There is no argument of UWF's need for access and egress to/from its West Campus property. This is a beautiful property that will enhance the University, the community, and the education mission.
Option #1 Discussion: Proposed Initial Crossing of
Thompson Bayou on campus
Thompson Bayou on campus
This older option is the most dramatic, would be the most beautiful, and perhaps serve the function better than either of the other options. And an entrance off the dead-end of Campus Drive would be a true Northern Campus Entrance leading directly to the development property. And this exit could connect in less than 2.0 miles with Kingsfield Road and highway 29 north. This exit north and west would give the best dispersion of campus exit traffic. There would be three campus exits spaced at 1.5 mile intervals.
The open water of Thompson Bayou is ignored by the University and the public and could be a dramatic recreational area in a beautiful setting with high bluffs. This is one of Pensacola's most beautiful waterfronts. Sports such as crew, canoeing and water skiing could be added to a developed Thompson Bayou Recreation Area.
Why was this Option #1 Dismissed? Option #1 would require a high bridge (to allow boat traffic) of 1500 feet in length at the 30 foot elevation level. This bridge was rejected because of high cost fears, but no actual cost estimates are available for comparisons of cost/benefit ratios (personal communication with former CMP committee members). I toured the area with the bridge engineer who was project manager for the railroad bridge over Escambia Bay some 20 years ago. Remember, when the I-10 bridge fell down in hurricane Ivan, this railroad bridge just 400 feet away had no damage. He suggested this Thompson Bayou could be “built from above” without barges and would not be as expensive as some might think.
Further Points on Option #1:
- Bridge cost estimates and Economic Utility Function analysis is not available for this option; however, my private civil engineering consultant advises expense may be less than thought as this bridge can be “built from above” without barge expense.
- Meets aesthetic requirements of urban planning
- limits security problems of separate campuses
- direct East to West passage without leaving campus
- limited traffic flow problems during construction
- Exit road becomes West Campus access road
- The outcome of connection to Kingsfield Road and Highway 29 is most easily approached from this route giving desired access to the north of Pensacola.
- East and West Campuses will be contiguous enhancing sharing of complementary human assets.
- Pedestrian and bike traffic would be feasible between campuses.
- Brings the beautiful hardwood forest on the opposite side of Thompson Bayou into play as much more desirable development or technical/research property.
Option #2 Discussion: 2001 Master Plan Proposed Route on campus directly across
Thompson Stream (Not Bayou) into the West Campus:
Thompson Stream (Not Bayou) into the West Campus:
The 2001 Master Plan (now superseded) had proposed a direct and short connector between East and West Campuses across Thompson Creek before it becomes open water bayou. This route never leaves UWF property and connects the center of both campuses without loss of continuity. This access would keep the contiguous East and West Campuses fully connected geographically, physically, and psychologically. Just as a trip now from the President's office arrives at the Pace Library in 0.1 mile so would such a trip to the first buildings on West Campus.
Option #2 has the following benefits: The bridge only crosses Thompson Creek requiring one causeway bridge of 290 feet length (at the 10 foot elevation level). This is the shortest bridging of all options only crossing one stream. This option gives direct development property access by contiguously connecting East and West Campuses. It greatly simplifies the wayfinding issues as travelers from East to West never leave campus. The new Campus Drive West would be a limited access road. There would be no private driveway or subdivision entrances. Direct access to the West Campus property would be about about 100 yards from Parking Lot F convenient to all of East Campus. Interchange construction in Parking Lot F area would not disrupt current Campus Drive. This choice would build a West Campus Drive that is a limited access roadway directly through the area of desired development. Trolley, auto, bike or pedestrian access would be easy without leaving campus. Campus security and ability for lock-down would be enhanced not hindered. Interaction between campuses would be enhanced.
Why was this Option #2 Dismissed? The 2006 CMP dismisses Option 2 essentially without explanation and suggests a Greenbrier Extension Option. There is no explanation of the factual basis of the decision to favor Greenbrier. There is no mention of bridge length, cost of construction, or ancillary cost estimates. There is no cost/benefit analysis. However,
there has been discussion among Greenbrier Extension opponents that any construction other than Greenbrier would be University expense. Greenbrier is a county road and cost shifting to the county is feared as a possible motive. For the tax payer it makes no difference, it is all tax dollars being spent.
Option #3 Discussion: The off campus Greenbrier Extension Proposal
The 2006 CMP (now current) recommends a “Greenbrier Boulevard Extension” between the Campus Loop Road on the University to Greenbrier Boulevard connect East and West Campuses. This “Greenbrier Connector” leaves campus, passes through neighborhoods, and connects the periphery (not center) of both campuses.
I have concerns with the 2006 CMP conclusions to change the route because of bridge costs (personal communication) when there are no bridge cost estimates mentioned or available. The CMP does mention the other bridge alternative is too expensive, but never clearly notes which bridge alternative. The Greenbrier route actually requires three bridges for a total length of about 1200 feet. The first bridge from Campus Drive crosses wetlands and the unnamed stream that flows under Hillview Drive near Nativity Church. The second bridge crosses 11 Mile Creek which drains the ponds of Scenic Hills Country Club. The third bridge, although not part of the Greenbrier Project, would be required for property access off Greenbrier. This third bridge of about 270 feet would cross Thompson Creek East of Scenic Hills North. (It is interesting that this third bridge is nearly identical to the ONLY bridge required by Option #2.) It is unrealistic to think patrons might walk or pedal across the Greenbrier route and these three bridges to the West Campus.
Arguments against Option #3:
- This option includes 850 feet of bridging and 250 feet of causeway for the Greenbrier extension. (Atkins study) This is much more bridge than option #2.
- This route is not a direct access between campuses, but actually leaves campus for over a mile through a private neighborhood.
- Avoiding the Greenbrier Sewage Pumping station is a bigger problem than Atkins Engineering advised. The Greenbrier Extension will need moved 50 or more feet to the south, and this is all wetlands that my civil engineering consultant says will not be “fillable.”
- This route is not limited access but passes 47 private driveways and 8 subdivision access roads between Campus Drive and Guidy Lane.
- Will require over a mile of access roads from Greenbrier into the West Campus.
- Will be a natural short cut from Cantonment to Pace through campus (several miles shorter than Nine Mile Road) and shorter than Option 2. Short-cutting is very undesirable to the university and the neighborhoods.
- Does not maintain the “Campus in the Woods” culture, leads to security issues with a disjointed campus, and does not stimulate pedestrian or bike traffic.
Why was this Option #3 Chosen? I have heard from various CMP committee members that the Greenbrier Route choice was a “no brainer.” It appears that an inadequate database of information was used to make this recommendation. Perhaps this relates to the proximity of the east end of Greenbrier to Campus Drive. Or perhaps it relates to cost shifting to the county which owns Greenbrier Road. Or perhaps it is fear of an argument with Gulf Power over use of or crossing of Pate Road. The reasoning for the choice is not apparent in the CMP or several meeting notes when the choice is discussed. Link to CMP. The 2006 CMP dismisses Option 2 essentially without explanation and suggest a Greenbrier Extension Option: There is no explanation for the decision to favor Greenbrier. There is no mention of bridge length, cost of construction, or ancillary cost estimates.
