Public absent in meetings where road projects decided

Wednesday, 24 November 2010 15:28
Public absent in meetings where road projects decided
Written by Quintin Ellison
Smoky Mountain News

The way road projects get selected and prioritized in the state’s six westernmost counties might shift slightly following meetings this week and last by local government officials and transportation experts.

The method of weighing the projects will be tweaked to heighten safety issues. Crash data compiled by the state Highway Patrol will be factored into the equation. Elected officials serving on the Transportation Advisory Committee said, however, they want to see what that actually does to the alignment of projects before endorsing the approach.

How exactly the state Department of Transportation moves forward on road building and road improving has raised pointed questions recently about political and personal gain versus public good and needs. Controversy in the past couple months erupted over two projects in particular: Needmore Road in Swain and Macon counties and N.C. 107 in Jackson County.

The transportation department has proposed paving and widening a 3.3-mile section of Needmore, a gravel one-lane road beside the Little Tennessee River. Needmore cuts through the protected Needmore Game Lands, and opponents say the environmental risks posed are simply too great (see accompanying article on page 9).

In Sylva, the transportation department this month held a public information session on how traffic on N.C. 107 between Sylva and Cullowhee could be reduced. Concepts included widening and building a whole new connector road. At least 200 people turned out for the session, and Smart Roads, a local activist group, promised to monitor and publicize the process going forward.

For all the outcries, no one from the public was present at either of two meetings where a bit of the rubber meets the road when it comes to transportation projects in the far west: Jackson, Macon, Swain, Cherokee, Clay and Graham counties. One meeting was for county and town planners and other government officials, a second was held Monday night for county commissioners and town council members.

Southwestern Development Commission, a regional planning group headquartered in Sylva, organized the get-togethers.


Who does the planning?

In the state’s six westernmost counties, road planning is headed up by the Southwestern Development Commission, headquartered in Sylva, which serves as the lead-planning agency for the rural transportation planning organization (RPO).

Southwestern Commission provides staff and GIS (geographic information system) support. The RPO consists of a technical coordinating committee (government officials) and a transportation advisory committee (elected officials). The government officials, as in real life, exist simply to make staff-level recommendations to the elected officials, who make the policies.


Here are the stated goals of the RPO:

• To provide a forum for public participation in the rural transportation planning process and serve as a local link for residents of the region to communicate with the transportation department.

• To develop, prioritize and promote proposed transportation projects that the RPO believes should be included in the State Transportation Improvement Program.

• To assist the transportation department in publicizing its programs and service and providing additional transportation-related information to local governments and other interested organizations and persons.

• To conduct transportation-related studies and surveys for local governments and other interested entities and organizations.

• To promote transportation as a regional issue requiring regional solutions.

---
Please visit the Smoky Mountain News, Western North Carolina's source for award-winning weekly news, entertainment, arts, and outdoor information.

OPINION: Joint planning group needed for highway efforts

OPINION: Joint planning group needed for highway efforts

by Mark Jamison on November 14, 2010

WEBSTER – I’m told a recent comment I attached to a story on Tuckreader.com garnered some attention.

My comment, focused on the North Carolina Department of Transportation’s recent workshop concerning the NC 107 corridor, discussed the need for a community-based planning process rather than a process driven by service institutions like NCDOT.

I recognize that on the statewide level this can be a complicated idea, but the general premise is that state agencies like NCDOT shouldn’t dictate solutions to local communities, but should assist communities in realizing their aspirations by providing appropriate infrastructure and assistance.

This week I also had a letter to the editor in the Sylva Herald that addressed some of the planning challenges facing Webster, the town where I live and serve on the governing board. Webster administers a large extra-territorial jurisdiction and has, over the years annexed areas in the NC 116-NC 107 corridor, primarily as a means of controlling growth. The fit has not been good, mainly because Webster has neither the governmental resources not planning infrastructure to administer some of these areas. The town has taken in uses it specifically wishes to avoid and cannot properly administer as a means of protecting its vision and identity.

There is a central premise connecting the two pieces, that planning is essential for communities in order for them to both define themselves and realize their aspirations. Further, the planning process must be driven by the proper institutions. Local governing boards, informed by the residents of the community, ought to be the primary drivers of the process that defines how a community will look, what it will be. That is why counties municipalities have planning boards.

These boards, working with technical assistance, ought to bring forth plans, ideas and proposals that will guide development. Service agencies like NCDOT need to participate in this process to provide technical expertise, information and guidance on what can be practically achieved.

The vicinity of the intersection of NC 116 and NC 107 is populated by an important and interesting mix of entities. There is a tremendous amount of government infrastructure there in the presence of Southwestern Community College, the Jackson County Services Park, the Jackson County Schools and NCDOT facilities. The area is also home to Smoky Mountain Mental Health, Reedwood Manor, the Southwest Regional Commission and various residential properties. If one expands out from the intersection along NC 107 there is an area in Sylva that is home to commercial and retail development backed by residential. In the other direction there are the residential communities of Fairview and Ashe Loop and Rivercrest. There is also a significant amount of industrial and commercial land in this area that is ripe for development.

Presently the only entity exercising any kind of development standards on the area is Webster – and that presence is minimal. This is an area with important and valuable community services and governmental infrastructure, it is an area surrounded by sensitive residential communities, and it is an area that can expect to see significant additional high impact development that will only exacerbate traffic and density problems. And yet we have no planning efforts specific to this area.

I have, for at least a couple of years, suggested that this area would be ideal for a joint planning task force including municipal, county and institutional entities as well as representatives from adjoining residential communities. The state of North Carolina provides for such an entity and also provides for the creation of a Community Based District where development standards can be applied. The Cashiers Development District was constructed under the latter statutes. Such a district need be 640 acres or more and have at least ten distinct property owners.

A Community District is not a taxing body, it levies no taxes. It is administered through a special planning board made of members of the district with the assistance of county staff. It appears that municipalities may contribute territory to such a district. That territory would be subject to the development standards of the district but would remain within the boundaries of the municipalities for the purposes of taxation and provision of services.

I think it would be hugely beneficial for the county and adjoining municipalities to look at forming a joint planning agency with a goal of developing a specific vision for this critical area and creating an appropriate administrative regimen for the district. One of the goals of such a planning agency ought to be to work with NCDOT and other supporting agencies and institutions to develop appropriate plans for infrastructure improvement and development in a specific community or area.

I would challenge the state of North Carolina to adjust its hierarchical arrangements with respect to the way NCDOT interfaces with the community to allow local DOT representatives to sit on and assist this planning group in developing adjustments to our current roads that would be responsive to the community’s vision. Perhaps our state legislators need to be a part of this process rather than sitting on the sideline letting the bureaucracy idle along.

Our current approach to road infrastructure pays no attention to future growth patterns or to the fact that planning vehicles and structures exist or can be created that could help focus growth in a way that leads to less costly infrastructure and infrastructure that enhances rather than impacts.

The NC 116–NC 107 corridor impacts a significant number of people, business and institutions. It is a gateway area and currently it is an area that lacks a coherent vision and direction. The result is that it is an area that is subject to increasing congestion, costly infrastructure development and increasingly negative impacts on area. A joint planning group charged with developing a vision and a plan for an area is desperately needed and well within our power to create.

---
Please visit the Tuckasegee Reader for this and other articles related to issues in Jackson County, North Carolina.

Your COMMENTS are extremely important and due by DECEMBER 9, 2010!

Thank you to everyone who showed up for the November 9 NCDOT Citizen's Informational Workshop held at Southwestern Community College, and to all who are involved

Our goal is to work together as a community and create smart solutions to our traffic and transportation issues. Working together, as a community, we have a strong voice! Community is what Smart Roads is all about.

Your comments are extremely important. Please take a moment to send your comments via e-mail or regular mail. Please ask your friends, family, neighbors and anyone else you may know to submit their comments, concerns, questions and ideas.

Comments about these road projects should be sent by

** December 9, 2010 ** to the following addresses:


Mr. Derrick Lewis, P.E

NCDOT-Feasability Studies Unit

1534 Mail CenterRaleigh, NC 27699-1534

dlewis@ncdot.gov



Mr. Mark Reep, P.E.

Florence & Hutcheson, Inc.

5121 Kingdom Way, Suite 100

Raleigh, NC 27609

mreep@flohut.com


Remember to make multiple copies of all comments! Send a copy to County Government, Town Government, the Governor of North Carolina, the newspapers/media and anybody else you can think of. Also Smart Roads would like a copy for our permanent data base.

If you would like to get more involved or would like more detailed information about transportation issues effecting our community, please visit our website at:


http://www.smartroads.org

You can also join our Facebook group at:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Smart-Roads/170439132967153

Thank you for being involved and please help us spread the word!


Additional background information:



NC 107 Connector aka the Southern Loop Bypass

http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/nc107connector/


Jackson County Transportation Task Force and the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) Updates:

http://www.regiona.org/Task_Force.htm


Goals and Objectives Survey Results for the Jackson County Comprehensive Transportation Plan:

(Published June 2008)

http://www.regiona.org/rpo/6.2.08%20Jackson%20County%20G&O%20Survey.pdf


Sylva's Street Plan Concept (not adopted):

http://www.regiona.org/rpo/Sylva%20Street%20Plan.pdf

Information session on ‘fixing’ N.C. 107 set for next week

Information session on ‘fixing’ N.C. 107 set for next week
Written by Quintin Ellison
Smoky Mountain News
Wednesday, 03 November 2010
PLEASE CLICK HERE TO SEE THE FULL STORY AT SMOKY MOUNTAIN NEWS

Are you ready to rumble? Because here we go again: The great debate in Jackson County on whether traffic congestion along N.C. 107 in Sylva should be fixed, and if so — how — is back.

Since the summer of 2008, the state Department of Transportation has conducted separate traffic studies, each intended to explore different fixes to the same problem.

The preliminary results of one of those studies is about to go public: potential redesigns of N.C. 107, Sylva’s major traffic corridor, which takes in the primary portion of the county that is experiencing business growth. The targeted stretch extends from U.S. 23 Business in Sylva to Western Carolina University.

On Tuesday, Nov. 9, state DOT officials will hold what’s being dubbed an “informal meeting” in Sylva. They intend to publicly layout what they claim must be done if N.C. 107 is truly going to be fixed.

There are six concepts on the table. Three of those concepts would include building an additional road, the controversial Southern Loop, since renamed the friendlier-sounding (and the transportation department claims, more accurate) “N.C. 107 connector.”

...

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO SEE THE FULL STORY AT SMOKY MOUNTAIN NEWS

Get Involved

WHAT: Informational meeting on fixing traffic problems on N.C. 107 in Sylva.

WHERE: Balsam Center (Myers Auditorium lobby), Jackson County campus of Southwestern Community College, 447 College Road in Sylva.

WHEN: Tuesday, Nov. 9, from 5-7 p.m.

WHY: To share six “concepts” that could fix perceived traffic-flow issues.

WHO: Sponsored by the state Department of Transportation.