Study lays out three alternatives for Oakleaf–State Road 23 connector; estimated construction $90–$100 million

Terry Shaw of consultant Kimley‑Horn presented a North Florida TPO study to the Board of County Commissioners on April 22 proposing three alternate alignments to connect the Oakleaf Plantation interchange at State Road 23 (First Coast Expressway) east to the Chesapeake Oaks/Cheswick Oaks area. County engineer Richard Smith and Clark Letter of the TPO joined the presentation and took questions from commissioners and public commenters.

Shaw said the county has experienced roughly 12% population growth in the corridor over the last decade and noted limited east–west access creates long detours for short cross‑county trips and can slow emergency response: "If you're on Chesapeake Oaks at the south end of the corridor and you want to go to Oakleaf Plantation, it's just over a mile by air, but it's a 7 and a half mile drive," he said. The study evaluated three corridors (a northward alignment with potential utility easement coordination, a southern alignment with larger footprint at Cheswick Oaks, and an intermediate loop), each with different impacts to wetlands, floodplain, and existing easements. The presentation referenced the Brandon Field Master Plan as a planning context for parts of the corridor.

Cost estimates for four‑lane, curb‑and‑gutter arterial build‑outs with shared‑use paths ranged from about $90 million to $100 million, driven in part by wetland mitigation and right‑of‑way and bridge work. Shaw said building an initial two‑lane roadway and acquiring full 120‑foot right‑of‑way (to allow later widening) could reduce near‑term cost but would still be expensive (he estimated $70–$80 million for a staged approach). He also said the roadway could divert about 20,000 vehicles per day from Argyle Forest Boulevard and Oakleaf Plantation Boulevard, helping congestion and emergency access.

Commissioners and county staff discussed funding paths. Clark Letter, representing the North Florida TPO, said adding the project to the TPO priority list is step one for visibility and eligibility for federal and state funding programs and suggested phasing the project (PD&E, preliminary engineering, right‑of‑way, construction) to spread costs. Several commissioners urged the TPO to prioritize the corridor; one said the cost had risen substantially since the project was first discussed and called for active pursuit of any available state or federal funding. Fire‑rescue leaders and commissioners also said interim measures — such as better neighborhood interconnections or additional fire stations — should be evaluated while longer‑term funding is sought.

Shaw said the next technical steps would be site tours with county staff, follow‑on short‑term and long‑term recommendations, and a Project Development & Environmental (PD&E) phase if state or federal funding were pursued. The presentation noted potential relocations of structures and the need for wetland and floodplain mitigation as part of design.

No formal county decision on alignment or funding was made at the meeting; commissioners asked staff to retain the item on short‑term work plans and to seek TPO support for funding and priority placement.