Citizen Jeff Zink (jeff.zink@comcast.net) polled the City Council candidates on several topics. He got thoughtful answers from five of the candidates (Garland, McBride, Mosby, Tobler, and Turner) and a short reply from a sixth (Miller). He distributed the results this afternoon via e-mail. I received a forwarded copy of his message, which said “Please feel free to forward this e-mail to others in Oak Ridge,” and I am posting the answers here (click here to find them on a separate page) to help get them into the hands of voters.
For me as a Council member who is not up for re-election, this type of election-time discussion of the issues is worthwhile because it causes me to think about topics that are important but have not been on the front burner recently — and the candidates often bring fresh perspectives to the issues.
ADDED a few hours later: Skimming the Qs and As, I found myself wanting to add comments on a few items:
Centennial Golf Course – The golf course financial results are available to everybody (not just public officials, as Eric Tobler’s response implies), embedded in the city budgets and financial reports, which are published and are actually on the city website (click for budgets and financial reports). According to the draft budget for FY 2010 (and as Dave Mosby’s response notes), the golf course is turning a profit this fiscal year on operations (revenues of $1,293,000 versus $1,201,000 in operating costs), but debt service is almost $539,000, so taxpayers are still subsidizing the course at an annual rate of about $447,000. As Tobler’s response implies, golf courses generally don’t pay for themselves. Oak Ridge didn’t expect this course to break even, but hoped to make money from sharing in the gains from selling homes built near the golf course. (That arrangement didn’t work out.) I wish we didn’t own this golf course in the first place, and it would be nice to think that the city could save money by selling it, but I agree with Dave Mosby that we would need to look carefully at any offers — and sell it only if the deal is truly beneficial financially.
Traffic cameras – Not only should signage be erected to “inform” motorists that they are about to come upon a street camera, but notification signs are required by law. As several of the candidates pointed out, signs are in place at some of the camera locations. However, I’ve been concerned that the signage might not be sufficient — in particular, I believe that when a camera site monitors both red-light compliance and speed, it’s not enough for the sign to mention only the red-light cam. I asked staff to look into sign adequacy at a recent meeting, and I haven’t yet gotten a definitive answer.
Added June 2, 2009: City staff says that the signs are going to be replaced with signs that specify “Red Light and Speed Photo Enforcement” or “Speed Limit Photo Enforcement.”
TDOT has supplied notes on a recent meeting between the agency and Southwood subdivision homes, held in State Senator Ken Yager’s Harriman office on May 15.
TDOT recorded the following “Home owners concerns and requests regarding alternatives/design changes” (thiis is what the homeowners said to TDOT), but I have not yet seen TDOT’s analysis:
Health, noise and safety- Proposed road will not leave much room between houses and traffic lanes. The shifting of lanes towards houses will generate more noise and long exposure to it will affect health.
Existing tree lines in front of houses will be cut to build the roadway and slopes. Removal of this natural barrier will open the possibility of vehicles running over the slopes and landing on the backyard of houses. Guardrail does not provide good protection. A noise wall or any other kind of wall between roadway and houses will be an appropriate safety device. Buying houses close to the roadway is another alternative.
Roadway cross section, median ditch- Plan shows a median ditch from old Sweet Gum entrance to Southwood entrance but there is no ditch in front of Sweet Gum subdivision. Begin ditch form Southwood entrance to save property and trees. A flush median in this area can be an alternative. Would like an urban typical adjacent to the subdivision.
Roadway alignment- All ROW for building the road is taken from homeowner’s side whereas empty Federal land (DOE property) is available on the other side. TDOT can work with the Feds to secure property on the north side.
Communication gap- The subdivisions were built after the acquisition of ROW by TDOT. The developer Mr. J.W. Gibson did not pass the information about imminent road construction to them. The City of Oak Ridge on the other hand issued permits to build houses. The owners requested an electronic copy of the final deed between Mr. Gibson and TDOT.
Delaying the project- The project took several years to reach this stage. It can be delayed further for the changes they are requesting now.
Consideration should be given to any change that would lessen the project impact on the subdivision. Example: speed limit in the vicinity of the subdivision.
ADDED May 27th: Some people have asked about TDOT’s requirements for evaluating the impacts of highway projects. Here’s a link to their guidance on the subject: Tennessee Environmental Procedures Manual, Chapter 5
With early voting under way, it’s high time for me to share my recommendations for City Council. I support the re-election of David Mosby and Tom Beehan, and I strongly recommend electing the newcomer Anne Garcia Garland.
Although I don’t always like their opinions, both Mosby and Beehan are knowledgeable, hard-working (not always in the public view), and thoughtful — I believe they both have the best interests of Oak Ridge citizens at heart. In my opinion, they have earned re-election.
Anne Garcia Garland is a smart and thoughtful woman whose diverse personal experiences, 20+ years of residence in Oak Ridge, and past involvement in and awareness of City affairs will stand her in good stead as a City leader. She will bring needed perspectives to Council as a proud cemesto homeowner (she lives in an “A” house on Outer Drive), an experienced small business owner, and someone who has worked as an accountant — and as a retiree, she has the time to devote to public service. Furthermore, I’m gratified by her personal commitment to greening Oak Ridge. Anne and her husband have installed a photovoltaic solar generator on home and will soon be in the position of selling back electricity to the city’s utility grid as Oak Ridge’s first participants in the TVA Generation Partners program. Also, they have made land on Warehouse Road available for a community garden project.
As for the other candidates, take your pick (or just vote for those you like). I have some preferences among the others, but I see potential merit in all of them — and I can imagine working productively with all of them as fellow Council members. The two voter forums I attended were informative — Angi Agle’s “live blog” of the recent League of Women Voters forum on her blog is a good resource.
Early voting for the June 2 City election started on Wednesday and continues through Thursday, May 28, 2009. Hours are 10 am to 6 pm weekdays (except Memorial Day, May 25) and from 9 am to 12 noon today (Saturday, May 16) at the Larry Dickens Office Building (aka Emory Valley Center or Daniel Arthur Center) on Emory Valley Road.
The Oak Ridge Police and Fire Departments are holding a “Child Passenger Safety Checkpoint” Saturday, May 16, from 10 am to 1 pm at Fire Station 3 on Tuskegee Drive (behind KMart). There will be technicians on hand to educate and assist parents and grandparents on the proper installation and use of child safety seats and booster seats.
There have been recalls of some seats, and they’ll have information on them, too.
Tennessee requires all kids between 4 and 8 years old, less than 4′9″ tall, to ride secured with a belt positioning booster seat, in the back seat if available, and they can offer assistance with how these are properly and safely used.
See http://orfd.com/ for additional details.
There’s some favorable news on the turnpike widening project.
City Council members learned last evening that the project was not included as a stimulus project, but is instead expected to be funded in TDOT’s FY 2010 work plan. That reduces the urgency a bit and gives TDOT a chance to improve the design.
Also, Southwood residents who spoke at the City Council meeting got the Council’s and staff’s attention, and I expect that things will be done to determine the extent of the impacts on that subdivision and look for ways to mitigate the effects.
People are griping (for example, on the new Sustain Oak Ridge Google group) about the Hwy 95 widening projects (the ongoing one from Illinois Ave. to Westover Drive and the next phase from Westover Drive to the Hwy 58 interchange). These are not City of Oak Ridge projects, but are Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) projects (when complaining about public issues, it’s useful to know which unit of government you have an issue with), and it’s clear that the city has little influence over the way TDOT designs and builds its road projects. However, there has been strong city support for completing both of these projects, as they have been on the books for a very long time and they will not only eliminate some hazards but will also result in extending new utility lines (such as water mains) to the west end of the city, including Rarity Oaks, K-25, and Rarity Ridge.
One thing I’m concerned right now is the design for the next phase. This is a high-priority “shovel-ready” economic stimulus project, based on TDOT design work that was completed 9 years ago, so work is slated to start soon. TDOT’s design for this segment calls for a 48-foot wide median and a wide cleared right of way adjacent to both sides of the highway, and extensive cutting and filling to create an elevated roadway — think of an Interstate highway or the Pellissippi Parkway to imagine what is being planned. The grassed median alone will be wider than the entire current roadway. There will be no more trees to buffer between the Southwood subdivision and the highway or between the cleared properties in the Horizon Center and the highway (someone I know said “all trees that you can see from the road will be gone”) and the brick entryway to the Westwood subdivision probably will be removed.
If people don’t like this (or other details, such as the bike lane on the shoulder), public officials (both city and state) need to hear from you. They’ve heard from me asking for the design to be scaled back (apparently I was the only one to write a letter to TDOT after the public hearing on the design back in 2000, and I’ve communicated more recently to TDOT as a City Council member) and a few others, and the Oak Ridge Environmental Quality Advisory Board (EQAB) recommended that City Council encourage TDOT to change their design from a “rural” to an “urban” design, but it appears to me that we critics are not being taken seriously. If others agree with us, they need to speak up. (Opportunties to speak to Council include “appearance of citizens” at tonight’s Council meeting at 7 pm and the City Council Night Out at the Civic Center Tuesday evening from 6 to 8 pm.)
Here is some “material” on the subject, starting with the “guts” of a message I sent to TDOT’s regional manager in March of this year:
The principal concern that I have (and that I have heard from other residents) is that the overall width of the proposed design, including a 48-ft median and very wide clear zone on both sides of the travel surface, does not appear to be necessary (it greatly exceeds what exists on the higher-traffic segment of Hwy 58 west of the interchange) and will result in excessive environmental impacts, unnecessary construction and maintenance costs, and long-term detriment to efforts to maintain a “human-scale” community design that fosters pedestrian travel and community cohesion.
Environmental impact concerns include:
(1) loss of forest, riparian areas, and probably wetlands in the corridor
(2) noise impacts in residential areas adjacent to the corridor that are currently buffered from the roadway by vegetation that would be lost
(3) increased impacts to water quality and aquatic habitat in East Fork Poplar Creek due to reduction of vegetative buffer, loss of shade, and increased stormwater runoff
(4) possible impacts to flood storage and routing in East Fork Poplar Creek
(5) loss of aesthetic qualities.
From a cost perspective, I think it is clear that a wider swath increases the costs of both construction and ongoing maintenance. Reducing the width of this project to make it no wider than the segments immediately to the east and west (that is, the Hwy 95 segment currently under construction and the Hwy 58 segment from the Hwy 95 interchange west to the Clinch River) should free up some funds for other uses, both now and in the future.
There has also been community concern about potential impacts to the “checking station” structures (listed on the National Register of Historic Places) on either side of the roadway west of Westover Lane and to the nearby cemetery, but I understand that these features would be protected under TDOT’s design. Additionally, I told you that residents of the Westwood subdivision (entered at Wisconsin Avenue) are concerned that the project would require removal of the brick “gate” structures at the entrance to the subdivision, and you explained that this is unavoidable.
I recognize that funding priority for this project depends on the availability of an existing design, but I also know that even a “final” design often requires many changes, and that it is far less costly and time consuming to change an engineering design than it is to modify a road once it has been built. I believe that the requested modifications to reduce overall project width could be made within the context of the overall design (and thus without jeopardizing the overall project package). Additionally, I find it frustrating that I and other citizens registered these same concerns (orally and in writing) when a public meeting was held on this project about 8 years ago, but we did not receive responses to our expressions of concern — and the design remained essentially unchanged. I hope that changes can be made now to improve this project while reducing its costs.
* Here’s the text of TDOT’s April 8th reply to me:
I forwarded your e-mail to the Department’s Headquarter Design Office for assistance in addressing your concerns regarding the improvement of State Route 95 from State Route 58 to near Westover Drive in Oak Ridge.
As you are aware, a corridor and design public hearing was conducted on September 21, 2000. A review of the public hearing comments was made on December 27, 2000. Information based on the transcript reveals the hearing was attending by twenty-one people with six people making comments to the court reporter, two making written comments and one letter. You provided the letter and a comment to the court reporter.
The project has an approved environmental document. The project is designed in accordance with the Department’s standards and guidelines for a four lane divided facility using the typical sections as proposed in the approved Advance Planning Report. Comments from the public hearing and local government official regarding the addition of bicycle lanes and turn lanes have been incorporated into the present design. The facility will provide a bicycle lane on the roadway shoulders in each direction.
The typical section utilizing the 48 foot median is the normal typical used for a four lane divided facility. The 48 foot median is provided to allow for separation of opposing vehicles and allows sufficient area at median openings for safe vehicle storage making left turns and u-turns. The clear zone for this roadway is normal for this type of facility and utilizes the roadway shoulder for bicycle lanes. The roadway ditch provides for drainage.
The section of State Route 95 from Westover Drive to State Route 62 was designed with a narrower typical section because the area was established more urban and densely developed. The design also avoids the historic guard towers “checking stations” located near Westover Drive.
The Department strives to meet local concerns in the design of roadway projects while following the standards and guidelines established for safety of the motoring public. As the project progresses into the construction phase, opportunities to
improve safety and enhance aesthetics will always be considered.
* I don’t have an electronic copy of EQAB’s final letter to the City Council, but this draft is pretty close to what the board sent:
EQAB has recently learned that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) will provide funds for the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) to begin construction of Phase 2 of the State Route 95 Highway Improvement Project. As you may know Phase 2 covers the area from the West Guard Tower near Westover Drive to the SR 95/58 interchange. Members of EQAB reviewed the plans for this project. As a result of our review we would like to share some observations and concerns about this project.
The design for Phase 2 is based on a standard TDOT rural section design. As proposed it will have a cross section similar to an interstate-class highway with two traffic lanes in each direction, wide shoulders to accommodate bicycles and pedestrians, and a 48-foot depressed median for drainage. This design will result in clearing as much as 250-350 feet of right-of-way prior to construction. We are concerned that this construction will result in the destruction of a large area of natural habitat . At a time when City Council has tasked EQAB with developing a sustainability plan to reduce the city’s carbon footprint and help Oak Ridge become more environmentally friendly, construction of such a roadway is viewed by our board to be wasteful of natural resources and does not set a very good example of our commitment to a more sustainable future. The cost of such the proposed Phase 2 project is also wasteful of monetary resources at a time when these resources are becoming far more scarce. One reason we believe Phase 2 is wasteful is that Phases 1 and 3, which Phase 2 is sandwiched between, are both significantly more narrow urban sections. A rural section situated between two urban sections has limited benefit to the overall traffic flow patterns in this area.
Between 30-90 additional acres of forest would be needlessly razed to accommodate the rural highway section versus the urban section. At ~$30K per acre for unimproved buildable land in the West End, the value of this lost land, assuming the area abutting the highway does become completely residential, would be between $1 million and $3 million. This would be an absolute loss, since the commercial value of a deep median is essentially zero. If some of the land along the highway became light commercial instead of residential, the lost value could exceed $6 million.
The carbon sequestration value of the lost standing timber would be roughly $120-360K.
The broad shoulders and deep median buy us absolutely nothing, cost the City quite a bit in lost land etc., and cost the State quite a bit more in construction expense as well.
The members of EQAB are of the opinion that the Phase 2 design is incompatible with the City’s land use plans for the west end of Oak Ridge. With the development of Rarity Oaks and Horizon Center this area will not remain rural for very much longer. The build out of Rarity Oaks will ultimately make much of the area adjacent to the south side of the right-of-way residential. Similarly, the planned development at Horizon Center and Parcel ED-6 will bring a mix of commercial, industrial, and various density residential developments to the northern areas. We believe consideration of these factors necessitates an urban design to ensure compatibility with the future use of this area. An urban design would also be more compatible with non-motorized human users (i.e., bicyclists and pedestrians).
The original public meeting for the Phase 2 project was held almost nine years ago in September 2000. A lot of things have changed in the intervening years; unfortunately the design for Phase 2 has not been altered to account for or safely accommodate these changes.
Although we realize this project is being pursued on an accelerated schedule required by the ARRA to secure funding, we believe these concerns warrant a reexamination of the application of a standard design that since it’s first proposal has been superceded by changing conditions on the west end of town. The members of EQAB believe it would be to the benefit of the city, its residents, and future growth to explore the possibility of altering the proposed design to the proven, existing urban design that is more compatible with current conditions in the city.
To accept this project because the money is there to buy an elephant when we only need a horse will not help our community’s effort to establish itself as a sustainable community.
There are two particularly big items on Monday evening’s City Council agenda.
One is first reading on the City budget for FY 2010. The draft budget is on the City website (there’s a prominent link on the main page), and paper copies are in the public library or available from staff at the municipal building. The City Council also needs to decide whether to fund the school board’s request.
The other hot item is proposed rezoning on the Centennial Village property near Edgemoor Road. Council approved this on first reading several months back, conditioned on the prospective developer returning with a revised proposal with less density in single-family residential portions and minimization of tree cutting and land grading in those areas. The prospective developer (John Chilton) withdrew his proposal
before City Council’s second reading on the rezoning, so no final action
was taken.
Now a revised proposal has been submitted to the City, and a vote
(second reading on the rezoning) is scheduled for the May 4, 2009, City
Council meeting. The new proposal includes revised drawings and a
revised set of conditions for development. City staff is recommending
approval.
Council members particularly want to make sure that residents who previously
expressed concern about this development are aware that this matter is
before Council again — and have a chance to evaluate the new
proposal and express your views. The new proposal is outlined in the
City Council agenda package (available online) and a copy of the revised master plan has been made
available for public review in the City Clerk’s office (please call the
office ahead of time at 425-3411 if you want to stop in to review it).
Additionally, Mr. Ray Evans (who worked with Mr. Chilton on the new
proposal) has offered to talk or meet with residents to discuss the
proposal.
I look forward to hearing people’s views about the revised proposal — and
please pass the word to your friends and neighbors.
