Fort Lauderdale adds language backing tunnel effort, tells county city will not support a bridge alternative

Fort Lauderdale’s City Commission on April 1 approved a walk‑on measure to continue work on a New River crossing and added explicit language that the city will seek and promote a tunnel alternative while making clear it does not support a bridge crossing should the county decide to include one in its locally preferred alternative.

Why it matters: the New River crossing is a multi‑jurisdictional transportation project under Broward County consideration and has major implications for riverfront access, traffic flows and neighborhood impacts. The commission’s direction frames the city’s negotiating posture with county staff and sets a policy preference that will shape engineering, permitting and community outreach.

What the commission directed Commissioners asked the city manager and staff to continue collaborating with Broward County on a viable tunnel alternative and to report back on progress. They instructed staff to engage qualified firms for technical work, evaluate grant and financing options and develop a proposed funding strategy for construction, operation and maintenance of a tunnel.

Added language on bridge/walk‑on At the request of commissioners and after discussion with county staff, the commission inserted a sentence into the walk‑on text: “The city acknowledges that the county may elect to include a bridge crossing of the New River as part of its locally preferred alternative for Broward Commuter Rail North, but the city does not support that.” Commissioners said the addition was intended to preserve the city’s diplomatic relationship with county staff while making the city’s policy stance clear.

Timeline and deliverables The commission directed staff to report updates to both the City Commission and the Broward County Board of County Commissioners and to prepare a proposed financing plan and schedule for any technical work required to develop a tunnel alternative. Commissioners also discussed the need to accelerate parallel items such as ordinance drafting and permitting so a tunnel proposal could be evaluated before the county advances a final locally preferred alternative.

Quotes and context Commissioners emphasized collaboration while maintaining the city’s position. One commissioner summarized the request: the city should “collaborate with the board of county commissioners on a viable tunnel alternative and report on progress,” and should “look at funding opportunities and a proposed financial plan.” County staff had asked the city to present developer proposals and financial backing as the county assessed alternatives.

Decision type The commission’s action on the walk‑on was to adopt the language and direct staff to continue work (direction), rather than to finalize a project agreement or to award contracts. Commissioners agreed to return the item at a future meeting for final language and timing.

Ending The added sentence clarifying that the city does not support a bridge signals a firm municipal preference for a tunnel option while leaving channels open for county discussions. Staff were directed to pursue technical, financial and procurement steps necessary to move a tunnel concept forward and to provide progress reports to the commission.