FDOT Double Talk Caught Up Short Again

Greg Vickery
District Communications Coordinator
Florida Department of Transportation
Chipley, FL 32428

Mr. Vickery:

I have not received the documents regarding the pertinent alignment, environmental impacts, and federal regulations for identifying and regulating undeveloped properties classified as 4(f) properties” that I requested over a month ago.

You stated that alternate bridge landing locations were considered. I recall many options that were debated, but then we were told that as a replacement bridge, it must be located in the same position as the existing bridge. Why is FDOT now saying that if only we had spoken up long ago, they would have considered moving the landing? Or that they originally considered an alternate landing, but decided against it due to the federal lands and sturgeon population? Isn’t that contrary to the statement that the bridge must be located in the same position as the existing bridge?

Isn’t it actually correct that neither allegation above is true? The 400 gulf sturgeons (out of the counted 15,000 sturgeons state-wide) that breed in the fresh water Escambia River habitat would get the same environmental protection wherever the bridge head is located. Relocating a new bridge landing less than a mile east is mandated by the U. S. Transportation Equity Act and funding by the Hazard Elimination Program (23USC152) to resolve safety problems at hazardous locations, sections and roadway elements which may constitute a danger to motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists.

There are no usable properties around the Gulf Island National Seashore, or options that would avoid impact with the Naval Live Oak Reservation (aka Gulf Island National Seashore). This is contrary to your statement in your Feb. 15, 2016 email.

The effort by the Florida Department of Transportation to construct the proposed Pensacola Bay Bridge landing in the wrong location is fundamentally flawed and dishonest. Your effort, if successful, will endanger the population of Gulf Breeze and the motorists that are forced to use a highway known to be hazardous through Gulf Breeze.

Your actions for the bidding for the design and construction of the proposed Pensacola Bay Bridge should be halted and deferred until the bridge landing in Santa Rosa County is relocated to the Naval Live Oak Reservation. Repair the existing Pensacola Bay Bridge, as originally proposed, until the necessary funding for the revisions is secured.

I would appreciate your response.

Glynn Brown AIA
Architect
March 28, 2016

This entry was posted in City of Pensacola, Department of Transportation, Escambia County, Florida, Santa Rosa County, Tallahassee and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s