Download
1 / 14
140 likes | 381 Views
Volusia Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) November 27, 2012. Craig Coffey, County Administrator. Key Discussion Items. Proposed TPO Map Old Kings Road North of Matanzas Parkway Old Kings Road South of SR 100. PROPOSED TPO MAP SPLITS COUNTY ROADS.
E N D
Volusia Transportation Planning Organization (TPO)November 27, 2012 Craig Coffey, County Administrator
Key Discussion Items • Proposed TPO Map • Old Kings Road North of Matanzas Parkway • Old Kings Road South of SR 100
PROPOSED TPO MAP SPLITS COUNTY ROADS • Many partial roads were taken in to accommodate the City of Palm Coast boundaries but caused fragmented splits on County roads. • Splitting of Roads will create issues with: a. Funding Urban and Rural b. Competition More Roads More Funding c. Coordination Agreement and Priority d. Timing Added Difficulties for County
PROPOSED TPO MAP SPLITS COUNTY ROADS • Such Splits are not a problem in Volusia County because all the County is within the TPO and Volusia does not qualify for the same rural funding sources that Flagler County does. • Split Road will likely create hardships with Flagler County projects • We Recommend A Win-Win Approach: Mostly Keep Palm Coast City Limits Clearly delineate County Roads out of TPO
Old Kings Road North & Matanzas Woods Parkway County owned and maintained roads. Rural development (5 acre lot) or conservation/preserves . High school and low density Conservatory.
Old Kings Road South, John Anderson Hwy & Old Dixie Hwy (US 1 to I-95) County owned and maintained roads with future growth planned. Sparsely population today except in the small portion of Flagler Beach. County project for State/County funding programmed in coming years for shoulders, bike lanes, and trails. Very northern portion of John Anderson is urbanized due to nearby population to the east that would not really utilize John Anderson.
Old Kings Road South, John Anderson Hwy & Old Dixie Hwy (US 1 to I-95)
1) Both road segments are County Roads. The City is not responsible functionally or financially. The City will not be requesting funding on these roadways or pursuing any construction projects. This will not impede any City project funding or the City’s weighted vote. This will add projects in the TPO needing funding. • 2) Both Road segments are not urbanized per the Census and do not have to be included.
3) Splitting the Roadways adds coordination issues and another layer of difficulty. The roadways are not both rural and urban. They are both clearly rural today and for the foreseeable future. • 4) Current development and traffic on these roadways is minimal. These areas are rural now and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Both of these areas have thousands of acres of parks, preserves, wetlands and permanent open space that will never bring the density for urbanization.
5) When looking at the urbanization in the next 20 years, some would like to believe we will grow uncontrollably again, which is not realistic. Today, there are enough platted lots and ghost DRI’s laid out for 50-100 years worth of growth. Just like the two permitted DRI’s on the west side of US 1 that were determined by the TPO Board to not be relevant during the 20 year planning horizon, some of the growth being presented to the TPO Board is the same type. For example, for portions of the segments south of Old Kings Road that were only annexed into the City approximately 3 years ago are and are now just beginning the pre-DRI planning stages. Prior to annexation these lands were designated rural Ag and Timberlands at 1 unit per 5 acres in the County.
6) The roadways can be added later if and when they start to become urbanized. • 7) Funding - These roadway segments will rank very poorly in an urbanized setting, but very high in a rural evaluation which could affect funding. We have received clarification on SCOP and SCRAP funding sources that these will largely be unaffected by the TPO. However, funding could be affected with two other sources that the district can help us with. These are TAL funds for communities under 200,000 and for potential matches for CIGP funding which requires a 50% match for urbanized areas.
6) The roadways can be added later if and when they start to become urbanized. • 7) Funding – Continued -We are seeking final clarification from the State on the impact for the inclusion in the TPO will have on those sources. We have two potential projects that could be affected. One is an unfunded trail segment in the north Old Kings Road Segment that we have been seeking funding for years for at $900,000. The second is needed additional funding a programmed, in the south Old Kings Road Section. The project will be for resurfacing, safety, and in-road bike lane, approximately $900,000 of additional funding is necessary to construct that project. Delaying taking these two segments from entering the TPO will remove these from the TPO project lists and will allow the County to pursue funding on its own.
