District VI, Florida Department of Transportation BARRIER DESIGN ALTERNATIVES FOR CRASH MITIGATION SE 2 nd Avenue and Biscayne Blvd Way (SE 4 th Street) June 4 th, 2013

2 Presentation Overview Existing Conditions Four Proposed Geometric Modification Alternatives on SE 2 nd Avenue – Benefits and Drawbacks – Operational Analysis Three Proposed Barrier Length Options on SE 4 th Street – Weaving Analysis to Select Preferred Option – Operational Analysis

3 Existing Conditions Wells Fargo Center JW Marriott Marquis Hotel

4 Existing Conditions High number of run-off the-road crashes resulting in property damage to the Wells Fargo Center – Total of 10 crashes over a 3 year period Over 60 crashes in the vicinity of the intersection with increases every year over the last three years Downhill grade after crossing the drawbridge heading into 90 degree curve Visibility limitations due to the vertical curve Mitigation beyond signing and pavement marking being explored

5 Existing Conditions

6 Alternatives 1 through 4 Alternative 1: Maintain Existing Geometry with Barrier Alternative 2: SBLT Geometry Modification Alternative 3: NBRT Geometry Modification Alternative 4: NBRT and SBRT Geometry Modifications

7 Alternative 1: Barrier Wall in Front of Wells Fargo Center Benefits – No major geometric changes – Lateral space available in to accommodate a concrete barrier – No changes to existing operations Drawbacks – Full crash mitigation target area not protected Pedestrian ramp would be closed – Errant vehicles travel over existing divider, and curb ramp – Nearly a 90 o impact angle at high speed

8 Alternative 2: Barrier Wall Adjacent to NB Right-Turn Movement (SBLT geometric modifications) Benefits – NBRT lanes are maintained – Barrier adjacent to critical NBRT movement – Flexibility to maintain or modify signal operations – Pedestrian crossing remains at current location – Shorter ped crossing distance Drawbacks – Full crash mitigation target area is not protected – Nose of the barrier presents crash risk Crosswalk conflicts with barrier – Limited space for the barrier implementation – SBLT max queues nearly double (spillback at SE 3 rd Street) under current ops Hazard

9 Alternative 3: Barrier Wall Combination (NBRT lane closure) Benefits – Full crash mitigation target area covered Two concrete barriers – Barrier nose crash risk eliminated – Barrier adjacent to critical NBRT movement – SBLT lanes are maintained – Flexibility to maintain or modify signal operations – Crosswalk is maintained (with modifications) – Shorter ped crossing distance Drawbacks – Closure of one NBRT lane is required – Crosswalk relocation is required – NBRT Max queues may spillback to SE 5 th Street (assuming existing signal ops remain)

10 Alternative 4: SBLT and NBRT geometric modifications Benefits – Barrier nose crash risk eliminated – Barrier adjacent to critical NBRT movement – Single barrier covers the entire target collision mitigation area – Space available for providing better radius for large vehicles – Signal operations can be modified to allow vehicular concurrent movements – Crosswalk is maintained (with modifications) – Shorter ped crossing distances Drawbacks – Requires closure of one SBLT lane and one NBRT lane – downstream weaving – Signal operations may need to be changed at SE 3 rd Avenue

11 Proposed Options along SE 4 th Street A)Barrier extends: west of Marriott drop-off entrance B)Barrier extends: just east of Marriott drop-off entrance C)Barrier extends to: SE 3 rd Avenue

12 Option A: Installation of barrier west of Marriott drop-off entrance Weaving

13 Option B: Installation of barrier just east of Marriott drop-off entrance Weaving

14 Option C: Installation of barrier extended until SE 3rd Ave

15 Findings/Recommendations Alternative 4-C is preferred It results in a more complete street and landscaping opportunities It is safer for vehicles and safer for pedestrians – Shorter pedestrian crossing distances It results in equal or better operations than existing conditions

16 Interim Improvement

17 Interim Improvement Monitoring Monitoring activities each month during the three month trial period – Weaving conditions assessment – Travel time study – Queueing analysis – Pedestrian activities observations Technology to support monitoring activities during the three month trial period – Wireless cameras installed at strategic locations will provide continuous live footage (remote access from computers or smart phones is available) – Bluetooth/Wi-Fi units for travel time and delay monitoring – Traffic modeling software (e.g. SYNCHRO) Monthly site visits will be conducted to record any additional impacts triggered by the interim improvement

18 Thank you

19 No fatalities since its inception Cost $350/linear foot Maintenance = change foam pads every 5 years Maintenance = change pad to barrier wall links every 10 years SAFER Barrier