Review and Comments on the First Draft of the New Master Plan from a Public Meeting held on January 4, 2012.
I have reviewed the nearly 1000 page plan draft.
(Side Note: The Master Plan Draft divides the undeveloped West Campus 647 acre property into eight (8) different segments with designation of W-1 to W-8. W-2 is the closest section adjacent to the current campus.)
Here is a summary of the plan draft as I see it:
- Realization by the committee that a plan of ten years is too short and the long range must be considered.
- Significant infrastructure changes for many good reasons: to correct previous poor planning; more pedestrian and bike traffic; better wayfinding; to get the loop road out of the center of campus (shortens perceived distances); increasing the Floor Area Ratio with taller buildings.
- One of the major changes is a proposal to encircle the campus with a loop road and remove the Campus Drive portion through the center of campus.
- Including the stadium in an area called “University Park”near the current field house and pool.
- Giving up on development of the West Campus during this master plan cycle unless significant outside financing becomes available.
- Building a “Greenbrier Connector” purported to “open up” the West Campus.
My concerns are primarily related to the stadium placement and the plan for a Greenbrier Connector; and they are interrelated by failing to position for future campus expansion.
Discussion: The UWF land mass is 75% of the University of Florida and much greater than FSU. Land available is satisfactory for many master plan cycles (decades). The West Campus is contiguous with East Campus sharing a 1 mile common border. Greenbrier skirts about half of the southern border of West Campus and does not enter West Campus.
I think it is short run thinking that places the stadium location in University Park. South Alabama, South Florida and Central Florida have demonstrated rapid growth in football attendance in just one or two master plan cycles. A 15,000 seat stadium requires 5,000 parking spaces, and that's the entire campus parking capacity now. In one master plan cycle attendance of 30,000 spectators would require major stadium expansion and need 10,000 parking spaces. Surface parking will be necessary and West Campus property will come into play sooner than later.
The draft is correct when it says on page 11.1: “The West Campus has limited access from the west via Ten Mile Road/Greenbrier Boulevard and Pate Street.” We know that Greenbrier has adequate right-of way only to Pate Street. For 1.8 miles west of Pate Street to Highway 29 the right-of -way will not support more than two lanes of traffic and is inadequate forever for the needs of an east-west connector. We know that Pate Street is privately owned by Gulf Power and they have not allowed access.
I question the facts of the following statement on page 11-3: “Connecting the East and West Campuses by means of an eastward extension of Greenbrier Boulevard/Ten Mile Road with a bridge over Thompson Bayou to the East Campus is the most economically viable option that also minimizes environmental impacts to the area.” Where is the data to support that statement? And it's geographically incorrect when stated on page 4.6 that: “...this bridged connection over Thompson Bayou would provide near direct access to West Campus Land Use District W2...” (It is over a mile by this route on Greenbrier making three water crossings and none of them are Thompson Bayou. A direct route from Parking Lot F on East Campus across Thompson Stream (not bayou) is 200 feet into parcel W-2. I'll call this the W-2 Connector. There will be no pedestrian or bike traffic by the Greenbrier route you can be sure, but a W-2 Connector would encourage such traffic and cut the distance by ¾ mile.)
Atkins Engineering did a “feasibility” study of the Greenbrier Connector at the cost of over $500,000. As we know, anything is feasible. But is it logical, practical, functional, economical, ecological, or productive? The answer to all of these questions is emphatically NO. Atkins proposed use of an 850 foot causeway/bridge for this Greenbrier Connector at a cost of $16,300,000. It crosses Eleven Mile Creek (draining Scenic Hills Country Club) and then crosses the marsh of a stream running north from Hillview Avenue. It does NOT (as stated on both page 4.6 and 11.3 of the Draft) cross either Thompson Bayou OR Thompson Stream. If we don't even know the route, how can we define a cost or impact! And we apparently never asked Atkins if it was a good choice of route, only if it was feasible.
Greenbrier does not fulfill the requirements of a West Exit or a West Campus connector. Greenbrier is a road to nowhere. Greenbrier doesn't enter the West Campus but skirts about half of the southern border of West Campus while passing 47 private driveways and 8 subdivision entrances. It can not handle adequate traffic further west of Pate Road because of the limited right-of-way. It is a just a third connector to Nine Mile Road. It increases campus security and traffic problems. It will not be conducive to either pedestrian or bicycle traffic. It equates with Campus division and obstruction of all types of traffic flow and control much worse than the current Campus Drive that is proposed to be eliminated for these same reasons! Greenbrier effectively makes two different campuses.
A Greenbrier connection will be a nightmare road that I predict will need removed in the future—you will find it worse than the serpentine Campus Drive for gumming up campus! If you don't like the Campus Drive serpentine road, how can you approve of the Greenbrier Route? The Campus Drive gives the “illusion” of a larger campus. Greenbrier makes the “actual” trip from East Campus to West Campus ¾ mile longer—there are no illusions.
My solutions to the stadium placement and opening up of West Campus.
(See attached graphic.)
Put the stadium on W-3, and build the bridge directly from Parking Lot F over to W-2 and to the stadium ending in a Stadium Rotary, a total of 0.5 miles of road through virgin territory. This route only crosses Thompson Creek. It is about 200 feet across at this location from 10 feet of elevation to 10 feet of elevation (about 500 feet across at the 25' elevation). At the stadium the power-line right-of-way can be used for nearly unlimited surface parking in otherwise unusable land.
The Stadium Rotary would feed the surface parking and reverse traffic for end-of-game traffic flow. The Campus loop improvements will handle the relatively light traffic for an initial stadium for a master-plan-cycle or two, and so will the Stadium Rotary. This W-2 Connector proposal would allow unlimited stadium expansion and stadium parking in the future.
In the distant future (perhaps several master plan cycles) a true West Connector may be necessary over to Kingsfield Road 1.4 miles from the stadium Rotary. This 1.4 miles is all uninhabited territory crossing just one stream, Clear Creek) but would also require a crossing of Pate Road unless Gulf Power approves an intersection. Kingsfield Road has appropriate right-of-way for the purpose to Highway 29 and beyond to the limited access Beeline connector proposed to Interstate 10 by Escambia County. (See the Escambia County West Sector Plan )
What am I missing?
I am always wondering what I am missing and why the great desire for the Greenbrier connector that is so illogical. I have been told by a prior master plan engineering adviser that the Greenbrier decision was a “no-brainer” that was “obvious from viewing of a Google map” showing the proximity of Greenbrier to the Campus Drive. I surely hope there was appropriate data collection and analysis for this decision, but he did not have any such data.
If there is a hidden agenda for the Greenbrier Connector, it must relate to a connection with the Foundation property situated on W-1. Several years ago (and prematurely I might add since access decisions had not been made) The Foundation swapped irregular pieces of property with the University to get W-1 to the Foundation for easier development. And then before the master plan was approved (also prematurely) half a million dollars was spent on Greenbrier feasibility. But poor prior decisions should not hinder current planning. The current Draft is full of decisions that are indictments of bad prior decisions. Why is the plan holding so steadfast to the Greenbrier Decision?
I walk W-1, W-5, and W-4 every day and they are the least desirable pieces of all the sections—pine forest only and bordered on the south and west by residential neighborhoods and the west by inaccessible Pate Road. W-2, W-6, and W-8 are the beautiful parcels with many beautiful hardwoods, and W-2 has magnificent waterfront most folks have never seen. The W-2 Connector Opens Up the most desirous of the West Campus. A Greenbrier Connector opens up none of it.
The W-2 Connector as proposed here could not cost any more than the $16,300,000 projected for a 3-lane Greenbrier and 4-lane bridge (longer bridging, 47 private homes and 8 subdivisions to add to and hinder construction). The W-2 Connector begins the process of truly “opening-up” (Page 3.3) the best sections of West Campus for the future partnerships with inclusion of the stadium project immediately to stimulate such development.
The attached map shows the advised changes I discuss here:
- Master Plan proposed added Campus Circular Drive
- Stadium Placement on W-3
- Stadium Drive of 0.5 miles from Parking Lot F area of the proposed Campus Circular Drive
- Stadium Rotary
- Future Stadium Rotary Connection 1.4 miles to Kingsfield (and I-10), The Campus West Exit
- Stadium Rotary Connection to W-1, The Foundation Property.
