Appendix C Public Comments

Transcription

1 Appendix C Public Comments 56.com C 1

2 C-2

3 C-3

4 C-4

5 C-5

6 C-6

7 C-7

8 C-8

9 C-9

10 C-10

11 C-11

12 C-12

13 C-13

14 C-14

15 C-15

16 C-16

17 C-17

18 C-18

19 C-19

20 C-20

21 VISION 54/56 Comments Date: Tuesday April 12, 2016 From: MPO Comments Sent: Tuesday, April 12, :20 AM To: 'Greg Lauren'; MPO Comments Cc: Bill Ball; Wally Blain; James H. Edwards Subject: RE: SR56/54 planning Obviously each alterna ve has its own advantages and disadvantages and all will be explored in more detail in phase 2 with broader public engagement if approved by MPO board. Thanks for your comment. We will keep this on file and please stay involved. P.S. Please clarify what is POV? Thanks. Ali Atefi, P.E. Transportation Engineer MPO 8731 Citizens Drive New Port Richey, FL aatefi@pascocountyfl.net Office Tel: Extension: 8341 From: Greg Lauren [mailto:slauren@tampabay.rr.com] Sent: Saturday, April 09, :36 PM To: MPO Comments Subject: SR56/54 planning Reviewed the weighted alterna ves and have some comments. Alterna ve H implies that BRT will meet the transporta on requirements for residents of Pasco County, and assumes residents will actually embrace BRT (which will depend on cost, schedules, routes, and convenience). The major growth issue seems to be how to accommodate more POVs and not bet that conges on will be eased by full acceptance of mass transit. Construc on of alterna ve B will clearly accommodate more POVs and provide addi onal flexibility and allow for mass transit if it is accepted. Greg Lauren Date: October 8, :29 PM Name: Bob Last Name: Dicaire Address: Subject: Sept. 24th East Task Force Mee ng Comment: Commissioner, I wanted to thank you for the heads-up about this mee ng. It was very informa ve. I was a li le confused ini ally because to the jargon being used but that went away a er the first hour or so. The topic is a bit complicated but the studies have been extensive and I think we know everything we need to know to make the right decision. The problem that needs to be addressed is a poli cal one. How do we convince enough of the general public that the correct answer is Overpasses at the 7 exis ng hot spots, Transporta on Orientated Development and improved express busses, BRT or BRT Light. These are C-21

22 VISION 54/56 Comments longer term solu ons that need immediate ac on. I was disappointed that so many of the alterna ves and the Study Recommenda on Alternate 10 included Grade-Separated alterna ves. The residents of Pasco County have been saying NO to elevated highway on the SR 54 right of way for 25 years. Last year the private company that proposed an elevated toll road lanes proved they would not pay for themselves. The Urban Land Ins tute Report didn't support elevated highways. Personally I can't wait for that to sink-in at the FDOT. What Pasco County needs to do is press for the Transit Orientated Development Alterna ve with regional Express Bus, BRT or BRT Light. The current nego ates with Pinellas and Hillsborough Coun es need to be accelerated including expanding local bus service. I can't believe any working person in Pasco could seriously consider using mass transit with the current 2 hour service schedule. If memory serves, the bus service in the Detroit area was every minutes between busses. That standard would be difficult to recreate in todays world but 2 hours between buses is also imprac cal. Traffic on I-75, B.B. Downs, US 41 and D. Mabry is very intense. Buses have the poten al to relieve the addi onal volume being built into Pasco's popula on. What I didn't hear at the Task Force mee ng and I understand why was anything to do with keeping traffic moving un l improvements are made. SR 54 traffic at Collier, I-75 and US 41 were nearly at the stated General (Maximum) Eastbound & Westbound direc ons in We need the FDOT to adjust the speed limits and sequence the traffic lights to maximize traffic flow. State Troupers need to start cke ng speeders, reckless lane changers and slow drivers. If we had a campaign to inform drivers that they can make the next light without reckless driving things might get be er. The problem is there are not enough State Troupers to go around. It sure would help if we could get the Sheriff Deputy's to write traffic ckets but my understanding is that there are territory issue involved. Thank you, Date: September 25, :37 PM Name: Rich Last Name: Du er Address: RichDu er@gmail.com Subject: Thoughts from a SR 54 Homeowner (and one of your past employees) Comment: Hi everyone, It has been a year and one-half since my departure from Pasco County Long Range Planning and I miss working with you all. In March I became a Pasco County homeowner by purchasing within the Heron Cove development on the south side of SR 54 (my sole access is via 54) located between US 41 and Collier Parkway. I a ended the SR 54/56 East Task Force Presenta on last Thursday night, as a member of the public, and I wanted to offer an opinion regarding our SR 54/56 dilemma. A er the presenta on, and thinking of the recently departed Yogi Berra, I could not help but recall one of his most famous Yogi-isms, It seemed like Deja vu all over again. I agree that both the East and West Task Forces must be presented with the history of the SR 54/56 dilemma which includes countless hours spent by transporta on specialists, consultants and County staff over more than the last decade plus the expenditure of well over a million dollars in studying various poten al solu ons. However, my primary concern is that at best these Task Forces will address a limited number of physical transporta on infrastructure alterna ves and I an cipate will likely conclude that the County should promote addi onal bus transit opportuni es and deal with major intersec on constraints through the use of overpasses as these intersec ons fail to the point of being poli cally intolerable. In my opinion the SR 54/56 dilemma, although named for a roadway corridor, is in fact not primarily a transporta on infrastructure ques on but rather a land use density, intensity and en tlement alloca on issue. It was made clear at the first Task Force presenta on that there is no configura on, improvements, parallel roadway opportuni es, elevated toll road C-22

23 VISION 54/56 Comments alterna ves, or even the construc on of 16 to 18 overpasses that will allow this roadway to adequately func on as development proceeds. As stated at the mee ng by County transporta on planners and their consultants, given the construc on of only 50% of the currently approved en tlements within the transit-shed of SR 54/56, the total failure of this roadway corridor is inevitable. As o en stated, It is not a ma er of if (the roadway will completely fail to func on), but rather how soon these failures will occur. It was also stated that as major intersec ons along SR 54/56 con nue to fail this will lead to roadway link capacity failures causing peak hour gridlock in areas along the roadway corridor. Of course one alterna ve that is always evaluated in any analysis is the do nothing alterna ve. I fear that given the dire projec ons analyzed and reanalyzed over the past years that any strictly roadway configura on or improvement solu ons will effec vely resemble a do nothing, or at best, do li le scenario. I believe the result of any approach that focuses primarily on the form of the pavement on the ground (or in the air) is doomed to failure. It is my opinion that the above referenced improvements may help delay total corridor collapse, however, collapse is inevitable. Further, I believe that far before corridor collapse occurs the development community will recognize the rela onship between corridor conges on and the significant nega ve effect which that conges on has on their ability to market their products (either housing, retail, or job genera ng uses). So to some degree the progressive degrada on of the roadway will help in some unintended way to slow growth in the corridor with the ul mate outcome of less dense/less urban land uses suffering the economic consequences of eventually being in an environment of gridlock. Those of you who are fans of both the TV show, then movie sci-fi series, Star Trek may remember the training exercise that Captain James T. Kirk and all future leaders who emerged from Star Fleet Academy had to undergo. It was called the Kobayashi Maru scenario. This was a leadership and decision making computer simula on that was in fact designed to be a no-win situa on. It was intended to stress the future leaders of Star Fleet to evaluate their response under extreme pressure. If you are a fan you will remember that the future Captain Kirk was the only Star Fleet cadet to ever beat the simula on and win the no-win scenario. He later admi ed that in fact there was no way he could win a no-win simula on model but rather reprogrammed some of the variables within the simula on to permit him to succeed where no one else possibly could. The future of SR 54/56 is Pasco County s equivalent of Star Trek s Kobayashi Maru no-win scenario. At least this is what we have been told by most transporta on engineers, planners and outside consultants over the past decade. However, what if we take our prompt from Captain Kirk and modify some of the assump ons used by all of these experts. Possibly we can turn a no-win scenario into a win-win situa on where, exis ng residents, the development community, and economic growth (quality local jobs) can all benefit rather than stand helplessly by as the SR 54/56 corridor implodes. I do not claim to have the solu on to our no-win scenario. However, I believe that it can only truly be solved if we begin thinking differently than we have for the past decade. I m talking far outside of the box! We all can list the major variables that are directly causing our prognos ca on of doom. Simply, it is traffic from already approved (en tled) development that far exceeds anyone s ability to modify the roadway network needed to accommodate that traffic. As I stated previously, we can nker with roadway enhancements, intersec on improvements and the introduc on of be er transit opportuni es. However, the experts have been telling us repeatedly that no feasible transporta on fix will solve our long range problem. I am proposing that we begin to look at the other side of the equa on; that of en tled development and the placement, type (i.e. residen al, retail, business, jobs), and maximizing the density/intensity of this development. Pasco County s Comprehensive Plan establishes a clear direc ve that the SR 54/56 corridor must contain areas of concentrated development of sufficient mix and density to both encourage people to live, work and recreate nearby (reducing vehicle miles on SR 54/56) and to provide employment centers of sufficient mass to allow bus and other transit op ons to become viable and more importantly again significantly reducing traffic on SR 54/56. C-23

24 VISION 54/56 Comments I further propose that we consider no prior decision as sacred. We must ques on the reasonableness and ra onality of everything the County has chosen to do in the past in light of the reality of the future collapse of the SR 54/56 corridor. Every op on must be on the table. I believe that the Gateway Market Area (which coincides with the SR 54/56 corridor) remains the most logical place for nodal high density residen al development and opportuni es for high wage job producers. However, I ques on whether it remains sound planning to con nue to permit less than 3 units per acre suburban form developments. I do not believe the intent of the County Commission in adop ng the Comprehensive Plan and subsequently gran ng en tlements was to knowingly force the rapid demise of this crucial roadway corridor. We must honestly examine the financial, social and aesthe c costs associated with the poten al construc on of 16 to 18 grade separated interchanges which may become the only alterna ve to prolong (yet not permanently fix) traffic flow along this corridor. Very few people who look at the evolu on of the US 19 corridor in Pinellas County praise it as cost efficient, business friendly, neighborhood connec ng, nor visually appealing. I believe that we must evaluate the cost effec veness of trading or even purchasing previously issued en tlements when compared to the disrup on and massive expenditures associated with the construc on of intersec on overpasses (not having to build one major interchange at million dollars can buy a lot of en tlements). The County may even be able to create a secondary market for these purchased en tlements by allowing their sale to designated TOD loca ons on the SR 54/56 corridor and Pasco s US 19 redevelopment corridor. I know that I am beginning to ramble on without much organiza on concerning my thoughts, so I will conclude. The point that I really want to make is that any true long term solu on to the salva on of the SR 54/56 corridor is very complex and requires the careful integra on of land use planning, urban design, public financing mechanisms, en tlement (land use) law, real estate markets and economic development incen ves, in addi on to just transporta on. Thanks and have a great weekend, C-24

25 VISION 54/56 Website Comments Date: 4/15/2016 7:08:13 Name: Tracy Last Name: Po er Address: Comment: Are you still accepting members to the West Task Force? If so can you please tell me who I might contact for further information? Thank you Date: 4/14/ :04:58 Name: Vicki Last Name: Stahler Address: v.stahler@hotmail.com Comment: It is clear Pasco County poli cians are taking a playbook from Washington DC by implemen ng a toll road to double tax Pasco residents. We all know how it works with a Private company. You all stand to make a lot of money from cons tuents by allowing a private company to build a toll road. How much is Pasco willing to accept by selling the homeowners out. When everyone else is talking about the benefits of mass transit Pasco is wringing its hands at the $$$ possibili es of destroying an ecosystem that none of you have lived in for very long. The train line should run West to East and North to South then hook up with the transporta on vision of Hillsborough county. Do none of you look at the accident sta s cs or Auto insurance rates for the Tampa area? How is doubling the number of cars on the road going to benefit anyone. Reasons to have a train: 1. Air quality 2. Auto insurance rates are already through the roof. Salaries of Florida jobs don't support the cost to ci zens that will use the toll road. Gas price instability on top of toll costs will erode the lifestyle of Tampa residents. The cost of living in Tampa will outweigh the benefits. You have grocery stores, hospitals, schools etc along 54/56. The price of their services will go up because the people they do business with will have to pay more to deliver services. They will pass those costs to us in the form of higher consumer prices. 3. A double decker toll road will destroy property values. Many have moved from the NE to get away from sky rocke ng toll roads which take a bite out of already poor salary jobs in the Florida markets. How can we pay for taxes then pay for toll roads. How is it jus fied. Get ready to do ba le. Date: 4/10/ :50:54 Name: Anthony Last Name: Politano Address: ImS llayankee@verizon.net Comment: I'd like to know why a cloverleaf at the I75 & SR56 interchange never seems to be discussed. It seems this state is adamantly opposed to a major traffic reliever that most other major metro areas u lize. Also, the traffic along SR 54 has as much to do with the quick addi on of numerous traffic signals and poor ming as it does with increased vehicle numbers. It's difficult for traffic to flow when the next light turns red not long a er the one you've been si ng at for seconds turns green. Sort of makes me feel like I'm driving on Queens Blvd.in NY. RESPONSE FDOT will be construc ng an innova ve concept for this interchange called the diverging diamond. This project is funded in year 2020 and has been used in other states. Here is an informa onal video US DOT has prepared discussing this concept that you can view here h ps:// DRYerxlm7. C-25

26 VISION 54/56 Website Comments Regarding the traffic signals, the MPO is aware of this and is discussing the technology infrastructure needed to coordinate the ming of the traffic lights along SR 54 to be er accommodate the flow of traffic. Date: 3/31/ :52:22 Name: Mark Last Name: Kesnig Address: Comment: HI. I would like to know if there are plans in place to con nue 56 to 301. Any informa on would be appreciated. RESPONSE Yes. The project to extend SR 56 east to US 301 as a 4-lane divided roadway is currently included in the MPO s Transporta on Improvement Program. The Transporta on Improvement Program lists the projects that are an cipated to be funded within the next five years. This project is currently under design and construc on will begin once the design is complete. Since this is a State Highway, construc on is being coordinated with the Florida Department of Transporta on. Date: 2/10/ :37:10 Name: Robert Last Name: Silvain Address: rsilvain1@verizon.net Comment: since the development of the route along State Road 54 and State Road 56 requires the destruc on of an awful lot of forest land I am wondering where the huge tree farms are going to be established to replace the green trees forcibly taken? I do not remember the improvements proposed by the vision 54/56 being on any of the ballots during elec ons I wonder who was on the commi ee and how do they get paid??????? Date: 12/7/ :11:11 Name: Robert Last Name: Dicaire Address: r.dicaire@verizon.net Comment: Who would be my representa ve on the East 54/56 Task force? From: Ali Atefi [mailto:aatefi@pascocountyfl.net] Sent: Thursday, December 3, :44 PM To: 'jsjames@marlynsteel.com' Cc: James H. Edwards; Bill Ball Subject: RE: Two New Comments on the VISION 54/56 Website Ms. James. Thanks for your interest in the topic. 1- The next mee ng for the West Task force is tenta vely scheduled for Feb 2,2016( 5:30-7:30). It is subject to change but I will add your name to our list and will no fy you of any changes. C-26

27 VISION 54/56 Website Comments 2- The two prior mee ngs of Taskforce has been mainly more of an educa onal plus higher level ( not detailed) evalua on of about 10 different alterna ves with Power pointe presenta ons which all including summary minutes of the first mee ng( occurred In September 2015) can be found on The Second mee ng was on December 1 st ( two days ago) and no summary agenda has developed for it at this me. It will be posted on the web once approved by the taskforce. If you check the power pointe presenta on and read summary minutes it will give you an idea as to what Taskforce members have discussed. The overall plan is for taskforces to come up with 6 different alterna ves which includes the no-build alterna ve for further evalua on as part of phase 2 of this effort. The 6 alterna ves will need to be approved by MPO board.the phase 2 which has not been authorized by MPO board at this me will a empt to evaluate the 6 alterna ves in more detail. The phase 2 will also include significant and broader public engagement effort to make sure public at large is engaged and all input is considered. Hopefully at the end of all this the Taskforce will make a final recommenda on to MPO board for their considera on and approval. P.S. At this me the Taskforce has not made any recommenda ons as far as which alterna ves they will choose. Hope this answer your ques ons for now and please don t hesitate to contact us for addi onal info. Ali Atefi, P.E. Transportation Engineer MPO 8731 Citizens Drive New Port Richey, FL aatefi@pascocountyfl.net Office Tel: Extension: 8341 Date: 12/2/ :22:06 Name: Jeannie Last Name: James Address: mailto:jsjames@marlynsteel.com Comment: What were the sugges ons that you have received for alterna ves from the West Pasco group? C-27

28 VISION 54/56 Website Comments Date: 12/2/ :19:53 Name: Jeannie Last Name: James Address: Comment: I am now just finding out my area is in the West Pasco group. When will the next public mee ng be for this area? Please provide the me and date. Thank you, Date: 11/14/2015 7:46:45 Name: Alex Last Name: Rola Address: alito @gmail.com Comment: I think one of the first things that needs to be looked at is the ming of the light according to the me of the day. It is dangerous to see traffic cross into the overpass on 56 and cars right in the middle of the crossing traffic because there was no place to go as the cars that were supposed to evacuate the bridge did not have me (frequently because on the other side cars are blocking the way). To me the biggest issues are ge ng on I-75 from west and East as well as OFF 75 northbound. The southbound exit from the East side seems easily fixable with a longer and even more separate exit from the mall side. From West... longer green light me. 30 seconds really gives 15 seconds of traffic and not enough to clear anything. Those of us who live on the West side near wiregrass have to wait and wait for the Northbound exit to clear going east bound because there is no direct line for us un l the end. All because the green light is too short. Yes I may have to wait longer green-to-green but it will end up being shorter at the end. I say this because I lived in two places that had the same issue and the 3 lane changes above and light ming solved immediately about 30% of the conges on. Thank you for this forum. Date: 10/6/ :25:17 Name: Robert Last Name: Dicaire Address: r.dicaire@verizon.net Comment: In my opinion "Overpasses at key intersec ons" and "Transporta on Orientated Development" with one of the "Express Bus", "BRT" or "BRT Light"are the best alterna ve recommenda ons. The TOD would be very effec ve and cost effec ve if Pasco, Hilllsborough & Pinellas Coun es ould come to some agreement that would make riding a buss to work and back that did not overly extend commute mes. Pasco's contribu on would be the Transfer loca ons at the 7 iden fied exis ng hot spots. Hillsborough & Pinellas coun es contribu on would the buss service from the Transfer loca ons to the workers des na ons. C-28

29 VISION 54/56 Website Comments The problem of "en tlements" was discussed at the Task Force Mee ng and a very good solu on was provided: Pasco County should buy back the "en tlements" in the area of the 7 "exis ng hot spots". There will be some landowners who will be willing to sell at fair market value or trade exis ng "en tlements" for Alternate "En tlements" the rest will have to go through eminent domain. Some of the extra cost will be recovered by the resale of the property to business that will surround the transfer hubs. In addi on Pasco should put a moratorium on any addi onal "en tlements" un l the exis ng transporta ons issues are resolved. Not a building moratorium, a moratorium on addi onal "en tlements". Date: 10/6/ :42:53 Name: Sean Last Name: Hurley hurleyseanm@hotmail.com Comment: Why isn't something being done now (2015 and 2016)? This is a task force that should've convened 10 years ago. I don't care about 2040 because I won't be around then. Here's what needs to happen (and can happen before the end of 2016: A) Signals need to be synchronized along the en re corridor to keep traffic flowing. I should never need to stop at consecu ve lights when traveling straight-through, yet I catch at least half the lights every me from BBD all the way to US 19. B) The poorly designed interchange at I-75 needs to change. On the I-75 North exit ramp a third lane for right turn onto SR56 East needs to be extended to get that traffic out of the daily backup wai ng for the light. On SR56 an addi onal westbound lane should be added in wasted space in middle and third le hand turn lane should be added on I-75 North ramp. Engineers in Florida seem to think that you have to have a wide berm on the le side of roadways and you simply do not. It is not that way in other parts of the country. Use the space! Emergency vehicles can use the right berm. There are two lanes on I-275 north of downtown that sit unused for no good reason! Give me some paint remover and I'll fix the problem. If improvements aren't made immediately businesses will not locate in Pasco and residents that live here for any length of me will get red of dealing with it and move out (some already have). Long-term don't waste years discussing op ons and then many more implemen ng one of them. The longer you talk about them the fewer op ons there are. There are only two op ons: A) Build a new east-west expressway in northern Hillsborough or southern Pasco county (not along SR54/56 corridor). B) Convert SR54/56 into US 19 in Pinellas county with limited overpasses and frontage roads. Don't reinvent the wheel. For the I-75/SR56 interchange the long term solu on is a full 4 level interchange. Once again something that Florida seems to shy away from but is used extensively in other major metropolitan areas. C-29