MEETING NOTES Project Development and Environment Study SR 408 East Extension from SR 50 to SR 50/SR 520 Intersection

Transcription

1 Project Advisory Group (PAG) Meeting #2 CFX Administration Building Ibis Conference Room 4974 ORL Tower Road, Orlando, Florida Wednesday, February 23, :30 PM The second Project Advisory Group (PAG) meeting was held to provide an opportunity for stakeholder, agency and public participation, which is a key element of the phase. A total of 24 persons attended including team members. Full list of attendees are noted on the Sign in Sheet attached. Media Relations Group Public Involvement Consultant Valerie Tutor facilitated the meeting. CFX s Chief of Infrastructure, Joe Berenis, Glenn Pressimone, CFX Director of Engineering, Lance Decuir, CFX Project Manager with Atkins, General Engineering Consultant and Eileen LeSeur, QCA Senior Associate attended. Metric Engineering Senior Project Engineer Robert Linares and Project Manager William Sloup attended and were supported by staff members Gabriela Garcia and Robert Myers. 1. Introductions/Welcome Ms. Valerie Tutor welcomed the meeting s returning and new participants. The participants were thanked for their time and willingness to serve once again. Ms. Tutor asked that CFX staff introduce themselves, followed by the study team and then the meeting participants themselves. 2. Discussion and Comments Members Offered the Following Comments and Questions RJ Mueller representing Fixmyroadway.com, asked for further explanation concerning the part in the presentation about year Mr. Sloup responded that we are using year 2045 as our forecast year at this point in regards to traffic levels. Bob Kamm with Brevard TPO commented that the section on purpose and need bullet point provide transit support be revisited. He wanted to know how [we] will address this need in the alternatives. Bob Kamm referred to the fact that there was some information that said CFX wants to get more involved in transit. Mr. Berenis with CFX informed Mr. Kamm that at this point CFX has not adopted the master plan and have yet to determine what role CFX should play in transit. Mr. Kamm also inquired about considering transit service operations in the PD&E Study at this point. He added that [we] need an action if [we] are going to put it as a bullet point in the purpose and need. Page 1

2 Renzo Nastasi with Orange County Transportation Planning, commented that East Orange County has been under-served as far as transit goes, especially for Bithlo area. The SR 408 Eastern Extension will help; there are regional transit routes that operate on expressways. Joe Berenis responded by stating that CFX is currently in the process of developing a transit master plan. The extension of the SR 408 will provide opportunity for express transit routes. Additionally, this project is anticipated to redirect some of the SR 50 traffic onto the SR 408 thus improving mobility along SR 50. Bobby Beagles from the Christmas Community Association & Florida Farm Bureau, asked about the timeframe for Segments 1 & 2 to be put in service. Mr. Berenis replied that the study would be completed in October 2016 & presented to the Board. If they approve moving the project forward, then we would see where it fits in the 5-year program. He explained that this study will be followed by a design phase, and then by construction. He added that it could be 5-6 years at the earliest. Mr. Beagles also asked about Segment 3. He mentioned that it is very important what we do at SR50/SR520 intersection. He added that it needs widening and that the intersection does not work for emergency evacuation purposes. He stressed that is a critical concern. Lynda Glinski from the Waterford Lakes Town Center asked for the pros and cons of the elevated and at grade options. Mr. Linares replied by saying that all alternatives consider the existing facilities on SR 50 including those under construction and planned. The elevated options both N/S and median provide the best connectivity at street level and unimpeded access, but elevated, is very expensive. At-grade options create a physical barrier along SR 50 that will require overpasses, U-Turns, etc. The pros are that it is less costly and may be easier to implement. However, the reconstruction of SR 50 when it has just been redone is something to consider. Bob Kamm with Brevard TPO also asked whether there is established criteria and scoring. He added that elevated costs are going to be so much greater that it may change where the whole corridor should be and commented that [we] may need to evaluate something other than 3B. Mr. Decuir replied by explaining that the table of criteria and scoring will be available at the public meeting (APW) on March 8. Mr. Berenis also explained that the Board would determine after we get costs and revenue information whether the project moves forward. RJ Mueller with Fixmyroadway.com mentioned that FDOT is working on expanding SR 50 east of the bridge right now and is going to advance widening out to Chuluota Road. He asked if this study is considering this. Mr. Linares replied yes. He added that the at grade options will involve a reconstruction of SR 50 after FDOT has already gone through all this work and that alternatives need to be able to minimize what gets thrown away. Maria Teimouri with UCF mentioned that the Lee Roy Selmon Expressway in Tampa is an example of an elevated roadway. She suggested that perhaps that could be a case study for this project. She thought it would be helpful to know how they were able to obtain funding for it, whether or not it was working and whether it was serving its intended purpose. Page 2

3 Renzo Nastasi with Orange County Transportation Planning, made the following comment: Providing connectivity and access is a primary goal of the SR 408 Eastern Extension and an atgrade facility does not seem to lend itself to achieving that goal and reconstructing a newly constructed SR 50 wouldn t be a good scenario. An at grade limited access roadway may replicate the challenges we have today in providing access to properties north and south. An elevated alternative has many benefits. He concluded in saying that there are new advances in construction and technology such as the use of pre-fabricated segments that may be less costly. Tim McKinney representing United Global Outreach shared Mr. Nastasi s comment. He stated that pedestrian safety is an issue with an at grade facility trying to get across it - and inquired about the amount of safe crossings that would be available. He added that some of the communities along this area have a great deal of pedestrian and bicycle activity. Mr. Linares responded and explained that the at-grade options will limit the crossing locations for pedestrians since it presents a physical barrier. However, at-grade options will enhance safety by eliminating pedestrians from crossing in the middle of the road by forcing them to cross at the designated areas. The at-grade option does channelize pedestrians using barrier wall, fences and the like to safe crossings. Mr. McKinney stated that those do not work and added that people find ways around them they do it now in other areas. He added that this could break down the sense of community shared by these neighborhoods. Mr. Linares replied that identifying other locations where a pedestrian bridge/overpass might be built would still need to be determined. Tim McKinney also asked if the SR 50 footprint being discussed was the only option. He added that there was mention of the possibility of going off SR 50 with the roadway and that the PAG was told that was an option; however, it doesn t seem like it was really considered. Mr. Linares explained that it creates another corridor with right of way problems, home and business relocations, and other issues. Ms. Garcia replied that another corridor on either side of SR 50 would further divide neighborhoods. This will be included in the evaluations. Bobby Beagles from Christmas Community Association and Florida Farm Bureau commented about the Segment 3 area and that everyone in Bithlo on the north side wants to get to Bithlo on the south side and vice versa. He added that this is why some of the folks on the 2008 Concept Study Project Advisory Group liked the 3A/3B option where the roadway heads south of the racetrack, etc. Tim McKinney from United Global Outreach, made mention that the elevated alternative seems to be best as far as not changing the character of the community vs the at-grade options. RJ Mueller from Fixmyroadway.com mentioned that it would be a roller coaster in this area if the atgrade alternative were chosen because of the multiple crossroad underpasses. Page 3

4 Bob Kamm with Brevard TPO asked where the interchanges would be. He added that this is not so easy to do with the elevated alternatives. Mr. Linares responded by saying that the easiest way is the use of slip ramps to SR 50 for either the elevated/at-grade although sometimes it may be better to use a braided ramp to avoid traffic weaving. He added that this is being analyzed at this time as part of this study. RJ Mueller with Fixmyroadway.com asked about the location of the ramps. Mr. Linares and Mr. Sloup provided shared responses and advised that the ramps were located at SR 408/SR50, Avalon, CR 419 and SR 50/SR 520 intersection. Expressways must maintain strict access spacing. Tim McKinney with United Global Outreach added that there are many kids in the area. Ron Toporek with OUC mentioned that he thought we were talking about a swath on either side of SR 50. He added that it was discussed at the first meeting and the public meeting and these options need to be back on the table. He also asked if [we] could get estimated costs for the alternatives. Ms. Garcia stated that those options were evaluated. She added that approximately 14 different typical sections were evaluated, including some on either side of SR 50, before narrowing them down to the most feasible alternatives that are being presented here and at the Alternatives Public Workshop. The alternatives to the north and south side of SR 50 require significant business and residential relocations and would result in adverse community impacts, including to some low income and minority communities. The closer the expressways is to SR 50 the less impacts there will be to the community. For these reasons, those options were eliminated from consideration. Estimated costs will be available by the public meeting. Lynda Glinksi from Waterford Lakes Town Center asked what has the Board done in the past when they make these decisions i.e. the Return on Investment threshold. Mr. Berenis responded by saying that the Board will look at what the entire CFX system can support regarding bonding capacity. This extension is not evaluated as financially independent from the system. Bobby Beagles with Christmas Community Association and Florida Farm Bureau also asked about East of the Econ River 3A. He commented that this option would swing south behind the racetrack and north of Wedgefield and was a better fit. He added there is a large portion of land that is not developed and that Orange County owns part of this as well as a few other landowners. He expressed his disappointment that 3A was not a part of this study. Tim McKinney and Ron Toporek agreed. Several of the PAG members stated they believed that the 3A corridor would still work. Mr. Linares discussed some of the reasons 3A did not work such as the impacts to many wetlands along the Econ River, Long Ranch Park and the Hal Scott Reserve. Mr. Sloup added that the re-evaluation of the 2008 Corridor Concept Development and Evaluation Report confirmed Corridor 3B was still the most viable and would be the focus of this PD&E study. Page 4

5 Bob Kamm with Brevard TPO wanted to know about the justification for this project. Mr. Linares replied that No Build is still an option and all study data, traffic counts, and other study information will be shown as well as the No Build option at the APW. As far as justification, additional capacity (demand) is not the only factor. Providing separation between local and regional traffic, an improved evacuation route and achieving system connectivity goals are other factors. He added that these are all a part of the rationale for the extension. RJ Mueller with Fixmyroadway.com commented that the information from FDOT seems to say that even the new construction to six lanes on SR 50 will fail in a few years. Renzo Nastasi with Orange County Transportation Planning, mentioned that the demand on SR 50 is independent of the Lake Pickett project and it is not conditional on whether it is approved or not. He added that there is already a great deal of data out there that demonstrates the need for this project. He stressed that Orange County will not support the 3A corridor since it splits the land uses and because there are tremendous environmental issues as well. Mary McGehee with FDOT provided a recap of the current SR 50 FDOT projects and status: o Avalon to Chuluota/FM # : in design now and plans should be complete in August of 2016; part of this includes using regional ponds with Orange County; construction is not yet funded but they have the right of way o Chuluota to SR 520 /FM # : design should be completed in June of 2017 and there is no right of way needed; it is not funded for construction at this time o The design-build project replacing the bridges over the Econ River underway and construction should be complete by the end of this year Don Whyte with Deseret Cattle & Citrus asked about what is anticipated for the future. He added that the Central Florida Task Force identified several corridors not shown on the current study maps that envision the future of the entire region. He went on to say that, a topic of particular importance was a north/south corridor that would run from US 192 north to SR 408 and continue north. He added that any alternative or plan must ensure we do not preclude these future corridors. Hugh Harling with East Central Florida Regional Planning Council commented on the north/south future corridor that is envisioned to go all the way north to SR 46. SR 46 would be enhanced as an additional evacuation route and allow for connectivity for a railway and for the port. He added that getting all the way to Brevard County with SR 408 is important for the future vision and that connectivity is critical. He pointed out that if we could develop SR 46 it may ease SR 50 during evacuations. Keith Caskey with MetroPlan asked if the study team would be presenting this to MetroPlan. Mr. Sloup advised that Gary Huttman denied a request to make a presentation to MetroPlan. Greg Golgowski and Renzo Nastasi from Orange County Transportation Planning both wanted to reinforce that going south (3A) would not be a viable corridor. They also mentioned the sheer expanse of roadway that an at-grade alternative creates. Page 5

6 Mark Massaro with Orange County Public Works commented that there is a lot to be said for the elevated alternative in the median; that corridor is already breeched by development and can provide access to SR 520, a key purpose, and operate independently. In regards to the concern about separating the community further, the elevated alternative has less impact. Robert Linares (Metric) responded that SJRWMD commented at the EAG meeting that the elevated alternative in the median would create little additional impervious surface since it overhangs a portion of SR 50. Mary McGehee from FDOT asked if there are any cost savings or is it about the same in a comparison of the cost of the additional right of way needed for 3A and the cost of the elevated alternatives. Mr. Sloup stated again that other corridors were already evaluated and discounted. Corridor 3B was selected for the reasons previously mentioned. Ron Toporek from OUC commented on the alternatives. He mentioned that they are probably the best but added that it is important to let the public know that the others (swath off SR 50 and 3A) were considered and why they have been eliminated as options. Mr. Linares and Ms. Garcia responded that alignments separated by SR 50 created new intersections that would be spaced too closely to those on SR 50 and created operational difficulties with signal timing as well as separating neighborhoods among other things. That analysis has been documented and is available to the public. RJ Mueller with Fixmyroadway.com, observed that the focus is different between the Segments for the public and that those living in Segment 1 and 2 would probably say the traffic aspect and moving cars and people is a priority and those in Segment 3 would probably say community preservation is a priority. Bob Kamm with Brevard TPO, suggested that traffic counts in the presentation say there are 55,000 cars traveling in Segment 1 and 28,000 cars in Segment 3. He added that this was half the volume and mentioned that [we] should be prepared to answer the question of why there is a need for SR 408 to go as far as Segment 3. Mr. Linares responded by saying that this is a valid question and it would seem that a six lane SR 50 could accommodate the demand issues but that evacuation and regional projects/connectivity are key goals in regards to the need and purpose and are not addressed by SR 50. Tim McKinney from United Global Outreach commented that he would like to see an elevated alternative for Segment Next Steps Ms. Tutor let team participants know about the Alternatives Public Workshop Meeting scheduled for March 8, 2016, and asked/invited the PAG members to attend this meeting. Meeting adjourned at scheduled time. Page 6