Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mobility And Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants present mobility plan with 27 projects; public ranked Tequesta Drive, intersection fixes among priorities
Summary
Kittelson Associates presented a Village of Tequesta mobility plan that identified 27 projects and a top‑10 priority list. Consultants emphasized interagency coordination, public engagement, and quick‑build options while council discussed feasibility and metrics.
Kittelson Associates consultants told the Village of Tequesta Council they identified 27 possible mobility projects and will refine a top‑10 list that emphasizes safety, multimodal connections and phased implementation.
The presentation explained the plan’s goals — enhance safety, improve traffic operations and develop multimodal improvements — and described a process that combined quantitative data (crash locations, traffic volumes, origin‑destination patterns) and public input gathered at an event and via an online map and survey.
“Places here to enhance safety, improve traffic, and develop multimodal improvements,” said JP Weiser, a principal with Kittelson and Associates. He described a needs assessment that flagged high‑crash locations on U.S. 1, Old Dixie Highway and Beach Road, and noted patterns in walking and bicycling trips tied to existing sidewalks and bicycle infrastructure.
Consultants said the mobility plan will provide conceptual typical sections, planning‑level costs and an “implementation toolbox” with quick‑build ideas for near‑term projects and larger, phased streetscape work for the long term. They noted several proposed projects cross jurisdictional boundaries and will require coordination with Palm Beach County, the Florida Department of Transportation and neighboring Jupiter.
Public engagement included a Food Truck Friday event with about 100 participants, an online map that had 43–50 comments as of the meeting, and a two‑page survey in which 14 initial respondents ranked the 10 priority projects (consultants said another ~30 responses arrived over the weekend). Early survey results placed a Tequesta Drive complete‑streets project near the top and elevated several intersection safety projects (for example, Willow/Festa/Cypress and Old Dixie intersections).
Council members focused on feasibility, right‑of‑way constraints and funding. Several council members described intersection treatments — shifting stop bars, narrowing turning radii, and short‑term measures to improve sight lines — as “low‑hanging fruit” that could be advanced sooner than large reconstruction projects such as roundabouts or full streetscapes.
Consultants said they will produce project sheets for each priority item that include project description, expected benefits, typical cross section, planning‑level cost and identification of partners (county, FDOT, town of Jupiter). They also recommended establishing metrics to track outcomes (crash reduction, pedestrian and bicycle counts, and mode shifts) after improvements are implemented.
No formal action or vote occurred; consultants asked for council feedback on the draft priorities and for staff to help identify funding opportunities. Council members generally supported continuing public outreach and asked consultants to prioritize projects where early, low‑cost interventions would improve safety while longer‑term coordination and funding are pursued.
