Tunnel Between Brickell & CBD Being Studied Again

·30 Comments

A tunnel between under the Miami River between the CBD and Brickell is being studied again, according to Miami Today.

Downtown Development Authority board member Jerome Hollo told a recent board meeting that a “big study” was underway and that it would take a year. The possible location of the tunnel was unknown.

A 2006 study said that a tunnel was feasible but that there wasn’t enough traffic to warrant the expense. Since then, traffic has increased considerably.

 

(photo: phillip pessar)

Tags
Related
30 Comments
most voted
newest oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
4 years ago

This is how politicians in Miami and the county make money. This will be the third ” study ” they have paid their consultant (friends) for a Brickell tunnel. Maybe this one will be different because as they say – it will be a ” Big Study “.

25
Reply
Anonymous
4 years ago

I’ll save the time and expense of the study. Spend more on light and heavy rail expansion, not on roads!

15
Reply
Gables
4 years ago

I agree. Use any money for the tunnel to invest in transportation infrastructure that is not roads.

6
Reply
Anonymous
4 years ago

You can say that again

1
Reply
Anonymous
4 years ago

I was chuckling a little bit when I read ” more studies being done ” then I chuckled even more when I read ” was feasible but that there wasn’t enough traffic to warrant the expense”.

So you wait until there is so much congestion and then act upon it ? What kind of urban planners do you guys have there ? You do a study and act upon it for the possible future not for right at this moment. If the trend in traffic congestion has been going up considerably, then why not consider every means and possible resource to take care of the problem ? Am I crazy here ? Or Am I missing something ?

7
Reply
suomynona
4 years ago

All of the bridges from Brickell to Flagler should be tunnels (yes, including I-95). Period. No excuses.

1. It would simply be a “cleaner” look for the River in downtown, adding to the aesthetics (and property values) of the Riverwalk and office/condo towers in the area.

2. Traffic will persist – even with improved mass transit – because the downtown population of residents AND workers is only going to continue to increase.

3. It will obviously increase the amount of cargo ships that can enter the River if the number of bridges is decreased and therefore the impact on Miami traffic is also decreased.

It’s a win-win-win.

They OBVIOUSLY need to make IMMEDIATE and CRITICAL improvements to mass transit, but this is not an either/or situation. At least it shouldn’t be.

5
Reply
Anonymous
4 years ago

Ever heard of a cost-benefit analysis? Any idea of the costs associated with converting ALL those bridges to tunnels? Do you think your cites benefits really offset the costs?

0
Reply
suomynona
4 years ago

And do you realize simply dissenting with me does not prove your position to be correct?

To answer your inane questions, though:

Yes.

A lot. But over the next century it will cost the city more to not do it.

Yes. Again, over the long run the benefits will EASILY outweigh the costs.

Are you suggesting the impacts on reduced traffic, increased development and property taxes would be minimal?

0
Reply
suomynona
4 years ago

Shucks, I forgot to mention the increased Miami River port traffic this would allow.

0
Reply
Anonymous
4 years ago

Shucks, you also forgot that things don’t exist in a vacuum. To come up with the money for your grand plan, other things–which are arguably more important and would provide a greater economic impact from creating jobs, luring in talent, improving the quality of life and, thus, pricing, etc.–would be scrapped. You also don’t seem to understand traffic and induced demand. And pray tell how much land for development this would actually free up, along with river traffic. Sure, it might sound good in that head of yours, but that’s why it’s easier to just spout out some talking points instead of making a case with quantifiable and undeniable numbers. You can shout as loud as you want, but I’m pretty sure your numbers just don’t add up.

-1
Reply
Marc305
4 years ago

Well said suomynona.

1
Reply
Anonymous
4 years ago

I feel like a tunnel would actually reduce walkability in this area. As someone who lives in brickell and often uses this bridge to walk downtown, I can’t help but feel a tunnel would make that walk both longer and unpleasant.

3
Reply
Anonymous
4 years ago

Was thinking the same thing and wondering how/where I would cross when cycling.

-1
Reply
Anonymous
4 years ago

But did you miss the memo? Miami only cares about cars.

1
Reply
Bro
4 years ago

Would completely disconnect the baywalk. One would have to walk up to the S. Miami Ave bridge to cross to the other side of the river, and that bridge does not have stairs leading to the river walk like the 2nd ave bridge does.

-1
Reply
Coach
4 years ago

Pedestrian bridges, look for them in London and Paris

4
Reply
Universal
4 years ago

don’t care how many studies they do but the good thing is that they finally paying attention to this HUGE problem

0
Reply
Marc305
4 years ago

This is ridiculous! I am sure there have been more than a few studies, as you can see from the article that I am enclosing this project has been on the table since 1966. A tunnel is needed badly! Just in the next few years you will have all the buildings of Brickell City Centre open not to mention the tall skyscraper that will be build at 1444 Brickell Ave.

For those who oppose this because they won’t be able to walk or bike across to Downtown, find another way to get there. We can all dream that one day everyone will use public transportation and give up their cars, but that is a pie in the sky that is simply not going to happen. Politicians need to get off their hinds finish this study and build it!

http://the305.com/2013/12/29/the-1966-proposal-that-shows-the-tunnel-that-never-was-for-downtown-miami-brickell/

-1
Reply
Anonymous
4 years ago

Spoken like a true realtor only interested in short-term gain.

-3
Reply
Marc305
4 years ago

First of all “Anonymous” I am not a Realtor I am the owner of 2 businesses in Brickell, soon to be 3. And my comment had nothing to do with short-term gain, in fact quite the opposite, it is the long term I am concerned about. The Miami River continues to add more businesses that attract bigger boats to the area, which means that the draw bridge will be up more and more in the future causing more traffic jams than ever before. You maybe ok with that but I am not.

2
Reply
lola
4 years ago

How about a tunnel for cars and a nicely designed pedestrian draw dridge?

1
Reply
Anonymous
4 years ago

I love to live in fantasy scenarios where I have unlimited money, too, but I need to live in reality.

-1
Reply
suomynona
4 years ago

That’s why you don’t build a pedestrian-only bridge. The tunnel would provide sidewalk access.

0
Reply
suomynona
4 years ago

Pedestrian drawbridge? Nope. Not in favor. If a pedestrian bridge is a must – and I don’t see why it is – then build it as tall as the Metromover/rail bridges so that it isn’t a drawbridge.

0
Reply
lola
4 years ago

You do realize that neither the tunnel nor the pedestrian draw bridge will ever get built, don’t you? The people who consider or decide these things don’t read these comments, and if they did, would not care. We just hang out here because we have nothing better to do. I’m still trying to figure out why some of this stuff is taken sooooooo seriously.

0
Reply
Bro
4 years ago

Find another way? I guess you are a car and not a human then….

If Brickell wants to be a true walkable urban center, the tunnel would go against that forward progress. People do not HAVE to drive, but people DO need to walk/get around without a car. We are humans first, not machines. If the current drawbridge causes your commute to be 5 minutes longer, then why don’t YOU “find another way”?!?

2
Reply
Marc305
4 years ago

For your information I take the Metromover, and walk pretty much everywhere because I work and live in Brickell. I am one of the biggest proponents of building Baylink and expanding the Metro. My car is 3 years old and has less than 5000 miles in it. But all of that does not erase the fact that more and more people will continue to move to Brickell with cars and the traffic will continue to get worse. It is people like you who think that traffic will somehow stay the same no matter how many more people move to this area. Thankfully someone in the city of Miami has enough brains to be more realistic and conduct another study and maybe this time they will think not just about the present but do something for the future.

1
Reply
Bro
4 years ago

Hundreds of studies prove that expanding/improving roads does not help with traffic, it actually makes traffic worse in most cases.

The tunnel IS thinking about the present. A study about the future would consider the new mass transit that is being built/studied, ride sharing, and even the potential for autonomous cars to replace car ownership (thus killing traffic and the need for parking decks).

Brickell is currently in a transition phase from being a “suburban-urban” area into a true urban center. All infrastructure improvements should be aimed at pedestrians and mass transit. CoastalLink, BayLink, and the re-design of 8th/7th streets are much more critical for Brickell than the expensive tunnel.

-1
Reply
suomynona
4 years ago

Cite me one of those studies that specifically discusses turning a drawbridge into a tunnel.

So the Port Miami tunnel should never have been built, correct?

0
Reply
Transitlover
4 years ago

The port tunnel was good because it took trucks off downtown streets and straight into the port. Before the tunnel, trucks would have to get off the highway and navigate downtown traffic. This tunnel is not taking cars off the streets. I agree we could use that tunnel but the money necessary for a tunnel would be better spent on expanding transit via inexpensive BRTs. The massive 836/826 interchange costed more than the current Baylink estimates.

0
Reply