Cloudinary
Broward County Intermodal Center and
People Mover System
FORT LAUDERDALE-HOLLYWOOD
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AND
PORT EVERGLADES
Draft for FDOT/FHWA Review
Project Information: RLI # 20020201 –0-AV-04
P.O. No. SC6AVC110705-004
Preliminary Engineering Report
Chapter 1 – Executive Summary
By
PB Americas, Inc.
Lea + Elliott Team
for
Broward County
June, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1-1
1.1 Background 1-1
1.1.1 Project Description 1-1
1.2 Project Need 1-2
1.2.1 Need Defined 1-2
1.2.2 Planning Context 1-3
1.3 Alternatives 1-4
1.3.1 People Mover Alignment Alternatives 1-4
1.3.2 Intermodal Center Alternatives 1-6
1.4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 1-9
1.4.1 SocioEconomic Impacts 1-9
1.4.2 Land Use Impacts 1-9
1.4.3 Neighborhoods and Community Facilities 1-9
1.4.4 Environmental Justice 1-11
1.4.5 Property Acquisition & Relocation Impact Analysis 1-11
1.4.6 Visual Quality and Aesthetics 1-12
1.4.7 Air Quality 1-12
1.4.8 Noise and Vibration 1-13
1.4.9 EcoSystems 1-13
1.4.10 Water Resources 1-14
1.4.11 Cultural, Historic and Archaeological Resources 1-18
1.4.12 Parklands and Other Section 4(f) Resources 1-18
1.4.13 Geology and Soils 1-19
1.4.14 Contamination 1-19
1.4.15 Utilities and Railroads 1-19
1.4.16 Safety and Security 1-20
1.4.17 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts 1-20
1.4.18 Construction Impacts 1-21
1.4.19 Required Permits 1-22
1.5 Transportation Impacts 1-22
1.6 Projected Ridership and Operational Plans 1-26
1.6.1 Ridership 1-26
1.6.2 Operational Plans 1-29
1.7 Estimated Costs and Financial Assessment 1-31
1.7.1 Costs 1-31
1.7.2 Financial Sensitivity Analysis 1-32
1.8 Evaluation of Alternatives 1-33
1.8.1 People Movers 1-33
1.8.2 Intermodal Center 1-35
1.9 Consultation and Coordination 1-36
1.9.1 Project Advanced Notification (An) March – April 2006 1-36
1.9.2 Interagency Coordination And Consultation 1-37
1.9.3 Coordination With Project Stakeholders 1-37
1.9.4 Public Meetings/Workshops (Required By Federal Process) 1-38
1.9.5 Other Public Workshops 1-38
1.9.6 County’s Selection of Recommended Alternative 1-38
1.9.7 Public Hearing 1-38
1.10 Conclusions and Recommendations 1-39
1.10.1 Recommended Alternatives 1-39
1.10.2 Phasing Schemes 1-39
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 Background
In 2002, Broward County, in its 2020 Vision Plan outlined a framework for future development at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport (FLL) and Port Everglades (PEV) and elements that would promote regional transportation and transit improvements. Key elements of the proposed 2020 Plan were an Intermodal Center (IMC) and People Mover. The IMC is planned to meet the County’s goals to (1) promote regional mass transit use, (2) develop Airport/Seaport synergy, and (3) fuel economic development, thus acting as a catalyst to the support transit and economic development and viability of the County and the region.
The IMC and People Mover Project was further examined in a June 2004 Feasibility Report, which sought to identify operational issues and concept level financial feasibility for the proposed system. The Lea+Elliott Team was selected and authorized by Broward County to conduct a feasibility study of the proposed Intermodal Center (IMC) and the People Mover (PM) system. The Techno-Financial Feasibility Study involved the following tasks:
• Feasibility Study evaluation of alternatives to identify any “fatal flaw” that may prevent an alternative from moving forward.
• Financial feasibility analysis of the viable alternatives.
The primary outcome and findings from the Feasibility Study were:
• The Project is technically viable.
• The County should to attempt secure Federal/State funding to offset the costs.
In April of 2005, the Broward County Board of Commissioners authorized staff to proceed with the Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study Phase of the Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover (later known as the SunPort PD&E Study, or “The Project”). The PD&E Study phase of the project is intended to meet and comply with all the Federal and State regulations for development of a transportation project including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) so that the project will be eligible for Federal and State funding. The Project is sponsored by the County with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as the lead Federal agency and the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is the lead State agency
1 Project Description
The SunPort PD&E Study area encompasses an approximately 4.5 square mile (mi2) portion of Broward County. The study area is delineated by SE 17th Street to the north, while the southern limit of the study area is Airport access roadways (north of Griffin Road). The western limit of the study area is the Florida East Coast Railway tracks and the landside access roads of the Airport and the eastern limit is Port Everglades.
The SunPort PD&E Study consists of two distinct elements:
People Mover: The People Mover is an approximately five (5) mile long proposed premium transit route (coordinated bus service or automated people mover) with station stops at the Airport terminals, the Broward County Intermodal Center, and the Midport and Northport of Port Everglades cruise terminals.
Intermodal Center: The Intermodal Center (IMC) is anticipated to include a transit transfer station that provides a connection between the People Mover and the proposed elements of the regional transportation network such as Central Broward East West Transit Analysis (FDOT FPID # 41703112201) and South Florida East Coast Rail Corridor Transit Analysis (FDOT FPID #411189-2-22-01) and Broward County Transit’s (BCT) planned bus route improvements. The IMC includes provisions for interfaces with the People Mover and provides a transfer point (station) for commuters using the regional transportation network. In addition the IMC has the potential to provide features such as kiss-and-ride (for curb side drop off for transit users), and remote parking to providing additional capacity for Port and Airport employees and patrons.
2 Project Need
Details of Project Purpose and Need are presented in Chapter 1 and summarized herein.
1 Need Defined
Fort Lauderdale - Hollywood International Airport (also referenced as Airport) and Port Everglades (also referenced as Seaport) are in close proximity to each other in Broward County. Both have experienced high levels of traffic growth commensurate with the general growth of the County and these growth patterns are projected to continue into the foreseeable future. The facilities are located at the east end of the County and road-based access is limited to the I-595 corridor, the Federal Highway (US-1) corridor, and adjacent arterials. Due to the landlocked nature of these two facilities, it is highly unlikely that traditional roadway improvements will be sufficient to provide the necessary level of access commensurate with the travel demand projections (passengers, employees and bulk cargo/freight) at these two facilities. Traffic access is further complicated by the fact that a large number cruise passengers travel between the Airport and Seaport as part of their cruise trip and the cruise traffic at the port shares the roadway with cargo and petroleum traffic.
Taken together, congestion and level of service on the entrance and internal roadways for each facility are projected to further deteriorate and reach unacceptable levels by the end of the planning period. In addition, these facilities are the County’s major economic engines and their efficient operation is vital to the economic health and vitality of the region.
As such, a People Mover and Intermodal Center are proposed to:
• Improve airport and seaport access/egress through increased use of mass transit;
• Enhance Airport/Seaport synergy;
• Promote overall economic development while avoiding or minimizing adverse environmental impacts.
The People Mover will provide additional capacity and effective transportation between the regional transportation network, the Airport and the Seaport. Primary benefits of the system include:
• Provide convenient access to the Airport and Seaport, local travelers, employees of these two facilities as well as others using the regional transportation network;
• Reduce traffic congestion along Seaport and Airport roadways, due to additional transportation capacity between these two facilities; and
• Increase the level of service and convenience for multi-day cruise passengers who use the FLL Airport for their flights and the Seaport.
The IMC component of the project will introduce a major transportation focal point that will facilitate connectivity and access to the Airport, Seaport as well as other existing transit services such as BCT, planned transportation capital investments as programmed in the Broward County Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and other private services such as taxis and motor coaches.
2 Planning Context
The planning studies and plans for the Airport and Seaport, Broward County MPO’s 2030 LRTP and other regional transit networks, have outlined a framework to address growth and development at the Airport and Seaport and link it to the local and regional transit network.
The MPO’s 2030 LRTP identifies the following key transportation improvements necessary for the creation of a county-wide multi-modal transportation system:
• The Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport to Port Everglades People Mover System and Intermodal Center (this project);
• Improvements to the I-595 transit corridor, which includes premium lanes for I-595;
• The Central Broward East-West Transit Analysis Study to provide a premium east/west transit connection for the region;
• The South Florida FEC Corridor Transit Analysis Study for potential commuter service to provide additional north/south transit connectivity within the region;
• 95 Express Project: I-95 High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes from Central Broward to Central Miami Dade County;
• The Downtown Transit Circulator in Fort Lauderdale; and,
• Other bus rapid transit alternatives and service improvements on major arterials.
Furthermore the 2030 LRTP specifically addresses the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport’s needs and identifies “preservation of future People-Mover right of way, between the Airport and Port Everglades,” (section 3.4.7 and 3.4.8 of the 2030 LRTP Update), as a criteria.
In addition to the above, the proposed Project has been coordinated and is consistent with
• The Master Plan Update for the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, anticipated to be complete in 2008, the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the expansion of the Airport’s airfield and all surfaces related to the runway option selected for the Airport expansion.
• The Port Everglades Master/Vision Plan and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Feasibility Study/EIS.
• The Tri-Rail 2020 Long Range Master Plan (under jurisdiction of the SFRTA)
• The Broward County Transit (BCT) Transit Improvement Plan
• The Broward County Comprehensive Plan approved by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) Connectivity to and development of the Airport is identified as one of the Broward County Comprehensive Plan’s Transportation Element Goals (Goal 3.6 of Table 3.1 - page 3.5).
3 Alternatives
1 People Mover Alignment Alternatives
Several alternatives for the alignment of the People Mover component of the SunPort Project are being considered, in line with Section 4-2.2.9, “Alternative Analysis”, of Part 1, Chapter 4 of the PD&E Manual. The Alternatives studied can be divided into three categories: No-build, Transportation System Management, and New Construction. A detailed alternatives analysis is provided in Chapter 8 of the Preliminary Engineering Report (PE Report), and Chapter 2 of Project’s Environmental Assessment (EA). A brief description of each alternative follows, with a pictorial representation in Figure 3.1.
“No-Build” or “No Project” Alternative A “No-Build” option was included in the alternatives evaluated to identify the capability of buses alone to meet and support the projected growth of FLL and PEV. This option entails continuing the current busing operation on existing roadways between PEV and FLL.
Transportation Systems Management Alternative A Transportation Systems Management Alternative would consist of upgrading the existing facilities, as well as infrastructure improvements. This includes improvements to the existing system by improving high accident areas and improving traffic flow between the two facilities, with the goal of improving capacity. The TSM alternative could include such elements as traffic signal synchronization, adding turn lanes, improving intersections and signalization, and improving signing and pavement markings.
New Construction: New construction, or “Build” alternatives, would provide a new route between the Airport and Port, providing additional capacity between the facilities and also to alleviate traffic congestion on Airport and Port access roadways. A number of alternatives were identified within the viable corridors that were established as part of the Corridor evaluation that concluded in March of 2007. The viable alternatives being carried forward have been illustrated in Figure 3.1.
Alignment Alternatives
Alternative 1: Alternative 1 consists of an elevated automated people mover (APM) following the Airport terminal drive to connect to the Intermodal Center. Past the Intermodal Center, the system follows Eller Drive to reach the Port. On the Port, the alternative splits into Midport and Northport branches, using Eisenhower Boulevard to reach Northport, and the continuation of Eller Drive to reach Midport.
Alternative 2: Alternative 2 is also an entirely elevated APM system with Northport and Midport branches. In comparison to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 utilizes a SE 14th Avenue alignment to reach Northport; the Midport branch is identical to the Midport branch in Alternative 1.
Alternative 5A: Alternative 5A utilizes existing surface streets to provide bus service along two routes connecting Midport and Northport with the Intermodal Center. On the Airport, Alternative 5A would utilize an automated people mover, which would meet the bus routes at Intermodal Center. The alternative would require some roadway improvements to provide this service.
Alternative 5B: Alternative 5B utilizes an elevated busway through the Airport to the Port, with Northport and Midport branches. The 5B busway would follow the path of other APM option on the Airport, and then utilize NE 7th Ave, Eller Drive, and Eisenhower Boulevard on the Port.
Alternative 5C: Alternative 5C would utilize surface streets to provide bus service along two routes connecting Midport and Northport with the Intermodal Center. However, Alternative 5C would utilize new, dedicated at-grade lanes to provide port service. On the Airport, as with option 5A, it would use an APM and interface with the Port bus at Intermodal Center.
Alternative 5D: Alternative 5D utilizes an elevated APM system on the Airport. This APM system would interface with elevated busway at the Intermodal Center, connecting the Airport APM with Northport and Midport branches. The APM would follow the route of other APM options on the Airport, while the elevated busway connecting the Intermodal Center and the Port would generally follow the route of the busway described in Alternative 5B.
Alternative 6: Alignment Alternative 6 utilizes an elevated APM system to connect the Airport, Intermodal Center, Midport, and Northport. In contrast to Alternatives 1 and 2, this alternative utilizes a single network, essentially following Eller Drive to Midport and continuing to Eisenhower Boulevard.
Alternative 6A: Alignment Alternative 6A is a variation on Alternative 6 that has been coordinated with the Port Everglades Master/ Vision plan. Similar to Alternative 6, it utilizes a single network elevated APM system to connect the Airport, Intermodal Center, Midport, and Northport.
Note: Alignments numbered 3 & 4 were reviewed during the earlier planning phases of the PD&E study. As documented in the Project Corridor Report (January 2007) the alignments and their respective corridors were considered non- viable during the corridor evaluation phase of the project.
2 Intermodal Center Alternatives
Several alternatives for the location of the Intermodal Center component of the SunPort Project are being considered as part of the PD&E study. This is in line with Section 4-2.2.9, “Alternative Analysis” Part 1, Chapter 4 of the PD&E Manual. The Alternatives studied can be divided into two categories: No-build and New Construction. Similar to the alternatives a detailed alternative analysis is provided in Project Chapter 8 of PE Report and Chapter 2 of Project’s Environmental Assessment (EA). A brief description of each alternative follows.
“No-Build” or “No Project” Alternative: A “No-Build” option was included in the location alternatives for the Intermodal Center. The intent is to identify the ability of the People Mover alternatives to support the various interfaces to other transportation facilities and networks necessary for the project without an Intermodal Center.
New Construction: New construction, or “Build” alternatives for the Intermodal Center would build a new facility that could encompass several or all programmatic components, including interfaces to regional transit, parking, and connections between possible mode options for the People Mover component of the project. Several viable alternative locations for an Intermodal Center were identified as part of the Corridor evaluation that ended in March 2007. These sites are illustrated in Figure 3.1, and include:
Intermodal Center Alternative Locations
Intermodal Center Location 1: Location 1 for the Intermodal Center would place the facility in the middle of the Airport access roadways, immediately east of the Airport. This alternative enjoys accessibility from all of the alignment alternatives. In addition, it can easily take advantage of opportunities for integration with regional transit, due to existing transit services on US 1. The location also shows certain promise due to its proximity to the South Florida East Coast Corridor Transit Analysis (SFECCTA) and Central Broward East West Transit Analysis (CBEWTA) studies, whose locally preferred alternative terminates in this location.
Intermodal Center Location 3 (Dynegy Site): Location 3 would site the Intermodal Center on a parcel of land acquired by the County, located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Eller Drive and US 1. This option enjoys proximity to US 1 and current transit services along that route, but is away from FEC tracks. The primary feature of an Intermodal Center at Location 3 would be to harness the potential to provide remote employee or passenger parking. This location has certain access challenges that would impact traffic on surface streets particularly Eller Drive which is the main point of entry to the Port. The site also is in close proximity to the Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) storage area and the access roadways could potentially impact the security blast wall in the area.
Note: Intermodal Center Locations 2 & 4 were reviewed during the earlier planning phases of the PD&E study. These locations were considered non-viable during the corridor evaluation documented in the Corridor Report.
Figure 1.1: Alignment Alternatives for SunPort Project Area
4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
The section provides a summary of the findings presented in Chapter 3 pertaining to the existing conditions within the project study area and potential consequences that may arise from either the construction or long-term operation of the proposed project.
1 SocioEconomic Impacts
• The proposed Intermodal Center and People Mover project is expected to have a lasting effect of improving access to the airport and seaport facilities.
• The project is unlikely to affect regional or county-level population and employment, or have a substantial impact on South Florida’s real estate markets as a whole.
• Secondary and cumulative impacts are anticipated to be minimal.
• No residential areas exist within the project study area limits.
2 Land Use Impacts
• There is no perceptible effect on the land use patterns in the project area or on the expected levels of development activity therein.
• Existing land uses are not expected to be modified by the proposed project.
• No significant impacts are anticipated to effect existing and planned or future land use within the project limits.
3 Neighborhoods and Community Facilities
Cultural Features and Community Facilities
• The majority of the project area lies within the Airport and Port facilities.
• There are very few cultural features or community facilities that will be directly affected by the Project.
• The Broward County Convention Center is a multifunctional facility located adjacent to the Port secured area. Several people mover alternatives could potentially provide direct access to the Convention Center subject to resolution of some security screening issues at the Port. This would help alleviate the vehicle traffic that now has to enter the Port during the functions.
Parks and Recreation Facilities
• There are five parks within the 1-mile project area of the proposed project and access to each of these parks would not be affected by any of the proposed alternatives for the proposed project.
• No major impacts are anticipated to public use and travel patterns to access resources by neighboring communities.
Bikeways/Trails
• The Broward County Potential Greenways System shows a few trails that are proposed to be located within the project limits.
• The Bikeways/Trails System contained within the Greenway System will not be impacted due to this project.
Conservation Land
• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) have identified wetlands near the proposed project including freshwater forested/shrub wetlands and estuarine and marine wetlands.
• Several land preservation sites, which are sites acquired or to be acquired by Broward County for preservation, are within the 1-mile project
• Sites 129 and 266A-C are designated as Local Areas of Particular Concern (LAPC) and are located within the ½-mile radius of the project. Impact to these sites will be minimal as they are located outside the project alternative alignments.
Schools
• Only one school, Harbordale Elementary, falls within the 1-mile radius of the proposed project.
• Access to this school will not be affected by the proposed project alternatives
• There are no colleges or universities within the 1-mile project radius.
Religious Facilities
• There are two places of worship within the 1-mile radius of the proposed project:
- Saint Clement Catholic Church
- Light & Hope Foundation
• Access to these places of worship will not be affected by the proposed project alternatives since all are within the port secured area.
Hospitals
• There are no hospitals within the 1-mile radius of the project area.
Libraries
• There are no libraries within the 1-mile radius of the project area.
Emergency Services
• The closest fire station to the subject project area is Fort Lauderdale Fire Station No. 3 located at 2801 SW 4th Avenue.
• There two new facilities are being designed to service the airport and the port facilities. The two existing fire rescue stations serving the port and the airport are Station No. 6 at 1901 Eller Drive and Station No. 10 at 250 Terminal Drive.
• All station locations will not be affected due to the proposed project.
Museums
• There are no museums within the 1-mile radius of the project area.
Cemeteries
• There are two cemeteries located within the 1-mile radius of the project.
- Evergreen Cemetery
- Sharon Gardens Memorial Park
• Access to these facilities will not be affected by the proposed project alternatives because they are not close enough to impact the residents that will be visiting the facilities.
4 Environmental Justice
• The project is not expected to cause minority or low-income populations to experience disproportionately high and adverse impacts.
• This project provides a feasible means to address the level of traffic congestion and improve capacity at the airport and seaport access/egress points.
• The project is intended to provide an equitable distribution of transit services and to enhance the availability of non-automotive transportation services to low income and minority populations living in Broward County.
• Residents adjacent to the study area may endure potential temporary impacts during the construction of the system. However, these temporary impacts should not be disproportionately high and adverse for the low income and minority residents in close proximity to the study area.
5 Property Acquisition & Relocation Impact Analysis
• One business property is being proposed for acquisition for a Maintenance and Storage Facility. The property is owned by the Hertz Corporation and is being used for staging rental car vehicles. The proposed project would not involve any other acquisitions or any other business or residential relocation.
6 Visual Quality and Aesthetics
• The level of visual impact for each of the proposed options is dependent upon specific location, type of infrastructure, planned design, and the existing visual environment of the surrounding area.
• Specific mitigation measures to address significant visual elements that may result will be developed throughout project design. The specific mitigation measures shall directly reflect stakeholder input and seek to ensure that the visual and physical characteristics of the study area are maintained.
• Construction activities for the Build Alternative would result in a temporary disturbance of the existing visual quality and character of the surrounding environment. Each of these disturbances is temporary and should not pose a long term visual impact for local areas where construction would occur.
7 Air Quality
• The Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990 and the Final Transportation Conformity Rule [40 CFR Parts 51 and 93] direct the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to implement environmental policies and regulations that will ensure acceptable levels of air quality. The State of Florida has adopted the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) as the official state ambient air quality standards.
• In addition to the criteria pollutants for which there are NAAQS, USEPA also regulates air toxics. Toxic air pollutants are those pollutants known or suspected to cause cancer or other serious health effects. Most air toxics originate from human-made sources, including on-road mobile sources, non-road mobile sources (e.g. airplanes), area sources (e.g. dry cleaners) and stationary sources (e.g. factories or refineries).
• The project is located in Broward County which is an area designated attainment for all of the NAAQS under the criteria proved in the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the Clean Air Act conformity requirements do not apply to the project.
• The project will affect the travel patterns within the study area, thus the pollutants that can be traced principally to motor vehicles are relevant to the evaluation of the project impacts. These pollutants include CO, HC, NOx, O3, PM10, PM2.5 and MSAT.
• In as much as the project is not expected to change regional VMT, the project is not predicted to increase the regional pollutant burdens in the Build Alternatives as compared to the No Build Alternative.
• It is expected that the build alternatives would have no quantifiable impact on Mobile Source Toxin emissions in the project’s study area, compared to the No Build Alternative.
• Construction activities will cause short-term air quality impacts in the form of dust from earthwork and unpaved roads. These impacts will be minimized by adherence to all applicable State and local regulations and to the “FDOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction”.
8 Noise and Vibration
• The principal sources of noise within most of the study area are motor vehicles and aircraft noise from planes landing and taking off at nearby FLL.
• Under any of the proposed build alternatives, the nearest noise sensitive properties will experience operational noise levels associated with the project well below FTA limits and therefore no mitigation is necessary.
• Vibration levels generated from operations at each of the representative residential sites would remain significantly below the FTA vibration impact threshold for all of the proposed PM Alignment build alternatives. Therefore no mitigation is necessary.
• Noise and vibrations impacts during construction will be from the movement of heavy equipment and from construction activities such as pile driving and vibratory compaction of embankments. Noise control measures will include those contained in FDOT’s “Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction” in addition to those recommended in the Noise Impact section of this document. Adherence to local construction noise and/or construction vibration ordinances by the contractor will also be required where applicable.
9 EcoSystems
The Wildlife and Habitats Impacts Technical Report prepared for this project includes baseline information for biological resources within the proposed project area. Biological resources include general flora and fauna, identification of Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species, and habitat description.
Existing Threatened and Endangered Species
The project area is highly urbanized with little existing open space to provide for suitable species habitat. Open spaces that do exist are man made habitats that are landscaped or serve as stormwater treatment areas providing little wildlife function normally associated with typical natural wetland function and values. Small mangrove/wetland areas were observed along Eller Drive to include flora species of Brazilian pepper, Australian pine, and Buttonwood.
Within the project area, the mile long canal that extends from the Intracoastal Waterway to the Florida Power and Light Power Plant (in Port Everglades) is designated as an Essential Habitat Area for the Federally-endangered West Indian Manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris). The discharge canal crosses under Eller Drive and out to the Intracoastal Waterway. Manatees are known to congregate in this artificially warm water canal in winter months. Impact to this site will be negligible since the proposed project would cross overhead and columns would be placed so as to minimize the impact to the canal area. In addition, the waterfowl impact is negligible due to large distances to the nearest designated sensitive areas.
Habitat Impacts
The Biological Assessment determined that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect listed species or designated Critical Habitat.
There would be some disturbance to terrestrial biotic resources due to construction, construction vehicle traffic, and associated utility and parking relocation. Some dislocation of small urban type species (i.e., rodents) could be expected. Large animals would be excluded from controlled areas.
Mitigation Measures
Potential impacts to terrestrial plant and animal species would be mitigated to avoid or minimize potential impacts. Proposed construction sites would be surveyed for the presence of special status species before construction begins, and mitigation actions would be developed. However, no T&E or species of concern have been observed within the IMC and PM Project area. In addition, a majority of the IMC and PM Project area does not support suitable species habitat.
10 Water Resources
Wetlands
Wetland resources include general flora and fauna common to wetlands, including any Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species.
Aquatic Preserves and Outstanding Florida Waters
There are no aquatic preserves located in Broward County. The closest one is Biscayne Bay, located to the south in Miami-Dade County.
The waters within the John U. Lloyd Beach Recreation Area which is in the general vicinity of the project, but outside of the project study area, are designated as Outstanding Florida Waters and no impacts are anticipated from the proposed project.
Wetland Impacts
Wetland resources within the area of study include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas and vegetation species characteristic of wetlands.
The proposed project area is largely developed, paved, cleared, and landscaped. As the areas on which the IMC and People Mover Project would be operated are largely developed and paved, wetland impacts are not anticipated.
Construction Impacts
The IMC and People Mover Project construction would result in some disturbance to terrestrial biotic resources (flora and fauna that are related to or inhabit the land) due to construction,
However, because the areas on which the IMC and PM Project would be constructed are largely developed and paved, impacts to wetlands are not anticipated.
Appropriate stormwater management techniques would be used during rain events to prevent pollutants from entering local waterways, and thus wetlands and aquatic resources should not be negatively impacted.
Surface Waters
All waterbodies within a 1 mile radius of the project site are protected for Class III designated uses. There are a number of unnamed waterbodies within the 1 mile region of influence (ROI) of the project site, however the ICWW Dade County Canal (WBID 3226G) is the only major waterbody within the 1 mile radius
The ICWW Dade County Canal is listed on the State of Florida’s 2006 303(d) and 305(b) list and is classified as medium priority for total maximum daily loading development scheduled for completion in 2011. The waterbody’s Class III designated use is impaired by high counts of dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and coliforms (FDEP 2006).
Water Quality
Construction impacts will be controlled in accordance with FDOT’s “Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction for control and mitigation of construction impact” and through the use of “Best Management Practices.”
Appropriate runoff and siltation controls would be implemented to minimize potential impacts to water resources during construction and operation to adjacent water. Laydown areas would be moved away from wetland areas.
Drainage
A Draft Location Hydraulics Report was prepared as part of the PD&E Study to present pertinent information regarding 1) the proposed project’s floodplain involvement, 2) the existing drainage patterns along the project, and 3) the drainage system that would be utilized in the proposed project’s design.
Existing Drainage Conditions
• The on-airport segment consists of drainage for the Terminal access roadways and other impervious areas. Stormwater runoff from these areas is conveyed through storm drains and open channels to existing ponds located on the north-east side of the airport.
• The IMC to Port segment is separated into the IMC location and the IMC to People Mover segment. Drainage for the IMC location consists of a retention pond that is connected to the canal system east of the airport.
• Drainage for the IMC to People Mover segment consists of a series of cross drains, French drains and ditches with various discharge points that include the canals located north of Eller Drive and eventually the Intracoastal Waterway.
• The on-port segment consists of several independent drainage systems throughout the Port. These systems include exfiltration trenches and outfalls to canals and eventually to the Bay.
• These drainage systems are covered by permits issued by the SFWMD. Modifications to the existing permits will be made as required and new permit applications will be filed where applicable.
Floodplains
• Based on information collected from Broward County Aviation Department (BCAD), the FDOT District 4 Maintenance Office and the Port Everglades Seaport Construction and Planning Division, there are no areas within the proposed study area with historic flooding issues.
Floodplain Impacts
• It has been determined, through consultation with local, State and Federal water resources and floodplain management agencies, that there is no regulated floodway involvement on the proposed project and that the project will not support base floodplain development that is incompatible with existing floodplain management programs.
Stormwater Management
On-Airport Segment- Construction of an elevated track for the APM over existing roadways would connect into the existing systems where available. Where the APM tracks are located over existing roadways and impervious surfaces, there should not be an increase of stormwater discharged to the existing system and modification to those systems should not be necessary.
IMC Location 1 - The proposed IMC is located in an area utilized for stormwater drainage for the airport interchange located on the eastern edge of the airport. Based on an evaluation of the Site by the Airport in 2003, it was recommended that the IMC site be equipped with shallow stormwater recharge wells and dry detention storage. Per BCAD, the stormwater needs associated this proposed project will be accounted for in the upcoming Stormwater Master Plan for the Airport.
Existing cross drains will be evaluated for performance and service life and modifications or replacements will be made, as necessary.
A sediment and erosion control plan will be prepared and implemented during construction. A NPDES permit will be required, and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared.
IMC to Port Segment - Stormwater drainage along the proposed route from the IMC to the Port would be handled through the use of exfiltration trenches and drainage to swales adjacent to the roadways.
On-Port Segments- The elevated track for the APM over existing roadways would connect into the existing systems where available. Where the APM tracks are located over existing roadways and impervious surfaces, there should not be an increase of stormwater discharged to the existing system and modification to those systems should not be necessary.
Permits
The following permits are required for this project:
• South Florida Water Management District (Modification to Airport ERP permit, ERP for any new drainage systems)
• Broward County Environmental Protection Department (Modifications to any Existing ERP permits)
• Other Municipalities (Fort Lauderdale, etc) (To be determined)
Groundwater
• The entirety of the project study area shares a single drainage basin, stretching from approximately Sunrise Boulevard in Fort Lauderdale to south of Stirling Road in Dania Beach. Drainage occurs directly to the coast (west to east), while saltwater intrusion is experienced in the entirely of the project area (east to west).
• Based upon a review of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)’s Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) approximately 60 percent of the study area is located within Zone AE (100-year floodplain).
• The remainder of study area lies primarily within Zone X. This represents areas determined to be outside the 100-year floodplain with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 100-year flood. Zone X areas are consolidated to the limits of the Airport and primary roadways through Port Everglades.
• No regulated floodways exist within the study area.
• The Broward County Wellfield Protection program protects the Biscayne Aquifer (the County’s primary source of drinking water) by restricting land uses within the vicinity of public well fields. In the case of the People Mover PD&E Study, the nearest wellfield lies more than 2 miles to the southwest, at the intersection of Stirling Road and Ravenswood Boulevard. Because of this distance, it is fair to assume that there will be no impact to well fields through any proposed project-related construction.
11 Cultural, Historic and Archaeological Resources
• The cultural resources assessment determined that two National Register eligible sites, The United States Customs House (BD210), and the Port Everglades Facility (BD180) are within close proximity to the proposed project alignments. The United States Customs House was designated as a historic site by the City of Hollywood in March 2000. Although some corridors within the proposed project come within 300 feet of this structure, there is no perceived adverse impact to the site as a result of the IMC PM project.
• The Port Everglades site (BD180), is the Port Everglades fuel farm and shipping basin. This site encompasses part of the original footprint of the Port facility built in 1927. This site is adjacent to some proposed project alignments; however the site is largely characterized as a shipping basin and will not be impacted by this project.
• The archaeological assessment determined that no previously recorded sites occur within the proposed project alignments; however, one moderate to high probability archaeological zone was identified along Miami Road and SE 6th Avenue. A detailed assessment each site and recommendations are provided in Project Reports and Technical Analysis Volume B-3.
12 Parklands and Other Section 4(f) Resources
Parklands
Section 4(f) sites are located far enough away from the project boundary or are located such that access to each of these parks is not affected by any of the proposed alternatives for the people mover project.
Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuge
One site that is bisected by one of the proposed People Mover corridors is a protected Manatee Habitat that is located adjacent to the FPL power plant at Marinelli Park and extends to the Intracoastal Waterway via the FPL discharge canal. The discharge canal crosses under Eller Drive and out to the Intracoastal Waterway. Impact to this site will be negligible since the proposed People Mover would cross overhead and columns would be placed so as to minimize the impact to the canal area.
The waterfowl impact is negligible due to large distances to the nearest designated sensitive areas.
13 Geology and Soils
A review of the information contained in the Geotechnical and Soils Summary Report revealed that the soils in the vicinity of the Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover project consist of a mixture of soils.
14 Contamination
A Level I contamination screening evaluation was conducted to identify the amount of risk that exists along the project alignment alternatives in the form of known and possible unidentified contamination.
Based on the selected alternative and final project schedule, a Level II assessment would be necessary prior to final design, implementation and identify the exact nature and extent of any identified contamination.
The primary contamination impacts recorded are related to the petroleum spills and storage. The IMC area was a former landfill and thus contains a high level of contamination concerns. Several contamination locations, including areas on the airport or on the port, and along the NE 7th & U.S.1 corridor, are common to all alignments.
Results of this evaluation were utilized in the selection of a preferred alternative. Resolution of problems associated with contamination will be coordinated with appropriate regulatory agencies and, prior to right-of-way acquisition, appropriate action will be taken, where applicable.
15 Utilities and Railroads
Area Utilities
Impacts to utilities are expected to be minimal with the construction of elevated guidway for the proposed alternatives. The impact of the utility interface will be kept to a minimum with no loss of service anticipated for the community at large.
Within the airport the Rental Car Center was completed with foundations for a future people mover element of the project up to the column level. This step was undertaken to reduce construction related impacts to airport access roadways at a future date and provide for cost efficiency. Therefore, the people mover will require minimal utility relocations.
The County Departments of Aviation, Public Works & Transportation Department, Seaport Engineering and Construction Division maintain Utility Atlases and a review of the latest atlases is recommended during the next phase design of the project. The Port’s Utility (water, sewer and drainage) Atlas has been incorporated by reference to this document.
Railroad Impacts
The People Mover element of the project will be grade separated at the crossings of existing Florida East Coast (FEC) tracks and the planned tracks for Intermodal Container Transfer Facility (ICTF). Due to the grade separated nature of the people mover at these two locations, there will be no impact of the project on existing and/or planned rail tracks.
16 Safety and Security
Extensive coordination has occurred with the Airport and Port Security staff, the Broward County Sheriff’s Office, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration; TSA) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
Within the Airport, the proposed project alignments would be located landside of the airport facility (e.g., outside TSA checkpoint) and as such the airport security agencies concurred that the people mover would not be subject to any additional security requirements.
Port Everglades has specific procedures in place to screen everyone entering the Port to ensure a “valid-purpose” via BSO checkpoints at the Eller Drive Spangler Boulevard, McIntosh Road and Eisenhower Boulevard and to ensure that all individuals entering the Port either have a Port ID or a picture ID with valid cruise ticket for the day.
The at-grade options are anticipated to continue using the existing check point at the two locations.
The proposed elevated alignment options were coordinated with the security agencies to include screening passengers either:
• At the IMC prior to the passengers traveling to the Port (This option has a negative impact on passenger level of service, or,
• At the destination APM station at the Port. Under this option, it is anticipated that passengers would be confined to the APM station until they are processed. Those who are not allowed would return from the Port APM station to IMC.
Since project implementation would be several years away the project is programmed to accommodate either security processing option and the exact criteria and requirements for security will be finalized at the time of design of the proposed project.
17 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
A cumulative impact is considered to be one which results from the incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Indirect effects are those which are caused by the proposed action and occur in the foreseeable future.
Cumulative Impacts
It is not expected that the project will have adverse cumulative impacts based on other past, present or reasonably foreseeable future actions. This project, in coordination with present and future projects at both the Airport and Port, will have beneficial cumulative impacts by providing system linkages that currently do not exist.
The proposed project is compatible and has been coordinated with the development of the 10-year and 20-year vision of the Port Everglades Master/Vision Plan. Furthermore, this project is not anticipated to impact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Feasibility Study/EIS.
The proposed project will not impact the planned implementation of an additional runway or specifically Alternative B1c of the Airport’s Draft Environmental Impact Study since the new runway will be constructed south and outside of the limits of the People Mover project.
Indirect Impacts
It is not anticipated that the People Mover Project will have any adverse indirect impacts. Potential indirect impacts from the proposed project include potential shading from elevated structures. The indirect transportation impacts of this project are considered to be beneficial through increased regional mobility, economic development opportunities, greater transit connectivity and better traffic circulation.
18 Construction Impacts
Construction activities along the IMC and People Mover corridors will have temporary air, noise, vibration, water quality, traffic flow, maintenance of traffic and visual impacts for the residents in the general area and travelers within the immediate vicinity of the project.
The air quality impact will be temporary and will primarily be in the form of emissions from the construction equipment, dust from construction and embankment. The air pollution associated with the creation of airborne particles will be effectively controlled through the use of watering or the application of other controlled materials in accordance with FDOT’s “Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction” as directed by the FDOT Project Engineer.”
Noise and vibrations impacts will be from the heavy equipment movement and construction activities such as pile driving and vibratory compaction of embankments. Noise control measures will include those contained in FDOT’s “Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction” in addition to those recommended in the Noise Impact section of this document. Adherence to local construction noise and/or construction vibration ordinances by the contractor will also be required where applicable.
Water quality impacts resulting from erosion and sedimentation will be controlled in accordance with FDOT’s “Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction” and through the use of Best Management Practices.”
Maintenance of Traffic and sequence of construction will be planned and scheduled so as to minimize traffic delays throughout the project.
19 Required Permits
Permits and Agencies
Various permits and approvals are required based on the implementation of the project. Agency coordination will occur at the Federal, state, and local levels of jurisdiction. Agencies are delegated to administer the permitting process and in some cases inspect the components of each project as related to the environment. Refer to Technical Reports in Volume C-5 for a categorized listing of the necessary permits and corresponding agencies that may apply to this project in greater detail.
Process Time
Approximately seventy five (75) agencies will require some form of permit processing. The process time varies greatly from a few days to more than one year.
5 Transportation Impacts
This section summarizes the evaluation of traffic operations presented in Chapter 4. The analysis evaluates the impacts various alternatives will have on traffic flow within the airport and seaport, the study area and on the regional roadway system. The analysis of roadway elements specific to the airport and the seaport reflect the travel characteristics of the airport and port patrons as affected by various project alternatives. Projected traffic volumes on the roadway network in the study area and region-wide reflect growth in work based travel within the area, seaport and airport commuters and Airport and the Seaport patrons. Alternative evaluated include the No Build case, APM Option 1 (also applies to Options 2, 6 and 6A) and Bus Option 5A (considered applicable to Options 5B, C and D).
Impact on Traffic Volumes on Airport and Seaport Roadways
As illustrated in Table 1.5.1, under APM Option 1, average traffic volumes on the airport roadways would be reduced by 33% relative to the no build options and volumes on Eisenhower Boulevard within the Seaport would be 5% lower. Under Bus Option 5A, average traffic volumes would be reduced by 4% on Eisenhower Boulevard within the Seaport relative to the No Build Option and there would no difference on the Airport Roadways.
Table 1.5.1
Average Weekday Traffic Volumes on Seaport and Airport Roadways
No Build vs. Options 1 and 5A
|Roadway |Segment |2030 |
| | |No-Build |Option 1 |Option 5A |
|Seaport Eisenhower |North of SE 17th Street |9,770 |9,570 |9,580 |
|Boulevard | | | | |
| |South of SE 17th Street |2,130 |1,790 |1,790 |
| |South of Spangler Boulevard |3,670 |3,860 |3,880 |
| |Difference from No-Build | |-5% |-4% |
|Airport Terminal |Westbound Upper Drive |24,120 |16,460 |24,120 |
|Roadways | | | | |
| |Westbound Lower Drive |26,220 |17,890 |26,220 |
| |Exit Drive |46,390 |30,360 |46,390 |
| |Difference from No-Build | |-33% |0% |
Impact on Traffic Volumes on Study Area Roadways
Looking at the arterials within the study area, Table 1.5.2 indicates that changes in traffic volumes resulting from the project would smaller due to the local nature of the project. However, even on area arterials reductions would be in the range of 2% with the implementation of the project.
Table 1.5.2
Average Weekday Traffic Volumes on Area Roadways
No Build vs. Options 1 and 5A
| |Segment |2030 |
|Roadway | | |
| | |No-Build |Option 1 |Option 5A |
|US 1 |North of 17th Street |61,650 |59,820 |60,860 |
| |SE 17th Street to SE 24th Street |81,420 |79,180 |80,380 |
| |SE 24th Street to SE 28th Street |79,240 |77,010 |77,690 |
| |SE 28th Street to SE 30th Street |82,090 |79,900 |80,350 |
| |SE 30th Street to Griffin Road |113,850 |111,990 |112,200 |
| |South of Griffin Road |53,960 |53,030 |53,070 |
| |Difference from No-Build | |-2% |-2% |
|SE 17th Street |West of US 1 |18,180 |19,360 |18,560 |
| |US 1 to Miami Road |68,290 |66,960 |67,290 |
| |Miami Road to Cordova Street |82,890 |81,110 |81,070 |
| |Cordova Street to Eisenhower Boulevard |48,590 |47,140 |47,110 |
| |East of Eisenhower Boulevard |37,810 |36,860 |36,810 |
| |Difference from No-Build | |-2% |-2% |
|Spangler Boulevard |West of US 1 |17,040 |17,030 |17,130 |
| |East of US 1 |13,540 |13,690 |13,990 |
| |Difference from No-Build | |0% |2% |
|Eller Drive |West of US 1 |5,990 |6,010 |6,090 |
| |US 1 to McIntosh Road |15,560 |15,260 |15,320 |
| |US 1 to NE 7th Street |15,560 |15,260 |15,320 |
| |East of McIntosh Road |42,030 |44,810 |45,080 |
| |Difference from No-Build | |3% |3% |
|I-595 |West of US 1 |79,120 |74,290 |74,050 |
| |Difference from No-Build | |0% |0% |
Highway Segments and Ramp Analysis Results
As indicated in Table 1.5.3, implementing a people mover connection between the Airport and the Seaport will improve the level of service on several highway segments and ramps within the study area and on the Airport roadways.
Table 1.5.3: Highway Segments and Ramp Level of Service
Notes
Option -1 : Indicates Elevated PM Option
Option -5A: Indicates on-airport APM and at-grade Bus to Port
Specifically, with the elevated APM from this project, level of service is projected to improve on the following ramps and roadways:
• I-595 eastbound off-ramp to northbound US 1 (from B to A)
• I-595 west of on-ramp from Airport and US 1 (from C to B)
• I-595 west of on-ramp from US 1 southbound (from D to C)
• I-595 eastbound to southbound US 1 (from D to C)
• I-595 eastbound to Airport (from F to E)
• Long Term Parking Ramp (from F to E)
• Airport terminal roadways improves from D and E to B and C.
Study Area Network Analysis
The proposed project was also evaluated based on three measures of effectiveness: vehicle-miles, vehicle-hours, and average speeds and the findings are as follows:
• Vehicle Miles: Both Options 1 and 5A reduce the number of vehicle-miles by five to six percent during the afternoon peak period.
• Vehicle-Hours: Option 1 is more effective at improving mobility within the study area as vehicle-hours are reduced by 9 percent versus 6 percent for Option 5A.
• Average Speeds: Comparing the proposed options to the No-Build Option, shows that the implementation of Option 1 would increase average speeds by four percent compared to only one percent with Option 5A.
Table 1.5.4
Network-wide Analysis Summary
[pic]
Notes
Option -1 : Indicates Elevated PM Option
Option -5A: Indicates on-airport APM and at-grade Bus to Port
Region-wide Statistics
The same measures of effectiveness were evaluated on a region-wide basis, and again improvements resulting from the project would be smaller due to the local nature of the project. However, the analysis shows that even on a regional basis, a people mover connection between the Airport and the Seaport would reduce the vehicle-hours traveled and delay due to congestion by approximately one to two percent.
Table 1.5.5
Region-wide Statistics
[pic]
Notes
Option -1 : Indicates Elevated PM Option
Option -5A: Indicates on-airport APM and at-grade Bus to Port
6 Projected Ridership and Operational Plans
This section summarizes the ridership projections and the corresponding system operations plans for bus and APM alternatives that were developed as part of the PD&E.
1 Ridership
Potential Users of Proposed People Mover Systems:
Potential users of a transportation link between the Airport and the Seaport were defined as follows:
• Port Everglades
- Largest share - Multi-day Cruise passengers interacting between FLL and PEV
- Potential Port Remote Parkers at IMC.
• FLL Airport
- Multi-day PEV cruise passengers
Other Airport Patrons
- Rental Car Center Users going to/from Terminals 2, 3 and 4 or Central Terminal in future
- Cruise passengers traveling from Port of Miami to FLL (if buses staging at IMC)
- Potential FLL Air Passengers using IMC as Remote Parking
- Air passengers and employees using Transit.
Planning Forecasts:
• Port Everglades per the Port Master/Vision Plan
- 2.5 million multi-day cruise passengers – year 2006.
- 5.9 million multi-day cruise passengers – year 2026 (2.981 million boarding passengers in year 2026)
-
• FLL Per FLL Master Plan Update
- 11.2 million enplaning passengers – year 2006
- 18.3 million enplaning passengers – year 2026 (based on 2025 number o FAA plus 3% increase beyond 2025)
Travel Patterns for Multi-day Cruise Passengers – PM Peak
The Origin/Destination survey conducted in March 2007 revealed the following about multi-day cruise passengers arriving at the Port to begin their cruise:
• About 68% arrive by air through FLL
• About 33% of current cruise-bound passengers transfer directly (from FLL to PEV).
• An additional 35% of cruise-bound passengers arrive at FLL the day before and use local hotels for overnight stay before their cruise trip begins.
• The peak period outbound to the Port is from 11:00 AM to 3:30 PM
Based on these factors a range of ridership scenarios for cruise passengers traveling from the Airport and Seaport in the PM Peak hour were defined as follows:
Table 1.6.1: Ridership Range for Airport to Port Multiday Cruise Passengers
| | | PM Peak Ridership |
|Cruise Pax Type |Percent (per |Base |Medium |High |
| |O-D Survey) | | | |
|FLL - PEV direct |32.8% |32.8% |32.8% |32.8% |
|from Hotels (FLL users) |34.9% |0.0% |17.5% |34.9% |
|Other Regional Users |32.3% |0.0% |0.0% |0.0% |
|Total Anticipated Riders |32.8% |50.3% |67.7% |
Travel Patterns for Multi-day Cruise Passengers – AM Peak
The same Origin/Destination survey conducted in March 2007 revealed the following about multi-day cruise passengers returning from their cruise trip to the Airport.
• 59.3% of current deboarding cruise passengers transfer directly (PEV to FLL).
• Additional 8.4% airport -bound passengers do not travel directly to FLL.
• The peak inbound period to the Airport is from 7:30 AM to 11:00 AM
Based on these factors a range of ridership scenarios for passengers traveling between the Seaport and the Airport in the AM Peak hour were defined as presented in Table 1.6.2.
Table 1.6.2: Ridership Range for Port to Airport Multiday Cruise Passengers
| | |APM PM Ridership |
|Cruise Pax Type |Percent (per |Base |High |
| |O-D Survey) | | |
|PEV – FLL direct |59.3% |59.3% |59.3% |
|to Hotels/other |8.4% |0.0% |8.4% |
|Other Regional Users |32.3% |0.0% |0.0% |
|Share of Anticipated Riders |59.30% |67.70% |
Project Peak Hour Demand in 2026
Based on the above factor, passengers per hour per direction (pphpd) on a transit connection between the Airport and Seaport were estimated for different segments as follows:
On- Airport
• Peak Ridership: 1,667 pphpd (From Central Terminal to Rental Car Center)
AM peak - Port to Airport
• Peak Ridership: 6,576 pphpd (Port to IMC)
• Peak Ridership: 6,741 pphpd (IMC to FLL)
PM peak - (Airport to Port)
• Peak Ridership: 5,797 pphpd (FLL to IMC)
• Peak Ridership: 5,115 pphpd (IMC to PEV)
Annual Ridership in 2026
On-Airport Users
• Rental Car Users: 6.5 million
• IMC Users: 3.0 million (Transit transfers, Port of Miami, Remote Parkers)
Airport - Seaport Users (Multiday Cruise Passengers
• Base Range: 3.2 million
• High Range: 4.0 million
•
2 Operational Plans
Based on facility projections in the Port Master/Vision Plan, seasonal variations in multi-day cruise passengers were estimated for 2026 as follows for operational and fleet planning purposes:
Table 1.6.3: Seasonal Variations in Average Day Multi-day Cruise Passengers
|Cruise Season | |2006 | 2026 |
| | | | |
| |Days of Week | | |
| | |Average Day |Total Embarkations |Projected Average Day |
|Peak | |14,413 |737,048 |34,000 |
|Nov. to Apr. |Weekends | | | |
| | |2,672 |347,360 |6,303 |
| |Weekdays | | | |
|Off-Peak | |4,402 |228,904 |10,384 |
|May to Oct. |Weekends | | | |
| | |2,424 |315,120 |5,718 |
| |Weekdays | | | |
| | |Embarking Passengers |1,300,988 | |
| | |Total Passengers |2,601,976 | |
Ridership by season and day of week were then developed accordingly which formed the basis for the operation plan presented in Chapter 9 of the PE Report and summarized in the Table 1.6.4.
Table 1.6.4: Systems Operations Plan
| |Days of Week | | |
|Cruise Season | |Bus Alternatives |APM Alternatives |
| | | | |
|Peak |Weekend | 150 bus trips during peak hour |4 car APM (train) every 2 minutes. |
|(Nov. Thru April) |(2 to 3 days per |Bus staging and berthing terminals necessary at| |
| |PEV M/VP) |Airport and Seaport | |
| |Weekday | 32 bus trips during peak hour |2 car APM (train) every 3 minutes. |
| |(5 days) |Bus staging and berthing terminals necessary at| |
| | |Airport and Seaport | |
|Off –Peak |Weekend | 53 bus trips during peak hour |4 car APM (train) every 4 minutes. |
|(May Thru Oct.) |(2 to 3 days per |Bus staging and berthing terminals necessary at| |
| |PEV M/VP) |Airport and Seaport | |
| |Weekday | 27 bus trips during peak hour |2 car APM (train) every 3 minutes. |
| |(5 days ) |Bus staging and berthing terminals necessary at| |
| | |Airport and Seaport | |
7 Estimated Costs and Financial Assessment
1 Costs
Estimates of the capital and operating and maintenance costs are presented in 2007 dollars for each alternative in Chapter 2 and summarized by project phase or segment for the best bus option (Alternatives 5B) in Table 1.7.1 and the best APM option (Alternative 6A) in Table 1.7.2 below. Given the high capital costs and the competing County priorities, it is anticipated that the project would be developed in phases and the costs for each alternative by phase were developed accordingly
For financial analysis purposes, the assumed implementation period for the project is from 2016 to 2022 and costs were escalated accordingly. Capital costs in 2007 dollars were escalated at a rate of 4% annually to the anticipated midpoint year of the implementation period for each project element. O&M costs were escalated at a rate of 2.5% annually up to the start-up year of operations for each element.
Table 1.7.1
Full Build - Bus Alternative 5B
|Segment of System |Period of Development |Capital |Annual Operating & Maintenance |
| | |Cost in 2007$ |Escalated to YOE |Cost in 2007$ |Startup Year |
|On-Airport |2016-2020 |$82M |$126M |$4.0M (*) |$5.5M (*) |
|Extend to Midport |2018-2022 |$227M |$378M |$10.3M |$15.0M |
|Extend to N. Port |2020-2022 |$110M |$184M |$4.4M |$6.3M |
|IMC |2020-2022 |$79M |$132M |$1.0M |$1.5M |
|Totals |$498M |$820M |$19.7M |$28.3M |
Note (*): Reflects cost for a shuttle bus operation to transport passengers between the IMC and the Airport terminals but does not include costs for the existing shuttle bus operation serving the on-airport Rental Car Center.
Table 1.7.2
Full Build – APM Alternative 6A
|Segment of System |Period of Development |Capital |Annual Operating & Maintenance |
| | |Cost in 2007$ |Escalated to YOE |Cost in 2007$ |Startup Year |
|On-Airport |2016-2020 | $173M | $267M | $4.6 | $6.3M |
|Extend to Midport |2018-2022 | $410M | $683M | $8.5M | $12.3M |
|Extend to N. Port |2020-2022 | $177M | $295M | $3.6M | $5.3M |
|IMC |2020-2022 | $79M | $132M | $1.0M | $1.4M |
|Totals | $840M | $1,377M | $17.7M | $25.3M |
2 Financial Sensitivity Analysis
This section presents the financial sensitivity scenarios that were prepared for Alternative 5B – Elevated Busway with an IMC and 6A - Automated People Mover System with an IMC. In this analysis, a multi-tier debt structure with 30 year terms was assumed for the project with a combination of conventional “BBB” rated public sector financing and Federal loans issued through the Transportation Infrastructure Financing Act (TIFIA). On the revenue side, one set of scenarios estimate the portion of Project operating costs and debt service that the County could cover through potential local revenue sources and the corresponding capital shortfall that would otherwise have to be funded by external sources. A second set of scenarios estimate the overall breakeven cost per passenger.
Local Revenue Sources
Potential local revenue sources that might be pledged by the County to cover debt service and/or operating costs for the Project include Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) paid by FLL passengers, a portion of Customer Facility Charges (CFCs) paid by airport rental car customers and a transportation users fee that would be paid by multi-day cruise passengers being transported between FLL and PEV. Revenues from parking at the IMC were not considered given the uncertainty regarding parking development at the site.
Due to competing priorities at the Airport, PFCs were not considered as revenue source at this time. CFCs will be available to cover on-airport operating costs assuming the people mover replaces the existing consolidated shuttle for rental car patrons on-airport. The remaining source would be a user fee of $10 collected from multi-day cruise passengers who ride the systems. The $10 level is comparable to per trip fee currently paid by cruise passenger traveling between FLL and PEV.
Comparing cumulative costs to revenues over the 30 year repayment period for each bond issue or TIFIA loan, the table below indicates that the cruise passenger user fee would cover about 40% of Alternative 6A APM project costs and about 50% of Alternative 5B Elevated Busway costs leaving the project with a shortfall which would have to be covered by external Federal and/or State sources and/or Public Private Partnership (P3).
Table 1.7.3: Coverage of Project Costs with User Fee
|Funding Scenario |Percent of Project Financed |
|Multi-Day Cruise |Full APM |APM to Midport |Full Elevated |Elevated Bus to |
|Pax Fee | | |Bus |Midport |
|$10.00 |41% |40% |53% |49% |
Notes:
• User fee is per trip applied to multi-day cruise passengers using system between FLL & PEV
• Coverage Ratio for Senior Debt = 1.85
Cost Per Passenger
In these scenarios, project costs were compared to annual projected riders for the equivalent period to yield a cost per rider in current dollars. In effect, these values represent what would be breakeven fare per trip if each rider was charged to fully recover project costs and the results are below.
Table 1.7.4: Cost Per Rider by Segment in 2007$
|Segment |Cost Per Rider |
| |Full APM |APM to Midport|Full Elevated |Elevated Bus |
| | | |Bus |to Midport |
|Airport to IMC |$1.30 |$0.80 |
|IMC to Port |$21.50 |$21.20 |$15.10 |$14.80 |
8 Evaluation of Alternatives
1 People Movers
The criteria for evaluating the merits of the various corridors were derived directly from the FDOT PD&E manual. The criteria evaluated include:
• Construction and engineering costs: The cost and complexity of the option was considered. Options that required significant interaction with adjacent projects or existing buildings, or inordinately extensive infrastructure costs were appropriately rated.
• Right of way costs and business damages: The degree to which the option maximized use of existing rights-of-way, and minimized use of private property, was evaluated. This results in reduced cost of acquisition.
• Relocation estimate: The impacts of relocations for private property owners were considered, although it is important to note that few options evaluated involved impacts to private property, due to the project being substantially within the Port and Seaport property boundaries and both facilities owned by Broward County.
• Environmental impacts: Environmental Impacts (including impacts to wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas encountered by the corridor options), as well as impacts caused by operation, such as noise and air pollution.
• Social and Economic impacts:
• Operational effectiveness: Operational effectiveness evaluation of the various corridor options was subdivided into the following criteria:
- Connection to the regional transportation network
- Enhance roadway capacity at Seaport
- Enhanced roadway capacity at Airport
- Operational Flexibility and System Scalability
- Reduction of congestion on existing Airport and Seaport roadways
- Greatest use of existing County rights-of-way
- Safety and security
The ratings for each corridor are presented in Chapter 2 of the EA and Chapter 8 of the PE Report. Alternative 5B is the highest rated bus alternative and Alternative 6A is the highest rated APM option and they are compared to the No- Build Alternative in the Table 1.8.1.
Table 1.8.1: Consolidated Ratings for Highest Ranked Transit Alternatives
| |No Build |Option 5B |Option 6A |
|Evaluation Criteria | |Elevated Bus |APM |
|Construction and Engineering Costs |5 |3 |2 |
|Operations and maintenance costs |2 |3 |4 |
|Right of Way Costs and Business Damages |5 |3 |3 |
|Environmental Impacts (natural, physical and cultural) |1 |3 |5 |
|Social and Economic Impacts |2 |3 |3 |
|Operational Analysis |- |- |- |
|(connection to) Regional transportation network |1 |4 |4 |
|Enhanced Ground Access capacity to meet demand at Port |1 * |4 |5 |
|Enhanced Ground Access capacity to meet demand at Airport |1 * |4 |5 |
|Operational Flexibility and System Scalability |1 |5 |4 |
|Greatest use of existing County rights-of-way |5 |3 |3 |
|Level of Service for users |1 * |3 |5 |
|Safety and Security |2 |3 |4 |
|Totals |27 |41 |47 |
Note: Ratings 1=Worst to 5=Best
*: Denotes unsustainable
2 Intermodal Center
The viable Intermodal Center location alternatives were evaluated according to the following criteria which were developed to meet the needs of the Project.
• System functionality with People Mover corridor option alternatives: Options with higher ratings were options that were compatible with the greatest number of options from the People Mover component of the project.
• Property impacts: The right-of-way acquisition necessary for a proposed location was factored in, with location entirely on public lands lending to a high rating, and locations requiring property acquisition scoring lower.
• Inter-modality: The ability of the option to connect to other elements of the regional transportation system was evaluated.
• Environmental impacts: The degree to which the proposed location impacted wetlands or undeveloped areas or posed impacts to threatened and endangered species was evaluated.
• Security issues: The ability of the location to function within the increased restrictions of Seaport access were considered, as were the amount additional infrastructure necessary to make any given option comply with the increased restrictions.
• Viability and space for IMC egress and access elements: The feasibility of incorporating the ramps, roadways, and other infrastructure necessary for any potential IMC was evaluated.
• Project constructability: The ability to build the project in a cost effective-way without infeasible encumbrances from nearby roadways, projects and buildings was considered.
The resulting ratings for each alternative site are summarized in Table 1.8.2.
Table 1.8.2: Consolidate Ratings for Intermodal Center Alternatives
| |IMC Option 1 |IMC Option 3 |
|Evaluation Criteria | | |
|System functionality with People Mover |5 |2 |
|alignment alternatives | | |
|Property Impacts |5 |5 |
|Inter-modality |5 |4 |
|Environmental Impacts |4 |3 |
|Security Issues |5 |2 |
|Viability & Space for IMC Egress and Access|4 |2 |
|Elements | | |
|Project Constructability |4 |4 |
|Total Score |32 |22 |
| | | |
9 Consultation and Coordination
The section summarizes the series of consultations, briefings and workshops that have been conducted with various stakeholders and interested parties over the course of the study to date.
1 Project Advanced Notification (An) March – April 2006
Various federal, state and local agencies were informed through the AN process regarding the proposed project. FDOT initiated early project coordination on March 7, 2006 by distribution of the AN package to the State Clearinghouse. Individual packages were also sent to local governments directly by the FDOT District 4. The agencies receiving AN Packages are listed accordingly by Federal, State and local jurisdiction.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
National Marine Fisheries Service
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Florida Department of State
Florida Department of Transportation District 4 (FDOT)
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
South Florida Water Management District
South Florida Regional Transportation Authority
South Florida Regional Planning Council
Broward County Metropolitan Planning Organization (BC-MPO)
2 Interagency Coordination And Consultation
FDOT, FHWA, FTA 10/20/2005
FDOT, FHWA, FTA 3/9/2006
Director of Planning, FDOT 5/11/2005
FDOT District 4 Executive Management 9/6/2005
South Florida Regional Transportation Authority 4/18/2005
BC-MPO – Transportation Coordinating
Committee (TCC) 6/27/2005, 7/26/2006, 8/28/2006, 5/28/2008, 6/12/08
BC-MPO – Community Involvement
Round Table (CIR) 11/29/2005, 9/5/2006, 6/3/2008
Broward County Metropolitan Planning
Organization (BC-MPO) 10/6/2005, 10/12/2006
Broward County Transit Initiative 12/13/2005
Director, BC-Metropolitan Planning Organization 2/28/2006
Regional Transit Coordination – MPO/FDOT 3/27/2006
Regional Transit Coordination – MPO/FDOT 5/22/2006
Broward County Transit 7/28/2005, 4/17/2008
Broward County Executive Management 8/31/2005, 4/11/2008
Broward County Aviation and Port Everglades Departments On-going
3 Coordination With Project Stakeholders
Airport Security Stakeholders 1/26/2007
Seaport Security Stakeholders 3/14/2007, 5/29/2007, 12/6/2007, 12/20/2007
Ground Transportation 2/2/2007, 3/20/2007, 12/13/2007, 5/30/2008
Airline/Tenants Partnership meeting 9/13/2006, 2/13/2008, 5/14/2008
Port Cruise line Meeting 10/2/2006, 1/23/2008, 5/23/2008
Port Users and Tenants (Local Managers) 3/22/2007, 5/27/2008
Port Everglades Association 10/6/2006, 1/4/2008, 6/6/2008
4 Public Meetings/Workshops (Required By Federal Process)
Public Meeting (Project Kick-off- Agencies) 4/27/2006
Public Meeting (Public Meeting) 4/27/2006
5 Other Public Workshops
Public Workshop 1/10/2008, 5/22/2008
6 County’s Selection of Recommended Altern9ative
By Board of County Community in Public Forum 6/10/2008
7 Public Hearing
Public Hearing 6/25/2009
10 Conclusions and Recommendations
1 Recommended Alternatives
Based on the ranking for the People Mover and IMC, the recommended long-term build-out alternatives are described below and illustrated in Figure 8.1.
• People Mover Alternative 6A: Develop an Automated People Mover within the Alternative 6A corridor between Fort-Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport and Port Everglades
• IMC Alternative 1: Develop a County Intermodal Center within the US-1/Airport Interchange as depicted in the Figure.
• Project Phasing Option: In view of cost and financial considerations, as an interim measure the County may consider initially constructing portions of the system as lower cost elevated busway which could later be converted to APM system technology. As illustrated in the next section, this phased approach may involve implementing portions of Elevated Bus Alternative 5B which was the second highest ranked option and follows the same corridor as APM Alternative 6A. The conversion from bus to APM would be facilitated by constructing the supporting elevated guideway for the busway with the dimensions and structural capacity required to accommodate the operation of APM system technology in the future.
2 Phasing Schemes
As noted, it is anticipated that the people mover element of the project would likely be implemented along the preferred corridor (Alternative 6A) through a phased approached of busway converting to an APM. While the order and scope of each phase will depend on funding and facility needs and priorities two possible phasing schemes are presented in Figures 8.2 and 8.3. Both schemes anticipate that the initial phase will involve construction of a lower cost elevated busways as an immediate measure to mitigate traffic congestion along Seaport entrance roadway (Eller Drive) to Midport. The next phase would be an elevated busway from the IMC to the Airport terminals. Again, all busways would be constructed in manner that would allow for later conversion to an automated people mover. The two schemes differ thereafter with respect to the phase when the conversion to an APM system occurs.
Figure 1.10.1: Recommended Alternative
Figure 1.10.2
Phasing Scheme A – Deferred Conversion to APM
Figure 10.3
Phasing Scheme B – Advanced Conversion to APM
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.