Krome Avenue South PD&E Study

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Krome Avenue (SW 177th Avenue) is classified as a rural/ urban principal arterial within the 10 mile stretch between SW 296th and SW 136th Street, (referred to as "Krome South") (See Location Map). The typical section varies slightly consisting primarily of two lanes, varying in width from 10.5 feet to 12 feet; paved/sodded shoulders ranging from 4 feet to 12 feet; and swales. The project proposes to develop and analyze alternatives including a No Build alternative, Transportation System Management (TSM) alternative and several Build alternatives consisting of two, three and four-lane typical sections.
Included in this study are considerations for the replacement of the bridge and culvert over the South Florida Water Management District’s (SFWMD) C-103 and C-102 canals respectively. The Krome Avenue corridor has a history of controversy beginning in the 1980’s, when the FDOT programmed various phases to widen Krome Avenue to four (4) lanes in the work program.
Later the project was adopted by the Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) as part of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). This action set off a string of controversial meetings and hearings regarding the consistency of the TIP, the Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP), and the local government comprehensive plans. As a response to the controversy, the MPO modified their TIP to eliminate the lane widening of Krome Avenue. In 1997, the FDOT conducted a study called the Krome Avenue Action Plan. Out of this study a series of alternatives were developed to preserve Krome Avenue as a two (2) lane roadway, however a consensus and public acceptance for any improvement alternative was never obtained. Due to the high level of controversy associated with the proposed project, the anticipated Class of Action for this segment of Krome Avenue is an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). An EIS is the highest level of documentation required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The goal of the EIS and its process is to develop a set of alternatives and to receive public input to determine the best alternative while gaining consensus from the public, including special interest groups within the project area.