We owe FDOT an apology. FDOT did reply to our email in which we requested from FDOT that they reduce the speed limit on Brickell Avenue. Unfortunately, FDOT’s reply was flagged as spam and we found the email about three weeks after we received a reply. Mr. Gus Pego forwarded our email to Mr. Ramon Sierra who replied to our email on October 7, 2010. Please see FDOT’s response below:
Dear Ms. Moore,
This email is in response to your recent request to Gus Pego to reduce the posted speed limit on Brickell Avenue to 25 MPH. We appreciate and value your concern, as safety is the Department of Transportation’s top priority too.
An average of 30,000 vehicles travel on this road daily and the area’s population density stands at about 25,000 people per square mile. Therefore, balancing the need for safety for all roadway users and adjacent property owners and preserving the roadway’s operational integrity is essential to maintain and even enhance the quality of life along the avenue.
The primary purpose of a speed limit is to provide improved safety by reducing the probability and severity of crashes. Properly set speed limits provide more uniform flow of traffic and appropriately balance risk and travel time, which results in the efficient use of the highway’s capacity and fewer crashes. Data and studies conducted through-out the country suggest that changes to posted speed limits do very little to change driver behavior, but instead increase the roadway speed differential - the speed difference between the highest and lowest speeds of vehicles using the facility. It is widely accepted within the traffic engineering and law enforcement communities that increased speed differential, not posted speed is what contributes to increased crash rates.
The Department uses the 85th percentile method to determine appropriate and safe posted speed limits. Based on extensive nationally accepted studies and observations, this method measures the speed of hundreds of vehicles and identifies the speed 85 percent of drivers travel at as reasonably safe for the various roadway conditions they encounter, regardless of the speed limit. Meaningful law enforcement is essential to ensure that the remaining 15 percent of drivers comply with the posted speed limit.
Speed data we collected on Brickell Avenue from S.E. 25th Road to S.E. 10th Street on September 16th, 2010 revealed the following:
- North of S.E. 25th Road: The 85th percentile speed was 45 MPH and the current posted speed limit is 40 MPH.
- South of S.E. 15th Road: The 85th percentile speed was 45 MPH for northbound traffic and 43 MPH for southbound traffic. This location lays between the 35 and 40 MPH posted speed limit sections.
- South of S.E. 10th Street: The 85th percentile speed is 39 MPH for northbound traffic and 37 MPH for southbound traffic. The current posted speed limit is 35 MPH.
A 5 MPH difference between the 85th percentile and posted speeds is considered acceptable. Therefore, we conclude that the current posted speed limit is appropriate along the entire segment.
The Florida Department of Transportation appreciates the time you took to express your comments and concerns. While you may disagree with the Department’s position, I hope this email helped explain and clarify the reasons we do not favor revising the posting speed limit on Brickell Avenue given present conditions.
For general information related to how speed limits are set and the effects of lowering and raising speed limits on roadway sections, you may want to visit the following websites:
http://www.ite.org/standards/speed_zoning.pdfhttp://www.ite.org/standards/speed_zoning.pdf
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/rd97002.htmhttp://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/rd97002.htm
http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/pubs/itcd/speedlimits.pdfhttp://www.ctre.iastate.edu/pubs/itcd/speedlimits.pdf
Sincerely,
Ramon Sierra, P.E.
Assistant Traffic Operations Engineer
Florida Department of Transportation
Apologies for our mistake. Nevertheless, we don’t find FDOT’s response agreeable. We still believe the speed limit should be reduced and additional crosswalks and bicycle sharrows need to be included during the upcoming resurfacing project. Please let us know what you think of FDOT’s response in the comments section. We promise to keep fighting for the residents and businesses on Brickell. After all, it seems that FDOT is the only one that believes cars should take priority over people.
24 Responses to Transit Miami Apology to FDOT
Leave a Reply
Contact Us!
Planetizen- Taking the Guesswork out of Designing for Walkability May 21, 2013Summary: The lack of adequate pedestrian behavior models means that designing for walkability has largely remained a matter of intuition. However, agent-based simulation can provide insight into the keys for creating pedestrian-friendly places. […]
- Annual Search Begins for UK's Ugliest Building May 21, 2013Oliver Wainwright solicits contenders for this year's Carbuncle Cup, Building Design magazine's annual search for the UK's worst "crimes against architecture". […]
- High Above Hollywood, Buying Into the Glamour Without the Grittiness of the Boulevard May 21, 2013With new luxury high-rises sprouting in a densifying Hollywood, and many more on the way, those hawking penthouses priced between $1-$45 million play up the unique amenities and play down the messy reality of a changing neighborhood. […]
- Take Your Kids to the Park and Leave Them There...Seriously May 21, 2013Apologies for being a little late on this one, but apparently last Saturday was the fourth annual 'Take Our Children to the Park...and Leave Them There Day.' Sounds crazy right? Lenore Skenazy argues why it may be the smartest thing you do all week. […]
- Environmental and Transportation Challenges Await New L.A. Mayor May 21, 2013Whoever is victorious in today's election to choose L.A.'s next mayor, the celebrating may be short lived. Pressing needs to strengthen the city's water supply, maintain transit momentum, and relieve toxic hotspots await the city's next leader. […]
- Greenest Building in UK Approved May 21, 2013Norwich, England will soon be home to the "greenest building in the U.K.," reports Mark Wilding. […]
- Planning Fatigue Plagues San Diego Outreach Efforts May 21, 2013After participating in at least 27 planning processes over the last 15 years, residents of City Heights can be forgiven for wanting to actually see something built. Plentiful funds for planning, but meager funds for building, are causing frustration. […]
- Environmentalists Told to Get With the Fracking Program May 21, 2013Environmentalists charged that the new federal rules guiding hydraulic fracturing do not protect the environment and inform the public about the fracking process. The new Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell, appeared prepared for their comments. […]
- Step Aside California, Michigan Modernism Gets a Spin in the Spotlight May 21, 2013During the post-war years, the Wolverine State gave the world much more than just elegant automobiles. A new exhibit explores Michigan's under-appreciated contributions to the design world. […]
- Comprehensive Planning off the Beaten Path May 21, 2013Liven up your comprehensive planning effort Texas style. Matthew Lewis, Development Director for the city of San Marcos, used everything from Legos to "design rodeos" (i.e. Texas charrettes) to get to common ground. […]
- Taking the Guesswork out of Designing for Walkability May 21, 2013
- Green Mobility Network
- An error has occurred, which probably means the feed is down. Try again later.
I hate how many of these people will give greater significance to findings from a study than common sense. What is to say their methodology for conducting this study is good? There may be more to this study but as presented it would appear that it fails to take many things into account.
This is completely unacceptable, just as every FDOT response to any issue. With embellished language and many “studies” and “reports” which are mentioned (but nobody really knows their authenticity and validity) they put a smoke mirror on the fact that they do not care, do not accept feedback and will not change their ways.
Perhaps it’s time they change their motto to the more appropriate “FDOT- Our way or the highway.”
So, from an engineering standpoint, their study could very well be sound (as an English major, I’m not exactly qualified to judge).
That said, two things rankle me about this response. (And I think Mr. Sierra completely misses the point).
1. Other than the token acknowledgment that the Brickell corridor has a very high population density in the second paragraph, the entire response is about vehicular safety, vehicular travel speeds and vehicular roadway efficiency.
2. Mr. Sierra either plays stupid or really is a pure engineer at heart as he fails to discuss alternative techniques that can be used to calm traffic – narrowing lanes, on-street parking, bike lane striping, etc. – which contribute to reducing the design speed of the road, not just the posted speed. This would of course then reduce the road speed differential that presents the greatest danger to the Traffic Engineers of the world.
This is the problem with the “hard sciences,” and by association FDOT’s institutional mindset. When one only looks at the physics of the problem, it is easy forget that you are not simply designing streets for cars, but yes for an entire community of users.
Felipe, I suggest you reply to the e-mail, thank FDOT for their informative but incomplete response. Ask FDOT why they their answer does not take pedestrians and bicyclists into consideration. Ask them what it would take to move towards reducing the design speed of the roadway.
OK, but they didn’t say anything about the crosswalks nor the bicycle lanes?
So by their logic, the faster we drive the higher the posted speed limit? So continuing to follow the logic, if 85% of us drove 100mph on the Turnpike, 95, 75 – then they will raise the speed limit from 60/65 to 100mph?!?! Man we can make disney world in just over 2 hours!! Sweet.
I want to follow up on Eddie’s point, which I was going to make. FDOT’s logic seems flawed at best, but I would like to hear from people with an engineering background to find out a) whether this methodology is as prevalent as FDOT makes it out to be and if so b) whether these are the only considerations that FDOT must take into account.
Its a circular analysis for sure.
FDOT has one concern – maximizing the flow of traffic.
I saw a presentation which explained that car safety improvements are unsafe, bicycle safety improvements are unsafe and pedestrian safety improvements are unsafe.
Only FDOT.
It doesn’t matter what the posted speed is. You will drive at the speed you are comfortable driving at given the road conditions and amount of traffic. Post Brickell at 25 MPH and the typical speed will remain 40-45 unless the city decides to enforce it like a speed trap. FDOT is absolutely correct in the application of the 85th percentile speed. Change the geometry of the road, THEN you can reduce the speed limit.
Anon,
I say let’s post a lower speed limit and have the city enforce it. I agree with you 100% that the long term solution is to change the road geometry. But unfortunately, as is usually the case, FDOT has not taken the initiative here to do so. A much less expensive solution would be to reduce the speed limit, include raised crosswalks (with warning signs to alert motorist of the raised crosswalks) and to include sharrows.
The application of the 85th percentile is a crap argument. It is a joke and a slap in the face to everyone that walks or bikes along Brickell Avenue.
How about we raise the speed limit to 50 mph then? I feel comfortable driving my car at 50mph on Brickell. This argument is absurd at best. Completely unacceptable.
25,000 people per square mile? What are they smoking? What about all the office workers, tourists, etc?????? What square mile is that? There are like 50 tall residential buildings (at least) plus tens of thousands of office workers and tourists. AND THIS IS ONLY GOING TO KEEP GROWING!
My building alone (plaze on Brickell) has 1000 units – thats about 2,000 people just in that development. Icon Brickell has 2,000 units, The avenue another 800, Ambassador another 800 or so, and so on and so on…. FDOT likes to twist numbers around – and do what they want, not what residents want.
The only ones who are against the reduced speed limit are them – NOBODY ELSE, not the city, not the businesses, not the residents, or the local organizations. Why is FDOT just doing what they want WITHOUT ANY LOCAL INPUT. I think a response to FDOT is in order…
While I agree that safer roads are always a great idea, I personally do not agree with some of the comments some people here have made. I have jogged along Brickell Ave myself and I was annoyed by the amount of traffic there. I have also witnessed a lady try to cross that road while pushing a baby stroller and thought it looked like an absolute suicide mission or at least a bad accident waiting to happen. So I also feel that a few more pedestrian crossings would probably be a very good idea. BUT…I personally feel that changes to the speed limit there should only be made if the MAJORITY of people using that roadway or at least the majority of residents supports those changes. Some here make it sound like they speak for everyone affected by this (example: “The only ones who are against the reduced speed limit are them – NOBODY ELSE, not the city, not the businesses, not the residents, or the local organization”)…..really? Have you spoken to all of those people personally or how do you know this? If this issue is really so important to everyone complaining about it then go out and educate the public on this by presenting them with some clear and justifiable arguments as to why the speed limit needs to be lowered, try to gain their support (by actually collecting signatures or by other means) and then go about presenting this to the proper authorities. But please don’t feel that you’re entitled to speak for absolutely everyone in the area on this issue just because you have a very strong opinion about it yourself. I live nearby Brickell in the Roads area and have friends who live right on Brickell Ave and have been there a million times myself and frequently travel on that road but, thus far, I have not heard too much about this issue.
Sounds like you are the one who
needs to be educated, Dennis. Many many organizations and people have been involved in this fight.
That’s great then. And if they represent the majority of residents in the area, then by all means, let them be heard and hopefully this issue will be addressed for them. My point was that a few angry voices shouldn’t claim that they speak for EVERYONE. It’s good to see that people are passionate about something and attempt to bring about what they feel would be positive changes. I never took issue with someone voicing his or her opinion on this but they shouldn’t automatically assume or claim it is also everyone else’s opinion.
Dennis,
I have a full time job and I go to school part time. I don’t have time to speak to everyone on brickell. I have found the time to meet with the brickell homeowners association and brickell area association. These organizations represent the majority of residents and businesses on brickell. I’m also working on bringing the chamber of commerce on board too. I have also met with mayor regalado, commissioner Sarnoff and the dda. All are supportive of making brickell more pedestrian friendly. If you would like me to meet with other organization that represent the majority of people on brickell, please suggest; I’ll gladly do it.We have made a concerted effort to reachout to as many groups as possible. These groups speak for a majority. Pedestrian improvements are long overdue. It’s a no-brainer.
The majority or brickell residents/property owners/retailers/city of miami politicians can all convince FDOT to can put aside their policies and engineering standards and 85th percentile rule and lower the speed limit…. and guess what? Drivers will continue to go 40-50 mph because that’s an appropriate speed for a street like Brickell. Go across the river to Flagler Street: on-street parking, two lanes, buildings close to the sidewalk. Even at night where there is almost no traffic cars maybe 20 mph – drivers instinctively respond to their environment and the majority drive at a sensible speed. The way Brickell is today a sensible speed is around 40 mph.
Anon,
I agree with you somewhat. Brickell is designed to drive 40-50mph, however, this is NOT a SENSIBLE speed for one of the most densely populated areas in the state. A SENSIBLE design speed would be closer to 30mph. There are inexpensive solutions that can be easily implemented. Here are just a few of them: bicycle sharrows, raised crosswalks, more crosswalks, better crosswalks, mid-block crosswalks, no right hand turn on red, proper enforcement, and reducing the speed would all help lower the design speed and bring it closer to 30mph.
This can all be implemented without delaying this project.
If FDOT can’t get it right on Brickell, there isn’t much hope for the rest of that state. FDOT just needs to make it happen.
Enforcement could be implemented immediately and at no cost.
I think that people who do not have a clear grasp on the methodology behind how speed limits are set should reserve their judgment, let alone their negative remarks towards FDOT.
From an engineer’s point of view, the reason that try-and-tested studies are conducted is because there is a certain logic behind the method. The 85th percentile approach works because it measures the speed at which people feel comfortable driving.
Eddie made a sarcastic comment about people driving at 100mph if that is the speed that the 85h percentile dictated: And in such a hypothetical scenario, it would be the case. However, in practice, people do not drive at 100 mph because they would not feel safe (Safety is a topic i will cover later on). Unless you are the type of person who thinks that being in a 2-ton hunk of metal at 100 mph is safe, this method should not be taken to an extreme to prove a fallacy.
Additionally, people who say the speed limit should be lowered due to “safety” usually assume that there is a direct, linear correlation between speed and percentage of being in a crash: Evidently, a bunch of parked cars cannot crash whilst a bunch of cars zooming at high speeds (say, 100 mph, see what I did there?). When we generalize it this way, one can feel confident saying “lower the speed limit to lower number of crashes and improve safety!”, but then we throw out the delicate balance between travel time, traffic flow, and vehicle speed out the window.
Usually there is only a need to assess speed limits and traffic conditions in general if the number of accidents strays too far from the expected values and causes eyebrows to raise. Unless there is an actual study with numbers and a logical, repeatable methodology (as per the scientific method which has been used for hundreds if not thousands of years) which proves that there is an alarming number of accidents, there is no reason to assess the speed limit issue.
Also, for those of you who think we can solve the problem by altering the geometry of the roadway: yes, it is true that a narrower lane correlates with lower travel velocity, but then you increase the probability of sideswipe accidents, and I’m not even going to entertain the idea of adding an extra lane to increase the capacity therefore justify a change in speed limit because of all the extra issues that would arise, one of the main ones of course being the need to purchase more right of way, which will come from the community’s taxes and the anger of the landowners of the area.
Then again, I could be wrong and maybe lowering the speed limit IS the simple answer we needed. The Occam’s razor to the puzzle of “how do we make the streets safer?” I hope this has given you something to think about, especially that with a new, lower speed limit, you have an extra 20-30 minutes of queuing during peak hour in your commute.
Dante, thanks for sharing your comments.
You make some really valid points, and point out some fallacies, which is all well and good. But ultimately, you make the same mistake our FDOT friend Ramon did: you only take cars into consideration. A quick browse of this blog should make it plainly clear to you that the the authors and commenters are strong advocates for alternative means of transit (bicycling, walking, mass transit). I would have liked to have seen you take on those concerns, rather than simply rehashing what FDOT wrote.
It’s well and good if automobile flows are at their optimal rate, But what’s at the root of the criticisms about the Brickell project is the lack of consideration given to walking and cycling safety in the name of traffic flows. The argument that the speed limit is fine because there aren’t accidents is simply bullshit.
“Unless there is an actual study with numbers and a logical, repeatable methodology (as per the scientific method which has been used for hundreds if not thousands of years) which proves that there is an alarming number of accidents, there is no reason to assess the speed limit issue.”
You’re attacking a straw man, my friend. The concerns are not about vehicle flows but rather pedestrian and cyclist safety. If your methodology doesn’t consider this into your equation then it’s simply an incomplete measure and shouldn’t be used as justification for maintaining speed limits.
Ignoring the whole 100mph silliness, would you rather be hit by a car going 40-45 mph or 25-30? We can agree that reducing speed limits doesn’t eliminate accidents. But I’m sure we can agree that lower speed accidents are far less severe and survival rates are dramatically higher.
“I hope this has given you something to think about, especially that with a new, lower speed limit, you have an extra 20-30 minutes of queuing during peak hour in your commute.” Cute. Really, very cute. After invoking the scientific method, you throw out a bit of nonsense like that? One of Miami’s biggest problems is that speed limits, roadway capacity and inadequate walking and cycling conditions encourage more people to drive. (Honestly, that’s got more to do with your congestion that pesky stretch through whatever community has dropped speed limits).
So nice try. But address the issue, not the one you created.
We need our engineers to think outside the box a little more.
I won’t argue that i’m one sarcastic SOB.
And as Thomas said, you make valid points but we’re not talking about car vs car accidents. Lower speeds means safer for pedestrians and cyclists. Then if we feel safer we walk and ride more which means less cars to clog our streets and you can spend less time in your queue…
Great response, Thomas.
Ideally, the speed limit should be 30mph.
The planted median would be less wide to allow a lane of on street parking at least on one side (or both if it could be accommodated)
Crosswalks would be added, and/or raised and lit.
A bicycle lane would be added, or at least sharrows.
Traffic lights would be synchronized to allow a smooth traffic flow instead of the current disjointed experience of cars speeding to try and make poorly timed lights.
All of the above would create a more vibrant street environment that would benefit local residents and businesses, pedsestrians and cyclists. Motorists would benefit from more parking and a smoother traffic flow.
But the FDOT is in charge so I’ll keep from dreaming up my common sense ideas.
Thank you Thomas, I could not have said it better myself.