Public Input
A public information and involvement program has been an integral component of this project since its inception in the spring of 1997. Tampa Bay Water actively sought public input throughout the route evaluation process. This input was received through a combination of public meetings, presentations to community organizations, and the receipt of both phone calls and written comments from interested citizens. A summary of the public meetings and presentations is given in the table below.
Tampa Bay Water Board Meeting - Project Presentation
March 17, 1997
Hillsborough County Commission Meeting
May 7, 1997
Community Meeting at New Tampa Library
June 10, 1997
Community Meeting at Gaither High School
June 12, 1997
Community Meeting at Lutz First Baptist Church
August 19, 1997
Coalition of Lakes/County Line Coalition Meeting
September 11, 1997
Lutz Civic Association Meeting
September 18, 1997
Hillsborough River Greenways Task Force Meeting
October 29, 1997
Hillsborough Greenways Committee Meeting
November 14, 1997
Tampa Palms Community Development District Meeting
January 14, 1998
Community Meeting at Hillsborough Community Center
March 10, 1998
Community Meeting at Gaither High School
June 4, 1998
The public input received from these meetings was taken into consideration in the evaluation of each of the potential routes and helped shape the final route selection illustrated in the map below.
Since the selection of the route was completed, the Public Input process has continued. Several meetings have occurred with citizens who reside in close proximity to the project area. These meetings will continue throughout the project up to and including construction. In addition to the meetings, information fliers and updates are sent to residents on a regular basis.
Route Development and Evaluation
The Loop 72 Transmission Main will have a western tie-in location at the Lake Park Pumping Station, and will connect to Tampa Bay Water's regional system at the soon-to be-constructed North-Central Hillsborough Intertie pipeline, south of the Morris Bridge Water Treatment Plant.
The project team developed route alternatives from information collected from field reviews, public meetings and geography. Public input was received at a series of public meetings and presentations to community organizations as described above. Input from these meetings was a primary component in the route development and evaluation phases and led to the development of Route 5. A total of five route alternatives were identified for the Loop 72 Transmission Main and are presented in the map provided.
Route Evaluation Criteria were developed to objectively assess each of the route alternatives. The criteria were primarily developed around the project goals of minimizing public impacts, environmental impacts, cost, and traffic concerns, as well as enhancing safety. Field reviews of the route corridors were conducted to verify and supplement the information for each route. A number of meetings have also been held with local regulatory agencies and utilities to gain their insight. The routes were evaluated with respect to one another to determine which alternative best fulfilled the criteria.
The advantages and disadvantages of each route alternative are summarized below:
Route 1: Follows existing roadways for the majority of the route. It is the longest in length and would be the most expensive to construct. Construction along this route would be difficult because of heavy traffic, and there would be major impacts to housing in residential areas. Public input was negative primarily because of the potential traffic and housing impacts.
Route 2: Follows an existing Tampa Electric Company (TECO) right-of-way for most of the route and is the most direct (shortest) route. Impacts to the public are small in comparison to the other alternatives because the pipeline would remain within the TECO right-of-way whenever possible. Public input was positive because the route would follow an existing utility corridor. This route does cross several wetlands, however the wetlands have been previously disturbed for powerline construction and maintenance activities.
Route 3: Parallels an existing Florida Power Corporation (FPC) right-of-way and would impact private residences in approximately three locations. Significant areas of undisturbed wetlands adjacent to the FPC right-of-way would be impacted. There was mixed input from the public regarding this route. Positive input was received because the route follows an existing utility corridor, and negative input was received because of potential impacts to private property/houses. Traffic impacts would be minimal along this corridor.
Route 4: Parallels County Line Road and Dale Mabry Highway. This route would impact private property/houses in several communities and impact traffic in many areas. A Florida Gas transmission main (30” diameter cathodically protected steel pipe) parallels the route for several miles. There was significant public opposition to this route because of its proximity to the gas main and potential impacts to houses. Impacted wetlands were lower for this route than other route alternatives.
Route 5: Parallels the I-275 right-of-way and then follows the TECO right-of-way. However, this route would impact large areas of undisturbed wetlands adjacent to I-275. This route was developed from public input and had favorable responses. Traffic and housing impacts would be small along this route corridor.
Route Alternates for Loop 72
