Lazaro Aleman
ECB Publishing, Inc.
A draft of the Final Report that the Suncoast Connector Task Force plans to submit to the Florida Governor and Legislature in mid November is now available online for public viewing and comment.
The report, which will be available through Wednesday, Oct. 14, can be accessed at by clicking on Suncoast Connector.
Keep in mind, however, that the report remains in draft form and the task force still has one more meeting, which is scheduled for Tuesday, Oct. 20.
The 39-page report, complete with several appendices, is chock full of information. It begins by explaining the statutory origins and purposes of the Multi-use Corridors of Regional Economic Significance (M-CORES), as the three proposed toll roads are officially designated, with the Suncoast Connector the one that most directly impacts Jefferson County.
The report gives a summation of the formation, activities and recommendations of the Suncoast
Connector Task Force, which was statutorily charged with formulating the principles that are supposed to guide the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) in its selection and development of the corridor.
The report states upfront that due to the early stage of planning and limited data and analysis on the road's potential need and impact, the task force was unable to fully address its charge of evaluating the need for and impacts of the Suncoast Corridor, nor to define its route.
What the task force was able to do was to identify a series of potential high level needs for future evaluation by the FDOT and to develop multiple recommendations for how the FDOT should assess the need for a corridor of the scale specified by the legislation.
Notes the report: “The Task Force did not reach a conclusion based on the information available at this time that there is a specific need for a completely new greenfield corridor through the study area to achieve the statutory purpose.”
The Task Force, in fact, “expressed a preference for improvement or expansion of existing major highway corridors or existing major linear utility corridors.”
The Task Force also, per the report, acknowledged the process for the FDOT to consider a “no build” alternative in the future, and recommended the guiding principles, instructions and an action plan for the planning, development and implementation of the project.
The report essentially is intended to provide a “consensus recommendation for how needs should be evaluated and how corridor development and related activities should move forward to implement the statute and support the environment, quality of life and prosperity of the study area and the state.”
The report gives an overview of the Task Force’s membership and meetings, the effects of the pandemic on the process, the data and mapping tools that the FDOT provided the Task Force, and the level of public participation, noting that to date, 568 people had attended the in-person meetings and 1,271 participated in the webinars and hybrid virtual meetings. Plus another 588 people had attended the eight open houses, per the report.
The report also acknowledges the FDOT receiving “1,875 unique and 10,477 form-letter comments, ranging from significant concerns about the corridor’s negative impacts to support for its positives.
“A key theme of many public comments was a discussion or request that the ‘no build’ alternative be considered, or opted for, prior to the project phases that would occur after the Task Force Final Report,” the report states.
The report also touches on the FDOT’s outreach efforts to interested agencies and organizations in the study area.
It next gives an overview of the eight counties in the study area, in terms of their natural resources and landscapes, unique features, communities, economies and infrastructures. It notes that projections call for the eight counties’ populations to increase by more than 40,000 by 2045, with Citrus County accounting for most of this population growth.
It further notes that about 88 percent of the land in the study area is in agricultural or recreational use, with residential use accounting for about eight percent, and industrial, institutional and commercial use accounting for the remaining four percent.
The eight counties, according to the report, comprise one of the more rural areas of Florida and lack in infrastructure, adequate broadband Internet access, sewer and water service and transit, among other deficiencies, when compared with the rest of the state.
The report addresses the Task Force’s approach and its framework for determining the project’s high-level needs and formulating the guiding principles, or “core values”, that are to direct the FDOT during its planning, development and implementation of the 150-mile corridor from Citrus to somewhere in Jefferson or Madison counties.
The report identifies the high-level needs as the key regional opportunities and challenges that the M-CORES program must addressed.
“In general,” the report states, “the Task Force found significant high-level needs in the study area related to the six statutory purposes, including revitalizing rural communities, supporting economic development, enhancing quality of life and protecting the environment. The Task Force recognized general needs to enhance transportation safety, mobility, and connectivity; however, they did not identify a specific need for a completely new greenfield corridor across the entire study area based on the available information at this time.”
The report notes that the FDOT’s preliminary traffic analysis indicate that projected growth could produce significant congestion along much of I-75 and other roads by 2050.
Among the Task Force’s recommendations, it is calling for refinement of the FDOT traffic projections, “including an evaluation of whether potential improvement to, or development of new inland corridor would relieve future traffic on I-75…”
Another of its recommendations is that the FDOT traffic analysis also consider “potential changes to travel demand related to the state’s recovery from COVID-19 and potential long-term changes in travel behavior, such as a greater propensity for working from home and increased home delivery of good and services.”
Plus, the Task Force recommends that the analysis should consider “potential changes in travel demand and transportation system capacity related to increased use of emerging technologies, such as automated and connected vehicles and the next generation of mobility.”
It also recommends the need for a better understanding of how a new corridor would affect the existing transportation network and relieve traffic on existing roadways and potentially diver traffic to and from northwest Florida and the study area.
The Task Force emphasizes the importance of preserving the quality of life of the corridor-impacted communities. It stresses “the importance of working with local communities, listening to their concerns and preferences, and understanding their goals and visions throughout the corridor development process” to minimize negative impacts to the communities it is supposed to be helping.
Here are some of the Task Force’s recommended guiding principles:
* Be consistent with statutorily required statewide, regional and local plans, including the local government comprehensive plans, long-range transportation plans, regional planning councils and strategic regional policy plans, among others.
Among the task force’s instructions for this principle is that the FDOT examine “the potential to upgrade existing transportation facilities or corridors to meet the purpose and need of the project before planning a new location corridor in order to minimize project impacts.”
* Evaluate potential alternatives for addressing the M-CORES and interregional statewide connectivity and mobility needs by making safety and operational improvements or adding capacity to existing roads or other publicly-owned rights of way, among other things.
* Seek opportunities to maintain and enhance the rural character and quality of life in communities to ensure for their future vitality. This includes working with communities on their preferences to enhance and maintain safety, quality of life and character of communities.
* Avoid adverse impacts to known cultural sites with human remains, known cemeteries, Native American lands and historic resources listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
* Avoid negative impacts to springheads, named lakes and high-risk coastal areas, including conservation areas and wildlife habitats.
* Maximize opportunities to enhance local community and economic development with an emphasis on rural areas while minimizing adverse economic impacts to individual communities, businesses and resources.
* Plan and develop a transportation corridor in a manner that protects the region’s most productive agricultural lands and other rural lands with economic or environmental significance.