Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Wakatrail topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Seminole County commissioners weigh $40 million tunnel, bridge and FDOT options for Waka Trail crossing
Summary
After consultant staffing changes and revised design findings, commissioners debated three options for the Waka Trail crossing at SR 434/436 — continue tunnel design with extensive redesign, switch to a bridge, or put the project on hold and seek FDOT inclusion — and directed staff to return with more technical and cost analysis.
John Slot, Seminole County public works director, and engineer George Jimenez told the board on Jan. 14 that design work on a grade-separated crossing for the Waka Trail at state roads 434 and 436 has stalled after a consultant changed teams and concluded earlier plans would not work.
The board was presented with three paths forward: continue tunnel design but return to a proof-of-concept/pre-30% phase; pursue a bridge alternative; or place the project on hold and ask the Florida Department of Transportation to include a grade-separated crossing in a future FDOT work plan.
“The consultant’s new staff has informed us that the plans presented in a 30% submittal would not work,” Jimenez said, citing drainage and utility conflicts that would require pumps, deeper structures and substantial waterproofing. He said the redesign and permitting complexity have pushed a rough current cost estimate to about $40 million, excluding permitting and right-of-way costs.
Commissioners pushed staff for specifics. When asked about accident history at the two intersections, staff replied that in the last three years there were 13 and 11 vehicular accidents at the two corridors, and one pedestrian injury at each intersection during that same period.
“That’s the short answer,” John Slot said when asked why a 50% design would not be delivered today: the consultant changed personnel and returned different concepts that must be re‑validated.
Several commissioners said the safety data and the feasibility study matter. “This trail is part of the Coast-to-Coast Trail; it’s a high priority for the state,” Commissioner Constantine said, urging FDOT coordination. But several colleagues said the county cannot wait indefinitely for FDOT’s five-year work plan, which currently does not include the crossing.
Some board members said the tunnel concept — once favored for aesthetics and perceived user experience — now looks impractical. “I could never consider $39 million for a tunnel alternative with all the other needs in this county,” one commissioner said. Others urged more evidence that safety conditions have changed since the feasibility study and asked for lifecycle cost comparisons over 5, 10, 20 and 30 years for tunnel and bridge options.
Questions about the consultant’s performance and communications also surfaced. Commissioners asked whether the county should replace the consultant after the new team said prior designs were not viable; staff said the contract is with the company, not individuals, and that the county paused work in August 2024 pending review.
No option was approved. Instead the board directed staff to reconvene with the consultant, seek clearer technical analyses — particularly on drainage and utility relocations — and return to the board. Among the issues staff will answer are whether gravity drainage is feasible for a tunnel (staff said pumps would be required), the scope and timescale to relocate major utilities (staff cited a communications duct bank on SR 436 that could take two to three years to move), and a refined cost estimate including right-of-way and permitting.
Next steps: staff will ask the consultant to resubmit the 30% package (or a proof-of-concept if the tunnel option is pursued) and bring a clearer engineering and cost comparison back to the board for a future decision.
