Good morning and welcome to our October 8th NPO meeting. We are delighted to have you join us this morning. Um, Pastor Jim Harp is going to lead us in prayer in prayer followed by the pledge of allegiance. say I didn't think I signed up for
player. >> Let's pray. Oh, Father, thank you for this day. Beautiful day that you've given us here, Lord, this morning. And uh thank you for your presence, Lord. I just uh thinking and reading in your word this morning and and God, it talks about your presence and and uh what it
means, Lord, for your presence. And Lord, there's peace and there's joy and there's wisdom. And Lord, there's just an awareness that God, you're in charge and you're in control. And so Lord, I thank you for that. And uh the Bible tells us that uh there's nowhere we can go to hide from your presence, that
you're there. And uh the invocation is not to uh ask you to be here, but for me, it's just to acknowledge that you're here, God. So I thank you for that this morning. I thank you for these uh leaders that you have uh placed in authority over us here in Martin County.
And I do pray, God, for wisdom and direction and guidance. and that uh your thoughts would be their thoughts and your ways would be their ways as they make decisions for those of us who live here and enjoy this beautiful place, God. So, thank you. Your word says that you put those in leadership uh for us.
And so, God, I thank you for placing them here. Be with them, bless them, bless their families, encourage them, protect them, and uh I just expand that to everyone who's a part of Martin County uh leadership, Lord. even even those who do some of the things that are
behind the scenes that we don't see. Lord, I thank you for them and I ask your blessing upon them, Father. So, we just commit this uh this day and this meeting especially into your hands. And I thank you that you're here and that you will guide and direct. I pray in Jesus name. Amen.
>> Amen. Thank you. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
>> Please call the role. Commissioner Eileen Vargas is excused. Commissioner Sarah Herd, >> right here. >> Commissioner Stacy Heatherington, >> I'm here. >> Commissioner Blake Camps >> here. Commissioner Edward Campy is excused.
Commissioner Christopher Collins. Commissioner Ka Mayfield is excused. Mayor Carmine Depalo >> here. >> Commissioner Sha Reed >> here. >> We have a quorum. Excellent. Is there a motion to approve the agenda? >> Motion. >> Second.
>> There's a motion and a second. All in favor? I opposed. That motion passes unanimously. Is there a motion to approve the minutes? Motion. >> Second. >> There's a motion and a second. All those in favor? I opposed. That motion passes
unanimously. Are there any members of the public who would like to address us? Seeing none, we will move on to uh 8A, which is the final draft of the 20150 long range transportation plan.
Um I want to thank you all for um coming to this special meeting today. This is um the end of almost two years of hard work on the development of the 2050 long range transportation plan. Um you all have been hearing about this for almost all of that time. Almost every meeting I
think we've had an update. Um so I will turn it over to um Ricardo Vasquez. He's the NO principal planner and the uh project manager on this project. And we have Ty Lynn here as well to present this um this morning. So with that, I'll turn it over to you Ricardo. >> Thank you. Uh, chair, if I may request
that you open a public hearing for this agenda item because I believe when we send out the agenda, we didn't put that on there, but you'll see on in front of you a copy that this should be a public hearing. So, >> this is a public hearing. >> Thank you. >> With that said, uh, again, I'll share Beth's sentiments. Thank you all for coming here today and attending the
special meeting. Uh, as Beth mentioned, we started this project back in 2024 in April. So, it's been a long way coming. And you know here on the agenda page we showed you all the different steps that we've brought forward to you all throughout this process. So today we are here at the final at the finish line and
we are hoping to get final adoption. So with that I'll introduce Vicost Jane project manager with TY Lin to present on this final component. >> Uh thank you Ricardo. Can I get the >> Yeah. >> Thank you. Uh good morning uh madam
chair members of the board really excited to be here uh vicas chain with tn consultant project manager for this uh for this project so we have a short agenda this morning um I'll provide a quick recap of the long range uh
transportation plan uh development process uh recap of the uh 2050 cost feasible plan that I presented uh to you all uh uh last month and And we'll talk a little bit about uh couple of scenario
scenarios that we uh that we conducted some analysis um on as part of the LRTP process and then wrap up with next steps. >> Um I'm sorry. Can we can I interrupt you just for a second? Do do you gentlemen
want to move seats maybe if the monitors are are working on and other >> I was just unplugged. Okay. I just didn't want them to you to get too far without them being able to see the presentation. >> That was my question to you. >> Okay. Okay. >> Uh so this is really the first slide so
to speak. Um uh this uh snapshot of the LRTP development process. Um I we went over this uh process that uh last month. It highlights key milestones technical and uh public involvement related. Uh as
Ricardo mentioned over the past uh 18 to 20 months uh you all approved reviewed a number of plan components and those are shown here. Uh we are at the finish line uh with the final draft of the LRTP uh adoption.
Uh recap here's a cliff's note version of the 2050 draft cost feasible plan. We went over the plan uh midmon last month. Um it shows a gamut of multimodal projects to enhance uh mobility, safety,
accessibility of the transportation system for residents and visitors here in Martin County over the next 20 25 years. Um there's a variety of projects here, roadway projects, SIS improvements, stonepike projects, safety improvements. Uh there is uh
transportation system management and operations projects as well as non-motorized uh improvements, bike ped, greenways and so on. Uh I'll also mention on this previous slide um the draft plan that you all
approved um last month, we did not make any changes uh to that plan. So all those projects that we uh discussed, those are all in the plan. Um we went over the the slide as well
that shows the total cost of uh all the projects included in that cost feasible plan. Uh it's about $746 million in year of expenditure dollars. It includes about $45 million of uh projects that are illustrative, meaning uh those
projects uh are funded through discretionary funds at FDA uh district-wide level and those programs are mentioned here at the bottom of the slide. The slide also shows that about 69% of these uh the funds are going for
uh roadway highway improvements. there's about 20 um about 22% that's allocated for transit improvements and then the rest is spread over a variety of um uh different modes.
So this um we uh conducted scenario planning exercise which is uh something uh there's there's a few reasons why uh you you would want to do this as part of the LRTP process. Uh the three main uh reasons are uh state and uh federal um
highway administration they strongly recommend that this be done as part of the process. Uh it's a good one of the best planning practices. And third and I believe that's perhaps the most important one is it provides an analytical framework to to you all the
leaders here uh at the MO and the MO staff to uh analyze and understand the impacts of uh transportation investment decisions policy decisions on uh different types of modes and and scenarios and I'll walk you through the
two scenarios that we looked at as part of the 2050 LRTP process. So, uh, we looked at regional connections and smart mobility futures. And I'll walk you through what those scenarios are, what's included in those scenarios. But before I do that, um, I
want to point out that the performance of these two scenarios is evaluated with service, the 2050 cost feasible plan, meaning the projects that are already included in that plan. And then as I'll walk you through some of the analysis
results, you'll see um there's some reference uh data for how it compares to the existing plus committed networks which which means uh projects that the existing uh network out there plus the projects that have been funded through
construction in the next 5 years. So that's sort of a given um for for this exercise. Uh another point I'd like to make is all the things that we'll be talking you know as part of scenario planning and and results and analysis
none of that has an impact on the projects that are included in the cost feasible plan. So that piece stays as is. So in that sense you can think of this as an academic sort of exercise.
Uh so the regional connection scenario includes um five regional transit routes that are shown here. Uh tri rail extension along FC corridor um SR710 CSX connector uh in that corridor. U express
bus on turnpike as well as uh US1 transit enhancements and I95 express bus route. In addition to those uh these TRA regional transit services, we also included the turnpike to I95 direct
connect ramps. So these projects are included on top of the 2050 cost feasible plan projects and of course the existing plus um uh the existing highway and transit network. The other scenario we looked at is smart
moi mobility futures and and this is really technology- based um scenario in that uh FHWA, Federal Highway Administration has a number of scenarios and we uh picked slow roll which means
modest improvement and uh levels of uh penetration market penetration for AV autonomous vehicles and connected vehicles and then in terms of the geographic spread of these technologies and there's improvements there would be
sort of you can think of those as confined to certain designated areas. We also considered micromobility, microransit and mobility as a service um component and all those items were
qualitatively uh assessed because those those improvements cannot be reflected in a meaningful way in in the in the uh technical tools that we use which primarily is the regional transit demand model uh for uh for this region uh which
is TCRPM. and treasure coast regional planning model. And speaking of the model, um the slide here shows various performance measures that we use to do this comparative evaluation. >> One yeah, one slide back. >> There's a a question for you. Sorry. Sure.
>> Just real quick. Uh what is mobility as a service? >> Great question. >> Like a Uber type of >> So sort of uh mobility as a service is a technology based um uh feature. It is it
basically provides a single a user platform which is which is a single user platform for uh for users to plan their trips to pay for their trips across all modes. So for instance, you mentioned Uber. You could think of um of a of an
app where Uber, Marty, if there was shared bike services or um any on demand microtransit service, all those would be available in that one app to the user. >> Okay. >> And then they could go in, they can go
from point A to point B. they can see all the total um amount that they would you know the cost of those services and so on and so forth. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. >> Sure. Um so this uh we looked at uh variety of
performance measures as you can see here majority of the performance measures and I'll walk you through uh these um they are um they were tested through the regional planning model uh treasure co regional planning model TCRPM6 uh and then we also looked at energy
costs which was uh an offod assessment uh so this slide in the next shows um about six different uh performance measures. I'll start with uh the one on the top left which is vehicle miles traveled and this is the total demand um
that is out on the network um in in Martin County in 20150. So under the regional uh connections scenario you see highest demand uh it's about 4 and a half% more than um the demand that you
would see um in the cost feasible uh plan uh for smart mobility futures it's a little bit less in terms of uh the magnitude it's about 3 and a half% more than uh the cost feasible plan
you can the the reason can be attributed to input latent demand that's out there. Once you build these uh ramps and direct connect ramps and put all those services out there um you start seeing that
demand on the network and that's why it goes goes up. Um in smart mobility futures there is demand but the demand is slightly less and the reason is the shared mobility options that are available. So ride hailing, microtransit
so on and so forth that we were talking about. So that magnitude is a little bit less. Um the top right shows vehicle hours traveled. This is the total uh sort of travel time. You can think about this as travel time uh for for all the
all the folks that are out on the network at regional level. So this is all countywide numbers. Um it is it's correlated to the demand. So as the demand increases your V uh VHD vehicle hours travel increases. Uh in case of
shared mobility it it goes down because there's more available capacity with technology improvements roadway capacity. Um and then closely related to that is the congestion speeds which you see on the bottom left corner. Um as
more capacity becomes available you have technology based improvements. um the speeds improve for smart mobility uh future scenario and that's why it goes up. Uh in case of regional connections it goes down. Uh and just a quick note
on the cost feasible plan even with the increase in um travel about.9% just under 1% you still see improvement in congested speed which indicates that the projects that are programmed and
included in the LRTP they do make sense they help improve congestion and speeds and uh travel times u in the county. Um the bottom right corner shows average trip length and that stays the same
across all scenarios and the result the reason there is we uh held the land use component that feeds into the model constant. So we are not changing where uh in the future um the land use housing
and those um uh and those components and therefore uh you see that the average trip length stays constant. Uh this slide here shows uh daily transit ridership and energy cost. So daily transit ridership um as we would
expect we in increased regional transit service and um significantly in the regional connection scenario we added five regional transit routes. So we are really increasing transit service in from supply standpoint you know in terms
of service hour revenue miles and so on and so forth three to four times more compared to the 2050 cost feasible plan and therefore the wrership goes up significantly. In case of smart mobility futures, you see a decline in transit
ridership. And that's again goes back to the improvement in travel times, congestion and um um and speeds and therefore there's less incentive for folks to shift mode and and go to
transit. um energy cost um is directly related to our assumptions of fleet composition and um and then we did and I can talk more about the calculations if if there's interest here uh but regional connections would see the highest energy
cost and um smart mobility future just outperforms u that scenario as well as it's a little bit uh is almost in line with the draft cost feasible plan projects. Uh so those are the analysis
finding. In terms of next steps, we are at the tail end of this uh 20-month process um with the final plan adoption. We'll get into production and we'll be uh preparing a series of reports and
technical memorandum and and turning those in. Uh but with that, I will take questions, comments, >> questions. Yes, I had one. Can I take you back to page eight
and um the my question is about tri rail extension and now that's different than the two trains we have going right now, right? I mean the uh we've got the FAC freight trains
and then we've got the prospector the Bright Line train and then the tri rail extension would be the thing they have down in South Florida. Right coming up this way. >> That's correct. >> And that would be from West Palm Beach to Fort Pier.
>> Uh it would be from West Palm Beach um up to We don't go all the way into Fort Pierce but uh downtown Stewart. >> Okay. And is there like an expected timetable on when that would happen or >> Yeah. Yeah. That that's that's been
discussed for for decades actually having a the trial extend up here and and um you know certain things have happened over the years sever one of which several years ago um the legislature changed the statute to stay to say that it could not happen unless
FOT supported it. And also um there was a also a big issue where the um um um transferring the line the passenger rail line from the um what's the stateowned corridor down south from um um uh
Mangonia Park down to Miami to have the trains um switch over to FEC. FEC is a private railroad. They're just within Florida. They don't have to f um follow a lot of FRA rules. Um so because of that um they can kind of make their own um or they can be more strict about
things and um there was a there was a um issue about making that transition over to the other set of tracks. So are people still discussing it? Yes. Or is Tri Rail I mean studied it over the years? Absolutely. They've done several studies on this to see where they could
make that transition. Um, so it's still looked at is in plans and long range plans. But as far as um an actual timetable I, you know, wouldn't be able to tell you that because they've they've, like I said, you know, when I worked for Tri Rail years ago, um, we
got letters from the city of Stewart, um, and, um, you asking for a trial extension up there that they, you know, wanted to include it in their their comprehensive plan to support passenger rail. And so, um, that's just been on the books for a long time. So, no timetable.
>> Mhm. I suppose the the advantage of it would be that, uh, the the fees for riding that train are are pretty low compared to >> Bright Train. I mean, Tri Rail stops, there's several stations along the Tri Rail line. It's a commuter rail system
as opposed to Bright Line is a highspeed rail. There are just very few stops between Miami and Orlando. Trial doesn't go all the way up to Orlando. Um, but it, you know, it does have, you know, it stops in West Palm. It stops in Lakew Worth and Deerfield and Boon Beach. I
mean, it bokeh, there's a lot of stops on Trial because it's for commuters and but but Bright Line, unless you're going to, you know, the points, you know, where there's a station, there's there's limited stops. It's faster. It's a high-speed train. Um, but, um, it's just a different kind of rail system.
>> It's kind of conceptual at this time. and and probably something way into the future. >> Yeah, that I understand the trials having funding issues right now though, so I I don't think they're they're thinking about just um you know, keeping their their current operation right now, but if that works out, then I'm sure
they'll look at some um in the future, you know, still look at this and consider this. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner Reid. >> Yes. I had I had a couple questions, Beth. Um, when I was on the business development board, I remember reading
about the innovation hub. Does that play a part in here or >> This is consistent with the innovation hub. That's something that the county um developed. Um, but that was one of the projects that have um the studies that were reviewed um as part of the
development of this project >> of this document. >> I guess how do I get brought up to speed on the innovation hub? because we we vote on things here, but I know it's mainly on the the board of county commission board. >> Sure. The it's on the the innovation hub study the report I believe it's on the
county website. Um but we we are consistent like I mentioned kind of at the last meeting um this document is consistent with the locally adopted plans. I mean that's one of the requirements for this document. So it's not in um it's it's consistent with um
um especially the comp plan is the big one >> because like a lot of the capital improvement projects like that I've seen like specifically Golden Gate um commerce that's been discussed for flooding. Does all of that correlate with the innovation hub? And does that
also correlate with downtown Stewart where Commissioner Collins mentioned it with the multi-modal transportation hub there in downtown like what is the >> Well, I think the innovation hub I think is a different kind of report than some
of the other um planning documents that um that that you know I mean that that's something that the county developed where um obviously that the when any local government develops a plan they're going to make it consistent with the locally adopted plans, but it's not um
it's not um a requirement if you will that I know of unless it's I guess written in the scope where certain plans that the local governments adopt as well as the long-range transportation plan have to follow a certain you know certain requirements to be able
to be adopted and to be able to be in compliance. So I don't really I'm not as familiar with that report as a whole in the development of that report. you know, that would be that was something through the um board of county commissioners. Um but I believe it is on the um the the county website from what
I understand. Like I said, that was one of the reports that were reviews reviewed as part of this document as as well as some of the city planning studies that y'all have done for, you know, the downtown master plan, the the triangle district, you know, you all have done planning um documents over the
years that we also >> interconnect, I guess. Is I'm sorry. Do they all interconnect? >> Yeah, that would be important. That's the whole reason why you want a good, you know, that's that that that that you goes to the integrity of this document because you want to make sure um that all the regional connections are there.
That's why they have this is this board is multi-jurisdictional is to make sure there's a cohesiveness in the transportation planning. >> So in order like like if I wanted an update I guess on the innovation hub, how would that work? Would it because you have two different boards that actually three different boards that play?
>> Sure. I I would suggest that you call George Stokus. He's the assistant county administrator and I believe he was the project manager on the innovation hub. So I would think that he would probably know more about it than anyone else. >> Okay. And then uh I have one more qu Well, I'll save that one for the
comments at the end. All right, that's it for now. >> Okay, Mr. Jane, are autonomous long haul trucks allowed in Florida? >> Uh there is some pilot projects that are uh looking at that. Um and from what
I've read there are few um that are on the street and the testing facility I believe out in Winter Haven is also uh and that's F test tracks. They they're looking at that as well. >> And are these driverless? >> Um the so there's a different level of
autonomy right and it goes I believe from 0 to four and at this point I don't believe there is 100% driverless vehicles. There has to be a human behind the steering wheel at all times. >> I was driving back from uh Tallahassee
last week and thought I saw a driverless truck. >> Maybe it was a really short drive. >> Okay. Any other questions? Is there a motion to adopt the >> And this is specifically for the 2045
long range plan. the 2050 2050. Sorry. >> Yes, Commissioner Reid. >> I had one one more comment. I know Commissioner Collins had touched on it and I know I sit on the city board um and and specifically to touch on the Bright Line stuff. It It's been intended
to be privately funded. Um, I know Commissioner Collins brought it up and I was I was a little confused at the last meeting on like where the direction comes from like cuz I know it's centrally located in the city limits. I know the county owns it, the
county took over the project. How how would the process work if we as a city board don't support that project unless it was more privately funded? Um, that's my biggest caveat because in the 2045 range plan, the long range
plan, it specifically mentioned privately funded, just like the the bridge being privately funded and I believe Bright Line was supposed to pay for that and that's totally changed as well with grant money and I know they're still working on grant money for that, but that's still taxpayer money as grant
money whether it's local, state, or federal. Um, how would something like that get updated in this long range plan? Like, is it the MO where the direction comes from or is it me sitting on the city? Would the city manager have
to send a letter? How how does that work, Beth, for clarification? >> Okay. So, so you do touch on a good um a good point where the long-range plan is updated every 5 years. We go through this process every five years, but it does have an amendment process. So at
with in that five years if there's a time where you all want to do an amendment that's possible. Can you do the overhead? >> Yes. >> Uh the um so um like I said in order to be in compliance the um this document
has to be consistent um with locally um required plans um in particular the comp plan. So um so um there is a um I've mentioned this is it is it working? Oh there okay can
you make it smaller there? Okay this is a slide from I mentioned the NOAC institute to you that's the statewide no where they have training for no members. Um Commissioner Heather Heatherington has been to that actually Commissioner Vargas went to a recent one as well and
this is a slide from one a long time ago. I'm sure they've updated their slides. a lot prettier than they are now. Um the um but this one um um was but but the the concept obviously is the same where the do you have the the >> you got you got to point with your
finger on the camera. >> Oh, there. Okay. So um here's the comp plan and that needs to be consistent with the local government's um or here's the longrange transportation plan and that needs to be consistent with the local government's comp plan by law. They need to be consistent with each
other. The LRTP feeds into the priority project priority process. So when you all go over your priorities, like when you talk about state, state road 17 being your number one priority, that was because it was originally in the long range plan, and then it feeds into that priority list. And then when those
projects get funded, it they need to they they're included in the five-year FDOT um work program, that's a state document, and the NOS's transportation improvement program. That's a federal required document. Obviously, you know, the the local government CIP that needs
to be consistent with the comp plan as well. So, by law, in order for for us to get funding for from the federal and state governments, this document needs to be in compliance, and that's how they're in compliance. Right now, the um
the local um the um city of Stewart's comp plan. I had wording in here for that. >> Yeah. Know, I know it ments a lot, by the way. >> Oh, good. Yeah. Yeah. It's a good illustration of um of um kind of the
concept the theory if you will um of how these um plans need to be consistent. So right now the city of Steuart's comp plan the intergovernmental section of the transportation element states that the city shall continue to encourage expansion of tri rail passenger rail
service bus service and other multimmodal forms of transportation with a particular emphasis on developing downtown and developing downtown Stewart as a transportation hub. So right now the LRTP is consistent with the Bright Line station with that statement. Um if
the city wants to change their comp plan, that's something that the city will do. And um and like I said at the last meeting, if the city has any um issues about, you know, safety or the transportation network, you know, you can always write the write the um no letter that's to the um chair and you
all can bring it up and discuss it at this meeting because this this forum, if you will, was put into place, you know, so there could be that regional coordination, regional connection of the transportation network. Um so so yes you're right where it starts at the the local government level where those
decisions are made by would be from the city of Stewart commission. Um and then they would inform the no and then you all can discuss it at this level. Um we have at our next meeting October 27th like I said I really appreciate you all coming here today to talk about the
longrange transportation plan because with the adoption of this plan um we are in compliance and are eligible to receive federal and state funding. The district secretary, Steve Braun, will be here, scheduled to be here on October 27th. And I think he has some really good news about State Road 710. And it's
a lot of money. And to be able to receive that money, to be eligible for that money, this document needs to be approved. So, it needs to be right. It needs to be consistent. But like I said, you know, for the next 5 years until we do another one, if there's a change by a local government or by the comprehensive
plan, you know, there's an amendment process. They the federal government does that purposely because they understand that environments change, you know, um priorities change. So you all can let let us know, you know, you can send a letter to the chair or to me and that we can make it an agenda item so
you all can discuss it at this regional forum. >> Okay? So it's it's decided here. And if and if we're talking about it's being um compliant with the comp plan, Martin County's comp plan in section 1.2 two states
protect taxpayers by requiring conservative and prudent fiscal management and a financially feasible cgmp which ensures and requires that development pay for itself rather being subsidized by taxpayers which is what
we're doing here. So, I understand it's in the city's comp plan, but when you clearly look at Martin County's um >> um they they >> development should pay for itself and not be subsidized by taxpayers. >> And it clearly says it here. >> Sure. The um the county did, as I
mentioned at the last meeting, they did um submit a um grant for the um Bright Line Station. That was a decision by the BOCC. So um so I guess you know that that may that's a good indication that it's um there is a change in philosophy
a change in in um um what they wanted to do. Um it is very um compliant however with the transportation element goal 5.5 of their comp plan where it talks about to establish transit within Martin County to connect to nearby regional
hubs such as Port St. Lucy and Palm Beach County and points ports be points beyond the county shall establish transit corridors and transit neighborhood centers that provide for specific design features to encourage and support the use of transit and and that's just one of several
>> No, I understand and and that's where you know we could always go back and forth and I respect what you do by the way and I respect every board member up here but it's not compliant with everything in Martin Countyy's comp plan and it clearly states it >> but that's that's
>> we work at the NPO we work and with the consultants we work and thank you very much Vic because has been just a champion this whole time has been very helpful where um we make sure that this is comp this is um follows the requirements in order to get the um to get funding for Martin County projects
and like I said there's very good news coming at the end of the month um Martin County to receive the funding for the widening of 710 is that's a that's a that's incredible how how what a great partner FDOT has been in the um making that happen. But the reason why they
were able to help us with that is because we need to make sure our documents are in compliance. >> No, I understand this was just Bright Line in particular. Um and that's where I don't think it's in compliant with Martin County's comp plan as a board member, but that's all I have to say on it.
>> Any further questions? Is there a motion to approve the 2050 long range transportation plan? >> Sorry to interrupt um commission or chair. Um we if we could do a roll call vote for this adoption. >> Okay. And also, is there any public comment? Uh, seeing none.
Okay. Uh, Commissioner Sarah Herd, >> approve. >> Um, Commissioner Stacy Heatherington, >> approve. >> Commissioner J Blake Caps, >> approve.
>> Uh, Mayor Carmine Apollo, >> approve. >> Commissioner Shawn Reed, >> no. That motion passes. Uh, now do we have any comments from FDOT? >> Thank you, Mr. Jane.
>> Um, like I said, um, they will be here at the end of the month on October 27th is the uh, next board meeting and, um, the, um, Steve Braun, the district secretary, will be here and like I said, they have some good news for us for about State Road 710. >> Terrific.
Comments from committee members, comments from board members. Anything else? We are adjourned. Have >> one. >> Okay. Um, what does a complete streetscape project entail? >> Um, that you got I'll let
>> It's a loaded streetcape. Uh, so like we we've we've had streetscapes come through like the city of Stewart and I've seen them in Martin County and and what is a complete streetscape? Is that roads infrastructure >> street project in general is just how do
we make a a roadway or a a corridor more friendly to all modes of transportation where it historically speaking the emphasis has been on moving cars and the pedestrians and bicyclists has kind of been a forethought. Now it's you know how do we encourage people to to walk
more? How do we encourage them to bike more? How do we make those facilities safer for them? Um, so there's different treatments and different um opportunities that you can do to improve those situations on those roadways, but specifically complete streets is how do we make the street work for everyone in all modes? Um,
>> that makes sense. In general, was Map Road a complete streetscape project? >> Map Road would be considered a complete street project. >> And the only reason I I bring that project up is for anyone that's gone to like Lenoras or any of the businesses down that corridor, it's very unsafe coming out of there with a a vehicle because you can't see. So, I think as a
board member sitting up here, it's something we should look at for safety concerns because I see a lot of complete streetscapes and with the on street parking and the trees, it's it's a total blind spot and in my personal opinion, it's unsafe and it's going to cause an
accident um in the long run. Um and then I had one more. I know um I had mentioned it at one of them uh one of the no board meetings. It was for um is it Fischer Cove on Caner
that that development on the the east side? >> I'm not familiar. >> I believe uh there's a development over there by the fire station and I was told it was Stacy Heatherington's district where I had mentioned uh >> that project. >> Yeah. where where we would have like
homeowners that would have nonconforming because they wouldn't be able to park their vehicles with the land development code. And I don't know if that's where the Martin County Board picks it up and if they ever talked about it or if there was an update, but I remember you were out Stacy when I had mentioned that. And
and I guess the way I look at it is I know it's going to be countywide at one point and it's something that should still be looked at and considered because you're going to have homeowners that are out of the land development code because they're going to block the sidewalk and then you have to be
concerned with safety once again or even code enforcement coming out. And I see it a lot in Port St. Lucy in particular where they enforce that because you can't park more than one vehicle then in the driveway otherwise you're going to block the sidewalk. So I just wanted to
mention that again as well. >> Commissioner Heatherington >> just a brief overview that is a resident driven project. We did get we discussed it here. We discussed it at the board. I believe it's a TAP um TAP grant funded project but that was a resident safety
um concern project. I understand what you're saying. We're still in design for who's going to how the driveways are going to fix, but that was requested by the residents for the safety of the residents. >> And and Commissioner Reid, you're
absolutely right about the um uh Lenoras um >> yeah, >> it is impossible to see in either in either direction. You would think you would be safe going out of that that uh uh mall turning
right. It's you're not. >> No, it's not. It's terrible. >> And uh there there's other projects in the count like Golden Gate, for example. I mean, someone could be standing by the pedestrian crosswalk and you might not necessarily see them. It's I don't know. >> But at least there are pedestrian crosswalks. So, if you're a careful
driver like I am, you drive through it every day, you you're looking for pedestrians at every cross crosswalk. >> Thank you. Uh, >> thank you. Anything else? We are adjourned. >> Thank you.