Cooperation key in road planning

Cooperation is of the utmost importance when federal and state transportation dollars are allocated to serve transportation needs which cross county boundaries. Now, with federal and state revenues shrinking, cooperation is even more important.

What happened on August 21, 2007 at the Florida - Alabama Transportation Planning Organization (FL-AL TPO) meeting was completely opposite. Granted, Escambia County staff had warned that their commissioners thought $65 million was too much money to spend on widening a segment of US 98 from Naval Live Oaks to just beyond the Garcon Point Bridge, but no one suspected that Escambia County would submit a different plan late on Friday afternoon before the TPO meeting the following Tuesday.

The new plan took the $65 million planned for US 98 and reallocated it to the Burgess/Creighton Road Extension and two segments of US 90. The two segments of US 90 included widening of US 90 from Airport Road to SR 87S and improvements from Dogwood Drive to Airport Road to move traffic more efficiently. Possibly a remaining $11 million was left to be put toward US 98.

At issue is the manner in which the TPO action was taken. With so much at stake, transportation planning is generally a deliberate process of many steps, making use of the best planning tools available such as transportation models, and encouraging public involvement along the way. It generally takes two years to develop a long range transportation plan and the cost feasible plan is the last step. Escambia County cooperated in the planning process up until Friday, August 17, when it its own draft cost feasible plan appeared. Subsequently, on the following Tuesday, August 21, Escambia members out-voted the Santa Rosa TPO members 9 - 7, helped by the votes of four Pensacola City Councilmen. By their own statements at the TPO meeting, the new cost feasible plan was drafted by Escambia County Commissioner White and a traffic engineering staff member. Where were the Santa Rosa participants during this time? Where was the opportunity for the public to understand what was happening?

Is the southern segment of Avalon Boulevard (from I-10 to north of the CSX bridge) the next victim in the cost feasible plan? TPO Chairman Commissioner White said it could be voted lower on the priority list at a later time.

Coming in with a last minute alternative plan and out-voting members across the bay is not cooperative. Since 1962, the Federal Aid Highway Act has required transportation plans to be the result of a cooperative, continuing, and comprehensive or 3 C's process. Until last month, the process did meet the spirit and intent of the 3 C's; but unfortunately, that is now not the case.

The Escambia County members could have waited until next year when the new full long range plan update will begin. Then would have been the best time to address many of the issues of concern to us all: shrinking federal and state revenues forcing reliance on local funds such as local option taxes, impact fees, tax increment funds, and other local sources to pay for improvements - even on state roads. It could have been done cooperatively, rather than forcing a change now and destroying the good relationships that had been built over the last several years. Was it worth it?