When the subject of a limited access road running parallel between Scenic 30A and Hwy 98 has come up in the past the response has been mostly, "no way, not across state lands, dividing habitat". It's easy to say that when it's not really needed.
But as Scenic 30A grows more and more congested and exclusive, a real proposal for a limited access road will surface. Maybe by the time it comes up there will be momentum for or against.
Maybe public transportation would factor in, or park and ride shuttles. No long-term parking in WaterColor except for permanent residents and homeowners, with bikes and low-speed electric vehicles for guests?
Perhaps the road could be built with wildlife overpasses and underpasses. Maybe it would provide additional access and opportunities for state park development. State-owned camping and RV parks? Greenspace for county recreation? Additional biking and hiking trails?
Any thoughts on the subject? Pros and cons? Maybe it would only connect two feeders like 331 and 393? Would the friends of Scenic 30A be for or against? Would it open up any St. Joe land for further development?
But as Scenic 30A grows more and more congested and exclusive, a real proposal for a limited access road will surface. Maybe by the time it comes up there will be momentum for or against.
Maybe public transportation would factor in, or park and ride shuttles. No long-term parking in WaterColor except for permanent residents and homeowners, with bikes and low-speed electric vehicles for guests?
Perhaps the road could be built with wildlife overpasses and underpasses. Maybe it would provide additional access and opportunities for state park development. State-owned camping and RV parks? Greenspace for county recreation? Additional biking and hiking trails?
Any thoughts on the subject? Pros and cons? Maybe it would only connect two feeders like 331 and 393? Would the friends of Scenic 30A be for or against? Would it open up any St. Joe land for further development?