Smart Roads Alliance


The Jackson County Smart Roads Alliance was formed in 2002 in response to a proposal by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to build a new $132 million* highway through the middle of our most precious and beautiful rural county. Our goal since 2002 has been to work together as a community and create smart solutions to our traffic and transportation issues. (* $132 million construction cost source: NCDOT 2008)

For the latest news and information:

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter. Spread the word!

North Carolina Department of Transportation


NCDOT is planning to build the $132 million Southern Loop Bypass (NC 107 Connector) from US 23-74 in Balsam to NC 107 between Sylva and Cullowhee - NCDOT project STIP R-4745 is funded and construction will begin in 2016 unless the public demands other solutions.

The Resolutions

The Resolutions, unanimously signed in 2003 by the representative leaders from all four of Jackson County's incorporated towns (Sylva, Dillsboro, Webster, Forest Hills) requested that NCDOT "remove the Southern Loop Bypass from its long-range plan" and instead develop strategies for "improving existing roads as alternatives to the Bypass". A copy of the resolution and a petitions with thousands of Jackson County citizen's signatures were turned in to NCDOT at their annual State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) meetings to stop this proposed new highway. Despite public opposition, NCDOT is moving forward with this massive new highway project.

Other important articles with background information:
2009 - Smart Roads Alliance Position: Jackson County Comprehensive Transportation Plan
2008 - Construction on 23-74/107 connector could begin in 2015
2008 - Smart Roads Files Compaint Over Southern Loop
2008 - Smart Roads Event Discusses Alternatives to Southern Loop
2007 - Leaders, citizens demand input as road plan progresses
2007 - Southern Loop Opposition Mounts
2007 - Burrell, Setzer Plug Plan for Southern Loop (ignoring public outcry and towns' wishes)
2007 - Southern Loop On Priority List, Transportation Advisory Committee Disagrees
2007 - STIP Includes Funding For Portion of Southern Loop
2003 - "Who will decide the future growth of Jackson County?"
2003 - Sylva, Dillsboro Join Official Opposition to Southern Loop (The Resolutions)
2002 - Smart Roads Alliance Formed
2001 - NCDOT Division 14 Engineer Ron Watson updates EDC on 'southern loop' status
2001 - Southern Loop Feasibility Study Approved


The original proposed new highway project would have cost over $230* million to construct ($26 million per mile) and continued to US 23-441 through Webster. The Jackson County Smart Roads Alliance was instrumental in getting the Webster portion of the bypass removed from the R-4745 plan. (* NCDOT 2001 estimate)

LATEST NEWS

Most recent news listed at top. Scroll down to see additional news items.
Visit our Community News Archive or Search Blog to view older articles (since 2007).
You may post or read comments for any news item.

For older news articles (2000 - 2007) click here.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

County transportation task force establishes study boundary

County transportation task force establishes study boundary
The Sylva Herald
February 21, 2008
By Lynn Hotaling
http://thesylvaherald.com/html/county_transportation_task_for.html

Members of Jackson County's transportation task force last week (Feb.
13) identified a study boundary and determined existing roads that will
be included as they proceed toward developing a comprehensive
transportation plan.

Meeting for the first time in six months, the group heard from N.C.
Department of Transportation planner Sarah Smith that delineating a
boundary and identifying the existing thoroughfares to be included are
the necessary first steps that could lead to a Jackson County CTP by
June 2009.

Several present, including Smart Roads Alliance member Susan Leveille
and that group's consultant, Walter Kulash, questioned why planning for
the controversial Southern Loop is proceeding separately from the task
force's discussion of the county's transportation needs.

That road, proposed in 2003 as a link from U.S. 23/74 near Blanton
Branch to U.S. 23/441 near Cagle Branch, is now discussed by DOT
officials in terms of a "link" between U.S. 23/74 and N.C. 107 or Old
Cullowhee Road (S.R. 1002).

Kulash asked why DOT is looking at a new road before the CTP identifies
the county's transportation needs.

District 14 Division Engineer Joel Setzer, who was at the task force
meeting, said it's because planning with regard to the Southern Loop
will take a long time to develop. Also, he said that he doubts there
will be a corridor link with existing roads, and that it's highly
likely some kind of link will be shown to be needed.

When Kulash asked if the DOT's process could be expanded to include
alternatives besides a new road as well as a broader corridor, Setzer
said the DOT's scoping process for the new road is not complete and
that alternatives have not been set.

"The way I intend to present it is that we need to look at constructing
a link," Setzer said. "Does it need to end on old 107 (now Old
Cullowhee Road) or new 107? We're not considering just one thing."

After Kulash stated that Southern Loop planning didn't seem to be a
"transparent process," Setzer offered to have the Southern Loop project
engineers attend a task force meeting to answer questions.

When Leveille asked whether the Southern Loop is proceeding without
input from the task force, Setzer said that planning is taking place.
That planning does not include all the way from U.S. 23/74 to U.S. 441,
however, and only one meeting has been held so far, he said.

"There's nothing hard and fast," Setzer said.

"So that process will proceed with or without this task force?"
Leveille asked.

"It currently is proceeding, and the task force is proceeding," Setzer
said. "There are opportunities for them to mesh – if you proceed on
schedule (and have a CTP) by June 2009, those things will be meshed. By
then we'll know a lot more about the development of (the Southern Loop)
project."

Leveille pointed out that the reason the group, which was first
organized in 2003, is not on schedule is not the fault of the task
force but due to changes in DOT and Region A planning personnel.

"We can't be held up by the DOT again," she said.

County Commissioner William Shelton, who was also present for the
session, said it was the county's intent that the work of the task
force would mesh with DOT planning and that the task force's input
would weigh into the Southern Loop project.

The question of the Southern Loop corridor also came up during the
group's discussion of a study boundary, when Leveille said she thought
any area the DOT is considering as a potential Loop route should be
included in the study area.

Setzer responded that since Cullowhee is the destination and the DOT is
trying to develop a connector from 23/74 to either old or new 107, he
thought the proposed southern project boundary – the N.C. 107/N.C. 281
intersection – "is far enough south to capture the link."

The study boundary approved Feb. 13 is larger than an earlier one
identified during the task force's first meeting in 2004. It includes
all of U.S. 441 from Cherokee to the Macon County line and extends out
23/74 to its intersection with Skyland Drive at Sugarloaf. As mentioned
above, it extends out 107 to Tuckasegee.

Roads listed by the task force in its study include all those within
the boundary that are not dead ends – N.C. 107, North and South River
roads, Old Cullowhee Road, N.C. 116, Little Savannah Road, Cope Creek
Road and Centennial Drive.

Task force member Jay Coward asked whether Cane Creek, Locust Creek and
Fairview roads should be part of the study; town of Sylva Planning
Director Jim Aust said they should not be, because they are currently
dead ends.

Such roads could become connecting roads under a plan developed by Aust
as a possible alternative to the eastern portion of the Southern Loop.
The Smart Roads group and Kulash have endorsed that plan, which
includes construction of sections of new two-lane roads to connect
existing roads and create travel alternatives to N.C. 107. The Aust
plan was not discussed during Wednesday's meeting.

With the task force's approval of the study boundary and network roads,
Smith said DOT planners will continue with data collection with regard
to those roads.

"Right now we're looking at the current traffic and current capacity,"
she said. "Once we have the current capacity, we'll look at future
traffic projections to see what to do to address it."

That data should be available at the group's next meeting, which is
scheduled for 10 a.m. Wednesday, March 12, in Room A-227 of the Justice
Center, Smith said.

The other major topic discussed Feb. 13 was a survey that's planned to
gather additional public input on residents' traffic concerns.

According to Smith, DOT planners have found that public information
sessions work better once some recommendations are made, but a survey
would be a way to gauge the public's current feelings.

Plans are to post the survey online and have copies available at town
halls and libraries. Target dates for the survey to be available are
March 1 through March 31.

The proposed survey asks respondents to identify the community they
live in, state their race or ethnicity and give their age. It asks them
to rate the importance of transportation goals such as increased public
transportation options, economic growth, community and rural culture
preservation, environmental protection, faster travel times, service of
special needs and increased transportation choices.

Other questions ask if respondents currently use an alternate route to
avoid N.C. 107 and whether they would use sidewalks, off-road trails or
greenways, off-road bicycle routes, or buses, if such options were
available.

In addition, the survey will ask residents to identify locations where
they experience traffic congestion on a regular basis, when the
congestion occurs and possible reasons for the congestion, i.e. rush
hour, school bus pick-up/drop-off, lack of a left turn lane.

1 comment:

  1. The Sylva Herald
    Letters to the Editor: 02/28/08

    Task force meeting was ‘puzzling’

    To the Editor:

    Observing the Feb. 13 Jackson County Transportation Task Force meeting was a puzzling experience for this taxpayer. While grateful that it was open to the public, I left wondering what exactly the Department of Transportation means when they assure us they are responsive to the community.

    The bulk of the meeting focused on developing data for a comprehensive transportation plan and included the circulation of a proposed community survey. One might have never guessed that there was a highly controversial road lurking in the background.

    Finally, at the end of the agenda, Walter Kulash, an independent traffic consultant representing the Smart Roads Alliance, brought up the subject of the Southern Loop – the “elephant in the room.” From his questions I learned that DOT has already started an environmental study for the proposed four-lane highway, despite considerable public opposition as far back as when the Southern Loop was first proposed. I later learned that this particular project/environmental study comes with a $2 million price tag.

    When Kulash pointed out that such a study could expand its scope of work to include a consideration of alternatives, DOT (District Engineer) Joel Setzer answered with something that struck me as equivalent to “trust me.” Setzer suggested that the comprehensive plan might deal with alternatives “perhaps in 2009.” Why in the world should the public or the task force wait that long for serious consideration of alternatives? Shouldn’t such a study include alternatives now? Common sense says “yes.”

    One of the items on the agenda was a draft for a community survey. The gist of the survey questions aim at whether there is a traffic problem, where the congestion is and whether we want more efficient roads. No questions about the public’s preference for solutions – do we want a multi-lane freeway or do we think traffic problems can be solved by other solutions?

    I hope the task force will revise the survey to include such questions. But even if they do, it remains to be seen whether the DOT will pay attention to the answers. If the DOT is responsive to community concerns, that should be reflected in their actions. It isn’t enough to say “trust us.”

    Pat Montee
    Sylva

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for taking time to share your comments. We welcome any suggestions or ideas you may have.

"We are for the preservation of our communities.
We are not against growth and development,
nor a reasonable expansion of existing roads.
"

- Lydia Aydlett, Smart Roads Alliance

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful,
committed citizens can change the world.
Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."


- Margaret Mead