Beexley residents press Pasco commissioners to reject six-lane interchange; board delays Rangeland Boulevard decision

Dozens of residents spoke during public comment to oppose any plan that could lead to a six-lane highway or interchange through Beexley, asking commissioners to keep the roundabouts and to remove references to a future interchange from study materials.

The public comments centered on safety, fiscal prudence and neighborhood character. “These multi-lane roadways act as concrete scars that divide our communities,” said a Beexley resident, urging the board to “build for the residents, not for the commuters.” Other speakers highlighted pedestrian safety for seniors and children and questioned the legal authority of the board to amend the comprehensive plan without a formal plan amendment.

Staff and engineers described the proposal before the board as a route study for Rangeland Boulevard. The staff-preferred alternative would build a four-lane roadway with an extra-wide median that could accommodate future widening or a connection into a Turnpike interchange if that later proved necessary. County engineers said the idea of a six-lane cross-section between South Branch Boulevard and the roundabout arose from the Turnpike authority: if the interchange is built the short distance between ramps and the roundabout would require additional lanes for safety and traffic operations.

Commissioners pressed staff on the likely reclassification of the road. The county engineer responded that the county does not build six-lane collectors and that a six-lane segment would be arterial in character. Staff also warned that building only a four-lane section now and adding lanes later could require reconstructing drainage and utilities — a more costly, disruptive outcome than providing space in the median upfront.

Several commissioners and dozens of residents urged a short continuance to provide more detailed traffic analysis around the Gun Highway and SR 54 intersection, cost estimates (including future reconstruction costs), and further public vetting such as a neighborhood meeting. The board first considered a motion to approve the staff-recommended preferred alternative; that motion failed. The board then voted to continue the item and directed staff to provide additional analysis of the Gun Highway / SR 54 intersection, coordinate with FDOT and the Turnpike where appropriate, present clearer graphics for residents, and hold at least one neighborhood meeting before returning to the board. The motion to continue passed on a 3–2 vote.

What happens next: staff will prepare the supplemental analysis and graphics requested by the board, coordinate with the Turnpike and FDOT on interchange implications, and schedule additional public outreach. The Rangeland Boulevard route study will return to the board after those steps.