Agenda 08-29-23 Mobility Workshop The City of
t�
Boynton Beach �
City Commission Agenda
Tuesday, August 29, 2023, 6:00 PM
City Hall Commission Chambers
100 E. Ocean Avenue
Boynton Beach City Commission
Ty Penserga, Mayor (At Large)
Thomas Turkin, Vice Mayor (District III)
Angela Cruz, Commissioner (District 1)
Woodrow L Hay, Commissioner (District 11)
Aimee Kelley, Commissioner (District IV)
Daniel Dugger, City Manager
David Tolces, Interim City Attorney
Maylee De Jesus, City Clerk
Mobility Workshop
*Mission*
To create a sustainable community by providing exceptional
municipal services, in a financially responsible manner.
. F
www.boynton-beach.org
1
1. Openings
A. Call to Order - Mayor Ty Penserga
Roll Call
Invocation by Commissioner Hay
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag led by Commissioner Aimee Kelley.
Agenda Approval:
1. Adoption
2. Other
Informational items by Members of the City Commission.
3. Presentation
A. Presentation by Jonathan Paul, NUE Urban Concepts of the City of Boynton Beach
Complete Streets Mobility Plan and proposed Mobility Fee. Discuss the Mobility Plan and next
steps.
4. Public Audience
Individual Speakers Will Be Limited To 3 Minute Presentations (at the discretion of
the Chair, this 3 minute allowance may need to be adjusted depending on the level
of business coming before the City Commission).
5. Adjournment
Notice
If a person decides to appeal to any decision made by the City Commission with respect to any matter considered at
this meeting, He/She will need a record of the proceedings and, for such purpose, He/She may need to ensure that a
verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal
is to be based. (F.S. 286.0105)
The City shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an
equal opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the City. Please
contact the City Clerk's office, (561)742-6060 or(TTY) 1-800-955-8771, at least 48 hours prior to the program or activity
in order for the City to reasonably accommodate your request.
Additional agenda items may be added subsequent to the publication of the agenda on the City's web site. Information
regarding items added to the agenda after it is published on the City's web site can be obtained from the office of the
City Clerk.
2
3.A
Presentation
08/29/2023
City of Boynton Beach
Agenda Item Request Form
Meeting Date: 08/29/2023
Presentation by Jonathan Paul, NUE Urban Concepts of the City of Boynton Beach
Complete Streets Mobility Plan and proposed Mobility Fee.
Requested Action: Discuss the Mobility Plan and next steps.
Explanation of Request: The City recognizes the public's growing need and desire for a
balanced transportation network that adequately accommodates all modes of transportation to
improve safety and comfort for people walking, biking, driving, and using transit. This is an
acknowledgement of the paradigm shift away from a conventional, automobile-focused,
"incomplete" approach to roadway and street design, to one that ensures all transportation
modes are represented and considered, resulting in "complete" streets that can be safely used
and enjoyed by users of all modes of transportation. The Complete Streets Mobility Plan
formalizes the City's approach to complete streets. Instead of a transportation network
focused on LOS, the plan establishes a transportation network based upon QOS, or Quality of
Service. QOS ultimately shifts priorities in street design decisions so that people biking,
walking, and riding transit share the same level of safety and comfort as automobile drivers.
Discussion will also include the Downtown Parking Master Plan.
How will this affect city programs or services? N/A
Fiscal Impact: N/A
Attachments:
Reso 21-150—Adopted Complete Street Mobility Plan & Mobility Fee Techinical Report.pdf
3
RESOLUTION R2-1. )
3
4 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH,
S FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE BOYNTON BEACH COMPLETE
6 STREETS MOBILITY PLAN AND MOBILITY FEE TECHNICAL
7 REPORT; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
9 WHEREAS, in 2011, the Legislature eliminated state mandated trarusportation
10 concurrency and made it optional for any local government, while in 2013, the Legislature
I I encouraged local governments to adopt mobility plans and fees as an alternative to
12, transportation concurrency, proportionate share and road impact fees; and
13 WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Statute changes, City staff coordinated with Nue
14 Urban Concepts to develop a Complete Streets Mobility Plan and Mobility Fee Technical
15 Report; and
16 WHEREAS,,the proposed Plan incorporates multirnodal projects that were previously
rr identified in the 2016 Boynton Beach Community Redevelopment Plan, Boynton Beach
19 Greenways, Blueways, and Trails Plan, Transportation Planning Agency's 2045 Long Range
19 Transportation Plan, and the Florida Department of Transportation's Work Program and also
20 recommends additional projects,to achieve a rnore connected transportation network for all
,2 1 rnodes of travel, and
22 WHEREAS, upon the recommendation of staff, the City Commission deems it to be
21 in the best interests of the citizens and residents of the City of Boynton Beach to adopt the
24 Boynton Beach Complete Streets Mobility Plan and Mobility Fee Technical Report,
25 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THECITY
7r OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, THAT:
RES0Ad1jv1 0ititniplecstn"ti Niobjtmy plwn-Rcw,doix
4
SggAjp_n The foregoing 'Whereas' clauses are true and correct and are hereby
ratified and confirmed by the City Commission,
,)q
Section 2. The City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida, hereby
30 adapts the Boynton Beach Complete Streets Mobility Plan and Mobility Fee Technical Report,
31 copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibits 'A" and "B",
Seq
_ A. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon passage.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of November, 2021,
-14 CrTY OF BOYN BEACH, FLORIDA
35 YES NO
36
17 Mayor- Steven B. Grant
38
39 Vice Mayor-Woodrow L. Hay
40
41 Commissioner-Jusfin Katz
42
4 3 Commissioner - Christina L Romelus
44
45 Cornrnissioner- Ty Penserga
46
47
48 VOTE
49
-io ATTEST:
51
5 2
5 3
-A
C6stail Gibson, MMC
55 City Clerk
56
5 7
ig (Corporate Seal)
60
S:,,(.,'Ar REISCYAdopt Carriptoc STTom NIntiflity f1fin Ott ,dtra
i
i
i
i
s
j
I ityy 11111' -
wP�,
d
1_
r�
1
iS4 �
I
BOYNTON
i
i
f�
sit{ti ' 4
b
t -
4
BOYNTON BEACH
COMPLETE STREETS MOBILITY PLAN
1
CHY Commission City Staff
Steven B. Great, Mayr Loh LaVerriere, City Manager
Woodrow .. Hay, Vice Mayor Adam Temple, Director of Development
Justin Katz, Commissioner Amanda B. Rad1gan, Principal Planner
Christina 1 , Commissioner Paola Mendoza, AssociateEngin r
Ty Penserga, Commissioner Craig Pinder, leaner ll
ADOPTION DATE,* NOVEMBER 2, 2021
3
BrAft .0, Aum ary
^=CUTIV101 '1� 1
The transportation network of the City of Boynton Beach is comprised of an interconnected system
of streets, trails, railroads, blueways, and a freeway. The existing network accommodates (to
varyl ing degrees) people walking, biking, driving, and using transit for a variety of reasons, such as
commuting or for leisure, Maintaining a transportation network that adequately accommodates
all users is crucial to fostering commerce and enhancing the quality of life in Boynton Beach.
Until recently, the typical approach to addressing traffic congestion in most cities across the nation
has been to plan and design the transportation network around the movement of automobiles,
This is evident in the ubiquitous presence of using Level of Service (LOS) to measure roadway
performance, LOS is focused only on vehicular throughput, and is based on performance
measures like vehicular speed, density, congestion, etc, with minimal consideration of other
transportation modes. This has the undesirable consequence of creating streets that are unsafe
and uncomfortable for people who want to walk, bike, or use a micromobility device, such as a
skateboard or scooter,
The City recognizes the public's growing need and desire for a balanced transportation network
that adequately accommodates all modes of transportation to improve safety and comfort for
people walking, biking, driving, and using transit,This is an acknowledgement of the paradigm shift
away from a conventional, auto of "Incomplete" approach to roadway and street
design, to one that ensures all transportation modes are represented and considered, resulting in
k1complete" streets that can be safely used and enjoyed by users of all modes of transportat-lon.
This Complete Streets Mobility Plan formalizes the City's approach to complete streets. Instead
of a transportation network focused on LOS, the plan establishes a transportation network based
upon QOS, or Quality of Service. QOS ultimately shifts priorities In street design decisions so that
people biking,walking.and riding transit share the same level of safety and comfort as automobile
drivers.
KEY f IN QINQS QE IME fXJSJJNr2 QQNPQ
QNJ_AN
The existing conditions report and related research yielded the following findings,
Demographics-
• The city's population is expected to grow by approximately 22% through 2045. This represents
an increase from the current population of 78,495 to a projected population size of 95,848,
• Approximately 88% or 27,978 workers commute from outside the city,
• Approximately 96.5% of owner-occupied households, as compared to 89.5% of
renter occupied households, have at least one vehicle available.
• Out of the 34,069 residents who are employed, only 3,909 (12.3%) work in Boynton Beach, The
remaining 30,160 residents work outside of the city limits,
Crashes:
• Over 10,900 crashes have been recorded on the city's streets between 2014 and 2019.
• Although pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists are only involved in 4.3% of all crashes, they
represent 58.6% of all traffic fatalities.
4
------------ -
0 Crashes are most likely to occur between the daytime hours of 7:00 A,M. to 7, P.M., with
approximately 78%, or 3 out of 4 of all crashes occuming during that firne.
0 Fatalities and incapacitating-injury crashes also peak during daytime hours at 6017o and 52%,
respectively.
QQ,MR,LETE_5T,R,EEJ3 MQJILIIY ELAN 91fe9mm—ENDA-119—m
Multimodal Mobility Hubs and Districts
The Boynton Beach Complete Streets Mobility Plan proposes primary and secondary multimodal
mobility hubs and districts, which include anticipated ma'or destinations, a mix of land uses, and
existing major destinations in the urban and suburban sections of the city. The plan was developed
around providing multimodal connections to these areas using key corridors within in the city and
the proposed hubs and districts.
Shift from Level of Service (LOS) to Quality of Service (00S) Standards
Establishing QOS standards based on posted speed limits instead of automobile volume more
accurately meets the intended purpose of a street or road, reflects the desired level of people
walking, bicycling, and riding transit, and ensures adequate access to adjacent land uses, The
QOS standards also move the City towards the goal of 'Vision Zero, which aims to achieve a
transportation network with no fatalities or serious injuries involving automobile traffic, Under Street
QOS, the posted speed limit is intended to be served as the design standard, with the express
intent of providing the City the opportunity to implement its Complete Streets, and to allow for
design and redesign of streets to create safer conditions for people,
Bike Facilities
The proposed bike facilities in Boynton Beach promote the vision to create a ho6stic bicycle
network that allows users to 6de a bike seamlessly between all multimodal mobility hubs and
districts throughout the city, The proposed network includes sharrows, buffered bike lanes, shared
use paths, and paved trails,
Pedestrian Facilities
The greatest need for sidewalks exists in the neighborhoods located east of Interstate 95. Less
than 50 percent of the streets in these neighborhoods have sidewalks, with even less, around the
pmary multimodal mobility hub, As such, the plan will assist the City with prioritizing new sidewalk
construction in these neighborhoods.
Transit
The Plan recommends the establishment of a local transit, route to provide service to and connect
all multimodal mobility hubs and districts. This includes connecting the existing Tri,-Rail train station
west of Interstate 95 with the proposed intermodal mobility station located downtown, This
proposed route is preliminary and is subject to change,
MQVINQ FQ8LNAR[2
The Plan incorporates multimodal projects'l hot were previously identified in the 2016Baynton each
Community Redevelopment Plan, Boynton Beach Greenwoys, Blueways, and Trails Plan, 2045
Long Range Transportation Plan, and the FDOT Work Program. In addition, the Plan recommends
additional projects to achieve as fully connected transportation network for all modes of travel,
These projects establish the basis for the City to establish a mobility fee which will replace Palm
Beach County's road impact fee, therefore enabling the City to collect funds to construct the
recommended roadway improvements outlined in this Plan.
5
11
1 ;
41,E
��,��luuuuul I
tt I{
R9' i
1 f
w I
1
� 11�
Introduction
,,Q,Icrt are r(-,ets? ��, � ....... ...................�,..,,�.,,.... .. � ,'
Complete Street's Policy.. .... . ....,.. . , ...�..,. ., v.,,l0
Existing Conditions
Demiographi Data. �...�... � .... �
Population & Jobs 13
Work Commute Flows 14
Commute Distance 1
Mode of Travel 15
Vehicle v ail ility 1
Travel Time 1
Households 1
Growth in Boynton Beach 1
Vision 2"ero Traffic and Crash Daft ,,nalvsi *._,.......w..,,,..u. ..22
When Do CrashesOccur?
Severity of Crashes 24
Who is Involved? 4
Where Do FatalitiesOccur? 2
B,,.A p ....., .......... .
29
Posted speed Limits & Number of Largs 3
Existing Pedestrian aciliti s 31
Existing Bike Facilities B
Existing Transit Facilities 33
Exsfing Policies, arrd ......... ...... .... 34
Future Lard Use Element 35
Transportation Element 36
Boynton Beach CRA Plan 36
Boynton Beach Greenways, Blu ways, and Trails Plan
Boynton Beach Climate Action Placa 37
Existing Planned Improvements 37
Roadway Capacity Ira r rovement Projects 37
Mobility Plan
1, r�id Use, Assessr ... ...Al
Boynton Beach Multimodal Mobility Hubs & Districts 4
Primary Multimodal Mobility Hub 4
Secondary ultimoci al Mobility Hub 44
Multimodal l Mobility Districts 4
LOS & rtrrS �����r:tr,ar�ts, o_.., a,,... . ..... . ..... .................. ....._.,..,....,...,e..... ..........,, see
C r--n pte Streets & Nlobilit ...... , 1
4ultimod l improvements 52
Proposed Pedestrian Facilities 56
Proposed Bike Facilities 57
Proposed Transit Facilities 58
Connectivity Map 59
Conceptual Designs 64
Implementation 77
Appendices t{a
7
i
t
�_ � � •. �_ -- � ` . � <:; y�rf:. � 1� , ,,�,��r1� � � ,its�,�,s
s- w
�t
y
)
.unit
04
t
cr
� t
§ may,
r
l t I
p:
ea
A
{
nF
i
t }t
hicle
ME Zone
r
fundamental principle of creating safe and
What are Compic-ele
comfortable streets. Currently, the number
of serious injuries and fatalities that occur
tr=W 41 on our streets is astonishing, According to
a 2015 study conducted by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 94
"Complete Streets"is a transportation design percent of crashes are due to human error.
philosophy and policy that places the same The Complete Streets design approach
priority on pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit recognizes the need to address the issue
users as rotor vehicle drivers. This design of traffic safety at a system level because
approach requires streets to be planned, most traffic crashes are preventable and
designed, constructed, and operated in a the severity of the remaining crashes can be
manner to accommodate safe, equitable, minimized.
convenient, and comfortable travel, as
well as provide access for users of all ages Complete Streets are context sensitive and
and abilities regardless of their mode of offer many design elements which can
transportation. Complete streets aim to be incorporated into a project* however,
improve the quality of life for users by projects may differ depending upon the
designing streets that are both safe public surrounding land-use context, For example,
spaces and enable high-performance, shade trees and wide sidewalks would be
sustainable transportation networks, prioritized in a downtown environment rather
than in an industrial environment due to the
Almost all trips begin and end with walking. differences in which people interact and use
As such, complete streets policies require those environments.
that all construction projects begin b
assessing howthe right-of-way can best serve
its users,this design approach advances the
9
(�ornplete Streets Policy
The Boynton Beach City Commission approved the Complete Streets Policy on June 16, 2020,
affirming the City's commitment to "connect the community through safe, accessible, and
multi-modal systems that improve the quality of life in Boynton Beach" as stated in the City's
Strategic Plan. The Policy calls for the City to gradually transform its transportation network
to one that supports all modes of transportation by equitably investing in transportation
Infrastructure which benefits all residents and visitors. The full language of the Policy can be
found in Appendix C.
The Boynton Beach Complete Streets policy outlines the approach that Will be pursued by
the City to achieve a Complete Streets network, which includes the creation of this Complete
Streets Mobility Plan. The main goals of the policy are,
Safety and Convenience for All Transportation Users
Create a transportation system that is designed and operated in ways that ensure the safety,
security, comfort, access, and convenience for oil users of all ages and abilities, including
pedestrians, bicyclists, public transit users and operators, emergency responders, transporters
of commercial goods, motor vehicles,and freight providers, therefore decreasing the potential
of vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian-related crashes.
Connected Facilities that Accommodate All Travel Modes
Create an inviting transportation system that includes an integrated,safe,reliable,comfortable,
and efficient network of fully connected multimodal facilities which accommodates access to
all modes of travel.
Increase Walking, Bicycling, and Public Transit
Create a transportation system that encourages walking, bicycling, and public transit by
providing a variety of safe and convenient walking and bicycling options.
Economic Development
Create a transportation system that promotes economic development that mill benefit fro:.....
and contribute to a more connected and livable community, and supports redevelopment of
and connectivity to activity centers.
Vision Zero Equity & Data Driven Approach
Create a transportation system that views road safety as a social equity issue and recognizes
that the concentration of traffic safety problems results from under-investment in certain
communities, and to the greatest extent possible, ensures equity by actively pursuing the
elimination of health, economic and access disparities. The City's goal is to eliminate traffic
fatalities and severe injuries among all road users, and to ensure safe, healthy, equitable
mobility for all.
Community Health & Sustainability
Create a transportation system that advances the Boynton each Climate Action Plan through
reducing automobile dependency by transforming the city into a community where people
walk, bike, take transit or carpool for most trips, and improves environmental and community
health i.e.( reduce fossil fuel consumption & greenhouse gas emissions; decrease air and noise
pollution: improve air quality: encourage social interaction and physical activity, preserve the
natural environment" etc.).
t
A t
t
i
3
- 1
G
„ 7� B9
t
r.
r
4
a
t
ri
$ �
4
S y-
4
116
77
IT
Ll
IN
k t
Al
I
r k t7it+ _
rtirr � m � jt
i r ttt� I,
s
1� '
( S
-
�t
`
i
nk � fir,
t
m UP
f
All t
may.
r
a
I m
a� fin. �
a
i
k
5 �
x
i
k �
u
i
Y
f
k -
� t
k
4
1k 1
°l ti
!y S sy x
i
AW
c ,
'14-4-M
)i
r s1\�{ r ,\�y\`•'�¢��s �i t i fir ' � � „r� _
I�11 F€
r",
y�>,ti ��� rI'1
MsSys} �
Population
t
Boynton Beach is the third largest cite w
In Palm Beach County, atter east Palm
Beach and Boca Raton, The county's fourth ilo puio7or {r{ rtt , r £ a (1j\
most populous city is Boynton Beach's
if', ?fs>>)\15i`\111, . ,$}r11�S„t y` \ »`tail t, y\,t1Pr i'ntit;,it'tlii 7'?,f j�u'pQ4y.t±lnra"lrS,,It gl,
neighbor to the atter, Delray Bauch, As Households
Table demonstrates, West Pala Beach s, {1tS ,kr" yrtty
'1 1�,st,}Cc t y ti zt)� +t,
i}t r i , ;'y
and Boca Raton are employment cuter., ���t'
Y° si„''t,' ,�y?,t}r,,
while Boynton Beach has the lowest jobs-to-
household
abs-towhhld ratio of the tour aforementioned 217 2,55 1,2
municipalities. FabilE Population and Jobs
Source: Ropuloi cry; OF BER 2n 0.f1c,..isehol ds US Cew—us ACS
20,19:Jobs:US Census OnTheMap 2,0�8
.,,,
r, y
s
2, �r
ii17 a v� i ; t'r' S y\t1
{"�y
131
JDensity
The job density map shows that the city's
largest employment centers ore located �
�F
along Congress Avenue (commercial
corridor), Gateway (Quantum Farb), and
Seacrest (Bethesda Hospital East
t
0
F ff
Fi Li,fi.Job Denz4 Mop
Work. Commute Flows
The most recent US census data for
origin-destination employment patterns (2018,
Inflow/Outflow shows that, out f m ._.,
� dal �---n. �,,� �
who work in the city, only 3,909 (1 . also live
in Boynton Beach. The remaining 7,978 workers
commute from outside of the city. -
Out of 34,069 city residents who are employed,
30,160 (88,5%) commute to work outside of the
city boundaries.
! n it yYy y Yy�
Employed �sn Buyrfloori Beach
}
2
Employed tri Boynton Beach
� _ pia
but Civing Outside
Employed and Using in
Boynton Beach
- y s iii j a y\li{}tyt f
iy z ,5�5(s`, iy�ti t,tyY s d
Living in Boynton Beach Is
but Employed Outside (i;vy 56
Emptoyed and �n
Boynton Bead
To 'TaUe 2. Work Commute Flows hgure 2. Work Commute Flow
ScAircbon-Dsr ct[on Emc4oymenl startics,Or i-, a�#,ate 110 18 Source: a girr-Dei#rnchon EnvAoyrnenI Statistics, nllhem� V
1
Commute Distance
Distance frorn home to work, y
Workers Live In Boynton Beach
Less than 10 miles
10- 24 milesf
25
- 50 miles
Greater than 50 mIl s
m. x Distance from home to work,
Employed In Boynton Beach
US Census 04gin-Destination employment Less than 10 miles
statistics show that over 2 of workers why'
fl' i t city travel t least Iles t thei24 r
.s
jabs. Table 4 belowshows how they get,
ere, 25 a 50 miles
Greater than 50 miles
Table 3. Commute Distance
e
ocurr fie;Us Cersus0eQh D+estinaflon Empla mcmt 510fisfics,
Mode o Travel OnTher4ap 2018
I
1
!
f,1, Ohl
y� 3t,v Drove Alone
U�t,�Vttr'y���(gS ntt;dli �s ,�s�ta.
NN t`t4'SVQ
Carpooled
't
t,J„
Public Transit
Bicycled
Approximately t.6% of the city's residents
ed
rive t work_ . The percentageof ±all
single-occupancy vehide commutes
has not significantly changed sincethen ;.
(comparable ACS data), while use of public ,s r,
transit may have increased slightly. Wormed at Home
Tobfe 4. Mode of travel
urcw US mpk)ym nt StafisfiC,
On7Yit)Mop 201
I
.k
t i l
A
i , I
I I L ta�, N4f�%YW/t+f
F"
Now
N .-
� h -�_PvlI� , .
4
s
a
OM I
' Fz
, t
!'l,a.,u�s.wat,r..;,te«-s 1.10a*6Xs.+apt,.
t ,
Vehicle Availabilily
�04t�l�fi liPin �q!'ir rs,4il AvailaWflty
i
No
vehidi+�l��t
-
\ vn�a N (,,,fS)�4',�i#�,
)C t w a')����1 c�{}�_� 5�tVt7 ��}C>!��s�ih))s��t�1�_ �#1� i���)�� ���}��•I( � ��5�,`ib����r,;
- 1 lvehd
available
It 4�+4�}??,y,+{t y6�{,+Ii'{lt,�l s41�4(It�i{r"){l1'ty r_4A s' l�lttl'is�,;l{sift,tiy�jy{llyit>•,»t��};tit)'{��1�}tSy�)I{i'`�1,� }}{i4i,\)�i'�,l�tts����?4`){p3�ii`'.,
,l ttt}itir iky fl:tT,..,i'Stt>4 t iit}\i Jtt?til,,itfts?r`th",t( iy1+#'`t)ts`\)iri\,S}# t yl` 4 IIIS4`1}�\Z�lt„t.r dt? ?t;,}
v a iia b +{i (,`�`S+}
1 tilt
Approximately _ owner-occupied, f y
households compared to 89.5% of 3 vehcles
renter ied households—have at available
least one vehicle available.An estimated
Nt1 t,',''FYI t' �4� I,si`1t} ���s�,{,(4-.�,Ti 14tnstll{.),)7�tv s�� 1 ��)��"���}1
. renters, vehicle available, v t- 9a 't ltt f{t,, l l r ,\r+, c}}flsittl,,,altl,)t {;1; ��� Ili'i t t\ t
4i l)\” ` ��4 ')}}}{f##' t Fi;t g
versus only . arrv �lcl #'��,+#F,tv# „t{,,},�}It t, �,'',ISt, t,�Ftt}�f{4+,�`'tvt #_,��, t; +„t)v),4+; � �,),)'t,��`'�f,�=,,,i#t�„))Rv�,)vI
tft1,iv�t��"J4 atttOtt)l4 #1t s;est{i�l�\�lF,}St»tfl 1t �)a31y t�)t#)t,�"+i� ')11Jlt��t,
Tattle 5, Numb of vehicles avolbJe per household
Szj u f c e`CSS C e ftp,..ACS 20 f 9'
16
'Travel Time
A I�. w o i k e
tro v re 1,1n9
Less than 10 minutes
30 IQ-19 minutes
1 q
MINUTES
20-29 minuites
30-44 rninutes
45 minu t es or more
Neody 39% of all city residents travel
more than 30 minutes to their place of Tobte 6.Mode of Trovel
employment, while for 37% of workers, the SourUS Cerim,ACIS 2'J19
commute is less than 20,minutes.
Households
According to the latest ACS data Ownet-Occulpied Renter-Occupled
(2019), the city's number at househ&ds
is 29,718. Some 34% are occupied by Housing units/
a single-person. Approximately 39,6% Households
of households rent their dwelling, The
average household size is currently 2.56. Singl&�FamRy
and is higher for renters (2.67) than owners 2 to 4 Units
per BuIlding
The majority of owner-occupied
households live in single-family homes 5 to 19 Units
or townhomes, while most renters live per Building
in multifamily housing. Garden-style 20 to 49 Units
apartments, typically in buildings with 5 per Bui]dlng
to 19 units, are the most popular choice 50* Units per
(29,87o) for renters living in multifamily Building
developments,
Notably, a significant percentage of Molle Home
renter-occupied units are in buildings
with more than 50 dwelling unit's (213%). boat, ,
This is mostly due to the prevalence of Van, etc.
large multifamily apartment projects as Y , Type of mous
constructed during the last decade, -3moce: Uomus.ACS 2,019'
which increased the percentage share
from 12.1% in 2010 to 21 .3% in 2019.
Approximately 58.4% of these households
are single-p,erson households, 17
Growth In Boynton Beach
,4 (I
72 NTI
A W
"�p�,jj{
Xi 13" 'YTI
figure 3.Population Gtowth In Boynton Beach
5,-)ufce�LJOF BER annual etlity),We,,
During the 2010-2020 period, Boynton Beach Pop%,flaflon Employmen4 HoW Rooms
grew, on average, at 1.41% per year. The
City is almost built out, so the majority of
new construction will proceed through
2020
redevelopment in areas where mixed uses
with higher residential densities are envisioned
by City and CRA plans, The implementation of
these plans will likely result in significant spurts
of population growth Wthin the next 25 years, Projections R,
, ,1 11��tlt,rif�',,-tft �ft{����,_ i tt r, ?���;�� `��Sr: f{'.,_ }
2045
The Palm Beach County population projections m
g
for the City are 87,639 for 2030 a �?F't°nd 95,848
for 2045. In addition, the South East Regional
Planning Model (SERPM) version 8.0 forecasts
the number of hotel rooms to reach 1,712 in Increase
2045,These projections underscore the need for
future multimodal transportation improvements
to meet increased travel demands. Tqbfe 8, Boynton Beach 2045 Projections
tau aro Pt,xionflon Piojiv
,ars(fior&Us Censw,OrffheNsv�ip 201 a
Ernp4oyrnent frxqect�on afw"'fring corw("rlt po,"lumpl SURN-A
8-0 Hotel Roonf'15
18
r
Vehicle Miles of Travel
(VMIT)
- -
�i" . AN -
rUMMN�WT&e TP-0=A1 MIN rW— A
The growth of vehicle miles of travel T is one of the factors evaluated to determinethe need
for future multimodal protects within the city. The latest version of the Southeast Regional Planning
Model (SERPM) was used to determinethe VMT growth within and around the city of Boynton
Beach between 2020 and 2045 Taal , Future traffic does not terminate at city limits thus the
evaluation of VMT data includes areas that are outside city limits to ensure the future model
volumes evaluated terminate at logical endpoints (intersecting reals
The growth In travel on Interstate 95 is excluded from mobility fee calculations.Travel on Interstate
95 s excluded due to the fact that the interstate system is largely funded through federal fuel
tax revenues and the potential to levy user fees (toils) for managed travel lanes. The projected
growth on Interstate 95 is relatively moderate given current conditions and future improvements
to the Florida Turnpike, Tri-Rall, Brightline and the possibility of Tri pail Coastal Service,
rt rtal & Collectar Interstate 9,5 Total
Roads
2015 (medal base years
2020 (Mobility t1tt Plan baseyear)
2045 (model and plan, future years
t increase ( to 2045)
F
Table, . Growth In Vehicle Wes of Travel M
Sourraeea Projected ro�wfhn ln WAT prepared by NUE Ukbon ConceptsLLC The ZI5 txma year Crn's 2045 Mule~deur Cyt,11,were eX-
tracteet usIng the cost affordable model netw(A from the 2015/20AS SoutheastRegianol Planning Ntodel ISERPM 504 .`rfve mooel
fies were obtained from the Paha Beach County Trans or'taflon warning agency(TPAJ webipoge, The 0 rt obi ty plan wase
year WAT was twerpatate based an an ane Tal growth rater al'.92 farvrterkal and apt&t agar roads and J for ln,t wot 5 based
an the lnarease[n'3r!X berween the 20115lease year model data and th X A s heron year rub el data.the VWT 0,,crease is based
an the Wference between 2020 and 20145.,
i
1
77� r
7
7
z 1 S
r
s
S�
G
k .11
I II
7 i
I ,
W,,,..A1vrv�.v, t.,,n .t nar+.. w
20
24
�a
n.,'.
Or
J
JA
v.
�k
s
�r -
� ,
u
1 r
i k
Sl,
r
c trs}rtl�� } Ilt P}v
l }
r � v,
,
14111�
' \\vSd'1t12��p,?
t )r r}1s 1 S
`:,
�k
i-stioln, Zero Traffic & Crash Data Analysis
The City is committed to reducing the number of serous injuries and fatalities occurring on city
streets. To advance this goal, the City conducted a preliminary baseline ne assassrnon using the
last 6 years of available crash data to understand the crash patterns occurring on city streets.
The following analyses investigate the context, severity, and demographics of the crashes in
order to determine the prevailing conditions, and to develop priority projects identified within the
Complete Streets Mobility Plan,
Over 10,900 crashes have been recorded on the city's streets between 2014 and 2019. In 2019
the most recent year for which data is a ailat loj there were over 2,700 crashes in the city, more
than double the number of crashes recorded in the previous year. Understanding traffic and
crash patterns on the transportation network is essential to identifying hots of areas that should
be investigated for potential improvements.
Hit
t Vehicle traveling at: � it tote� li at
tt !k�,
I
r
20 30r', 4n
r S
A a
!
— giftM Or"'Ht rr ,
r � tt
, S
,
out of 10 pedestrians survive 5 out of 10 pedestriansswVi t t o �; . at 0*11
When Do Crashes Occui"?
1�+s
+}S t1s �S
Pgure 4. Number of DaytimeCrashes Ys Nighttime Crashes
sou,c SIno q;"lyfiCS
Overall, crashes peak during the daytime hours (lam- with opproximately 78-%of the crashes
occurring rin the day, imilarl , fatalities and incapacitating injury crashes peak during the
day at 60% and 52%,, respectively. Figure 5 below shows a graphicrepresentation of the average
crashes per year by time of day. In addition, m t r vehicle crashes peaked between 3PM and
M, bicycle crashes peaked between 3PM and 1 , Barad pedestrian crashes peaked between
orad t PM.
7w
MCI
WD
40111
12am-3'a n 3uy 6orr<, tjo'r-i 9i«m lk"-4q1 1�7Rn rw 3or .6p�_, 6prn-9prnp
11 — 2,r,'A Ry ! 6 — a;;r t r 1 i8, 2+117 9
F�gve 5, Crash trends by time of day per year
)�g,Sit
e
m 1 (t g)«ts
}f'SS'�,{
t`iSi)�' 4 '; s}�1 � <Is� � r' ��1)Sy}���s4,' � tSt• )ay}iy, �+1�t,51,���}
��
Severity of Crashes
Severe crashes can result in fatalities or severe injuries. A fatality occurs when a crash results in
the death of a road user, and severe injury crashes cause incapacitating injuries, leaving a road
user disabled following the crash, The six-year analysis shows that crash-related fatalities peaked
In 2016 with a total of 15 fatalities, and the trend has continuously declined in the following years.
Figure 6 below shows the number of fatal and severe injury crashes that have occurred from 2014
to 2019 within the city, excluding intended vehicular homicides and intentional injury crashes,
private property crashes, and crashes on freeways.
tota FATALITIES
%J1
U,
MTRIANS PEI
2 BICYCLIST
M
All 0' (1)R v'
CLE
4
17VEHICULAR
figure 6. Number of total crashes by mo4e
Soorce,SignOW Andyfio
Who' s Involved?
All Crashes
As shown in Figure 7. motor vehicles ore
involved in the vast majority of crashes,
accounting for approximately 95% of all
crashes occurring,on city streets. Ped estrions, APIA& 180
bicyclists, and motorcycles account for less
than 27* of ithese crashes.
fatafffies
Although pedestrians, bicyclists, and
motorcyclists ore only involved in 4.3% of 10,40 �
crashes. they account for 58.6% of all traffic
fatalities. In comparison, crashes invo lying
of vehicles account for approximately
4 1.5% of all traffic fatalities. This shows that
pedestrians and motorcyclists are at a much
greater risk of being killed in a traffic crash17U
-than an automobile occupant.
Severe Injudes
Similar to crash fatalities, pedestrians,
bicyclists, and motorcyclists account for
approximately 51.2%, of all severe injury
crashes. Crashes involving motor vehicles 147
account for approximately 48.8% of severe
injuries. Drivers and occupants of motor figure 7, Number of crashes by mode (2014-2019)
vehicles ore much less likely to be seriously SvuTco:S,�,InoAAnalytics
injured as a result of a crash (approximately
O.5% of motor vehicle croshes result in a
severe injury). 24
--...............
Where do Crashes
Occur?
.IN
*.a
!�
a6 1. 1
w a
W
a
" a
�,
".0,4. a, Ault 1%
C %
im o
too
CC 41
f
-AtA-
%g IL
"40 . a W
A
a, ffi
A
-4,
*,
41 a
a a
+
Figure 8 shows where crashes hove
* 0
occurred within the city's boundories.
4P
Most streets hove experienced at least
at one crash over the study period. West of
U.
1-95,crashes are generally concentrated
along the m 'or traffic corridors in the,
aas
L
city, with the largest concentration,
located along Congress Avenue
�M& %
Legend between Boynton Beach Boulevard
and Gateway Boulevard, especial-
City Boundary ly at the major intersections (Boynton
Beach Boulevard, Old Boynton Read.
and Gateway Boulevard). East of 1-95,
I -W aw Woe hotspots are not as easily identifiable
0 a due to the crashes being more spread
out and occuiring more frequently on
the surrounding local streets. These local
48g, 46 streets mostly serve nelhborhoods
that are predominantly comprised of
single-family homes and duplexes. At a
glance, it appears that crashes occur
disproportionately in n eighborhoods
east of 1-95, including within the CRA
do boundary. which contains some of the
city's most vulnerable demographic.
figwe 8. Crash locations throughout city(2014-2019)
Source'.Signo'14 Anatyiic�
25
-
5�
1
i
'+ -
Q�oioway
40
1
Woolibright Rd .
I
,t s
ix B*ynion Rd
G �
Bodintposeach BW
w. w . . . 0r
r s( tlliry sr r } s}ll�r�jytys yt �{ �;tr y r y
�s,yt1 }y4 1�t t )'1,�ys � i r r�Sl ry syJ s t tr 1i t{a{ } yrs rs'jt�s� Issl rs 1
' ,(rtiirr 1lry.c � �1trySllr�r ilS `a}tr 1£ S Sr i s tS s i r
!, �� S t1irIS.C,�>>,_1 {7tsS' }';r'f il�ll s i� s Sfs s�11 ttllil};1}S sryr tS(\Isll{c{{�1)yr slilititrr t r�ifr, i
2�rSly,���r
91
�\',sft,A.ii 3���ii�l77��i513r't�1�tlt 8,t z !lt, F �y t r,v1>rl y �t iyytlt 5 i rl k yt�1 r r —
,g�I�„ t, fslt isS� �rsitilrlr}�,Itt lfti t r}j}t41:rrU Sp 1t,V�� y�fslsf;syi j11�1{�t ti t£ry 1r;i ii{ rr tft{�i
}1 t1y71 1��£f1 S£t r 1y£ S 1}1{}171 (��sriy�rS 11 lSr f ry t i s r ri sr y�7 its t ��
j4i1\`\;
�tii,'`l{£,,:; Gateway Blvd
y
I.
1
i
l
r a{�
� �\13r(,_,11y1\��\irs,Slsri.���{1�r1)Ea�l4it�,il�i1))1ris;l,r�.fSr ys}s ir�>s-i1'i llti4ll �}1s iS1�S �YSy 1�4!}t�}11(�) }�t11y y�y ltls ii:,;y Ss .'
}�� �7-{z ����tt'1?��1�f�jrn�tl,i4r�il;,li1 r� J U+ yt�tt{sx�1 r;is� l�y��ilr�'9ti11 r.{Stttd,tt�t1ASft ttt t ly �-.> rr �
{St�t�t��Ihs1r��� �s��ltl a�I�\�Uyt r}�{Sri�h}I�tyt�t{t(Ii�s�r>r���is �c sr 17 jr��bzt sy(t r i Si ��1SY-0S}((yj�s�r��l}7 �13!'}ti�i�y��}:St�1ti�i' 1{y ylkst
ill{��'ty�rgir f� st{,`'•,r$){�(�sysl,yr{#i2-'i i�yty114yiiisl��syy! s,I r rrt"lfi}s; A,�1{r sS 1;��"r y£}r i1� yiu4s�41�� si����fiS t3 ryltf jr r)li res�r Ss Ii irys) 0{�;
�'ij}����t�j��y�Js��ti���fS��'�`i)t�SS�y�rs£t�i�yrii���l�tSrii ilr it It�S1�J)r yl')ik �rirPtylrli}� S 1i��iJrrtt�lyii�r{i)�i�rgittji};issyiy}rrs,,yt,:%liy � v �
10
y:x tf rill)\i},1
t t)t111
�
i�`
by i Ij�1?jttll� �,
Beac fv 6+I'
LOgend
i,-..
� _Y 8k3 V
Sts,�rs,��y}i��s��{is�lti�}�1}�33�f ii2y S)rl.sl�}1y(1i �-: yi}115 y.,tt It ii yy\ �Fiir�1�S�; rtil.sir it)��� rls�stlyl i,,s�lfiys f}Si}.:r}s ysr rs.
�1l 1,ja E,}�1 j,�{ }�1>1-.�� i11����,y1 r�r�1,y i�1S16 t-.,ti{1n Srt 4l yl;},A�,1tt}1\t,tiS 4i,lt£��i114t\sy y,;,`\l) Sl sil�t4?-..)r'lr}3V`�.3} t lls3r 7syti�sr ti,,
�113�lt{tri},{Srtr�{t}�Sii4ttt,�4llr�yrl'titiir'���t3i1�1, +i,r � Ss�,�'li}11$)��v1sS{,tsiy)0�1�iJiAlls�yl;J{;lyrr{�sx,fl�r i}���tijp��!( iti fiS�il�tVy1�
41t��tttittltitilil�{{tia(Sj��y'r�ij�I4vr'tlli�l`�t�y 1� s 1 {; It t1�S� ���A'yAIh�1111'lyUl�,iiilA111ti�f�t�(itrl},lt11£1�y,;�t�Sy£t�yy �t11 tci�lSry it
i3i)i�tt��t\il�ailjttt�'r5i`l��i�lisii£yihi�sr�i{i);_151}IiprtyiSlis� ,rts 1'hrslyr���tJh�1i�}�1���\1�1 i��iy �sfts JS 1 ',��fj yl! s n I
S Sri s,�{tt }\y r s ��ss..r srt�y r r) �J) �JrySy{��'�£l�'}�1 y1�li�rh�i�lli�tirlr���`?sf�frri£ryy ,USS;r
s� yf;�iHlt P(rl}1717y�4 rr�itiJ)} 441���ttri„k lli}�4�1 ss� }ys s\\Ilr� sr�?i15 r�jiSyy('i�i i�yr�tilVtr str 11�tl lsj; yySVA4I,st�s�j rpl,rj�1}i rt r{( 1:�41(,�
�}ills')V�}�;�1k}tt11 f,rt111��ifayl\�\t>�it}�;l�ltri}�{S 2t1�'L,,;`~,S si jsll}irs Sys rir$��trs f{�t4�,1)r'zny.?t,s11t�1{}1�f1sS��i�l�rt}�£�It rs r�\��i,4�lr j �i{�`{s�111sl lsr�r~r�',
--
lttiyil\ut
��t i t�}1ST 1?' 2\� £trr r '13S}ti 1 s»r r'1f 1( �t��Irrs',�iy Ups !'is�lSs�i1� 1� 1i£ y',rlrrslt' £1\r,fityk}�y 1(ktit t;UUr� t�yrf5�t}.1' r �S
({ a13 S1t1 11S i7 rsr tl 11 Y�i'ts t t Jt y11 t� { 1 > tl} x U)�{I ill {14�`y�rt{t )1 r y s
try s1S } t � titt v sl�i(r 1 '�
-
�JIr,1 s�st+yfly' ljS�'�� sl t tit Syt d{r,f1�1'S„« i fr t4 t�£#sStt,,try 1 VtS r�'£14�f�t,.� si,,s, s�yyit;' ` +s vl fyfly ,-
-
Boyntona l
yy}r1 tr uiN�lt'il a S}t$} S yii{{ t4 £111i 1yt;u,� SAt tr �y t rys lylrt r1 1y`u1�j1i5 t ;.y1I
r>�'i 'ysitSl�41 � s}l}St}\, 41 ylrr liSi ) , ! rylyt,�S 1�4' )1�}S { rfy {�,1 Ir2yl�,tr111 i{rr1211,�,6r,ys dI l rr
ilr t1i1 1 1 1r �!1 it tl �} St � �j r1} y p s„s
t �
r;ltr111Sf rtr\1A4t 2t\l o 1i tt ty � 1�1 �it 11 f c t1r i t111i'}tt�� 1 !'S 1(1£iltS {s-`i t1� it r s y ir�i �yity i s
,`��y �M Viµ* G W 4 )� t gytl Str tC'f 15�1rf14r� r1 �It
)�1✓ tt i11�1�i - 1 �1i t���fyt�y ,1y1 t 'st y`��,
-_-
irs —
` t
�'r ,Sit}ytir t t111,y 1 y 'i y 1 ,
ily ri s -lit s} i .r
F'IM, 10, Bicycle crash locationr s throughout city (2014-2019
Fit' 1{jSylilj�I�yS y ;ii r ' t � Ss s SIno 14 A'f'i �p"t<;
i lyt f y t x
4 r s
Ityl iylrfr i slyt It t{i , ,F,f 217
les
Fatalit
ace
co
0
U
014 Boynton Rdi
u
Boynton 'Rd
0
Boynton B 'Blvd
u
_ u -
i
u
L�e7qend
lies
PO Ani
ED ft 6011"d
1
i
I
Similar tl r , fatalities mostly occur on
County and State-owned facilities, Fatalities
have mainlyoccurred n Congress
Avenue, tew Boulevard,, Boynton
Boulevard arrest Boulevard.ool gnt Bd rel errant offatalities e occurred
on Notal roads within i h rha
It is worth mentioningthat the r t
0 concentrationfatalities occur 1-95.
however for the purpose of this study, these
specificr not been included
tl�l r �t t �
F4gur I P. ot"at crash l c tt ns throughout city (2014-2019)14) Nr`�
u
I�
f
r
� 1
K
q
,
i
Irlo
, tl
Ito
•r
41
4
1
am
g
,
f
a
tit
A {l�
„
i -
R r
7,
i sir
,
} 's
t
)S,
—
*,
—
w
Posted Speed Limits &
Number of Travel Lanes
4"
i,i lre ,
i
! t
�
i
011
-T,
.`-1
2
1
WMW of Lane&
4
24
Ad
t
C3 e40
a -
i
� t
Figure ', P03t0 speed it's hgv ?3. Nubw of k a,vl#ones
Most,of the city' streets -lore,roadways and have a posted speed limit of 30 MPH or less,
Neighborhood ts ore typicallysty t 25 MPH (the lowest posted speed currently allowed
on cal r o , while the motor corridors in the city are postedn '.
Figure 12 and Figure 13 show a direct correlation between speed and the r of lanes,
There is;an opportunity to replace the current roadway design standardused With a more flexible
designt r that allows,for streets to be designedof lower speed limits-Quality of Service.,
44
t T
zr
'tnk
2({n i
SI S 14Uir r � -
-
sb{r r
F
U
rr1J�
l_ Y
{
t =
�t l
�rte
i+
r
E}EN'
i
yrs=—
_
i
{S r
Existing Pede,.,strian
E
Facilities
Sidewalks currently exist on both sides of the yu``
roadway along all f the ajar traffic corridors in „„�
the city, In addition, paved pathways exist alar ,1
some canals, as well as existing unpaved eco-
trails shown in Figure 14, There are opportunities
for additional eco-trails, unpaved pathways, and
other pedestrian enhancements along a few ked �n«...
corridors in order to complete the overall rater
pedestrian network,
, �
k rt li
r
.
— Jy,
F "7` i IT
Legend Legend
w
-M11" IMAdVA F .1141
" ,:" t� t�
Figure 4. SuRt pedeshion network
31
r
f �i
f
r i'{jsk s !} 'h sn ktt t ar
f t,
PI
k �r
V
i`
— { R
,
s, ���� s Ls i• s�X
f
i'
s, • ` ,r arc. � , s` � I �fi �� �.
s•
r
i e
.00- Existing Bi
Currently, there are existing bike facilities
along only a fejt corridors in the city. These
are Federal Highway, Gateway Boulevard,
Wool ri l t Road, Congress Avenue, and
Ocean Boulevard, as shown in Figure t . These
facilities are categorized into either designated
(bite f roilityr ith at least a dedicated dike[one)
t or undesignated no dedicated1 bicycle facility
but can be traveled on safely due to low traffic
volumes and slower speeds), Of these corgi ors,
Federal Highway+ay i the only roadway ay r ith an
uninterrupted bike facility throughout its entire
length. This stows that there aro significant
gaps in the city's bike network as there are no
bike facilities connecting_ the urban area of
the city (east of Iw to the suburban area of
the city (west of l- , Inaddition to this, most
activity centers in the city are not currently
connected with ike facilities. The gaps in
the network makes it difficult for a bicyclist to
safely and comfortably travel from one activity
center to another.
Legend
l'a,re IL 5, Btsiff bike network
-
�k
y;i t
4 ,rix
'i
� td
r
mfr�r Jr
i
1
i I� t r sf 1 4Git"
.Si ;
i45
do
i
Existing Transit
The city is currently served by five bus routesj
operated by Polm Tron, and one passenger roil
operatedservice TriiI
-Rail. Polm Tran currently
operates along Lawrence , * ,
Federal i, r t Boulevard, Gateway , .
Boulevard, y chi'Boulevard.Boynton
Beach is locking transit at a community level to
connect all of the major r the city
r
01
AS
ry
r
§ I
r t
t.� ,» is - '�;, A@ _ ►t u -� J �,a" �.
Y " 711 µ�
co
1 0
I
hp,—lr" V6l Existing transit network tocffitfes
Y
r
fit;''ittl �, s"pit�s jt .ty\�S.tiss
�1 (II
a
34
t
F � v
1 t
r
I�� U
_ r
s
a r
5
– �� !F
�, !— � � �,
��': +� #� � r � _� it � � – l
� a� � ��'gyp,,.,� - -; aw � t� s - _ � ani s �'.. I[i:
� —
«. � 9� '11E *' � � � � ail i � �, ! � � - #
aN, � — � lir ♦ #1 � � �_ - "' +� +�,' i riM 9i
� �
11 111 a! _ � n� +� +� ', '�' Ir
� � � aM � '� +� fM Ili li! !R � �'� � __ �, �, i ai
:„all .� � �� � +>1 4
• • � iM
ai � �
arr� � ', � � � � � � +� # � � �1 air li 11F
.� � +! . � �_ lir �r IM � ']i ' a1i
,� +� i1y al � � � l►. lir 3 IM 'd11
IN r� 9 "w li II' +ii lF �F, I
by incorporating adequate facilities such requiring pedestrian access to the main
as wider sidewalks, buffers from travel lanes, building entry directly from the sidewalk
shade trees,shorter crossing distances,lighting, which must front the major thoroughfare.
refuges in large intersections, bicycle lanes,
and bicycle parking. These regulations, allow the urban form to
develop in a manner that prioritizes the public
The Transportation Element also underlines the nght-of-way for the pedestrian and advances
importance of creating a bikeway classification multimodal transportation,
system, which includes bike lanes, bike paths
and bike routes within the city, as well as Recommendations
establishing pedestrian and bicycle facilities The CRA Plan's Future Land Use classifications
around the proposed intermodal mobility and connectivity recommendations should
station within the city's CRA. be incorporated into the Complete Streets
Mobility Plan. Inaddiflon, Palm Tran bus routes
Lastly, the Transportation Element requires are discussed in the introduction to the plan;
examining local high-crash locations, however, it does not specifically identify
identifying problems,and developing potential corridors where transit Mi I be the prioritized
solutions to minimize or eliminate crashes at mode of transportation, The information on the
these locations, existing bus routes should be mapped and used
in a direct connection to the recommended
complete streets improvements. Finally, the
identified complete streets corridors should be
ranked for priority, to be incorporated into the
Complete Streets Mobility Plan,
CRA Redevelopment Plan Boynton Beach
Land Use Elements Supporfing Complete Greenways, Bluleways,
Streeft
The CRA Plan divides the city into six districts and Trails
and recommends site-specific future land
use classifications for the following five The plan Illustrates and phoritizes actions
districts, Boynton each Boulevard, Cultural, to increase and enhance multi-modalism-
Downtown, Federal Highway, and Heart of
improve non-motorized transportation
Boynton. Within the recommendations, each safety: connect people with natural areas-
of the districts receives site-specific mixed-use
and increase recreation and conservation
land use classifications including mixed-use opportunities.
low, mixed-use medium, and mixed-use high;
amongst other land use classification changes. Sidewalks and bike lanes are proposed
Mixed-use developments require Complete among other facilities that promote mobility.
Streets infrastructure to reduce vehicular trips for all users regardless of their ability. This
within a dense urban fabric, Regulations within provides individuals with the option to use
the mixed-use land designations that promote active transportation for leisure, exercise, or
Complete Streets include: commuting to residential and commercial
• restricting parkin g to the, rear of buildings, sectors within the city,
• prohibiting automobile-oriented uses,, The Boynton Beach Greenways, Blueways,
• requiring active commercial frontages on and Trails, Plan not only supports the Complete
the pedestrian level; Streets Mobility Plan initiative, but also provides
restricting driveway curb cuts to secondary a comprehensive list of transportation systems
streets when possible; and that will be implemented as part of this plan.
36
.....................................
Recommendaflons planned improvements, In addition, the 2045
The Complete Streets and Mobility Plan will Palm Beach County Long Range Transportation
incorporate the bicycle and the blueways Plan, (LRTP), the current Florida Department
systems, including canoe and kayak launch of Transportation (FDOT) Transportation
facilities as described in the report.Additionally, Improvement Program (TIP), the County's
the following systems will be reevaluated as part Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the
of this study and updated to reflect completed Palm Beach County Bicycle Master Plan and
or new proposed components: eco trails, safe the Florida Greenways and Trails System Map
crossings, neighborhood greenways, shared were also evaluated, The identified projects
use paths, passenger rail stations, and facilities were grouped into two tables: the first table
connecting to passenger rail stations. lists roadway capacity improvement projects
while the other table lists bike and pedestrian
Boynton Beach Climate improvement projects,
Action �Plan (CAP) Roadway Capacity
Global warming and climate change continue -nprovement Projects
to be experienced around the world due to
human activity increasing greenhouse gas The roadway capacity improvement projects
(GHG) emissions.The CAP focuses on reducing table shows that all three 1-95 interchange
GHG emissions generated by both government locations in the city will receive improvements
operations and the community, and aligns that propose to add travel lanes in order to
with the goals and objectives outlined in the increase capacity through the interchange.
City's Comprehensive Plan, CRA Plan, and In addition, there are two roadway-widening
Greeniways. Blueways, and Trails Plan. projects identified in the LRTP located within
the suburban area of the city (west of 1-95),
One of the most significant sources of GHG Intersection improvements vary based on
emissions comes from the combustion of fossil location and include turn lanes and the
fuels for transportation, Reducing the reliance addition of enhanced crosswalks. In total,
on single occupant vehicular transportation there are twelve programmed projects listed
is a key strategy that can greatly reduce the in table M
volume of fossil fuels used and advances
several objectives outlined in the CAP for
transportation and land use. These strategies
include expanding pedestrian and bike
infrastructure, supporting the development of
"S 'T
transit options, and supporting human-scaled
and walkable developments.
Existing Planned
Improvements
1, Loll
One primary component of the Complete
Streets Mobility Plan is the identification of
future multimodal improvements within the
city. The City's Comprehensive Plan, CRA
Community Redevelopment Plan, and the
Boynton Beach Greenways. Blueways and
Trails Plan (BBGBTP) were evaluated to identify
37
Location Project Description SaUfce
1"I,ISI'�,�"'11
9
l-95 Woolloright Rd Interchange Improvements FDOT
"'uwi
1-95 at
NW 81h St to NlW 3rd St Interchange Improvements FD�OT
Boyntorl Beach Blvd
"I" I �qt 3t p q
OldBoyntonRd vj, I
TO Ull
00�"" , �,,%/,""I I[ IiT
Congress Ave Miner Rd Intersection Improvements FDOT
Gateway Iv ij
nd
miner Rd High Ridge Rd Intersection Improvements FDOT
SE 23rd Ave
Woolbright Rd Seacrest Blvd Intersection Improvements F
High Ridge Rd
m6ri,er Rd 154 Conal to Roadway Widening LRTP
High Ridge Rd
Table W. Roadway Capocity trnpfovement Projects
Bike and Pedestrian Projects
The following improvements identified in table I I group bike and pedestrian projects identified in
the City's plans (CRA and BBGBTP), TIP, and TPA Bike Priority Network. Several projects identified
in the City's plans overlap with projects identified in partner agency plans, indicating consistency
among the plans, Improvements are identified in both the urban and suburban areas of the city
across all plans,
Location Project Description Source
T, f
Ocean Ave
I NN lkl KI "1111111,N'!)01k111 IRIC11111111ik
1-95 to Federal Hwy Bike/Pedestrian improvements F
CRA
Boynton Beach Blvd BBGIP
Western City Limits to Bike Improvements TPA TIER I
Eastern City Limits CRA
FT
"11 114
Seacrest Blvd
4,
38
Location Project Description Source
„ .,.'" , ,„q , ,� ,»-.--. ,i ,i -R ,t,, ,tt .ti 4 �: , _ .,.:t- , .3 f t«t :_.- , Ut i )A-. tt •---
Seacrest Blvd
SE
5th Ave SE t t St to FEC Tracks Bike Improvements D T
SE
tst ST 1r
,r}A1tt��j`„r-,
Federal Hwy Bike/Pedestrian improvements
SE T
tnth T � r:1 "1"1111111,11"
t2� v tr,=r�. ;»7r}, t,Yss}Lh,F
eco Tr , n Zorn to Bike/Pedestriion Improvements CMartin Luther King RA
r I eye Park
Congress Ave City Umits to HypoluxoBike Improvements BBGBT
Gateway Blvd
i
2 1 \
�� \
I �4 »r'\ 1}is <sh tt 'ttr.} \}re , art':cs„i r ?,.r;,r„ ,j?,» t1't .4 {.,fi €, .`)}r:, � i ks ?t, ,
CongressAvet
trx� � ° Intersection Improvements
Gateway Blvd
-ut y 1 ANN,
�
»
Old Boynton Rd
Commerce Park Dr
High Ridge Rd to Bike Improvements BBG$TP
Boynton each Station
High Ridgef (
yy 1
Genet trovements GT`
Miner r High h RidgeBike TPA Tier
Lawrence Rd to
_i improvements T
4 CanalBTPA Tier
y,}_ r r }11, '
Woolbright Rd
"IN,
F r rr �'�, !?a S},1r•� V ��, tr �� i�vl hh3, , c r t, f r } J2 � � 4>�t�,4� �t
W 23rd Ave SW t Oth St to RoikoodBike improvements G
TPA Tier
„
'1111
k
,
sGolf Rd
Old Dixie imtwl Gulfstreom Rd,to Bike Improvements GBT
Sunset Rd
, t' t ,x t,tt ,
"st.. 1 .J 1J l tlt,11.t) \? kiJ ;f'S + -.:hl 7 tf ri i @ '"?' ,_t ,>'u} t4 rt _. t _b.-" s-,
1;3 t1 ,,r+ ft1, ) ,:}1 { t `ti k ,% =� }f rt/4 3 ,tS(o
t ktt , #\,{ 1, � 3 ff t . y , #S tau t tlf � jjj
�s 2.. �# t , � ht - �rk \ t ,
> tr. f ?j'
Sr1 'S 1srf t::
IRE 1,r r Y �>.
Railroad to Federal Hwy ' Bike Improvements GTP
Gulf'stream Blvd TPA Tier
Soacrest Blvd to Bike
rovements B8GBTP
Old Dixie TPA Tier
,s„ ,7 , ,,,
s r ,.,
t - #1 S
i4S1(,y.. %4,n14.1k1tt311�
{}tvC�z ��S
?}.'' ,��
t �k
:-: f,£sa ��j
W 8th t #t)1## �11�='r,.t' �'tl, t 3kj k
re yt ,`lrylhz;\y
„� 'Tr�b1. I r, Bike ori.... P+ d St on Improvement,,NoJects
+-e,
\�� al•i — is �'
I
wtr
1t
� a
{ �f
vF V
`> s
I!
s
�x
f
i
r
I ra:
y
ttt
i
s
uk
4< F
I
k4
t" 1;
S ti�1i}I
1�4 '
!t
a (
Y
<Vsi } L �gisi�isils\1C,
�u
--- — �' ,�y�;�� ��,��ft � ; s ,s•s 3l s1�'�Sti �`I`\�(i s 3fS,�St��j{Zi'zs}s�l
r
i
,E
-
s
t
j f�}
t
s t
i
s t,
t
i t c
n ,
s-'
IP y 4i
u� l
E g f6
RR k
WP
Boynton Beach Multimodal
Mobility Hubs & Districts
A
I�
,
r
I
I'
Complete Streets networks often support the Multimodal Mobility Hubs (MMH) are places
development of multimodal al communities. of connectivity where there are existing
These communities are typically, to ne as or planned concentrations of residential,
areas with compact development within employment center, retail. and entertainment
walking istanceoftransitser iceor est nations developments. These places can connect
that contain o remix of uses such as housing, together seamlessly through different
offices, shops, restaurants, and entertainment.. transportation options, such as walking, biking,
The Complete Streets transportation network and transit, Multimodal al stability Districts
can be implemented through a Mobility ilit (MMD) are key nodes of multimodal-oriented
Plan„ which integrates multimodal-oriented developments that support multimo of
lore uses with people-focused mob,ility, transportation options within their boundaries,
encouraging people to choose ars active but rewire connection to additional services
transportation choice. (e.g. employment and retail centers) provided
ithin a MMM
Plan has leen developed around the
The Boynton Beach Complete Streets Mobility
t
;proposed primary and secondary multimodal
mobility hubs, which include anticipated major
destinations, a remix of landuses, and existing ids
major destinations in the urban and suburban
sections of the city® The plan aims to provide
multimodal connections to these areas using
the key corridors in the city and within the
defined hues and districts. 42
Primary Multimodal Mobility Hub
The Primary Multirnodal mobi4ty Hub (MMH) as shown in Figure 17, boosts a current mixture of
land uses, including hotels, restaurants, retail shops, marine attractions, employment centers,
governmental buildings (City Hall, a fire station, library, and cultural center), and residential
developments that allow for mixed-use developments along Boynton Beach Boulevard, Federal
Highway, Sear rest Boulevard, Martin Luther King jr, Boulevard, and Ocean Avenue. Also located
within the Primary MMH is the Downtown Transit Oriented Development District (DTOD), currently
served by three Palm Tran bus routes. This hub also contains the future site of the Tri-fail Coastal
it Station,
Figure 17.Secondary Mottimodal Mobility Hub Roundary and Key Project Locations
0 Legend
N
'.4
A"1, VIIV,
3 %
Exis,ing P 'ects I
rol
1. Sara Sims Park
tO
All 1�
Renovation
2Ocean Breeze West
.
3. Ocean Breeze Eos,t
R!,
sJ
tA, L
4,Town Square (Cil y Hall) 11Isnkt Y
5, Casa Cos,ta
6. Morima Wage
7, 500 Ocean
'10
an
Approved/ "N
g
�Q'
UR
Under Construction
8. Town r
Squae mixed
g�llll
...............
Use Phases
All,
9. Ocean One
10, Heorl of Boynton
Village
IT"
q
1, Mixed Use on Federal
12. Legacy at Boynton
Beach
�jtYst
",
Pfanned Projects
13, Cottage District
14, Future Tri-Rail Coastal
0, -mill
I
Link Station
S
ti
Conceptua) Stage
Proje c ts
15. Mixed Use 13�bck
Ply } N"4
.......
Potential
N�
Redevelopment
%
rVP
fill
loo, 4�I
N',
4, 4
Secondary Muffilmodal Mobil"Ity Hub
The Secondary Multimodal mobility Hub (mmli)aaas shown in Figure 18—is comprised of restaurants,
retail shops, public parks, places of worship, employment centers, the Catalina Center (which has
the potential for future redevelopment located of Congress Avenue and Gateway Boulevard),
and a future mixed-use development site at West Boynton Beach Boulevard and Knuth Road, The
Boynton Beach Mail is also included in this MMH and a future master plan is, under discussion with
City staff to transform the site to include residential units, hotels, an enhanced retail expedence,
and programmable outdoor public spaces aimed at activating the local streets within the site.
As the site develops, the need for Complete Streets projects that provide enhanced walkable or
dile dl connections to the mixed-use developments and shopping centers along both the east
and west side of Congress Avenue will become vital.
01
t1Tt3}t'j Legend
All,
Exist' g Projects
1. Restaurants & Shops
NR
......... r
2. Boynton Village &
TVVVCenter
A
3. Sealofts Boynton AJENPA 11;tt
Beach
4. Pocifica A111 0,',
5. The District
I N,x
6. Renaissance
Commons, 6
7. Hotel & Restaurant OR,,
8. Catalina Center
9. S,hoppes of Boynton �Sm
10. Hotels
3,
A
Cnceptua� Stage
o � ,�, I\"
Profe c ts
I I Boynton Beach Moll
12, Knuth Road Parcet
iIIL
V
141,
;k
�' jj?lid
t
111,,4 4
N
k. 'y)
%
7
PI)f",
pl,
Lvo:"
Ilk
�iojecf 'acotfons
K,,goure 1,8, Secondary Muithrodai Mobifty Hub a n,dary and ey
44
*ty Dktr*cts
Muffilmodal Mobill I I
Figure t9 shows that the Multimodal
Mobility Hubs and Mobility Districts are
all within close proximity to one another.
The Primary MMH and Secondary MMH
are 2.5 miles, apart and their respective
MMD nodes are less than 2 miles from
their centers, This depicts the need for
the Hubs and Districts to be connected
through Complete Streets projects
that accommodate all modes of
transportation.
To the northeast of the Secondary MMH
is the Tri-Rail MMD as shown in figure 18
that includes the Brewery Disl6ct, Tri-Roil
station, and an undeveloped parcel
adjacent to the Tri--Rail Station. Tri
foil provides service to employment
centers and schools within the city as
its passengers are mostly workers and
students who commute into the city
via rail on a daily basis during the week.
The Tri-Rail MMD is expected to attract 2
new developments in the future,
To the south of the Primary MMH,, as
shown in Figure 19, are the Wool bright
MMD and the Medical Overlay District
The Medical Overlay District shown on
the aerial was delineated by City staff
to include Bethesda Hospital East which
is ons of tl e City's ma'or ployers,
r) I J em
several small private medical practices, Legend
1. Tri-Rail MMD
and parcels where medical uses can 2. Woolbriglit MMID
be developed in the future, including 3. Medical Overlay District
the possible expansion of Bethesda Figuru, 19, M ufffmodat MobiW Hubs orad Districts
Hospital East- The Woolbrigbut MMD is
a multimodal oriented development
node that consists of residential, retail,
restaurants, and parcels that allow for
future mixed-use develoments.
14W ,
RA, IA
45
1.
+
( it
1
I
I t
s I
F'I
�i eta I
k3 II
1
i
I
S 1
t
LOS & QOS Standards
The Comprehensive Plan currently has proportionate share, and County road impact
adopted roadway level of service standards fees for development within the Mobility Fee
(LOS) of "D" for arterials and collectors within Assessment Area,
the City, except for Interstate 95 which has
a LOS standard of "E". Roadway LOS of "Y Since the City no longer intends to implement
standards are typically adopted by ,most transportation concurrency, proportionate
communities in recognition that this standard share, and road impact fees within the Mobility,
allows for some level of traffic congestion Fee Assessment area, the Complete Streets
during peak hours; however, traffic still flows at MobilityPlanestablishes Street Qualityof Service
a fairly uniform rate. The City has also adopted ( standards to replace segment specific
a Transportation Concurrency Exception roadway LOS standards instead of adopting
Area (TCEA) in and around its Downtown in areawide roadway LOS standards, The Street
recognition that a LOS D is not achievable QOS is based upon the posted speed limit.
thou significant disruption to the urban The lower the posted speed limit, the greater
fabric of the city and would negatively impact the emphasis on convenient accessibility to
the desire of the City to encourage bicycling, adjacent land uses and the safe movement of
waltzing, accessing transit, and using new people, whether they are walking, bicycling,
personal and shared mobility technology. accessing transit, or driving. Higher posted
speed limits recognize that the function of the
Florida Statute 163.3180(5)(f)(2) suggests road is to emphasize the movement of vehicles,
exploring areawide roadway LOS standards with reduced accessibility to adjacent land
as an alternative to segment specific roadway uses, and should be limited to corridors serving
LOS standards and establishing multimodal regional traffic.
quality of service standards. The establishment
of areawide roadway LOS standards was For local streets and shared streets which
evacuated as a replacement of segment emphasize walling and bicycling and provide
specific roadway LOQ standards. The intent of direct access to homes and businesses, quality
the City's Complete Streets and Mobility Plan is of service ( ) standards will be set at either
to move away from a focus on the movement QOS of "A", which would be equivalent to a
of vehicles, and reaves towards emphasizing posted speed limit of 15 MPH or less, ora QOS
and planning for the movement of people of "B", which would be equivalent to o posted
through a multimodal transportation system. seed limit of 20 MPH. Collectors located in
areas where the City prioritizes people walking
The City has no plans to add road capacity east and bicycling, the QOS standard would
of 1-95 and the recently adopted 2045 Long principally be "B", which would be equivalent
Range Transportation Plan does not identify any to a posted speed limit of 20 MPH, with some
roadway capacity protects east of 1495. There collectors and select arterials with a QOS of
are two future roadway capacity protects "C", which would be equivalent to a posted
along High Ridge Road and miner Road west of speed limit of 25 MPH. Major collectors and
1-95 that are included in this Complete Streets minor and principal arterial roads, which are
Mobility Plan, Other than those two protects. focused on ,Having higher volumes of traffic
the Plan consists of multimodal projects to and consist of roads maintained and owned
encourage people to bicycle, wally and use by the Florida Department of Transportation
transit. Further, the Plan serves as the basis (FDOT), would generally have a QOS standard
for the development of a Mobility Fee which of "D" or "E" outside of more urbanized areas
would replace transportation concurrency, of the City.
Establishing QOS standards based on posted speed limits more accurately reflects the intended
purpose of a street or road and the desired level of people walking, bicycling, and riding transit,
along with access to adjacent land uses. The QOS standards also move the City towards the goal
of Vision Zero. Under Street QOS, the posted speed limit is intended to be served as the design
standard with the express intent of providing the City the opportunity to implement its Complete
Streets and to allow for design and redesign of streets to create safer conditions for people to
walk and bicycle and allow for smaller lone Widths, shared streets, and innovative designs to
lower motor vehicle speeds. The QOS standards also allow for greater levels of neighborhood
traffic calming to improve safety and potentially reduce cut through traffic, The QOS standards
are intended to be implemented over time as streets are designed and redesigned and as
traffic calming techniques are employed. QOS standards of "A" and "B" are not intended to be
used unless there are physical geometric changes to streets to encourage slower speeds. Just
because a lower speed limit is posted, it does not mean cars will slow down, unless there are
actual changes to the street right-of-way that will result in people driving slower and more people
feeling comfortable to bicycle and walk. The new Street OOS standards are as follows:
STREET
J k)A L ITV
t-'141 IV IC CITY OF
VIISION ZERD t'�'r A 4 0 A'r L-" DOYNTON1 DEACHIS
STRXET QUALITY OF SERVICE
IQOS) STANDARDS APPLICADLE LTION$
%Www" 11P IDIRWALkS PAT143 / `TRAILS
LOW SPLI&O ZTNLLTVR MAIN
QUALITYOr SERVICE ) A" STREET / L0C AL STR iE#Ers
TREETS
QUALITY Q,#W O1FRVIQK (Q406) B RILUICLrMAL CITY 5THLL,Tb I
MINOR / SKLEcr COLLIECTORS
SPEED
QUALITY OF SERVICE (QOS) C COLLECTORS
25,
QUALITY OFISCIRVICAK (Q106) 0
MAJOR SIR" 1ARTERIALS
QUALITY or sanvice (Qos) e— PRINCIPAL
Ni 111 1111RA11 MWIPIR
–01T t1t 0*9#10 Aja I ft"A A 5L,4 40%0 ktf OVS A A'K AtAQ 0014:A
0061 UP sol#0 t'ung T.6 W u N 4'WHIR,*400 f3*1 AP't A,W*0 04'" K ;1-1120!77kdlV nctIncer",,:",CA"ltl,9-,,Tier ie,
Figure 20, Quality of SerWae Standcods
48
........................ .........................................
The following are the QOS standards for sidewalks, paths and trails that accommodate ring aril
non-motorized travel demand for people walking, jogging, running, skating, or riding a bicycle.
A five (5) foot sidewalk adjacent to travel lanes would result in a QOS "E" and a twelve (12) foot
wide troll separated from travel lanes by a landscaped buffer would be a QOS "A"'. The higher
the , the higher the multimodal capacity and likelihood that people would utilize the facility.
Complete Street design standards will further define the types of physical separation.
Multimodal Quality of Service Standards for Walking and Biking
Type of Separation from Travel Lanes,
Facility Type Limited Separation Street Trees, On-Street Parking Landscape Buffer
'R 'It
Trail 12' or wider
Path 10'
Path 8'
Sidewalk 7' or less ---om:=
Source: QOS Standards established by NUE Urt:>on Concepts, LLC
Notes:The presence of two of more physical separation features, such as on-street parking and street
trees would result in an increase in one additional letter grade For example, a ten (1 0) foot wide path
with street trees and on-street parking would achMve a quality of service of "A", alive r,5) foot wide
sidewalk with street trees and a londscope buffer woLfid achic,*,e a quality of set-vice of "C"
The following are the QOS standards for bicycle boulevards, bike lanes,, and paved Shoulders
that accommodate travel demand for people skating, biking, scooting, skateboarding, or riding
a micromobility device, A four (4) foot bike tone adjacent to travel lanes would result in a QOS
Xond a five (5) foot ll:offed bike lone- would result in a ,Q,OS of "B". Complete Streets design
standards will further define the types of physical separation, pavement markings and signage,
Multimodal Quality of Service Standards for Bicycling and Micrornoblifty
Type of Separation from Travel Lanes Green Lane
Facility Type Limited or Double t,Aaximum Posted
Separation Protected Buffered Lines Speed Limit
Bike lane 6' or more
Bike lane 51
MW
Bike lone 4'
Novo=
Paved Shoulder
Bicycle Blvd
15 to
Source: QOS Standards established by NUE Urban Concepts, LLC
Notes'. The presence of a physical separafion features, along with pavement markings and posted
speed lirmits would result in an: increase in one additioncii letter grade. Protected bike lanes feature a
physicall carrier such as as medion. Buffered bike lanes feature a buffer at least two (2) feet in width)Aithi
either chevrons, RPMs,or flex post. Double lines shall be spaced a minimum of four l Inches apart and
feature RPMs or flex most to, quafity,
49
The following QOS standards for transit are based upon the frequency of service dudag peak.
periods and the type of transit service provided. The QOS standards are only for corridors that
feature transit service,The City may elect to establish target transit QOS standards for public/private
partnership proposals and during the annual capital improvements planning process,
Mullimodal Quality of Service Standards for Transit
Frequency of Service Trolley Bus Microtransit Roil
10 minutes or lessA A
IS minutes
20 minutes
30 minutes
45 minutes
60 minutes
Source: QOS Standards established by NUE Urban Concepts, LLC
Notes:A span of service exceeding 14 hours would result in on increase in one additional letter grade,
III
tr-
A'IF,
v m
al
� �Yf
Or
i
i
v-
i
u t
x
� t
i
S
aa`
t
Il�s, `.i.
i r
5 1 S lS(
K U'
F
All transportation adation rads raced safe and disth ts.Emphasis was also placed ed an providing
equitable access to the city's transportation multimodal connections between tl cMH's
network. In order to ensure that this is and "s to ensure that all modes would be
accomplished, acro is a need to adapt able to move freely around the city.
Complete Streets criteria consistent with this
plan. Complete Streets policies require that Multimodal
people of all ages and abilities, including
pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders and motor Improvements
vehicle drivers, are accommodated in the
design of the corridor cross-sections. This
consideration should occur at the a ronin Multimodal communities are typically defined
of the design process ass to ensure that ail road as areas containing compact t d l ments
users are accommodated d to the maximum within close proximity to transit stations and
extent feasible, mobility Duds,or destinations that contain a mi
of uses such as housing, employment centers,
City staff delineated the Multimodal Mobility stoops.restaurants,and entertainment.In simple
Hubs MMH and Multimodal odal Mobility Districts terms, planning for multimodal communities
as described on page 42, to identify is about creating walkoble, dieadle, and
areas in the city that are likely to generate sustainable communities for people le of all
significant non-automobile trips either now ages, income levels,ls, and abilities.. Currently,
or in the future. These areas encompass the there is a great meed to provide multimodal
city's activity centers and include mixed-use accommodations for people le °alliin and
developments, hotels, restaurants, retain shops, hiking in the city. In addition, there is a raced
marine attractions, employment ent centers, to implement a local "people le aver" transit
passenger er rail stations (existing and proposed),., syste: to connect all multimodal goads and
and atter arses that encourage e multir adality, districts, including the proposed Tri-Rail Coastal
Defining the boundaries of the MH's and Link Station„
MMD°s helped staff to identify gaps in the
transportation network within the lauds and
.................... --- ----- ...............
City staff reviewed the Palm Beach Transportation Planning Agency's 2045 Long Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP) to identify all proposed roadway improvements between 2020 and
2045. This analysis revealed that, with the exception of Miner Road, the LRTP does not propose
any additional roadway Wdening projects within the city's boundaries. This indicates that the
period of auto-focused roadway widening has come to an end and the focus for future roadway
design is now geared towards muRlmodal roadway improvements,
The,proposed multimodal improvements within this Complete Streets and Mobility Plan, along with
the phasing of those improvements, were developed to provide the *infrastructure necessary to
encourage people to walk, bike, and ride transit. Additionally, the plan also identifies several road
and intersection improvements to enhance safety for both drivers and pedestrians as detailed in
Appendix A,
The multimodal improvements identified in this plan were established based on the following
fundamental elements, These elements are necessary to transition the city from housing a
transportation system focused on moving cars to one focused on providing a safe, comfortable,
and convenient multimodal transportation system through personal mobility and mobility choice-
Mobility, The ability to freely move people from one place to another by multiple modes of travel in an
efficient manner. Deterrents, to people making active transportation choices such as walking or biking
are often associated with gaps in the transportation network such as an incomplete separated bike
lane along a bike route.
Acccssibility,' A measure of the ease of reaching, entering, or interacting with destinatlions. Accessibility
can also be associated with, a place of origin. A place with "high"' accessibility is one from which
many origins and destinations can be reached with ease via different transportation modes (walk, bike,
transit, vehicle, etc.).
Conti ec fivity,,Refers to the number of routes people have available to them to move from one place to
another and the directness (convenience) of those route options from origin to destination.For example,
a gridded network of streets effectively distributes traffic and reduces congestion on arterial or collector
roads, whereas cul-de-sacs funnel traffic on artehol or collector roadways contributing to congestion.
Visibility: The quality of eye confact experienced between drivers and people walking, biking, and
using a mode of travel other than driving a car. One method to increase eye contact is to increase the
number of people walking and biking (Le. safety in numbers equals more awareness that people walk
and bike in an area), Design methods to increase the visibility of people walking and biking can include
green bike lanes. pointed intersections, and flashing signals,
Continuity, Multimodal facilities that have no gaps or sudden breaks in the network between the
beginning and end point of a route.Veh,iculortrav e-I lanes do not suddenly terminate without advanced
warnings or change in number of lanes without properly marked transitions: neither should sidewalks,
paths, traits., or bike lanes.
Safety', Physical design elements that can be incorporated into projects to enhonce and provide safety
for all road users. For example, a raised curb between a bike lane and a vehicular travel lane provides
physical separation to protect bicyclists from passenger vehicles. Roadway designs can also faciritate
behavioral changes that also enhances safety ,for everyone.
Social Value,. The people-to-peopfe connections that one experiences in a shared space environment,
whether biking, walking, or taking transit. The social value of these interactions increases both,individual
and societal happiness through active engagement with the city.which can lead to an increase in the
overall quality of fifeand independence for all, especially children and the elderly,
53
ln addition, proposed projects were developed using best practices and guidance from a variety
of organizations including Palm Beach Trans portafion Planning Agency Complete Streets Design
Guidelines; FHWA Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP) Program; FHWA Guide for Improving
Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations; Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards
for Accessible Design; FDOT Design Manual; F Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design,-
Construction and Maintenance (Florida Green Book);FDOT Plans Preparation Manual (PPM);and United
States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD),
Kul
04
W, 04&',
V
*N'
01
'V
TV"
MENS
z;
4 mg
7
"AzAk
dk*
Q�M UM N""O
M,
A
IN A
Proposed Pedestrian
S
i -
t 1
q�4
„
s
�, ..u,.. Sidewalk connectivity was analyzed for each
3., neighborhood in the city and categorized
based on theprxirt percentage f
,t s� 1,,;., existingsidewalksas shown in Figure 1.
T
the west of 1- , most neighborhoods currently
have a complete or nearly complete. sidewalk
network or (represented by the lighter shade
ofgreen), and e few of the neighborhoods
have less than 50 percent of existing sidewalks
(represented by the darter shade of green).
The greatest need for sidewalks exists east of
1-95 \Mth the r a erlty of the neighborhoods
�Ik currently with 50 percent or less of existing
� YI sidewalks, especially around the primary
multimodal mobility hula. This represents e
mater gap within the city's pedestrian network.
'N" Completingthe pedestrian network at the
, f
1��
neighborhood scale W be very important in
a}{s tj111 l i t sf'{ 4s" order to have complete and connected
pedestrian network,
", 1" Figure 21 also illustrates the proposed
,) multimodal improvements for tails, pathways,
L nd and sidewalks s ire the Complete Streets Mobility
Boynton Neighborho"s
Plea to encourage and support people
Hguye 2 1 Proposed Pede5tfibn walking and bicycling. The detail for each
racigfi s and Percentage of . '. it prew�err�entr len with the phasing of the
Net s r,, improvement,er ent, are provided in Appendix A.
larger version of figure 21 is provided in
Appendix S.
' - , ,
4 �
}
t
Y
s
_ s
11
{ + 1
400
7 V40 ((
\ f
Proposed Bicycle
�L
As mentioned previously,the city's bike network
currently has significant gaps.Those gaps have
been tilled with proposed bike tllity projects
represented by green lines in, Figure 22. This
will erasure that the bike network Is completed .tl
and all multimodal mobility flit hubs s and districts
will be accessible to residents eats n visitors who
choose to,movearound on bike,The proposed ,
multimodal i pr v ments for bicycles in the
Complete Streets Mobility lar will encourage
and support people walking and ill ,. ..
The detail for each improvement, along with
the phasing of the improvement, are provided
in Appendix , A larger version of Figure 22 is
also provided in Appendix a
!
F;Vure 2,2. Proposed Bike
i
t l�
y' gpi
fi• } - '„i
pg 4
Facilities
�t The proposed local transit route shown in Figure
3 will service the existingTri-Rail train station,
multimodal r i dillt r hubs and districts, and
.� the future intermodal mobility station that will
include passenger rail service in the future. This
proposedroute t is preliminary and is subject t
change.
Vom”, Ao The detail for each improvement, along with
the phasing of the improvements,are provided
in Appendix A. A larger version of Figure 23 is
provided in Appendix B.
W a'g
ro t""
it�� �rll(;t2,t i 44lttt7 {)y{44
-
1
VI�4 S11i 1Q1 �.R4 ct k,t ilio 1441�� ��51�1� � �� ��
Logo n
fiqure 23, Proposed Transit W",
atl'"r ICommvwr Tram Stations
1
,,r!t ri rJ ll)�Ef;>l}#1i'J f41r rss},i }g)),'�g
Proposed Blueways
Facilities
�r
r
,n1
I
ri
rS i
t'
4 �
1
A S
r s'.
The existing and proposed recreational
waterways facilities, including canoe & kayak
launch paths and crossings areas as shown in
Figure 24 are adopted from the City's Boyntonr
Beach Greenways, Blueways, and 'rails Plans
These recreational facilities provide the users
with a mobility network through the City's , ,. ,..
waterways, The network will provide another
healthy option for recreation and exercise for
the community. A larger version of Figure i
provided in Appendix B.
t
i
r
r 7 �
r r u
-
4 i
Legend
figure 24, Proposed Woeways �
Canoe kayak launch
propalled
Cry so- dr i
,,, Weer, woes
4
Connectivity Vision Map
Many people want to walk, bike, or use transit to commute to destinations. but because of un-
safe and uncomfortable gaps within the existing transportation network, they are discouraged
from doing so and are instead forced to rely upon a motor vehicle to commute. In order to close
these gaps, the Complete Streets mobility Man includes proposed multimodal improvements for
bike tones, shared-use paths, and trails within the City. The Connectivity ,map shown in Figure 25
illustrates the location of these improvements and points a picture of the city's vision to create a
complete transporfation network that allows for the seamless movement of people regardless of
the transportation mode they choose.
LJ�
.............
j-
471W_1',1__1TU......... Yk
.
st;rmy)�YR A". mak: COMWW dr
0 An'
POW
Legend
rxzvo
F4,'e L0165 , ,
DJklfA)flcrt,J 1ra4
�"xe La"'
raxa
Kcvc'Ac
Wft�VrIT,
hrqxl'kat u'
Fiquv,e 25. Mobi-Hy Fee AssessmerO Afea
Project Limits Project Description
Ocean Ave
r ,
Boynton Bead NW 3rd St to Federal hwy Suffered
Blvdke Lanes
esti City reit t West of 05l
4 SE
1 st ST Boynton Beach Blvdto Wool,"brightde . redPath on SE 1st t
SE its Ave from SE I st St to Federal Hwy Pedestrian Improvements on SE Sth Ave
� �� � �� � � � � � ����"�S{� Y �-�S ��� int\ � � �•��, �i�t
Martin Luther
t
King Jr1
Congress Ave Miner Rd to Woolbright Rd Bike
, s ` i svrasion
7 Gateway Blvd Lawrence Rd to Seacrest Blvd " Bike Lanes
I _ d�,.e; [ls`St'� s1� + � £,t`�S'F£�i-iyK � '~�i + ;•S s �i\".�� '�\ s
8 Old Boynton Rd
�� �., r,-�„ � �`� ,�� .,St � ��� Nx
High Ridge Rd Gateway Blvd to Miner Rd., add Vehicular[Dass/Shored Use Path/
including Commerce Parkr Bike Lanes on CommercePork Dr
��,3t ��"`�� �S`4� ..�. � r :- .'�\i��' ,h,!i'�rr � �%�a� � '� , riFs�. �.n ,•� 4�'{ -r S•, � r:aF. ^������ fi r rr
10 Miner Rd
Lowrance d to E4 Canal Add Vehicular Lanes/Shared Use Path
III
IMPINOW
X17( S', �s"'� � h l \1 S$ttz, t{ 1 �r�y c' t rs .sr\t s� ..il �\ � �f " t,
05 to Federal I'Hwy Bike Lease
Congress Arse to Federal Hwy
12 SW 2-1rd Avegore Use IPath
13 SW 8,th St Boynton Beach Blvd to Woolbright Rd Bike Lanes/Shared Lanes/SharedUse Petty
C1E
14 id Dixie {rtS '( °3'.,
( „ (fr,tin.,lza $St tS U I} {,
Stanley Weaver
1 Congress Ave to Preserve SharedPath
condi
16 Galaxy School Galaxy Elementary School to Preserve Bikeand Pedestrian Trail
Eco-'trail
t '(�tS "1} i tF '11- l�� ;, ,, '9} 22 '}}` ,"+r 1.) 1Yrt ➢' �1� � S 3}
t{ .4 ttlllt)\ 41133 \3�. ) \{tt( 1t{ 3111t1t)lr l r ?
Pedestrian
17
r
rt { ..fit
il f `x `t
l,r, 'tk
,
18 Boynion Beach Congress Ave to OldBoynton Rd along
Mall Tram north and west property lines Bike ra Pedestrianrel
19 Boynton Beach Congtess Ave to Boyntoneach Mall Bike Lanes
ll
20
Intermodal;
+ blfirt,€ r�tti
TabAe I F, Bike arra Pedestrian Imptovement Projects
61
ter t Limits rt Descry ter
» », , ,
I -. t —( _ fl4n""
....-:r 1 ,__Pn ,.}ti „ -.', r,, 5 _i . 1 9,.._ ` , , � .:) ,{'>,,s ,,, ,.,
( s1::. _ --.r 7 ..,t t -{__ ` ___, r_). i _S _. 3 ( __( r_ }__.'_� --J, ,
,t, __ .—,) { ,, -._S. } r .., 1. _—S _} S f \ -_,. r--. ,-.,.
)l _rs) .,t 1 { }t ) , C t ,f # } ( r ? } {
1
} 1
- �: i,t - , �\t3 �� � .t� �� � ,,
' �w�,_
ver,,}},\,t)�,�}l., +,c �;,� �� `��.�,� 11���\, ��3� ��11�� ���,'+1�+z}s !y1>,y t), ,, \ o!`�`C��W1" ��' � �4 `�� �}# r »,�}����\.� }tl;�t'{c S rl� i }}4� ZO�(�}` £# )#1 {�� B ^ 4}1 l 3r f , 4'S 1) '� �.,,s,, ,v,r„S �„ ;{}I v.., '>•, i e
22 Seocr st Blvd Stantey Weaver Cana4 Pedestrian,Hybrid Beacon
l\, ai
23 SLK Jrlv ,\t
(NE t Dth
24
Congress Ave Stantey Weaver Conal Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
25
Ott Boynton Rd I �i ,,.}
,
l.;.,� -k - 4r ,r„ 4,, tS n ,', '- n �Y ��'fg:- s .•r z s
26 Boynton Beach Knuth,Rd Pedesidon
It
},
Ocean AV
27 e
{} , i r - 14,01111111;
NIIIIIIIII 1 11! 1111111 2�lk.ll
28
High Ridge Rd at Schools (3 Locations) School Zone/Crossing improvements
29
High '
30
Seacrest t t Bike Lanes
� r GreenRoWng filament ry School
'i} a>3 \3 t ca��1''A£ ?, _ ,,sr;.,s':sY 1� t!" �4f � ,. �Str I \) \-1 li 1 t{u„ 't?i• t1 } \ t} }
31
W ah Ave !{ `}I1')����, `i � xl'isIN
{}c}}s s EEt, - ,.
t,
,€ s
32 Ocean Dr SW
8th St to h rr w
Congress Middle School
33 SW 30th Ave
{'}=��5{t����������} �ri s• 34 :'����` � }<�tn �/f }}l# '� \. x�\� t°��, t(1 f •,��,5_�)t tr�..
33
High 'u ge Rd Miner Rd to Bike Lanes
Loki Worth Christian School
tf l �
t�trn.I"bt� •'\\\t..'_.r, xr. l.I - , ytt.,.)Sidewc
r, } 8,06"N}1 (s,1t rEt
1111!1?1
ItfI
34 SNeighborhood Ys
.'
35 SDA Dectable install ADA approved womi'ng pods at ADA irnp(ovements
Warning Pads approximately 875 locations
Ilk
37 LejsurevNe SW 19th Ave an Wt 8th Ave Trak Circle (mountable)
Neighborhood
38 SW
. �
�� v
62
a
,
Zvi c
i
t ,
,
r
S\
IT
} ? tt
s
t�ht
t
5
t
F 3
2
0
Mi
t
�`
fY
1,
r
iit�4
r
c
k*
f ti' s,ilk) ta7
11?,
it
E 1'
V
I
t =
1 x
K&
lik.' a
IR
t
t
y 4t"ss
s t
F
k;
s
i
t
C
I
y j
f
r:
a;
�k
i
t
t
x
I
! t
,
is
i t Jr
�{r
�I ii li
dv
k;
»t
ty tIV�r? s
rb{�s� S`Iyl�j,n
G
I
t�
I
The Complete Streets Mobility Plan outlines On the following win pages, the series of
the City's vision to providea transportation representative images s it lau harts , aerial,
network that consists of multimodal rrid rs and cross-section of the existing roadway,
y,
throughout Boynton Beach, The existing along ith graphic illustrations ns f the proposed
transportation network prioritizes motor vehicle design improvements, The proposed projects
travel over all other modes oaf transportation. include buffered bis l lanes, shared-use
Duan to this,the majority of that city's corridors are paths, off-street bicycle and' pedestrian tails,
auto-centric ire design. In an effort to change roadway widening, and on-street parking.
this design trend, roadway cross-sections tions can
be re-designed within the available bl rights-of- All photos and illustrations were l va la a
way to transform an auto-focused street into based on the available l right-of-way for each
a multimodal street, The graphic illustrations corridor. The illustrations da not represent final
shown on that following ages are examples of designs® ut shows a representation senta tion of what
how this can be accomplished. could be accommodated within the right-of-
way.
ight-a f-via . Lanai use patterns, property ownership,
a,
ThePlan's list of proposed projects utilities, and buildings ins gill vary along each
(Appendix provides s det ails for the types of corridor and impact the final design of any
multimodal l i ora v ments and the phasing mulltimodal project. The recommended
of those improvements, In addition to the improvements are also subject to available
list of improvements,vements, the Plans maps and financial resources, ane for roads s that arra not
representative ra phi ampl s have maintained y that City,are subject to approval
l
been prepared to illustrate different types by the entity that maintains the roads, such as
of proposed multimodal improvements on the Florida Department of Transportation or
corridors throughout the city, Palma Beach County,
i
65
IndustrialHigh Midge Road
Between i ' Road
AM
Shmed Use
� r
r fl
it)1"1: , 1�. I 1 -, ��V!•t� ,i \`�"xi F
1 4 lr�� cA','=Cs nf, ( t r,�Aid\mt ,i AV\1�r r. A `•,� � �{S$ 1�} � f! 7
:
Travel Travel Buffer Travel Travel Shared
ffa Lane Leas Lone Lane Path ,
1
1
i
i
Sidewalk Landscape Travel Buffer Travel Landscape Sidewak
Shia, Lore Lone strip
i
165��
—
�
f ZQ1�Y uu� t y
i 11J i f
Ei1
{ Yy
f
,,1 i1{��tl£sY>>.,Y{t:��
f t1 5 i
t }
t1
}ul"'t1V�?�1111�
ii�in
� t t
t � Y r m� -�� t,i,11 tl s 1 /)1l 1� 1�£p111f 1S£1l1 1iSti(S,
i Yilgs .�
r F
Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard
between NW 3rd S,treet and NW 5th Street
i } }
rs�1
} t ,
t
t
E oil Tl
r
Sidewalk Fong Travel Travel Poddng Sidewalk
Lane Lane Lane Lone
1
F
s is
t
S i
0
Sidewalk Travel Travei Sidewalk
Larve Lone
6
t�
r l�P n
s
d 1\ t
� I}
u
!; 1
,ss
3
� ?l t
V
Yj
s r
all
ON 0
u
73
q
--
n s
3
i n 1"'
Boynton , r
along north and west par
j
u
We
,.
t�
--
��,�s�{C{�`-0nH
I
F
r �
}
r� �r
r
J
3
's
r
� s
i t
r.
y r '
sr C
4"
xrr
rte`'
,y Sok
�tr
f
d "r
G
f �
�.. a � ,
1
SW 23rd Avenue
between t Limits
Ali„u,t
-
rr
Y
4
y
® m
S3dewalk Bike Buffer Travel 7rffer
Lane Lane lone
iAr4 r
e
4
Sidewalk Travel Travel Sideway
Lone Lore
i
1�
t
F
, JJI
east .sa
Y Ir
r
s �I it id„t
a
ik �f
f S
t
r�
I r
131
SE I st Street
oadF
-------------
id 1
r
1
g L
}}
Shared Travel Travel
U"Paini Lane Lone
't
t
� VS
6}R\1
` F
Travel Traver
Lore Lone
i
f
t
u
I I
,
II I
7 I
i
i
I.
"e l
I �
1'
F "
755
011,plow
all"
'OR
nip
loop
C0,11 MPLETE STREETS
j x..
MOBILITY PLAN
ILITY FEE
IMPLEMENTATION
��t }; urr,. � ctt4}y,, LAN
1} �.�,5 ttr�; �s¢. �t�il�',<t s,t �4`
i7 IR,¢,,
�?�{�� rt Jr� �}�`ip
y t�'311r 7U �}�i� 8?DiF
m � 1 P
s T
A
C ���,nt ,qtr ,
l
The implementation of this Complete Streets and Mobility Plan will require cooperation and
collaboration among many stakeholders on a regular basis. The implementation steps that will
take place after this report is completed are as follows-
Complete Streets, and Mobility Plan Approval:The plan prop o- ses projects that
integrate land use and transportation improvements that provide people
with the opportunity to safely, comfortably, and conveniently walk, bicycle,
ride transit, drive, or user ew technology to move to and from homes, shops,
schools and businesses. In addition to identifying existing multimodal oriented
developments, the plan delineates multimodal mobility hubs and multimodal
mobility districts to identify existing multimodal oriented developments and
opportunities for future multimodal oriented developments. It also includes
recommendations for establishing a Quality of Service (QOS) standards for
people walking, bicycling, and riding transit.
Mobility Fee Technical Report Approval, In 2011, the Legislature eliminated
state mandated transportation concurrency and made it optional for
local governments, with no exemption included in Statutes for Palm Beach
County. In 2013, the Legislature encouraged local governments to adopt
mobility plans and fees as an alternative to transportation concurrency,
proportionate share and road impact fees, This plan provides the necessary
legal information to allow the City, once approved, to collect mobility fees.
Such mobility fee dollars will then be used to execute the proposed plan
improvements as per listed in this report.
Update the City's Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations:
Language will be revised in the City's Comprehensive Plan to allow the
implementation of Quality of Service (QOS) standards to replace the cur-
rent Level of Service (LOS) standards among other policies in the Transporta-
tion Element, as stated in this Plan as, well as the Mobility Fee Technical Re-
port. This will provide City staff with an alternative roadway design standard
that will measure level of service for all modes of transportation, resulting in
meaningful support of multimodal transportation,
r n p ro c,u1
- r,rid Sisn,,I., The projects as described in the report will be
-j te A�-sesvue
studied to verify the scope of the work
evaluated for feasibility and further
prior to programming them into the Capital Improvement Program.
Copital Improvements Prograry, (Cfl� After projects are further analyzed and
developed, the projects will be integrated into the City's CIP, The projects will
be given priority based on the following crit eriaM
Available funds (including outside funds such grants)
0
MOW -1 Safety needs
mDevelopment readiness
Rp -—I
Need based including residents' requests and concerns
Budgeting
79
a
t
t
n
r,
,
r
t
r
Proposed Projects
Roadway, Tronsit, & Safety Improvements
gth
Project Urnits Project Description en
w-aim� � �`tear,�°v *- tire`+-
Reconstruct and;:relocate rid
stornwfater to odd 0.82 miles of a 9m
pathway on north side of the,road
NW 3rd St;tn Pederol Hwy Reconstruct r to curb and 0.82
Boynton Mach stormwoter IQ add G,62 nJres of a t '
Bird shored use path on south side of the
rood
Reconstruct and locate curb and
Western City Limits to West of 1-95 st ter t �7 miles of ' 1.7
tiered bike larwei
+ rr Blvd
5 4 I S r
'd t mW,of a 1 �"shored use potty on
Boynton Reacts Blvd to Woolbright Rd, west side of SE ist Street
4 SE i st St including$E 5th Ave from SE tst t t t
federal Hwy Add 0,08 mite of'a 5*sidewo lk along the
south of ' ' ,in Ave
5 MLK Jr Blvd
Reconstruct and re4ocaie curbd
ongreis Ave Mintier Rd to Wooltmthf Rd siormwoterto odd 3 miles of "buffered 3
bike forwes and 7'sidewalks
Gate"wa� ,,,Blvd
Reconstruct roodwory to odd 1,56 miles
Old o ynt n Rd West Citi`Umits to Boynton Bench'Boyd of "si i , ' of e d tike tones; ' t E56
i i r td i' 101 , travel cones
,iP _� %rOw
Rides Rd =x Y: af�st\�, �4 �ik� r?`*,ii... ;,� Sss ,� (t iS�Y,. A f 't S4 )'k".
Reconstruct and relocate curb arra
Conor to ibis Ridge Rd stormwoter to odd 0.96 miles of B; -
buffered bike tones and B" stored use
path
10 Mrs rRd
E4 Carol to Lawtence Rd Reconswct and ritcurt)
0.94
star ter td 0.94 MOOS of t '
shared rase path
81
Project Limits Project Description Length
(miles)
Reconstruct and relocate curb and
Congress Ave to 1-95, stormwater to add 1-4miles of 8' 1.4
buffered bike'ores
Reconstruct and relocate curb and
stormwatof to odd U6,miles of 0 9'
Ywooltyight Rd shared use path on north side of the
1-95 to Federal Hwy food 0-56
Reconstruct and locate cLxb and
stormwater to odd 0.56 niles of 1,5'
shored use path,on south side of the-
rood
12 SW 2-Nd Ave
Recor4truct road to add G.38 miles of 8'
13 Golf Rd City Western Umits to Congress Ave buffered bike lones and 8'ishorecl use 0.38
path.Design of rrew storm sewer system
should be assumed.
6, samm"19
Fiflot§20"t,
14 Gulftiream BIN --T
M �gpqh#
NIP, 00
J114% "
15 Sir 8rhStBoyn�tonchBIv,dloWool Wget Rd Reconstruct rood to,odd,0,51 miles of 1.02
10'shareduse potty
Stonley Weov
17
Can
From,Go1oxy Elementary School to Add 0.7 m#e-s of 10' Multi-we unpaved
18 Eco Trail FrPreserve path 0.7
19 Pedes1rion
lk""""'11111111, 04, \1 er%"',10,777 7, �,I M-11 61%1% \OR V*"I'll
20 Boynton Beach From Congress Ave to Old Boynton Rd Add 1.22 miles of 10"shored use Path 112
Moll Tres f along no and west property Vnes
21 Boynton Beach Congress Ave to Boynton Beach Moll Bike Lones .35
Mall Bike Lane
22 wermodal NE 4th St between Ocean Ave and 20,000-30,000 square foot station and N/A
Mobility Slohor) Boynton Mach Nyd pomng garage
People mover Future locd fixed routes.Hoodways,
23 Trcn&O Ckoilator Final torte to be deterrred number and types of vehiclesto be 9A7
res tterror ®
M I I
Seacresi Bl,,,d Stanley Weaver Corot Pedestrian Hybdd Beacon N/A
24 N11K Jr Blvd Mid-block Pedestrian Crossing Raised Crosswow NIA
lEast of Seocrest Blvd)
Cor!,gr(n5 Ave Stanley Weaver Canal Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon N/'A
82
Project Limits Project Description Length
(Miles)
Old Boynton Rd of Boynton Be oc h mall Pedest6on Hybrid Beocon N/A
BontonBe(-,ich at Knuth Rd Pedestrian Hybrid Beocon N/A
Blvd
Ocean Ave at NE I#st Pedestrian, Hybrid Beacon N/A
24
Hi Ridge Rd at school Crossings School zone/Otossings N/A
Higb Ridge Rd at Sch ool Crossings School ZonelCrossings N/A
High,Rodde School Zone/Crossings
Rd at School Crossings N/A
Hqh Ridge Rd Gateway Blvd to Add 10'shared use path 1.5
Boyion Beach High School
,Miner Rd Seoc**M Blvd to Add 101'shared use path 0.4
Rolling Green Elementary School
SW 11 Ayo Seocre-sl Blvd to Add sharrow pavement porkings and 0.4
Forest rk Elementary School signs to existing roodwov,section
Ocean Dr SW Brit$t to Add shpavemen
arrow t parkings and 0,7
25 Congress Middle Schw sg- ns to existing roadwoy section
SW 30th Awe
Vitgh Rid
- ----------- ----------- ----
North Ridge Estates 0,73
RoyalPolm,Neighborhood 7.24
Lakeside Gardens O65
Los Paimes 0,51
- Variclus F6uf Seas Sur)Condos 0.79
26 Neighborhoods 5,"Sidewoks
ViSage Boynton Beach Condos 0.14
Coquina Cove 0.87
Mortin Luther King Jr,, Neighborhood
196
t Estates, 1.33
Poinciona Heights 3,55
83
Project Limits Project Description Lmength
( iles)
Ridgewood 4.22
".ton Hills 4.76
Shepard Addition 0.66
Old Boynton f3tater 1.66
treasure island OA9
Venetian Isles, 1.14
Bowen Pork Addition 4.69
Hathaway Addition 0.70
Pelican Point 0.41
26 Vool'ous Snug Harbor 5'Sid ewalks 0.31
Ne4iit,)of hoods Hindu Q.76
Historic Collage District 0.39
Wesicbesler Heights 0,73
Bethesd a 0.60
Golfv*w Harbor 9.49
Diane Drive Neiahboftod 3.08
Guffstreom Estates 1.97
Boynton Isles, 1.96
Chapel Hills 12,43
Seacrest Wotes &90
27 Uy-wide ADA Insma
tall of approxitely 875 locations Detectable Worning Pods N/A
Upgrade5 throughout the City
Seactest Blvd at Morlin Luther King A Blvd Construct Mountable Troft Circle N/A
28 Leis uireville SW 19th Ave and SW IBM Ave Construct Mountoble Troffic Circle NIA
Neighborhood
S'W 23(d A��O OtMN Blvd Construct Mountab6a Traffic Circle N/A
29 Intersection CllyoAd-e intersection capocily N/A
Protects and safety orthoncernent profects
84
TM§FAOE INTWWh*LLY LEF"NK
9k
i
i
i
mns�
scg
v
# �)
MAW
E
l4k�k I1 a"tilvw �1 t
tt � �
r pD,
ANN
s
s
#k 3�
\k
6
4161 a;
ma
'410 0
at -
r 6e
Wm
,., :. ..
Mrs
-
9
',. 0 00 co_
49 40 nl
. ,
04
0 _
AS 00
00
90
i
i
pp4qgj"an CmMes
I00
00
+ 0
0 AD
0-0 00 4044
0 4w
0 00
ago 0000 40 %
91
to
0
Legend
ft%dc
L"end
� . I < s
. � .
� . .
. �.
� \ . \ ^ ■ \
� %. \ <? ? ■ ? ~y � \
« Legend
� � ~ �? �2m�■
a Pa >w
. . . ��. . C:3
; ev " ° &y
I
r r r
r >"
r I
u
)
}
G
- r
i
i
PgAt@d gp@gd Lim, its
7
) k '1
llIc
)
r
t
0)1)lrt r
r
IMm���f��t
r i
i
r,
� V II VA
Leges r7 �sr
Speed m 25
30
nvh
35
aS �
I '
0 pVM
6M" �
„r r
GS
y Sar '
Sy
rr
I �
a �
r
i
9
i
I
s
NMgg�er 0 ftg,*gpl LqAgs
A,
n 4` 'at 4
4 i, J,
a 4
4
lt}r
s
y
5-
r
s
z
q l4
Legend
Number n1 Lanes
City O'. a t
4
ti` tr,
u,
i
l
s
z
hL
A
i'
Y
i
1
1
x
t
't
1
Existing Pedestrian Facilities
r �
Legend
F-voing
r
4
i
I-
y
IL
i
_. d'
city Boundary
I
9
Existing Transit Facilities
� P
Coomotot Train Scions
no a WON. Mv- w
Bars
... #01e TOW4 aro a`N'rM*W,ACIP
too A,T0w fo 6,A.aWWAIEM
�:,...
p
u
ff
5
Proposed Pedestrian Facilities
cc
mimair R
f�
0 CiF
Slyd
i
00 h� A
�t1,1
Cod Boynton RO,
��
6-2Oc* Ave
ir
Legend
}_A((`�
"ymon Neighborhoods
WOCIlb"rilumRd+
0 751% f
s,
4�,
1
5
9
Proposed Bicycle Facilities
HYPOI-PsoRd AN
cc
,... n,.
i
,x
...,...nt r
and �
an
40
f h
r
E
4
i
t '
Y
�t
W.i
� 9
r
Legend
faclot�s
CA y I+m,Idr
i
Proposed Transit Facilities
Hypolu"A
mover R d
i
i
� I
d
d Saynton Rd
t: bid
it
4
a, WocAbright A
SW 23ra Awe
Legend
CommLrW Tram Stations
P J Lubmy swor
48
a t
9
Peo M w r
ty ov,Zvy
Prop�osed Blue,ways, Facilities
Rd
..........
gm
IC 4,Y
J1
v
4.
111,1061�
Old'S nOw Rd
Oymon 0 each.69vd, oc a an 4e i
rr
W"brit Rd
8", r
Aw"IV14, 0
1"J,,,v -1
I sW 21rd Av
'r,N,
Legend
N sn
Canoe & kayak laun�ch
P
j X
Iff a proposed
Sluolways crosCAqs
M Coy Boundary
der mm
Waler Bodies
99
t X
s
"k,
5
k t ,�2b1
t�
kt�c SJ
C�
10,
r
S
i
� l r
��� 103
.......... .......................
City of Boynton Beach
Complete Street L M,obi'lity Policy
"Complete Streets" means a transportation philosophy that calls for streets to be constructed and
operated in a way that allows safe, equitable and convenient access along and across streets
for all users. Complete Streets are planned, designed, constructed, operated, and maintained
to safely and comfortably accommodate people of all ages and abilities, including pedestrians,
cyclists, transit users, motorists, persons with disabilities, emergency responders, seniors, youth,
families, as well as freight, and service operators.
A Complete Streets approach to design helps to create walkable, livable and vibrant
communities, which attract and retain businesses and residents, and provide multimodal
options to safely commute to employment centers, schools, beaches, porks, shopping centers
and other destinations ithin Boynton each. Benefits include reducing vehicle miles traveled
with attendant lower fuel consumption and green gas emissions while increasing active and
sustainable transportation choices such as walking, biking, and public transportation. Ultimately,
the Complete Street approach will help ease traffic congestion, lower pollution and improve
individual health by providing more opportunities for physical activity.
The City of Boynton Beach shall construct and operate a comprehensive Complete Streets
transportation system that enables safe access,, mobility, economic development, attractive
public spaces, health, and well-being for all people. This Complete Streets policy recognizes that
depending on context, streets may serve diverse activities, functions, and intensity of uses.
VISION & INTENT
Implementation of the Complete Streets, transportation system Is an important strategic initiative
of the Boynton each Strategic Plan,This policy will encourage the use of non-motorized modes of
transportation and contribute directly to the health, safety, economic vitality, environment, and
quality of life in Boynton Beach. Through the implementation of this Complete Streets Policy, the
City of Boynton Beach will consistently plan, design, construct, operate and maintain appropriate
transportation facilities that are safe, reliable, efficient, convenient, connected, and that enable
secure and comfortable access and mobility for users of all ages, abilities, income levels and
transportation modes.
This Complete Streets policy shall direct the City of Boynton Beach's decision-makers to consider
all transportation system users when making decisions regarding transportation and land use
planning.Complete Streets prioritizes safe access for vulnerable users,as well as underinvested and
underserved communities by fosterling social equity through improved access to jobs, healthcare
and other community amenities.
The City of Boynton Beach adopted a Vision Zero policy in February 2020. This policy further
commits staff to working towards the goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and severe injuries on all
roads Within the City.
Through this policy, Boynton Beach's transportation network will gradually transform from being
disproportionately automobile-centric to a network that supports all modes of transportation by
equitably investing in transportation infrastructure that benefits all residents and visitors. Complete
Streets projects shall take into consideration the surrounding area's characteristics, community
values, needs of its users, and cost feasibility.
101
This Transportation System may be achieved through projects that fully implement Complete
Streets or projects that incrementally implement Complete Streets through a series of smaller
improvements over time.
GOALS
1. Safety and Convenience for All Transportation Users
Create a transportation system that is designed and operated in ways that ensure the safety,
comfort, access, and convenience for all users of all ages and abilities, including pedestrians,
bicyclists, public transit users and operators, emergency responders, transporters of commercial
goods, motor vehicles, and freight providers therefore decreasing the potential of vehicular,
bicycle, and pedestrian-related crashes,
2. Connected Factiffies that Accommodate All Travel Modes
Create an inviting transportation system that includes an integrated, safe, reliable, comfortable,
and efficient network of fully connected multimodal facilities which accommodates access to all
modes of travel.
3. Increase Walking, Bicycling, and Public Transit
Create a transportation system that encourages walking, bicycling and public transit by providing
a variety of safe and convenient walking and bicycling options.
4. Economic Development
Create a transportation system that promotes economic development that will benefit from and
contribute to a more connected and livable community, and supports redevelopment of and
connectivity to activity centers.
5. Vision Zero Equity & Data Drive Approach
Create a transportation system that Views road safety as a social equity issue and recognizes that
the concentration of traffic safety problems results from under-investment in certain communities,
and to the greatest extent possible, ensures equity by actively pursuing the elimination of health,
economic and access disparities. The City's goal is to eliminate traffic fatalities and severe injuries
among all road users, and to ensure safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all,
6. Community Health & Sustainablitty
Create a transportation system that advances the Boynton Beach Climate Action Plan through
reducing automobile dependency by transforming the city into a community where people walk,
bike, take transit or carpool for increasing- - portion of overall trips, and improves environmental
and community health (i.e. reduce fossil fuel consumption & greenhouse gase issions ecrease
air and noise pollution; improve air quality; encourage social interaction and physical activity;
preserve the natural environment; etc.).
APPLICABILITY
Except as otherwise stated below, this policy applies to all project phases undertaken by or under
the authority of or subject to the supervision of the City of Boynton each, for the improvement of
any street and public right of way (ROW), including planning, programming, design, acquisition
of land, construction, construction engineering, reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, retrofit
and operation. Accommodations for all modes of transportation to safely use the roadway shall
be considered during construction or repair work.
If a project is within or connects to Boynton Beach and is owned by another entity, the City's
102
Engineering and Planning and Zoning divisions shall work with the ROS'owner, Florida Department
ent
of Transportation T), Palm Beach County, and the Palm Beach Transportation Planning
Agency (TPA), as appropriate, to advance Complete Streets improvements. In addition, the
Complete Streets policy requires the City's Planning & Zoning Department staff to evaluate new
development and redevelopment projects, Staff may require connected pedestrian and bicycle
access; ADA compliant facilities within the development; and facilities that connect to and from
the surrounding transportation systems,
The City of Boynton Beach Fill approach every planned project as ars opportunity to create
safer and more accessible transportation system for all users.
EXCEPTIONS
The City of Boynton Beach commits to applying a Complete Streets approach at the beginning
of all transpaortation, and roadway improvement projects. Each project shall be viewed as an
opportunity to improve accessi- ility of the ri ht of way for its users,However,the City acknowledges
that there are conditions where it may be inappropriate to provide bicycle, pedestrian, and
transit facilities® These exceptions include;
A. LIMITED-ACCESS ROADS
This policy does not apply to limited access facilities where bicyclists and pedestrians are
prohibited by law, In this instance, it is necessary to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrlians
through a parallel facility and to provide safe, comfortable crossings for bicyclists and pedestrians
at interchanges es that connect neighborhoods, activity centers, or regional trail network.
B. PREVENTATIVE MAINT AN
This policy does not apply to routine maintenance, such as mowing, clean in , sweeping, pothole
filling, concrete joint repair, and other regular or seasonal maintenance-
C. EXISTING PROJECTS
This policy does not apply to projects that have been submitted and are currently under review by
the Planning and Zoning Division or have an approved development order prior to the effective
date of this policy.
SENSITIVITYLAND USE AND CONTEXT
Complete Streets implementation should be sensitive to the community's physical,economic, and
social setting.A context-sensitive approach to process and design gives significant consideration to
stakeholder and community values, therefore, Complete Streets improvements will not necessarily
be identical in all environments, communities or development contexts. The overall goal of this
approach is to preserve and enhance scenic, aesthetic, historical, and environmental resources
while improving or maintaining safety, ,nobility, and appropriate infrastructure conditions,
The City of Boynton Beach shall refer to the Boynton Beach Complete Streets and Mobility Plan,
Pala Beach TPA's Complete Streets 'Design Guidelines, and the OT's Design Manual's and
Complete Streets Context Classification when determining o plete Streets improvements for
transportation projects.
The City will also consider the surrounding community's current and expected land use and
transportation needs and collect community input to besttit the community's desires while taking
into account the connectivity of the transportation system as a whole for all modes and users. The
City will strive to overcome barriers to engagement associated with mace, income, age, disability,,.
103
English language proficiency, and vehicle access of populations affected by a project, including
identifying a means of measuring success in overcoming these barriers.
The City may require new or revised land use policies, plans, and zoning ordinances to specify how
transportation projects will serve current and future land use needs. Such revisions shall include
language that requires the consideration of the community context as a factor in decision-making,
as well as specifying the need to understand and mitigate unintended consequences of projects
0.1
or plans, such as involuntary displacement,
DESIGN
Transportation projects and maintenance activities shall be;
• Suitable and appropriate to the function and context of the transportation facility;
• Sensitive to the neighborhood context and cognizant of the neighborhood needs:
• Flexible in project design to ensure that all users have safe access and use;
• Considered a component of a comprehensive,integrated and interconnected transportation
network that allows all users to choose between different modes of travel; and
• Consistent and compatible with the Boynton Beach Greenways, Blueways, and Trails Plan,
and the City, of Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan.
Facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with current applicable lows
and regulations, using best practices and guidance from a variety of organizations absent conflict
with this Complete Streets policy. Best Practices may include, but are not limited to the latest
edition of the following,
0 Palm Beach Transportation Planning Agency Complete Streets Design Guidelines
* The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for
Planning, Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities
* ASHTO Guide for the Development Of Bicycle Facilities
• Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide
•
F Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design flexibility & Reducing Conflicts
FH" A Incorporating On-Road Bicycle Networks into Resurfacing Projects Report
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares,- A Context
Sensitive Approach
# National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Global Street Design Guide,
Urban Streets Design Guide, Urban Bikeway Design Guide, Transit Street Design Guide, Urban
Street Stormwater Guide
- National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Report 616, Multi-Modal Level Of Service
Analysis For Urban Streets
- FHA Safe Transportation for every pedestrian (STEP) Program
0 FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations
Design standards required for State or federally funded projects will supersede local requirements
if there is an actual conflict between the local and State or Federal standards and if funding will
be impacted by adherence to the local standard. Design Standards include® but are not limited
to latest edition of the followiing:
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards for Accessible Design
• AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (AASHTO Green Book)
• FT Design Manual
• MOT Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards for Design, Construction and maintenance
(Florida Green Book)
• FDOT Plans Preparation Manual (PPM)
• United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
104
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION IT
The City of Boynton Beach shall develop scoring criteria to rank and prioritize Complete Streets
projects for implementation. Projects selected may be submitted to the Palm Beach TPA Trans-
portation Alternatives Program (TA) or Local Initiatives jl.lj Program for funding or integrated into
the City's Capital Improvement Program.
IMPLEMENTATION
The implementation of Complete Streets will require cooperation and collaboration between
any stakeholders on a regular basis. The City of Boynton Beach will take the following steps to
facilitate theprocess:
• The City sell restructure or revise related procedures, plans, regulations or processes to ac-
commodate the goals of this policy on all applicable projects. This may include incorporating
Complete Streets checklists or other tools into decision making processes.
• The Planning and Zoning Division shall reviews and propose revisions to all appropriate Nand use
ordinances, policies and regulations to support the m l rent tif Complete Streets.
• The Planning and Zoning Division shall coordinate the development of a new bicycle and
pedestrian plan and adopt a new complete streets implementation plan that will include the
City's multimodal plan and classification of roadways.
• The Planning and Zoning Division and Public Works/Eng ieed ng Departments sell reviewer, re-
vise or recommend changes to all policies, procedures and design standards associated with
site plan and other requirements for public and private development to ensure best practices
are utilized to support Complete Streets..
• The City shall review all street design policies and guides to ensure that they reflect the current
state of best practices In transportation design.
• The City shall continue to identity local, state and federal funds to implement Complete Streets
Improvements to supplement the City's Capital ital Im rovement Programa. This will require a con-
tinued partnership and coordination with Palin Beach TPA, FDOT and Palin Beach County.
• The City shall promote collaboration and coordination between the City's departments and
other transportation and planning agencies, including the Florida Department of Trans orto-
tion$ Palm Beach County, Pala Tram, and South Florida Regional Transportation Authority.
• The Public Works/Engineering Department shall establish necessary procedures to ensure
Complete Streets principles are incorporated at the earliest stage of design,
• The Public Works/Engineering Department shall integrate "vision Zero activities in the City's on-
going program and services focused on improving and promoting multi-modal transportation,
• The PublicWorks/Engineering Department shall collect and analyze data to understand trends
in traffic fatalities and serious injuries in the City. The department shall also identify high need
areas and to develop projects that ensure such improvements are implemented.
• The City may offer a variety of Complete Streets outreach materials and meetings for the en-
eal public and community leaders to ensure information on Complete Streets is accessible..
pity staff shall also seek professional development in the area of Complete Streets through
attending various professional training opportunities offered locally and nationally.
• The City shall actively promote public information and education that considers equity by
targeting advocacy organizations and underrepresented communities which could include
non-native English speakers, people with disabilities, etc.. depending on the local context.
105
....................... ................
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
The implementation of Complete Streets will require regular evaluation to determine progress
and effectiveness. The City's Public Works/ Engineering Department will be responsible for track-
ing and analyzing the performance measures listed below,
Using a GIS database, the performance measures that may be evaluated include, but are not
limited, to the following:
- Miles of bicycle lanes, routes, or traits built / dedicated by width and type
- Number of bicycle parking facilities installed
- Number of bus shelter and benches added within the City
- Number of traffic calming facilities built / installed
-
Linear feet of pedestrian accommodations built or repaired
* Number of crosswalks built or improved
- Number of ADA accommodations built / installed
- Number of street trees planted
- Number of exceptions approved
- Bicycle and pedestrian crash data involving serious injuries and fatalities
- Total dollar amount spent on Complete Streets improvements
- Number of or Streets improvements and initiatives implemented within the boundaries
of the City's Community Redevelopment Agency.
- Number of commuters who drove a car, truck or van
- Percentage of commuters who drove alone
- Number of people who bike to work
TM6 VAOE 1W4MWb*LLY LER BLANK
;a7
o�� ��a ,� —�nq
,. ��I,I,I,I,I,pI
� «««<iri
��;�,�
II
����
��
��� ii
��� iii
4' If���yi
I���
'�
� ' �
,i
_ _
��� ,�i;�ii���tf,f������k ���)�,� ��
«<�i�
��I���,�� I��
�,�E
Gi ��
i ��"�
��°�,iii lir,
i
DRAFT 2045
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
COMPLETE STREETS MOBILITY PLAN
& MOBILITY FEE
TECHNICAL REPORT
October 2021
Prepared for:
76B
E A C HOYNTON
Prepared by:
'III xk
mmmwmw
wommmommm
� L e_
NOE URBAN CONCEPTS
LAND USE - MOBILITY - PARKING - FEES
BAXTER WOODMAN
i
OCTOBERDRAFT 2045
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
COMPLETE STREETS MOBILITY PLAN &
MOBILITY FEE
TECHNICAL REPORT
2021
Produced for: City of Boynton Reach
'S"
ITC)F-
BOYNTON
Produced byJonathan B. Paul,AICP
Principal
NUE Urban Concepts, LLQ
2579 SW 871n Drive,Suite 101. ;; }
Gainesville, P[.32608 NUE URBAN CONCEPTS
833-NUC-8484 _,, ... ............_.w,,, _. .v
nueurbanconcepts@gmall.com LAND USE - MOBILITY PARKING • FEE
www.nueurbanconcepts.com
Rebecca Travis, PF, ENV 5P
Executive'Vice President
FF Division Manager
Baxter Woodman
477 S. Rosemary Avenue #330 l`
West Palmi Reach, FL 33401
815-459-1260
www.baxter di nan.c r
02021 NUE Urban Concepts,LLC,Ah rights reserved This material may rot be reproduced,displayed,modified or distobuledwftout
the express prior wat ern permission the copyright Kolder,For permission,send wriften request to NUE Urban Concepts,LLC79
Svc 8r t *vas Suite 1.91 Gainittsville,Ft. 32606 or emal r aemurban ll corn w r*may to reprodwed,to whole or
bra pan,without prior written permission,solely by City of Boynton Benoit.,provided al copies contain the folkraing staternent2021
NAJIE Widen Concepts,LLC,,his work is reproduced tp the permission of NUE Urban Concepts.Net other use,Is permitted evithoul
the express prior witlerm permission of NUE Urban Concepts,LLC, For permission,send w+r 'ten request to NUE Urban Concepts,
LLC 2579 SW 8r Drive,Smile 101 Ueineevllie,FL 32608 or*mad nury n ncopts mall,
NUE URBAN CONCEPTS, LLC
2579 sw 8r Drive, Suite 101
NUE URBAN CONCEPTS Gainesville, FL 326,08
...... ........— 833-NUC-8484
LAND USE -MOBILITY-PARKING - FEES nueurbanconcepts@gmaii.com
October 5th, 2021
Mr. Gary R. Dunmyer, P.E., MBA,GC
Interim Director of Public Works and Engineering
City of Boynton Beach
222 NE 9"'Avenue
Boynton Beach, FL 33435
Re: City of Boynton Beach Complete Streets Mobility Plan &Mobility Fee Technical Report
Dear Mr. Dunmyer:
Enclosed is the draft technical report for the City of Boynton Beach Complete Streets Mobility
Plan and Mobility Fee Technical Report. This Draft Technical Report has been prepared to
facilitate feedback and review from community stakeholders, development interest, engaged
residents, governmental entities and the City of Boynton Beach City Commission. This is a final
draft;the City Commission has not taken any formal action to adopt the Mobility Plan or Mobility
Fee. Once feedback is received, any updates or changes will be coordinated with City Staff and a
final technical report will be prepared for consideration, by the City Commission. Florida Statute
does require that a Mobility Fee be based on the most recent and localized data. To ensure
statutory consistency, an implementing Mobility Fee Ordinance will need to be developed.
The Mobility Fee is based upon the multimodal projects included in the Complete Streets Mobility
Pian, Within one year of adoption, the City shall update its Comprehensive Plan to reflect the
adopted Complete Streets Mobility Plan and Mobility Fee to ensure internal consistency and
Statutory compliance, The Mobility Fee is consistent with all legal and statutory requirements
and meets the dual rational nexus test and the rough proportionality test. The Mobility Fee is a
departure from the County's existing road impact fee. The Mobility Fee recognizes the
importance of small local business and "mom and pop" retail uses and does not charge a higher
fee than larger chain uses, which is how the County's current road impact fee is structured. It is
also recommended that the City consider adoption of an inflation index factor to adjust the fee
on an annual basis to keep pace with rising construction and land cost. I look forward to
continuing working with City Staff on outreach efforts and finalizing, the Complete Streets
Mobility Plan and Mobility Fee,
Sincerely,
A
Jonathan B. Paul,AlCP
Principal
www.nu�ourba,nconcepts.com
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan& Mobility Fee
0 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary, 3
Legislative Background 4
impact Fee & Mobility Fee Comparison
Legal 12
County Charter 23
Comprehensive Plan 27
Developing a Complete Street Mobility Plan & Fee 30
Complete Street Mobility Plan 31
Mobility Fee 37
Existing Conditions Evaluation (ECE) 38
Growth 39
Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) 40
Person Miles of Travel (PMT') 41
Multimodal Capacity 42
Complete Streets Mobility Plan Projects 45
Funding 47
New Growth Evaluation (NGE) 49
Person Miles of Travel (PMIT) Rate so
Mobility Fee Assessment Areas 51
Person Travel Demand per Use (PTDu) 52
M obi it ility Fee Schedule 55
Mobility Fee Calculations 610
Mobility Fee Comparison, 61
Mobility Fee Benefit District 62
Definitions 62
Conclusion 71
Figures
Figure 1, Concurrency Cycle 10
Figure 2. Developing a Complete Street Mobility Plan and Fee 30
Figure 3. Moving People Providing Choices 31
Figure 4. Speed of Travel 32
Figure S. Street Quality of Service( Sl Standards 33
Figure 6. Bicycling&Walking Quality of Service (Q0S)Standards 34
Figure 7. Bicycling& Micromobility Quality of Service(QOS)Standards 35
Figure 8. Transit Quality of Service(QO,S)Standards 36
Mv CvaiptL k[,,0,m;YwNvd Page I
I
I
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan & Mobility Fee
Figures, continued
Figure 9. Complete Streets Mobility Plan and Mobility Fee 37
Figure 10 Person Miles of Travel (PMT) Increase 41
Figure 11, New Growth Evaluation (I GF) 4;
Figure 12. Person Miles of Travel Rate (PMTr
Figure 13, Person Travel Demand per Use (PTDu) S
Figure 14. Mobility Fee Calculation SS
Figure 1S, Mobility Fee Schedule Components S
Tables
Table 1, Existing Conditions Evaluation (FCE) BR
Table 2. Projected Growth 39
Table 3. Growth In Vehicle Miles of Travel " T
Table 4. increase in Person Miles of Travel (PMT) 41
Table S. Road Capacities A
Table 6, Multimodal Capacities 44
Table 7. Summary of Multimodal Projects 4
Table 8. Anticipated Available Funding A
Table 9. New Growth Evaluation NGE
Table 10. Person Miles of Travel Pate P Tr S
Table 11, Limited Access Evaluation F S
Table 1 . Mobility Fee Schedule Sg
Maps
Map A, 2045 Long Range Transportation Plan Cost Affordable Roads Plan
Map B, Mobility Fee Assessment Area
Appendices
Appendix A. Florida Department of Economic Opportunity Fr Mobility Guidance
Appendix R. 2445 Long Range Transportation Plan Cost Affordable Roads
Appendix C. Existing Conditions Evaluation (ECF) Street Quality of Service S
Appendix D. Traffic Analysis Zones
;appendix E. Regional Travel Demand Network
Appendix F. 2017 National Household Travel Survey Data
Appendix G. FDOT Generalized Daily Service Volumes
Appendix H. Complete Streets Mobility Plan Projects
Appendix l.. Trip Generation
Appendix J, Person Travel Demand
Appendix K. Comparison of Road's Impact Fee to Mobility Fee
Appendix L. Mobility Fee Benefit District
r Ut U,r4amtrw0i Pap 2
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan & Mobility Fee
EXECUTIVE
In 1985 the Florida Le islaturep assed the growth Management Act that required all local
governments in Florida adopt Comprehensive Plans to guide future development and mandated
that adequate public facilities be provided "concurrent" with the impacts of new development..
Transportation concurrency became the measure used by local governments to ensure that
adequate public facilities, in the form of road capacity, was available to meet the transportation
demands from new development. By 1993, the Florida Legislature recognized an unintended
consequence of transportation concurrency is that it essentially stopped development in urban
areas where road capacity was constrained and pushed development to suburban and rural areas
where road capacity was either available or was cheaper to construct,.
The City of Boynton Beach mended its Comprehensive Plan in 2004 to establish a Transportation
Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) within the area around downtown to address the impact.
transportation concurrency has on limiting development. In 2007,the Legislature introduced the
concept of mobility plans and mobility fees as a replacement of transportation concurrency,
proportionate share, and road impact fees. In 2011, the Legislature eliminated state mandated
transportation concurrency and made it optional for "any local government". In 20:1 3, the
Legislature encouraged"local governments",defined equally in Florida Statute as"counties ars
municipalities",to adopt alternative mobility funding systems, such as mobility fees based on a
plan of improvements,as an alternative to transportation concurrency,proportionate share,and
road impact fees.
In 2019,the City amended its Comprehensive Plan to establish the legislative intent to develop a
mobility plan and mobility fee as a potential replacement of its TCFA policies, transportation
concurrency,proportionate share,roadway level of service(LOS)standards and road impact fees,.
The C=ity has developed a Complete Streets Mobility Plan that includes multimodal projects for
sidewalks, paths, trails, bike lanes,, intersectiones, roads, and planning for future Tri-Rail Coastal
service.This Technical Report documents the methodology used to develop a Mobility Fee, based
on the Complete Streets Mobility Plan, that will allow new development and redevelopment,
within portions of the City that are located east of the Mail and Congress Avenue, to equitably
mitigate its transportation impact through payment of the Mobility Fee to the City.The Mobility
Fee is intended to replace the City's TCFA, transportation concurrency, proportionate share and
serve as an alternative to collection of the Palmi Beach County road impact fee from development
within the City's Mobility Fee Assessment Area. This Technical Report demonstrates that the
Complete Streets Mobility Plan and Mobility Fee meet the dual rational nexus test, rough
proportionality test, and the requirements of Florida ,Statute Sections 163.3180 and 163,31801.
M ut
Page
DRAT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan & Mobility Fee
I
LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND
The State of Florida passed the Growth Management Act of 1985 that required all local governments
in Florida to adopt Comprehensive plans to guide future development. The Act mandated that
adequate public facilities must be provided "concurrent' with the impacts of new development,
State mandated""concurrency"was adopted to ensure the health,safety,and general welfare of the
public by ensuring that adequate public facilities would be in place to accommodate the demand
for public facilities created by new development.
Transportation concurrency became the measure used by the Florida Department of Community
Affairs , Florida 'Department of Transportation (FDOT), Regional planning Councils (R Cs),
and local governments to ensure that adequate public facilities" in the form of road capacity, was
available to meet the transportation demands from new development. To meet the travel
demand impacts of new development and be deemed "concurrent", transportation concurrency
was primarily addressed by constructing neve roads and widening existing roads.
Traditional transportation concurrency allowed governmental entities to deny development where
road capacity was not available to meet the travel demands f rom new developments Transportation
concurrency also allowed governmental entities to require that developments be timed or phased
concurrent with the addition of new road capacity, In addition, transportation concurrent also
allowed governmental entities to require neer development to improve (widen)en roads that were
already overcapacity(alba "deficient" or"backlogged ).
in urban areas throughout Florida, traditional transportation concurrency had the unintended
consequence of limiting and often stopping growth in urban areas(algia cities).This occurred because
roads were often over capacity based on traffic already on the roads or the combination of that
traffic and trips from approved developments. Further, the ability to add road capacity in urban
areas was more limited as right-of-way was often constrained by existing development and utilities,
physical barriers,environmental protections,and community opposition from homeowners eowners wvorried
about increases in traffic and the impact adding road capacity would have on their,homes. Stopping,
development in urban areas encouraged suburban sprawl by forcing new development to suburban
and rural areas where road capacity was either readily available or cheaper to construct. In the late
s, as the unintended impact of transportation concurrency became more apparent, the
Legislature adopted Statutes to provide urban areas with alternatives to address the impact of new
development through Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas TCA and Transportation
Concurrency Management Areas TC A .
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plain & Mobility Fee
0 i
The intent of TCEAs and TCMAs was to allow local governments alternative solutions to provide
ability within urban areas by means other than providing road capacity and to allow infill and
redevelopment in those areas. In the raid 70 s, Florida experienced phenomenal growth that
strained the ability of local governments to provide the necessary infrastructure to accommodate
that growth. Many communities across the State started to deny new developments,substantially
raise impact fees, and require significant transportation capacity improvements. In 2005, the
Legislature enacted several laws that weakened the ability of local governments to implement
transportation concurrency by allowing new development,that was not a development of regional
impact (DPI), to snake proportionate share payments to mitigate its travel demand. Prior to 200 5,
only DRIB were permitted to mitigate their impact through proportionate share payments. The
Legislature also introduced Multi-Modal Transportation Districts ( d MTD) for areas that did not
meet requirements to qualify for TCEAs or TC As,
In 2007, the Florida Legislature introduced the concept of mobility plans and mobility fees to allow
development to equitably mitigate its impact and placedadditional restrictions on the ability of local
governments to charge new development for over capacity roadways. The Legislature directed the
Florida Department of Community ,Affairs (IBCA) and the Florida Department of Transportation
(FIST)to evaluate mobility plans and mobility fees and report the finding to the Legislature in 2009.
In 2009,the Legislature designated Dense Urban Land Areas(C L. , which are communities with a
population greater than 1,000 persons per square mile, as TCEA's. The Legislature accepted the
findings of the DCA and FDOT analysis for mobility plans and mobility fees but did not take any
formal action as the Mate was in the midst of the great recession.The Legislature also placed further
restrictions on local government's ability to implement transportation concurrency, by adding
direction on how to calculate proportionate share and how overcapacity road are addressed.
In 2011,the Florida Legislature through House BilI!(Hg)7207 adopted the"Comm unity Planning Act"
which implemented the most substantial changes to Florida's growth management laws since the
1985 "Local Government Comprehensive Manning and Land Development Regulation Act," which
had guided comprehensive planning in Florida for decades. The 2011 legislative session eliminated
'Mate mandated concurrency,made concurrency optional for local,governments,and eliminated the
Florida Department of Community Affairs (Dand replaced it with the Florida Department of
Economic Opportunity (DEO). The Act essentially removed the DEO, Florida Department of
Transportation (FT , and Regional Planning Councils (RPC) from the transportation concurrency
review process.
11 M3 WIt blim Cwaru.WE 0 ri0a rtwW page 5
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan & Mobility Fein
Although local governments are still required to adopt and implement a comprehensive plan, the
requirements changed significantly and shifted more discretion to local governments to plan for
ability within their community and enacted further restrictions on the implementation of
transportation concurrency, proportionate share,and backlogged roads.The Florida Legislature did
not include any provisions in House Bill 7207 exempting local governments existing transportation
concurrency system, when it elected to abolish statewide transportation concurrency, made
transportation concurrency optional for local governments, and enacted further restrictions on the
implementation of transportation concurrency.. Florida Statute Section 163.318011) provides local
ovemments with flexibility to establish concurrency requirements
'Ysanitary sewer,solid waste, drainage,and potable water are the only public facilities and services subject to
the coricurrency requirement on a statewide basis,Additional pubik facilities and services may not be made
subject to concurrency on a statewide basis without approval by the Legislature; however, any local
government may extend the concurrency requirement so that it applies to additional publicfacilities within its
jurisdiction'.
Ouse Bill 319,passed by the Florida Legislature in 2013,amended the Community planning Act and
brought about more changes in how local governments could implement transportation
concurrency and further recognized the ability of local governments to adopt alternative mobility
funding system, such as mobility fees based on a plan of improvements, to allows development,
consistent with an adopted Comprehensive plain, to equitably mitigate its travel demand impact.
Florida Statute Section 1 . 180i states:
"`if a local government elects to repeal transportation concurrency,it is encouraged to adopt an alternative
mobility funding system that uses one or more of the tools and techniques identifiedin paragraph .Any
alternative mobility funding system adopted may not be used to deny, time, or please an application for
site plan approval,plat approval,final subdivision approval, building permits, or the functional equivalent
of such approvals provided that the developer agrees to pay for the developmenes identified
transportation impacts via the funding mechanism implemented by the local government. The revenue
from the funding mechanism used in the alternative system must be used to implement the needs of the
local government's plan which serves as the basis for the fee unposed.A mobility fee-based funding systema
must comply with the dural rational nexus test applicable to impact fees, n alternative system that is not
mobility fee-based shall not be applied iia a manner haat imposes upas new development any responsibility
for funding an existing transportation deficiency as definedin paragraph h .
9 1U,Alrivtwmmoi, Page
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan& Mobility Fee
Florida Statute Section 163.3164(29) very clearly defines a local government as, 'any county or
Ion
rnun1c*1W. If the Legislature had intended for a County or Charter County to be exempt from
provisions of the Community Planning Act or to have authority over a municipality as it relates to
transportation concurrency, impact fees, or mobility fees, it would have either included specific
references or defined city and county separately, not cohesively as a "local government."
The Community Planning Act did not elect to "grandfather" any local governments existing
transportation concurrency system and did not place restrictions on any local government from
repealing transportation concurrency or adopting an alternative mobility funding system in either
House Bill 7207 adopted in 2011 or House Bill 319 adopted in 2013. After 20 years of amending
Florida Statute Section 163.3180(roughly every two (2) years over a 20-year period between 19,93
and 2013)the Legislature was fully aware that local governments through-out Florida implemented
alternatives to transportation concurrency and elected not to provide any exemptions in 2013 to
preempt Florida Statute Section 163.31 80, like it did in 2009.
In 2009,the Legislature enacted statutory provisions in Florida Statute Section 163.3180(5)(b)5.that
exempted Broward County and Florida Statute Section 163.3180(5)(b)6.that exempted Miami Dade
County from specific statutory requirements related to transportation concurrency exception area
requirements. Those exemptions were repeated as part of the 2011 Community Planning Act that
made concurrenty,optional and eliminated statutory provisions related to dense urban land areas
( ULAs), long term transportation concurrency management areas (TCMAs), multimodal
transportation districts (MMTDs), and transportation concurrency exception areas (TCEAs), The
Legislature clearly had established prior precedent in exempting certain local governments from
requirements under Florida Statute Section 163.3180 and elected not to do so in 2011 and 2013.
Prior to the passage of the Florida Community Planning Act by the Legislature on June 2, 2011,
transportation concurrency was mandatory for local governments statewide, except those with
approved TCEAs or MMTDs. After adoption of the Community Planning Act, transportation
concurrency became optional for any local government and the Legislature encouraged local
governments to adopt alternative mobility funding systems and specifically references mobility fees,
based on a plan for mobility improvements. Accordingly, the Florida Department of Economic
Opportunity (DEO), ,which replaced the Department of Community Affairs, provides the following
direction related to elimination of transportation concurrency and adoption of a mobility fee-based
plan, in accordance with Florida Statute 163.3180:
070 Wrt Lkt40,GVVVx IU Pap 7
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility,Plan &Mobility Fee
'Transportation Concurrenry
In accordance with the Community Planning Act, local governments may establish a system that assesses
landowners the costs of maintaining specified levels of service for components of the local government's
transportation system when the projected impacts of their development would adversely impact the system.
This system, known as a concurrency management system, must be basedan the local government's
comprehensive plan. 5pecifically, the local government comprehensive plan must provide the principles,
guidelines, standards, and strategies, including adopted levels of service, to guide the application of its
transportation concurrency management system.
Prior to June 2, 2011, transportation concurrency was mandatory for local governments, Now that
transportation concurrency is optional, if a local government chooses, it may eliminate the transportation
concurrency provisions from its comprehensive plan and is encouraged to adopt a mabilityfee based plan in
its places below).Adoption of a mobility.fee based pion must be accomplished by a plan amendment that
follows the Expedited State Review Process,A plan amendment to eliminate transportation concurrency is not
subject to state review.
It is important to point out that whether or not a local government chooses to use a transportation
concurrency system, it is required to retain level of service standards for its roadways for purposes of capital
improvement planning. The standards must be appropriate and based on professionally accepted studies,and
the capital improvements that are necessary to meet the adopted levels ofservice standards must be included
in the five-year schedule of capital improvements.Additionally,all local governments, whether implementing
transportation concurrency or not, must adhere to the transportation planning, requirements of section
163.3177(6)(b), Florida Statutes.
Mobility Fee Based Plans
If a localgovernment elects to repeal transportation concurrency, it is encouraged to adopt an alternative
mobility funding system that uses one or more of the toots and techniques identified in section 163,3180(5)(ft,
Florida Statutes:
Adoption of long-term strategies to facilitate development, patterns that support multimodal solutions,
including urban design, appropriate land use mixes,intensity and density.
Adoption of an area wide level of service not dependent on any single road segmentfunction,
Exempting or discounting impacts of locally desired development.
Assigning secondary priority to vehicle mobility and primary priority to ensuring a safe, comfortable, and
attractive pedestrian environment with convenient interconnection to transit,
Establishing multirricidal level ofservice standards that rely primori
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan &Mobility Fee
The Community Planning Act also includes specific requirements for any local government that
elects to maintain transportation concurrency.These requirements are to be addressed in the local
governments comprehensive plan and capital improvements required to meet adopted level of
service standards are required to be included in the capital improvements element five l(s) year
schedule of improvements.
The Legislature also clarified in the Community Planning Act that any backlogged facility is the
responsibility of local governments; new development shall not be charged for backlog, and that
new developments can assume any backlogged facility will be addressed by local governments when
calculating Its proportionate share mitigation. This essentially means it is the local governments
responsibility to fund improvements to deficient transportation facilities, Florida Statute Section
1633180(5)(d).
"The premise of concurrency is that the public facilities will be provided in order to achieve and maintain,the
adopted level of service standard. A comprehensive plan that imposes transportation concurrency shall
contain appropriate amendments to the capital improvements element of the comprehensive plan,consistent
with the requirements of s. 1613177(3). The capital improvements element shall ident4yfocilities necessary
to meet adopted levels of service during a 5-yeorperiod A'
The Community Planning Act recogn,ized that impact fees, mobility fees, and other transportation
concurrency mitigation requirements are equivalent forms of transportation mitigation by requiring
that doll ar-for-dol la r credit shall be provided where a local government requires a development to
make a proportionate share improvement or payment per Florida Statute Section 163.3180
(5)(h)2.e.that states:
"The applicant shall receive a rer4k on a dallar-Lar-dollar,basis for impact Lees ees_and other
n th h
v future for the projectTe credit
,
paid or payable i
shall be reduced up to 20 percent by the percentage share that the prpiecCs traffic represents of the added
capacity of the selected improvement, or by the amount specified'try local ordinance, whichever yields the
greater credit.'femphasis added)
In 2019,the Florida Legislature,through House Bill 7103,amended the Community Planning Act and
required mobility fees to be governed by the same procedures as impact fees. This amendment
further confirmed that mobility fees are an equivalent form of mitigation to impact fees that allow
development to mitigate its impact to the transportation system consistent with the needs
identified in the local governments adopted mobility plan per Florida Statute Section 163.3180(5)(i):
4M 141 U+m�'Imox HE -*4 rvavw4 Page 9
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility plan & Mobility Fee
if a local government elegy to repeat transportation concurrency, it is encouraged to adopt an alternative
mobility funding system that uses one or more of the tools and techniques identified in paragraph _. Any
alternative mobility funding system adopted may not be used to deny, time, or phrase an application for site
plan approval,,plot approval,final subdivision approval,building permits,or the functionalequivalent of such
approvals provided that the developer agrees to pad for the developmenCs Identified transportation impacts
via the,funding mechanism implemented by the local government. The revenuefrom the funding mechanism
used in the alternative system mast be used to implement the needs of the local government's plan which
serves as the basisfor the fee imposed.A a &ejbased&nding&e-basmust m Ir&16141801
a mi . n alternative system that is not mobility fee-based shall not applied'in a manner
that imposes upon new development any responsibility for funding an existing transportation deficiency as
defined in paragraph(h), (emphasis d)
Figure I. Concurrency Cycle
The elimination of state mandated
"trs �t{t( tSttt"fi"1 {
transportation concurrency was the y rz
01, t
t. ti ' `•ilii �`. ( _' 1�j5 i r
culmination of years of amendments t"
to Florida Statute Section 1636180 and
a recognition that governments cannot
7f
build their way out of congestion, The
7c ,
allowance to adopt alternative mobility
funding systems was a recognition of the
REGULATING
need for government to proactively plan CAPACITY PLANNING-
for mobility, instead of reactivelyFOR MOBILITY
regulate road capacity(Figure 1).
Further, Florida Statute defines"lo-cal �
governments"as both"counties andJf
munictpalities" and did not provide
counties any preemptions over cities or
grandfather in any county transportation g
TIAW
concurrency, proportionate share, or impact fee system..
In addition,the Legislature did not make mobility fees a subservient form of mitigation like
proportionate share.The legislature recognized impact fees, mobility fees and other mitigation as
equal options in both the requirement to provide credits for proportionate share payments and
improvements, and as alternatives mobility funding systems to replace transportation concurrency
and proportionate share systems under Florida Statute Section 163.3180.
7'he Remainderi Intentionally,Le lair
i
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Platt & Ml ability Fee
COMPARISONIMPACT FEE & MOBILITY FEE
The Florida Constitution grants local governments broad home rule authority to establish special
assessments, impact fees, mobility fees, franchise fees, user fees, and service charges as revenue
sources to fund specific governmental functions and capital infrastructure. payment of impact fees
or mobility fees are one of the primary ways local governments can rewire new development,along
with redevelopment or expansion of existing land uses which generates additional transportation
demand, to mitigate its impact to a local governments transportation system. While road impact
fees and mobility fees are both intended to be means in which a development can mitigate its
transportation impact,the following are the major differences between the two fees:
Road Impact Fees
• partially or fully fund road capacity improvements,including new roads,the wideni
I
I
I
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan & Mobility Fee
i
LEGAL
i
i
Local governments through-out Florida began adopting road impact fees in the late Ms.and early
80's as a means for new development to pay for its traffic impact and provide local governments
with revenues to fund transportation infrastructure improvements. Counties, especially Charter
Counties, began to require that cites collect road impact fees on their behalf to fund
improvements to the county road system. Throughout the t 's, 199as, and 0 's, cities
through-out Florida challenged the ability of counties to compel cities to collect road impact fees
for new development. The opposition stemmed in part from an unintended consequence of
transportation concurrency which wasthat it essentially stopped development in urban areas
(aka "cities" . Both cities and new development were constrained in their ability to add road
capacity doe to cost of acquiring developed land and fierce opposition from existing residents
concerned about increased traffic and the impact new road capacity Mould have on their homes.
The inability of development in urban areas to meet transportation concurrency resulted in
development moving to suburban and rural areas (algia "urban sprawl") where fewer residents
would come out in opposition to new road capacity improvements and road capacity was either
available or was cheaper to construct, Cities found themselves in the unenviable position of
sending road impact fees to counties, when development did meet concurrency, only to see
those road impact fees being spent on new road capacity projects outside of urban areas that
made it even easier for development to continue to sprawl outside city limits,
Further, the courts frequently sided with counties, as cities that did challenge the legality of
i
counties compelling there to collect impact fees did not offer alternatives to show hoax they
would address the traffic impacts from new development. These challenges all occurred prior to
the Florida Legislature adopting the"Impact Fee Acts through Florida Statute 163.31801, Further,
these challenges also existed prior to the introduction of mobility plans and nobility fees and the
adoption of the"Community planning Acts'through Florida Statute 163.3180.
Before the Florida "Impact Fee Acte was adopted, many local governments had already
developed impact fees through their home rule powers. In 2006, the Legislature adopted the
"Impact Fee Act' to provide process requirements for the adoption of impact fees and formally
recognized the authority of local governments to adopt impact fees, Prior to 2006, the Florida
Legislature, unlike many Mates throughout the U.S, that had adopted enabling legislation,
elected to defer to the significant case lave that had been developed in both Florida and
throughout the U.S. to provide guidance to local governments to adopt impact fees.
4 MM 44 Mw C U I tt,0 r4ft enowi Page 12
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Placa Mobility pee
In 2009, the Legislature made several changes to the "Impact Fee Act"', the most significant of
which was placing the burden of Pref on local governments, through a preponderance of the
evidence, that the imposition of the fee meet's legal precedent and the requirements of Florida
Statute Section 168.31801 E prig to the 2009 amendment, Courts generally deferred to local
governments as to the validity of an imposed impact fee and placed the burden of proof, that an
imposed impact fee was invalid or unconstitutional on the plaintiff. There has yet to be a legal
challenge to impact fees in Florida sine the 2009 legislation, due in large part to the great
recession and the fact that many local governments either reduced impact fees or placed a
moratorium on impact fees between 2009 and 2015.
In 2019, the Legislature,through h8 2017 and HB 7103, made several changes to the "Impact Fee
Acts",the most significant of which was the requirement that fees not be collected before building
permit. The changes also expanded on the requirements of the dual rational nexus test, the
collection and expenditure of fees,credits for improvements and administrative cost.
In 220,the Legislature,through SB 1066, made several additional changes to the Impact Fon Act
to clarify that new or updated impact fees cannot be assessed on a permit if the permit
application was pending prior to the new or updated fee. The bill also made credits assignable
and transferable to third parties.
In 2021,the Legislature,through Fl8 337 made significant amendments to the "Impact Fee Act""
which the Governor subsequently approved.Theamendments require that impact fees be based
on planned improvements and that there is a clear nexus between the need for improvements
and the impact from new development.The amendments have a greater impact on increases t
existing impact fees and have phasing requirements for increases to existing fees. There are
provisions that allow a local government to fully implement updated fees based on a finding of
extraordinary circumstances, holding public hearings,and requiring a super majority approval by
elected officials. Florida Statute Section 163.31901 now reads as follows:
"(t This section may be cited as the 'Florida impact Fee recta"
( The Legislature finds that impact fees are on important source of rearenue f€ar o local government
to use in funding the infrastructure necessitated by new growth, The Legislature further finds that
impact,fees are an outgrowth of the home rule power of a local government to provide certain
services within its jurisdiction. Due to the growth of impact fee collections and local governments'
reliance on impact fees, it is the intent of the Legislature to ensure that,, when a county or
muni ipaahty adopts on impact fee by ordinance or o special district adopts an impact fee b
resolution, the governing authority complies with this section.
D, L ( UL " Page 1
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility plan& Mobility Fee
( For purposes of this section, the term:
(a) "Infrastructure`means a fixed capital expenditure or fixed capital outlay, excluding the
cost of repairs or maintenance, associated with the construction, reconstruction, or
improvement of public facilities that hove a life expectancy of at lest 5 years,.related land
acquisition, land improvement, design, engineering, and emitting costs; and other
related construction costs required to bring the public facility into service. a teres also
includes afire department vehicle, an emergency medical service vehicle,a sheriffs office
vehicle, a police department vehicle, a school bus as defined in s. 1006.25, and the
equipment necessary to outfit the vehicle or bus for its official use.For independent special
fire control districts, the terra includes neer facilities as defined in sa 191.009(4).
(b) "Public facilities" has the some meaning as in s. 1633164 and includes emergency
medical,fire, and love enforcement facilities.
(4) At a minimum, each local government that adopts and collects an impact fee by ordinance and
each special district that adopts, collects, and administers an impactfee by resolution must:
(a) Ensure that the calcul'a'tion of the impact fee is based on the most recent and localized
data,
(b) provide for accounting and reporting of Impact fee collections and expenditures and
account for the revenues and expenditures of such impact fee in a separate accounting.
fund.
(c, Curt administrative charges for the collection of impact foes to actual costs,
(d) Provide notice at least 90 days before the effective date of an ordinance or resolution
imposing a new or increased impact fee. A local government is not required to wait g
days to decrease, suspend, or eliminate an impact fee. finless the result is to reduce the
total mitigation costs or impact fees Imposed on an applicant, new or increased impact
fees may not apply to current or pending permit applications submitted before the
effective date of a neve or increased impact fee.
(e) Ensure that collection of the impact fee may riot be required to occur earlier than the date
of issuance of the building permit for the property that is subject to the fee,
( Ensure that the impact fee is proportional and reasonably connected to, or has a rational
nexus with, the need for additional capital facilities and the increased impact generated
by the new residential or commercial construction.
(g Ensure that the impact fee is proportional and reasonably connected to, or has a rational
nexus with, the expenditures of the funds collected and the benefits accruing to the new
residential or nonresidential construction,.
12-NA Ma CwaruILL 0 rot Page 1
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan & Mobility Fee
(h) Specifically earmark funds collected under the impact fee for use in acquiring,
constructing, or improving capital facilities to benefit new users.
(i) Ensure that revenues generated by the impact fee are used, in whole or in part, to pay
existing debt or for previously approved projects unless the expenditure is reasonably
connected to, or has a rational nexus with, the increased impact generated by the new
residential or nonresidential construction.
Notwithstanding any charter provision, comprehensive plan policy, ordinance,
development order, development permit, or resolution, the local government or special
district must credit against the collection of the impact fee any contribution, whether
identified in a proportionate share agreement or other form of exaction, related to public
facilities or infrastructure, including land dedication, site planning and design, or
construction.Any contribution must be applied on a dollar for-dollar basis at fair market
value to reduce any impact fee collected for the general category or class of publicfacilitres
or infrastructure for which the contribution was made.
(b) if a local government or special district does not charge and collect an impact fee for the
general category or class of public facilities or infrastructure contributed,a credit may not
be applied under paragraph (a).
(6) A local government,school district, or-special district may increase an impact fee only as provided
in this subsection,
(a) An impact fee may be increased only pursuant to a plan for the imposition, collection,and
use of the increased impact fees which complies with this section.
(b) An increase to a current impact fee rate of not more than 25 percent of the current rote
must be implemented in two equal annual increments beginning with the date on which
the increased fee ls adopted.
(c) An increase to a current impact fee rate which exceeds 25 percent but is not more than 50
percent of the current rate must be implemented in four equal installments beginning with
the dote the increased fee is adopted.
(d) An impact fee increase may not exceed 50 percent of the current impact fee rate.
(e) An impact fee may not be increased more than once every 4 years.
(f) An impact fee may not be increased retroactively for a previous or current fiscal or
calendar year.
(9) A local government, school district; or special district may increase an impact fee rate
beyond the phase-in limitations established under paragraph (b), paragraph (c),
paragraph (d), or paragraph (e) by establishing the need for such increase in full
compliance with the requirements of subsection (4), provided the following criteria are
met:
I U, rrarwi
Page 15,
...........................
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan & Mobility Fee
I A demonstrated need study just*ing any increase in excess of those authorized
in paragraph (b), paragraph (c), paragraph (d), or paragraph (e) has been
completed within the 12 months before the adoption of the impact fee increase
and expressly demonstrates the extraordinary circumstances necessitating the
need to exceed the phase-in limitations.
2. The local government jurisdiction has held not less than two publicly noticed
workshops dedicated to the extraordinary circumstances necessitating the need
to exceed the phase-in limitations set forth in paragraph (b), paragraph (c),
paragraph(d), or paragraph(e),
3, The impact fee increase ordinance is approved by at least o two-thirds vote of the
governing body.
(h) This subsection operates retroactively to January 1, 2021.
(71 If on impoctfee is increased, the holder of any impoctfee credits,whethersuch credits are granted
under s. had 3180,s.380,06, or otherwise, which were in existence before the increase, is entitled
to the full benefit of the intensity or density prepaid by the credit balance as of the date it was first
established.
(8) A local government, school district, or special district must submit with its annual financial report
required under s.218.32 or its financial audit report required under s, 218.39 a-separate affidavit
signed by its chief financial officer or, if there is no chief financial officer, its executive officer
attesting, to the best of his or her knowledge, that all impact fees were collected and expended by
the local government, school district, or special district, or were collected and expended on its
behalf, in full compliance with the spending period provision in the local ordinance or resolution,
and that funds expended from each impact fee account were used only to acquire-, construct, or
improve specific infrastructure needs.
(9) in any action challenging an impact fee or the government's failure to provide required dollar-for-
dollar credits for the payment of impact fees as provided in s. 163.3180(6)(h)2,b., the government
Inas the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the imposition or amount of
the fee or credit meets the requirements of state legal precedent and this section. The court may
not use a deferential standard for the benefit of the government.
(10) impact fee credits are assignable and transferable at any time after establishment from one
development or parcel to any other that is within the some impact fee zone or impact fee district
or that is within on adjoining impact fee zone or impact fee district within the some local
government jurisdiction and which receives benefits from the in or contribution that
generated the credits. This subsection applies to all impact fee credits regardless of whether the
credits were established before or after the dote the act become low.
(11) A county, municipality, or special district may provide an exception or waiver for an impact fee for
the development or construction of housing that is affordable, as defined in s. 420.9071. If a
county, municipality, or special district provides such an exception or waiver, it is not required to
use any revenues to offset the impact.
WYEN NA LAW CWcepu L,L,0 604's fft""si Page 16
WRAF'2021Complete Streets Mobility plan & Mobility Fee
0
(12) This section does not apply to grater and serer connection fees.
(1 3) In addition to the items that mast be reported in the annual financial reports under s. 218.32, a
local government, school district county, municipolo, or special district mast report all of the
following information data on all impact fees charged.
(a) The specific purpose of the impact fee, including the specific infrastructure needs to be
met, including, but not limited to, transportation,parks, grater,sewer, and schools„
(b) The impact fee schedule policy describing the meth of calculating impact fees, such as
flat fees, tiered scales based on number of bedroom$, or tiered scabs based on square
footage.
(c) The amount assessed for each purpose and far each type of dwelling,
(d) The total amount of impact fees charged by type of dwelling,
( Each exception and waiver provided for construction or development of housing that is
affordable.
The purpose of this Technical Report is to demonstrate that the City's Mobility Tee is proportional
and reasonably connected to, or has a rational nexus with, both the need for new multimodal
transportation projects and the mobility benefits provided to those who pay the fee, otherwise
known as the "dual rational nexus tesV' and "rough proportionality test" as required by Florida
Statute Section 16 . 18014f, g and h . The "dual rational nexus test' requires a local
government to demonstrate that there is a reasonable connection, or rational nexus, between
The "Need"for additional(new)capltaal facllltles(improvements and projects)to accommodate
the increase in demand from,new development(growth),, and
The "Benefit"that the new development receives from the payment and expenditure offees to
construct the new capital improvements..
In addition to the "dual rational nexus test', the U.S. Supreme Court in Dolan v. Tigard also
established a "rough proportionality test" to address the relationship between the amount of a
fee imposed on a new development and the impact of the new development, The "rough
proportionality test" requires that there be a reasonable relationship between the Impact fee
and the impact of new development based capon the applicable unit of measure for residential
and non-residential uses and that the variables used to calculate a fee are reasonably assignable
and attributable to the impact of each neer development.
Wr=0'L ra RL WhV42FVWVV417
i
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plait& Mobility Fee
The Courts recognized the authority of a municipality to imp se"Impact fees' in Florida occurred
in 1975 in the case of City of Dunedin v, Contractors and Builders Association of Pinellas County,
312 So.2d 763 d DC4. Fla., 1975), where the court held: ''that the so-called impact fee did not
constitute taxes but was a charge using the utility services under Ch, 181, F. Say,
The Court set forth the following criteria to validate the establishment of an impact fee:
"'—where the growth patterns are such that an existing water or sewer systear will have to be expanded in
the near future, a municipality may properly charge for the privilege of connecting to the system a fee
which is in excess of the physical cast of connection,if this fee does not exceed a proportionate part of the
amount reasonably necessary to nonce the expansion and is earmarkedfor that pur se."312 So.2d 763,
766, (1975).
The case was appealed to the Florida Supreme Court and a decision rendered in the case of
Contractors and Builders Association of Pinellas County v. City of Dunedin 329 So. d 314 (Fla.
1976), in which the Second District Court's decision was reversed. The Court held that "impact
fees"did not constitute a tax that they were user charges analogous to fees collected by privately
owned utilities for services rendered.
However, the Court reversed the decision, leased on the finding that the City did not create a
separate fund where impact fees collected would be deposited and earmarked for the specific
purpose for which they were collected, finding:
" he fadure to include necessary restrictions on the use of the fundis bound to resent in confusion, at hest.
Cityp rsonnel may coon and go before the fund is exhausted,yet there is nothing in writing to guide their
use of these moneys,although certain rises, even within the water and sewer,systems, would undercut the
legal basis for the fund's existence. There is no justification for such casual handling of public moneys, and
we therefore bold that the ordinance is defective for failure to spell out necessary restrictions on the use
of fees it authorizes to be collected. clothing we decide,however prevents Dunedin from adopting another
sewer connection charge ordinance, incorporating appropriate restrictions on use of the revenues it
produces, Dunedin is at liberty, moreover, to adopt an ordinance restricting the use of moneys already
collected. We pretermit any discussion of refunds for that reason."329 So.2d 314 921, , Fla. 19 76)
The case tied impact fees directly to growth and recognized the authority of a local government
to impose fees to provide capacity to accommodate new growth and basing the fee on a
proportionate share of the cost of the needed capacity. The ruling also established the need for
local government to create a separate account to deposit impact fee collections to help ensure
those fund's are upended on infrastructure capacity.
r Kra Mw U&uou A LLU rO.3,m&r*vde - 18
...................................................................—–-......... ...........
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan& Mobility Fee
The Utah Supreme Court had ruled on several cases related to the imposition of impact fees by
local governments before hearing Banberry v. South Jordan. In the case,the Court held that:'the
fair contribution of the fee-paying party should not exceed the expense thereof met by others.
To comply with this standard a municipal fee related to service like water and sewer must not
require newly developed properties to bear more than their equitable share of the capital costs
in relation to the benefits conferred" (Banberry Development Corporation v. South Jordan City,
631 P. 2d 899 (Utah 1981),. To provide further guidance for the imposition of impact fees, the
court articulated seven factors which must be considered (Banberry Development Corporation
v. South Jordan City, 631 P. 2d 904 (Utah 1981):
"(1) the cost of existing capital facilities,
(2) the manner of financing existing capital facilities(such as user charges,special assessments,banded
indebtedness, general taxes or federal gronts);
(3) the relative extent to which the newly developed properties and the other properties in the
municipality hove already contributed to the cost of existing capital facilities(by such means as user
charges, special assessments, or payment from the proceeds of general taxes);
(4) the relative extent to which the newly developed properties in the municipality will contribute to the
cost of existing capital facilities in the future;
(5) the extent to which the newly developed properties are entitled to a credit because the municipality
is requiring their developers or owners (by contractual arrangement or otherwise) to provide
common facilities (inside or outside the proposed development) that have been provided by, the
municipality and financed through general taxation or other means (apart front user fees)in other
parts of the municlpality;
(6) extraordinary costs,if any, in servicing the newly developed properties;and
(7) the time-price differential inherent in fair comparisons of amounts paid at different times,"
The Court rulings in Florida, Utah and elsewhere in the U.S. during the 1970's and early 1980's
led to the first use of what ultimately became known as the "dual rational nexus test" in
Hollywood, Inc. v. Broward County, which involved a Broward County ordinance that required a
developer to dedicated land or pay a fee for the County park system. The Florida Fourth District
Court of Appeal found to establish a reasonable requirement for dedication of land or payment
of an impact fee that:
N4%ray"i Page 19
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Platy &Mobility Fee
61
0,.. the local government must demonstrate a reasonable connection, or rational nexus between the reed
for additional capital facilities and the growth of the population generated by the subdivision, In addition,
the government must showy a reasonable connection, or rational nexus, between the expenditures of the
funds collected and the benefits accruing to the subdivision. In order to satisfy this latter requirement, the
ordinance must specifically earmark the funds collected for the use in acquiring capital facilities to benefit
new residents."(Hollywood, Inc. vd Bro and County, 4315o.2d 606(Fla. 4th , rev. denied 440 So.. d
352(Fla g; ),
In 1987, the first of two maj
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Placa & Mobility Fee
I
I
I
The U,S. Supreme Court in addition to upholding the 'essential nexus" requirement from ollan
also introduced the "rough proportionality"test and held that.
In deciding the second question-whether the city's findings are constitutionally sufficient to Justify the
conditions imposed on Dolan"s permit-the necessary connection required by the Fifth Amendment is""rough
pro rtionalityr."leo precise mathematical calculation is required, but the city must make some sort of
individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the
proposed development's impact. This is essentially the "reasonable relationship" test adopted by the
majority of the stag courts, Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 388, 391 (
An often-overlooked component of Dolan v, City of Tigard is the recognition that while
multimodal facilities may cuff-set traffic congestion there is a need to demonstrate or quantify
hove the dedication of a pedestrian/bicycle pathway would offset the traffic demand generated.
per the following excerpt from the opinion of the Court delivered by Chief Justice Rehnquist:
e city made the following specific findings relevant to the pedestrion/bicycle pathway; "in addition, the
proposed expanded use of this site is anticipated to generate additional vehicular traffic thereby increasing
congestion on nearby collector and arterialstreets. Creation of a convenient, safe pedestrion/bicycle
pathway system as on alternative means of transportation could offset some of the traffic demand on
these nearby streets and lessen the increase in traffic congestion," We think a term such as "rough
proportionality"bestencapsulates what we hold to be the requirement of theifth Amendment. No precise
mathematical calculation is required, but the city must make some sort of individualized determination
that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed"
development.
With respect to the pedestri
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan &Mobility Fee
0
The U.S.Supreme Cert recently affirmed,through Koont2 vs.St.Johns River Water Management
District, that the '"dual rational nexus" test equally applies to monetary exactions in the same
manner as a governmental regulation requiring the dedication of land, Justice Alito described':.
"Our decisions in lylollan wr, California Coastal Commission,483 ti.S.825(1987), and Dolan u, CO of Tigard,
512 U.S. 3 7 (1994)provide i
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobil"Plan & Mobility Fee
COUNTY CHARTER
Florida Statute has changed dramatically between 2005 and 2013 related to eliminating
statewide transportation concurrency, promoting development within urban areas, and
encouraging multimodal mobility. Palm Beach County policies have largely remained unchanged
during that same time, The County continues to implement transportation concurrency, focuses
primarily on moving motor vehicles and providing roadway capacity and collects road impact fees
to fund additional roadway capacity improvements based on the County Charter,The Palm Beach
County Charter was last amended on July 20, 2010 and was approved by Palm each County
voters on November 2, 2010, with an effective date of January 1, 2011.
Volume 1 of the County Charter of Palm Beach County, Florida, states in Article 1: Creation,
Powers and Ordinances of Home Rule Charter Government, Section 1.2 that: Nothing in this
Home Rule Charter shall override or conflict with state law or the state constitution.'Further,the
County Charter Section 13 states the following-
'Municipal ordinances shall prevail over county ordinances to the extent of any conflict regardless of the
time of passage of the municipal ordinance, except that county ordinances shall prevail over conflicting
municipal ordinoncesR'
0(2)In matters related to school, county-owned beaches, county district porks, and county regional porky,
solid waste disposal, county low enforcement, county road programs, and county public buildings impact
fees; and in matters related to county fire-rescue and county library impact fees in those municipalities
whose properties are taxed by the county for library or fire-rescue purposes, respectively. This subsection
shall not be construed as preempting or limiting in any way the enactment of municipal impact fee
ordinances for those capital facilities provided exclusively by municipalities, The county shall provide a
credit toward the payment of county impact fees for properties within those municipalities which provide
like capital facilities. This section shall not be construed as a transfer of functions or powers related to
municipal service5."
County Charter Section 1.3 (4) includes provisions related to establishment of level of service
(LOS)standards for collector and arterial roads which are not the responsibility of a municipality
and states the following:
'In matters relating to the establishment of levels of service for collector and arterial roods which are not
the responsibility of any municipality and the restriction of the issuance of development orders which
would add traffic to such roads which have traffic exceeding the adopted level of service provided that
such ordinance is adopted and amended by a majority of the board of county commissioners."
0 M KA Mv rov;41,ILL x"Immi Pace-,33
DRAFT 7071 Complete Streets Mobility Pian & Mobility Fee
i
I
The Florida Legislature adopted HB 7202,which became effective in July of 2011, that abolished
state mandated transportation concurrency and made transportation concurrency optional for
any local government within the State of Florida, including those in palm Beach County.The Pella
Beach County Charter was adopted prior to the effective date of HB 7207.The Florida Legislature
did not provide any exemptions for palm Beach County with regards to transportation
concurrency or impact fees.
The Florida Legislature adopted H8 7207 during the 2011 Legislative Session, which occurred
after the Palm Beach County Charter, was amended effective January 1st, 2011, that led to
abolishing statewide transportation concurrency, eliminating the Department of Community
Affairs, and placed restrictions on local governments ability to implement transportation
concurrency;all effective June 2nd,7011 with no exceptions in Statute for Palm Beach County or
any local government therein. The Florida Legislature has clearly provided "any" local'
government in Florida with the option to adopt alternative mobility funding system per Florida
Statute 163,3180,The Legislature has not exempted Palm Beach County or any local government
within the County, from repealing transportation concurrency and adopting an alternative
mobility funding system. The County road impact fee program, like any local government
imposing an impact fee, is required to meet the two prongs of the 'dual rational test,°, which
impact fee and mobility fees are rewired to meet per Florida Statute 163,3180 (5)(1). An
expanded tale on the two prongs of the dualrational nexus test as it relates to impact and
ability fees is as follows:
"`Needs Prong:" That a rational nexus exists between an increase in demand from new
development and the need for improvements, which serves as the basis for the fee, to
accommodate that demand,and
"Benefits Prong:"That a rational nexus exists between the payment of fees by new development
and the benefit that new development receives from the expenditure of those fees by the local
government imposing the fee to fund the needed improvements.
In 1983, the Home Builders and Contractors Association of Palm Beach County.sued palm Beach
County for imposing road impact fees on neve development to construct road improvements
made necessary by increased traffic generated by new development, The Palm Beach 1990
County Comprehensive Plan recognized that in view of the unusual growth rate being
experienced in the county and to maintain a consistent level of road service and quality of life,
extensive road improvements ou e necessaM,requiting, regulation ofnew,deveigpment
yqlKity whichRenerates o ditiono oup i roi , e p osis added)
DRAFT 20 1 Complete Streets Mobility Plan & Mobility Fee
to,
The County Commission therefore enacted Ordinance 79-7 to finance the necessary road capital
improvements and to regulate increases In traffic levels, The ordinance would require any new
land development activity generating road traffic to pay its "fair share" of the reasonably
anticipated cost of expansion of new roads attributable to the new development(Dome Builders
and Contractors Association of Palm Beach County, Inc. v, The Board of County Commissioners
446 So, d 14 (Fla, list, Ct, App. 1984)), The 4th District Court of Appeal found in favor of the
County.
The fundamental question facing Palm Beach County after 36 years of having a road impact fee
based on the need for"extensive road i prove entV: does the rational nexus still exist?Based
upon the latest 2045 Palm Beach MPO Long Pane Transportation plan (LRTP), there are no
longer "extensive road Improvement," needs within the City of Boynton Beach or the areas
around the City that served as the basis for the road impact fee (Map ). The few road capacity
projects identified in the 2045 LRTP within or adjacent to the City have either been incorporated
into the City's Complete .Street Mobility Plan (projects within Mobility Fee Assessment Area) or
are in areas of the City which are still subject to Palm Beach County's transportation concurrency
system and payment of the County's road impact fees (Appendix .
The, following are some of the issues the County needs to be address and that get to the
fundamental issue at hand, which is, Does the Palm Beach County Road Impact fee still meet
the "dual rational nexus" test within the Boynton Beach MobilityFee AssessmentArea?
1. Does the Palm Beach County Charter supersede the Legislative allowance for a local'
government to adopt alternative mobility funding system systems such as a mobility plan
and a mobility fee to replace transportation concurrency and road impact fees?
.. The 2045 Palm Beach MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) identifies relatively
few County roads that are proposed to be widen by 2045. Most road widening projects
are limited to Interstate 95,the Florida Turnpike and a fear Mate Arterials, Of the County
projects proposed in the LRTP, an overwhelming majority are in the western portions of
unincorporated Palm Beach County, If there are "no" or "limited" road projects in the
clear majority of Boynton Beach, hove is the County meeting the first prong of the dual
rational nexus test?
u4 14- etc U r4o r"W'WE4 Page 2s
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility plan & Mobility pee
. There are few, if any County road widening projects or new roads proposed east of
Congress Avenue or within City limits, Should new development within the Mobility Pee
Assessment Area pay a road impact fee to subsidize road building serving western
unincorporated Palin Beach County? How is the County meeting the second prong of the
dual rational nexus test?
The current Palin Beach County road impact fees are a consumption-based model and
evaluate vehicle trips only. A consumption-based model "assumes" that there is a nee
for new road capacity to accommodate new vehicle trips, even without identifying
specific rind improvements. Consumption based models work fine when it is assumed
there are ample roadway capacity improvements that are being made. However, that
assumption is no longer valid as evident by the adopted 2045 LRTP and the lack of road
capacity improvements east of Congress Avenue..
S. New development, infill development, and redevelopment within Boynton Beach are
paying road impact fees based on countywide trip data and trip lengths,even though they
are making fewer vehicular trips and when they do make those trips, they are shorter in
length. Piot only aro they paying more than they should; they are also not receiving any
benefit from the fees being paid.. It is reasonably debatable that the road impact fee that
these developments are paying no longer meet either prong of the dual rational nexus
test or the rough proportionality test.
d There is no one size fits all approach in a County as diverse as Palin Beach.The benefit of
mobility plans and mobility fees is they allow each City to identify the specific needs and
improvements appropriate for their City and address the modes of travel desired within
the City. To truly effectuate a shift in mode share to walking (mostly less than one t
mile , bicycling ,and scooting (mostly less than three j miles(, and microtransit trips
(mostly less than five S miles) requires a level of detail, focus and planning that is most
appropriate at a City level, not at a Countywide or within unincorporated County which is
either rural or isolated, single-use, suburban style development.
. The County has been collecting road impact fees within the City from development east
of Interstate 95 where there are zero road projects identified between now and 2045.
The County has also not constructed any road capacity projects in the City east of
Interstate 95 in over a decade, while building new roads serving suburban sprawl in
western Palm Beach County. know does that meet the benefit test?
12113 NA L" 1�4"VtL LSI W rvks Page 6
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan & Mobility Fee
OMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The 1st Goal articulated in the Transportation Element of the City's Comprehensive Plan
recognizes the importance of integrating land use and transportation:
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
GOAL 2: '7o develop and maintain a transportation system which will serve the transportation
needs of all sectors, of the City of Boynton each in a safe, efficient, cost effective, and
aesthetically pleasing manner that promotes multi-modal transportation options, such as,
walking, bicycling, and transit."
In 2019, the City amended the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan to establish
legislative intent to develop a mobility plan and fee,. The following are objectives, and policies in
the Transportation Element related to the Citys Complete Streets Mobility Plan and Mobility Fee:
Objective 2.4 "The City shall develop and maintain a safe, convenient, multi- modal
transportation system, including walking, bicycling, and public transit, which will meet future as
well as current transportation needs, particularly within the TCEA and the CRA."
Policy 2.6.3 'the City may seek to repeal and replace Palm Beach County transportation
concurrency, proportionate fair-share and road Impact fees with a Mobility Fee based upon a
Complete Streets Mobility Plan. Repeal of Palm Beach County transportation concurrency,
proportionate fair-share and road impact fees,will require consultation with Palm each County.
The City may also apply a Mobility Fee to the city-maintained facilities, repealing City
transportation concurrency and proportionate fair-share applicable to local roadways."
Policy 2.6.4 'The Mobility Fee may be implemented and adopted citywide or may be adopted
only for specific areas or districts within the City. For each such specific area or district, an
adopted Mobility Fee shall replace both Palm Beach County transportation concurrency,
proportionate fair-share and road impact fees and City transportation concurrency and
proportionate fair-share."
Policy 2. .5 OThe Complete Streets Mobility Plan and Mobility Fee may be adopted by resolution
of the City Commission.The Mobility Fee would go into effect per the provisions of the Mobility
Fee ordinance."'
Policy 2,.6.6"Should the City Commission elect to adopt a Mobility Fee, the City, within one year
of adoption of the implementing Ordinance, shall update the Transportation and Capital
Improvement Elements of the Comprehensive Plan to reflect the repeal of transportation
concurrency, proportionate fair-share and road impact fees and update policies related to level
and quality of service standards,complete streets,capacity determinations, backlogged facilities,
transportation and associated multi-modal policies and other elements addressed in the
Complete Streets Mobility Plan."
Iasi 0"Am lawrMI.,If 4 f", MVVW, Pap 27
DRAFT 202,1 Complete Streets Mobility Plan & Mobility Fee
Policy 2.6.7 The Complete Streets Mobility Plan shall include provisions that address mobility
between destinations and should address accessibility to,from destinations,and between modes
of travel.The improvements In the Plan shall be based upon the expected,anticipated or desired'
Increase in new development, Infill development and redevelopment by the established horizon
year and the associated increase in vehicular and person travel demand.. The Complete Streets
Mobility Plan:shall include quality and level of service standards for all modes of travel."
Policy 2. . "The City,as part of a Complete Streets Mobility Plan, may adopt quality and/or level
of service standards for pedestrians, bicycle, transit and other multi-modal facilities included in
the Plan. Quality of Service standard's shall be related to the overall travel experience of the user
with higher standards establishedin areas where walking, bicycling, transit and other non-
vehicular modes of travel are encouraged. Level of Service standards shall be related to the width
or size of pedestrian, bicycle and non-vehicular facilities with wider and larger facilities in areas
where non-vehicular modes of travel are encouraged and frequency of transit service with
greater frequencies and spans of service in areas where transit is encouraged.."
Policy, . ""The Complete Streets Mobility Plan may serve as a Master Plan for roads and transit
within the City, and also function as a Bicycle, Pedestrian,Trails, Blueways, Greenways and other
non-vehicular modes or travel Master Plan."
Polley 2.6..1 '-The Complete Streets Mobility Plan may also incorporate provisions for reduced
heat island effects and improve air quality through trees and landscaping and to reduce
star w+water run-off and water quality through the integration of low impact development
techniques, bio-svwales, rain gardens and other green techniques that can be incorporated into
the planning, design and construction of transportation improvements."'
Policy 2,6,11 "The Complete Streets Mobility Plan may include policies related to band use to
encourage multi-modal supportive development,The Plan may also include provisions that allow
for reduction in development parking requirements in recognition of car and bicycle sharing in
complete streets, and parking strategies that reduce parking requirements for mixed-use, multi-
modal development and affordable housing."
Policy 2.6£12 "The Mobility Fee would be a one-time assessment on new development or
redevelopment that results in an impact to the transportation system through an increase In
vehicular taps or vehicular miles of travel or an increase in person trips or person miles of travel,
The Mobility Fee, consistent with State Statute, shall be required to acct the dual rational nexus
test and shall be reasonably attributable to the travel demand impact of new development, infill
and redevelo ment,"
4,120 KI Am x LIP, Page 28
i
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan & Mobility Fee
Policy 2.6.13 "The Mobility Fee may include provisions to encourage and incentivize new
development, Infill and redevelopment within targeted areas of the City, The Mobility Fee may
also include provisions to encourage affordable and workforce housing, mixed-use, multi-mo al!
supportive development, and desired land uses that increase employment and attract economic
development.'
Policy 2.6.14A application for private development may not be required to pay a Mobility Fee
and also meet transportation concurrency, proportionate-fair share and road impact fees to the
extent the Mobility Fee address the same facilities and travel demand impacts as would be
addressed through the application of transportation concurrency, proportionate-fair share and
road impact fees for City and/or County or Mate maintained facilities.
Policy 2.6.15 "In consideration of a future Complete Streets Mobility Plan, the City may review
the Land Development Regulations to consider incentives for and accommodate the needs o
compact four-and-two-wheel vehicles(such as hybrids, smart cars, and vespas/scooters, etc.) by
assessing the parking requirements and other provisions of the code."
Remainder of rhis Page Intentionallylank
M 0 LAW Coup&R1 Page 29
i
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan & Mobility pee
DEVELOPING A COMPLETE STREETS MOBILITY PUN & FEE
Where were multiple steps that went into development of the Complete Streets Mobility Plan and
the Mlobility pee for the City. The City established legislative intent to consider development of
mobility plan and mobility fee through the 20,19 amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.. The
following is a step-by-step overview of the process used to develop the Complete Streets Mobility
Plan and Mobility Fee consistent with legal and statutory requirements(Figure ).
Figure . -Developing a Comptete Streets Miab,itityiii e
CITY OF BOYNTONEACH a ,
MOBILITY PLAN MOBILITY FEE
REVIEW ACOPTED PLANS 10 CONDUCT NEVY GROVOTH EVALLIATIO
t 9(OfflOn PUA LWLQ Wqv IND&WWWO Mak A SSre — Moblifty Plat,(%i A siAbutAbW to Jim Grua
I&SWOOn [1 417 ''t"•1-k,a1,jl,31'dlid9 Vni'l,I Pt lItzI;dyir`dfve,gw`WiIt"tsa le.is�
UNDERTAKE DATA COLLECTION ECTI'ON AC, PALATE PERSON WLES OF 1QAYEL RATE
EMN9 TF,40 ir Chwanodatla&ta r dtiare&%*Mty SanAfts 11 PKI Rate ALUffti+keto WW r th
3 PROJECT FUTURE GROW`T�l
sr;�{� E Cirur�� ���ir,�rtr~rs�rt�rdrr dl;i=,t�k�,rar'9zw��;jiiithrVs
Pems M*5 d Tri ed rSTABL',,15H M0801Y FEE SCHE TltG,FE OF USES
iil0 •2ltaaXjIIAmli�j ; 11t -
ESTABLISH SEPTV' CE STAP>dDARDS, 13
ESTABLISH ASSESSMENT AREA
Y PcydoCr iky,$1 r"tx,Trut=h. Am"Mmin Alta
$fir € r T a d P P rtt eC dt C
:4°r�1�t�Get711Pr miSft(��"�4sl�r���+is �9�� ,u(rr,ll rrr8�
14 �:�T.C��L�k�" I� `PI"C'T �`t ' L Tbi ��F�D PER USE
I TIT tTT T PROJECTS prno*I iw%POTWOIeq 16. C"Az4 ktf wxfo
k Ot kukm&kftu Me LianK40T" d yCA s,�,7 1 Q wuan=r,rrr,IH irccm -t ixrr�t;dial r
*t w kr 9 a rrtt$4FC F o- OW Pa ft.Sddaw : Cti,r:d q f"A r
Str K Trift 6WIftTrmt
C'SLC UL FTSE MOWL1TT FEE PER USE
15
PC e r & d[est fi t"W'af
E PARLI H HENEF17 DISTRICTS
DEVELOP FLOP COMP Tr STRUT'S MOBILITY P L,ATQ 16 WOW kit for Msifffty Fm,LW"Aftwr
"saty Man Nqu- I sensco,K q �9'= �drrrslTunr rkr�r,Te rfL rit��tira ti���a� ,�a<r n �� I�;t c,a
CAif), C rae;u rNF �,rPY#
grid iia rrM, ya` ua�i ,4,awd.r`rlrW r�Etirr3 �r r tr
TI VLOPTC"kPPa';«nL )T't"PO 'T
17
Lr�r7 Ute,5mcs x rt
EVALUATE XI '040CONMT]ON �r>ntsx�,ri��rt�ausadtrt�3,*�rrio-nuhr,it�rtsiat�,�»r ;a�='�*tuarp�r �t,��a�rk
an Suet quaft 0 d S kry _. . _ ....,�._
r, �' r� MILLOPIMPLEMENTING ORDIN
NI,A u-, cdt'i1Wf ni,
k tet �t�rrr.Crd Ct Se'ts..
I S St �.C� tH� 'tar�r Ararat/
nT�tTITIk d" a�`tCnLT�CTLl�TCI�'�IPC �I ,
r TtY � ca, OWawid erkr rrtr, ytdakrk �'� rder,as4.i f „ ',�IJI'
W ME�kC wa.Ur,0 r4tj rurw Page 30
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan& Mobility Fee
COMPLETE STREETS MOBILITY PLAN
A Mobility Plan provides a blueprint for the City to proactively prioritize multimodal projects to meet
the growth, travel, and mobility needs of the community in a manner that is coordinated with the
Future Land Use 'Element in theCity's Comprehensive Plan. The City of Boynton Beach Complete
Street Mobility Plan is a vision, over the next 25 years,for how the City's transportation system will
transition from primarily moving vehicles, towards a multimodal system focused on safely moving
people, whether,they choose to continue driving their cars, or decide to wall, bicycle, ride transit,
or use a new mobility technology(Figure ).
Figure 3, MovingPeople,Providing Choices
WALKiNG
TRA,NS
MOVING
UO0
I
t
,.. cx, „1 , i,h,-, ,., t,u,t„ , a l r r to
N10TOR F-11 C L��O «„r
NUE URBAN CONCEPTS
IJAD0 t1 -0,010 At¢tit i wit tirtm,r 'K 111: At,H14its Rawa C
in order to facilitate the transition from a transportation system focused on moving cars towards a
multimodal system focused on the movement of people, it's important to understand that the
speed of travel varies greatly whether a person is walking,bicycling,scooting, riding transit or driving
a car. The speed of multimodal travel generally falls within five tiers, each of which requires
appropriate multimodal projects to accommodate the desired speed of travel(Figure )..
C& A tri -#41 awal Page 31
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan & Mobility Fee
Future updates of the Complete Streets Mobility Flan may involve additional multimodal pro ec s
to accommodate desired modes of travel other than single occupant cars. Specifically, as
micromobility(e.g., electric biles and electric scooters), microtransit(e,g.,golf carts, neighborhood
electric vehicles, and autonomous transit shuttles), ,and shared mobility le. ., transit, ride-hall, and
car-share) devices, services, and programs expand and new technology options become available,
there will be a need to reima ine and repur ose road and street rights-of-way and travel ureas t
accommodate the different speeds of travel for these multimodal modes of personal mo=bility.
Figure . Speed of Travet
MOBILITY PLANNING
r� xr,rA, � w r, � BASED N SPEED
r�h SHAAM 7r o-4
TRAVELOF
,1 G f
-
IXall 'R�A���=P��'�u CCk�J t �y
nipf`d�4U CAra�`g�likrE t5�GV3 4"f9 - l
urnr m scrr `r a .
r 16o1NT
.. f
�7;r i,�?<1� 1�f,t„` tst aas, n,:. ,t dic a ri11S5514h)s ,....
#h4..51�.�KAPr:' �".� ' 1�� � SHAREE)
A
uaVJCVr AsF ---- m MOBILITY
ILITY
2071 hot ortmA C t ILE M is Rol '0
No A MIX 13
Florida Statute 163.3180( )ffl(5)identifies the establishment of multimodal quality of service( S
standards as part of a mobility plan and fee as one option to provide a distinct alternative to
transportation concurrency. The establishment of street quality of service OS, standards, based
on posted speed limits, as a replacement of roadway LOS standards is one way to make a cyan
break from transportation concurrency.Street Q S standards are intended to enhance mobility for
all modes of travel and move towards Vision Zero, by prioritizing slower speeds for cars. Speed of
travel is one of the most Important factors in determining the design of a street. Street QOS
standards are the inverse of roadway LOS standards in that as speed limits go down,street QOSgoes
up.Whereas, as speed limits go down the LOS of roadways also goes down, Street QOS standards
that promote slower speeds provide planners and engineers with greater flexibility to implement
innovative strut designs, such as low speed and complete streets, narrower travel lanes, and
locating buildings and trees closer to travel Lanes,
x It 1 a 32
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan & Mobility Fee
0!
The lower the design speed, the greater the emphasis on the safe movement of people, whether
they are walking, bicycling, or driving. Establishing street CLOS standards based on posted speed
limits more accurately reflects the intended purpose of a street or road and the desired level of
people walking and bicycling, along with access to adjacent land uses. The lower the speed, the
greater the accessibility to adjacent land uses and an emphasis on safely"king and bicycling.The
higher the speed limit, access to adjacent land uses becomes more restrictive, with a greater
emphasis on the movement of vehicles. However,just because a lower speed limit is posted,it does
not mean cars will slow down, unless there are actual changes to the street right-of-way that will
result in people driving slower and more people feeling comfortable to bicycle and walk.
Street Q standards would be phased in over time as part of. (1) designing new multimodal
projects or the repurposing; (2) reimagining of existing, right-of-way to emphasize the safe
movement of people versus the quick movement of cars, and allow for greater levels of
neighborhood traffic calming to improve safety and potentially reduced cut through traffic, The
Phase Two Mobility Plan will utilize these Street QOS standards in the design of Streets. Street QOS
standards are intended to be flexible based on applicable locations and type of street(Figure 5),
Figure 5. Street QuaUty of Service (QOS) Standards
A4 5�T'Y (,,F
,
if"1,,, t CITY OF
VISION ZERO 45 I'A pq r.�A R r,N BOYNTON BEACH
STRILLT QUALITY OF SLRVMC
(CIOS) STANDARDS APPLICAuLc LOCATIONS
04CYCLU LAHfS I FLUX 00t MICRO-
MlICROMORILITY SpeUb Lwm* MOMILITY LANUS/MULTI-U$IK`TRAHZ f
SHARCID-USIL PATH$I SM0CWALK%
QUALITY OF Sestv tcr (QOS,) A Low SPE19D STRECTS Y MAIN STRIMET
LOCAL STRWIETS/RESIDENTIAL
15
CITY STRKCTS
QUALITY OF SCRVICII (QOS) 8 LOCAL STReCTS/ RESIOURTIAL C$TY
STRJKrTG I Mortop/Sor"Lrcy COLLUCYOws
QUALITY OF SCRVtCC (Q05) �C COLLECTORS/ MINOR
SrLfrCT ARYCRIALS 251
'k
Q
UNIT UAL41Y OF SIERVIC-f (Q<m) 0 MAJOR COLLUCTORS ARTE RI LM
30
QUALITY OF SERVICE (005) It'" PRINCIPAL
ARTKRIAL-r. HUE WHAN CI
If W 404404 if,ApqtA.%,",K1,'13iLJ CtVULS OPI"kilftit�A,XWO ib',ULD Of, "A. i�,M*w 41W,k(ftvCw.Ot&,LU U 947a Rm"vd
AOf
I W NA LVRn Sirctou,Lit A rVu rarw Page 33
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility plan & Mobility Fee
Multimodal QOS standards are used to establish multimodal capacities for use in the Mobility Fee
calculations and can be used to for performance measures, mobility planning,design standards,and
prioritizing multimodal projects.These standards combine QOS,and LOS based on: 1 the width of
the facility (i.e., bike lane, path, sidewalk); the type of physical separation between multimocial
facilities and travel lanes for cars, SUVs,trucks,and other motor vehicles;and the posted sped
limit. The following multimodal QOS standards for people bicycling and walking on sidewalks,
paths and trails vary based on the width of the facility,the type of physical separation from motor
vehicle travel lanes e.g., street trees,on-street parking) and posted sped limit(Figure ).
A sidewalk with limited separation from vehicle travel lanes would result in a QO "E". whereas
a twelve (ig)foot wide trail separated from travel lanes by a landscaped buffer would be,a QO
"A'. Higher QOS standards result in increased multimodal capacity and a greater likelihood that
people would bike and walk. The QOS standards will enable the City to establish performance
Treasures to evaluate improvements, in the QOS for people bicycling and walking..
Figure 6. Bicycling and Walkingall of Service Q05) Standards
,� _, , . , � it , � ,; •;;, ,� is, � t �� �L`bt r r IDWCITY Off"
VISION � "311"ANE.�A R D 5 BOYNTON BEACH i
MUL"i"'MOD AL QUALIYY OF SERVICE (OOS) SYANDARDS FOR DiCYCLING gena wALKIP40
VACIuYy Type
TIVAIL 12'
PATH
PAY14 '
14" 1"14.1 10kr* as161) su "IFIA) ry lK OINK 1 �'4'KIM,I��^m
Pon P`..'ak-I'm w '*K' C.10„ Poo, �1 � whx'r av �ew,I. 4TAN:` r
1,00 SMA rv. w rX miTnr W,mKKfsA,,"LJL, �r ar tier I 1 ry 'ltst #
kr we WMA r��,��aa�.vs e�rrw k�rnr�'r ='.nkkk aw�„��.rw �»��sm�;.�e�..�€¢� ;��eu i.�... � leak a
4w R"Unt
m,
a a,ra r twa ern r"erir yrw,„ a urb
11 M WA MW C ,II'r#r'OV4 M-Vo Page 34
DRAFT 2021Complete Streets Mobility Placa & Mobility Fee
I
The multimodal QOS standards for people bicycling and riding micromobility devices (e,g,,, e-bikes,
e-scooters, golf carts)are focused on accommodating pedal powered and multimodal motorized
travel demand on bike lanes, multimodal lanes, and multimodal ways. The following multimodal
QOS standards for people riding bicycles and micromobility devices on bile lanes,multimodal lanes
and ways vary based on the width of the facility, whether the facility is buffered or protected b
a raised barrier, the visibility of the facility, and the posted speed limit (Figure ). A four 4 foot
wide bike lane adjacent to travel lanes would result in a QOS"E"; whereas a protected six ) foot
wide multimodal lane would result in a QOS of "A". The QOS standards will enable the City to
establish performance measures to evaluate improvements in the QOS for people bicycling and
riding micromobility devices.
Figure 7. BicycUng and Micrornobilfty QuaftyService ( Standards
AWL 7 IN 00A
CI II CO
-
F,
ON ZERO 5t�M I I OCITYYNTON�
BEACH
MULTIMODAL UALITV OF SERVICE (005) STANDARDS FOR SI VCL4 Nd AND rWM1 '..RMODIL.ITY
ENHANCED MAXIMUM
VISIBILITY POSTtKo
PACILiYv TYPE;.; MARKINOG SPEED LIMIT
BIKE LANE "
BIKE
L Lspurn
arw
` e
Owe LANE 41 B C D
LIw11 �
20
PAVED SHOULDER E B D �
20
R i' L OLVD
NI
115k
4"4NrAnr4-K&-f A&,t M:aMP nW NUt U91, awe
'40MR 1 NM$.P MC411 C&YAM'n PWPUICAL nVn"AMA'fllR0n rVATWRW4 .44W4 WllT Y'd4FMEN bd a74M iP� i''
aM is 1190%-fttP 0,Wffll, L£c RlRu.r IN ON, Lf*CHW.a X un ONK RIi M11Pid7'a" LTTVKA IA, �RS�� [
P010M,ILW RIME 4,NKV a`'•ZAIRJFa4: x Y+YeT�itu.J.,r. RAWWMAN 010tF A nAcRRC 14RCYIAN ��T`5`e��'rm " Sot, I� SS ``M C 1
n6!d l>xLF 4"9iC 4'34,AN'1y1 "*1?0VM!K MIKE, 4h'4°�a 9�','T' M@.,a nsSFfIR AY 4,1&*T WAIIa CZ)'0$#T'
INt +AJ Y3Y+M NMu IY'FF aTl3%Vr* ftf-m40 On *X 'f 0.H.7w'r'§""4 vo"u"'!t JsN M 3.*NP*-
r4HA, WM*1110E*MiR T' �,n YtWtAl Q,w,RK,NQ9 OVIt.MM A.,0A'4M'NN AMM 04,1.4 4'AKXZ'GKIRasa. 'M KE MW t4amox t
on W"JC Ldk4k 4,# ftv'%Gl'.. 'Irr*'1d. e11MtrQ AYn+O 4"**tsdNie INTf-*44C1 009 ANZ L'k—wil ,'.a..Ys, Cm',.
tWI116LV OKVi iVPAkt"R OINK T "'CW'*011H f4", peF §'M�~41 g'40 hill,*0141 @9`IPMt 0H 0'Lr. '
0 70 0 Aw LmA,Ut A M' �rvw4 Page 3s
i
i
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets(Mobility Plan & Mobility Fe
Depending on the width of a facility, microtransit vehicles (e.g., autonomous transit shuttles, golf
carts, neighborhood electric vehicles)s may potentially use multimodal lanes and ways. The QOS
standards are intended to be used only for corridors that feature transit service. The following
multimodal QOS standards fortransit are based upon the frequency of service and the type of transit
service provided (Figure d The multimo-dal transit QCIS standards are only for corridors with
existing or future transit service. It should be recognized that the City has little say in the h adways
provided by future rail and bus operators, The City does have greater ability to pursue higher QCIS
standards for microtransit and trolley circulators.These QCIS standards can be used by the City to
prioritize transit circulator routes.
Figure a Transit QuaUty of Servlcen a s
G:AI "I TY )ii"
CITY OF
VISION ZERO '3 TANN.lARn,F,, BOYNTON BEACH
4)
MULTIMODAL QUALITY OF SERVICE ( ) STANDAHOB FOR rRANSIT
REPRESENTATIVEOF CITY TRANSIT
FREQUENCY F SERVICE MICROTRANSIT TROLLEY'
10 MINUTES OR LESS
IS MINUTES
20 miNuTes A
-
o mmuTes B C
45 miNuTes C #'
r �
%0**CK:Q0% fUTA4 WHOO 4W UK Co ,'E ry ,LLC
NOYVAI A OPAH me arlavlce CwC.v'&VINO "NOULn ftrnul l 18+1 AN g�
p WflR gt.IN n49 AXL"^��'OVAL Lt"Ttfl G A04 A w'z�044,Tt N Or OVI G A a k. NURBAN O NCI
ToACHI 91"t Q01 A^..quo 0 YN9lOtju-At„Y 12 THX rfq OVM10b4 chf WQ6.TI0,0DAL t I II"� .�•��II
I
------------
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan & Mobility Fee
9�
MOBUTY FEE
The basis for the City of Boynton Beach's Mobility Fee are the multimodal projects identified in the
Complete Street Mobil" Plan consistent with Florida Statute 163,3180(5)(1). The Mobility Fees
collected from new development and are to be used to fund the multimodal project's identified in
the, Complete Street Mobility Plan (Figure 9). The multimodal projects Identified in the Complete
Street Mobility Plan are intended to provide the person miles of capacity needed to meet future
person miles of travel demand,consistent with the"needs" requirement of the dual rational nexus
test, The Mobility Fees collected from new development are to be used to fund the needed
multimodal projects to provide a mobility benefit to new development and serve the increase in
person travel demand from that development, consistent with the "'benefits" requirement of the
dual rational nexus test.
Figure 9. Comptete Street MobiUty Plan and MobiLity Fee
J,
&'VAP
V W oaf«rwvrPt I C U Page 37
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility plan & Mobility Fee
ExISTING CONDITIONs EVALUATION (ECE)
Case law and State Statute prohibit local governments from charging neve development for over
capacity or"backlogged" roadways.The Intent of a mobility plan and a mobility fee is to provide
a distinct alternative to transportation concurrency. One way to make a clean break from
transportation concurrency and overcapacity or "backlogged" roads is to replace road FOS with
street quality of service (GOS)standards based on the posted speed limit(Figure 5),
Road level of service (LOS) standards, and the associated road capacity provided, are based on
the speed of travel for cars. The higher the roadway LOS standards the greater the number of
lanes needed in order to obtain a desired speed of travel. Roadway LOS standards are an essential
component in transportation concurrency, The lower the roadway LOS standards ('D" or "E"),
the greater the capacity there is to move cars: up until traffic Is gridlocked,which is known as LOS
" . Roads in the City of Boynton Reach generally flow at an accepts le rate, except during peak
hours and special events.
An existing conditions QOS evaluation for arterials and collectors within and adjacent to the City
was conducted based on the street QOS standards (Appendix ). The existing conditions
evaluation is intended to establish a baseline CIOS analysis and will serve as a performance
measure that will allow the City to quantify the change in QOS between Mobility Plan updates
(Table 1), The existing conditions street QOS evaluation replaces the "backlog*" evaluation based
on roadway LOS that would typically be conducted as part of a mobility fee analysis.The existing
conditions analysis is necessary to demonstrate that new development and redevelopment is not
being charged for existing deficiencies.
TABLE 1. EXISTING T T QUALITY OF SERVICE
Location QOS A I Q0S R QOS C QOS D QOS E
Source:Street Quality of Service based on existing posted speed limits-and total miles of arterial and collector streets
within and adjacent to the city(Appendix c).Data collected by NUE Urban concepts as of March 2021,
rhe Remainder of rh1sIntentionally Left Blank
JtJ r M f4 $PtIJUV4 Page 38
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plain & Mobility Fee
GROWTH
The first requirement of the dual rational nexus for a mobility fee is to demonstrate that there is a
need for future multimodal projects to accommodate the person travel demand from future
growth.An evaluation of the projected population and employment for the City of Boynton Reach,
based upon data from the latest version of the Southeast Regional Planning, Model (SERPM),
demonstrates that there is projected to be an increase in households, populration,and employs ent
within the Mobility Fee Assessment Area and within the entire city and adjacent areas(Table .
The household, population, and employment data were obtained from the SERPM Traffic Analysis
Zones (T )for the model network evaluated for the Complete Streets Mobility plan and Mobility
Fee analysis (Appendix ). Due to the existing..TAZ structure that extends beyond City limits, the
households,populations and employment data includes areas that are outside City limits.The intent
of the data is to illustrate projected demand from growth in households, population, and
employment within and around the City that will "need" future multimodal projects to provide
ability, part of the documentation required to demonstrate that the Mobility Pee is in compliance
with the'ne s"test under the dual rational nexus test..
TASUE 2. PROJECTED GROWTH
MOBIUTY FEE ASSESSMENT AREA CITYWIDE+&SURROUNDING AR
Year LHouseholds Population Employment Households !Population Employment
204SI 35,677 83,273 47,431 54,447 1 ,7 b3,41R
Source, Projected growth analysis prepared by NUE Urban Concepts,tt:c, Data was extracted from Traffic Analysis
Zones(TAZsJ from time 2015/2045 southeast Regional Plane nModel(sE AP V 8,504).The model files were obtained
frorn the Palm Beach County Transportation Planning cm"I AI webpa e,The data was projected for both the
mobility fee assessment area and the entire city. There is some overlap In data due to TAZs extending beyond City
lirri ts, TAZ data includes areas adjacent to, but not within the incorporated llrnits of the City of Boynton Beate
(Appendix ..
The Remainder of This Page Intenficinally
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan & Mobility Pee
91
VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL (VMT)
The growth in vehicle miles of tragal T is one of the factors evaluated to determine the need
for future multimodal projects within the City.The latest version of the Southeast Regional Planning
Model (SERF was used to determine the VMT growth within and around the City of Boynton
Reach between 2020 and 2045 (Table ).. The VMT data was obtained from the SFRPM model
network evaluated as part of the Mobility Plan and Mobility Fee analysis(Appendix „
Future traffic does not terminate at City limits,thus the evaluation of V T data includes areas that
are outside City limits to ensure the future model volumes evaluated terminate at logical end pints
(intc^rs ctin,5 roads). The VISIT data is used to project future person miles of travel demand to
evaluate the "need" for future multimodal projects necessary to tweet that demand and
demonstrate compliance with the "needs"test under the dual rational nexus test,.
The growth in travel on Interstate .5 is excluded from mobility fee calculations.Travel on Interstate
5 is excluded duo to fact that the Interstate system is largely funded through federal fuel tax
revenues and the potential to levy user fees (tolls)for managed travel lanes.The projected growth
on Interstate 95 is relatively moderate given current conditions and future improvements to the
Florida Turnpike,TRI-Rail, I ri htline and the possibility of TRI-Rail Coastal Service.
TABLE 3. GROWTH IN VEHICLEILS ..T j
Year Arterial & Interstate 95 Total
Collector Roads
---------
20120(Mobility plan base year) 860,113 2,015,1.58 2,877,594
Projected growth In VMT prepared by NUE urban Concepts, LLC,The 2015 base year and 2045 future year
VMT were extracted using the cost affordable modal network from the 2015/2045 Southeast Regional Planning
Model(SE RPM 8,504).4).The model files were obtained from the Palm Beach County Transportation Planning Agency
(TPA)webpage. The 21220 mobility plan base year VMT was interpolated based on an annual growth rate of.
for arterial and collector roads and t for Interstate 95 based ars the increase in VT between the 2015 base year
model data and the 2045 horizon year model data.The'V rtT increase is based on the difference between 2020 and
2045. The model network includes enclave areas within the City and portions of the regional road network that
extend outside of the incorporated limits of the City(Appendix EI
RIP 1 .it,C M,rvmr rrwnq Page 40
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plea& Mobility Fee
®r
PERSON MILES OF TRAVEL (PMT)
The evaluation of future person miles of travel (PMT) is the initial component in the development
of a mobility fee. To account for person trips made by walking, biking,, riding transit, and vehicle
occupancy in a multimodal travel environment, vehicle travel demand is converted into person
travel demand based on data from the 2017 National Household Travel Survey( FITS).Person travel
demand, also referred to as person miles of travel, is calculated based on person trips and person
trip length from the NHTS data.An evaluation of the personal travel data from the NHTS resulted in
a PIVIT factor of 1,81(Appendix F).The projected increase in PMT within and around Boynton Beach
between the Mobility Plan base year of 2020 and the Mobility plan future year of 2045 is 398,116
(Table 4), The calculation for the increase in person miles of travel (PMT) is illustrated in further
detail on Figure 10:
TABLE 4. INCREASE IN PERSON ILL F TRAVEL P
2020 Base Year Person Miles of Travel (PMT) 1,556,805
2045 Future Year Person Miles of Travel (PMT) 1,954,921
- - - -
UUoine. Base and future year vehicle travel data from Table ,PMT obtained try multiplyingMT by
. o alcMitio for the increase in person rules of trvelPT is illustrated in Figure 10.
Figure 1 Person Miles of Travel, P Increase
11 A
W
2 Ukrmfts.Lit: 1 n0i Fuge 41
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan & Mobility Fee
CAPACITYMULTIMODAL
The multimodal projects identified in the Complete Streets Mobility Plan fora the basis of the
mobility fee. The multimodal projects necessary to serve person miles of travel demand include
sidewalks, paths, trails, bike lanes, microtransit circulators, lore speed and complete streets,
streetscape, intersections,and roadways.These multimodal projects are necessary to meet future
person mile of travel demand and lay the foundation for use of new micro- obility devices such as
electric pedal assist bicycles(e-bike)and electric scooters(e-scooter)and microtransit vehicles such
as autonomous transit shuttles, golf carts, and neighborhood electric vehicles. To account for the
capacity benefit of multimodal projects, it requires the establishment of base person capacity rags
for the multimodal projects included in the Complete Streets Mobility plan.
The Florida Department of Transportation's DOT') Generalized Service Volume Tables were used
to establish daily capacities for roadways and intersections(Table ,A principal difference between
a road impact fee based on vehicle miles of travel MT and a mobility fee based on person miles
of travel (PMT) is accounting for vehicle occupancy.
To account for vehicle occupancy, the road capacities in Table 5 are multiplied by a "vehicle
Occupancy factor of 1,84, based capon data from the 2017 N'TH (Appendix P). The Vehicle
Occupancy factor is used in the multimodal capacity analysis for road and intersection projects
identified in the Complete Streets['nobility Plan.
TABLE - CAPACITIES
Vehicle Person Per Lane Turn Lane
Lane Type& Number Capacity Capacity Person Person
Capacity Capacity
4-Lane Divided (Class 11) 33,800 62,19 1S'550 78
Source: Florida Department of Transportation, Quality/Leval of service los Handbook, Generalized Annual
Average Daily Volumes for Florida's Urbanized Areas(Appendix 1. Capacities are based on a t,os E standard.
The dally person capacity is based on a Vehicle occupancy factor of 1.84 per the 2017 F Ts Data for Florida
(Appendix ) Turn lane person capacity is derived by multiplying the daily person capacity by.s per the FDOT
Generalized service volume Table.The person capacity,per lane perm capacity,and tura lane person capacity
are rounded to the nearest 10"'..
9M WA 4 x Ix M,40uvww4 (Page 4
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility plan & Mobility Fee
The establishment of multimodal capacities for people walking and bicycling are based on
methodologies from multiple technical reports and manuals.The capacities for people walking and
bicycling are based on both a level of service(LOS)and a quality of service(QOS),There is an inverse
relationship between the LOS and QOS for people walking,bicycling and scooting.The LOS capacities
for people walking, bicycling, and scooting ,are based upon the number of people that can be
accommodated on a facility over a one-hour period.
LOS of'AL"typically denotes few people are using a sidewalk or bike lane and there is ample room
for people to freely walk, bicycle, or scoot. A LOS "l)" typically denotes more people are using a
sidewalk or bike lane and movements are restricted. A QOS "W"typically denotes an environment
where there is minimal separation between people walking and bicycling and vehicles and there is
often a lack of landscape,shade,streetscape or protections from cars. In environments entss that feature
a QOS"A",there are often wider sidewalks,paths or trails,with street trees and/or on-street parking
and a landscape buffer that separate people walking, bicycling, and scooting from cars.
For people bicycling on-street, the presence of a protectedbarrier, a painted buffer or higher
visibility green lane makes for a higher QOS. In Florida,most facilities for people walking, bicycling,
and scooting feature a LOS"A" and a QOS "D" or"E": meaning few, if any, people use the facilities
to walk, bicycle, or scoot. The multimodal capacity for the various types of multimodal projects in
the Complete Streets Mobility plan are based on varying LOS and QOS standards(Table ),The City
can increase the QOS and multimodal capacity by providing physical barriers between multimodal
facilities and travel lanes, physical barriers would include concrete medians, barrier walls,on-street
parking, grass buffers and street trees. It is common practice in Europe to provide bicycle lanes
adjacent to curbs and locate on--street parking between travel lanes and the bike lane, In the U.S. it
is common for bike lanes to be provided between travel lanes and on-street parking. Increasingly,
there is a recognition that the European model of providing: curb separated and raised bike lames
and protected intersection is one of the main factors in the high level of bicycling and the mode
share for people riding bikes.The U.S.has a long way to go to achieving mode share and greater use
of bicycles.The Complete Streets Mobility Plan is a rove in the right direction.
The establishment of capacities for microtransit is based on methodologies from the Transit
Capacity and Quality of Service Manual,The proposed icrotransit circulators can be comprised of
a combination of golf carts,neighborhood electric vehicles(N ,autonomous transit shuttles('ATS),
and trolleys.The person capacities of microtransit vehicles assume an average of 180 persons per
hour riding over a 16-hour span of service with varying he dwayrs("fable .
N ?0 5tv Coop&tU « x Page 43
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility pian & Mobility Fee
TABLE . MULTIMODAL CAPACITIES
Type of Multimodal Facility Unit of Measure Daily Capacity
-road unpaved Shared-Use paths l ' to 12'wlde 1,200
W a 11
Sidewalk 6'to 7'wide 1,880
Shared-Use path W to 'wide 2,400
Shared-lyse Path 1(Y to 11' wide 3,600
Shared-lyse Trail 1 'to 16'wide 4,800
Source.The capacity for bicycle boulevards, sharrows,and unpaved shared-use paths is based on a LOS'A"and
a ltd "B'.The capacity for sidewalks and bike lanes is basad on a LOS'A"'capacity and a QOS'E'. The capacity
for an R"shared-use path is based on a LOS'A"capacity and a QO "W capacity for a 10' shared-use path
and buffered bike Lanes is basad on a LOS d"r capacity and a QOS'C'%The capacity for a 1 'shar d-use trail and
protected bike lams is based on a LOS"'C"capacity and a QOS,W,rapacity methodologies for sidewalks,paths,
trails,bicycles,and the riverwalk aro basad on methodologies estabfis ed in Transportation Research Record 1636
Paper No.98-0066,the 20D6 Shared-Use Rath level of ServiceCalculator- User's Guide developed for the Federal
Highway Administration, and the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, The transit circulator assumes the use of
microtransit vehicles(i.e„,golf carts,neighborhood electric veNcles(NEV),autononvous transit shuttles ),and
trolleys)with transit capacity of 180 people per house for a spam of service of 16 hours a day..
r1ye Remaindere Intentionally Left 81ank
c4 t u4W,Ccwuvtl L[r o r0i,es Page 44
GRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan & Mobility Fee
COMPLETE STREETS MOBILITY PLAN PROJECT'S
The City of Boynton Reach's Complete Streets Mobility Plan consists of bike lanes, intersections,
paths,roads,safety enhancements,sidewalks,trails,and transit over the next twenty-five years.The
focus of the plan is to provide an interconnected network of safe and visible multinodal projects t
encourage people to bicycle and walk and be able to safely access transit. The proposed traffic
calming, and safety projects are intended to enhance safety of the overall multi al network and
are key to helping achieve the QQS standards and realizing the projected multimodal capacities,
The Intermodal Mobility Station, to be located adjacent to the future TriRail Coastal Station, is the
hub for the entire multimodal system. The proposed People Mover Transit Circulator, to be
comprised of variours transit and microtransit vehicles, will connect the mobility station with
Downtown, Tri all, and attractors and generators through-out the City. The multimodal projects
included in the Complete Streets Mobility plan have been identified to facilitate access to existing
and future rail service and to realize the Poll multimodal capacity and utilization of the multimodal
network, Intermodal Mobility Station, and the People Mover Transit Circulator,
The Complete Streets Mobility Plan will be a living document that will evolve overtime as multimodal
projects are completed and new mobility technologies advance (Appendix ). The Mobility Plan
reflects the need for a transition away from existing transportation concurrency, proportionate
share, and road impact fees to a multimodal transportation system focused on the movement of
people and providing mobility choices. The capacity for each multimodal project is based on the
road and multinodal capacities in Table S and Table 6, multiplied by the length of each multimodal
project and if the project is provided on one or both sides of a road (Appendix ).
The total person miles of capacity (PMQ provided by the multimodal projects in the Complete
Streets Mobility Plan is 428,842 (Table ). The full multimodal capacity was provided for all bicycle
and pedestrian projects.If multimodal capacity was reduced to account for any existing facility,then
there would need to be a corresponding adjustment in the cost of new construction of the
multinodal projects.
i
The only reduction in new capacity added was for High Ridge Road and Miner Road, where the
multimodal capacity for the four-lane divided road was reduced by the existing capacity provided
by the existing two travel lanes for each road.The cost basis for both roads is for the addition of two
additional lanes, not the full cost of a neve fdurdane divided road.
I
i
I'm umos'lit Page 4S
a
a aR72FTMano w IIIb IIA IIIA I pl III ��
k
Bike l r $S3,48Z
Road C000 OAOO
III I
i e y
u �
Bike&Pede uian 0, 8,670
i
dike, trAn A Road 441,02 11,418..'Z64
a . aI
=17
# a . r
r
P i n,Road 'i ro o l ty , ,$ ;9? , 20
Total Q8,842 127,298,7O6
MGM
a ♦ s a s a rw + #iy
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan & Mobility Fee
FUNDING0 1
The availability of funding for multimodal projects over the next 25 years is projected to come from
a variety of funding sources.Palm Reach County has the ability to allocate a portion of gas taxes and
infrastructure sales tax towards City multimodal projects. Gas taxes have been declining locally,
statewide and nationally as vehicles have become more fuel efficient and the percentage of electric
vehicles and hybrid vehicles increase.Neither the Federal Government nor the State of Florida have
raised Ras taxes in a number of years. The gas tars that are available are largely earmarked for
maintenance and operations of the existing transportation network.,
The County's existing infrastructure saps tax provides a broader opportunity to have available funds
to contribute towards the multimodal projects, identified in the Complete Streets Mobility plan
Future infrastructure sales tax initiatives would require voter approval. There has been some
discussion of a VMT tax to replace the gas tax at the federal and state level.There are several stags
that are testing pilot projects for a VISIT tax..Given the current political climate, a VMT tax is unlikely
to pass anytime soon. however, as a greater number of electric vehicles and autonomous vehicles
corm online,there will be renewed Interest In replacing the Ras tax with a VMT fee,
The palm Reach County Transportation Planning Agency (TPA) has available funding identified
through the 2045 Cost feasible Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The vast majority of
projected funding Is allocated towards improvements on the Strategic Intermodal System)SIS),with
a significant amount of the funds allocated toward Interstate qS.The TPA has allocated significant
resources to pursue implementation of Tri-Rail Coastal rail service,
The proposed Intermodal Mobility Station is included in the Complete Streets Mobility Plan in
anticipation of future rail service. The multimodal capacity associated with the Station is based on
future rail service.There is a pool of funds available to fund improvements on the State Highway
System SHS), In addition, there are off SKIS improvements, as well as additional pools of funds
identified in the LRTP,which could include some multimodal improvements that form the basis for
the updated mobility fee.
Historically,there have been grants,earmarks and the use of the various pool of funds identified in
the LRTP to allocate towards multimodal projects in Palm Reach County, While there aro specific
multimodal projects identified as funded in the LRTP, there are several that could be eligible for
funding and have been identified under various pools of available funding.The majority of these are
projects were anticipated to be funded by County road impact fees.
W mt t x t u npmur"i Page 47
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan & Mobility Fee
i
The Citys mobility fee would replace a portion of this anticipated funding. L TP funds are typically
part of a competitive process that identifies projects as part of the annual update of the
Transportation Improvement.Program,(TIP).In recognition of the availability of funding identified in
the LPTP and historic grants, earmarks, and other sources of funds available to Palm Beach County
and the pity of Boynton Beach,the mobility fee calculations include$12,000,000 in available funding
between 2021 and 2045,or$500,000 a year over a 4-year period(Table .This amount is subject
to annual amendments,.
TABLE 8. ANTICIPATEDAVAILABLE FUNDING
::::AntIcipated Available Fundingi2, 0,000
� . r
Farm
Sou The multimodal project cost is provided in Table 7'a Anticipated available funding based on a rate of
$500,000 per year over a -year period, The unfunded multimodal improvement cost obtained by
subtracting the potentially available funding sources and the total multirrodal improvement cost.
e e of Thise IntentionaUy
L tLt g Page 48
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan & Mobility Fee
NEw GROWTH
EVALUATION
To ensure that new growth is not paying,for more than its fair share of the cost of the multimodal
projects identified in the Complete Streets Mobility Plan,as required by case law and Florida Statute,
a new growth evaluation has been conducted.The neve growth evaluation is bused on the projected
increase in person miles of travel(P T)and the projected increase in person miles of capacity(PMC)
from the Complete Streets Mobility Plan improvements. A PMT PMC ratio less than 1.00 means
that more multimodal capacity is being provided than is needed to accommodate future travel
demand and would require a reduction in the overall cost of capacity projects attributable to new
growth. A PMT PMC ratio greater than 1.00 means that new development is not being charged
more than its fair share of the cost of multimodal projects and no additional adjustments would be
needed.The new growth evaluation factor(N Ff) is illustrated on Figure 11,
FIGURE 11. NEW' GROWTHTI
The projected P Ti/ P Ci ratio is .928, which is less than 1.0(Tabie 9). Thus, new growth is beim
charged more than its attributable share of the cost of Complete Streets Mobility Plan,For purposes
of the calculation of the Mobility Fee rate, the NGEf is set to 0.928 to ensure neva' growth is not
charged more than its fair share.
TABLE 9. NEW GROWTH EVALUATIONj
Increase in person Mites of Capacity(PMC) 428,842
r
Source.The Increase In perton miles raf travel based arra Table .The increase in parson n M capa4 y is based on,Tabfe 7 "hero la
aviVuitian ra{t0a,bo a Ks basad on the forrniula In f rir*11,
04'xat 11,r9w rwwwq Page49
(�4
r w w► . � to . _ r � +t
r� w
■ r r= <w # w
Person Iles of Travel Efate p Tr
GCSTrnp Formula I(LENml x CSTmp)
NCSTmp Formula m (GCSTmp r F ry
fCSTmP Formula T Ff
Tr Formula F Tmp Tl
Where:
F l mp Length f MuttknodalprojectsIreCompleteSheets Mobility
CST p fuer We Cost of Multimodal Projects inComplete Streets Mobility Plall
GCSTmp Gross Cost of Multirnodal Projects in Complete Streets Mobility
T p Net Cost of Multimodalect l CompleteStreetsMobility Plan
' p cFunding ReasonabtV Anticipated for Complete Streets Mobility Plan
NW 4 New Growth Evaluation factor of 0.928
FCSTmp, = Final Cost of Multiinodal Projects in Complete StreetsMobility a
TI = Person Miles of Travel Incr
Tr'= Person Miles of Travel Rate
'' Unfunded�CPMP ete L_
Plant
Proal X16 S# til 1�
w w
Person'Miles of Travel Rate(P' T ) $268.76
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan & [Mobility Fee
MOBILry FEE ASSESSMENT AREAS,
There are two kinds of geographic areas in mobility fee systems. assessment areas and benefit
districts. Assessment areas are based on either a physical tocation, such as a downtown, or a type
of development pattern,such as a traditional neighborhoW development(TND),New,development
within the City only pays the mobility fee rate applicable to the assessment area in which the new
development is located® A benefit district is an area within which mobility fees collected are
earmarked for expenditure as required by the second test of the dual rational nexus test.
A single Mobility Fee Assessment Area is proposed for the City.The Mobility Fee Assessment Area
includes all areas of the City east of Interstate 95 and western portions of the City located
between Congress Avenue and Interstate (Map . The Mobility Tee Assessment Area also
includes an area west of Congress Avenue comprised of the Boynton Beach Mail and adjacent
parcels. The mobility fee will apply uniformly within the Mobility Fee Assessment Area.
New development, along with redevelopment and change or expansion of a use that generates
additional person travel demand will be required to mitigate their transportation impact through
payment of the City's Mobility Fee. The development would no longer be subject to
transportation concurrency, proportionate share or road impact fees, TCEA policies in the
Comprehensive plan may still apply, as they are an alternative to transportation concorrency,
until the Comprehensive Plan is ,amended to remove or revise the TCA policies, It is
recommended that the terra TCFA be replaced with mobility solutions or a similar terra to
transition away from transportation concurrency. The development would still be subject to
evaluating site related access connections. It is also recommended that the City consider
establishment of site access assessments or site impact assessments as a replacement of traffic
impact analysis,which have become synonymous with transportation concurrency.
All areas outside of the Mobility Fee Assessment Area would still fall under the County's existing
transportation concurrency system and wouldstill pay the applicable County road impact fee.
This would include any future annexed areas between the western most City limits and Military
Trail and between Flypoluxo Road to the north and Dunes Road to the South. The City may elect
in the future to establish additional assessment areas or expand the Mobility Fee Assessment
Area citywide, The Downtown, Community Redevelopment Areas (CRAB), and Transit Oriented
Developments(TODs) outside of a CRA would be candidates for future assessment areas. Should
the City expand the Mobility Fee Assessment Area citywide, it may wise to consider the
establishment of different assessment areas east and west of Interstate 95 to account for the
difference in gridded transportation networks and mixture of land uses.
470 KA, twurd..t0"iv r rawnd ft#t sl
__.........
I
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility plan & Mobility Fee
PERSON TRAVEL DEMAND PER USE (PT'Du)
The second component in the calculation of a mobility fee is the calculation of person travel
demand for each use included on the mobility fee schedule.The factors utilized in the calculation
of person travel demand for each use are the principal means to achieve the "rough
proportionately"test established by the courts and Florida State 163,31801, Figure 13 illustrates
the formula used to calculate the person miles of travel for each use.
FIGURE - u
Trip Generation
Trip generation rates are based on daily trip information published in the Institute of Transportation
Engineers' Trip Generation Monual, T' h edition. The detail for the daily trip generation rates
for each use is included in Appendix 1_,
Trips
The percentage of new trips is based on a combination of the various pass-by analyses provide
in ITE"s Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd edition and various traffic studies conducted throughout
Florida. The percentage of new trips differs slightly from the commonly used term passerby trip.
020Keg A C .c ul' Page
.................................
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan& Mobility Fee
The term percentage new trips are the percentage difference in trips after pass-by trips are
deducted. The concept is better understood per the following: (10 trips x (100% - 3,0% pass-by
rate)) = 7 trips or 70% new trips). While the ITE's Trip Generation does not recognize pass-by
rates for uses other than retail, pass-by rates were utilized for uses such as offices, day care,
places of worship, entertainment and recreation uses to reflect how people move about the
community. A pass-by trip is a trip that is traveling and stops at another land use between an
origin point(commonly a dwelling)and a destination (place of employment).The detailfor the%
new trips is included in Appendix 1.
Person Trip Factor
The person trip factor is used to convert vehicle trips to person trips based on the recently released
2017 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS).To obtain the most recent and localized data, the
travel survey was evaluated specifically for Core used Statistical Area ( SA)#33100 that includes
Miami, Fort Lauderdale & West Palm Beach, The NHTS person trip factors vary by trip purpose
(Appendlx F .A total of 1,367 unique trip surveys where evaluated based on trips of 30 miles or less
in length.Trip purpose data aggregated by listed trip purpose.The total data referenced in Appendix
E is based on unaggregated data from the 2017 NHTS for CBSA# 33100.
Person Trip Length
The person trip length is based on the recently released 2017 National Household Travel Survey
(NH'TS). To obtain the most recent and localized data, the travel survey was evaluated specifically
for Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA) #33100 that includes Miami, Fort Lauderdale & West Palm
Beach.The person trip lengths vary by trip purpose(Appendix F).A total of 1,367 unique trip surveys
where evaluated based on trips of 30 miles or less in length.Trip purpose data aggregated by listed
trip purpose,The total data referenced in Appendix E is based on unaggregated data from the 2017
TITS for CB5A#33100.
Umited Access Evaluation (LAE]l
Travel on Interstate 95, which is a limited access facility, is excluded from mobility fee calculations
as the Interstate System is principally funded and maintained by the Federal Government in
coordination with FDOT and funded through the gas tax trust fund. To ensure development that
generates new person miles of travel is not charged for travel on Interstate 95, a limited access
factor has been developed.The factor is developed based on 20201 volumes from the SERPM model
network(Appendix E),The limited access evaluation factor (LA f) of 0,30 is applied to person trip
lengths to account for the 70%of travel occurring,on Interstate 95(Table 11).
a U$11 C01 U.0 g*s MWS Page 53
i
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility plea & Mobility Fee
TABLE It. LIMITED ACCESS EVALUATION (LAE)
interstate 95 VMT 2,015,158
Source. The 2020 VMT data was obtained using the cost affordable model network from the 2015/2045 southeast
Regional Planning Model l Is .5 .Thr*VMT data was interpolated based on,an annual growth rate of.92%
for artern1l and collector roads and ,1 for Interstate 95. The growth rates am based on the lincrease IncreaseIn VMT
ton the 2015 base year model data and the 2045 horizon year model data. The limited access fear Is
calculated by dividing collector and arterial road VMT by the total VMT(860,113/2,,877,594) (rounded t
nearest hundredth),
Origin and DestinationAdjustment
Trip generation rates represent trip-ends at the site of a land use, Thus, a slin 'le origin trip from
home to work counts as one trip-end for the residence and from work to the residence as one trip-
end,for a total of two trip ends.To avoid double counting of grips,the net person travel demand is
j multiplied by the origin and destination adjustment factor of 0.50. This distributes the impact of
travel equally between the origin and destination of the trip and eliminates double charging..
Person Travel Demand per, ,u
The result of multiplying trip generation rotas, percentage of new traps, person trip length, the
person trip fetor,the limited access evaluation,and the origin and destination adjustment are the
establishment of a per unit person travel demand per use within the Mobility fee Assessment Area
(Appendix J), The PTDu by reflects the projected person travel during an average weekday by the
various land uses in the mobility fee schedule,.
The Remainder of Thise Intentionally lin
#7MK11JrirDrcWzAX Mq4jrarmi Page 5
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Moblllty Plan& Mobility Fee
MOBILiTy
To ensure the rough proportionately test is addressed, the person travel demand of individual
uses is evaluated through the development of a mobility fee schedule, The Mobility Pee is based
on the person travel demand for each use (PTf' u) listed on the mobility fee schedule multiplied
by the person miles of travel rate PMTr established in Table 10. The calculated person travel
demand for each use represents the full impact of that use (Appendix J)o The Complete Streets
Mobility Plan and Mobility Fee have been developed to provide the needed transportation
improvements on City, County, and Mate roads to address future travel demand growth within
and around the City and allow development to fully mitigate its impact by payment of a Mobility
Fee to the City.The calculations for determining;the Mobility Pee per Use within the Mobility Fee
Assessment Area (Figure 4),
FIGURE 14. MOBILITY FEE CALCULATION
rr
The Mobility Fee schedule seeks to strike a balance between the City's Comprehensive Plan and
current market trends.The uses included on the Mobility Fee schedule enable the City to use the
Mobility Fee as an additional tool to further integrate laud use and transportation planning
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plana The Mobility Fee schedule has been developed to
recognize uses that enhance the City's quality of life and provide employment opportunities and
economic development.
The Mobility Fee schedule of uses is broken down into four 4) components- 1 category of uses;
individual use classifications; ) representative uses; and (4) the mobility fee per use. The
first (1st) component are overall categories of uses, such as residential or office, under each
overall category there are multiple uses for which a mobility fee is calculated. The overall
category is generally consistent with the overall function of a use of land for the individual use
classification.
o � A U'u-0Page ss
DRAFT 202Complete Streets Mobility Plan& Mobility Fee
I
These overall categories are generally consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan and the ITE
Trip Generation Manual. These categories headings also specify if the individual uses are
calculated on a per square foot s .ft. or a different unit of measure.
The second ( 1") component are individual use classifications, such as community serving or
commercial storage. These individual use classifications have similar person travel demand
characteristics or similar functions to the overall use category.These individual use classifications
are generally consistent with the ITE Trip Generation Manual classification under a give category
uses.The individual use classifications will specify the unit of measure to calculate the mobility
fee if it differs from a rate per square foot (sq, ft.)or per 1,000 square feet.
The gird (P) component are representative uses under the individual use classifications. These
representative uses are shown in brackets such as (Day Care, Place of Assembly or Worship,
Private School)after the individual use classification of Community Serving.These representative
uses have similar person travel demand characteristics and functions to the individual use
classification, Theses uses are not exhaustive and are intended to serve as a guide to describe
the types of use that would be assessed a mobility fee used on the rate for the individual use
classification. The definition of each individual use classification provides further detail on the
types of representative uses would fall under an individual use classification. These
representative uses are generally consistent with the ITE Trip Generation Manual classification
under a give category of uses and individual use classifications.
The fourth (41) component are the mobility fee rates per individual use classification-. The
mobility fees. The mobility fee for an individual uses is determined by multiplying the mobility
fee rate by the applicable unit of measure. The following is an example the four(4) components
of the mobility fee schedule(Figure S)t
FIGURE 15. MOBILITYFEE SCHEDULE
Four(4)components of a Mobility Fee Schedule
Use Categories, Land uses Classifications,and Representative Lard Uses
(21 Use classification)= Community Serving (S 'Mobility Fee Rate
( 14 Representative Use=(Civic, Place of Assembly, Museum,Gallery) $2.52
i
X lif A 4 MVIVA
I
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility plan& Mobility Fee
0
The mobility fee schedule proposes a streamlined approach to residential mobility fees that is
easy to administer and addresses affordability, The schedule proposes a flat residential mobility
fee rate per square foot for single-family residential uses, The residential mobility fee is set-up
so that a 600 sq. ft. cottage pays a mobility fee for 600 sq. t. If a single-family house is 4,0010
square foot, the mobility fee will be based on 4,000 sq. fit. The calculation of mobility fees on a
per sq. ft. fee is consistent with how the building industry prices permits. The City Council may
wish to establish a maximum square footage for which a single-family residential mobility fee
would be assessed Haat differs from the Mobility Fee schedule.
The calculated mobility fee per use is prodded in the mobility fee schedule (Table ).. The
mobility fee is provided on a per sq. ft. basis, For uses where the nobility fee is based on a unit of
measure other than sq.ft., such as hotel or marina,the maobility,fee schedule provides the per unit
of measure for calculating the mobility fee,The nobility fees are rounded to the nearest hundredth
place. Moving towards a per sq. ft. fee would brie non-residential fees into conformance with
how they are actually calculated, as opposed to the standard practice of providing fees on a per
1,000 sq. fth basis, which is based on the process established in the ITE Trip Generation Manual,
Multi-family residential uses are assessed on a per bedrooms basis. An additional residential use,
known as Attainable Residential, has been established in support of affordable and workforce
housing and is based on a per bedroom rate, In recognition of a housing trend towards smaller
square foot residential dwellings, housing which meets the City's definition of Attainable
Residential, or an accessory dwelling unit or tiny home may request that the Mobility Fee be
assessed on either a per sq. f. or per bedroom basis, whichever unit of measure would result in
a lower mobility fee. The City may establish additional types of residential uses.
The institutional, industrial, recreation, and office use categories in the proposed schedule
represent the most common land use classifications.. There are two primary retail land use
classifications that have been established to directly reflect the person travel demand impact for
each use to the transportation systems The first 11 retail land use classification, local Retail'
(non-chain,and non-franchisee) has been established to recognize that local uses do not have as
great a travel demand impact as regional and national chains to the transportation systema an
therefore would pay a lower mobility fee rate. The second d retail land use classification is
intended for all other types of commercial and retail uses.To reflect higher travel demand,there
are also five individual uses that will be assessed additive mobility fees in addition to any
mobility fee assessed for buildings associated with the use. As more and more land uses
downsize, a mobility fee based solely on building size does not fully capture the travel demand
impact of certain high travel demand uses. The following Mobility Fee schedule illustrates the
mobility fee rates per use based on the applicable unit of measure (Table t
tha,c0c4ts,tlL Page 57
i
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan & Mobility Fee
611
TABLE 1 . MOBILITY-
Use Categories,Use Classifications,and Representative Uses Mobility
Fere
Single-Family Residential s r sq.ft. $1.92
Multi-family Resid�enti�al'per bedroom 11,,2-33
Attainable Residential A a a per bedroom $929
Overnight Lodging I(Bed&Breakfast, hotel,Inn,Motel,Resort, RO,Vacation Rental(per room 1,9
Recreational Vehicle lark(RVs,Tiny Homes on Wheels,Travel Trailers)per space or lot $1,207
Long Term Care(Assisted living,Congregate Care,Group Horne,Nursing Home(per sq ft, $1.31
=Communi"tyServing(Day ire,Plane of Assembly or Worship,private School( $187
IN
Industrial(8revwIng,Fabrication,Distribution,Macturing,Utility) $1.37
Commercial Storage(Mini'Warehouse,Warehouse:, at,RVs Other Outdoor r Storages .74
Marina(including yacht Club(per berth 69
....
Entertainment&Recreation,Outdoor per acre $4,129
Entertainment&Recreation,Indoor(Fitness,Kid&Family Play,Sports,Studios,Theater(per sq,ft. $3.26
INf
Office(Bank,Financial,General,Higher Education,Professional) $2.72
Medical Office(Clinic,Doctor,Dentist,Emergency,Health,Hospital,Veterinary,Wellness( $&60
Local Retail('Commercial,Restaurant,Sales,Services,Vehicles)* per sq.ft $339
Remail(Commercial,Restaurant,Sales,Services,Vehicles(5 per sq,ft. $638
Bank IlrivewThru Lane or Free-Standing ATM per lane or ATM� - - $11,993
Motor Vehicle&Boat Cleaning(Detalling,Wash,Wax)per lane or stall $6,9
Motor Vehicle Charging&Fueling per charging or fueling position$' $13,915
Pharmacy Drive-Thru per lane $9,284
Quick Service Restaurant Drive-fihru per lane $31,428
9 M 4A 4 �Itfi s rorwid Pace 8
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan & Mobility Fee
TABLE 12. MOBILITYSCHEDULE FOOTNOTES
'Residential uses and overnight lodging within vertical mixed-use buildings shall pay the applicable mobility fee
rates for the residential and overnight lodging use.Any n-residential use within the vertical mixed-use buildings
that Is not directly affiliated with ttne residential or overnight lodging,use shall pay the applicable mobility fee.
Any residential use that meets the City definition of Attainable Residential or is an accessory dwelling unit or tiny
house,may request that the mobility fee be assessed an either a per sq.ft.or per bedroom basis,whichever unit
of measure results In the lowest mobility fee,Square footage is habitable and living space with climate control,
n Attainable Residential includes affordable and workforce housing meeting City, County, or State criteria for
defining affordable and workforce housing. Micro-units,studios,or active adult(senior housing) units less than
750 sq.ft.are also included(units greater than 750 sq.ft.considered multi-family).Where a unit does not have a
defined bedrooms(s),the unit Itself would be co nsidlered a bedroom.
n Acreage for any urnenclosed material and vehicle storage,sales and display shall be converted to square footage,
Local Is defined as a commercial or retail use with five (S) or fuer location statewide, no national locations,
non-chain and non-franchisee owned.
n Square footage shall be based on gross sq.ft.under roof or canopy and all areas used for outdoor display,sales,
seating,and storage not under roof or canopy.
Each bank building shall pair the office mobility fee rate for the square footage of the building, Drive-thru lanes,
free-standing ATM's and driveethru lames with AT is are assessed a separate mobility fee per lane or per ATM
and are added to any mobility fee associated with a bank building.The free-standing ATM Is for an ATM only and
not an ATM within or part of another non-financial building,such as an ATM within a grocery store,.
Motor Vehicle gi goat cleaning mobility fee rates shall be calculated based on the number of stalls, lank or
drivesthru lanes associated with the cleaning, detailing, washing, and waxing of motor vehicles and boats. The
mobility fee is an additive fee and is assessed in addition to the retail mobilit=y fee per square foot for any building
which will be occupied and be used for interaction with customers, Buildings for storage or maintenance of
equipment would be considered ancillary to the use itself and would not be assessed a mobility fee per sq, fl,
based on the applicable retail rate.
Rates per vehicle charging or fueling position apply to any retail uses with vehicle charging or fueling,whether
a convenience store,gas station,general store,grocery store,supermarket,superstore,variety store,wfiGlesale
club or service stations with charging stations or fuel pumps.In addition,there shall be a separate retail mobility
fee per square foot for any building.The number of charging or fueling positions is based on the maximum number
of vehicles that could be charged or fueled at one time.
Any drive-thru associated with a pharmacy will be an additive fee in addition to the retail mobility fee per square
foot of the building. The number of drive-thru lames will be based on the number of lames present when an
Individual places or pick-up a prescription or item.
r0,Any dr -thru associated with a quick service restaurant will be an additive mobility fee in addition to the retail
mobility fee, per square foot.The number of drive-thru lanes will be based on the number of lanes present when
an individual places and or picks-up an order.The quick service restaurant drive-thru rate applies for any tape
of retail building,,whether a multi-tenant or free-standing building.
s tic 0 rots4 Page S9
i
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets 'Mobility Plan & Mobility Fee
MOBILIw FEE CALCULATIONS
The following are a few examples for how the mobility fee would be calculated for a use:
Single FamilyResidential 2, q.
Mobility Fee: 2,000 sq.ft. x$1.92 per sq. ft. = $3,840(rounded)
Multi-F ll l nrntl i (1,100 sq. ft. and beds
Mobility Fee:two bedrooms x $1,233 per bedroom --$2,466(rounded)
AttainableResidential (7DD and onebedroom)
Mobility Fee: one bedroom x$929 per bedroom --$929 (rounded)
Overnight Lodging (100rooms)
Mobility Fee. 100 rooms x$1,906 per room= $190,600
Entertainment erre tion, Outdoor per acre (10 acres)
Mobility Fee. 10 acres x$4,129 per acre= $41,290
Office (3,000 sq.
Mobility Fee,3,000 sq..ft.x$2.72 per sq.ft. -- $8,,160 (rounded)
Doctors Office 0 .
Mobility Fee: 4,000 sq.ft. x$5.60 per sq.ft. = $22,400 (rounded)
LoicaL Retail, 2,
Mobility Fee: 2,500 sq.ft. x$3.39 per sq.ft. =$8,475 (rounded)
xru Restaurant ,
Mobility Feue. 3,500 sq.ft. x$6.78 per sq.ft. = $23,730(rounded)
Convenience Store (5,000, qr .) with 20 FuelingPositions Plumps)
Additive Mobility Fee.9,000 x$6.78 per sq.ft.=$33,900+20 x$13,915 per position $312,200
Mobility Fee, $33,900 $278,300= $312,200
Quick Service Restaurant (1,250sq. . It o rive- `hru Lanes
Additive Mobility Fee... 1,250 x $6.28 per sq.ft. =$8,475+2 x'$31,42 1 per lane =$42,994
Mobility Fee.$8,475 $62,856= $71,331
Bank (3,000 sq. , with 2) Drive-Thru ATMDrive-hnes
Additive Mobility Fee: 2,5 x$2.72 per sq. ft. =$8,160+ 2 x$11,933 per lane=$23,866
i
Mobility Fee. $8,160 $23,8 = $32,026
t
L It 4 J*u M e 60
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan & Mobility Fee
0 1
MOBILITY FEE COMPARISON
A comparison between the City of Boynton Beach Mobility Fee and the existing Palm Beach County
road Impact fee has been prepared (Appendix g) The comparison shows what the closest
comparable County road impact fee would be to the City's Mobility Fee. it should be noted that this
is not an apples-to-apples comparison, The County's road impact fee is based on rates from there
7011 impact fee study and there 2017 impact fee study. The County elected to pick and choose
whatever rate it deemed appropriate. The County's road impact fees are not based on the most
recent and localized data as required by Florida Statute,
The County road impact fee also uses a consumption-based methodology that is just based on an
adopted level of service standard, not a road project the County actually intends to construct. The
Boynton Beach Mobility Fee uses a plan-based methodology where the Mobility Fee is based on the
cost to construct real world projects. The County road Impact fee uses vehicle miles of travel and
trip lengths that it deemed appropriate. The City Mobility Fee uses person miles of travel, person
miles of capacity, person travel demand,and trip lengths based on NHTS data for southeast Florida.
The City Mobility Fee is also based on information as of 2021, the County last updated Its study in
2817, Further, the County picked and choose rates from the 2011 and 2017 road impact fee
calculations,The unit of measure used by the County also differ from the Mobility Fee.
The City's Mobility Fee was also calculated per 1,000 sq, ft.to allow for a better comparison to the
County's road impact fee (Appendix K).. The calculation is for comparison purposes only, the
Mobility Fee proposed for adoption is provided on Table 12. Based on the comparative analysis,the
proposed Mobility Fee is slightly lower across all categories,Thus, per Florida Statute,the City could
make the Mobility Fee effective the day of 211 reading and adoption of the implementing ordinance,
since Statute does not require a -day waiting period if a mobility fee is lower than what is currently
being assessed on new development and redevelopment. Any use that has not yet paid their road
impact fee to the County could elect to the pay the City's Mobility Fee, even if a building permit
application has been filed with the City. If a developer has already paid the County, it would be the
responsibility of the developer to request a refund from the County,which the County may or may
not grant. The Mobility Fee is proposed to be assessed at building permit application and collected
prior to building permit issuance.
While the comparison is a useful metric, the Mobility Fee is based on the Citys Complete Streets
Mobility Plan and the County's is not.The uses listed in the City and County fee schedule are not the
same, a best fit analysis with the City's fee was made to allow for the comparison. For anyone
desiring to understand the County road impact fee, they should contact the County,
O N1 Lkion LwcWx,UC U r4tj rtowk Page 61
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan&Mobility Fee
MOBILITY FEE BENEFIT DISTRICT
The benefit test of the dual rational nexus test requires that local governments establish separate
areas within which mobility fees collected are earmarked for expenditure, it is recommended,given
the relatively compact nature of the City,that a single Mobility Fee Benefit District be established.
(Appendix Q. The limits of the Mobility Fee Benefit District are greater than the Mobility Fee
Assessment Area in recognition that person travel does not stop at City limits. There may be some
instances where the City may wish to provide funding to an adjacent municipality, the County, or
State to make a muftimodal improvement outside City limits that provides a benefit to those who
pay the fee within the City. The approximate limits are Hypoluxo to the north, US Hwy 1 and the
Intercoastal to the east,the City limits,and the L 30 canal to the south,and Military Trail to the west.
The enactment of a Mobility Fee Benefit District ensures that mobility fees collected within the
Benefit District are expended on multimodal projects that provide a mobility benefit to new
development and redevelopment within the City that pay the mobility fee. The establishment of a
Mobility Fee Benefit District ensures that the second requirement of the dual rational nexus test
is met by clearly defining where funds are collected and where they are expended. The
establishment of a Mobility Fee Benefit District also ensures that the land uses within the District
that pay the fee are provided the benefit of mobility from the multimodal projects to be funded
within the District.
DEFINITIONS
The following are definitions of unique terms referenced in the mobility fee Technical Report.These
definitions will be incorporated by reference into the implementing mobility fee ordinance.
Assessment Area shall mean a geographic area of the City where mobility fees are assessed on new
development, along with redevelopment, change or use and expansion of a use that generate an
increase in person travel above the current use of land.
Attainable housing shall mean multifamily affordable and workforce housing units which meet City,
County, or State criteria for defining affordable and workforce housing. Micro-units, studios or
active adult (senior housing) units less than 750 sq� ft. are also included (units greater than 750 sq.
ft, are considered multi-family). When a unit does not have a defined bedroom(s), the unit itself
would be considered a bedroom.
Autonomous transit shuttle shall mean a vehicle that uses artificial intelligence, sensors and global
positioning system coordinates to drive itself with or without the active intervention of a human
operator.
4 70 Kk tHm Cwt��,LIC M AWi mw*tA, Page 62
i
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility Plan+lid Molallity Fee
Bark Dri - `hru Lane or Free-Standing ATM shall mean any drivemthru lane used for banking
purposes such as deposits, withdrawals, balance inquires, or bill pay. The drive•thru may include
either a teller window, pneumatic device for transferring banking information or Bands, or an
Automated Teller Machine (ATM), This use also includes free standing bank, drive-thru lanes and
freestanding walk-up or drive-thru ATM machines.An ATM inside or attached to a building that has
a use open to the public or end user and is not just a standalone ATM structure or bui Id ing shall not
be assessed a fee, The fee shall be based upon the total number of drive-thru lanes with a banking
window,pneumatic device or ATM and/or the total number of free-standing ATM's.
Bedrooms all mean a defined area principally for sleeping and shall include a closet and at least
one window and one door for means of ingress and egress as required by the latest edition of the
Florida wilding Code,.
,benefit Districtshall mean areas designated in the applicable mobility fee ordinance where fees Haat
are paid by development are expended,
Capacity shall mean the maximum sustainable flow rate, at a service standard, at which persons or
vehicles reasonably can be expected to traverse a point or a uniform section of a bicycle facility,
pedestrian facility, roadway, or shared-use multimodal facility during a given time-period under
prevailing conditions. For transit, the capacity is the maximum number of persons reasonably
accommodated riding a transit vehicle,along with the frequency and duration of transit service.
Commercial Services and Retail Uses shall mean those commercial activities which provide for sale,
lease or rent of products, services, accommodations or use of space to individuals, businesses, or
groups and which include those uses specified in the ITE Tri: Generation Manual under Land Use
Code Series 80 and 900,
Commercial Storage shall mean facilities or acreage in which one or more warehouses,storage units
or vaults are rented for the storage of goods and/or acreage or is providing for the storage of buts,
RVs,vehicle trailers and other physical items that are larger than what is typically stored within ars
enclosed structure.The acreage for outdoor storage,excluding drive aisles, buffers and stormwater
management areas, shall be converted to square footage for purposes of calculating the fee.This
shall not include an individual's personal property where such items are stored by the owner of the
land and not for commercial purposes, subject to allowance by land development and zoning
regulations.This use falls under ITE Trip Generation Manual under Land Use Codes in the 100 Series
that include Warehouse in the use description,
Community Serving shall mean those uses that are operated by a civic origination, governmental
entity, non-profit, foundation, or fraternal organization, including places of assembly and worship,
day cares, private schools, along with uses such as YMCA, museum, art studio, gallery, cultural
center, community meeting spaces, community theater, library, or a fraternal or masonic lodge or
club,or any community and civic based uses that do not sell retail goods or services for profit. Food,
beverages,goods,and services maybe offered for ancillary fundraising to support the use.
f IJP A - LIC U res rm' Page 6
DRAFT 2021 Complete Streets Mobility plan & Mobility Fee
4b,
Complete Streets shall mean a transportation policy and design a pproach that requires multimodal
transportation improvements to be planned, designed, operated, and maintained to enable safe,
convenient, and comfortable travel and access for users of all ages and abilities regardless of their
ode of transportation and to allows for safe travel by those walking, bicycling or using other forms
of non-motorized travel,riding public transit or driving motor vehicles or lows sped electric vehicles.
Complete :street Mobility Pian shall mean the plan adopted by the City of Boynton each that
identifies multimodal projects to meet the future person travel demands of new development and
redevelopment.
Entertainment and Recreation,Indoorshall mean facilities that primarilyfocus on individual or group
fitness,exercise,training or provide recreational activities,The uses typically provide exercise,dance
or cheerleading classes, weightlifting, yoga, pilates, cross-fit training, fitness and gymnastics
equipment. Indoor commercial recreation also includes kid and family, friendly activities such a
bowling, pool, darts, arcades, video games, batting cages, trampolines, laser tag, bounce houses,
skating,climbing walls,and performance centers. Food,beverages,equipment, and services maybe
offered for ancillary saps.
Entertainment and Recreation, Outdoor shall mean means outdoor recreational activity including
land uses with miniature golf, batting cages, video arcade, bumper boats, go-carts, golf driving
ranges, tennis, racquet or basketball courts, soccer, baseball and softball fields, paintball, skating,
cycling or biking that require paid admittance, membership or some other type of fee for use.
Buildings for refreshments, bathrooms, changing and retail may be included, The fee shall be based,
upon the total acreage of the facility for active uses outside of buildings and all buildings used to
carry out a primary function of the land use activity.Areas for parking, buffers and stormwater that
are not active features of the land use are excluded from the fee acreage. The use would ,generally
fallunder the ITE Land Use Code 400 series..
Entertainment and Recreation Uses shall mean those public or quasi-public uses that serve a
community's social, cultural, fitness, entertainment and recreational needs, which include
applicable land uses specified in the ITE Trip Generation Manual under Land Use Code Series 400
and 500.
industrial shall mean those activities which,are predominantly engaged in building and construction
trades, the assembly, finishing, processing, packaging, and/or storage, or distribution of goods or
products, utilities, recycling, waste management and uses that include brewing and distilling that
may have taps, sampling or tasting rooms, and include those uses specified in the ITE Trip
Generation Manual under Land Use Code'Series 000 and 100 but excluding governmental uses and
warehouses. Industrial uses typically have ancillary office space and may have display or
merchandise display areas for various trades and industries that are not op=en to the general public.
Industrial uses are also located in land uses and zoning districts intended for industrial uses.
4M LIE M,1 64
27 Sggtion I.. The foregoing "Whereas' c1lauses are true and correct and are hereby
28 ratified and confirmed by the City Commission.
Section 2. The City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida, hereby
30 adopts the Boynton Beach Cornplete Streets Mobility Plan and Mobility Fee Technicai Report,
31 copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibits 'A" and "B',
32 lection 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon passage,
33 PASSED AN D ADOPTED this 2 nd day of November, 2021.
34 CtTY OF BOYON BEACH, FLORIDA
35 YES NO
36
3 7
Mayor- Steven B. Grant
38
39 Vice Mayor-Woodrow L. Hay
40
41 Commissioner-Justin Katz
4,2
43 Commissioner- Christina L. Rornelus,
44
45 Commissioner-Ty Penserga
46
47
48 VOTE S
49
50 ATTEST;
51
54 CFrstal Gibson, MMC
55 City Oerk
56
58
59 (Corporate Seaq
60
SA,'A1,1,RFS0Adtqv,Coniploic slrrd'fi mlkohty 1"Lin R'rmf.dox