Courtney Campbell Scenic Highway
Corridor Advisory Committee (CAC)
Minutes
Special Meeting at
URS Corporation
7th Floor Board Room
7650 West Courtney Campbell Causeway
Tampa, Florida
December 3, 2007
11:00 a.m.
Attending:
Jessica White, Senior Planner, Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council
Bonnie Pfuntner, Public Involvement Manager, The LPA Group
Jerry Oshesky, Project Manager, The LPA Group
Gabor Farkasfalvy, Project Manager, Florida Department of Transportation
Michael Palozzi, FDOT GEC Support, PBS&J
Felicia Leonard, Administrative Support Manager, City of Clearwater Parks & Recreation
Chris Weber, Director of Transportation, Westshore Alliance
Ken Hoyt, Citizen
Susan J. Miller, Bicycle/Pedestrian Planner, Pinellas County MPO
Linda Saul-Sena, Councilwoman, City of Tampa
Bill Jonson, Chair, Courtney Campbell Scenic Highway CAC
Brian Smith, Director, Pinellas County Planning Department
John Doran, Councilman, City of Clearwater
Background History
Because there were a number of new attendees to the CAC meeting Mr. Jonson thought
it would be helpful to review some of the history of the Courtney Campbell Scenic
Highway. He reminded the participants that the designation process started back in 1999
and culminated with designation of the Courtney Campbell as a Florida Scenic Highway.
The Corridor video, produced by URS Corporation, was shown at this time as an
introduction to the efforts of the CAC to the first time visitors in the meeting. Mr. Jonson
explained that as part of the designation process the CAC was required to develop a
corridor management plan which contained a Corridor Vision Statement along with
Goals, Objectives and Strategies for implementation. One of the objectives was to
determine how to implement a pedestrian/trail system that could connect across the bay.
The CAC, Pinellas and Hillsborough MPOs and the Chairmen’s Coordinating Committee
worked closely with FDOT staff to develop an Enhancement Grant request to help fund
this investigation. FDOT – Central Office awarded this grant to FDOT District Seven in
early 2007. The District is administering the project. The grant is to be used to explore
the feasibility of making this connection between Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties
including the feasibility of crossing the three bridges. This project recently got underway.
The CAC is excited about this project and invited FDOT and the consultants, The LPA
Group, to meet today. To assist the FDOT project manager and the LPA Group, Mr.
Palozzi provided them a copy of the corridor video and the 2007 Florida Scenic Highway
Annual Report for the Courtney Campbell Scenic Highway.
Feasibility Study
Mr. Palozzi introduced Gabor Farkasfalvy, FDOT District Seven, Intermodal Systems
Development Department. Mr Farkasfalvy is the Department’s Project Manager for this
feasibility study. He has significant background in the management of Feasibility studies
and Project Development & Environment (PD&E) studies. Since this is a feasibility
study, Mr. Palozzi asked that he clarify just what a feasibility study is for the benefit of
those who may not have regular dealings with FDOT and its projects. Mr. Farkasfalvy
explained that a feasibility study is a separate study that is done before the actual PD&E
study is undertaken. It can also be considered a “fatal flaw analysis.” At the beginning
of a PD&E study, FDOT submits to the Federal Highway Administration, or in the case of
a state project, to the approving agency, a Class of Action Determination. Class of
Action means the degree of detail they will have to deal with during the PD&E study. It
can go from a programmatic to an environmental impact statement, becoming more
complex and involving more and more people to review and sign off on it. So, before a
PD&E study is undertaken a feasibility study is sometimes performed to determine if
there are any fatal flaws that would kill a project or push it up to a higher level of
environmental documentation than expected. Lately, funding has become tight so the
FDOT does not want to go to a costly full blown PD&E study unless it will be value
added. Instead they do an up front study, which is the feasibility portion, to determine
whether or not the PD&E is needed. If no fatal flaws are found the project can be
classified at a lower level of environmental documentation, which would allow for quick
transition into the final design phase. This procedure saves some of the time and money
it would take to complete a full PD&E study if there are no major issues (i.e. fatal flaws).
When the Courtney Campbell study came about, FDOT felt that they could do a
Category 1 (Type I Categorical Exclusion) which requires the least amount of
environmental documentation, thus eliminating the necessity for a full PD&E study.
Fatal flaws could be in two different areas: engineering, i.e., a bridge cannot be built for
whatever reason; or environmental, i.e., an endangered species is found that would
require coordination with various agencies. The current study was scoped to perform an
environmental analysis which is comprised of data collection and a summarization of
conclusions, and also an engineering study which deals mainly with bridges that may
have to be built. Mr. Farkasfalvy reported that he had recently received a draft report
from the consultant on possible structural alternatives for getting across the causeway
bridges. FDOT is now in the process of reviewing this report and he expects the review
to be completed by the end of next week. At that time he is hopeful they will be able to
make a statement regarding the engineering feasibility or engineering fatal flaw, if any.
Mr Farkasfalvy reported that a quick review of the report has shown that one of the fatal
flaws may be the possible requirement of a Coast Guard permit for the bridge. It is
possible that this requirement would push this study to a higher and more costly level of
environmental documentation, from a Category 1 to a Category 2, which would then
require a PD&E. The consultant’s contract is structured so that if a fatal flaw is found the
feasibility phase would be terminated and they would proceed directly into the PD&E
phase. Councilwoman Saul-Sena commented that it seems the environmental impact
will not be known until the engineering issue is solved since, depending upon what
solution is decided upon, there will be different environmental impacts. She thought
perhaps they should look for a way to accomplish the end goal in a more simplified
fashion. She also stated that, financially, the consultants have incentive to come up with
more complexity because their contract will be more lucrative and go on for a longer
time. Mr. Farkasfalvy assured her that the consultants will be looking for the most costeffective solution. He continued by discussing the structural analysis that analyzed three
scenarios: hang a structure off the side of the bridge; rebuild the super structure of the
bridge, (i.e. widening the existing bridge); and build a parallel structure. Councilwoman
Saul-Sena stated that with today’s economics the second and third options will never be
funded, so why spend the time and money exploring options that are not feasible. Mr.
Farkasfalvy replied by stating the first option will never happen because the existing
structure will not support another structure hung off the side. Mr. Jerry Oshesky,
Consultant Project Manager at The LPA Group, stated they have looked at the possibility
of cantilevering a structure wide enough to accommodate a trail, and there are a couple
of issues with that, 1) the age of the structure and 2) it is substandard in width. The most
trail they could fit on the existing structure would be approximately four feet wide and,
therefore, too narrow. The cantilever option dropped out almost immediately. Option 2,
widening the existing structure, according to the current guidelines would require the
widening be done on both sides of the bridge which would be more cost prohibitive than
building an independent bridge. Mr. Hoyt asked them to clarify why the Coast Guard
may have to be involved. Mr. Farkasfalvy replied that they made initial contact with the
Coast Guard explaining to them the scope of the study and mentioning all three
engineering scenarios. They stated the first two, the cantilever and the widening, might
require a permit, but the third option of building a new bridge would definitely require a
permit. The report also deals with possible environmental fatal flaws and they will review
those concurrently with the structural review because if there are any environmental fatal
flaws there is no point battling the Coast Guard. Mr. Farkasfalvy stated they are
attempting to come to the determination of whether or not this project is feasible, and if it
is and the Federal Highway Administration states they do not have to get the Coast
Guard involved, then they can proceed into the design phase. FDOT will review the
report and then make recommendations to Federal Highway.
Councilwoman Saul-Sena asked what the role of the local MPOs would be. Mr.
Farkasfalvy replied that the study needs to be concluded and cost determination made,
then see if it is feasible for local funds. Councilwoman Saul-Sena and Mr. Hoyt both
expressed the CAC’s desire to be involved in the process since this is the group that
began the whole designation process approximately eight years ago. Mr. Farkasfalvy
stated that once Bob Clifford signs off on the report it will be ready for distribution.
Councilwoman Saul-Sena asked that a copy be sent to Bill Jonson, as Chair of the CAC,
and he in turn will distribute it to the members. Mr Farkasfalvy also reported that there
will be a public workshop, most likely in February 2008. Mr. Hoyt asked if at that point
the consultant will have finished their fatal flaw analysis or if they will still be presenting
multiple alternatives. Mr. Oshesky replied that they will have a recommended alternative
at that time. Councilwoman Saul-Sena told the consultants they need to have two public
workshops, one on the Pinellas side and one on the Hillsborough side, and that they
need to get input on where to hold them from the CCSH CAC members. She stated that
the workshops need to be held in a place where the public is comfortable and where
there will be easy access. Mr. Farkasfalvy stated that FDOT will certainly consider
having two workshops for the feasibility phase.
Ms. Miller asked if the Courtney Campbell bridge is scheduled for replacement since
earlier discussion stated the cantilever option would not be feasible because of the
bridge’s age and structure. Mr. Farkasfalvy replied that it is not scheduled for
replacement because, according to FDOT’s annual inspection, it is currently evaluated
as safe. Mr. Oshesky added that many of the bridges are not unsafe but functionally
obsolete in that the shoulders are too narrow and they are unsafe for pedestrians, but
they are not in danger of collapse. Mr. Jonson asked about the scope of the project and
the opportunity of phasing the implementation. Mr. Farkasfalvy responded that the
feasibility study covers the entire length of the causeway and would identify phasing
options. Further discussion ensued regarding the workshops and Mr. Farkasfalvy stated
that FDOT has rules as to where they hold public workshops and hearings.
Councilwoman Saul-Sena reiterated her previous thoughts that this meeting or meetings
need to be really comfortable for the public so they will attend in large numbers.
Mr. Jonson commented that there is obviously a great deal of enthusiasm for this project
within the CAC and each member is anxious for it to succeed. Ms. Pfuntner (Public
Involvement Manager at The LPA Group) stated that Michelle Greene will be making the
call as far as where the public workshop will be held. In the interest of time, Mr. Jonson
asked Mr. Farkasfalvy if there was anything else he meant to cover that had not been
discussed. He stated the report will be in the form of a CD to avoid having a book to
carry around. After the report is reviewed FDOT will approach Federal Highway to hear
what they decide. He assured the CAC members that the study schedule will stay on
track and it is available electronically in a .pdf file which he agreed to send. By the end of
next week there will be an internal review. He stated he is available to answer any
questions and CAC members are welcome to call him.
The question was asked when the study is complete, whose study is it. Mr. Farkasfalvy
stated it will be FDOT’s for certain and then they will have Federal Highway
concurrence. The Federal Highway concurrence at that point will be under Class of
Action, where they state no PD&E study is required and the design phase may begin.
__________________________________________________
Mr. Jonson reminded everyone that this coming Saturday there is a clean-up on the
Clearwater side of the Causeway. Also, the CAC will schedule a meeting for January.