Broward County Multimodal Mobility Master Plan (MMMP) Technical Working Group Final Meeting - September 24, 2026

This final technical working group (TWG) meeting for the Broward County Multimodal Mobility Master Plan (MMMP) brought together county and city staff, consultants, and stakeholders to review the completed conceptual designs for four corridors, the updated Low Stress Multimodal Designation Standards and Criteria (formerly the Design Manual), the finalized Placemaking Toolkit, and the draft plan recommendations and target implementation plan. Attendees participated in interactive polling via Slido and engaged in detailed discussion about specific project details, design criteria, and implementation challenges. The meeting marked the conclusion of the TWG's input phase, with final comments on the master plan document due September 30, 2026, and a public meeting scheduled for September 29, 2026.

Public Comments & Testimony

• No public comments were made; the meeting was a technical working group session with invited participants.

Discussion Items

Project Overview & Recap

• Consultant Christina Fermin (IMEG Corp.) presented the MMMP vision: creating an inclusive low-stress multimodal transportation network for all ages and abilities. The proposed network covers 591.4 total miles across 296 projects, with 36% of projects on city jurisdictional roadways, 24% on state roads, 18% on county roads, and 22% on multi-agency corridors (including canal opportunities and greenway extensions). The average score across all projects is 53.34.
• Slido poll: Attendees described the desired future mobility network as "connected," "comfortable," "accessible," and "safe."

Conceptual Design Final Draft – Four Corridors

• W. McNab Road (Project 6B): 2.24 miles, 45 mph, 6-lane arterial with canal, missing southside sidewalk. Proposed improvements: 10–12 ft shared-use path, lane width reduction to 11 ft, midblock crossing with pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB), high-emphasis crosswalks, protected intersection, sidewalk on south side. Discussion: Jurisdiction is shared city/county; funding identified in target implementation plan and surtax. Concerns raised about canal cantilever coordination with water management district and potential cost escalation. A TWG member suggested a jogged crossing at the PHB for safety; another noted slopes in graphics should be consistent.
• NE 3rd Avenue (Project 155): 1 mile, 30 mph, 2-lane neighborhood street, residential with school and nature preserve. Proposed: speed limit reduction to 25 mph, 10–12 ft shared-use paths, raised midblock crossings, high-emphasis crosswalks, transit shelters. Discussion: City of Pompano Beach requested raised intersections instead of raised crosswalks. Questions about missing crosswalks on three legs and gaps in midblock crossings—project scope was desktop feasibility; detailed analysis will follow in later phases. Concern expressed about using RRFBs near a school crossing; traffic studies recommended.
• Miramar Parkway (Project 174): 4 miles, 30–40 mph, 4-lane arterial with bike lanes and sidewalks. Proposed: widen sidewalk to shared-use path (varies 8–12 ft), restrict left turns at Canal Rd and Newport Dr due to crash history, raised midblock crossing, high-emphasis crosswalks, speed tables at 6700 block (county plan). Discussion: County is evaluating a capacity project and has designed speed tables for the 6700 block crash curve. Questions about city support—city is broadly supportive but residents may need persuasion. Left-turn restrictions would push drivers to U-turns; traffic analysis needed. Existing streetscape east of 64th Ave has curb extensions and pedestrian lighting but needs wider sidewalks.
• Dixie Highway (Project 194 A/B): 1.13 miles each direction, 35 mph, 2-lane one-way arterials with on-street parking and buffered bike lanes. Proposed: convert to 10–12 ft shared-use path (removing bike lanes), raised midblock crossings, high-emphasis crosswalks, protected intersection at McNab Rd, improved signage to address wrong-way driving. Discussion: City has completed some improvements north of 2nd St.; a gap remains from 3rd St. to 2nd St. that the city is working to fill. Low-cost pavement markings suggested for speed enforcement.
• General: A TWG member requested that concept drawings show before/after Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) scores. Consultant agreed to add that.

Low Stress Designation Standards & Criteria (formerly Design Manual)

• Consultant Kirsten Campitello (subconsultant) presented updates. Renamed to "Low Stress Multimodal Designation Standards and Criteria." Key changes: refinements to the Multimodal Quality of Service (MQOS) scoring tool (used for prioritization, not final design); clarifications in text/graphics; expanded comparisons with Safe Streets for All (SS4A) countermeasures; added neighborhood context classification; softened approach to bollards and raised crosswalks per Florida regulations; improved cross-references between chapters. A detailed example of MQOS scoring was shown: starting base score tied to speed and AADT, then interventions (e.g., on-street parking, sidewalks, lane reductions) adjust the score, with a goal of final score ≤2 (LTS 1 or 2). Discussion: A TWG member cautioned that the public should not be shown the detailed MQOS scoring—it's a technical tool for prioritization. Another member noted that the prerequisite assumption (streets need sidewalk and separation or it's high stress) should be qualified for low-volume local streets. The updated document is due mid-October.

Placemaking Toolkit

• Ralph (consultant) presented the Placemaking Toolkit as a companion to the design standards. It provides resources for creating low-stress networks that respond to local character. Includes step-by-step guide and case studies. A map of potential placemaking nodes was shown, including locations near interchanges (e.g., Turnpike, I-595). Discussion: Concerns raised about placemaking at interchanges—could attract pedestrians/cars but may be problematic for safety or maintenance. Consultant clarified these are potential sites for aesthetic improvements (e.g., painting, lighting, landscaping) not necessarily pedestrian destinations. A rendering for McNab Road showed extensive landscaping, seating, art, and distinctive paving. Several members expressed caution about setting unrealistic expectations (cost and maintenance) with aspirational renderings. Consultant stated renderings are meant to show potential and build public support. A member suggested adding disclaimers like "aspirational" and noting that maintenance funding is a question.

Recommendations & Target Implementation Plan

• The plan includes 296 projects with facility types: 64% sidepaths/shared-use paths, 23% greenways, 9% neighborhood greenways, 4% separated/protected bike lanes, 1% pedestrian bridges/underpasses. Recommendations cover design, policy, education, performance measures, and funding.
• Target Implementation Plan: $46.2 million (FY 2019) increased to $76.3 million between FY 2028–2040. Assumptions: Planning 3%, Design/PE 10%, CEI 15%, Contingency 10% (lowered for projects over $10M), Operations & Maintenance from Highway Construction Engineering Division (HCED)—later clarified to be Maintenance Division. Annual inflation 2.5%. Four projects fully funded: NW 27th Ave/Blount Rd (FY 2028–2040), NE 48th St/Wiles Rd (FY 2029–2040), McNab Rd (FY 2031–2040), Pine Island Rd (FY 2035–2040). Two additional planning studies: Miramar Pkwy and SW 15th St post-2040. Discussion: Some TWG members noted that the four conceptual design corridors (two county, two city) are not all in the implementation plan—county projects included, city projects (NE 3rd Ave, Dixie Hwy) are not funded in this plan. Consultant explained that city projects are expected to be funded by the respective cities. A member questioned the overall value for money and requested clearer linkage between investment and level of service improvement.

Next Steps

• Final comments on master plan due by September 30, 2026.
• Public meeting on Tuesday, September 29, 2026 (virtual 5:30–6:30 PM, then in-person at Government Center East).
• Consultant contract ends October 30, 2026; final document delivery by that date.
• County next steps: draft LDC ordinance amendments, formally adopt MMMP, conduct inter-agency technical training, launch pilot LTS 1 retrofit corridors, and revise/update plan every 5–10 years.

Key Outcomes

• No formal votes were taken. A Slido poll asked "Are you in general support of the MMMP?" (results not announced but comments indicated mixed support pending clarifications).
• TWG members provided verbal feedback and will submit written comments by September 30.
• The updated Low Stress Designation Standards & Criteria will be delivered to the county by mid-October.
• The final public meeting is scheduled for September 29, 2026, to present the plan to the broader community.
• Key concerns raised: need for clear language on level of service improvements per dollar spent, realistic expectations for placemaking renderings, inclusion/exclusion of certain corridors (e.g., Federal Highway, Commercial Boulevard) in the low-stress network, and coordination with water management and other agencies on canal projects.