[0:00] Time is it? It is 2.34. Oh, okay. This meeting

[0:07] is called the order. We do have a quorum. Excuse me, let me get to my agenda there.

[0:15] We're going to have an electronic roll call. So those of you who want to pull up your voting machine just looks

[0:52] like everybody's voted. And we have, we have everybody here, except lesser absent.

[1:03] The approval of minutes for May 22nd.

[1:06] Has everybody looked at those?

[1:08] Want to have a, oh, it's been moved and seconded.

[1:12] Is there any discussion or any comments or changes to the motion?

[1:16] To the minutes?

[1:18] Seeing none, let's vote to approve or it's

[1:33] been approved.

[1:34] Thank you very much.

[1:37] Everybody's had a look at the agenda.

[1:39] Does anybody have any additions to the agenda or comments on the agenda?

[1:44] Seeing none, can I have a motion and a second to approve the minutes?

[1:49] So they've moved and seconded and

[1:54] we will vote.

[2:02] They've been approved. Thank you very much.

[2:05] Move on to public comments.

[2:09] If lots of people in the audience, do we have anyone that wants to make a nice comment?

[2:14] Or any kind of comment?

[2:15] see none. No. We'll move forward.

[2:23] Mike Ronskiewicz, you wanted to make a quick announcement.

[2:28] Hopefully

[2:29] all of you received an email maybe even a couple this week regarding a Complete Streets

[2:34] MPO partner survey. I think it was sent to all TAC members as well as city managers.

[2:43] it's been sent out a few times. Today we've got 14 of the 31 municipalities

[2:49] responding. We'd like to get a much better response. Here's kind of what the

[2:53] survey looks like. So check out your emails and complete the survey. That would

[3:00] be great. There's several questions on it. Do you know when it was sent out?

[3:05] Because I don't remember. There was an email sent Monday and Tuesday of this

[3:08] week

[3:12] if for some reason you haven't got to them or you haven't seen it you can

[3:19] just let me know and we'll we'll get you the link to it okay thank you Mike yep

[3:23] hope everybody responds to that announcement yes very important we'll

[3:28] move on to number six the 25 2045 metropolitan transportation plan update

[3:34] Will that be Peter? Peter Gies? Good to see you, Peter.

[3:40] Good to see you, Paul.

[3:42] The rest of the TAC.

[3:45] Peter Gies, now systems planning manager.

[3:47] For those of you not that it makes a huge difference, I'm working under Bill now,

[3:51] so I'm doing a lot of planning and programming stuff,

[3:53] and it's probably more appropriate now that I'm working a lot on the Metropolitan

[3:55] Transportation Plan, so new title, but my role is basically still the same.

[4:00] So with that, I'm here as a usual fixture at the TAC,

[4:03] giving you an update on the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, going to hit home one

[4:08] item today, which is on the draft cost-feasible plan, and as it relates to resolutions.

[4:13] But before I do that, I do want to give you a little bit of a teaser to what's coming

[4:18] later on, related to our multimodal priorities list, and give you a little bit of a heads-up

[4:22] as well.

[4:23] So we've been talking for so long, over a year now, about the Metropolitan Transportation

[4:27] Plan, about the cost-feasible plan, that it's so important that you get your

[4:30] projects in there.

[4:31] Well, guess what?

[4:32] Today you're going to see a lot of that come to fruition because you'll be hearing a presentation

[4:36] on the multimodal priorities list and I want to make it very clear that the projects from

[4:40] the 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan, the new priorities, are incorporated as part

[4:45] of this multimodal priorities list.

[4:47] So here now you're seeing the long-range planning process moving into the short-range

[4:51] planning process where we're starting to take projects from that plan and programming

[4:55] them as part of the multimodal priorities list and you'll then see them come up

[4:59] in the new TIP next year as well.

[5:02] So this is the start of that cycle now,

[5:03] or annual TIP cycle, where those projects will be programmed.

[5:08] So just as a reminder, we are in the process

[5:11] of getting projects in the cost fees

[5:13] well planned program ready, which means

[5:14] that they need to have a clear scope of work,

[5:16] a good cost estimate, collaboration with partners,

[5:19] and also a resolution of support.

[5:21] And I want to specifically hit on the resolutions

[5:24] of support and partner collaboration

[5:26] because we've reached out to most of you now at this point

[5:29] who have projects in the cost feasible plan

[5:31] and have scheduled one-on-one meetings

[5:34] to discuss projects in the plan.

[5:36] Try and get a little bit more detail from you all

[5:38] as to the scope of work for those projects.

[5:41] Make sure that we're all on the same page.

[5:43] We've had good meetings this morning.

[5:44] We had a meeting with the town of Davy.

[5:46] We've met with Oakland Park, with Parkland.

[5:48] So a lot of you are coming in and meeting with us

[5:50] and it's been very, very helpful to get a better understanding

[5:53] of what these projects are.

[5:55] I mean just beyond the few sentences of scope that you've given us and also allow us to make any tweaks to that

[6:01] general scope so that we can make sure we capture the general essence of that project when we put it in the plan because we

[6:07] Don't want to be super detailed in the plan. We don't want to hamstring ourselves by the same token

[6:11] We also want to have enough detail on the back end so that when the project moves through the multimodal priorities list and gets

[6:17] Into f dots hands that we can say yes, these were some of the more detailed ideas that the

[6:23] municipality had in mind when it comes to that project. As another reminder, all

[6:28] projects in the draft cost feasible plan must be program ready, and with that we

[6:32] need to make sure that we have a resolution of support. So here is a

[6:35] reminder of the two different due dates for the resolutions of support. The

[6:39] first due date being August 1st on the right, and this is required if you're

[6:44] looking to have your project ready for programming this work program cycle.

[6:50] So that means if you get a resolution of support in by August 1st and you're a fairly high-ranked project in the cost-feasible plan,

[6:59] you could potentially receive funding this work program cycle for your project.

[7:03] If you can't make that August 1st deadline, that doesn't mean that your project falls off the list.

[7:08] You still have until September 11th to get as a resolution,

[7:10] but the only difference is then that your project would not be considered for program until the next work programming cycle.

[7:16] So you'd have about a year delay in that.

[7:18] So, we're leaving it up to you all to make the decision as to when you need to get the

[7:22] resolution of support to us, but I want to stress that September 11th is the last date.

[7:26] We need a resolution of support sent to us, and you can email them to me by September 11th.

[7:32] If we don't get it by September 11th, that project will move out of the cost-feasible

[7:36] plan and into the needs, and I can't stress that enough.

[7:39] We really need these resolutions by the latest September 11th.

[7:43] For those of you who have already gotten those resolutions, thank you very much,

[7:45] and I'm pretty sure that you can attest to the fact that you can just email me, email

[7:50] me drafts of resolutions, I'll usually turn around the email within a day or so and be

[7:54] able to let you know if everything looks good, if you have any questions, especially on

[7:58] the Broward MPO-led projects. I know there's a few of you who've reached out to me and

[8:03] said, hey, this isn't a project we submitted, but it's a project that was proposed in

[8:06] our municipality, and I will usually have a little blurb that you all can refer

[8:11] to or include in your agenda item, which talks to the fact that these projects were

[8:15] identified based on other sources in the needs assessment that the Broward MPO

[8:19] looked at, so whether it be like our Southeast Regional Freight Plan, our

[8:23] transportation demand model analysis, and other partner plans as well that we

[8:29] as an MPO have identified as a need and incorporated in there, and I also want

[8:33] to stress that this does not mean that that project is getting built

[8:37] tomorrow. Just like your projects that you submit to us, these projects are

[8:41] put in the plan because there's an identified need there and we would

[8:44] like to work with you and your commission and your residents to make sure that we can

[8:48] find a solution for that need. So that really getting us a resolution of support for that

[8:54] project allows us to move forward through the planning process, the PD&E process, working

[8:58] closely with you to identify the solution that works for everyone. It's not that tomorrow

[9:02] the bulldozers are going to show up. And I think that's really important to stress

[9:05] with your commission as well. So if you would agree that there's an issue at

[9:08] a particular intersection or in a particular corridor, and we've identified that as

[9:12] a need, getting as a resolution allows us to continue working through that process.

[9:17] So just to give you a high-level overview on the next steps related to the Metropolitan

[9:22] Transportation Plan, so June and July we're going to have our partner meetings.

[9:26] Some of them may spill over into August, but ideally all the ones that have projects

[9:30] in the cost-feasible plan, we'd like to be finished by July.

[9:33] Here are the two resolution dates that we would like resolutions in order for

[9:38] programming either this work program cycle or next work program cycle and in

[9:43] September we'd like to be able to give you all the cost fees we'll plan update

[9:45] basically capturing all the comments and revisions that we've made based on all

[9:51] of these meetings what projects fell off what new projects have moved in as a

[9:56] result and that should be coming in September of 2019. So with that you

[10:01] can always keep up to date on commitment2045.org we're posting all

[10:05] of our technical reports on there, and you can also contact me.

[10:08] So, Mr. Chair, I'll turn it back over to you if there are any questions.

[10:13] We have a question from Nicholas O'Fall.

[10:17] Hey, Peter.

[10:20] We noticed in the cost-feasible plan, there's a lot of projects either proposed by cities

[10:25] and sponsored by the MPO that may intersect county jurisdiction on the roadway in some

[10:31] ways to perform.

[10:31] You know, it's in some cases even maybe it's a long candle, so the dirt is not right away

[10:36] So can we meet with you at some point to kind of discuss all these projects to kind of intersect our facilities?

[10:41] We have a better idea the scope and kind of what exactly is in the plan because I think I don't think we've been really engaged in it

[10:46] Because you've been engaging more of the sponsors than with the right-of-way. No excellent question

[10:52] Nick I'm glad you brought this up because we did do an analysis of roadway ownership based on projects in the plan

[10:57] and we've separated out those lists, and I'm going to be reaching out to you one-on-one

[11:01] to set something up, A, so that you get the list of projects, and B, so that you can come

[11:06] in and meet with us and talk about those projects.

[11:07] And for those of you who have met with us, you know that we toe the line that all of

[11:11] these improvements are if you're proposing them on someone else's roadway that they're

[11:14] contingent on the roadway owner buying into that actual scope of work as well.

[11:19] So yes, Nick, I'll be reaching out to you soon.

[11:21] Thank you.

[11:24] There's no other request in the queue, but I'll have a question.

[11:26] The PowerPoint presentation, I don't think, was part of the packet.

[11:30] Is it this one? No. No. But I can gladly upload it if you'd like.

[11:35] Yeah, it was just nice to have it, I guess, as reference.

[11:39] I think it was similar to one we've seen before. Those dates have been noticed before.

[11:44] So I'm going to say by the end of today, the latest tomorrow morning, this will be up on the website.

[11:50] I'm looking at Rebecca here. She's giving me a smile, so that means probably.

[11:54] Thank you. Any other questions?

[12:00] None here, so thank you Peter. Thank you.

[12:05] We'll move

[12:06] on to number seven, the most to elect officers to serve for the next year, July

[12:09] through June of 2020.

[12:13] I think I've both Karen and I have expressed that if

[12:21] there's anybody else willing to do chair or vice chair, step up. Now is your

[12:25] opportunity. Nobody else has expressed a desire to, but we're open to being

[12:29] replaced.

[12:32] We are all in a public position so neither one of none of us are

[12:37] insured that we will be here a year from now and both Karen and I are in that

[12:40] situation so if there's anybody that would like to nominate somebody for

[12:45] chair please do.

[12:49] Thomas good thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair I'd like to move that

[12:54] we retain the chair and the vice chair okay I take away my thank you thank you

[13:01] Thomas that's okay we need a second on that is there any other we don't need a

[13:06] second I guess we need a any other nominations for

[13:11] vice chair or chair

[13:16] seeing none let's have a can we do we need to vote on this we need to vote

[13:22] All right, let's vote.

[13:24] We accept, right?

[13:25] Karen, did you accept us?

[13:26] OK, all right, thank you.

[13:29] I told my bosses I wasn't going to do this, but it's OK.

[13:33] I guess you're going to have to go back and tell them otherwise.

[13:35] I'm sure I will.

[13:37] I had no choice.

[13:39] But anyway, I appreciate it.

[13:40] Thank you very much.

[13:40] I'm sure Karen appreciates it too.

[13:42] So we'll try to hold these meetings down

[13:47] to an hour, hour and a half, as we always do.

[13:50] Let's just take a vote on it, though.

[13:51] let's do. I'm ready. Oh, there we go.

[14:04] Looks like it's unanimous. My goodness. Thank you very much.

[14:10] Thank you, Tom. I'll meet you afterwards. In the parking lot, Tom. All right, we'll move on to

[14:17] the action items. This is a public meeting, so I want to, this is a public meeting in motion

[14:26] to recommend Broward MPO approve the draft fiscal year 20 through 24 transportation improvement

[14:32] program with staff recommended amendments. And do we go through a presentation from Mr. Cross first

[14:39] or do we have public comment or does that matter? Mike?

[14:49] It's you could do it either way.

[14:53] Sometimes the presentation I've seen it where sometimes give the presentation and open it up

[14:58] for public comments.

[15:00] After that, but you'd want to do it before you have the vote.

[15:04] Okay, so Mr. Cross, welcome. So why don't you give your, are you going to do a presentation

[15:10] and summary, and then we'll open it up for any public comment, and then we'll do a discussion

[15:14] and vote. Okay, let's do it that way.

[15:17] Okay, well Mr. Chair, we do have a presentation for you today if you would like to.

[15:20] I do have it here too.

[15:21] Okay, well we're going to deliver it to you right now. So Bill Cross, Broward MPO,

[15:26] pleased to be here in front of you today. This is our once annual meeting to adopt

[15:33] the TIP, our transportation improvement program. So let's go ahead and get

[15:38] started. So just as a reminder we may have some some new members here. These

[15:43] are the MPO core products and you can see across the top bar there there are

[15:47] the three. Of course we've got the metropolitan transportation plan that

[15:52] we've been working on. You heard an update from Peter. The priorities list

[15:56] is also coming later, immediately following this presentation, which is kind of the start

[16:01] of the process, and then the Transportation Improvement Program, which is really the conclusion

[16:05] today of about a year-long process to get to this point.

[16:11] Okay, so the outline we're going to talk about, the development process a little bit.

[16:15] We'll also talk about some of the project highlights, as well as the proposed project

[16:19] changes.

[16:20] And there are a couple from the draft that was previously published.

[16:23] We'll also talk about the comments that we've received and those responses to those and

[16:29] then again public notice, public comments and opportunities that we have made available

[16:34] throughout this process.

[16:35] So let's start with the tip development process.

[16:38] So some of you again have seen this slide, if so apologies, but we'd like to keep going

[16:42] back through this so you're familiar with the process.

[16:45] So of course we start with the MTP.

[16:47] All the projects that you're going to see here today were projects that were at

[16:51] one point identified in the MTP.

[16:54] Then they go through the prioritization process.

[16:58] The board then approves that.

[17:00] We send that over to DOT, who then programs the funds.

[17:05] They then show up as the draft tentative work program,

[17:08] generally in December, but certainly the fall of each year.

[17:12] And then we've developed the tip

[17:15] and it comes back this spring, early summer, each year.

[17:19] So that's the cycle.

[17:22] You see what's in blue there, the prioritization and the TIP process.

[17:27] We do that every year.

[17:29] The MTP process, that's something we do once every five years.

[17:34] Okay, so I mentioned that I was going to touch on some of the highlights.

[17:38] So here they are.

[17:40] There are 510 projects included in this year's TIP.

[17:44] and that amounts to $4.8 billion worth of transportation improvements for the county.

[17:52] So a pretty significant document.

[17:55] The way the funding breaks down, let's first take a look at it by the different modes.

[18:00] You can see that Highway continues to be the largest single share there at about 59%,

[18:07] and almost $3 billion.

[18:09] dollars. You can see the other shares there. I won't read them to you, but each of them is not

[18:17] in substantial amount of investment. Even bike ped at the least amount, at the smallest number

[18:23] there, is over 280 million dollars in the five years. So significant improvements all around.

[18:31] The other way to look at it is the funding by source. So, of course, this is a document

[18:37] that has funding from various partners including local, state, federal, and the term pike, and you

[18:44] can see how those break out.

[18:49] We always like to also point out how the MPO attributable funds

[18:53] break out. You heard quite a bit of this during the MTP conversation, how the MTP attributable

[19:00] is just a small portion of the total pie. So we wanted to share with you that breakdown.

[19:05] and just to reiterate the point that today's tip is really the last tip that

[19:12] you're going to see that was based on the old metropolitan transportation plan

[19:16] the 2040 and so that's why we're still using the old nomenclature there of

[19:21] bike pad planning projects major infrastructure from here on out you'll

[19:26] start to hear us talk about the six program areas from the 2045 plan so

[19:35] So going over some of the highlights, of course the Sawgrass Expressway, we can start there

[19:39] over a half a billion dollars and that's programmed to start fiscal 2023.

[19:46] So a significant turnpike investment in the Sawgrass, a Southwest 10th is on there and

[19:51] while that doesn't reflect necessarily the full ultimate investment in that project,

[19:57] it shows what's currently in the tip at over $400 million.

[20:01] dollars. Following up on that is I-95 interchanges. Those are down in the

[20:07] southern portion of the county. You can see those are improvements up and down

[20:11] the corridor. Loxahatchee Road. Some of you are familiar with that. That's coming

[20:17] as early as 23 as is University Drive. I-75 we like to point out because this

[20:26] was a bit of a of a of an issue in the past year with some of the board members. They

[20:32] wanted to make sure that this one was was deferred. And so DOT did agree to defer this

[20:38] out to 2024. And so this is just to confirm that this project remains deferred in the

[20:45] tip moving forward. Prospect Road. That's one of our mobility projects. It's a lane

[20:51] elimination. That's funded for 2020. So that's up right away. Same thing for the

[20:58] Pompano Beach Mobility Sidewalks. You can see that that's programmed in Fiscal

[21:02] 2020 as well. Elmar Drive and Power Line Road. These are all things that are

[21:07] coming up very short term. In the Power Line Road, you'll be able to watch

[21:11] being constructed right out behind you there out the window. US-1 Gateway

[21:18] So these are some major project studies that are coming up.

[21:22] We're kind of excited about this one.

[21:24] This is the US-1 sunrise where the city has given us the green light to move forward with studying some potential solutions at that location.

[21:36] 595, another board-generated planning study.

[21:40] This is one to look at all the arterial connections between State Road 7 and out at the sawgrass

[21:46] of how the arterials connect to 595 with a lot of congestion or all those interchanges.

[21:52] And so that project, they actually just selected the consultant and DOT will be kicking

[21:56] off that study, I believe it's October of this year.

[22:01] Pines Boulevard at Flamingo. This is one we've been working with the city on. It's actually a

[22:08] center turn overpass and we've been to the city twice now with this project. They're excited,

[22:13] we're excited, and I believe DOT is excited to move forward and to take a look at this in

[22:17] more detail. So you see the money for the PD&E is showing up in the 23-24 time frame.

[22:23] Okay,

[22:26] now under some of the existing programs, C-SLIP, there's 22 projects at 34 million,

[22:33] so that's what got funded.

[22:35] And these do include local shares, I believe, on all of these.

[22:40] Mobility program, 44 projects, 144 million, so really a very significant amount of money

[22:47] going into those projects.

[22:49] And the Tiger grants, there's five projects that are all part of that same grant, 19.7

[22:55] million. That also includes the local funding and in addition to that there

[22:59] were some requests from DOT for additional funding. The MPO has worked to

[23:05] obtain about just over a million dollars of SU MPO attributable funds to push

[23:12] into that project to help close that that funding gap on the Tiger project

[23:16] and keep that on track. So some of the proposed project changes that I had

[23:21] mentioned earlier, they're relatively minor, but the first one up is the Broward MPO UPWP.

[23:28] And in order to be fully consistent with what we're doing, we wanted to make this change

[23:35] to the tip.

[23:37] So there's $105,852 that is money that will move from this year to the following year,

[23:46] And so we have amended the normal four million with that additional money to make sure that we capture the full and accurate amount moving forward.

[23:58] The second change is that there was an additional project for quiet zones contained in the tip for this coming fiscal year.

[24:09] As you know, the quiet zone in Broward is now fully implemented. These funds are no longer necessary.

[24:14] So we have been working with DOT about how to repurpose these dollars, but of course the first step is to release them from the tip.

[24:22] So this project is being removed from the tip.

[24:27] The second project down there, this is a project in the city of Fort Lauderdale.

[24:32] It was a pedestrian overpass of the New River, I guess associated with U.S. 1 corridor.

[24:39] door, but we have received confirmation from both the city and from DOT that that project

[24:46] is not moving forward, and so that project is also being removed.

[24:51] These were the comments that we had received during the public opportunity for comment

[24:59] period, and you can see mostly very minor comments.

[25:03] I'm not going to read them through if you have any questions.

[25:05] Be glad.

[25:06] Again, thank you. Andrew was able to identify that we had Northwest, not Northeast, so we've got that cleaned up and corrected.

[25:16] We've also will address the comments that we received from FDOT, so we appreciate those comments as well.

[25:23] So the public notice, just to go over this real quickly, we did follow the requirements for noticing the tip was distributed back in May 29th as a draft.

[25:32] We provided news releases in three different newspapers and those began

[25:38] running on the 6th and 9th. They had different start dates that they work

[25:42] with. Of course the documents were available on our website for the

[25:47] entire period and they were also sent out in hard copy to eight Broward

[25:52] County libraries. The public meetings, this is the first one, the first option

[25:58] availability for the public to come and speak on this. There will be two

[26:01] more this evening at the CAC and then at the board meeting on July 11th.

[26:08] So

[26:08] that's the end of the presentation. Glad to try to take any questions that you

[26:14] might have. Of course I have the entire team that did all the work behind this

[26:17] here and with the different programs so maybe a team effort answering questions

[26:22] but we're glad to try to answer any that you might have. Thank you Bill.

[26:36] Is

[26:37] Seeing none, if there's any comments from the TAC committee, we can take them and if there's

[26:44] any motions to be had, we'll take those too.

[26:48] Mr. Good.

[26:51] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[26:55] So it's a lot that I want to say but not take all your time.

[27:01] So I'm trying to make this as succinct as possible.

[27:05] So in reference to the major projects, the two major projects, one being the Sawgrass

[27:11] Expressway and the other being Southwest 10th Street, many of you may know, and maybe you

[27:19] do not know, but the city of Deerfield Beach has been in intense dialogue, involvement,

[27:30] communication, whatever you want to call it, dealing with these two projects throughout

[27:34] the PD&E which is not yet complete. The Sawgrass Expressway component in particular when it goes

[27:43] from the Turnpike to Powerline Road is of great concern to the city of Deerfield Beach and

[27:51] I would suspect it is also a great concern to the city of Coconut Creek because of the

[27:58] number of ramps that are going to be installed and the proximity to the

[28:05] residential communities. I don't think anybody has really picked up on the

[28:09] gravity of what that impact would be to those communities. The portion with

[28:15] regards to the Southwest 10th Street, without boring a lot of the details

[28:20] and what happened during the COPE committees and some of the

[28:23] recommendations and how that has moved forward, probably the most important

[28:28] One thing to the city is this statement that it makes about adding managed lanes.

[28:35] When this project was initiated in conversation with several cities to come up with a solution

[28:42] on how to make the southwest 10 street connector, and I emphasize the word connector, how to

[28:52] make that possible to connect the sawgrass to 95.

[28:57] During 18 months, close to two years' worth of negotiations and discussions, it was always

[29:05] referenced as a connector, it was never referenced as a managed lane.

[29:10] Many of you know a managed lane requires, it's a toll road.

[29:16] And more importantly, the managed lanes do not carry truck traffic.

[29:26] Managed lanes also have different design criteria than if you were maybe creating a different

[29:34] type of roadway that would act as that connector.

[29:38] So the city of Deerfield Beach has always believed that this was going to just be an extension

[29:44] from the sawgrass 295 as just extending the highway where all forms of vehicles

[29:53] would be able to travel that right away but now that it's become a managed

[30:00] The city is adamantly against. It is putting a large volume of traffic onto the local roads to go from Sawgrass to 95.

[30:16] So the city is, again, not in agreement with this project as the way it is.

[30:23] Again, the PD is not completed.

[30:26] I ask my colleagues to consider this fact about it being a managed lane versus a regular highway.

[30:35] And I don't know exactly how to move forward with this, and so I may need some help.

[30:40] But I would like to specifically extract this one item.

[30:44] I'm not opposed to the MTP here, but

[30:50] this one project is of great concern to the city and I don't think we should

[30:56] really even be dealing with this project until we know until we go through some

[30:59] of the PD&E and some of the other issues that are going to be impacting not

[31:03] just the city of Deerfield Beach but some of the other local cities that are

[31:07] nearby so I'd like to try to I'd like to just pull this out if I I don't

[31:12] know that we made an emotion or anything but I'd like to make a

[31:15] motion to pull this one particular project out and vote on it separately as there may

[31:21] be other cities who are also concerned about this particular project and how it may impact

[31:28] a community and that's my motion and is to pull this one particular item out to be

[31:36] voted on separately.

[31:37] That's my motion.

[31:39] If I can we also have DOT they're going to make a presentation on this but a couple

[31:44] of things with regards to manage lanes and also the the truck traffic we have met with DOT and there

[31:51] are some resolutions and I think we'll have DOT just kind of speak on on those more recent events

[31:58] before we move forward on that. Robert. Good afternoon my name is Robert Bosch. I'm with

[32:04] the floor department transportation. I'm the project manager for the southwest 10th street

[32:08] point of order yeah I have a motion on the floor here right and so before we

[32:14] move further into discussion and I like for that to be disposed of okay well

[32:19] is there a second to that motion it's

[32:27] good you don't have a second for the

[32:28] motion so I think that's disposed of thank you Mr. Chair at least at least it's

[32:32] on the record thank you okay thanks so okay again good afternoon I'm Robert

[32:37] Bosch and with the floor Department transportation the project manager of

[32:41] Southwest 10-3 connector.

[32:43] I appreciate the comments by Mr. Good.

[32:45] He's correct.

[32:46] We've had a lot of conversations.

[32:48] We've certainly met with the city numerous times

[32:50] and the staff and we appreciate the opportunity to

[32:53] to listen to the concerns.

[32:55] And I think as many of you know,

[32:56] being working with municipalities that,

[32:59] you know, some big issues sometimes take,

[33:02] you know, quite a bit of time

[33:03] to kind of work through the system.

[33:05] So we do feel this is a connector

[33:09] between the sawgrass and and I-95 it also includes the turnpike interchange I

[33:15] think when we started off the PDD study almost a year and a half ago we start

[33:18] we approached it with the express lanes and we talked about managed lanes

[33:23] managed lanes aren't necessarily a toll facility like HOV lanes or managed

[33:26] lanes those are not tolls express lanes are told typically express lanes or

[33:30] congestion price tolls so the concerns about this particular connector

[33:35] being a manager express lanes has been noted. We did have a DOT or do have a FDOT statewide

[33:41] policy that in that we look at new facilities we look at management facilities and look at

[33:47] express lane facilities. Our policy does also include that heavy trucks are not allowed.

[33:52] So through our coordination with the city and the statewide offices we kind of revisited that.

[33:59] We this will be a connector it will heavy trucks will be allowed motorcycles cars buses

[34:04] all vehicles will be allowed. It will not be told. It will be a connection between Sawgrass and I-95.

[34:10] It will have some intermediate access with the local roadway because that's what the city has expressed what they want.

[34:17] So I think we handle a lot of those big issues and we're ready to move forward with the PD&E study.

[34:21] And I can, a little later on, I can get into my presentation a little bit more formally.

[34:28] Thank you, Robert.

[34:32] So the floor is still open for any more discussion on the TIP.

[34:44] I'm sorry, I just want to make it clear for the record that this is the only issue that

[34:50] I do have with regard to the TIP, but because it is an issue and I did not get a second

[34:58] to the motion to separate this, then I will have to vote against this item for that reason.

[35:03] Thank you.

[35:05] Okay, any other? I don't have anybody in the queue, but I do have a couple questions.

[35:13] And

[35:16] the major projects, did I miss something? The flyover from the 10th Street to I-95 is not in this?

[35:27] And the TIP? Is that too far behind? It's not ready to be...

[35:31] Well, remember, this is just a sampling, so I'm actually going to have to look to...

[35:45] I don't know the answer and we actually can pull this thing up. I believe we have it up here. I don't know if we're going to be able to find it help from you mentioned some interchange improvements long 95 going up the Hillsborough but I think a second project along here connecting to 100 to 10th Street was Hillsborough to sample I believe.

[37:03] So Mr. Chair, we're not able to find that in the tip at the moment, but we'll continue

[37:12] to look.

[37:13] Okay.

[37:14] Let me just ask, this is cheating a little bit, but do you want us to find it or do you

[37:19] want us not to find it?

[37:22] I would want you to find it.

[37:25] Okay.

[37:25] All right, I mean

[37:27] I mean it was part of the public workshops that we had with Southwest 10th Street

[37:32] What wasn't part of those workshops was also the termpikes

[37:36] portion of that, you know

[37:38] Turns the termpike connections to the 10th Street that wasn't part of the workshop

[37:43] I don't know that maybe tailing behind this one may maybe I 95 portion is also that's my recollection because we had spoken about this earlier

[37:50] when we were reviewing it in-house just this morning that there's like 400

[37:54] million there for Southwest 10th, but we know the price tag is larger when you

[37:59] include the interchange. I'm guessing that it's just a couple years behind in

[38:03] funding for this, but we will dig through and find you an answer

[38:07] definitively. Okay. And I just have a, oh I'm gonna, Jonathan Robertson.

[38:16] Oh,

[38:16] would you like to answer that question, Robert? Yeah, take a stab at, for the I-95

[38:20] that you're talking about. So I'm the project manager for that. It's a PD&E study. It's actually

[38:25] in the fiscal year 25, so it's the year in the next year outside of the current time.

[38:33] Thanks, Mr. Chair. Bill, I'm morbidly curious about the trip funding. And this tip compared

[38:40] to maybe this time last year, is there anything different? Is the FY24 funds, was that

[38:50] the newest year added to this this tip in my uh is there anything no there's

[38:56] really nothing here to nothing new to see as you know we went through the

[39:00] process this spring of of trying to identify some new priority so we're

[39:06] actually hoping next year that I'll be able to answer yes affirmatively that

[39:12] we were able to to get something so some new projects in okay so and you're

[39:18] We're hoping in time for the next tip process to have, I suppose, what, a 2025, or a...

[39:26] Yeah, so the timeframe is, I know it's a little confusing, but for the prioritization process

[39:37] that we went through, I believe it was like in March with ARTAC for the trip projects,

[39:42] is actually the same cycle that we'll be going through immediately following this

[39:47] presentation with our multimodal priority list those projects will show up

[39:51] in December or I think it's early cycle this year but the fall so that's when

[39:58] we're going to get some kind of a response from what we did this spring

[40:01] they're not here in this in this tip cycle okay thank you but I just have a

[40:07] couple more questions little ones so when your project highlights the

[40:12] The Pompano Beach Mobility sidewalks.

[40:14] Is that a city program?

[40:18] They're the ones that are going to be doing the project.

[40:22] I would like somebody from our mobility group, Ricardo.

[40:25] Oh, Mr. Gutierrez.

[40:29] Good afternoon, Ricardo Gutierrez of our MPO staff.

[40:32] Now, that's actually one of our projects

[40:33] that were bundled in an area to make it more efficient

[40:35] and implementing.

[40:37] So it's one of our mobility projects.

[40:38] It would be DOT?

[40:40] With DOT, yes.

[40:41] How about Elmar Drive?

[40:45] We're working with the city that's another mobility project as well. Okay last one is see slip. Twenty two projects bike lane thirty four million dollars that's over five years. How do I understand how that works how do you know how many projects that are over the five year program.

[41:05] As you can see this is a team effort here. Yes always sorry I missed the the question I did hear see under C slip on the.

[41:14] I'm police chief local initiatives program. It says 22 projects. This is a TIP bike lane

[41:22] sidewalk $34 million over five years. But how do we know how many projects that would

[41:27] be? So it should be it's 22 projects. Can you can tell me can you tell me who funded

[41:35] in the fifth year? Projects are funded in the fifth year. I could probably get

[41:40] know that for you but I haven't applied for him yet. Okay perfect okay so this

[41:47] chair I think your question really again gets down to kind of the confusing

[41:51] cycle that we're that we're always on so what's reflected here under C-slip in

[41:58] the 22 projects these are all projects that were previously announced

[42:02] that that you had received an award and they're just showing up now in the

[42:06] programming so the project right exactly it's just I know the

[42:11] cycles that's why I always show those those kind of

[42:14] but if you're sitting up here you could have bought me in the

[42:17] head just give me back in tune here so that's I understand

[42:19] because our projects are five years off. Yes, yes, I'm dumb

[42:22] question. I'm sorry. No dumb questions. Okay, let me let me

[42:25] have one more response. No, he's in the queue to Mr.

[42:28] Good.

[42:30] From coral Springs perspective, we've met with the

[42:41] I mean, we wanted the trucks on the quote managed lanes. We did not want. I mean, that was part of our rationale for pressing for this whole Southwest 10th Street was our industrial park and the trucks and I'm sure other cities sunrise. Maybe I mean, I was mentioned. These are these other discussions we've had with them that I'm picking up from our

[43:04] MPO member that that he was definitely opposed to it at the

[43:09] time when everything was being pushed onto your local roads.

[43:12] And and that that they wouldn't have access to the the the

[43:17] straight flow of traffic through there and access to I

[43:19] 95, which is what they want. So if that this was a couple

[43:23] months ago opposed to it and and the staff and consultants

[43:29] worked with D. O. T. Palahasi and came with the last

[43:32] we met with them, he expressed what he had just expressed here. And I think that turned

[43:38] Mr. Bagnola, our representative of the MPO, more in support of the program where they

[43:42] were saying that it's going to be a fleet, you know, available to all vehicles. So I

[43:46] don't know if you'd heard that before, if that influenced you, but there may be

[43:50] other reasons you'd be opposed to it, but that was how it happened in Coral Springs

[43:57] so far. You can speak. I'm sorry. Thomas, in response.

[44:01] Okay. And thank you, Mr. Chair. And yes, we've heard much of the same thing.

[44:08] However, you've got to understand that the city of Deerfield Beach has been like ground zero for this from day one.

[44:15] And the city has heard many promising things where promises have since been broken.

[44:21] And many of us are in government and many of us recognize that verbal commitments

[44:29] events are only as far as it can be used to get the purpose done, but what really counts

[44:36] is what's in writing and nothing has been provided in writing to make clear anything

[44:42] that you said at this point.

[44:44] So because the city has been engaged with this process and has been broken hearted

[44:51] many times, we're just not falling for it anymore.

[44:55] So we just want to be on record to make it clear that we do have

[45:00] Opposition, that there are concerns. And we do hope, I mean, we are very, very much in

[45:06] favor of this as well, too. I mean, you know, we need this corridor, you know, creates a

[45:12] lot of congestion within the city. And we know any improvement will be an

[45:17] improvement to, you know, our traffic ways. However, again, it's just, you know,

[45:22] how it's being done, you know, and who's paying the price for it. It is the

[45:27] City of Deerfield Beach and we're asking our partner cities to recognize that.

[45:33] Thank you.

[45:34] Appreciate it.

[45:34] Thank you.

[45:35] Nicholas, soful.

[45:38] I move the item.

[45:40] Is there a second?

[45:45] We do have another speaker or another question, but I'll wait for a second before you start

[45:51] voting.

[45:58] There's a motion of support to approve.

[46:01] I'll go on to...

[46:04] Is it up ready?

[46:05] Yeah.

[46:05] Okay.

[46:06] Well, we can take us take the question.

[46:11] I want to make a electronic.

[46:18] Should I go to the question?

[46:20] Let's go to the question in Elise Michaels

[46:23] Thank you. I just want to put on the record in line with mr. Good

[46:27] There is three major projects that are going to be happening on

[46:32] 2023 they're around around the city of Parkland and we just have concerns of the timing and scheduling

[46:38] Because it's gonna create a lot of congestion

[46:40] for our residents so I'm not opposing to it just have concerns as far as projects

[46:46] happening all the same time around the city thank you thank you we're still

[46:54] waiting on the screen to Rebecca

[46:59] Schultz proud MPO over here in the corner it

[47:02] is ready for a motion so

[47:06] someone want to make somebody made a motion did you

[47:14] We do have a motion and a second, so if there's any more discussion, there's none in the queue.

[47:21] I think we're probably ready to vote.

[47:23] Pardon?

[47:32] Were you done, Bill?

[47:36] Okay. Yeah, you're done now.

[47:42] It is approved with one dissenting vote and so it is approved recommended thank

[47:50] you

[47:54] we'll move on to action item number two which is the motion to recommend

[48:00] Broward MPO approved the draft fiscal year 2020 multimodal priorities list

[48:07] MMPL. We get you again, Mr. Cross?

[48:09] And I'm back again. All right. Yes, sir. All right. Let me see. This is a huge, huge presentation.

[48:14] So go for it, Bill. Yes. And it's a big document, and it's hugely important.

[48:21] And there's a huge number of changes. So, yeah, a very important document today.

[48:26] So we're really excited to get here. It has been over a year getting to this point.

[48:31] And we've spent a lot of time with this group, as you know,

[48:34] working through the new 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan

[48:39] to come up with a new format and a new approach.

[48:42] And we have embodied that in the new priority list

[48:46] that you have in front of you.

[48:48] So again, today we're talking about one

[48:50] of our core products, the multimodal priorities list.

[48:53] I'm not going to go through the animation on this again

[48:55] with you, but I will go through some animation

[48:58] with this one.

[48:59] So the priorities list is really the bridge between the Metropolitan Transportation Plan

[49:04] and actually getting things onto the TIP that we just adopted.

[49:08] So what we're talking about today, we will be adopting in the form of a TIP a year from

[49:15] now.

[49:18] So some of the changes that we've made to the priorities list this time is it's

[49:22] going to be organized by the 2045 MTP funding programs.

[49:26] programs. It's also going to incorporate the measures of program readiness and we'll show

[49:32] you that. I know you've seen that before. Christopher Streppo has given you that presentation.

[49:38] Tracking funds by phase and source, that's something new that we are also adding in

[49:43] to help keep track of where the money is coming from and going to. And then of course

[49:47] we also want to start talking and tracking the progress on delivering the projects.

[49:53] You've seen this before, this is just a reminder of the 2045 MTP funding programs, along with their relative percentages of funding that our board has asked that we attempt to match that different level of funding.

[50:09] So you can see the largest there is for our Complete Street Master Plan with about 25%.

[50:15] Okay, so program ready. Again, all the projects do need to be program ready in order for DOT to program the work.

[50:23] So as we go through the program, I'll show you how you can tell whether or not your project specifically has met those four criteria.

[50:32] And as a reminder, it's scope of work, a resolution of support from the city, cost estimate and the collaboration amongst partners.

[50:40] that could mean the neighbor, it could mean the owner of the facility that the

[50:44] project is proposed on. Again the important dates and I just have a minor

[50:49] edit that I asked that we add in here. Please if you're going to try to meet

[50:53] what we've been saying sharing with you is the August 1st deadline and

[50:59] that's only important if you have a project that's really up high in the

[51:02] priority for this cycle. Try to get it to us July 31st because our

[51:07] deadline to submit to DOT is actually August 1st so if we get it from you at

[51:11] 5 p.m. on August 1st and then we have to go through the update you know it's

[51:15] just going to be a little bit difficult. We'll do it because we've been saying

[51:19] August 1st but if you can get it to us a little bit early we've very much

[51:23] appreciate that. Again September 11th is the date for all other projects

[51:28] just to make sure that you are able to be in the 2045 MTP. Okay so let's

[51:36] Let's talk a little bit about the funding source distribution.

[51:39] Here's the way the funds are distributed between state and federal.

[51:45] And then you can see the bottom three colors there.

[51:48] That's where we use some of our federal dollars to try to leverage both state and local dollars.

[51:53] So these are the recommendations.

[51:55] These are, again, these are priority lists.

[51:58] It's not necessarily the result that we will get a year from now.

[52:02] Similar here.

[52:03] We're going to go through program funding source by the different funding programs of the MTP.

[52:09] So on highway you can see how that breaks out.

[52:11] And I think logically most of the highway funding is coming through the state.

[52:18] We take a look at the system management and operations slash safety.

[52:24] Again, significant portion is coming from the state, but the other piece is coming from the MPO attributable.

[52:29] And that's because both FDOT and ourselves, we have adopted Division Zero, and so we are actively working to make more capital investments in safety programs around the county as part of this plan.

[52:46] Transit, you can see a little bit different breakout there.

[52:53] C-slip, a little bit different again.

[52:57] mobility hubs. We're still working on standing that program up, so it looks a

[53:02] little bit like a bull's-eye there, but I'm sure that we will fill that out in

[53:06] future years. And the complete Street Master Plan. Here you can see this is

[53:13] again our largest single funding program for MPO attributable dollars, and

[53:19] so this one actually has an oversized federal blue piece of that pie. Okay,

[53:26] Okay, so program distribution, I'll try to go through these fairly quickly, but if you

[53:31] have questions, we can come back.

[53:33] This again, I'll go through the different funding programs of how the projects break out.

[53:38] So we'll go through this first one a little bit slowly so you can follow what's here.

[53:42] So at the top there is the 20% that was the board adopted percentage of funding.

[53:47] They'd like to see go into that program.

[53:49] Below that tells you what the program is.

[53:51] This one happens to be the highway.

[53:52] There are 53 projects on the priority list, highway projects,

[53:58] eight of them are existing projects.

[53:59] And just as a reminder, the priority list continues to carry as the highest priorities,

[54:05] projects that were previous MPO priorities that have partial funding

[54:10] and are still waiting to become 100% funded.

[54:13] So the older projects, you know, they hang around

[54:16] and they retain the highest priority until they're funded.

[54:19] So in this case, we're adding 45 new projects as potential programming options.

[54:26] And again, you're going to see as we go through this,

[54:28] not all of the 45 are actually going to be program ready,

[54:32] so they won't all be eligible to be programmed,

[54:35] but we're putting them on the list.

[54:38] Okay, so this one is TSMNO slash safety, 10 projects,

[54:43] three of them are existing that are carrying forward,

[54:45] and we have seven new projects.

[54:48] For transit, there are four projects that are carrying forward from previously and there are no new projects.

[54:56] Or maybe I have that backwards. I'm sorry, there are zero carrying forward and there are four new projects.

[55:02] Thank you, Mike.

[55:05] Okay, so what do we have here? We have C-slip.

[55:08] So there are 38 total projects, 12 of them are projects that were partially funded previously.

[55:14] Obviously, we're going to continue to keep them on to get them fully funded for you,

[55:18] and there's 26 new projects that have come from the recent cycle.

[55:25] What's important to point out here with the C-slip projects, there are 26 that came through

[55:30] the C-slip this time.

[55:33] Of those 26, the ones that get funded by DOT this time will be kept until they're

[55:39] fully funded.

[55:40] However, if you don't receive funding, then you'll be hearing back from us because those projects will have to be resubmitted through the annual C-slip process.

[55:50] We don't carry those forward.

[55:53] And finally, Mobility Hubs.

[55:56] That's the zeroes there.

[55:58] Next year it's going to be a great program.

[56:01] Complete Street Master Plans.

[56:02] We've got a lot of projects moving through there as well.

[56:06] Okay, so let's talk a little bit about the new format.

[56:09] I know you've seen this before, but there are a lot of changes.

[56:14] First off is the prioritization.

[56:17] So let me just point out to you that what you're going to see, two slightly different things.

[56:22] One of the things that we've changed this time is we've generated a priority report for each of your municipalities.

[56:30] Okay, so you have, instead of looking at the whole document, you can just kind of focus on what's happening in your municipality.

[56:36] What you'll see under the prioritization is that the newer projects, they're going to be color-coded to match whatever program you're in.

[56:47] And that's going to tell you that these are truly new projects as opposed to legacy projects that we're continuing to fund and move forward.

[56:56] The project characteristics, you can see the areas that are highlighted.

[56:59] it will tell you information like the city, it will tell you the project limits, description, etc.

[57:08] The financial information there is in the middle, it's most importantly to the far right,

[57:14] it will tell you if there is still funding needed.

[57:18] So for the projects that are carrying over, you'll be able to see the years where there is partial funding

[57:24] and what the shortfall is so you can see what the need is moving forward.

[57:28] and then program readiness this is a really important box here so the four

[57:33] areas that we mentioned you need to get four greens next to those areas in order

[57:38] for F dot to take these projects and start applying dollars to them okay I

[57:44] know that was a lot glad to try to take any questions that you might have

[57:51] still

[58:04] looking for my city okay Christopher tells me that you do all

[58:08] have your city specific version of the priority list in front of you. Jonathan

[58:14] Roberson. Thank you Mr. Chair. Hi Bill. Hey question for you on the transit

[58:20] projects on page 50 of the actual list.

[58:28] Just curious about the project two and

[58:33] three, the city line, or I suppose it's at the bottom, it's not, I'm not sure if that's

[58:43] supposed to be the sponsor, but for both of these are regional kind of rapid bus BRT projects

[58:51] and the local jurisdiction thing is different.

[58:57] One of them is Broward County, the Hollywood one is Pimper Pines Hollywood, and since

[59:02] It says kind of all going to be funded by kind of regional funds.

[59:07] I'm just wondering what it's meant there.

[59:10] Should that be the owner, the sponsor of the project in that first thing, or are you trying

[59:15] to put the cities that it goes through?

[59:18] So it's a great point, Jonathan, and the answer is none of the above.

[59:22] So we don't give you credit for you being the owner because we point out that the

[59:30] ownership of the facility is actually the state.

[59:33] We do acknowledge that the program is transit

[59:36] and the city is literally just that.

[59:40] It's one of the cities that the project travels through.

[59:43] So I think that you may have pointed out to us

[59:48] another field that we might wanna try to incorporate,

[59:53] but it's a balancing act.

[59:56] The more detail we put in here,

[59:57] the more crowded it gets

[59:58] and the more difficult to read.

[59:59] But

[1:00:00] I would consider that, you know, we would be working with every city on the corridors to implement some, you know, aspects of rapid bus and it would be like some kind of multiple, not jurisdiction, but multiple,

[1:00:16] There's multiple governments need to be on board for them to happen.

[1:00:22] And it's obviously, the funding sources are obviously, I mean, they're surtax and state

[1:00:28] or flexed federal funds to the state, whatever, but it might be a good recommendation just

[1:00:33] to have some kind of multiple jurisdictional involvement in this.

[1:00:39] Thank you.

[1:00:43] Eric Houston.

[1:00:46] Can you explain the icons?

[1:00:48] I have two questions. Can you explain icons with the search, the paper, the like funding and the people?

[1:00:55] What do those mean? What do you say you have to have for yeses?

[1:01:01] Oh, okay. Sure. This is the program ready. And we actually, we do have a slide for that.

[1:01:09] I can't read it on this one. I'm going to have to back up a few slides here, guys.

[1:01:14] There's also, Eric, there's also legends at the bottom of the page.

[1:01:18] So, the magnifying scope of work, paper resolution, tag as the cost estimate, and collaboration

[1:01:26] of among partners is the last one.

[1:01:28] Yeah, that answers that question.

[1:01:30] Okay.

[1:01:31] My other question is with the priority, and it says 22, and then there's a number

[1:01:37] below it, 2019-10.

[1:01:42] What can you explain that priority like is it because is it twenty two overall in the plan or is it twenty two in that particular section or and then what's the twenty nineteen dash ten right so that what we try to do their Eric was first off.

[1:01:58] If there's no color code under that priority number,

[1:02:05] then that tells you it's a carryover project.

[1:02:08] And then the two letter code there is basically the year

[1:02:14] where it was originally prioritized

[1:02:16] and that original priority.

[1:02:18] And then the new projects, yes,

[1:02:20] their their reflect the overall rank consistent with the MTP and those will

[1:02:29] start with the I believe it's 2020 yeah so all of the new priorities that are

[1:02:34] for the first time this year we'll start with the 2020 designation the

[1:02:42] season of stars of 2019 yes because the projects that we're incorporating this

[1:02:49] year into the multimodal priority list we're from a prior year cycle of C-slip

[1:02:55] which again is one of those schedule cycle kind of gotcha there's there okay

[1:03:02] it's not always obvious how how the cycles run with each other okay and so

[1:03:08] this upcoming cycle of C-slip will have the 2020 but it will appear in the

[1:03:14] We're going to go back to the

[1:03:15] twenty twenty one. Priority yes

[1:03:18] all right that's my question

[1:03:19] and

[1:03:24] yes back please. I don't

[1:03:27] under the tribal rolling stock

[1:03:29] item under the transit section

[1:03:31] I know that we are working to

[1:03:34] provide a resolution of

[1:03:36] support which should clear

[1:03:37] one of those boxes up

[1:03:38] because we have. Two items

[1:03:40] that are checked now under program readiness, the other being the collaboration among partners.

[1:03:46] We are in conversations with the other two neighboring MPOs, TPO, TPA, to try to get these

[1:03:53] included, the rolling stock, their share included into their plans.

[1:04:00] In terms of time frames, the inclusion of their third, I would need those from

[1:04:08] both counties for this to be changed from no to a yes.

[1:04:12] So that's an excellent question, Natalie.

[1:04:15] And I have to say, I haven't thought of that.

[1:04:18] I don't think we've really fully thought that one through.

[1:04:22] So maybe we can talk offline about that.

[1:04:24] Collaboration is normally if you're doing something

[1:04:27] with your adjacent cities.

[1:04:29] In this case, it's adjacent counties.

[1:04:31] But I don't know if that should preclude us

[1:04:34] from having a project in Broward County

[1:04:37] if the two counties on either side are necessarily not ready to go and you're free to buy rolling

[1:04:45] stock for your own.

[1:04:46] I'm not sure there's another agency there involved.

[1:04:48] I don't know, Mike, to use.

[1:04:50] I don't see a problem.

[1:04:51] I think we can turn that first red to green for you.

[1:04:54] Okay.

[1:04:55] And then if you can get us the resolution, I think you probably have greens all the

[1:04:58] way across there.

[1:04:59] Okay.

[1:04:59] Thank you.

[1:05:00] Great question though.

[1:05:00] Thank you.

[1:05:05] Karen Moore?

[1:05:07] I had a question kind of on that.

[1:05:08] If we have changes that we know for some of these, like I have one, the US 1595 RAM, we

[1:05:15] have a resolution of support and we are working with DOT and the community on that, do we still

[1:05:20] have opportunity to update these?

[1:05:23] Yes.

[1:05:24] Thank you.

[1:05:25] If you get us that information, we can make changes and updates prior to the board.

[1:05:31] One at a time though, so get them to us quick.

[1:05:34] I think that's the only one that I saw going through.

[1:05:36] Okay.

[1:05:36] Oh, look again.

[1:05:37] Good, thank you.

[1:05:38] And then in terms of C-slip, as long as it's not, like, the construction's not programmed

[1:05:44] yet, it'll still be on here, but once the construction's programmed, it won't.

[1:05:49] Am I understanding that right?

[1:05:50] Right.

[1:05:51] Once the project is fully funded, then it does drop off of the priority list, and

[1:05:56] it would be reflected in the tip at that point.

[1:05:59] Okay.

[1:06:01] Bradley Swing.

[1:06:02] question about University Drive Rapid Bus the funding sources state and local

[1:06:07] but and we would like to provide the resolution of support but I don't see

[1:06:11] what the local support is there there's no indication here of any number so right

[1:06:17] so the local support at this point is surtax and that's based upon the

[1:06:24] commitment from the county as reflected in their published surtax plan and

[1:06:29] program. All right, thanks.

[1:06:36] I may have missed this, but the the C-slip programs

[1:06:39] that have no funding attached to a year because we don't know yet what's been

[1:06:46] funded in the last C-slip round, is that why they're in there? So there are some

[1:06:50] of those that don't get funded will drop off. And when do you think we'll know

[1:06:55] that? We're gonna put Connor on them. We can get Connor up here, but we

[1:07:01] should know by when the work program comes out and the work program we expect

[1:07:06] to see in September at your September meeting.

[1:07:11] So okay. And Connor you want to

[1:07:13] call me that before I just wanted to make sure. Yes. Sorry the speaker in the

[1:07:17] audio room is not working right now so could you repeat that? Is this the

[1:07:21] question of when we'll know about the C-slip project from last year? Oh from

[1:07:25] last year so we it's an early cycle this year with DOT so we should be

[1:07:29] knowing relatively soon maybe, I believe, possibly October, does that sound about right?

[1:07:35] Mike said September.

[1:07:36] September.

[1:07:37] We'll see, you'll see the draft of the work program in September and it goes to the

[1:07:42] MPO board in October, yep, this year.

[1:07:45] Okay.

[1:07:47] Thank you.

[1:07:48] We have no more requests in the queue and you

[1:07:55] need a motion for this.

[1:08:00] Ready for a motion.

[1:08:01] who ever wants to, ah, thank you, Mr. Guestback.

[1:08:07] Michael Rigetti is seconded, so we are almost ready to vote.

[1:08:13] Oh, we have another question. Eric Houston, you didn't push your button.

[1:08:19] Oh, okay. Thank you.

[1:08:20] On community, I know you said you got to get the information in fast,

[1:08:24] but when it says, um, collaboration among partners,

[1:08:29] What is the city supposed to do with that if it's in the MTP projects?

[1:08:34] What depends who the collaboration needs to be with.

[1:08:37] So I, you know, we can talk offline about specific projects, glad to do that,

[1:08:41] but let's say for instance that you have a project and the collaboration box is currently red

[1:08:48] and it's on a state facility or maybe a county facility,

[1:08:52] then collaboration with either the county or the city in that case would be

[1:08:57] indicated by some type of a letter from them that they are supportive of that

[1:09:02] project that you're proposing on their facility. Okay, by the next.

[1:09:10] So one of

[1:09:13] the reasons why we're doing the one-on-one partner meetings is to get

[1:09:15] that collaboration among partners resolved so if you haven't had a

[1:09:18] meeting with us yet you'll see when you do actually sit down and meet

[1:09:21] with us will let you know hey this is a state facility we'd like you to work with

[1:09:24] the state to get a letter of support whatever that may be and we'll set a

[1:09:27] timeframe there for that as well we would prefer for projects that are on the

[1:09:32] state system to get as soon as you can a letter of support and work through us

[1:09:37] in order to do that as well okay thank you all right we can vote then

[1:09:45] moved and seconded it's

[1:10:05] been approved unanimously thank you very much we'll

[1:10:09] move on to non-action items, a report from partner agencies,

[1:10:15] Florida DOT, Southwest 10th Street Update.

[1:10:23] Hi, good afternoon.

[1:10:24] Paul Caparazzi, Breyer NPO.

[1:10:26] I'm introducing our friends at FDOT.

[1:10:28] Just a little history on this one.

[1:10:30] This all started with a letter that was

[1:10:32] said to the NPO board four years ago now, I believe.

[1:10:36] And from there, the NPO formed the Community Oversight

[1:10:39] Advisory Team, which was a group of residents,

[1:10:42] business interests from throughout the Southwest Tensory corridor and beyond.

[1:10:48] They came up with 18 recommendations as to what elements the PD&E, should a

[1:10:53] PD&E happen, what should they cover. That was adopted by the MPO Board about

[1:10:58] going on three years ago now. Since then, FDOT has begun their PD&E and

[1:11:03] they're here today to just provide an update to the TAC and later tonight

[1:11:07] our CAC on what the status of what their alternatives look like etc. So with

[1:11:12] that I'd like to introduce Robert Boston,

[1:11:14] the project manager from FDOT.

[1:11:22] Thanks, Paul.

[1:11:23] Gaffrey and again, it's me again.

[1:11:25] Yeah, just going to give you, it's really,

[1:11:27] it's not a long update of where we are at the project.

[1:11:30] And I'll focus a little bit on what Paul mentioned

[1:11:32] about the COTE team and kind of where we are with that.

[1:11:35] I know the project itself actually goes back

[1:11:37] more than four years, actually.

[1:11:38] I think in the 1970s, it was originally planned

[1:11:41] and it was attempted to move forward a number of times

[1:11:44] but obviously it's controversial.

[1:11:46] It was stopped a few times.

[1:11:47] So I think we've done a lot of outreach.

[1:11:49] The DOT had started the PD&E study back in September 2017.

[1:11:54] So it's a little bit under two years, about a year and three

[1:11:57] quarters have been working on it.

[1:11:58] And kind of you've got a preview already.

[1:12:00] There's a lot of issues.

[1:12:01] It's a complicated corridor.

[1:12:03] There's certainly a lot of stakeholders.

[1:12:05] It's both significant, both locally,

[1:12:07] obviously with the city of Deerfield Beach

[1:12:09] and local residents and businesses

[1:12:11] and regionally because it's really a regional connector

[1:12:14] as well as a local facility.

[1:12:16] You know, it connects, you know, the Sawgrass and the Turnpike, obviously, to I-95, but it's also part of the regional highway transportation system we have here in South Florida.

[1:12:26] So that,

[1:12:33] yep, hit the right one.

[1:12:34] So I want to go over just a brief overview.

[1:12:37] I'll touch on what the code recommendations are and kind of how that compares to what we're looking at as far as alternatives for the project.

[1:12:43] And then I'll touch on the alternatives.

[1:12:44] We are in the PD&E, so we're, you know, a key element of that is really its outreach.

[1:12:49] that's probably the biggest element. We look at a lot of the socio and economic aspects as well as

[1:12:53] geometric aspects of the project, but really getting the stakeholder input. And with this project

[1:12:58] we have a lot of challenges and we're basically trying to address them as best we can. As we move

[1:13:02] forward we continue to make a lot of advancements in the geometric design, the changes to the

[1:13:07] alternatives, and the major issues along the corridor. So I think we're making a lot of

[1:13:11] progress. I think we have still a lot of work to do and you'll kind of see where we're

[1:13:16] it as we get through this presentation. So what's highlighted this box here really shows

[1:13:21] got 18 separate boxes and they're really just summarizing the 18 code recommendations. Paul

[1:13:27] had mentioned that that group worked together to build a consensus and with that they brought

[1:13:31] recommendations to the MPO and basically to move the project forward you know when that was

[1:13:37] passed on the DOT that was part of our initiative to kind of look at the project as

[1:13:41] we're looking at the different alternatives to make sure we're looking at each one of the

[1:13:44] alternatives, I mean each one of the the code recommendations and evaluate them

[1:13:49] for each alternative and basically to see how we can incorporate what that

[1:13:53] desire is with the with the outcome of the PD&E study. So what's in green

[1:13:57] here what really shows that these code recommendations are pretty much similar

[1:14:03] they're handled or addressed in a very similar way or the same way for each

[1:14:07] of the three alternatives. What's highlighted in blue the four through

[1:14:11] seven there are some differences and I'll kind of I'll touch on that but with

[1:14:15] these four recommendations which the fourth one would be in the depressed

[1:14:19] roadway section because with alternatives there's different lengths of

[1:14:22] depression and then not elevating in residential areas and then access as

[1:14:28] well as accessibility so there's a little bit of differences with the

[1:14:31] co-recommendations and the different alternatives that we're looking at

[1:14:33] and I'll touch on that in just a moment so to kind of start with our

[1:14:38] We call our full depressed option and what I mean by that this is basically where the connector lanes the connector

[1:14:44] Railway is below below grade and if you're starting from the east from not from where it connects with I-95

[1:14:50] It's going to be elevated over military trail

[1:14:53] And it will basically from just west of military trail. It could be it could basically be depressed below the

[1:15:09] So that was the first alternative we started looking at. It's a little bit over a mile and

[1:15:15] a quarter. Some of the concerns with this are basically a lot of the business impacts, specifically

[1:15:20] around a power line road intersection. It's a major intersection there. There's businesses

[1:15:26] This is on three of the four quadrants, and the fourth quadrant is actually, it's open,

[1:15:31] but it's basically below gray ground.

[1:15:33] It's a significant amount of FPNL transmission lines that feed a substation that's about

[1:15:39] a block to the north.

[1:15:40] So there's really impacts along that four quadrants because it's going below grayed

[1:15:44] and the impacts of that depressed section in that area.

[1:15:47] So that's one of the things we've looked at pretty closely.

[1:15:52] The other aspect of this project, which is a key element, is it has the least amount of elevated sections of the roadway.

[1:16:01] So this rendering itself, it's basically a little bit just west of Power Line Road.

[1:16:06] On your right is a north, which is labeled a Century Village, so that's basically in a residential area.

[1:16:12] So one of the key recommendations I mentioned before is really to minimize the structures, the elevated structures near residential areas.

[1:16:19] It's a kind of, you know, they basically want to try to maintain the best quality of life as they can.

[1:16:24] And this facility already being, you know, expanded as such, having elevated sections,

[1:16:29] basically is something close to where the residents are, is not something that's desirable.

[1:16:36] So the next section I have showed here is a partially depressed.

[1:16:39] So I had mentioned some of the areas like Power Line Road.

[1:16:42] There's areas along the corridor that are residential areas,

[1:16:45] and there's some areas specifically closer to Power Line Road, that area.

[1:16:48] It's more industrial and commercial, so that area doesn't have the same kind of constraints as far as maybe an elevated section

[1:16:55] and because of the impacts we wanted to take some time and look at a partial depressed section where it would be depressed

[1:17:02] in the residential areas and try to minimize any kind of above grade structures in the residential areas.

[1:17:08] So that's one of the things. What this does is actually alleviate some of the concerns of the business relocations

[1:17:15] as well as the utility impacts of Powerline Road.

[1:17:19] It also does, it kind of alleviates some

[1:17:21] of the construction problems as far as MOT and the longevity.

[1:17:25] It does reduce the construction time significantly and well

[1:17:29] as well as providing access between the connector roadway

[1:17:32] and the local roadway.

[1:17:34] So, and I'll touch on that.

[1:17:37] We actually looked at three, can I go back?

[1:17:40] Maybe I can't go back.

[1:17:41] Okay. We actually looked at three subsets to this option

[1:17:45] And we're in this set, we're looking at the westbound ramp

[1:17:48] is being depressed underneath the connector road.

[1:17:52] That way we said we don't need, we can make that connection

[1:17:54] between the local lanes and the connector facility

[1:17:58] between 995 and the Sawgrass.

[1:18:00] And we don't need to do that with above grade structure.

[1:18:02] We can do that kind of tucking it under, under.

[1:18:05] So, and we looked at three different options

[1:18:07] where we could tuck under one or both

[1:18:09] of the connector roadway and then keep the exit ramp

[1:18:13] above.

[1:18:13] So we just looked at several options to see which may be the best bet.

[1:18:17] And then the third one we looked at is basically non-press.

[1:18:20] We're looking at the same area of the corridor.

[1:18:23] And this rendering doesn't show any kind of above-grade structure.

[1:18:28] So it's an at-grade, still at-grade roadway within the residential areas,

[1:18:31] which is important, as I mentioned.

[1:18:33] But if we were going to have that connection between the connector lanes and the local lanes,

[1:18:38] it would require a bridge there.

[1:18:39] So that's one of the major downsides here because this is a long stretch where you do have residential areas

[1:18:46] and trying to fit in those access points for the ingress and egress points.

[1:18:51] We would need to use part of this area for that to make that connection,

[1:18:55] and it would cause us to put a bridge in this area, which is not desirable.

[1:19:01] So I wanted to touch on one of the last time I kind of came to visit this group was back in the fall.

[1:19:07] We talked a little bit about this is on the west end of the project, a place called Waterways.

[1:19:12] You may be familiar with that.

[1:19:14] It's one of the key issues we've been kind of working on pretty much the last year.

[1:19:21] Because of the connection with the Sawgrass Expressway and the Turnpike and then the local lanes,

[1:19:27] it was required for us to take the connector roadway, bridge it over the local lanes

[1:19:32] so we could make that connection to the Sawgrass.

[1:19:35] So the way we had envisioned doing it was with this bridge.

[1:19:38] This is basically, if you look at the before picture,

[1:19:41] we are looking out, leaving the waterways facility.

[1:19:44] We would have a bridge there, so as they come out,

[1:19:46] they would have a bridge beyond the bridge.

[1:19:47] It is basically the quiet waters park.

[1:19:50] That was a concern.

[1:19:51] We had some issues.

[1:19:53] We tried to do some different things moving it.

[1:19:55] The turnpike had kind of gotten a little bit behind us

[1:19:58] as far as where they were in their study.

[1:20:00] We kind of got them to speed up a little bit.

[1:20:02] They actually did a big initiative to redesign some of the interchange work, allowing us to move that bridge further to the west.

[1:20:11] So the after picture of where we are now, that bridge is moved out of the sight line pretty much right as that entrance way to Waterways.

[1:20:19] If you kind of look closely, you'll see that that bridge is just starting to creep up as you look to the left side of that bottom panel.

[1:20:27] And one of the things we did where we were originally looking at the connector roadway going over the local roadway, we actually flipped that.

[1:20:35] This is where the local roadway is going to go over the connector roadway.

[1:20:40] So it kind of worked out well geometrically that way and allows us to move that structure further to the west.

[1:20:49] So this slide is very busy. I kind of really wanted to use it to touch on the other key aspects of the bridge.

[1:20:54] You've heard me talk about the bridge a little bit.

[1:20:57] So what's in the yellow circles, and I touched on it as first the largest yellow circle towards the right,

[1:21:04] that's near military trails.

[1:21:05] So what's in blue is the residential areas.

[1:21:09] So that big circle kind of shows where that bridge, for the connector roadway to go over military trail,

[1:21:16] how it extends to that west before it touches down.

[1:21:19] So it's even at the top you can see some what we've got identified as how high that bridge would be.

[1:21:25] The furthest to the west it kind of portion it kind of shows basically zero to 12 feet and 12 to 20 60

[1:21:30] And that's from the from the ground level

[1:21:32] So so that is that the same for all the alternatives that doesn't change

[1:21:36] We do need to elevate it there to get over military trail

[1:21:39] There's not enough room between military trail and that in the South Florida rail corridor and

[1:21:46] I-95 to get them up and down if you're familiar with that corridor right now

[1:21:50] It does kind of go up and down it's at great at military trail

[1:21:53] It goes over the railroad. It comes back down. There's a signal. It's called Newport Center, and then it goes back up

[1:22:01] over I-95. So that's at a lower speed, and it's actually a more aggressive

[1:22:07] grades than we would be able to do today. It's been there a long time, but people have driven there.

[1:22:11] They know what I'm talking about as hard as that goes up and down.

[1:22:14] So we will be able to kind of correct that a little bit for the local roadway.

[1:22:17] It will still go over the railroad, but it will be at grade with military trail, but for the connector road that's connecting I-95 to the Saras, that would need to go over the railroad and over at military trail.

[1:22:29] We can't, because of that geometry, we can't get it down quick enough because of the speeds and to safely make that maneuver.

[1:22:35] So for all alternatives, that bridge just goes over military and then it connects back in at grade.

[1:22:42] It's about 1,000 to 1,200 feet west on the west side of that intersection.

[1:22:49] So that's on the other yellow or to the left, I spoke about that yellow circle.

[1:22:56] That's where the bridge I just spoke about basically at Waterways.

[1:22:59] We were able to move that further a little bit out of the line of sight.

[1:23:03] What it's actually close to, there's actually an apartment complex there.

[1:23:06] So it still is near that apartment complex.

[1:23:09] but that is basically the same for all alternatives.

[1:23:12] Now, to the red, there's a smaller red circle that you'll see.

[1:23:15] It's not too small to see.

[1:23:17] So that's a big difference between the fully depressed section that we go below grade

[1:23:22] through Power Line Road and then either the partial depressed section alternative

[1:23:26] or the at grade alternative, where those two alternatives would require bridge over Power Line Road.

[1:23:35] So that bridge goes over power line and comes down and there's a portion of that end of that bridge that does basically progress into that independence bay community that's listed in blue.

[1:23:47] So that it is coming down during that section you can see it's basically it touches down at zero.

[1:23:52] So basically the farthest east point of that community is about 12 feet above the existing grade.

[1:24:01] So that's what we're looking at right now.

[1:24:03] I kind of give me a second chance to step back and let you so.

[1:24:07] We are in PD&E. We're not in final design.

[1:24:09] We've actually made a lot of refinements to kind of get us to this point.

[1:24:13] As we move forward, I'm sure we will look at other issues that pop up

[1:24:18] and we'll be able to kind of refine the geometry and try to keep improving

[1:24:21] as we progress through the phase.

[1:24:25] So next couple of slides, two slides I have are really just to kind of summarize things.

[1:24:29] This is really a summary evaluation of the three alternatives.

[1:24:34] I mentioned to you, fully depressed, partially depressed,

[1:24:37] non-depressed, related kind of like against some,

[1:24:41] it's basically evaluated against some

[1:24:43] of the major criteria.

[1:24:44] The regional connectivity, the local conditions,

[1:24:47] the construction impacts, business and utility impacts,

[1:24:51] the long-term maintenance and the noise and also

[1:24:55] the complete streets element.

[1:24:56] So what it kind of shows you here is first,

[1:24:59] the no-build situation, it really doesn't meet either our traffic regional connectivity

[1:25:05] as far as requirements to basically move traffic through this corridor long-term or the local

[1:25:09] traffic needs. Long-term maintenance is obviously very good for the no-build because there's

[1:25:14] no additional maintenance. It's a smaller roadway facility, so it's a lower cost.

[1:25:20] But we would not be addressing any kind of noise issues that exist today with

[1:25:24] with the no-build. With the fully depressed, as with basically all the other three, we're

[1:25:31] addressing really the trapping needs, basically the long-term requirements really so we can

[1:25:36] basically get both the local and the regional accessibility through movement of both basically

[1:25:43] people and goods and freight and all those other things.

[1:25:47] So what we start to see the differences is when you get into the construction

[1:25:51] impacts, the business and utility impacts in the long-term maintenance.

[1:25:55] So the fully depressed section has significantly more impacts, is basically what this is showing you.

[1:25:59] The partially depressed, much reduced in that.

[1:26:03] There's still some impacts, still a little bit longer construction than just your typical

[1:26:07] at-grade construction. I don't bring slides here, but

[1:26:11] some of you may be aware we've had some of the other presentations we've done.

[1:26:15] The below-grade section is pretty comprehensive and it's a pretty

[1:26:19] difficult type of construction. They're kind of built in cells and they're

[1:26:23] progressed kind of like a train one at a time. There's possibilities we can do

[1:26:28] two over a period of time but they're smaller cells that are done. It's not

[1:26:31] it's not an area where you're going to build up to kind of like dig down you

[1:26:36] know for the 25 to 30 feet be able to do that more than a thousand or

[1:26:42] two thousand feet because of the amount of dewatering. So you have to

[1:26:44] dewater certain sections at a time. So that basically brings in some more difficult construction

[1:26:50] and not just from the difficulty, but the time of construction is increased.

[1:26:54] So then just on to the last one, the non-depress section. It basically has a little bit more

[1:27:00] in the good column. It still has some construction impacts, not as much as the other depressed

[1:27:05] type sections. And it still handles the local traffic, but in this particular case

[1:27:10] We're kind of showing where we don't have that ingress-egress.

[1:27:14] We're not connecting the local rain to the connector road.

[1:27:18] So it basically doesn't help the local traffic quite as much.

[1:27:24] I've been talking a lot of pause for a second to take a look at.

[1:27:26] It's a little bit to take in, but we're just doing a rough comparison here.

[1:27:31] I won't say it's a rough comparison, but we're trying to summarize the comparison.

[1:27:34] We do have a website.

[1:27:36] It's basically just Southwest, it's just Southwest 10th Street.

[1:27:40] And we have the full matrix.

[1:27:42] We brought it into our Alternatives Public Workshop.

[1:27:45] We had a large project workshop November 29th of last year,

[1:27:48] and we basically presented the full matrix.

[1:27:51] It kind of breaks it down a little bit more in greater detail.

[1:27:53] So if you're interested, you can look at the website,

[1:27:56] and that matrix there, and it gives you a little bit more detail.

[1:27:59] So I'll go on to the next slide.

[1:28:01] And the next slide is summary and basically the cost.

[1:28:04] The cost is some of the major components.

[1:28:06] We typically, when we started this process,

[1:28:08] And even where we're today, we haven't really paid as much attention to cost because we

[1:28:12] really understand the importance of this area, the concerns, so really trying to find the

[1:28:18] best alternative, the best fit that really maximizes the benefits both locally and regionally

[1:28:23] and reduces the impacts as much as you can is really what our goal is to achieve here.

[1:28:30] So but we have been asked to put this out.

[1:28:32] This again, this has been on our website and it was presented in our public meetings.

[1:28:35] So I wanted to share that with you and again, it just shows the differences between the fully depressed the partial press and the non-depress

[1:28:42] Now what I've added in here is also the I-95 portion of it. They're two separate projects

[1:28:48] Mostly I've been talking about the Southwest 10th Street project, which technically goes from military trail west to the term pipe

[1:28:55] There's an ongoing PDE study along I-95 it goes from Hillsborough Boulevard to South of Southwest 10th Street

[1:29:01] it goes to about halfway between Southwest Tenth Street and Sample. It doesn't go all

[1:29:05] the way to Sample, Paul, but it goes to go down there. And it also brings in that direct

[1:29:09] connection between the connector roadway and I-95 as direct connect ramps. So that's

[1:29:14] part of that peating study. And so I put it brought in the cost here so you can get

[1:29:19] a cost of basically the combined, those combined projects and where that brings you to.

[1:29:27] Just to wrap up where we are, we actually finished up kind of a series of coat meetings

[1:29:34] as I mentioned earlier, public input, state or holder input is really the most important part of this process.

[1:29:41] So we reached out to them. We are going to continue to work with that group and actually looking at kind of refreshing that group

[1:29:48] because over time, you know, people have had to drop off and other things have occurred,

[1:29:53] so we want to refresh that group, kind of, you know, work with the cities and their MPO representatives

[1:29:58] and kind of bring on people.

[1:30:00] It's really advantageous to work with the DOT and kind of help us, you know, understand

[1:30:04] the issues and the challenges, and then help us kind of lead us to finding the right solutions

[1:30:08] for them. So that's going to be on the way. We're here basically today. We're looking

[1:30:14] towards July, hopefully coming to the MPO meeting, July 11th, and then basically moving

[1:30:20] forward to a public hearing in the fall of 2019. The P&E process over wall is basically

[1:30:28] for us to have to move forward our recommended alternative into a public hearing and then

[1:30:34] get a lot of feedback, a chance to basically look at one alternative rather than a number

[1:30:38] of alternatives.

[1:30:39] When we had, we've had two public alternatives workshops where we brought different alternatives

[1:30:44] to the group.

[1:30:45] Now we want to narrow it down to one alternative and basically come back to the public, do

[1:30:49] a public hearing, outreach public locally like HOAs and other local meetings and

[1:30:55] basically get that type of feedback now that we're recommending one alternative.

[1:31:00] And then see where that puts us, you know, as we move forward, we continue to address

[1:31:04] more issues and basically evaluate the alternative that we're going to be working with and some

[1:31:10] of the ways to, I guess, find solutions to some of the challenges that we uncover.

[1:31:15] So we would, past that point, we'd be looking towards a spring of 2020.

[1:31:21] We call location design concept acceptance and that's basically completion of the PD&E phase and that would lead us into the design phase.

[1:31:29] So our goal is to go through the PD&E phase with a kind of a best fit alternative that we can move into design

[1:31:37] and we would continue the efforts to kind of refine the design and again, you know, come up with the project that we can deliver

[1:31:44] that will satisfy all the regional and the local concerns with the project.

[1:31:47] That's

[1:31:51] about wraps it up.

[1:31:52] So I'm open for questions.

[1:31:55] Thank you.

[1:31:58] Richard Dourneese.

[1:32:00] Yes.

[1:32:01] During your outreach, especially with the residential communities right adjacent to the Connector Road, what is their feedback?

[1:32:10] What have they been giving you as far as of the alternatives of the partially depressed, fully depressed or at grade?

[1:32:17] What were they saying as far as what they'd like to see?

[1:32:20] but it varies a little bit. I think the concerns I mentioned before as far as

[1:32:27] the bridges that may be near and the vicinity of their community is a big

[1:32:32] concern to them. I talked a little bit about the waterways with the bridge

[1:32:35] and how we move that we met with them a number of times and they certainly were

[1:32:39] not shy about voicing their concerns about the bridge. I don't know if that

[1:32:43] rendering was pretty small but as we were working through that with them

[1:32:46] we actually felt like with the bridge we felt we could do a lot to it so we

[1:32:51] actually did a lot of our artistic rendering related to a lot of the

[1:32:54] aesthetic treatments we could do to the bridge make the bridge very

[1:32:57] aesthetically pleasing put a lot of the the pioneer growth theme to it and

[1:33:01] aesthetic treatments to it and one of the comments we got to them was

[1:33:05] basically if you put a bridge here you're gonna you're gonna block our

[1:33:09] view of as we come out we can see the park it's a nice view of the park

[1:33:13] So we actually went with our structure engineers and we moved some of the peers around to give them a nice open view.

[1:33:19] So we went back with them with a nice aesthetic treatment, an open view, a nicer bridge.

[1:33:24] We looked at it and we gave them some other ideas about really making a nice entrance way feature to their community, and they really still didn't like it.

[1:33:32] So we moved the bridge. So those are the type of things we're getting.

[1:33:35] You know, things that are really consistent with really their community.

[1:33:40] And so individually, they're a little bit different throughout the different communities along the corridor, but it's all very good input and we're basically as we work through, we're just trying to do best we can to look at what ways we can work with them and come up with solutions that, you know, make it a better project for everybody.

[1:33:55] Right. And continue with the theme as far as outreach on noise especially. Have you been hearing different communities really concerned about that as much as other aspects of your project?

[1:34:10] Again, noise is one of the big key issues that came up from almost like day one.

[1:34:14] A lot of people of all the communities expressed to us that they're concerned about the noise

[1:34:19] today.

[1:34:19] It can be very noisy today, especially with this corridor does have a lot of truck movement

[1:34:25] and the trucks are louder.

[1:34:27] If their motorcycles are obviously everywhere and those can be noisy.

[1:34:30] So noise is something, so we did have done a noise study and we were getting towards

[1:34:35] the end of that noise study, which have determined that noise abatement, noise

[1:34:38] walls are warranted for all all of the resident communities throughout the

[1:34:42] corridor so that brings on kind of other other challenges because I've been

[1:34:47] approached by many of the homeowners live close to the corridor they're most

[1:34:50] impacted by noise who've expressed that you really they really would like a

[1:34:54] sound wall a noise wall they really need it there's others pops a hospital

[1:34:58] even the city that are concerned if we put noise walls everywhere that's

[1:35:02] gonna basically kind of have a negative effect as far as the the

[1:35:07] experience through the quarter because it's walling it off so that's one of the

[1:35:11] challenges we'll be working with as we move forward we do know that noise

[1:35:15] abatement is warranted how how that typically that's handled in the design

[1:35:19] phase when we individually go to each community and even do surveys and talk

[1:35:24] with them about you know how we can address those issues can we find the

[1:35:28] best fit some communities maybe a lower wall works good for them a

[1:35:32] community might not want a wall or a community might want a higher wall

[1:35:35] like I've worked with Century Village who express to me that they're they want to

[1:35:39] build their own wall and they think the DOT can build a higher wall so they said

[1:35:42] we'd rather you build it because you can build it higher and we don't have to pay

[1:35:45] for it so it's a little different throughout the corridor. Thank you

[1:35:49] Rob.

[1:35:53] Thank you Mr. Chair. Just curious to know how many heavy trucks you have

[1:35:58] coming through there on a weekly or daily basis? You know I spent a lot of

[1:36:03] time looking at our 2040 traffic so in 2040 we have 4,000 so today I don't know

[1:36:10] exactly I really have to look at per lane hurt day it's daily through the

[1:36:14] corridor it's not per lane but basically about 4,000 heavy trucks going

[1:36:20] through that corner in 2040 is what's projected now we had just gone out a

[1:36:25] few weeks ago and updated some traffic counts there's there's a large

[1:36:28] It's called Publix Distribution Center on the east side, between 995 and Military Trove.

[1:36:34] And they have a lot of trucks that went out there and took counts just recently.

[1:36:38] So they have, each day, they have well over 100 trucks go in and out of that facility.

[1:36:44] So currently, do you know what it is?

[1:36:45] Currently per week or per day?

[1:36:48] I don't currently.

[1:36:49] I'm sorry.

[1:36:49] I just don't.

[1:36:50] 24 is about 4,000.

[1:36:51] 4,000.

[1:36:52] Yeah, I don't remember that.

[1:36:54] So but it's it's fairly significant. There is a long a long power line road north and south. There is a lot of industry

[1:37:01] Like I mentioned the public's distribution center that basically serves a lot of the local public's facilities as far as they bring in

[1:37:08] Bring in food and goods and then distribute it locally

[1:37:12] So there and there is the the quiet waters business park, which does have a lot of heavy trucks as well

[1:37:18] So right along that corridor there are some significant businesses that do have the heavy trucks

[1:37:23] And you know access in and out of their other business. Thank you.

[1:37:30] Any more comments? I have none in the queue

[1:37:34] I think that's good. Thank you. Okay. Thank you

[1:37:40] You have next the community reports and administrative items. Are there any member comments?

[1:37:50] There are no member comments in the queue. We have a participation record make sure you've been

[1:37:56] accounted for if you've been here

[1:38:00] MPO outreach and events. Summary of the 2019 events for May is there. And our next meeting

[1:38:08] is August 28th. We've got two months from now, so we got July off. No August MPO meeting,

[1:38:15] so we get next month off. And good luck everybody. Have a great summer. We'll see you at the

[1:38:19] end of August. I think we're adjourned. Motion to adjourn. Do we have to have

[1:38:23] motion to adjourn. Please, so moved.

Jun 26, 2019 Technical Advisory Committee - Broward MPO

Agenda

Transcript