REVIEW COMMENTS
i
f'
MEMORANDUM
POLICE #91-057
FROM:
Ms. Tambri Heyden
Lt. Dale S. Hammack
TO:
DATE:
July 15, 1991
RE:
Bergeron Compound
As per our discussion at the Technical Review Board meeting of 11
July 1991, I am recommending the following:
1. The physical location of the construction compound is at
minimum over 2 miles from the construction site. This
distance (over public streets with heavy equipment during
peak traffic times) places an undue risk to the general
public.
In addition, the location is next to a residential
neighborhood. Noise from the site places an undue burden on
those persons who reside there.
For these reasons, I feel the construction compound should
not be located at the site proposed. (Public Safety)
I!{)~ </1-
Lt. Dale S. Hammack
DSH/cgm
"
Federal Highway Administration
Region 4
DRAFT
fOR REVIEW ONLY
f
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
u.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
Florida Department of Transportation
State Project Number: 93220-1435
Federal Aid Project Number: 1-95-1(388)59
Work Project Number: 4147530
Interchange at 1-95 and N.W. 22nd Avenue,
Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida
provision of Access Ramps to and From Existing N.W. 22nd Avenue
over 1-95.
Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2) (c).
Approved For Public Availability
Date
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Section
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.3.1
3.3.2
3.3.3
3.3.4
3.3.5
3.4
3.5
"'"
~
UHAfT
FOR REVIEV/ ONLY
'l'ABLE OF CON'l'EN'l'S
'l'itle Page
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The Study Corridor
The Existing Facility
The Proposed Action
NEED
System Linkage
Capacity
Transportation Demands
Federal, State, or Local Government
Authority
Social Demands
Modal Interrelationships
Safety
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
New Location Alternative
Improvements to Existing Facilities
Design Alternatives
ISpread Diamond Interchange
Standard Diamond Interchange (Proposed
Action Alternative 1)
Urban Diamond Interchange (Proposed
Action Alternative 2)
Estimates of Probable Cost for
Design Alternatives
Maintenance of Traffic During
Construction
No Project Alternative
Proposed Action Alternatives
IMPACTS
Socioeconomic
Community Services
Community Cohesion
Land Use
Relocations
4.2 Cultural and Historic Resources
4.3 Natural and Physical Impacts
4.3.1 Pedestrian/Bicycle Facilities
4.3.2 Visual/Aesthetic
4 . 3. 3 Air
4.3.4 Noise
4 . 3. 5 Wet land
4.3.6 Water Quality
4.3.7 Floodplain
4.3.8 Coastal Zone Consistency
4.3.9 Threatened and Endangered Species
4.3.10 Construction
4 0
4.1
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
.'
Section
5.0
5.1
5.2
APPENDIX
A-l
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( CONT. )
Tit1e
COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
Advance Notification
Other Agency and Public Coordination
Greater Boynton Beach Chamber of
Commerce (Resolution)
Metropolitan Planning Organization
(Resolution)
Division of Historical Resources
(Letter)
Department of Environmental Regulation
(Letter)
Office of Governor (Memorandum)
";
...
U Kf\~ I
FOR REVIEW ONLW
Page
7/3/85
9/18/85
11/3/86
11/12/86
12/23/86
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW ONLY
Figure Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
LIST OF FIGURES
'.l'it1e
Location Map
Vicinity Map with Study Window
1985 Existing Traffic Volumes
Year 2010 Traffic Assignment
Without Interchange
Year 2010 Traffic Assignment
With Interchange
Standard Diamond Interchange
(Alternative 1)
Urban Diamond Interchange
(Alternative 2)
Existing and Proposed Land Use
Noise Contours About 1-95
Noise Contours About N.W. 22nd Avenue
Noise Receptor Locations
,
Page
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW ONLY
LIST OF TABLES
Tab1e Number
Tit1e
Page
1
Proposed Roadway Improvement
in Study Window
2
Population Estimates and
Projections
3
Recent Additions and Approved
Single Developments
4
Comparison of Alternatives
5
Summary of Land Uses in
Study Window
6
Projected Carbon Monoxide
Concentrations
7
Noise Abatement Criteria
8
Noise Levels in dBA at
Receptors in Design Year
'\.
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW ONLY
SECTION 1.0
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The Florida Department of Transportation (FOOT) proposes to
construct an interchange at 1-95 and N.W. 22nd Avenue in Boynton
Beach, Florida. The Interchange Justification Report (IJR) for
this project was approved in September, 1986. This draft
environmental assessment documents the proposed action, the
environmental setting, the need for the project, alternatives
considered, the anticipated impacts of the project alternatives,
and the results of public and agency coordination
1.1 THE STUDY CORRIDOR
The proposed project is located in Palm Beach County, Florida,
within the municipal boundaries of the City of Boynton Beach.
~ Figure 1 illustrates the location of the project within the
State. 1-95 extends north-south through the County and is
paralleled on the west by the Seaboard Coastline (SCL) Railroad.
N.W. 22nd Avenue is a two-lane, east-west facility which crosses
over 1-95 and the SCL on structure.
The study window defined for the environmental assessment is
shown on Figure 2, Vicinity Map. The window extends from
u.S. 1 on the east to Congress Avenue on the west and
from Hypoluxo Road on the north to Boynton Beach Boulevard (State
1
DRAfT
FOR REViEvV ONLY
FIGURE 1
LOCATION MAP
;J.Z-
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW ONLY
FIGURE 2
VICINITY MAP WITH
STUDY WINDOW
a 3
i....
,FOR REVlEVv ONLY
Road 804) on the south. N.W. 22nd Avenue is located
approximately l~ miles from the nearest interchanges to the north
and south, at Hypoluxo Road and Boynton Beach Boulevard,
respectively. Land uses in the study window generally include
residential uses to the east of 1-95 and currently undeveloped
land to the west of 1-95 and the SCL.
1.2 THE EXISTING FACILITY
1-95 in the study window has three, 12-foot lanes in each
direction separated by a 56-foot grassed median. Total right-of-
way width for 1-95 is a minimum of 300 feet. Paved shoulders are
10 feet wide along the outside lanes and four feet wide along the
median.
The SCL occupies approximately 55 feet of right-of-way
immediately adjacent to 1-95 on the west.
N.W. 22nd Avenue is a two-lane, east-west facility. West of
Seacrest Boulevard, the right-of-way width is 100 feet: east of
High Ridge Road, N.W. 22nd Avenue's right-of-way is 170 feet.
Over 1-95 and the SCL, the right-of-way widens to 320 feet.
The two-lane structure is a five-span bridge with an overall
length of 398.5 feet. The present clearance between columns
under the N.W. 22nd Avenue bridge is 96 feet.
1.3 THE PROPOSED ACTION
Construction of a full-direction interchange is proposed at N.W.
~~
U KA ~ I
FOR REVIEW ONLY
22nd Avenue and 1-95. This interchange is proposed to be of
either the diamond or urban diamond type within existing rights-of-way.
Logical termini for the project are the intersections with High
Ridge Road on the west and Seacrest Boulevard on the east.
The proposed diamond interchange will have two through lanes and
dual left turns in each direction on N.W. 22nd Aenue. The urban
interchange will also have two through lanes in each direction
and dual left turns. For both alternatives, the ramps will have
dual left turn lanes and one right turn lane. The diamond will
be signalized at either end of the bridge at the junction of the
approach ramps. The urban interchange will have one signal in
the middle of the bridge. See Section 3 for a more detailed
discussion of the proposed action alternatives.
Retaining walls will be used along the approach ramps which will
also provide noise attenuation for receptors to the east. The
cost of the proposed action is estimated to range from $7-15
million.
~
SECTION 2.0
DRAFT
EOR .REVIEW ONLY
NEED
This section describes the need for the project in terms of
transportation and socioeconomic considerations. The following
paragraphs discuss system linkage, capacity, transportation
demand, governmental authority, economic development, modal
relationships, and safety.
2.1 SYSTEM LINKAGE
Two existing 1-95 interchanges are within the study window.
These are Hypoluxo Road to the north and Boynton Beach Boulevard
to the south. These interchanges are approximately three miles
apart. N.W. 22nd Avenue crosses 1-95 at about the midpoint
between the interchanges, or approximately 1~ miles from each.
In addition to the interchange, virtually all of the roadway
facilities in the study window are proposed to be improved as
shown on Table 1. Without the proposed action, these
facilities would be less successful. This is because much of the
system-wide traffic which affects this study window is drawn from
4-ra."c-\c;.
areas to the north and south of Boynton Beach. Such traffic ~
1-95 to reach the area and then must depend on either the Hypoluxo
Road or Boynton Beach Boulevard interchange to reach Congress and
N.W. 22nd Av~nue. While the proposed interchange does not
provide a -missing link-, it does fill a need in system linkage.
~(,
Facility
1-95
TABLE 1
PROPOSED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
SR 804 (Boynton Beach
Boulevard)
Hypoluxo Road
Congress Avenue
Seacrest Blvd.
N.W. 22nd Avenue
High Ridge Road
IN STUDY WINDOW
Planned Improvement
Widen from 6 lanes
to 8 lanes (add 2
HOV lanes in median).
Widen from 4 lanes
to 6 lanes
Widen from 2 lanes
to 4 lanes.
Widen from 4 lanes
to 6 lanes.
Widen from 3 lanes
to 5 lanes (underway)
Widen from 2 lanes
to 4 lanes.
Widen from 2 lanes
to 4 lanes and realign.
"7
nn':F~
i.J i ih I
fOR REVIEW ONLY
Jurisdiction
FOOT
FOOT
Palm Beach
County
Palm Beach
County
City of
Boynton Bch.
Palm Beach
County
City of
Boynton Bch.
,J
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW ONLY
2.2 CAPACITY
Traffic volumes for this study were obtained from 1985 ground
counts and from the year 2010 West Palm Beach Urban Study Area
Update which is currently being developed for Palm Beach County
The updated 2010 network was developed using the Urban
Transportation Planning System (UTPS) model. The existing
network and two-way, 24-hour volumes for the study window and the
estimated year 2010 traffic assignment with and without the
interchange are shown on Figures 3, 4, and 5. In addition,
interim year volumes for 1990 and 2000 were developed and are
included in the Traffic Technical Report.
Figures 3, 4, and 5 reflect the magnitude of traffic that is
expected to be experienced in the study area as development
pressures increase, particularly to the west of 1-95.
Major
western attractors include the Boynton Beach Mallon Congress
between N.W. 22nd Avenue and Boynton Beach Boulevard: Motorola
and the Catalina Center at Congress and N.W. 22nd Avenue: and
Quantum Park currently under development on both sides of N.W.
22nd Avenue between Congress and 1-95. Without an interchange,
the system will respond circuitously to attractors in the west
via Hypoluxo, Congress, and Boynton Beach. For example, traffic
on Congress between N.W. 22nd Avenue and Boynton Beach Boulevard
increases from 14,400 (24-hour volumes) in 1985 to between 58,000
- and 86,000 in 2010. Other links in the network also will
.8
Figure 3
1985 Existing Traffic Volumes
[; i \. \ I ,
.FOR REV1EVv ONLY
,
i
J
~.
~
(
;.
1
.J~
._~-~---
Figure 4
Year 2010 Traffic Assignment Without Interchange
t )0
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW ONLY
Figure 5
Year 2010 Traffic Assignment With Interchange
..."
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW ONLY
DRAFT
fOR .REVIEW ONLY
experience significant increases in volumes, particularly in the
vicinity of the two existing interchanges
With the interchange,
year 2010 traffic will increase on N.W. 22nd Avenue, thereby
relieving other facilities such as Congress Avenue, Hypoluxo Road
and Boynton Beach Boulevard.
Capacity analyses were conducted for the two proposed action
alternatives. A standard diamond interchange will provide level~
of service (LOS) 0 in 2010 and an urban interchange will provide
level of service (LOS) C in 2010. In addition, provision of the
interchange will allow LOS C at Boynton Beach Boulevard and
Hypoluxo Road in 2010. Without the proposed interchange (the
No-Project Alternative), Hypoluxo Road will perform at LOS 0 and
Boynton Beach Boulevard will perform at LOS C near 1-95 by 2010.
2.3 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND
The proposed action is consistent with the State Transportation Plan
for 1-95 reconstruction.
The interchange justification report (IJR)
was approved in September, 1986, with a benefit/cost ratio ranging
from 6.27:1.00 to 14.25:1.00 depending on the discount rate used
In 1984 it was determined by the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) that the proposed action is cost feasible.
The interchange therefore was included in the City of Boynton Beach
comprehensive planning process and in the 1986-1990 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP).
~Iz.....
DRAFT
fOR .REVIEW ONLY
2.4 FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY
The proposed action is supported by the City of Boynton Beach, the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Palm Beach County, and the
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. Appendices A-1 and A-2
present resolutions from local governments. The improvement also is
included in the adopted Year 2000 Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan
and in the Needs identified for the West Palm Beach Urban Area Study
update. The interchange also was recommended by the City of Boynton
Beach in its year 2000 comprehensive plan prepared in 1978 and the
Evaluation and Appraisal Report prepared in 1986.
2.5 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
A major impetus for the proposed action comes from economic
development. Like the remainder of the State and Palm Beach County,
the City of Boynton Beach is growing rapidly. See Table 2. Most
of this growth is occurring in the area west of 1-95. The magnitude of
major existing and proposed land uses west of 1-95 is given in Table
3. As in all of southeast Florida, 1-95 in this area serves as
a major arterial rather than a long-distance facility. Therefore
access to and from 1-95 is critical to sustain these westward growth
trends.
In 1977, on~y 25 acres, or 8.7% of the City's developed land, was in
commercial/manufacturing services land uses. Now Quantum Park alone
will provide an additional 371.6 acres of industrial and office
.. ,~
DRAFT
fOR .REVIEW ONLY
TABLE 2
POPULATION ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS
(in thousands)
Census %
Counts Estimates ChaJlge Projections
1980 1985 1980-85 1990 2000 2010
State of 9,747.1 11,287.0 15.8 12,597.4 14,765.8 16,696.7
Florida
Palm Brach 576.8 713.3 23.7 840.5 1,060.8 1,235.4
County City of 2 44.0 23.6 51.3 65.9 80.4
Boynton Bch. 35.6
Sources:
1
1986 Florida Satistical Abstract, Bureau of Economic
and Business Research, University of
Florida, 1986.
2
Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and
Appraisal Report, 1986.
N/A = Not Available.
~ 1"1
I
j
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW ONLY
TABLE 3
RECENT ADDITIONS AND APPROVED SINGLE DEVELOPMENTS
Oevelopment Land Use Type Employment Square Feet Units
1.Quantum Office/ 11,700 N/A
Park Industrial
Park
2.Motorola Industrial 5,400 N/A
3.Boynton Retail 1,000,000 N/A
Beach Mall
Mall
4.Catalina Commercial 65,000 N/A
Center (office)
160,000
(retail)
Residential 200
5.Catalina Residential 1,000
Club
6.Boynton Commercial 299,100 N/A
Oistribution
Center
TOTALS
17,100
1,524,100
1,200
Source: Interchange Feasibility Study, 1986
N/A=Not Applicable
.z:e ~ ~
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW ONLY
development within its 591-acre park. This type of development is
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan of 1978 and Evaluation
and Appraisal Report (EAR) of 1986, in which a better balance between
residential and non-residential uses is recommended.
~
~
.:tt \ (.,
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW ONLY
2.6 MODAL INTERRELATIONSHIPS
The proposed action will be complimentary to the high occupancy
vehicle (HOV) lanes proposed for the median of 1-95. In
addition, the developers of Quantum Park have agreed to provide
t7 acres of land north of N.W. 22nd Avenue near the SCL railroad
for use as a proposed Tri-County Rail System station. See
Appendix A for correspondence regarding the station. For both of
these activities, provision of an interchange will encourage
their usefulness through improved access.
N.W. 22nd Avenue is a designated bikeway in the City of Boynton
Beach's Comprehensive Plan. See Section 4 for a discussion of
pedestrian and bicyclist impacts.
2. 7 SAFETY
The proposed action will provide increased capacity within the
study window. By eliminating the need for circuitous travel on
Boynton Beach Boulevard and Hypoluxo Road for drivers seeking
attractors to development in the west, the proposed action will
improve safety.
~n
SECTION 3.0
DRAFT
fOR .REVIEW ONLY
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Alternatives considered for this project include the No Project
alternative: an interchange at a new location north or south of
N.W. 22nd Avenue: a spread diamond interchange: a standard
diamond interchange: an urban diamond interchange: and
reconstruction of existing interchanges to accommodate 2010
traffic volumes. Of these, the No Project was carried forward for
more detailed analysis, along with the standard diamond and urban
diamond interchanges. Each of the alternatives is discussed
below, with the reasons for elimination of some and retention of
others.
3.1 NEW LOCATION ALTERNATIVE
The concept of a new location alternative was considered. With
this alternative, a new interchange with 1-95 would be introduced
either north or south of the N.W. 22nd Avenue overpass. However,
the location of N.W. 22nd approximately halfway between the two
current interchanges is the optimal location along this link of
1-95 for a new interchange.
The existing N.W. 22nd Avenue roadway and grade separation with
1-95 is approximately 1~ miles from each of the adjacent
interchanges, (Hypoluxo Road to the north and Boynton Beach
Boulevard to the south). To place a new interchange much closer
to either of these existing interchanges would create conflicts
f~
UKJ-\r I
FOR .REViEW ONLY
in weaving on 1-95 between the through lanes and off and on ramps.
In addition, no other east-west roadway facilities exist between
Hypoluxo Road and Boynton Beach Boulevard. Construction of an
interchange at a new location would also require right-of-way for
and construction of a new roadway to provide access to points east
or west of 1-95, with considerable disruption to existing and
proposed land uses. For these reasons, the concept of an
~
inte?pange at a new location was dismissed from further
consideration.
3.2 IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING FACILITIES
Widening of the existing interchanges north and south of N.W.
22nd Avenue was also considered. Because the 2010 traffic will
be trying to reach the area between the two interchanges from
both the north and the south, improvements to only one of the two
existing interchanges would not provide sufficient capacity
within the study window. Therefore, both interchanges would
require reconstruction, along with substantial improvements to the
arterial system between the interchanges, with considerable cost
and construction impacts on adjacent properties. Improvement to
the arterial system is especially difficult due to the substantial
number of canals in the area running both north-south and east-
west. For these reasons, the concept of widening existing
interchanges to accommodate traffic demand was also dismissed from
further consideration.
t'l
3.3 DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW ONLY
Three design alternatives at N.W. 22nd Avenue were also
considered. These include a .spread" diamond interchange, a
standard diamond interchange, and an urban diamond interchange.
Each of these alternatives is described below.
3.3.1 Spread Diamond Alternative
A "spread" diamond alternative was considered, with the
possibility that it might be needed to provide an adequate level
of service (LOS) for the interchange. This alternative would
involve some right-of-way taking from either the east side
or the west side of 1-95. However, significant constraints occur
on both sides of the interstate. On the east, a residential area
adjacent to 1-95 could experience some displacements and
relocations. However, a spread diamond to the west would involve
shifting the southbound off and on ramps to the west which in turn
would necessitate the relocation of the SCL railroad tracks.
While either of these alternatives would improve the spacing
between the signalized diamond intersections, they were eliminated
from further consideration because of their potential complexities
and disruptions. This decision was made when it was determined
that other design alternatives would provide an acceptable level
of traffic service.
3.3.2 Standard Diamond Interchange(proposed Action Alternative 1)
This design alternative, shown on Figure 6, involves a standard
diamond interchange configuration similar to other existing
z.o
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW ONLY
interchanges on 1-95 north and south of the subject location. For
this design concept, the existing bridge would be widened to eight
lanes to accommodate two through lanes and two left-turn lanes for
each direction of travel. The ramps entering from 1-95 will have
three lanes at the intersections and the ramps exiting to 1-95
will have two lanes at the intersections. The signalized diamond
interchange intersections (at the ramp connections with N.W. 22nd
Avenue) will be located approximately 250 feet apart. Oue to the
limited width of 1-95 right-of-way in the project area (with the
adjacent SCL Railroad on the west, and existing residential
development on the east), this concept would involve the use of
retaining walls in construction of the ramps. The outside face of
the walls adjacent to 1-95 traffic would be 30 feet from the
outside edge of the travel lane, providing an adequate clear zone
width. Based on the clear zone and the ramp widths approaching
the interchange intersections, the following conditions will exist
regarding the location of the ramp walls from the existing right-
of-way:
Ramp
Relation to R/W Line
Northbound exit from 1-95:
Abuts 1-95 R/W N.W. 22nd Ave. (SE
quadrant)
Southbound exit from 1-95:
Approximately 12' inside 1-95
R.W. (N.E. quadrant).
Abuts 1-95 R/W (R/W varies in N.W. 22r
Avenue (NW quadrant) this location
Northbound entrance from N.W. 22nd:
Southbound entrance from N.W. 22nd:
Approximately 5' inside the 1-
95 R/W (SW quadrant).
2-\
Ut<f\t I
FOR REVIEW ONLY
West of the bridge on N.W. 22nd Avenue, the lanes would
transition to the proposed section for the improvements at the
new High Ridge Road location which is approximately 950' west of
the centerline of the 1-95 median. The proposed improvements for
High Ridge Road include two through lanes in either direction and
right and left turn lanes.
The transition of the bridge section east on N.W. 22nd Avenue
would be completed at Seacrest Boulevard, approximately 900 feet
east of the centerline of 1-95. The typical section of the west
approach on N.W. 22nd Avenue at Seacrest Boulevard would be five
lanes to provide single eastbound and westbound through lanes,with
~,~
exclusive left-turn and right-turn lanes to Seacrest. This
section would match with the three-lane sections of N.W. 22nd
Avenue east of Seacrest. The transitions of N.W. 22nd Avenue both
east and west of the interchange can be accomplished within the
existing right-of-way.
3.3.3 Urban Diamond Interchange (Proposed Action Alternative 2)
The urban interchange is illustrated on Figure~. This concept
would provide a single signalized intersection at the center of
the N.W. 22nd Avenue bridge controlling all interchange movements
(through traffic movements as well as ramp entrance and exit
movements). Unlike the standard diamond interchange, this concept
requires that ramp connections span existing travel lanes on 1-95
and match the existing bridge elevations. Whereas, existing
structural components of the existing bridge will be incapable of
being modified or altered to conform to this configuration, the
'-1-.
DRAFT
,FOR REVIEW ONLY
implementation of the urban interchange concept would require
demolition of the existing two-lane bridge and construction of a
new structure.
The ramp requirements for this design alternative would be
similar to the standard diamond interchange concept in that
retaining wall sections would be needed for the ramps due to
the right-of-way constraints. The same effects relative to
offsets to existing rights-of-way and travel lanes on 1-95 as
described for the standard diamond configuration would apply for
the urban concept. Transitions for this bridge section would
occur at the same locations and with the same cross sections as
with the standard diamond interchange. Like the standard diamond,
construction of the urban diamond can be accomplished within
existing right-of-way.
3.3.4 Estimates of Probab1e Cost for Design A1ternatives
As a part of the conceptual analysis, cost estimates were
developed for each alternative. Unit construction prices for
roadway elements were based on local cost data and current
Florida Oepartment of Transportation's construction bid
information. Unit prices for bridge elements retaining walls
were also based on current bid information as well as historical
data for uniqiue bridge componenets. For the three design
alternatives, probable construction costs follow:
z.s
IP<.-""... .
i:? .
.DRA~ I
FOR REVIEW ONLY
Alternative
Estimated Cost
Spread Oiamond Interchange
$14-16 million (1985 estimate)
Standard Oiamond Interchange
$7-9 million (1987 estimate)
Urban Oiamond Interchange
$13-15 million (1987 estimate)
The basic construction elements considered in the cost estimates
include:
Mobilization
Maintenance of Traffic
Bridge Components
Retaining Walls
Excavation/Embankment
Clearing and Grubbing
Orainage
Pavement
Engineering Design
Contingencies
3.3.5 Maintenance of Traffic During Construction for Design Alternatives
Each of the alternatives will require that new bridge
construction takes place while maintaining traffic on both 1-95
and N.W. 22nd Avenue. For any of the design alternatives,
much of the construction can be accomplished without detouring
traffic within the site area. However, for demolition of the
existing bridge and construction of the new bridge with the urban
interchange, paving of additional temporary lanes of 1-95 and
traffic detours within the median of 1-95 may be required.
;14
utU\t I
FOR REVIEW ONLY
Because of the complexities involving the construction of bridges
for the urban interchange concept (Alternative 2), the maintenance
of traffic will be more complex and traffic detours will be more
numerous.
It is envisioned for the standard diamond concept that most of
the setting of beams for the new bridge structure over 1-95 can
be accomplished at night in a short period of time using pre-cast
members. Traffic on 1-95 can be handled either through temporary
median switch-overs or through detour routing while beams are
being set. Minor bridge work can proceed during the day while 1-
95 traffic is moving under the site through the use of
construction netting and other safety measures. The demolition
of the existing bridge required for the urban concept would
necessitate extensive detour requirements for 1-95 traffic.
3.4 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Without an interchange, N.W. 22nd Avenue is programmed to be widened
to four lanes within the next ten years. Therefore, this
alternative will require minimal construction expenditures for
reconfiguring the lanes on the existing bridge. Traffic capacity
and east-west access will be increased on N.W. 22nd Avenue with
the No Project alternative, but without a connection to 1-95, most
of the demand in the study area will continue to pressure other
facilities such as Hypoluxo Road, Boynton Beach Boulevard, and
Congress Avenue.
'J..,!"
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW ONLY
3.5 ~ PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVES
The proposed action is to provide either a standard diamond
interchange (Alternative 1) or an urban diamond interchange
(Alternative 2) at NW 22nd Avenue and 1-95. A comparison of these
alternatives and the No Project alternative are provided on the
matrix shown in Table 4.
The cost of the Alternative 2 is appreciably greater than the
Alternative 1 due to the need to demolish the existing bridge and
associated increased maintenance of traffic requirements with
Alternative 2. The bridge costs for the urban concept will also
be more expensive due to unique structural requirements created by
the ramps spanning the existing lanes on 1-95. Either of the
proposed action alternatives could require construction easements
due to the proximity of the ramp walls to the existing right-of-
way. The No Project Alternative would cost approximately $400,000
for preliminary engineering and construction to widen N.W. 22nd
Avenue to four lanes between Seacrest Boulevard and High Ridge
Road.
Both proposed action alternatives will provide an acceptable level
of service (LOS). However, Alternative 2 would provide a slight
advantage with LOS C in 2010, compared to LOS 0 with Alternative 1
in 2010. With these alternatives, traffic service on Hypoluxo
Road, and Boynton Beach Boulevard, and N.W. 22nd Avenue would also
be maintained at LOS 0 or better in 2010. In contrast, the No
Project alternative would result in LOS C at Boynton Beach
~\-
TABlE 4
COfIPARISON OF AlTERNATIVES
AlTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 NO PROJECT
---------------------------------------------
DISPlACEItENTS INUllBER) 0 0 0
UTILITY ADJUST"ENTS 0 0 \)
RIGHT-Df-NAY REgUIRE~NTS IACRES> 0 0 0
TRAFFIC OPERATIONS
level of Service iLDS> D+ C NfA
NOISE
NUlber of "odeled Rectptors
with Noise Levels Above
Noise Abitelent Criterii: 3 3 :;
ESTI"ATED I"PlE"ENTATION COSTS
Preliliniry Engineering $540,000 $540,000 $63,000
Right-of-way AcqUisition $0 $U $0
Construction $8,000,000 $14,000,000 $420,000
TOTAL: $8,540,000 $14,540,000 $483,000
BENEFIT/COST RATIOt
(Nith Discount Rite it 91) 17 50 11 90 1 00
tBenefit/Cost ratio upiite. February, 1987, to reflect new traffic voluaes,
)
and revised ilternitivfS. Updite wa5 iccOlplished uling Sile lethoiology
is in IJR, based on "81nefitfCost Anilysis, Version 3.1", Floridi
Depirtltnt of Transportation
27
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW ONLY
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW ONLY
Boulevard, LOS B or better at N.W. 22nd Avenue and LOS 0 at
1
Hypoluxo Road.
1 Source: Palm Beach County Standards based on Urban
Transportation Planning System (UTPS).
2~
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW ONLY
SECTION 4.0
IMPACTS
This section provides a discussion of potential impacts of the
~
.f
proposed action on socioeconomics, cultural resources, and
natural and physical features. The impacts of the No Project
~
alternative are also described.
f
4.1 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT
Socioeconomic considerations include impact on community
services: handicapped, minority, elderly, or other
disadvantaged groups: neighborhood integrity: and economic
well-being. The proposed action will not involve additional
right-of-way taking, or displacement/relocation of
residences or businesses.
4.1.1
Community Services
.}
P/~
~y~
The following community services are located in the
study window:
1. North Oistrict Park active play area (softball
field, playground, picnic area, basketball
courts) .
2. Unnamed church (under construction).
3. Former FOP Lodge and Canine Training Center.
The proposed action will have no impact on these
community services. The City of Boynton Beach has
just completed a land swap with the developers of
t1,<:J
4.1.2
DRAFT
fOR .REViEW ONLY
Quantum Park in which the FOP Lodge site (about 13
acres) was traded for a new 20-acre park site near
Congress and Hypoluxo which is better related in
terms of access to potential users. The nearest
edge of the District Park is located about 1500
feet south of NW 22nd Avenue and will be unaffected
by the interchange or approach ramps. The church
under construction is about 2200 feet south of NW
22nd Avenue and likewise will be unaffected.
Other community services in Boynton Beach (schools,
churches, recreation areas, social service
agencies, medical facilities, community centers,
and emergency services) will be enhanced by
improved access as the City expands westward.
Community Cohesion
The Boynton Beach Distribution Center is located
adjacent to 1-95 on the west, with access from
Hypoluxo Road and High Ridge Road. South of the
distribution center, the remainder of the western
portion of the study window is currently
undeveloped. However, Quantum Park, a multiuse
commercial , industrial, and office park, will
begin construction in early 1987. These activities
will be complemented by the proposed action.
The area east of 1-95 is predominated by single-
So
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW ONLY
family housing clustered between Seacrest Boulevard
and 1-95 both north and south of N.W. 22nd Avenue.
Multifamily housing is provided at Village Royal on
the Green, approximately 1200 feet east of the
project site on N.W. 22nd, and at Village Royal on
the south side of N.W. 22nd Avenue about 1400 feet
east of the project. The proposed action will have
no impact on multifamily housing but will affect
some single family residences along NW 22nd Avenue.
The populated portion of the study window east of
1-95 is located in Census Tract 57. As described
by 1980 Census data, Tract 57 (generally bounded by
Miner Road to the north, the City limits on the
east, the C-16 Canal to the south, and 1-95 to the
west) had a population of 8,232 persons. The 1986
Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) of the
Boynton Beach Comprehensive Plan indicates that, on
the average, residents of Tract 57 have lower
income, larger households, and more low-income
retirees than the rest of the City of Boynton
Beach.
In the City's EAR, Tracts 56 and 57 were designated
a Neighborhood Action Area. Tract 57 has been
experiencing increased overcrowding (from 7.2%
overcrowded units in 1970 to 8.2% in 1980 as
defined by the u.s. Census). Owner occupancy is
~I
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW ONLY
high at over 90% and median sales value of homes in
Tract 57 is increasing. However, median incomes
have exhibited decline relative to the remainder of
the City. Nonetheless, the percentage of
households below poverty level (as defined by the
u.s. Census) decreased from 10% to 8.5% in 1980.
In general, housing in Tract 57 exhibits minor
deterioration.
The 1980 census also indicates that, of the 8,232
persons in Tract 57, 31% were black and 9% were of
Spanish origin. In general, the number of both
ethnic groups increased in Boynton Beach between
1970 and 1980, and much of this increase occurred
in Tract 57. The number of elderly persons are
also higher in Tract 57 than the City as a whole.
According to the City's EAR, in 1980 Tract 57
exhibited the following when compared to the City
as a whole:
o Income index - below average.
o Low income large households - above average.
o Low income retired - above average.
o Female heads of households with children - above
average.
o Overcrowding - above average.
The impact of the proposed action on the
3l.
4.1.3
.UKAt I
FOR REViEW ONLY
neighborhood generally defined by Census Tract 57
and will come from the proximity of higher traffic
volumes on N.W. 22nd Avenue between 1-95 and
Seacrest. While the improvement will be
accomplished within existing rights-of-way, the
addition of two lanes of traffic (plus a left turn
lane at Seacrest) will bring vehicles much closer
to the residences than today. This will
particularly affect the two houses north and south
of N.W. 22nd Avenue at Seacrest, where the right-
of-way line is about 12 feet from the structure.
With the No Project alternative, the same roadway
improvements are planned, but without the
interchange, traffic volumes would be considerably
lower. Over time, the greater pavement width of
N.W. 22nd, coupled with higher volumes, could be
perceived as a barrier to interaction between
residents north and south of N.W. 22nd Avenue.
This project has been developed in accordance with
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the
Civil Rights Act of 1968.
Land Use
This rapidly growing portion of the County and
State is becoming characterized by a complex web of
interrelated but distinctive neighborhoods and land
uses. Areas to the west are rap~dly developing and
:3"3
UKAt I
,FOR REVIEW ONLY
dynamic while the area to the east is less dynamic
and even deteriorating in some sections. For
example, the areas west of the proposed interchange
have several large existing and proposed industrial
and retail centers. These developments will draw
employees and shoppers from a wide radius around
the proposed interchange, quite possibly including
areas outside Palm Beach County. To the east of
the proposed interchange, moderately dense single
family housing for low to moderate income families
predominates.
Figure 8 illustrates existing and proposed land
uses in the study window. These land uses are
summarized in Table 5.
~
t~~~
~
34
Reserved for figure 8
Existing and Proposed Land Use
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW ONLY
3~
DRAFT
,FOR REVIEW ONLY
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF LAND USES
IN STUDY WINDOW
Oescription
Number
of Units
Number
of Acres
'itAYllrll
Impact
1. Single-Familiy
Residential 190.78 Proximity
2. Multi-Family
Residential
a. Village Royal
on the Green None
b. Village Royal
(22 bldgs. ) None
3. Parks
a. 19th Avenue
Oistrict Park 20.0 None
4. Church under
Construction None
5. a. Quantum Park Improved Access
Commercial 26.3
Industrial 151.3
Office 146.0
Research&Oevelop 46.2
b. Boynton Beach 45.0:t Improved Access
Oistribution
Center
3(,
U KA ~ I
,FOR REVIEW ONLY
---
To the east, single and multi-family land uses give
way to strip commercial activities along U.S. 1,
Seacrest near Boynton Beach Boulevard, and Boynton
Beach Boulevard itself.
The proposed action is consistent with existing
land use, proposed land use, and the Comprehensive
Plans for the City of Boynton Beach and Palm Beach
County. The interchange will encourage large
commercial and industrial development (ORIs) to the
west of 1-95, a goal of the City's comprehensive
plan and EAR, while maintaining residential uses to
the east.
4.2 CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
The Oivision of Historical Resources has determined that the
proposed action will have no impact on archeological or
historic resources. See Appendix A-3 for correspondence.
Further, the project will not require the use of any park,
wildlife refuge, or recreational land as defined in Section 4
(f) of the 1966 u.S. Oepartment of Transportation Act, as
amended.
4.3 NATURAL AND PHYSICAL FEATURES
3"7
I
I
- I
The proposed action will have minor impact on certain
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW ONLY
physical features. These are discussed in the following
subsections.
4.3.1
Pedestrian/Bicycle Faci1ities
N.W. 22nd Avenue is designated as part of the
City's bikeways system. From U.S. 1 west to E-4
canal, a separate bike path or sidewalk is
proposed. For the portion of N.W. 22nd Avenue
which will be reconstructed under the proposed
action (from Seacrest Boulevard to High Ridge
Road), 14' curb lanes will be provided for bike
paths or sidewalks, consistent with comprehensive
plan requirements and FOOT standards.
4.3.2
Visua1/Aesthetic
The proposed action will have some visual impact
created by the access ramps on fill with retaining
walls. This impact will be particularly apparent
for those residents whose houses back up to 1-95
immediately north and south of N.W. 22nd Avenue.
In that location, the ramps will join the N.W. 22nd
Avenue bridge approximately 43 feet above
grade. In addition, bridge widening will occur on
the south side of the existing bridge, bringing
the approach lanes on N.W. 22nd Avenue closer to
homes in the southeast. The nearest house
currently is 110 feet from the existing lanes and
within 75 feet from the proposed improvement.
'5}
.DRAFT
FOR REVIEW ONLY
4.3.3 Air
An air quality impact analysis and report were
prepared using CALINE 3, with emission rates
obtained from MOBILE 3. As shown in Table 6,
the results of this analysis indicate that no
violations of the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) will result from the proposed
action. See the Air Quality Report (AQR) for
additional information.
Construction activities will cause minor short-term
air quality impacts in the form of dust from
earthwork. These impacts will be minimized by
adherence to all state and local regulations and to
the OOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge
construction.
Local and state agencies were provided with an
opportunity to comment on this project. There were
no adverse comments regarding air quality. This
project is in an area where the State
Implementation Plan does not contain any
transportation control measures. Therefore, the
conformity procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not apply to
this project.
3'1
TABLE 6
DRAFT
FOR REV\EW ONLY
PROJECTED CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS
Receptor
Oesign Year (2010)
1986 No proj Alt.B Alt.C NAAQS
ONE-HOUR VALUES
House on
SE Corner 3.8 3.2 3.5 3.4 35
House on
NE Corner 4 6 3.8 3.9 3.8 35
Vacant lot
on NW Corner 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.0 35
EIGHT-HOUR VALUES
House on
SE Corner 3.1 2.7 2.9 2.8 9
House on
NE Corner 3.6 3.1 3.1 3.1 9
Vacant Lot
on NW Corner 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.6 9
All values are in parts per million (ppm).
Jib
4.3.4
DRAFT
FOR REVIEVv ONLY
Noise
A noise analysis was performed for the proposed
interchange at 1-95 and N.W. 22nd Avenue. Table' 7
presents Federal Highway Administration noise
abatement criteria. Current noise levels equal or
exceed the design noise level criterion for
residential areas at all sites modeled. Noise
levels for the design year (2010) are projected to
exceed current noise levels for all alternatives,
including the No-Project alternative, by 1-3 dBA.
Traffic noise is predominated by main line 1-95,
rather then off and on ramps on NW 22nd Avenue.
Noise from the SCL railraod paralleling 1-95 on the
west is intermittent, but when present, dominates
traffic noise for all receptors studied.
Noise contours for existing conditions, the No-
Project Alternative and the Proposed Action are
shown on Figures 9 and 10. With the proposed
action, construction of ramps on fill with
retaining walls will reduce noise levels by 6 dBA.
This reduction will bring noise levels under the
noise abatement criteria for all but three
Y'h'l ode. \~
receptors idQRtified along 1-95 and NW 22nd Avenue.
See Figure 11. Two of these receptors are located
along 1-95 north and south of the proposed fill
section where they are exposed to traffic noise
from 1-95 unrelated to the project. The other
rf\
r
r
r
[
r
Activity
Cateaory
A
B
C
D
E
~
DRAFT
FOR .REVIEW ONLY
'1
TABLE ^
.
~~
~~
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
~
"
Description of Activity Cateaory
Lands on which serenity and quiet are of
extraordinary significance and serve as
important public need and where the
preservation of those qualities is
essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
Picnic areas, recreation areas, play-
grounds, active sports areas, parks,
residences, motels, hotels, schools,
churches, libraries, and hospitals.
Developed lands, properties, or activi-
ties not included in Categories A or B
above.
Undeveloped lands.
Residences, motel, hotels, publiC meeting
(Interior) rooms,
schools, churches, libraries, hospitals,
and auditoriums.
(q 73/ /q ~ Z. c:Jo. ,
t"~ ~ ~~ P~"..-J gUh ..ol
~~~
LeaCh)
57
(Exterior)
67
(Exterior)
72
(Exterior)
52
~
53
4z..
-
~T --
I'll __ _DATE. -- -
'-\
I)..
,
~
-
oj
-1
)..~
/I
t '=J
~.:
" "
~
(
" ~
~ ~,.
. -.;:
_...~ 4
...... - . ..
-C ' ~ ~
,,~..:~
o - - '"
~ ~ ,
, \
(('0. . 0
" 0 - -
~ i ~ ~
~~->:.~
... . ... ~
..
'"
~
q:
'=-~
oJ
~
..J
\)\{~t-\
fOR RE'J\E'N O~L''1
~~
CtlECltED BY _ - O"TE-
~~
- \
\
\
\
__ stlEETtlOo- _Of- -
~ "EVISEO B'I- - O,,'tE- -
.. ..
0
"
!.
..
..
r
G
0
..
..
"
r
C>
.(,l
~
0 ,
~ -+
,
Ul
0
. r
.,.. -
u-
., ~
0 .....
'" tI
..
~
"
(> .....
" .
... {i
"
!.
-" ..
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ .."
\
\.. ..
\
~
\
\
L--- - -.- ...-
\
." ..
... " ..
~" ..
o
..
...
..
~----
\
\
- ..
\
.\..
\ ... ..
\
\
\
\
\
\
.. ..
... ..
.. ..
.. ...
... ..
~
~~ ,..' -- ,----
,
i
'" ,..
.,'" < It
~'" \0\
~1 \ ~
<
~~-' ~ .
..
j
-;
to ...
"
!. ..
...
"'t
\ "
"
.... "
... ..
.. "
"l
Cl (
~ r- .
.:. ~
0 ~ .,
Cl ..
,. .....J ~
.
~ .
.
.. "
.. "
.. ...
..
.. p
0 \
..
---
~CT -
B'I _ .-0""1.-
~
~
<<
~
~
<
~ l
- '"
~~
~ .
~~
o__~
_.-.Q
'" C1.
'" '
~
ob t
~ ~
~
~
~
~
...
i
~
(
~
..... '"
'" ~
'" ~
~ c.
~\
~ ~
~~
,
<0 \ \ 0
".;l 0 0
~ ~ ~ ~
~~~~
.. . ... ~
~..)
CMEC\(EO .'1 _ -- 0""1. -
.. "" ..
,.... ~ 0
-::.~ ~ ~ .
~~~~ ' '"
~ _-----l----~--~
~
i
,
\
-----;--------
----~-\-
<C> ·
\...
\
\
'\
l'1
\;"'"' .. ~,..
'V\\f\\ \
fOR RE\J\E'N O~l~
_ SMEE1' ",0 . _ _of -
RE'I\SEO .'1- - OA1'E-
-
..
~Cl
~
.. <I> .
.
..... .
....
'" ..(- .
..
..
..
\
t
\
o '"
'";3' ~
.....
-- -' -\----'---
...
\
\
.. .
\
.
\
\ .
.. .
..
-.
.,b.
-.
~4
-
-
l-
0
~
l-- '^
..
c
..
...)
t , .J
c..
~ '4
'" ~
1 1
~ ~
~ ...
q:
-, \ ...-:
..- ..
,.--J. ~
'1
~ <
l- \-
?
~ i
,-0 \ -
..
t 01
.K
S
:a
.. ~
.
~
'1
l-l ~
.
.
~
.. L-l
..
----,---- ------------
4.3.5
4.3.6
Ut<A~ I
FOR REVIEW ONLY
receptor (k) is located south of the N.W. 22nd
Avenue/Seacrest Boulevard intersection where noise
impacts from Seacrest, rather than N.W. 22nd
Avenue, predominate. See Table 8 for a summary of
the noise analysis.
Construction noise impacts will be controlled by
adherence to the Supplemental Standard
Specifications for FOOT construction.
Wet1ands
The area west of 1-95 and the SCL railroad is high,
well-drained pine flatwoods and sand pine scrub.
There were no wetlands observed in the residential
areas on the east side of 1-95. Shallow drainage
swales along the 1-95 right-of-way do not retain
runoff for extended period~and the vegetation is
1\
typical of disturbed areas. The proposed
improvements, which are within existing rights-of-
way, do not take any wetlands and therefore
Executive Order 11988 does not apply.
Water Qua1ity
A Permit Coordination Package is being assembled
and all required permits will be applied for. The
Florida Oepartment of Transportation (FOOT) will
obtain the necessary permits from the South Florida
~5'
Figure 11
Noise Rece
pter Locat'
10ns
DRAFT
FOR RE\I\EW ONLY
4<P
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW ONLY
TABLE 8
NOISE LEVELS IN dBA AT RECEPTORS IN DESIGN YEAR
ALTERNATIVES
Receptor
No Project
A~ternative 1
A~ternative 2
A 73* 59 58
B 68* 59 60
C 66 63 62
0 69* 67 67
E 62 58 57
F 61 56 56
G 74* 63 63
H 68* 69* 69*
I 70* 58 58
J 66 63 62
K 71* 68* 70*
L 74* 60 62
M 74* 70* 71*
N 58 58 53
0 65 58 59
* Exceeds design noise criterion of 67 dBA.
41
.UI\t\1 I
FOR REVIEW ONLY
Water Management Oistrict (SFWMO) and Palm Beach
County Health Oepartment (PBCHO). Project
coordination and preliminary review with SFWMO does
not ensure favorable permitting from SFWMO.
FOOT is coordinating with SFWMO and PBCHO to
develop a preliminary stormwater management plan.
The N.W. 22nd Avenue project will comply with all
applicable water quality criteria.
There are no areas of permanent surface water in
the vicinity of the proposed interchange. Shallow
drainage swales within the right-of-way for 1-95
that mi~h~ carry stormwater runoff following storm
events.
Stormwater would quickly run off or
infiltrate through the sandy soils. There is very
little evidence of surface water erosion on the
site. The proposed water management system will
aid in the recharge of the shallow aquifer.
The proposed drainage system will be designed to
meet FHWA and FOOT Water Quality Standards. Oirect
discharge by channelized and scupper drainage will
be avoided. Stormwater will be directed into
vegetated areas, with erosion control structures
and energy dissipaters installed at points of
discharge.
4~
4.3.7
4.3.8
Ul{At I
FOR REVIEW ONLY
Lanes constructed will be the number necessary to
give an Acceptable Level of Service (LOS). The
appropriate Best Management Practices will be used
during the construction phase of the project for
erosion control and water quality considerations.
Roadways and berms will be seeded and mulched to
promote rapid revegetation.
Coasta1 Zone Consistency
The Office of Planning and Budget, Office of the
Governor, has determined that this project is
consistent with the Florida Coastal Zone Management
Plan. See Appendix A-5 for correspondence.
Threatened or Endangered Species
Three listed species were discovered on the Quantum
Park property to the west of the project. These
were the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus -
Florida Species of Special Concern): eastern indigo
snake (Drymarchon corais couperi - Florida
burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia Floridan -
Florida Species of Special Concern). However, all
individuals of all three species were found on the
western portion of the property in an area of sand
pines north of N.W. 22nd Avenue. Forty acres are
being retained as a sand pine preserve as part of
the Quantum Park development, with particular
41
4.3.9
4.3.10
UKAt ,
FOR REV\EW ONLY
attention being given to the habitat and
preservation of the three above species. The
proposed interchange project will have no effect on
any threatened or endangered species.
Hazardous Waste
Available sources of information indicate that the
project site has never been used for hazardous
waste disposal. Should any potential hazardous
waste problems arise, coordination with the
appropriate regulatory agency will occur and, if
applicable, appropriate action will be taken prior
to construction.
Construction
Construction activities for the proposed
interchange will have air, noise, water quality,
traffic flow and visual impacts for those residents
and travelers within the immediate vicinity of the
project.
Air quality impacts due to construction will be
temporary and will primarily be in the form of
emissions from diesel powered construction
equipment and dust from embankment areas. Air
pollution associated with the creation of airborne
particles will be effectively controlled through
the use of watering or the application of calcium
So
DRAt'
,FOR REVIEW ONLY
chloride in accordance with FDOT's "Standard
Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction",
as directed by the FOOT Project Manger.
f ~'f Ju.t.. ~
Noise and vibrationiWimpacts will 09 fF6M ~e heavy
equipment movement and construction activities
such as pile driving and vibratory compaction of
fill materials. Noise control measures will
include those contained in FOOT's "Standard
Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction".
Water quality impacts resulting from erosion and
sedimentation will be controlled in accordance with
FOOT's "Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge
Construction" and through the use of Best
Management Practices.
Maintenance of traffic and sequance of construction
will be planned and scheduled so as to minimize
traffic delays throughout the project. Signs will
be used as appropriate to provide notice of road
closures and other pertinent information to the
travelling public. The local news media will be
notified in advance of construction related
activities which could excessively inconvenience
the community so that motorist, residents, and
businesses can plan their day and travel routes in
Sl
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW ONLY
advance.
A sign providing the name, address and telephone of
a Oepartment contact person will be displayed on
site to assist the public in obtaining immediate
answers to questions and logging complaints about
project activity.
Access to all residences will be maintained to the
extent practical through controlled construction
scheduling. Traffic delays will be controlled to
the extent possible where several construction
operations are in progress at the same time. The
contractor will be required to maintain two lanes
of traffic in each direction at all times and to
comply with the Best Management Practices of FOOT.
The removal of debris will be in accordance with
local and state regulation agencies permitting this
operation. The contractor is responsible for his
methods of controlling pollution on haul roads, in
borrow pits, other materials pits and areas used
for disposal of waste materials from the project.
Temporary erosion control features as specified in
the FOOT's standard specifications, Section 104,
will consist of temporary grassing, sodding,
mulching, sandbagging, slope drains, sediment
basins, sediment checks, artificial coverings and
6t.
DRAFT
FOR REViEW .oNLY
berms
as appropriate.
~3
#
~ 1; ,"J
\\
DRf\fl
FOR RE.VIE.W ONLY
SECTION 5
COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A Public Involvement Program has been developed and is being
carried out as an integral part of this project. The purpose of
this program is to establish and maintain communication with the
public at large, individuals, and agencies concerned with the
project and its potential impacts. To ensure open communication
and agency and public input, the Oepartment provided an
early notification package to state and federal agencies,
defining the project and, in cursory terms, describing
anticipated issues and impacts. In an effort to resolve all
issues identified, the Oepartment has conducted an interagency
coordination and consultation effort and public participation
process. This section of the document details the Oepartment's
program to fully identify, address and resolve all project
related issues identified through the public involvement program.
5.1
ADVANCE NOTIFICATION
The Florida Departrment of Transportation through the
Advance Notification Process informed a number of federal,
state and local agencies of the existence of this project
and its scope. The Florida Oepartment of Transportation
initiated early project coordination on October 27, 1986 by
distribution of an Advanced Notification Package to the
Office of Planning and Budgeting. Individual packages were
also sent to local government directly by the Oepartment.
The following agencies received Advance Notification
s-4
LJ . \n.l I
FOR REVIEW ONLY
Packages. An asterick (*) indicates those agencies that
responded to the package.
FEOERAL
Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
National Park Service
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Oepartment of Housing and Urban Oevelopment
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
STATE
Florida Oepartment of Environmental Regulation*
Office of the Governor, Office of Planning and Budgeting*
Florida Oepartment of State, Oivision of Historic Resources*
REGIONAL
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
LOCAL
Palm Beach County Area Planning Board
Stated below are the pertinent comments from the agencies
which responded to the Advance Notification. The letters of
these agencies are contained in the Appendix.
~~~)OEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION (Appendix A-3)
COMMENT 1: The proposed construction will require permits
from the Oepartment, pursuant to Chapter 403, F.S., and
water quality certification under PL 92-500.
~o~~(.
RESPONSEs Permit applications will be prepared to comply
with Florida Statues. Coordination with the Oepartment will
s~
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW ONLY
be carried out to comply with PL 92-500.
COMMENT 2: The proposed construction can be expected to
cause or increase stormwater runoff. Adverse impacts should
be minimized as much as possible. Licenses may be required
for the discharge of stormwater associated with the proposed
construction, pursuant to Chapter 17-25, Florida
Administrative Code.
RESPONSE: The Florida Oepartment of Transportation will
prepare needed permit applications at the appropriate stage
of project dvelopment to comply with Florida statutes.
COMMENT 3: Erosion and siltation should be controlled
during all construction activities. Oisturbed soil surface
should be revegetated promptly to prevent erosion.
RESPONSE: All applicable Best Management Practices included
in the Oepartment's "Standard Specifications for Road and
Bridge Construction" will be used on this project. Specific
problems will be field reviewed and alternative controls
developed and provided as needed on a site specific basis.
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, OFFICE OF PLANNING ANO BUOGETING
(APPENOIX A-5):
COMMENT: None. They transmitted the OER letter to the
Oepartment.
RESPONSE
No response required.
FLORI0A OEPARTMENT OF STATE, 01VISI0N OF HISTORIC RESOURCES
~c.,
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW ONLY
(APPENDIX A-4): (Exhibit 4)
COMMENT: ......it is the opinion of this office that the
proposed project will have no effect on any sites listed or
eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic
Places, or otherwise of national state or local
significance "
RESPONSE: No response required
5.2 OTHER AGENCY AND PUBLIC COORDINATION
5.2.1
Coordination Meetings
On August 21, 1986, the proposed project was
presented to the Palm Beach County Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) to solicit any
comments and questions from local agencies and
officials. One question was asked regarding
funding sources for interchange construction.
The response was given that this interchange
will compete with others for interstate
reconstruction (IR) funds, supplemented by local
public and private funds. No other comments or
questions were received.
On February 2, 1987, a meeting was held with
Palm Beach County, the MPO, and the City of
Boynton Beach at the Palm Beach County
Engineering Department offices. The following
information was discussed:
S1
DRAFT
FOR REVIEW ONLY
1. Project alternatives, including the No-
Project alternative and two proposed action
alternatives.
2. Source of traffic volumes used for the
preliminary design.
3. Potential impacts of the alternatives.
Key issues included:
1. Palm Beach County, the MPO, and the City of
Boynton Beach expressed their support for the
project and discussed means to place the
project on the County and State work
programs. Response: None required.
2. The City of Boynton Beach is concerned about
the proximity of widened N.W. 22nd Avenue to
to two residences at the corner of N.W. 22nd
Avenue and Seacrest Boulevard. Response
This concern will be addressed in the EA.
See Section 4, Impacts.
3. The compatibility of the interchange with a
proposed Tri-County Rail Station on the
Quantum Park property should be noted.
Response: A discussion of the proposed
station will be included in the EA. See
Section 2, Need.
4. The County stated that level of service (LOS)
o in 2010 for the Standard Oiamond
(Alternative B) would be acceptable to the
5"'8
I
1
u nru I
FOR REVIEW ONLY
County in light of the relief the project
will give to other interchanges at Hypoluxo
Road and Boynton Beach Boulevard. It was
requested that the EA include a discussion of
LOS on the two adjacent east-west facilities
with the No-Project alternative. Response:
The EA describes Levels of Service. See
Section 2 - Need.
5. The County, MPO, and City expressed a desire
to see this interchange have a high priority
in funding opportunities. Response: None
required.
5.2.2
Public Information Meeting
On April 3, 1987, a public information meeting
was held in the City of Boynton Beach. An open
house was held from 4:00 - 7:00 p.m., followed
by a technical presentation of alternatives and
their associated impacts. Notices of the
meeting were published in local newspapers on
March 19 and March 26. Individual letters were
sent to all property owners within 300 feet
of the proposed project. Local and regional
agencies and officials also received letters of
notice.
------------To be completed after the PIM ---------
sq
U i\t\r I
,FOR REViEW .oNLY
The Oepartment will not make a final decision on
the proposed action or any alternative until the
opportunity for a public hearing has been given
on this project and all comments received have
beeen taken into consideration.
~'
~o
,
J
RESOURCE ENGIl
Job ;.-/ 1 s -, 0 \
Designed by rvt /A. I.J
-"
....ERING AND PLANNII ., INC.
Sheet No. _ of _
Dale
Checked by
Job No.
Dale I D /uJ> h 0
f I
Subject
I DRAFT I
, ~"'''\,i-V-1...-~
I'\!
~ /'"1' ~
~----
-~
f-...l J.) o? ''/ ,.~ ~
.......
(
c< \
!
\ ) I
L
~\.
(, \.-
\
, "
11 ~
!
!
,
~
I
U1.....~
./ .--- -
-------
-------
~ ..Q. {~ s,;.,C+'r I y~
(J.4 ~)1 (" <' tL-)
(t..l J..uL"" r )
I ,~
--1Z(+ <\ {
~D5 -- c-
I"
'1/
0-
H
tJ
RESOURCE ENGI!' __ERING AND PLANNIl\
Job tJ 1.;'"7 0 1 Subject
Designed by k ,.: l~ Date
(, INC.
Sheet No. _ of _
Job No.
Checked by
Date
I c> / I {., J ~ i...."I
, I
IERAFT
LuJ;.~
~J<H-O
\ I !
N (..() ;' Z "r' ~(
-~/!
'fl
~
, 1
I
\ !
~I i
H!
i
ro~~ X
r~2- }
l- os - c. ~
~c~~
.J. ~'...J~L.
'I ~
~ ~"
r
tV
RESOURCE ENGI!' ..ERING AND PLANNlr J, lNC.
Sheet No. _ of _
Designed by
J.}-7S7,O (
~ "1 J~
Subject
Date
Checked by
Job No.
Date~
Job
DRAFT I
PM ~'J
~c..L.A~
(
~-----,
~I LU ~~ ~P/
Ii>
()
I
i
~l
H