Loading...
12/06/1994 - High Speed Rail Task Force Meeting MINUTES High Speed Rail Task Force Meeting Tuesday, December 6, 1994 - 2:00 p.m. Commission Chambers, 112 South Osceola Avenue, Clearwater FL Members present: Chuck J. Pollick, Chairman Buzz David Alan C. Bomstein Pete Woodham Tim Johnson Roger Sweeney Curt Kiser Dan Brockway Sue Humphreys Members absent: Les Smout Also present: Charles H. Smith, Manager of FDOT High Speed Rail Transportation Richard Baier, City Engineer Sally Demarest, Board Reporter The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 2:12 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of City Hall. He noted the inability of Assistant City Manager Bill Baker to attend the meeting due to a conflict of schedule. Mr. Pollick distributed literature to members which was provided to him by Nazih Haddad, Project Manager, FDOT High Speed Rail Project, and indicated the purpose of the meeting was to formulate the official position of the City of Clearwater on the High Speed Rail Project to be submitted to FDOT before December 19, 1994, the date by which FDOT will finalize their Request for Proposal (RFP). Mr. Charles H. Smith, Manager, FDOT High Speed Rail Transportation, explained Florida's involvement in High Speed Rail began in 1984 when the Legislature passed the High Speed Rail Act, mandating a Commission to establish a privately sponsored High Speed Rail Project for the State. About 30 private companies were originally considered. Of these, the Commission worked until 1991with two private companies which proposed an approximately 325 mile linkage between Tampa Bay, Orlando and Miami to be financed with real estate development revenues. This concept proved inadequate to finance a multi-billion dollar system. In 1991 the Legislature abolished the Commission, amended the Statute and transferred the functions and responsibilities to FDOT. Two major studies were completed in 1993 by FDOT which determined potential market, routes, issues and concerns: 1) a ridership forecast effort; 2) specific concentration on the 100 mile Orlando/Tampa Bay corridor. This information is included in FDOT brochure entitled Florida Intercity Rail Passenger Services, previously distributed. The primary market for High Speed Rail is an Orlando/Tampa Bay to Miami corridor. Depending upon location of stations, ridership is estimated 6-million by the year 2010. A detailed analysis reviewed 30 potential corridors to link Orlando with the Tampa Bay area of which two alignments for High Speed Rail were considered. Mr. Smith referenced the schematic map p.18 of the FDOT brochure and explained the routes indicated. By Statute definition, High Speed operates in excess of 120 mph, requiring new rail lines and the median of Interstate 4, from Orlando to Gateway has been considered the preferred route. He noted the options table on p.19. Mr. Smith explained the High Speed Rail Act directed FDOT to prepare an RFP (draft distributed to Task Force members) to solicit a public/private partnership. The RFP will have a final review by the Citizens Planning and Environmental Advisory Committee on December 19, 1994 in Tallahassee. The Committee will issue recommendations for revisions to the Secretary of Transportation. The final RFP will be issued before the end of January, 1995. He indicated approximately four private companies have expressed interest, and will respond with their plans by October/November, 1995. FDOT will award an exclusive franchise four months thereafter to the private company which will do the certification process, i.e. environmental studies, final design, detailed financing plans, local coordination with jurisdictions, and all relative detail. It is estimated it will take three or four years before "turning the first shovel of dirt". He noted the RFP reflects the consensus of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and other advisory committees. In the ensuing discussion, the summary study which particularly noted termination at Gateway Center was questioned. Mr. Smith said an applicant may look at any route they feel better suits their business plan or technology. He said FDOT requires applicants at a minimum to serve three service areas: 1) Tampa Bay region (Hillsborough and Pinellas County); 2) Orlando area; and 3) south Florida, emphasizing there is flexibility. It was suggested the RFP specifically indicate Clearwater as an alternate station to Gateway. Mr. Smith said St. Petersburg, Largo and Clearwater were considered and from an engineering perspective, FDOT would not be prejudicial against an alternative terminus to Gateway. A question was raised by the Chairman whether the location of the High Speed Rail had been finalized. Mr. Smith said the location is not settled in an absolute sense; however, an MPO Resolution recommended the Gateway station. He suggested the Task Force work with the MPO, enabling FDOT to better determine what the local position is. It was noted the MPO plans have changed: 1) there would not be an elevated monorail through Gateway as in the original plans; and 2) by motion at the September MPO Task Force meeting, Clearwater and St. Petersburg were indicated as the two alternatives. Mr. Smith said he had not received offical correspondence from MPO in this regard. The point was made that the High Speed Rail destination is the Gulf Coast, and Gateway is 12 miles from the Gulf Coast. Mr. Smith said it was not FDOT's intention to micro-plan the RFP, and the applicant would work with the State and local jurisdictions. He suggested a Resolution which maintained flexibility, offering two alternatives. Concern was again expressed that the RFP in its present form clearly offers no alternative to a Gateway terminus. Ridership studies indicate Florida customers are tourists and recreational riders who favor a High Speed Rail system. Concern was expressed that tourists would be transported from Orlando, a tourist destination, to an unincorporated industrial park area, Gateway, bypassing the Westshore district. It was noted the European traveller is accustomed to using rail and would need quick and direct access to the beach. The absence of hotels in central Pinellas County was noted. It was mentioned that stations and destinations located at Pinellas beaches would best serve the convenience of High Speed Rail riders. The Chairman reiterated the purpose of the Task Force is to bring the High Speed Rail to Clearwater, and relayed the consensus that Gateway would not be desirable terminus for tourists. Mr. Smith indicated FDOT is proceeding with the design of Interstate 4-275 to Westshore to accomodate High Speed Rail; however, an applicant may produce a more cost-effective route. There are no specific committed plans for a Bay crossing, which is a $250-$300 million component of the project. He did not see a problem with creating language which says an applicant can go to St. Petersburg or Clearwater. The High Speed alternatives on p.11 fig. 4 of the RFP were noted and a question was raised as to how a "dotted line" could be added to the study to indicate Clearwater as a destination; Mr. Smith opined the City could suggest to FDOT what the proper alignment would be. At this point it was noted the City of Clearwater is perhaps the largest city in the nation which is not served by an Interstate. Serious concern was expressed for Clearwater's present and future transportation needs as a tourist destination. Movement of area population density to the north expanding Pasco County was noted, reinforcing the feasibility of a crossing at Campbell Courtney Causeway, a route which would be more cost effective than an over-water route. The question was raised if an MPO letter specifically including Clearwater as an alternative would resolve the issue, rather than leaving the matter to the discretion of an applicant. Mr. Smith said it would, and encouraged Clearwater to do an evaluation and produce some information as to the market and routes which would accompany a MPO Resolution or letter and be given to the applicant. He again emphasized flexibility. A question was raised whether the Citizens Planning and Environmental Advisory Committee (CPEAC) should be approached to support this flexibility in the RFP in addition to the MPO. Mr. Smith indicated MPO is established by law with certain responsibilities, representing certain local jurisdictions; CPEAC is an advisory committee. The essence of time was strongly emphasized, i.e. the December 19, 1994 hearing, subsequent recommendation, and MPO meeting next week and Mr. Smith agreed that the Task Force must move quickly. Describing the terminus/station, Mr. Smith indicated it would be a "push/pull" and not require a turnaround; the ancillary facilities, parking and places for buses, taxicabs or shuttles would take up most of the space. He said the station would attract other types of uses, i.e. hotels, restaurants, etc. Discussing cost, Mr. Smith said if a true High Speed Rail system is cost prohibitive, there may be other options; however, he likened a substitute conventional system to commuter rail or Amtrak. The Chairman reiterated the goal of the Task Force is to bring High Speed Rail to Clearwater and expressed concern that the City's position reach Tallahassee in time for consideration at FDOT's finalization meeting on December 19, 1994. Mr. Smith said the committee has already received all correspondence, letters and resolutions. He recommended the City's official position be mailed directly to Tallahassee due to the shortage of time. City Engineer Richard Baier questioned whether consideration was given to the level of service and capacity at which City roads are now utilized, which in most cases is level E and F. Mr. Smith replied FDOT is aware. Models will show highway congestion which indicates need for alternate transportation modes and FDOT District 7 people supply such information both in a data and policy sense. The negative aspects of Gateway Center as a termination point or middle ground for Pinellas County were again addressed; Gateway is a 20-25 minute ride from Clearwater; 7 minutes from St. Petersburg. Mr. Smith noted FDOT makes the final RFP decision. He again suggested the City respond directly to what was developed in the study, explain the unacceptability of Gateway, and make their position clear. He said FDOT is responsive to local comments and the City will certainly receive a response to their proposal from FDOT. Chairman Pollick opined that persons using High Speed Rail from Orlando would be looking for transportation to beaches, and questioned whether a Gateway terminus would seriously impact the City creating transportation problems which could result in damages. The Chairman and Task Force members thanked Mr. Smith for his input, opening the floor for discussion. It was suggested that on an intracounty spur from a terminus point, it would be more feasible to get from Clearwater to Westshore, than from Clearwater to Gateway. Mr. Johnson said from an engineering standpoint he woud be unable to verify that at this time. Access and use by the Westshore business community and Tampa Airport was cited. Intermodility was mentioned citing Clearwater Resolution 94-100 committed the City to promote a "monorail" to the coast; Gateway has no such commitment. County plans do not include Gateway in its initial phase. The Task Force agreed that the position of the City was not to insert itself ahead of Gateway, but to to be considered as an equal alternative, with the bidders carefully considering all factors, i.e., cost, tourism, business visitors, transportation needs, population expansion, etc. The Chairman stressed the pressure of time. It was agreed that staff forward a copy of draft minutes of today's meeting to Mr. Tim Johnson who would prepare an official position letter coalescing the Task Force's posture and invite the support of the MPO. The draft official position letter will be considered for approval at a Task Force meeting scheduled for December 12, 1995. Concern was expressed that a recent similar request to the MPO for considertion of both Gateway and Clearwater locations as alternatives was not acted upon by the MPO. It was agreed the MPO would be contacted to verify its official position. There being no further business before it, the High Speed Rail Task Force meeting adjourned at 3:53 p.m.