
For high pedestrian areas street furniture should be provided
Bicycle Racks
Wayfinding
A boarding and alighting area of S' (measured from the curb) by S'
(measured parallel to the roadway) shall be provided and shall be
connected to streets, sidewalks, or pedestrian paths by an accessible route.
Transit Wayfinding
None Required
11' Minimum for Travel Lanes
10' un-raised median (As needed, if not, add to Flex Zone)
2' curb and gutter
4' bike lanes each Lane; 5' optimal
In street pedestrian crossing lighting (when appropriate)
Marked crosswalk at controlled intersections (10' Min. width)
Crosswalks within 0.25 miles of a school or as identified within a Safe
Routes to School Plan should be high emphasis
Pedestrian Signal Crossings
SOUTH M I AMI COMPLET E ST RE ETS PL AN -2 ~ S l /:~: ~~~
Curb Ramps (as needed)
Parallel parking 7' min width
Wayfinding
Wayfinding
Benches
landscaping or Swale
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (when appropriate)
Rectangular rapid flashing Beacon (when appropriate)
Parklets
Bicycle Parking
For Heavy Bike use , bike signal accomodations should be considered
Bus Turnouts (10' width w/curb and gutter, 12' otherwise, requires
narrowing of sidewalk at pull-in location)
Bus Shelter
Bus Benches
N/A
Consider on appropriate circumstances: Roundabout and curb
extensions/ bump outs
Bicycle Boxes at controlled intersections
Uncontrolled mid block crosswalks (when appropriate)
Controlled mid block crosswalks (when appropriate)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
i?
'g
2!.i? ~§
.><N
~§
D ESIGN PLAN
52 II 85
E 10.0· ... I "II( 28.0' ... I "II( 12.0' ... I .... 12.0' ... I "II( 26.0'
Sidewalk · Flex Zone Travel Lane Travel Lane Flex Zone
12.0'
Shared-use path
"II( 50 .0' ... I "II( SO .O' .... i--""
~.,.~?~ i.~~~1 T4AATEA~
.... ~.:~;;~\ •• :.:..>~
. r ."' .. ··· THE
)'1;'-. CORRADINO GROUP
r"~·".&,, . r".'O.I<' r'r~"'" ..... ~'J." . I ~"'~~"'"'·w ,-,10-".'"
i &~ C'l~ ~g
3i
RlWUNE
100' SW72nd
Street
Pedestrian/Sidewalk
Vehicle
Pedestrian
FLEX ZONE
Bikes
Transit (Bus)
Transit (Bus)
Vehicle
Bikes
TRAVEL LANE
Pedestrian
10' sidewalk
Pedestrian Signals at Crossings
For high pedestrian areas street furniture should be provided
Pedestrian Lighting
Wayfinding
Bus Shelters
A boarding and alighting area of 8' (measured from the curb) by 5'
(measured parallel to the roadway) shall be provided and shall be
connected to streets, sidewalks, or pedestrian paths by an accessible
route.
Transit Information and Wayfinding
None Required
11' Minimum for Travel lanes
16' Minimum Median Width (35 mph) (Raised)
5' bike lanes (Or option -See Flex Zone , Optional Criteria)
(If Bike lane)
Bicycle Boxes at Signalized Intersections
Marked crosswalk at controlled intersections
(10' Min. width)
Pedestrian Sig nal at Crossings
In street pedestrian crossing lighting (when appropriate)
Crosswalks within 0.25 miles of a school or as identified within a Safe
Routes to School Plan should be high emphasis
SOUTH MIAMI COMPLETE STREETS PLAN -2 ~ S3 /:~: ~~~
Curb Ramps (As needed)
Parallel parking 8' min
min when next to curb
Parkets
landscaping
Benches
Bicycle Parking
Shared-Use (Use 2' from Flex Zone, add to sidewalk)
Cycle Tracks (Requires 9' addition to the 10' sidewalk; 10' for bicycle
Bus Turnouts (10' width w/curb and gutter, 12' otherwise, requ ires
narrowing of sidewalk at pull-i n location)
Bus lane
(Same dimensions as with Vehicular Trave l lanes)
2' curb and gutter (sidewalk will be reduced to 6')
Consider on appropriate circumstances: Roundabout
For Heavy Bike use, bike signal accomodations should be considered I
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Uncontrolled mid block crosswalks
100'
D ESIGN PLAN
54 II 85
Pedestrian/Sidewalk
SW 56th
Street
FLEX ZONE
TRAVEL LANE
Vehicle
Pedestrian
Bikes
Transit (Bus)
Transit (Bus)
Vehicle
Bikes
Pedestrian
10' sidewalk (North side of the Road)
12' Shared use path (South side ofthe Road)
Pedestrian Lighting
Wayfinding
Bus Shelters
A boa r ding and alighting area of 8' (measured from the curb) by 5 '
(measured parallel to the roadway) shall be provided and shall be
connected to streets, sidewalks, or pedestrian paths by an accessible
route .
Transit information and Wayfinding
None Required
111 Minimum for Travel Lanes
N/A
Marked crosswalk at controlled intersections
(10' Min . width)
Pedestrian Signal at Crossings
In street pedestrian crossing lighting (when appropriate)
Crosswalks within 0.25 miles of a school or as identified within a Safe
Routes to School Plan should be high emphasi s
Curb Ramps (As needed)
Parallel parking 8' min when next to curb and
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (when appropriate)
Rectangular rapid flashing Beacon (when appropriate)
Benches
For Heavy Bike use, bike signal accomodations should be
considered
Cycle Track (South Side -Add 7' to 12' used by shared use
path (10' for two bike lanes,S' for pedestrian path, 4' for
and gutter and buffer)
Bus Lane (Same dimensions as w ith Vehicular Travel Lanes)
Median (15.5' -take from Flex Zone)
4' bike lanes (North Side -Take from Flex Zone)
Colored Pavement in Bike Lanes (If Bike Lane)
If Bike Lanes , Bicycle Boxes at Signalized Intersections
Uncontrolled mid block crosswalks (when appropriate)
Controlled mid block crosswalks (when appropriate)
N/A
N/A
Bike Lane (South Side)
Bus Turnouts
N/A
N/A
N/A
70'
SW67th
Avenue
Pedestrian/Sidewalk
Veh icle
Pedestrian
FLEX ZONE
Bikes
Bus
Transit (Bus)
Vehicle
Bikes
TRAVEL LANE
Pedestrian
10' sidewalk
None Required
Pedestrian Lighting
For high pedestrian areas street furniture should be provided
Wayfinding
Bus Shelters
A boarding and alighting area of 8' (measured from the curb) by 5'
(measured parallel to the roadway) shall be provided and shall be
connected to streets, sidewalks, or pedestrian paths by an accessible
route.
Transit information and Wayfinding
None Required
11' Minimum for Travel Lanes
5' bike lanes
Colored Pavement in Bike Lanes
Bicycle Boxes at Signa li zed Intersections
Marked crosswalk at controlled intersections (10' M in. w idth)
Pedestrian Signal at Crossings
In street pedestrian crossing lighting (when appropriate)
Crosswalks within 0.25 miles of a school or as identified within a Safe
Routes to School Plan should be high emphasis
SOUTH MIAM I COMP LE TE STREETS PLAN -2 ~ SS /:~: ~~~
Curb Ramps (As needed)
Parallel parking 8' min width (7' min when next to curb and
gutter)
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (when appropriate)
Rectangular rapid flashing Beacon (when appropriate:
Benches
Landscaping
For Heavy Bike use , bike signal accomodations should be
considered
Bicycle Parking
Bus Turnouts (10' width w/curb and gutter, 12 ' otherwise,
requires narrowing of sidewalk at pull-in location)
Bus Lane
dimensions as with Vehicular Travel
Consider on appropriate circumstances: Roundabout
N/A
Uncontrolled mid block crosswalks (when appropriate)
Controlled mid block crosswalks (when appropriate)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
a:: w
I-
Z w
U
z « co a::
::::>
LO
I
I-
T-5 URBAN CENTER
Generally, the T-5 General Center district for this Plan includes the center, already more built up areas of the City, and
emcompasses the area around the Hospital, City Hall, and most important ly, the MetroRaii station. In Sou t h Miami, the natu re
of the existing right of way tends to be very constrained in the T-5 area, as it is in other cities. Setbacks in T-5 areas tend to be 0,
and sidewalks are flush with the build in g entrances, such as can be seen with the storefronts of Sunset Place . The area is built
to be the core of the City, and community activities such as festivals can be foun d here. Sidewalks exist throughout all parts
of the current T-S area, and because of t he higher intens ity of land use , these areas should expect the highest levels of t raffic
w ithin the City, includ ing more pedestrian and bicycle use in the future. The map to the right notes the areas in South Miami
designated as T-5 for the purposes of this Plan.
T-5 typical deve lo pment is characterized by attached housing types such as mixed-use development w ith a strong retail and
entertainment emphasis on the ground floors and an equal mix of residential and/or commercial office or services on the upper
floors. A big p resence of pedestrian acti vity and transit service are also common.
Development within the T-5 Urban Center Area for South Miami gene rall y inclu de those that can be de ve loped under future
la nd use designations for multistory residences , such as those to be found in the Multiple Family Res idential and M ixed-Use
Co mmercia l residential areas . T-5 area commercial developme nts are ta ll and have larger build ing footprints , such as with
Sunse t Place , and area incl udes Pu blic and Institutional uses. The T-5 Urban Ce nter Are a wi thi n Sou th Miami is nota b le because
it makes up abo ut half of the CRA area , and is located around the existing civ ic cent er, hospital , and f uture transit oriented
development.
Needs within the T-5 Urban Center Area ide ntified within the South Miami Intermodal Trans portation Plan include :
~ Pedest rian wayfinding sign system within downtown to identify streets, wa lking routes and direct pedestrians to points
of interest
~ St reet furn iture such as benches, trash recept acles, bicycle racks and she lters.
~ Bus stops and bus shelters
~ Buffered bicycl e lanes
.. Green color pave ment backing sharrows along Sunset Drive to make motorists aware ofthe ex pectation to find bicyclists
sh aring the travel lane
~ Parklets along Sunset Drive serving as an extension of the sidewalk to prov ide amenities, green space and add itional
space for seating wh il e mainta ining pedestrian walking zones on the sidewalks
~ On-st reet parking along Sunset Drive to provide traffic calming effects and convenience to loca l shops
~ Mid-block curb extensions along S Dixie highway, north of South Miam i Hospital exit driveway, to enhance pedest ri an
safety by lowering motor ve hicle speeds
51i""" ~
_T-5 _T-3
_ T-4 __ US-1 (Arterial)
o 0.175 0.35 0 .7
SOUTH M IAMI COM PL ETE STREETS PLAN -2~ 57 /~~~ ~~~
City of South Miami
T-5Areas
Arterials --Local Road s South Miami
-Coll ector --Other Streets l1li water
1.05 1.4 Prepared By:
Miles ,.~ -CORR/'10INO GROUP
N
Figure 05
D ESIGN PLAN
58 II 85
Set Back Depending
on Zoning
RlWLlNE
I 8.0' I 50' I I ' 0( • oE • • 2.0' 0( 10.0 .. I ..... 10.0'
Travel Lene Travel Lane Sidewalk FloXZONE
25.0'
[~~P~----T-~-b~-'~-~-5m--E--~-------'
'l.,:,~,,!..~ .....
.' . .,..--".:;" THE X .,.. CORRADINO GROUP
[n~'.~.o' •. I'r~"nn .. ,. "'0""'" ""CO~N' . [".·"rn."".,,'.' ~:'o~Io '"
2.0' I oE 5.0'.. I 0( 8.0'
FloxZONE Sidewalk
25.0'
.1
Sel Back Depending
onZonlng
RIW LINE
Pedestrian/Sidewalk
Pedestrian
Flex Zone
50' Bicycling
Vehicle
TRAVEL LANE Bicycling
Pedestrian
Mini mum Criteria
7' sidewalk; clear pathway
Pedestrian Signal Crossings
Pedestr ian Light ing
For high pedestrian areas street furniture should be provided
Marked crosswalk at controlled intersections (10' Min. width)
None required
10' Minimum for Travel Lanes
2' curb and
None requ ired
Crosswalks at controlled inte rsections (per MUTeD standards, 10'
Crosswalks within 0.25 miles of a school or as identified within a Safe
to School Plan should be high emphasis
In street pedestrian crossing lighting (when appropriate)
SO UTH M IAMI CO M PLE TE STREETS PLAN -2 ~ S9 /:~~ ~~~
Bulb-outs
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (when appropriate)
Rectangular rapid flashing Beacon (w hen appropriate)
Shared-use path (8' minimum , replaces sidewalk on one side)
Bicycle racks
Cycle Tracks (10' minimum)
on appropriate circumstances :
bump outs, parallel parking, speed humps, raised table intersections,
chicanes and diverters
Sharrows
Uncontrolled mid block crosswalks (when appropriate)
N/A
N/A
Bike Lanes
N/A
DESIGN PLAN
60 II 85
Set Back Depending
on Zoning
RIW
I ... 10.0' ... 12.0' 1 0( 7 .0' • I oE 11.0' ... I oE 10.0' ... I oE 11 .0' ... I 0( 7 .0' .. 12.0'1... .10.0' .... I
Bike Lane Sidewalk
/-:~'~'~;':;" 'I:~~'" \: =1 " ",._c-.,1
... ~,' ."." t . .<.:~:;.f
Sidewalk
T·5 OOlLECTOR
Bike Lane Travel Lane Travel Lane
35.0' 35.0'
. ,,-:' . .;;,:.-TH E
}{ '.' CORRADINO GROUP
t r ~,q(,. • /';,.;",,,,. f'(Q~"_~' "'."a~~:" l" .. "J "'~<":.I ~c ,."r,,!>
Set Back Depending
on Zoning
SO UTH M I A MI CO M PLETE STR EET S PLAN -2~ 6 1 /:~: ~~~
Pedestrian/Sidewalk 10'
Curb Ramps Benches N/A
Pedestrian Signal Crossings landscaping or Swale
For high pedestrian areas street furniture should be provided Parklets
Pedestrian Pedestrian Lighti ng Wayfinding
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (when appropriate)
Flex Zone Rectangular rapid flashing Beacon (when appropriate)
Non e requi red Bicycle Parking Bike lanes
For Heavy Bike use , bike signal accomodations should be
Bikes considered
70' Wayfind ing
Bus She lters Bus Turno uts
Nayfinding
required None required N/A
11' Minimum for lravellanes N/A N/A
Vehicle ,10' un-raised median (As needed, if not, then this will become flex
TRAVEL LANE Bikes
Uncontrolled mid block crosswalks N/A
Marked crosswalk at controlled intersections (10' Min . width) (when appropriate)
Pedestrian In street pedestrian crossing lighting (when appropriate) Controlled mid bloc k crosswalks (when appropriate)
DESIGN PLAN
62 I I 85
Set Back Depending
on Zoning
I .... • I.... 11.0' • I 2.0'1 oE 7.0' .1 oE 10.0' ~ I
Flex ZOne Sidewalk
10.0' 7.0'
2.0' 11.0'
ww LlN\ 1-001 oEE---------
Flex Zone Sidewalk Travel Lane Travel Lane
35.0' 35.0'
f~;, ~~:.~~---..:..:--------l '·'f.:.:~:;_··
T -5 ARTERIAL
. ..,--" _.. TH E }f .: CORRADINO GROUP
~n".~<,~" . ":~';""'3' ",u~'~n' M ."~U"' •. llt""""·,.,,,.1 ~, .. ~"r ,,:,
Set Back Depending
on Zoning
SOUTH MIAMI COMPLETE STREETS PLAN -2 ~ 63 /:~: ~~~
T -5 ARTERIAL
Pedestrian/Sidewalk 10'
Curb Ramps Benches N/A
Pedestrian Signal Crossings Landscaping or Swale
For high pedestrian areas street furniture should be provided Parklets
Pedestrian Pedestrian Lighting Wayfinding
Pedest r ian Hyb rid Beacons (when appropriate)
Flex Zo n e Rectangular rapid flashing Beacon (when appropriate)
None required Bicycle Parking Bike lanes
For Heavy Bike use, bike signal accomodations should be
Bikes considered
70 ' Wayfinding
Bus She lters Bus Turnouts
Transit Wayfinding
None required None required N/A
11' Minimum for Travel l anes N/A N/A
Vehicle ,., un-raised median (As needed, if not, then this will become flex space)
TRAVEL LANE Bikes
Uncontrolled mid block crosswalks N/A
Marked crosswalk at controlled intersections (10' Min. width) (when appropriate)
Pedestrian In street pedestrian crossi ng lighting (when appropriate) Controlled mid block crosswalks (when appropriate)
DESIGN PLAN
64 II 85
FLEX ZONES
When we look at existing planning, we often are hinged on the idea of simply saying we need to include all the modes. But in
w hat way can w e include for ea ch w hen space is limited? When we look at current planni ng documents, w e find the same idea
over and over -th is space is for pedestrians . This space is for cars . That space is for bicycles . We still bo x th ings in , sometimes
reduc ing flexibility in urban design . Can we think of this space differently? Maybe it's an urb an linear pa rk. Maybe it 's a seating
area afte r the space has been "chairbombed," or the City adds permanent benches . Maybe it's an open area where pop-up
co mmerce can happen , or where booths can be em placed for ac tivities such as the South Miami Arts Festival.
W hy not look at this differently then? We know that pa rking spaces take up 7' x 21 ' at minimum for each space. If the City
w anted to place a library vending mach ine as part of an innovative twist on your regular parklet, creating public space, it would
need space for a book vending machine and a set clearance space for people using it. We know that bike racks take a speci fi c
si zed space. Perhaps, t his space is needed f or a swale to reduce flooding. We know what can, and cannot, fit into the flex space
ba sed on dimen sions . But w e ha ve to include it in the discussion and as we begin to redes ign t he right-of-way to allow for it, as
many co mmunities are doing as they pursue Complete Streets .
If we kno w the amount of If we set up a flex space in conjunction w ith the necessities (i.e . travel lanes for cars, etc.), and know
how much space is needed for eac h program , each modu le, such as bike lanes or bi ke racks, et c., why can 't we th ink about t he
ri ght of w ay differently, and interchange them in a modular pattern , incrementally, as community needs evolve? We sa y that
variety helps the pedestrian en vironment, but the spa ce must be available fo r the facility to be put in place .
In t he variou s Tra nsects and their road segments, this plan recommends the development of a Fle x Zone . This zone wi ll vary
depend ing on th e area , but should be set-up as a form of "land bank ," separate from clear pathways, that allows for options . In
applyi ng this t o South Miami, th is in vol ves t aki ng space from the veh icular right-of-way and designating it for alternative mod e
usa ge.
By thinking differently about Complete Streets, we can t hen evo lve the idea in the implementa ti on stage to understand trade-
offs , w hic h will not on ly allow us to meet commun it y needs , but to adapt in the future and set aside approp riate funding as
we ll. Perha ps we don 't need as many bi cy cle parking spa ces no w -ma ybe we need more later. We reserve the appropriate flex
sp ac e and modul e it in later, in some cases effecting a context sensitive pan w ith cost savings .
Ultim ately, we think of Co mplete Stre ets about h ow we ca n include the var iou s modes . It is , after ali , how it's described
ev ery where else . Changing the thought slightly to include the need to think about spatia l needs for activities, t his section
prov ides a basic menu of options which can evo lve over time as new innovations occur and as new needs arise .
SOUTH M IAM I COMPLETE STREETS PLAN -2 ~ 65 /:~~ ~~~
Flex Options Spatial Dimensions
Crmr: Edward Ng Cr~r: Edward fig 5our~FlCNCXWI'~
I
j
w !
U i
~ j
VI
U
..J
!Xl
::::> c.. -« w a:: «
I.!) z
~ w
VI
0
z Z « « ...J
"-
Z VI VI l? C/J ----l-
V> ___
W '" W o '" ..J
:::-::: a:: « c..
z
:5
D-
~
W
W a:
0-
V)
w
0-w
...J
D-
:?: o u
~ «
~
I
0-::> o
V)
Vl
~
U
<C ex:
w
~
CO
z I.!) «
-' Z a..
Z '" -c:J 00 0 Vi ::::: w 00 Z 0 '" u..
~ ~
BUS PULLIN AND BUS BULBS
source: hrtp.I/st~.mn/2014/05/l6ft'ea;mmendorioru-fOf-mjnneapol;s-36th-StTffi-bilc~
Parking : 9'
WeSfbounc!: ii'
~a~bO",nd ;W
Bus SaylTur n
Lane : 10'
'Shared B l k~J
Pedestrian
Space. 10'
SOUTH MIAMI COMPLETE STREETS PLAN -2~ 69 /~~~ ~~~
Stlurce: Ilrrp://strt'etS.mn/20l4/tlS/l6/recomm mdarlons-for-mlrmeopolls-36rh-sveet-bikewoy
~ z -c z
::>
LL
C
Z
<C
Z o -~ ~
Z w
~
W
...J c..
~ -
IMPLEMENTATION
The City of South Miami aims to create and adopt a mobility system fo r its
residents and esta b lish long-range policies that will red uce deman d for
single occupancy vehicles, increase public heal t h and safety and reduce fu el
consumption through the implementation of this Complete Streets Design
Manual.
By including the following Complete Streets language in the City 's Comprehensive
Plan , and then enforcing those provisions, the City and community will promote
street design and land use policies that allow peop le to get arou nd safely on
foot , bicycle, or public transportation. Integra ting these Com pl ete Stree t s
practices into planning and pol icy decisions wi ll help encourage safe and active
transporta ti on , decrease pollution, red uce healt h risks , and bolster eco nomic
growth. However, the adop ti on and enforce ment of policies are key.
The implementation of the Com pl et e Street plan sho uld involve the
implementation of measures that will and policies t o monit or development
and adherence to adopted st anda rds. The City is currently in t he process of
beginning to revise its Comprehensive Plan an d Land Develo pment Reg ulations.
It is strongly recommended and encouraged that in this process, the City looks
at and implements policies and regulations which will tie in urban form, land
use, and transportation via Complete Streets . The City shou ld also consider
adopting this report by reference. Howeve r, ultimately, much of implementation
will require a review of funding, as it deals with re-al igning the right-of-way.
Implementation of Complete St reets in the community must also follow the
design requirements imposed by Miami-Dad e County and/or the Florida
Department of Transportation .
The following are suggested policies recommended by review of other Complete
Streets Plans, ChangeLa b Sol utions's "Model Com prehensive Plan Language on
Complete Streets", an d the Sou t h Miami Intermoda l Trans port ation Plan.
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLU)
FLU Objective -Inco r porate a more context-sensitive approach i nt o des ign
standards and encourage t he us e of des ign variations t o meet context-
appropriate des ign go al s.
~ FLU Po licy -The City shall review and , if necessary, amend the Transect
Zones map in the Complete Streets Design Manual any time there
is a rezoning , land use change , or sign ificant new development or
redeve lopment project. This allows roadway design and Complete
Streets decisions to be more flexible and sensitive to community values,
and to bette r balance economic, soc ial, and envi ronmental objectives.
~ FLU Policy -As necessary, restruct ure and rev ise the zoning an d
land deve lopment codes, and other plans, laws, procedures, rules,
regulations, guidelines , programs, templates, and des ign manua ls, in
order to i ntegrate, accommod at e, and balance t he needs of all users in
all st reet projects on publ ic and private st reets.
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT (TRA)
TRA Goal -Provide safe and comfortable rou t es for walking, bicycl ing, and
public transportation to increase use of t hese modes of transportation, enable
conven ient and active travel as part of daily activities, reduce pollution, and
meet the needs of all users of t he streets, including ch i ldren, fam ilies, older
adults, and people w ith disab ilities.
TRA Objective -The City wi ll take a flexible, innovative, and balanced approach
t o crea ti ng context-sensitive Complete Streets that meet or exceed national
best-practice design guidelines.
~ TRA Pol icy -This incl udes a sh ift toward de sign ing atthe human scale for
the needs and comfort of all peop le and trave lers, in co nsidering iss ues
such as street design and width, des ired operati ng speed , hierarc hy of
streets, mode balance, and connectivity. Design crite ria shall not be
purely prescriptive but shall be based on the thoughtful application
of engineering, architectural and urban design principles in a context-
sensitive approach .
~ TRA Policy-The City shall select the min imum roadway width standards
when possible to maximize space for si dewa lks and pedestrian facilities .
TRA Objective -The City will ens ure that Bi cycle an d Pedestrian Faci lities are
empla ced to allow for usage by reside nt s and vis itors to South Miami.
TRA Policy -The City sha ll seek to ma intain a bicycle Level of Se rvice Stan dard
of B or be tter on all roadways with des ignated bicycle lanes in acco rdance with
the flowing definitions:
~ LOS A -On and off street fac ilities, low level of in t eraction with mot or
vehicles, appropriate for all riders;
~ LOS B -Low level of interaction with motor vehicles , ap propriate for all
riders ;
~ LOS C -Appro priate for most riders, some supervision may be required,
moderate in t eraction with motor veh icles;
~ LOS D -Appropriate for advanced adult bicyclists, moderate to high
interactions with motor vehicles ;
~ LOS E -Cautious use by advanced adu lt ride rs, high interactions w ith
motor vehicles;
~ LOS F -Genera lly not safe for bi cycle use, hi gh level of i nteractions w ith
motor vehicles.
SOUTH M IAM I COMPLET E STREETS PLAN -2 ~ 71 /:~: ~~~
TRA Po licy : The City shall seek to mainta in a pedest ri an Leve l of Se rvice
St andard of B or better on all roadways with design ate d pedest rian faci lities in
accord ance with t he flowing de fin itions:
~ LOS A -Hig hly pedest rian oriented and attractive for pedestrian trips,
with sidewa lks, pedestrian friendly intersection design , low vehicular
traffic vol ume , and ample pedestrian amenities;
~ LOS B -Similar to A, but with fewer amenities and low to moderate
level of interaction with motor vehicles;
~ LOS C -Adequate for pedestrians, some deficiencies in intersection
design, moderate interactions with motor veh icles;
~ LOS D -Adequate for pedest rians bu t with deficiencies in intersection
design an d pedestrian safety an d comfo rt featu res, may be some gaps
in the sidewal k system, moderate to high interactions with motor
vehicles;
~ LOS E -Inadeq uate for pedest rian use, deficient pedestrian faci lities,
high interactions with motor vehicles;
~ LOS F -In adequate for pedestrian use, no pedestrian facilities, high
interactions with motor ve hicles .
TRA Objective -Integrate Com plete Streets infrastructure and design features
into street design and const ru ction to crea t e safe and inviting environments for
all users to wa lk, bicycle, and use public transportation.
~ TRA Policy -In planning, designing and constructi ng Complete Streets :
l' In cl ude infrastructure that p ro motes a safe means of trave l for all
users along the right of way, such as si dewal ks, shared use paths,
bicycle lanes, and pave d sho ulders.
l' Include infrastructure that fac ilitates sa fe crossing of the right of
way, such as accessible curb ram ps, crosswalks, refuge is lands, and
pedestrian signals; such infrastructure must meet the needs of
peo pl e with different types of disabilities and people of different
ages.
l' Ensu re th at Sidewalks , crosswalks, pub lic transportation stops
and faCilities , and other aspects of the t ransportation right of way
are compliant with the Americans with Disa bi lities Act and meet
the needs of peop le with different types of disabilities, including
mobility impairments, vision impairments, hearing impairments,
and ot hers. Ens ure that the AD A Transi ti on Plan includes a
pri oriti zation met hod for enha nceme nts and revise if necessa ry.
l' Prio riti ze in corporation of st reet des ign fe atures and techniques
t hat promot e safe an d comforta bl e t rave l by pedestrians, bicyclists,
SECTION
72 //85
and public transportation riders , such as traffic calming circles,
additional traffic calm ing mechanisms, narrow vehicle lanes , raised
medians, dedicated transit lanes, transit priority signalization ,
transit bulb outs, road diets, and physical buffers and separations
between ve hic ular traffic and other users .
~ Ensure use of add itional fe atures that improve the co mfort and
safety of users:
o Provide pede strian-oriented signs, pedestrian-sca le lighting,
benches and other street furniture, bicycle parking facilities,
and comfortable and attractive public transportation stops and
facilities .
o Encourage street trees , landscaping, and planting strips,
including native plants w here po ssible, in order to bu ffe r t raffic
noise and protect and sh ade pedestrians and bicyclists.
.. TRA Policy -In all street projects , incl ude infrastructure that
improves transportation options for pedestrians, bicycl ists, and public
tran sportation riders of all ages and abilities.
~ Ensure that this infra structure is included in planning, design,
approval , const ructi on, operation s, and maintenance phases of
street projects .
~ Incor porate this infra structure into all construction , recon struction,
retrofit , maintenance, alteration, and repair of streets, bridge s, and
other portions of the transportation network.
~ Incorporate multi modal improvements into pavement resurfaCing,
restriping, and signa lization operations where the safety and
convenience of users can be improved within the scope of the
wo rk .
.. TRA Policy -Develop policies and tools t o improve Sout h Miami's
Complete Streets practices:
~ Deve lop a pedestrian crossings policy to create a tran sparent
deCision-making policy, including matters such as w here to place
crosswalks and w hen to use enhanced crossing treatments.
~ Consi der developing a transportation demand management/
commuter benefits ordinance to encourage residents and
employees to walk, bicy cle , use public transportation, or carpool.
~ Develop a checklist for South Miami 's develo pment and
redevelopment proj ects, to ensure the inclusion of infrastructure
providing for safe travel for all users and enhance project outcom es
and community impact.
.. TRA Policy -Encourage transit-oriented development that provides
public transportation in close proximity to employment, housing,
sc hoo ls, retailers, and other services and amenities.
.. TRA Policy -Change transportation investment criteria to ensure
that existing transportation funds are available for Comp lete Streets
infrastructure.
.. TRA Policy -Identify additional funding streams and implementation
strategies to retrofit existing streets to include Complete Streets
infrastructure .
TRA Objective -Make Complete Streets practices a routine part of South
Miami's everyday operations.
.. TRA Policy -As necessary, restructure and revise the zoning and
land development codes, and other plans , laws, procedures , rules ,
regulations, gu ide lines, programs , templates, and design manuals , in
order to integrate, accommodate, and balance the needs of all users in
all street projects on public and private streets.
.. TRA Policy -Develop or revise street standards and design manuals,
including cross-section templates and design treatment details, to
ensure that standards support and do not impede Complete Streets .
.. TRA Polic y -Encourage coordination among agencies and departments
to develop joint prioritization, capital planning and programming , and
implementation of st reet improvement projects and programs .
.. TRA Po licy -Encourage targeted outreach and public participation in
commu nity decisions concerning street design and use .
.. TRA Policy -Collect baseline da t a and reg ularly gather fo llow-up data in
order to ass ess impact of policies .
~ Track public transportation ridership numbers .
~ Track performan ce standards and goals.
~ Trac k other perfo rm ance measures such as number of new curb
ramps and ne w street trees or pla ntings .
~ Require major employers to mon itor how employees commute to
work.
TRA Objective -Plan and develop a comprehensive and convenient bicycle
and pedestrian transportation network.
.. TRA Policy -De velop a long-term plan for a bicycle and pedestrian
network that meets the needs of users , including pedestrians, bicycl ists,
public transportation riders , and people of all ages and ab ilities,
including children, youth, families , older adul t s, and individuals with
disabilities. (ADDRESSED IN THE SM IT P)
.. TRA Policy -In collaboration with the MPO, Miami-Dade County, other
agenCies, and su rrounding jurisdictions, integrate bi cycle, pedestrian ,
and public transportation facility planning into regi onal and loca l
transportation planning programs to encourage connectivity betw een
j urisdictions.
.. TRA Policy -De velop programs to encourage bicycle use, such
as enacting indoor bicycle parking policies to encourage bicycle
commuting, or testing innovative· bicycl e facility design . ..
TRA Objective -Promote bicycle, pedestrian and public transportation rider
safety. (ADDRESSED IN THE SMITP )
TRA OBJECTIVE -Make public transportation an interconnected part of the
transportation network.
FUNDING
Fundi ng for transportation projects comes from three primary sources: Local,
State and Federal.
Each year funding is more difficult to come by. Cities and counties, face the
dilemma of r ising costs of transportation projects, increasing traffic volu mes
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 3S percent rise in the overall rate of inflation. Fast changing economic
environments put pressure on local governments to keep up w ith growth
and congestion. At the same time, most states limit counties' ability to rai se
revenue . In Florida in recent yea rs, the State Legi slature has capped prdperty
tax, lowered property taxes and has attempted to take away the ability for local
govern ments to tax.
Faced with rapi dly increasing construction costs and traffic vol umes local
governments are finding new funding and financing solutions fortransportation.
Ohen, these solutions invo lve partnerships with other jurisdictions, the private
sector and most of all co unty residents. Unfortunately Flo rida is a donor state,
giving more into the fede ral 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 administered to agencies like FDOT. The next
several pages contain a description of relevant funding opportunities at all
levels .
LOCAL FUNDING
Local fund in g is money that is generated from within a city or county. These
sources generally re ly on property taxes or other funds. Many commun ities have
concurrency fees or impact fees, which can be applied to local infrastructu re
projects. In high growth communities it is advised that they consider these, in
the form of mobi lity fees, which require 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 allow municipalities
within Miami-Dade County submit transportation plan ning proposals to
the Metropol ita n Planning Organization (MPO) to receive funding on a
competitivebasis. Participation intheprogramrequiresaminimum 20% funding
commitmentfromthemunicipality.
Selection criteria include:
.. Level of Serv ic e (LOS) benefits of the proposed project
.. Impact of mobility/t raffic circulation gains
.. Intermodal nature of proposal
.. Support of the approved countywide activities of the Unified Planning
Work Program
.. Consistency with the applicant's loca l comprehe nsi ve plans
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY'S PEOPLE'S
TRANSPORTATION PLAN,
1/2 PENNY SALES TAX
Miami Dade County's People Transportation Plan (PT P), half-penny
transportation surtax was approved by Miami-Dad e County voters in November
2002 and 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
t he total funding is provided to municipalities, based on their population. Each
city must spend at least 20% of their f und s on trans it projects. Importantly, this
source of funds can be used for a loca l match to federal funding. An ad vantage
many local areas do not have.
LOCAL OPTION GAS TAXES
Cou nty governments are authorized to le vy 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 ta x of 1 to 6 cents on every net gallon of motor and diesel fuel sold
within a cou nty.
.. A tax of 1 to 5 cents on every net gallon of motor fue l so ld 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 FUNDING
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
t ransportation infrast ructu re among the best in the country.
.. $1 53.9 million in seaport infrastructure improvements to keep Florida
first in the wor ld for ocean cruise passengers and a major U.S. cargo
gateway.
.. $237.6 million for aviation improvements to keep Florida first in airport
SOUTH MIAMI COMPLETE STREETS PLAN -2 ~ 73/~~: ~~~
infrastructure investments.
.. $731.9 million for scheduled repair of 48 bridges and replacement of 21
bridges to keep Florida's bridges among the best st ruct ures in the country.
.. $963.4 million for maintenance and operation to keep Florida's
infrastructure among the best maintained in the co untry.
.. $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
.. $46.6 million for bike and pedestrian trails to keep Flo rid a'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 ba se d 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 beha lf of a specific business for public transportation
improvement s.
THE TRANSPORTATION REGIONAL
INCENTIVE PROGRAM (TRIP)
The TRIP fund was created as part of major Growth Management legislation
enacted during the 2005 Legislative Session (58 360). The purpose of the
program is to encourage regio nal planning by providing state match in g funds
for improvements to regionally significant transportation facilities identified
and prioritized by regional partners . Eligible partners are shown in the chart on
the right. These partners must form a regiona l transportation area, pursuant
to an interlocal agreement, and develop a regio nal transportation plan that
identifies and prioritizes regionall y significant facilities. To qua lify for TRIP
fundi ng, partners must sign an interlocal agreement that:
.. Includes development of the regional transportation plan.
.. Delineates the boundaries of the re gional transportati on area.
.. Provides the duration of the agreement and how it may be changed.
.. Describes the planning process, and defines a dispute resolution
process.
SECTION
74 II 85
TRIP funds are to be used to match local or regional funds up to 50 % ofthe 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 t o urbanized areas over 200 ,000 in
population may also be used for the local /regi onal match .
FOOT PROGRAMS
The Florida Department of Transportation Safety Office (FDOT) funds subgrants
that address traffic safety priority areas including:
~ Aging Road Users
~ Com munity Traffi c Safety
~ Impaired Dri ving
~ Motorcycle Sa fety
~ Occu pant Protecti on and Child Passenge r Safety
~ Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
.. Police Traffic Services
~ Speed and Aggressive Driving
~ Teen Dri ver Safety
~ Traffic Re cord s
~ Traffic Record Coord inating Comm ittee (TRCC)
Subgrants may be awarded fo r assisting in addressing traffic safety deficiencies,
expansion of an ongoi ng activity, or deve lopment of a new program.
Grants ar e awarded to state and local safety-related agen cies as "s eed " money
to ass ist in the development and implementation of programs that address
traffic safety deficiencies or expand on going safety programs activities in safety
priority program areas. Funding for these grants are apportioned to states
annual ly from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
accor ding to a formula based on popu lation an d road mileage. Funding ma y be
ava ilab le for projects in other program areas if there is documented evidence
of an identified p roblem .
Through public rule making processes conducted in 1982, 1988, 1995 and
1998, it has been determined that certain highway safety program areas hav e
proven to be more effective than others in reducing traffic crashe s, injuries , and
fata lities . 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
Recor ds, and Co mmunity Traffic Safety.
It is expected that programs funded through these grants will become self-
sufficient and continue w hen grant funding terminates. To promote self-
sufficiency, agencies are expected to provide a local funding match when
personne l costs are includ ed in seco nd and third year projects. The local match
is normally 25 % of eligible costs for second year projects and 50% for third year
pro jects.
Government agencies , political "subdivisions" ofthe 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 go vernments 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.
The US Department of Transportation helps communities fund transportation
projects by is suing 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 Transportatio n 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 ma y be used as capital funding for
public transportation capital improvements, car and vanpool projects, fringe
and corridor parking facilities, bi cycle and pedestrian facilities, and intercity
or intraCity bus terminals and bus facilities. As funding for planning, these
funds can be used fo r surface transportation planning activities , wetland
mitigation, transit research and development, and en vironmental 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 for areas between 200,000 and 50 ,0 00
in population. The largest portion of STP funds may be used an ywhere w ithin
the State to which they are apportioned . State and local governments are
eligible for these funds.
BUS AND BUS FACILITIES PROGRAM
The Buses and Bus Related Equipment and Facilities program provi des capital
assistance for new and replacement buses, related equipment, and facilities.
Eligible capital projects include the purchasing of buses for fleet and se rvi ce
expansion, bus maintenance and administrative facilities, transfer facilities,
bus malls, transportation centers, intermodal terminals, park-and-ride station s,
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, Co mmunity, 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, ser vices , and
centers of t rade ; 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 .
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 is not a funding program. Pedest rian and
bicycle projects and programs are eligible for almost all Federal-aid highway
funding categories. Each State has a Bicycle and Pede strian 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 consu lt program eligibility criteria available in their State. The
State Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinators can help with questions specific to
each State .
TRANSPORTATION EN HANCEMENT
ACTIVITIES
Transportation Enhancement (TE ) activities offer fund ing opportunities to
expand transportation choices and enhance the transportation experience
through 12 eligible TE activities related to surface transportation, inclu ding
pedestrian and bicycle in frastructure 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
de velops its own procedures to solicit and select projects for fund in g. 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 faci lities 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; S.
Archeolog ical 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 approval to become el igib le 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 bou levards and other roadways largely
in the right of way of former Interstate System routes or ot her divided highways are
also eligible as well. The City has applied for funding from the TAP program before,
and several projects, su ch as a beach pathway and elevated pedestrian plazas , may
be eligible under this gran t.
THE SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM
The purpose of the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program is to enable and
encourage chi ld ren , 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
vicin ity 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 was funded at $612 million and provided Federal-aid
highway funds to State highway agencies over five fiscal years (FY 2005 -2009),
in accordance with a formula specified in the legislation. Although states
received these funds for FY 2005-2009, some states , such as Florida, did not
utilize all of the money, which are now avai la ble. 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 chi ldren in grades K-S. 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 nonnotarized
and motorized recreationa l trail uses. Each State develops its own procedures
to so licit 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.
SOUTH MIAMI COMPLETE STREETS PLAN -2~ 75 /:~~ ~~~
<C
X -C
Z w c.. c..
<C
COMPLETE STREETS COMP PLAN
SAMPLE LANGUAGE:
COMPLETE STREETS POLICY
Goa l Tl : Provide safe and comfortable ro utes for wal ki ng, b icycling, and public
t ra nsportation t o increase use of t hese modes of transportation, enable
co nvenient and active travel as pa rt of da ily acti vi ties, reduce pollution, and
meet the needs of all users of the streets, includ ing childre n, fam il ies, older
adults, and peop le with disabil ities.
Obj ective Tl.l: Integ ra te Co m plete St reets inf rastru ctu re and desig n fea tu res
into street des ign and construction to create safe a nd inviting e nvironments
for all us ers to walk, bicycle, and use p ub lic transportation .
~ Tl.1.l, In planning, designing, and constructing Complete Streets:
" Include infrastructure that promotes a safe means of t ravel for all
users along the right of way, such as sidewalks, sha red use paths,
bicycle lanes, and paved shoulders .
" Include infrastructure that facil ita t es safe crossing of the right of
way, such as access ible curb ramps , crosswalks , refuge islands , and
pedest rian signals; such infrastructure must mee t the needs of
people w ith different types of disabilities and peop le of different
ages.
" Ensure that sidewalks, crosswalks, publ ic transportation stops
and facilities, and other aspe cts of the transportation right of way
are compliant with the Americans w ith Disab iliti es Act and meet
the needs of peop le with different types of disabi lities , including
mobil ity imp airments , vision impai rments , hearing impairments,
and others.l Ensure t hat the ADA Transition Plan includes a
prioritization method for enhancement s and revise if necessary.
" Prioritize incorporation of st reet design features and techn iques
that promote safe and comfortable travel by pedestrians, bicyclists ,
and public t ransportation riders , such as traffic calming circles ,
additional traffic calming mecha nisms, narrow vehicle lanes , raised
medians, dedicated transit lanes , transit priority signa lization ,
transit bulb outs, road diets) high street connectivitY,3 and physical
buffers and separations between vehicular t raffic and other users.
" Ensure use of additional features that improve the comfort and
safety of users:
o Provide pedestrian-oriented signs, pedestria n-scale lighting,
benches and other st reet furniture, bicycle parking facilities,
and comfortable and attractive public t ransportation stops and
facilities .
o Encourage street trees, landscaping, and pl anting stri ps,
including native plants where possi bl e, in order to buffe r traffi c
noise and protect and shade pedestrians and bicyclists .
o Reduce surface water run off by red uci ng the amou nt of
impervious surfaces on the streets .
~ Tl.l.2. In all street projects, include infrastructure that im proves
transportation options for pedestrians, bicyclists, and publ ic
transportation riders of all ages and abi lities.
COMMENT: This provision, which requires that all street projects on new or
existing streets create Complete Streets, is a fundamental component of a
commitment to Complete Streets.
" Ensure that this infrastruct ure is included in pl anning, design ,
approval, construction, operations, and maintenance ph ases of
street projects,
" Incorporate this infrastruct ure in t o all construction, reconstruction ,
retrofit, ma intenance, altera ti on, and repair of streets , bridges, and
other ponti ons of the tra nsportati on network.
" Incorporate multimod al im provements in t o pavement resurfacing,
restripi ng, and signa liza ti on opera ti ons whe re t he safety and
conven ience of users can be improved within the scope of t he
work.
" Deve lop syst ems to implement and mo nitor incorporation of such
infrastructu re into construction and reconst ruction of private
streets.
" Allow exclusion of such infrastructure f rom street projects on ly
upon approva l by [the City Manager or a senior manage r of an
appropriate agency, such as the Department of Transportation],
and only where documentation and supporting data indicate one
of the following bases for the exemption : (a) use by non-motorized
users is prohibited by law; (b) the cost would be excessively
disproportionate to t h e need or probable future use over the
long term; (c) there is an absence of current and fut ure need;
or (d) inclusion of such infrastructure would be un re asonable or
inappropriate in light of the scope of the project.
SOUT H MIAM I COMPLET E STR EET S PLAN -2 ~ 77/~~: ~~~
COMMENTS: This provision provides crucial accountability in the exceptions
process by requiring documentation, a transparent decision-making process ,
and written approval by a specified official.
By including this fourth exception , exception (dl. a jurisdiction gains
considerable flexibility, but at the cost of potentially implementing Complete
Streets practices less thoroughly. Jurisdictions should consider this trade-off
in determining whether to include this exception.
Other exceptions can also be included in this list, for example : "Significant
adverse environmental impacts outweigh the positive effects of the
infrastructure."
In evaluating whether the conditions of (b) and (c) are met, a jurisdiction may
need to conduct latent demand studies, which measure the potential level of
use by bicyclists, pedestrians, and others should appropriate infrastructure
be provided.
~ Tl .l.3. Deve lop policies and tools to improve [Jurisd iction ]'s Complete
Streets practices:
" Develop a pe de strian crossings policy to create a transparent
decision-making policy, including matters such as whe re to place
crosswalks and when to use en hanced crossing t reatment s.
" Develo p pol icies to improve th e safety of crossings and travel in the
vicin ity of schoo ls and parks.
" Consider developing a t rans portation demand manageme nt /
commut er benefit s ordinance to enco urage residents and
employees t o walk, bicycle, use publ ic transportation, or carpool.
" Deve lop a checklist for [Jurisdiction]'s development and
redevelop ment projects, to ensure the inclusion of infrastructure
providing for safe trave l fo r all users and enhance project outcomes
and comm unity impact.
~ Tl.1.4. Encourage transit-oriented developme nt that provides public
t ransportati on in close proxim ity t o employment, housing, schools,
retaile rs, and other se rvices and amenities.
~ T1.1.5. Cha nge trans portation investment criteria t o ensure that existing
t ransportation funds ar e availab le fo r Complete Street s infrast ructu re.
~ Tl.1.6. Identify add itional f unding streams and implementation
strategies to retrofit existing st reets to incl ud e Comp lete Streets
infrast ructure.
Objective T1.2: Make Complete Streets practices a routine part of
[Ju risdiction]'s everyday operations.
SECTION
78 II 85
• Tl.2.1. As necessary, restructure and rev is e the zon ing and subd ivision
codes, and other plans, laws, proce dures, rules, regula ti ons, guidelines,
programs, templates, and des ign manuals, including [insert all other
key documents by name], in order to int egrate, accommodate, and
balance the needs of all users in all street projects on pub lic [and
private) streets.
COMMENT: By opting to apply the requirement to private streets in addition
to publi c streets, a jurisdiction will generally expand the effectiveness of the
co mplete streets policy. However, such a requirement may be more practical
in certa in j uris dictions than in others . For example, the requ irement might
be very important in a jurisdiction where there are many private streets in
central locations .
• T1.2 .2. Develop or rev ise street stand ards and des ign manuals, including
cross-section templates and design treatment details, to ensure that
standards support and do not impede Complete Streets; coordinate
with related policy documents [such as Pedestrian/Bicycle Plans, insert
other rele vant documentsJ.
• Assess current requirements with regard to road width and turning radii
in order to determine the narrowest vehicle lane width and tightest
corner radii that safely balance other needs; adjust design guidelines
and templates to reflect ideal widths and radii.
• Tl.2.3. Make training available to planning and public works personnel
and consulting firms on the importance of Complete Streets and on
imp lementation and integra ti on of multi modal infrastructure and
techniques .
• Tl .2.4 . Encourage coordination among agencies and departments to
develop joint prioritization , capital planning and programming, and
implementation of street improvement projects and programs.
• Tl.2.S. Enco urage targeted ou treach and public partiCipation in
community decisions concerning street design and use .
• Tl .2.6. Establish performance standards with measurab le outcomes to
assess safety, f unctionality, and actual use by each catego ry of users;
include goals such as:
l' By [2020], facilitate a transportation mode shift so that [20J % of
trips occur by bicycling or walking.
l' By [2 015], reduce the number of injuries and fatalities to bic yclists
and pedestrians by [_)%.
l' Reduce per capita vehicle miles trave led by [_J% by [insert yearJ.
l' Provide a high proportion of streets ([_J%) with sidewalks , low
design speeds, tree canopy, and street furnishings.
l' Increase the miles of bicycle lanes and other bikeways by [_)% by
[insert yearJ .
l' Increase the miles of sidewalks by [~% by [insert yearJ
COMMENT: Other standards could include user satisfaction , percentage
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions , and reduction in gaps in the sidewalk
network.
• Tl.2.7. Replace automobile level of service as a dominant determinant
w ith multimodallevel of service assessment criteria.
• Tl.2.8. Collect base li ne data and regularly gather follow-up data in
order to assess impact of poliCies.
l' Collect data regarding the safety, functional it y, and actual use by
each category of users of the neighborhoods and areas within
[Jurisdiction).
l' Track public transportation ridership numbers .
l' Track performance standards and goals .
... Track other performance measures such as number of new curb
ramps and new street trees or plantings.
l' Require major employers to monitor how employees commute to
work.
Objective Tl.3: Plan and develop a comprehensive and conven ient bi cycle
and pedestrian transportation network.
COMMENT: Jur isdictions with exi sting bicycle or pedestrian plans may have
already addressed the policy/action items under this objective . In such
jurisdictions, it is not necessary to restate these policy and action items
verbatim. Such plans should be reviewed , and , if necessary, revised to
complement the Complete Streets approach. If existing plans address this
objective suffiCiently, a jurisdiction may incorporate its bicycl e and pedestrian
plans with language such as : "The provisions set forth in the [Pedestrian/
Bicycle PlanJ are incorporated into t his plan ."
For jurisdictions that have not developed a detailed bicycle or pedestrian
plan , the poliCies and actions in this section provide a good way to begin
addressing those needs in an integrated fashion .
• Tl.3.1. Develop a long-term plan for a bicycle and pedestrian network
that meets the needs of users , including pedestrians , bicyclists, public
transportation riders, [insert other appropriate users if desiredJ and
people of all ages and abilities, including children, youth, families, older
adults, and individuals with disabilities.
l' Conduct a demand analYSis for each category of user, mapping
location s that are already oriented to each mode of travel and type
of user and those for which there is latent demand.
l' For each category of user, map out a preferred transportation
network with routes that will enable safe, interconnecte d, direct,
continuous, and efficient travel from each major origination area to
each major destination area.
l' Encourage public participation in community decisions concerning
the demand ana lysis, preferred route network, and street design
and use to ensure that such decisions: (a) result in streets that
meet the needs of all users, and (b ) are responsive to needs of
individuals and groups that traditionally have not participated
in public infrastructure design. Include pedestrians, bicyclists,
individua ls with disabilities, child ren and youth, families, older
adults, public transportation riders, low-income communities,
communities of color, and other distinct social groups, and their
advocates. Establish ongoing advisory committees and public
feedback mechanisms.
T Identify and prioritize necessary changes in order t o implement
the preferred network; prioritize neighborhoods with the greatest
need and projects that Significant ly alleviate economic, social,
racial, or ethnic inequities.
l' Ensure that the networks provi de read y access to healthy sources
of nutrition.
l' Explore the use of non-standard locations and connections for
bicycle, pedestrian, and public transportation facilities, such as
easements, restored stream corridors, and railroad rights-of way.
• Tl.3.2. Eval uate timeline and funding of the plan .
l' Assess the degree to which implementation of the plan can be
coordinated with planned reconstruction of streets, development
projects, utility projects, and other existing funding streams.
l' Develop funding strategies for addressing additional needs; actively
pursue funding from state I federal / and other sources.
l' Explore imposing development impact fees and dedication
requirements on new development to create paths and other
Complete Streets infrastructure .
• Tl.3.3. In co llaboration with [a ppropriate local and regional agencies],
integrate bicycle , pedestrian, and public transportation facility planning
into regional and loca l transportation planning programs and agencies
to encourage connectivity bet ween jurisdictions.
• Tl.3.4. Develop programs to encourage bicycle use , such as enacting
indoor bicycle parking policies to encourage bicycle comm uting, or
testing innovati ve bicycle fac ility design .
Objective Tl.4: Promote bicycle, pedestrian, and public transportation rider
safety.
Comment: As noted for the previous objective, jurisdictions with existing
bicycle or pedestrian plans may also choose to omit these items if already
addressed in those plans and instead reference those plans.
~ Tl .4.1. Identify physical improvements that would make bicycle and
pedestrian travel safer along current major bicycling and walking
routes and the proposed future network, prioritizing routes to and
from schools .
~ Tl.4.2. Identify safety improvements to pedestrian and bicycle routes
used to access pub lic transportation stops; collaborat e with [lo cal
transit agency ] t o relocate stops where advisable.
~ T1.4 .3. Identify intersections and other locations w here collisions have
occurred or that present safety challenges for pedestrians , bicyclists , or
other users; consider gathering additional data through methods such
as walkabilit y/bikeability audits; analyze data; and de velop so lutions to
safety issue s.
~ Tl.4.4. Pr ior itize modifications to the identified lo cations and identify
funding streams and imp lementation strategies, including wh ich
features can be constructed as part of routine street projects.
~ Tl.4.S. Collaborate with schools, senior centers, advocacy groups, and
public safety departments [insert additional specific departments as
appropriate] to provide community education about safe travel for
pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation riders , and others .
~ Tl.4.G . Use crime prevention through environmental design strategies4
to increase safety for pedestrians , bicyclists , and other users.
~ T1.4 .7. As necessary, public safety departments should engage in
additional enforcement actions in strategic locations .
Objective Tl.S: Make public transportation an i nterconnected part of the
transportation network.
~ Tl.s.I. Partner with [local transit agency] to enhance and expand public
transportation services and infrastructure throughout [Jurisdiction]
and the surrounding region ; encourage the development of a public
transportation system that increases personal mobility and travel
cho ices, conserves energy resources, preserves air quality, and fosters
eco nomi c growth .
~ Tl.s .2. Work jointly with [l ocal transit agency] to provide destinations
and activities that can be reached by public t ran sportation and are of
interest to public transportation-dep en dent populations, including
yo uth, older adults, and people with disabilities.
~ Tl.s .3. Collaborate with [local transit age'ncy] to incorporate
infrastructure to assist users in employing multiple means of
transportation in a single trip in order to increase transportation access
and flexibility; examples incl ude, but are not limited to, provisions
for bicycle access on public transportation, secure bicycle racks at
transit stops , access via public transportation to trails and recreational
locations , and so on.
~ Tl.S.4. Ensure safe and accessible pedestrian routes to public
transportation stops; relocate stops if safe routes are not feasible at
current location .
~ Tl.S.S. Work with [local transit agency] to ensure that public
transportation facilities and vehicles are fully accessible to people with
disabilities .
~ Tl.s .6. Explore working with [local transit agency] to provide travel
training programs for older adults and people wi th disabilities, and
aw areness training for vehicle operators.
~ Tl.s .7. Explore creatizon of public transportation priority lanes t o
improve travel time.
~ Tl.s .S. Partner with [local transit agen cy] to collect data and establish
performance standards rel ated to t hese steps .
Notes:
Note that many types of accommoda tions for people with disabilities are
mandated by federa l law under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
ii. A road diet is a transportation techn ique in wh ich the number or width of
lanes dedicated to motor veh icle traffic is decreased, often b y combining
the two central lanes into a single two-way turn lone, in order to crea te
addio'onal space within the right of way for features such as bicycle lanes,
sidewalks, or buffer lanes.
iii. Connectivity describes the directness of routes and dens ity of connections
in a street network. A street network with high connecti vity has many short
links , numerous intersections, and few dead-end streets. As connectivity
increases, travel d istances decrease an d route options increase, olfowing
more direct travel between destinations.
iv. Cr ime prevention through environmental de s ign (CPTED) invo lves des ign ing
the built environment to deter crim inal behavior CPTED aims to create
environments thot discourage the commiss ion of crimes by influencing
offenders to not commit a contemplated crime, usually due to increasedfear
of detection .
SOUTH M IAMI COMPLETE STREETS PLAN -2 ~ 79!:~: ~~~
SECTION III
Complete Streets Concepts for Inclusion within Other Chapters/Elements/
Sections ofthe Pla n
Communities may also find it benefiCial to include complete st reets concepts in
other chapters of their plans to increase the integra ti on of the plan as a whole.
LAND USE CHAPTER
Goal LUI : Ensure that land use patterns and decisions encourage walking,
bicycling, and public transportation use, and make these transportation
options a safe and convenient choice .
Objective LULl : Plan , design, and create complete and well-structured
neighborhoods whose physical layout and land use mix promote walking,
bicycling, and public transportation use as a means of accessing services, food ,
retail, employment, education, childcare, recreation, and other destinations.
~ LUl.l.l . Encourage mixed-use development t o allow siting of
reSidential, retail, office, recreational, and educationa l facilities within
close proximity to each other to encourage w al king and bicycling as a
routine part of everyday life.
T Maximize the proportion of residences within [X] mile of uses like
parks, schools, grocers, retailers, service providers, employment,
pub lic transportation , and other desirable community features.
~ LU1.I.2. Encourage transit-oriented development by developing
publi c transportatio n in do w ntown areas and encouraging dense infill
development near public t ransportation facilities.
~ LUl.I.3. Promote infill development and redevelopment; new
constr uction should occur in a compact form in developed locations
whenever feasible .
~ LUl.I.4. Encourage the creation of high-quality community plazas ,
squares , greens, commons, community and neighborhood parks , and
rooftop gardens; explore creation of shared streets.
~ LUl.l.5. Require safe and con venient walking, bicycling, and public
transportation features in ne w or renovated development.
~ LUl.I.G. Require transportation demand management strategies in
development plans .
~ LUl.l.7. Explore imposing development impact fee , use fee , and
dedication requirements on new development to fund multimodal
transportation.
~ LU1.l.S . Conside r conducting health impact assessme nts w hen
SECTION
80 II 85
designing streets or undertaking policymaking with regard to public
infrastructure and development, in order to understand and address
public health imp lications of actions in this realm.
Objective LU1.2: Require street design that creates public space that is safe
and welcoming for pedestrians.
~ LU1.2 .1. Encourage street-oriented buildings; locate parking lots, if
provided, in rear of retail and business centers.
~ LUl .2 .2 . Pro vide pedestrian-scale lighting.
~ LUl .2 .3 . Encourage a high proportion of streets where building fa<;ades
have abundant windows and entrances facing the street and create a
human-scaled wall near the lot line .
~ LUl .2.4 . Encourage ground-level business uses that support pedestrian
activ ity, such as retai l, restaurants, and services.
~ LU1.2 .S. Reduce the proportion of street frontages and rights of way
lined by parking lots, blank walls, or empty lots.
• LU1.2.6 . Where parking lots are located between commercial buildings
and streets, require or encourage creation of a pedestrian path from
the street to the entrance.
• LU1 .2 .7 . Increase street connectivity.
PARKS/RECREATION CHAPTER
Goal Pl: Increase use of parks and open space for physical activity and
encourage residents to access parks by walking, bicycling, or public
transportation.
Objective P1.1 : Create safe routes to parks and open space.
• P1.1.1. Encourage the development of parks and open space with a
network of safe and convenient wa lking and bicycle routes, including
. routes that access other popular destinations, such as schools.
• P1.1.2. Implement traffic-calming measures near parks where advisable
due to vehicle speeds and volumes.
• P1.1.3. Improve intersections at access paints to parks to create greater
visibility for all users , and provide accessible curb ramps and additional
time to cross the street.
• Pl.1.4. Improve public transportation connections to trails, parks, and
other recreational locations.
• P1.1.5. Ensure that all parks and open space can be reached through
safe routes for bicycling, walking, and public transportation.
• P1.1.6. Ensure that trails, parks, and open spaces have secure bicycle parking facilities.
N ~
I ;;;
z
<{
-'
CL
~
W
W
CC >-V1
W >-W
-' CL
::ii o u
~
<{
~
i!:
::l o
V1
~ LLv-,
O ·w
~~
w~ -w >w wo:: c:::~
aiv-,
X W\.n
~W c wU
z~i=
W-=:=U
~O~ <cue..
Pedestrian
SOUTH MIAMI COMPLETE STREETS PL AN -2 ~ 83/:~: """
5 feet sidewalks when separated from the back of curb by a buffer
strip (4 feet when physical constrains exist)
6 feet sidewalks when they are adjacent to the curb
Sidewalks should be pre sent on both sides of the roadway except
for locations whe re there are physicals barriers (like canals), In such
cases, sidewa lk shall be pro vided at least for one side of the road and
where the bulk of pedestrian generators exist (i.e. bus stops, shopping
centers, schools, etc.)
Minimum sidewalk width Ra nges from 6 feet to 8 feet
10 feet width desired between back of curb and R/W to provide a 5
feet utility-strip/driveway-approach and 5 feet sidewalk
Minimum 4 feet furnishing zone
Lighting
Sho uld be 5 to 6 feet minimum wi dth with sufficient
buffers street furniture and pedestrian amenities should
be considered due to high speed facility planting stri ps
of at least 8 feet wide should be considered as a buffer
wayfinding signage corner island for refuge
Crosswalks shaH be provided and enhanced pavement
crosswalks shall be installed for high pedestrian areas
Provide landscape and or planters enhancements in dependence of l in pavement lighting for high pedestrian activity and
existing utilities location and easements vehicular co nfl icts
For high pedestrian areas street furniture should be provided I Lighting
For high pedestrian areas sidewalk surface treatments should be
considered
Marked crosswalk at controlled intersections
Curb ramps
Pedestrian Signal Crossings uncontrolled mid-block cross walks (when
appropriate)
Pedestrian hybrid beacons (when appropriate)
Rectangular rapid flashing Beacon (when appropriate)
In street
Minimum of 4 feet of tree line, utilities or
furnishing zone plus 6 feet of dear pedestrian
width plus 2 fe et offrontage zone for a total of
12 feet. However, 19.5 feet is the total desired
for crosswalks
4 feet bike lanes and an additional 1 foot when adjacent to 15 feet bike lanes with buffer preferred
curb (if curb and gutter, this additional 1 foot is considered by 4 feet minimum but 5 to 6 feet preferred I 5 to 6 feet bike lanes or parallel routes
the curb pan) or other barrier Bike route Signs
5 feet bike lanes when adjacent to parallel pa r king, if truck I Colored pavement in bike lanes
traffic is greater than 10% or if posted speed exceeds 50 mph
Regu lar and conventional bike lanes shall be provided as a
5 feet bike lanes when adjacent to right turn, left turn lanes I minimum
and bus bays
Bicycle parking shall be considered
When heavy parallel parking demand exist, an additional 1
to 2 feet of buffer space shall be provided where the R/W is I lf space is restricted and speed is less than 35 mph, shared lane
adequate markings shall be provided
Bicycle lanes shall not be provided on a roundabout and shall I If space is not restricted, consider shared use path
be transi tion prior to the roundabout
In certain circumstances, consider rai sed bike lanes
Wide Curb lanes should be 14 feet wide
Bike signal accommodations (bike heads, loops, etc.)
Wider outside travel lanes may be considered
provide bicycle box at signal ized intersections fo r
high amount of bicycle traffic
VehIcles
I
Transit
SECTION
84 II 85
11 feet travel lanes with cross slope of 0.02 feet per foot. Minimum 0.015
feet per foot and maximum 0.04 feet per foot
Medians are required for all 4 lanes facilities with a design speed of 40
mph or greater
19.5 feet median width is required for design speed of SO mph or greater
15.5 feet median width is required for design speed of 45 mph or less
10 feet paved median w idth for two way turn lanes when design speed
is 40 mph or less
Curbs are not to be used on facilities with design speeds greater of 45
mph
If present:
A boarding and alighting area of 8 feet (measured from the curb)
by 5 feet (measured parallel to the roadway) shall be provided and
shall be connected to streets, sidewalks, or pedestrian paths by an
accessible route
Shelters should be installed at loc ations where demand warrants
installation and in accordance with clear zone criteria
Benches (if provided) shall be in an accessible location outside the
path of travel and shall have a surface of 2 .5 feet by 4 feet deep
to allow a wheelchair user to sit next to the bench . Connection
between the sidewalk and bus stop boarding and alighting area shall
be provided
Provide refuge isla nds
Provide raised medians
11 feet lane widths minimum
Max posted speed varies from 35 mph to 40 mph (US-l)
Consider on appropriate circumstances:
.. Roundabout
.. Parallel parking
Curb extensions (bump outs) for 35 mph or less
Minimum 25 feet for corner radii (35 feet desired)
For high percentage of truck traffic 40 feet minimum (50 feet desired)
Transit stop and transit stop signage
Provide shelters and bike racks
When provided, bus stop shall be located at the far side of the
intersection
Bus turnouts (when appropriate)
10 feet lanes with wide lanes 12 feet to 14 feet next to
gutter
All medians should be landscaped, include trees keeping
proper sight distances, pedestrian refuge island can
be provided at specified mid-block crossings or at
intersections
Wayl1nding signage
Corner Island for pedestrian refuge
Preferred locations are generally at cross streets and
high traffic generators; pedestrian enhancement which
meet ADA standards should also be included
Bus shelters located on amenity zone or green zone
2 to 4 through lanes could be up to 6 lanes
target design speed 25 to 35 mph
Lane width should be 10 to 11 feet wide
Medians should be required and should
range between 4 to 18 feet in width
Minimum para llel parkin g width of 8 feet
Minimum combined parallel parking and bike
lane width of 13 feet
Minimum curb return radii of 10 to 15 feet
Consider on appropriate circumstances :
.. Roundabouts
.. Curb extensions
Express and local routes
o ~ N ~
I ~
z «
-' a..
V) r-
UJ
UJ a: r-
V)
UJ r-
~ a.. ::; o u
~ «
~
I r-=> o
V)