R-31 Rangeland route study preferred alternative
What the county recorded
This item is not from the published agenda
It is a stretch of the recording that this archive identified as a separate matter — a call to order, a recess, or something taken up that the agenda does not list. There is no official title, no staff recommendation and no disposition, because the county never recorded one. Everything below is inferred.
What was said
Machine transcription of 29m of recording, with speaker names inferred from voice matching. 65% of 89 lines carry a name. It shows what was said, not what was decided, and both the words and the names can be wrong.
So we're gonna do the presentation so everybody that's in the audience uh is gonna speak to it, make your notes, make your thoughts. Um after the presentation we'll bring you up to be able to speak to it.
And your R thirty one is to be heard this afternoon. Right. Or your R R thirty is to be heard this afternoon, so thirty one would be the next one on the agenda. Yes.
Good morning Commissioners, Honourable Members of the Board. My name is Panos Conces. I'm the interim transportation engineering director and I'm also the project manager for the county for this study. Um believe it or not, it took us three years to uh to get in front of you. This study started in March 2023. That shows the depth of thought and work that went into the study. We also conducted an extensive public involvement programme We conducted
one public workshop as a regularly scheduled meeting and one extra public workshop that was not in the scope because of the request of local communities so they could provide more input. We also conducted several m small community meetings with community representatives. Uh I'm confident that the recommendations that will be presented to you А різно борсон. And Maybe some people
here won't agree with me. They will serve best the uh the interests of the local communities and also all the citizens of Pasco County. With that I will introduce introduce uh Mike Campo.
Yes. I just wanna I I just want you to know. I don't think anybody's mad about what's there. I mean there were presentations done. The thing is a fourth item uh an agenda item come out as far as a recommendation go forward. So Don't take it as something that they're combative to it. They're just and they and I think everyone was very happy that and they're very well attended, the two public hearing you have, which is more than we normally do. But we just wanna need to make sure we get this thing right. They're concerned, we're concerned, so it's just like You did
a great job. putting it together, but we just I think we just need that extra level of public input before we you know go down the road with it. So don't be a f don't be offended by it. I'm not offended. So you do you're doing a great job. Your team is doing a great job. So no
no
good about
it. I could completely understand that the local residency have to be feel comfortable with the decisions being made made. And that's why we're here. We are being transparent. We were in Very informative throughout the process, and we were very open to suggestions. So, you know, we are here to serve the community the best we can. So I will let uh Mike Campo, he is the project manager for the consultant, uh go through the presentation and then after we hear the comments from the public, we will address the uh any questions
you may have. Thank you. Just one more comment. The recommendations you will hear today are for the year twenty fifty. So it's not about addressing whatever is congestion is today. It's projecting in the future. Because and I'm saying this because some people say, well, fifty-four is not that bad today. You know, I can get in and out of my house today. But imagine twenty five f twenty-five years from now what's gonna be. So these recommendations are for two thousand fifty. And this project will
take at least six years to get built. So With that comment I will let Mike go through the presentation.
Yeah, these ones.
Do
I advance the slide here? Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Panos. The study begins at the existing east terminus of Rangeland Boulevard. Can you introduce yourself just for the purpose of the Mr. Oh I'm so sorry. I'm Michael Campo. I'm with the consultant KCA who was hired by the County to conduct the Rangeland uh route study and pond siding analysis report. Uh so the study begins at the east terminus of Rangeland Boulevard, which is a Cattle Gap Trail. It extends 3.4 miles to the existing roundabout of Bexley Village Drive. The proposed alignment crosses
the existing Suncoast Parkway, approximately one mile north of the State Road 54 interchange, which is the only existing Suncoast Parkway crossing in the nine miles between Lutzlake. Fern Road and Ridge Road. The proposed improvements evaluated in this study improve mobility, safety, emergency access, and connectivity for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. The improvements include both a new roadway and an extension of
the Orange Belt Trail. Hope you have answering these.
The improvements evaluated in this study have been included in the county's comprehensive plan since 2006. Planning for the new East-West Roadway was also included during the planning of the Starkey Ranch, Asturia Preserve, and Bexley Village Master Plan Urban Developments. The proposed improvements will primarily use land dedicated to Pasco County during the development of these communities.
The study evaluated multiple build alternatives along with a no-build alternative. Build alternative A includes four lanes, two in each direction throughout the study limits, and no interchange ramps connecting to the Suncoast Parkway. Build alternatives B and C included four lanes from Cattle Gap Road, or Cattle Gap Trail to South Branch Boulevard and six lanes from South Branch Boulevard to Bexley Village Drive. These alternatives include interchange
ramps connecting to the Suncoast Parkway. Build alternatives A, B and C include on street bicycle lanes, a pedestrian underpass at the Enclote River crossing, and an extension of the Orangebelt Trail on one side of the new roadway with a sidewalk on the opposite side.
The preferred alternative was developed primarily from Alternative A, along with elements of alternatives B and C, and input from the public. The preferred alternative proposes four travel lanes throughout the study limits. It includes an overpass crossing the Sun Coast Parkway. The preferred alternative does not include interchange ramps connecting to the Suncoast Parkway, but it can accommodate them in the future. And it includes an extra wide median
that can accommodate one future travel lane in each direction between South Branch Boulevard and Bexley Village Drive. This is in the same way you might pre-wire your living room for surround sound and the so that you can connect it in the future. This extra wide median is designed to avoid waste and reconstruction if the county decides at some point in the future that interchange ramps are are necessary or desired. The preferred alternative further enhances multimodal accommodations that were provided in alternatives
A, B, and C by including trails on both sides of the road throughout most of the project and a trail and a sidewalk everywhere else. And it also provides a second pedestrian underpass in addition to the one at the Encloute River and east of the Beck to add one east of the Bexley Village Drive roundabout.
Whoops.
The preferred alternative was developed with input from the public at two public workshops. One was held on January 30th, 2025, and another was held on May 1st, 2025. We received 330 comments that were received and recorded for the record. The most common concerns expressed by the public included pedestrian safety, particularly for school children on the way to and from school. increased vehicle speed and traffic volume, Suncoast interchange impacts, neighborhood connections to Rangeland Boulevard,
and the existing Bexley Village Drive roundabout being converted to a signalized intersection.
All build alternatives are consistent with the County's Long Range Transportation Plan and accomplish the purpose in need for the project. The no-build alternative does not accomplish the purpose in need and is not consistent with the county's long-range transportation plan. All build alternatives require right-of-way to be acquired for a portion of the roadways, stormwater ponds, and floodplain compensation sites. The build alternatives each impact nineteen parcels, and none require any businesses or residences to be relocated.
Alternative A requires a total of 66.52 acres of right-of-way to be acquired, while alternative B requires a total of 71.34 acres, and alternative C and the preferred alternative each require a total of 72.42 acres of right-way to be acquired. Alternative A has an estimated construction cost of 95.8 million and an estimated total cost of 145.5 million. Alternative B has an estimated construction cost of 105.4 million and a total cost
of 159.54 million. Alternative C an estimated construction cost of 102.3 million and total cost of 155.5 million. And but the preferred alternative has an estimated construction cost of $116 million and a total cost of $181.4 million. The no-build alternative has no cost other than just routine maintenance by the county of county property. Alternative A impacts two hundred or twenty-four point one one acres of wetlands. Alternatives B and C and the preferred alternative impact twenty-six
point three eight acres of wetlands. All build alternatives have a high potential to increase noise. A noise study report was completed and noise walls were found to be feasible and reasonable in one location along Rangeland Boulevard west of South Branch Boulevard and one location on Bexley Village Drive south of Rangeland Boulevard. The route study and pond siding analysis reports report recommends the preferred alternative. It is proposed it proposes a four lane road from Cattlegap to
Bexley Village Drive and can accommodate future widening if needed. It does not include a recommendation to construct an interchange with the Sun Coast Parkway. It provides trails on both sides of the roadway for the project, for most of the project, and provides a trail on the sidewalk everywhere else. It proposes two pedestrian underpasses and four roundabout controlled intersections. From Cattle Gap Trail to Lake Point Parkway, the preferred alternative includes four eleven foot travel lanes separated by a twenty two foot median with five foot bicycle
lanes, a five foot sidewalk on the north side, and a twelve foot trail on the south side.
From Lake Point Parkway to South Branch Boulevard, the preferred alternative includes four trav four eleven foot travel lanes separated by a twenty two foot median with five foot bicycle lanes, a twelve foot trail on the north, and a twelve foot trail or five foot sidewalk on the south. From South Branch Boulevard to the Suncoast Parkway, the preferred alternative includes four eleven foot travel lanes separated by a forty four foot median with five foot bicycle lanes, twelve foot trail on the north side and twelve foot trail on the south side. If
needed in the future, this section can have one additional travel lane in each direction added within the median. That would result in six travel lanes separated by a 22-foot median with bicycle lanes and trails on both sides. The preferred alternative includes a pair of two-lane bridges to cross the Sun Coast Parkway. Four uh they they each would have or they would have a total of four eleven foot travel lanes with eight foot four inch shoulders that can accommodate bicycle traffic, a barrier separated
twelve foot trail on the north side, and a barrier-separated twelve foot trail on the south side. If needed in the future, the two bridges can be connected within the median to provide one additional traveling in each direction and a twenty two-foot raised median.
From the Suncoast Parkway to Bexley Village Drive, the preferred alternative includes four 11-foot travel lanes that are separated by a 44-foot median with five-foot bicycle lanes, a 12-foot trail in the north, and a 12-foot trail on the south side. Similarly, if needed in the future, one travel lane can be added in each direction within the median. This would result in six travel lanes separated by a twenty-two-foot median with bicycle lanes and trails on both sides.
For approximately 2,000 feet east of the Bexley Village Drive intersection, the preferred alternative reconstructs Bud Bexley Parkway to accommodate a new pedestrian underpass and transition back to match the existing roadway. This segment includes four 11-foot travel lanes separated by a 22-foot median with five-foot bicycle lanes, a 12-foot trail on the north side, and a 12-foot trail or five-foot sidewalk on the north side. The south side. The Route Study and Pond Siding Analysis Report.
The Route Study and Pond Site Analysis Report recommends six floodplain compensation sites and eight stormwater mitigation ponds. The floodplain compensation sites require twenty-six point six four acres of right-of-way acquisition, and the stormwater mitigation ponds require nineteen point four four acres.
The preferred alternative impacts 26.38 acres of wetlands. It impacts 19 parcels and requires acquisition of 26.34 acres of ride-of-way for the roadway, 19.44 acres of right-of-way for stormwater ponds, and 26.64 acres of for floodplain compensation sites for a total of 72.42 acres of ride-of-way acquisition. It was estimated that the construction cost for the preferred alternative will be $116 million, the wetland mitigation cost will be seven
million, the right-of-way acquisition will be $23.6 million, for a total cost for the preferred alternative will be eight $181.4 million.
Finally, in summary, the preferred alternative is recommended because it is consistent with the county's long range transportation plan. It provides the greatest potential for congestion reduction. It provides the best pedestrian and bicycle facilities. It provides the most potential safety enhancement through congestion reduction and potential and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. And it avoids unnecessary roadway and bridge construction if the county decides. sides in the future to construct interchange ramps with the Sun Coast Parkway.
Uh this is the slide that highlights the the uh recommended stormwater and floodplain compensation sites that I mentioned uh and that that concludes the presentation. Thank you. All right. Questions from the board? Commissioner Weightman.
Thank you. Leave Mr. Kempo for conversation.
The piece of this I've talked with Carbala and other professional staff, maybe you Penos Mm-hmm. Well, I need clarity on the gun highway intersection because this is all for nothing if that intersection is not improved. Right? Correct? That's just basically the layman's, my layman's terms of it. Okay. So if we if we don't we embark down this the road for this project, if gun and 54 is not improved. The whole thing's one has
the potential to be a cluster, from what I'm understanding. So I'd like to get clarity on. That section of
Thank you, Commissioner, for the comment. The traffic analysis is based on projection of traffic for 2050. And as we all know, projections are just that, projections, okay? So And based on the projections. The no build condition for Gun Highway and Station fifty four is at level of service F for 2050 and the average delay is 105 seconds in the morning and 134
seconds in the afternoon, peak hours. Now For alternative A, because this is what we're talking about today, alternative A, alternative B is not Right now a consideration it's alternative A So for alternative A, the delay in the morning is gonna jump from 105 average seconds on average to 111, just three addition uh six additional seconds. And in the PM is gonna increase from 134 seconds to 142. Just
eight seconds. Now eight seconds, you know, uh Most In most signalized intersections along state route fifty-four. Most traffic has takes about two cycles to clear because the average cycle is from between A minute and a half to two minutes. So This delay is very normal. For that. Kind of intersection. Now If we go back to ту th to the alternative b. Where
Of course the volumes will will be higher on Rangeland Boulevard and then the conditions on Ka on Gunn Highway and Strait R fifty four will become, yes, mu much more congested. then we will assess the conditions then because remember, Traffic shifts when you build a new road. You may project something today, but The actual data will show us where the traffic is gravitating based on the new road. Then we will assess the conditions on Gun Highway where State Route 54, and then in conjunction with the F DOT, because
State Route 54 is a state road ro uh state road, we will determine the best solution for that intersection. And that again, if and when the that in in the interchange is built. You know, that's not right now in the picture. Also The experience shows that when drivers experience congestion at an intersection and there are alternative routes. They will gravitate to less congested route. For example, if they find that making a left turn
from going east on uh State fifty four to turn left on Gunn Highway is takes too long. They can drive down and make the left on Lake Point or even farther down on South Branch Boulevard. So there are there will be alternatives for those drivers to make choices.
Okay.
All right. And no for the question? Uh let me ask you a question then. So the Turnpike Authority, we've had struggles with them in the past. Other counties have had overpasses, we're spending Five to ten million dollars on overpasses now. Um we had the Ridge Road. interchange was gonna be built. We had to battle with that going through. I've looked at stuff up in Hudson to try to do connections. Hudson Avenue, they're supposed to be looking at that. Haven't seen much
of that lately. We looked above that before where the schools are that was looked at but just Didn't want to go through with it. I'm concerned what they would do here. And I'm concerned that you don't know what they want to do here to show the people what would ha happen in the future. And you could do a very simple interchange like a l looks like fern? Or they could demand they want the full interchange like they get everywhere else. I think those details need to get looked at closer. Because if you're setting
up all the right away And you're gonna go through it? You wanna know what's gonna come. At least present to the people what they're going to do. I don't like the uncertainty of dealing with the Trump Act 30. Let's look at the whole thing now, even if it's phase one and phase two. We should look at it now. And if it can be built in just the one phase as opposed to the second phase and it gets acceptable to the people, it may be a better way to go. But you don't know that. And that's th what what's got people angst about it 'cause you're saying you're not gonna
build it. But you're gonna build the infrastructure so it's easy to build later on. And that's I think where the big heartache is. So what you're trying to do is like accommodate to what they want to do, but you're not getting to the details and you get another entity to deal with which you can't control, you can't get 'em on paper and well you haven't got 'em on paper yet to figure out what they're going to do, what they're gonna ask for. Because if they just Allow a simple in and off, you know, right turn in, right out right out. Or if they want the fullness change, it's gonna be a big difference and I don't think they wanna go through another set of construction. We
see Orlando, they do it all the time. I don't think we want to do that here. We did it at State Road 56. We w that we're gonna go put one lane in, we we got two with the infrastructure in place to make the next one coming up nice and easy. So I think what you've done is great. I think it's great that you've done all the public input. But I just think it's early And and I think the uncertainty what the Churnpack Authority would tell you to go do later in twenty fifty, whatever it is, is something that needs to be addressed and and and vetted out.
Okay. So here's some background information. Uh the TERP Authority prepared a PD ⁇ E study for the winding of sand coast. And as part of that is from uh uh Gunn Highway to State Route fifty-two, I believe, for widening uh sand cost. Now, as part of that PDNE study, they also addressed the interchange at on Ridge Road and the reason was that so they have an approved document so they can take action whenever
it's necessary. Doesn't mean that they approved their their interchange so they can build it tomorrow.
Did you mean to say r uh Rangeland? You said Ridge Road.
Thank you for the correction. Yes, Rangeland Boulevard. So Uh So In our c communication with Turnpike. Again and again and again, they stated to us that this is a county-driven project, the interchange. This is we are not going to build an interchange unless the county is cooperating and is asking us to do the interchange. So they and again that will
be when we go to the Turnpike and say we want the interchange, then they will have to do a cost benefit analysis to see if it's beneficial for them to make the investment to build the interchange. So it's not a given. They have approved the interchange through the documentation process, but that's not something that's the interchange is guaranteed there. It's something that we will have actively to go and engage the intern pike for it to be built.
And just like I went to d down the road twice with them, didn't get it done, and maybe their second one does get done. But again that uncertainty of what's gonna happen is I think w with the with the big angsters and I think they need to be at the table to figure out what they're gonna do before we make the step of what we're gonna go do. Commissioner Starkey.
I'm a little frustrated because you're the one to push for the interchange at the Sun Cut.
Uh but I I think that we saw uh uh in the um in all the work that we've done over the years what that interchange will look like. If and when it comes. Didn't we didn't they do a design for it? Right. There is a design already for it. If and when we connect.
It's vital when I was just looking at our at our members 600 what 650,000 people were right now? We have two east-west roads. I mean, if you recall, DOT came to me when this was uh well this is in my district, when the whole thing was in my district and said, please, please accelerate this, get this in your five-year plan because we need help on state road fifty-four. So So, you know, I was and still am for the
full interchange connection, but I'm willing to go along and say, let's just get over 54 now and reserve the right to connect. I think there will come a time that we will need to connect. But for now, I think this is a great um compromise. I can tell you that people in Starkey Ranch uh came to me and they want the connection to the Sun Coast. I mean, who wants to drive?
Please,
please do not comment. You'll
have to do that. Maybe some don't, but many do, and there are other neighborhoods around the area that also would like to not have to drive. State Road 54 to get to the airport. Um if you remember when the oil truck spilt and State Road 54 was closed down for most of the day. So this is this is a an extremely important road that's been planned for decades. Um and I think you've done a great job in designing it. And you know, we'll let it be in a future board. Maybe some
of you will be here when when when and if we do uh connect to the Sun Coast. Um But for now, uh you know we just we have to move forward. I'm
sure you have
to be years before
we build this, but we still need to move forward.
Commissioner Yeah.
Yeah, and I know the residents love option A, you know, in the the original drawing. Um I'm glad you touched on the point because I was gonna touch on it that Uh F Dot doesn't have the authority to go ahead and and make the connection. And I understand that widening the road, you know, you do it once because it's cheaper, doesn't necessarily mean the Um Extensions going to go in. But
I think getting getting the road Done? completed and having the infrastructure there is important. Um but I do hear the residents when it comes to they don't want a big interchange in their in their community. And um can you tell us like how many years are we are we looking at um for for all of that?
So we have funded the design for fiscal year twenty six, actually this year. We are a bit delay because of the additional public involvement we had to uh go through. So probably the design is gonna happen in fiscal year twenty seven. Uh we have budgeted right of way acquisition for fiscal year twenty-seven also. So that's probably gonna go up a year later, fiscal year twenty eight. Now We don't have extensive right of way acquisition. So we allowed two years gap between right of way acquisition and construction, which is funded in fiscal year twenty
nine. So we think we can take care of the right of way acquisition b before fiscal year twenty twenty nine and start the construction in fiscal year twenty nine.
I think the commissioner though is asking about the uh connection to the interchange.
If it ever even
Well, uh according to Turnpike uh authority, they said that that the projection showed that that may be needed after two thousand forty, year two thousand forty. So uh
But again it would have to go to a future board and make that
remotely possible. It will have to be initiated by us. We will have to go and tell the turnpike we want the interchange. And then we that we will c collaborate and see if they can add it to the work program because it takes that they will have to add it will take money to build the interchange. So they will have to program it in the work program. And On our part, you know, we will engage local community Have like the the board at the time will hear you know maybe advertise for a public hearing, public meeting, uh and have engage the community,
ask their input. At that time we'll have more accurate projections for the traffic volumes, so we will know what's going on on Rangeland Boulevard, on State of 54, so we will have a better picture on what's gonna happen, and then we will make the decision. That's our recommendation.
Okay. Um I s I support improvement of these infrastructure and the roadways uh moving across east and west, north, south. uh throughout our whole county. I've even made suggestions at other meetings that we do vision roads that are not even planned yet to be done, but they're there. But we need them for our citizens to be able to move throughout their communities and travel without being in congestion like Fitch 4 gets. This will alleviate some of the issues. It'll take some of that pressure off Fitch
4 and allow people to move east and west also. So in a different route, but it helps us all with the new vision roads and all throughout our county. I mean, I think that's a good thing Nobody wants that? I'll take it over on the east side, I can tell you, because I I need it because there's a lot of traffic coming over in that area too. So it's very important for infrastructure for our citizens. And we've got to be very mindful of our citizens. This is money that we have to look at and be sure we make the right move to uh provide
roadways and ways for them to travel throughout their communities. Without a lot of congestion.