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
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
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
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- i
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
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
1.9
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- ii
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
1.1
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
1.1.1 Project Description
The SunPort PD&E Study area encompasses an approximately 4.5 square mile (mi 2) portion of
Broward County. The study area is delineated by SE 17th Street to the north, while the southern
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-1
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
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.
1.2
PROJECT NEED
Details of Project Purpose and Need are presented in Chapter 1 and summarized herein.
1.2.1 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.
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-2
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
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.
1.2.2 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
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-3
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
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
1.3

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).
ALTERNATIVES
1.3.1 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
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-4
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
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
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-5
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
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.
1.3.2 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.
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-6
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
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.
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-7
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
Figure 1.1: Alignment Alternatives for SunPort Project Area
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-8
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
1.4
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.
1.4.1 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.
1.4.2 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.
1.4.3 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
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-9
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
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.
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-10
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
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.
1.4.4 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.
1.4.5 Property Acquisition & Relocation Impact Analysis

One business property is being proposed for acquisition for a Maintenance and Storage
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-11
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
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.
1.4.6 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.
1.4.7 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.
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-12
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE

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”.
1.4.8 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.
1.4.9 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
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-13
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
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.
1.4.10
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.
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-14
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
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
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-15
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
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.
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-16
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
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
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-17
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
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.
1.4.11
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.
1.4.12
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.
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-18
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
1.4.13
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
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.
1.4.14
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.
1.4.15
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
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-19
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
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.
1.4.16
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.
1.4.17
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
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-20
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
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 10year 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.
1.4.18
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.
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-21
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
1.4.19
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
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.
1.5
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.
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-22
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
Table 1.5.1
Average Weekday Traffic Volumes on Seaport and Airport Roadways
No Build vs. Options 1 and 5A
Segment
NoBuild
2030
Option
1
Option
5A
North of SE 17th Street
9,770
9,570
9,580
South of SE 17th Street
2,130
1,790
1,790
South of Spangler Boulevard
3,670
3,860
3,880
-5%
-4%
Roadway
Seaport
Eisenhower
Boulevard
Difference from No-Build
Airport
Terminal
Roadways
Westbound Upper Drive
24,120
16,460
24,120
Westbound Lower Drive
26,220
17,890
26,220
Exit Drive
46,390
30,360
46,390
-33%
0%
Difference from No-Build
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
2030
Segment
No-Build
Option 1
North of 17th Street
61,650
59,820
Option
5A
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
-2%
-2%
Roadway
US 1
Difference from No-Build
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-23
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
SE 17th Street
Spangler
Boulevard
Eller Drive
I-595
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
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
West of US 1
17,040
-2%
17,030
-2%
17,130
East of US 1
13,540
13,690
13,990
Difference from No-Build
West of US 1
5,990
0%
6,010
2%
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
Difference from No-Build
West of US 1
Difference from No-Build
42,030
44,810
3%
74,290
0%
45,080
3%
74,050
0%
79,120
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
Level of Service
No-Build
Location
EB Off-ramp to SB US 1 & the Airport
C
EB Off-ramp to NB US 1
B
East of the EB off-ramp to NB US 1
A
East of the On-Ramp from the Ariport & US 1
C
West of the On-Ramp from the Airport & US 1
C
I-595
West of the On-Ramp from US 1 SB
D
Eastbound I-595 to SB US 1 & Airport
D
Eastbound I-595 to NB US 1
B
Northbound US 1 & Airport to I-595 Westbound
B
Southbound US 1 to I-595 Westbound
D
Airport Upper Level Westbound/Eastbound
E
Airport
Airport Lower Level Westboubound/Eastbound
D
Terminal Roads
Upper Level + Lower Level Eastbound
E
Southbound
US
1
to
the
Airport
A
Notes
EB I-595 to Airport
F
Option -1 : Indicates Elevated PM Option
SB US 1 + EB I-595 to Airport
B
Option -5A: Indicates on-airport APM and at-grade Bus to Port
Airport Boulvard Return to Terminal
B
SB US 1 + EB I-595 + Return to Terminal
B
NB
US 1 to EB
Airport
B
Lea+Elliott
Team
ES- 1-24
File:
SB
US 106755679
1 + EB I-595 + Return to Terminal +
B
RCR Ramp
F
Long Term Parking
F
Roadway
Option 1 Option 5A
C
C
A
A
A
A
C
C
B
B
C
C
C
C
B
B
B
B
D
D
C
C
B
C
C
C
A
A
E
E
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B Draft PE
B
BJune 2009
F
F
E
E
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
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
Difference from NoBuild
Statistics
No-Build
Option 1 Option 5A Option 1 Option 5A
Vehicle-Miles
66,110
62,568
62,367
-5%
-6%
Vehicle-Hours
3,860
3,498
3,618
-9%
-6%
Average Speed (mph)
17.14
17.89
17.24
4%
1%
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.
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-25
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
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
Parameter
Total Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT)
Total Vehicle-Hours Traveled (VHT)
Original Speed (mph)
Congested Speed (mph)
Delay due to Congestion (Vehicle-Hours)
Percentage Difference from No-Build
Total Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT)
Total Vehicle-Hours Traveled (VHT)
Original Speed (mph)
Congested Speed (mph)
Delay due to Congestion (Vehicle-Hours)
No Build
Option 1
Option 5A
147,146,530 146,749,310 146,686,080
4,990,410
4,952,160
4,946,120
35.51
35.51
35.51
27.81
27.93
27.94
1,343,930
1,315,510
1,311,560
147,146,528
4,990,407
35.51
27.81
1,343,934
0%
-1%
0%
0%
-2%
0%
-1%
0%
0%
-2%
Notes
Option -1 : Indicates Elevated PM Option
Option -5A: Indicates on-airport APM and at-grade Bus to Port
PROJECTED RIDERSHIP AND OPERATIONAL PLANS
1.6
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.
1.6.1 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
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-26
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
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:
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-27
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
Table 1.6.1: Ridership Range for Airport to Port Multiday Cruise Passengers
PM Peak Ridership
Percent
(per OD
Survey)
32.8%
Base
Medium
High
32.8%
32.8%
32.8%
34.9%
0.0%
17.5%
34.9%
32.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Total Anticipated Riders
32.8%
50.3%
67.7%
Cruise Pax
Type
FLL - PEV
direct
from Hotels
(FLL users)
Other Regional
Users
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
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
Cruise Pax
Type
Percent
(per OD
Survey)
Base
High
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%
ES- 1-28
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
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:
 Peak Ridership:
6,576 pphpd (Port to IMC)
6,741 pphpd (IMC to FLL)
PM peak - (Airport to Port)
 Peak Ridership:
 Peak Ridership:
5,797 pphpd (FLL to IMC)
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

1.6.2 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:
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-29
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
Table 1.6.3: Seasonal Variations in Average Day Multi-day Cruise Passengers
2006
Cruise
Season
Days of Week
Average Day
Peak
Nov. to
Apr.
Off-Peak
May to
Oct.
2026
Total
Embarkations
Projected
Average Day
Weekends
14,413
737,048
34,000
Weekdays
2,672
347,360
6,303
Weekends
4,402
228,904
10,384
Weekdays
2,424
Embarking
Passengers
Total Passengers
315,120
5,718
1,300,988
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
Cruise Season
Days of
Week
Bus Alternatives
150 bus trips during peak hour
Peak
Weekend
(Nov. Thru April) (2 to 3 days Bus staging and berthing terminals
per PEV
necessary at Airport and Seaport
M/VP)
32 bus trips during peak hour
Weekday
(5 days)
Bus staging and berthing terminals
necessary at Airport and Seaport
53 bus trips during peak hour
Off –Peak
Weekend
(May Thru Oct.) (2 to 3 days Bus staging and berthing terminals
per PEV
necessary at Airport and Seaport
M/VP)
27 bus trips during peak hour
Weekday
(5 days )
Bus staging and berthing terminals
necessary at Airport and Seaport
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-30
APM Alternatives
4 car APM (train) every 2
minutes.
2 car APM (train) every 3
minutes.
4 car APM (train) every 4
minutes.
2 car APM (train) every 3
minutes.
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
1.7
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
ESTIMATED COSTS AND FINANCIAL ASSESSMENT
1.7.1 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
On-Airport
Extend to
Midport
Extend to
N. Port
IMC
Capital
Annual Operating &
Maintenance
Cost in
2007$
Escalated
to YOE
Cost in
2007$
Startup
Year
2016-2020
$82M
$126M
$4.0M (*)
$5.5M (*)
2018-2022
$227M
$378M
$10.3M
$15.0M
2020-2022
$110M
$184M
$4.4M
$6.3M
2020-2022
$79M
$132M
$1.0M
$1.5M
$498M
$820M
$19.7M
$28.3M
Totals
Note (*): Reflects cost for a shuttle bus operation to transport passengers between the IMC and the Airport terminals but does not
include costs for the existing shuttle bus operation serving the on-airport Rental Car Center.
Table 1.7.2
Full Build – APM Alternative 6A
Segment of
System
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
Period of
Development
Capital
ES- 1-31
Annual Operating &
Maintenance
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
On-Airport
Extend to
Midport
Extend to
N. Port
IMC
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
Cost in
2007$
Escalated
to YOE
Cost in
2007$
Startup
Year
2016-2020
$173M
$267M
$4.6
$6.3M
2018-2022
$410M
$683M
$8.5M
$12.3M
2020-2022
$177M
$295M
$3.6M
$5.3M
2020-2022
$79M
$132M
$1.0M
$1.4M
$840M
$1,377M
$17.7M
$25.3M
Totals
1.7.2 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
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-32
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
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 Pax
Fee
Full APM
APM to
Midport
Full
Elevated
Bus
Elevated
Bus to
Midport
$10.00
41%
40%
53%
49%
Notes:

User fee is per trip applied to multi-day cruise passengers using system between FLL & PEV

Coverage Ratio for Senior Debt = 1.85
Cost Per Passenger
In these scenarios, project costs were compared to annual projected riders for the equivalent
period to yield a cost per rider in current dollars. In effect, these values represent what would be
breakeven fare per trip if each rider was charged to fully recover project costs and the results are
below.
Table 1.7.4: Cost Per Rider by Segment in 2007$
Cost Per Rider
Segment
Full
APM
Airport to IMC
IMC to Port
APM to
Midport
Full
Elevated
Bus
$1.30
$21.50
Elevated
Bus to
Midport
$0.80
$21.20
$15.10
$14.80
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
1.8
1.8.1 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
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-33
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
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
Evaluation Criteria
Construction and Engineering Costs
Operations and maintenance costs
Right of Way Costs and Business
Damages
Environmental Impacts (natural,
physical and cultural)
Social and Economic Impacts
Operational Analysis
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-34
Option Option
5B
6A
No Build
Elevated APM
Bus
5
3
2
2
3
4
5
3
3
1
3
5
2
-
3
-
3
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
(connection to) Regional transportation
network
Enhanced Ground Access capacity to
meet demand at Port
Enhanced Ground Access capacity to
meet demand at Airport
Operational Flexibility and System
Scalability
Greatest use of existing County rightsof-way
Level of Service for users
Safety and Security
Totals
Note: Ratings 1=Worst to 5=Best
*: Denotes unsustainable
1
4
4
1*
4
5
1*
4
5
1
5
4
5
3
3
1*
2
27
3
3
41
5
4
47
1.8.2 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
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-35
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
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
Evaluation Criteria
1.9
IMC
IMC
Option 1 Option 3
System functionality with
People Mover alignment
alternatives
5
2
Property Impacts
5
5
Inter-modality
5
4
Environmental Impacts
4
3
Security Issues
5
2
Viability & Space for IMC
Egress and Access Elements
4
2
Project Constructability
4
4
Total Score
32
22
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.
1.9.1 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.
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-36
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
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)
1.9.2 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
1.9.3 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
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-37
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
1.9.4 Public Meetings/Workshops (Required By Federal Process)
Public Meeting (Project Kick-off- Agencies)
Public Meeting (Public Meeting)
4/27/2006
4/27/2006
1.9.5 Other Public Workshops
Public Workshop
1/10/2008, 5/22/2008
1.9.6 County’s Selection of Recommended Altern9ative
By Board of County Community in Public Forum
6/10/2008
1.9.7 Public Hearing
Public Hearing
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
6/25/2009
ES- 1-38
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
1.10 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.10.1
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.
1.10.2
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.
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES- 1-39
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
Figure 1.10.1: Recommended Alternative
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES-1-40
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
Figure 1.10.2
Phasing Scheme A – Deferred Conversion to APM
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES-1-41
Draft PE
June 2009
Project Development & Environment Study
Broward County Intermodal Center and People Mover
Project Executive Summary
Draft PE
Figure 10.3
Phasing Scheme B – Advanced Conversion to APM
Lea+Elliott Team
File: 106755679
ES-1-42
Draft PE
June 2009