Forest Hill Road in Macon, GA - Telegraph articles - water runoff, traffic counts, roundabouts

The proposed size of the Forest Hill Road project between Wimbish and Northside Drive has increased by 1 sidewalk since the

original "Program Management Services Agreement" dated/signed Feb. 1st, 1995. But at a recent (10-3-06) Bibb Commission meeting, Chairman Bishop and County Engineer, Ken Sheets(link), wrongly declared this project has been "Downsized". If that were true, then it has also been "Supersized" for a net gain of at least 5 feet of sidewalk.

Forest Hill Road Sizes:

1- Current size - there are currently 2 (11 feet) lanes.

2- Proposed project size 2-1-95 - 2 (12 feet) lanes + a 14' Middle Continous-Turn [Suicide Lane] + 1 (5 feet) sidewalk on East side.

Diagram at Public Meeting on June 11, 2001:

(from VIDEO of 1st Public Meeting on June 11, 2001)

3- Current Drawings show (Proposal #2 above) PLUS another 5 feet of sidewalk on West side.

Changes in GDOT concept and size/width of the project between 1998 and 2003:

FHR_Concept_12-15-98.pdf
FHR_Concept_Typical_12-15-98.pdf

FHR_Concept_9-8-03.pdf
FHR_Concept_Typical_9-8-03.pdf

In this letter exchange, it becomes obvious that other road officials are parroting this misinformation and misdirection.

>> from: Lindsay Dental <teeth@mindspring.com> 6/16/2006 12:47 pm >>>

Dear Mr Cloues,

In your letter below is the phrase "reducing the project from five to

three lanes". Although I have heard that said by a few local roads

officials, I can find no documentation to substantiate it.

My (copied originals) documents show the project described in the

original "Program Management Services Agreement" dated/signed Feb. 1st,

1995, under "Attachment A: Macon-Bibb County Transportation Needs List"

as Project # 8 (Wimbish Road to Northside Drive) " widen to 3 lane

urban section; curb & gutter, sidewalks school side [the East Side],

stormwater"

This original, contractual, 1995 description [attachment A on page 2]
is exactly one sidewalk

smaller than the current road plans being administered by Moreland

Altobelli Associates. The added sidewalk is on the West Side of the road

which is the side bordering my property. So the current project design

is bigger than the Original Project description. Not smaller.

I will be happy to fax you any of the materials that I have.

I will appreciate any clarity you may provide concerning this issue.

Thank you,

- Lindsay D Holliday

Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 12:27:55 -0400
From: "Richard Cloues" <Richard_Cloues@dnr.state.ga.us>
To: "Holliday Dental" <teeth@mindspring.com>
Cc: "Amanda Schraner" <Amanda_Schraner@dnr.state.ga.us>
Subject: Re: Holliday House and Forest Hill Road - clarification
request - HPD response

In response to your question about the reduction of the project from

five to three lanes:

The project may well have been conceived as a three-lane road at the

time of local funding approval. However, when the decision was made to

seek federal funding for the project, the Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA) became involved, and when that happened, a series of design

alternatives had to be developed to insure that the project would meet

FHWA road-design standards. One of the contending designs called for a

four lane highway with a grassed median and sidewalks (this is the

alternative I was referring to when I said a "five-lane road"--I had

forgotten that the fifth or center "lane" was actually to be a median).

This alternative would have been 30 feet wider than the current 3-lane

proposal (due to two additional 12-foot travel lanes and the increased

width of the median which would have been 20 feet as compared to 14 feet

for the continuous center turn lane). This proposal generated a lot of

opposition locally as well as on the part of resource protection

agencies because of what was perceived to be excessive width. As a

result, this alternative was not selected by FHWA which opted instead

for the three-lane alternative similar to that which was originally

proposed with the exception of the added sidewalk. All this information

is summarized in the FHWA's "Finding of No Significant Impacts" report,

pages 14-17, which was approved and signed by FHWA on June 15, 2004.

I hope this answers your question about the downsizing of the project.

Do not hesitate to contact me or Amanda Schraner if you have further

questions.

Richard Cloues

Survey and Register Unit Manager

Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer

Historic Preservation Division

Georgia Department of Natural Resources

34 Peachtree Street, Suite 1600

Atlanta, GA 30303

404-651-5983

At 12:49 PM 6/2/2006 -0400, Richard Cloues wrote:

>Dr. Holliday:

>Because of your expressed interest in the Forest Hill Road widening

project in Macon and its effects on the historic Holliday House, I am

writing to bring you up-to-date on developments.

>As you know, on May 24 our office made a fact-finding site visit to

the project site. At the site, we reviewed the most recent plans for

the project (which I understand have been shown to you as well), we

walked the full extent of the roadway in front of the house, and we

measured distances from the edge of pavement to the proposed retaining

wall and right-of-way clear zone in several places. We also reviewed

project plans in the vicinity of the driveway and creek.

>Several days after our site visit, the Georgia Department of

Transportation submitted an updated survey and assessment of effects

report to our office for review and comment. In their report, the GDOT

determined that the proposed project will have "no adverse effect" to

the historic house. This finding means that the project will have an

effect on the historic property but that the effect will not negate or

compromise the qualities of the property which make it eligible for the

National Register of Historic Places.

>After reviewing the GDOT report and the results of our site visit, our

office has concurred with the GDOT's finding of no adverse effect. Key

aspects of the revised road-widening plans that support concurrence with

the no adverse effect finding include reducing the project from five to

three lanes, constructing a cantilevered retaining wall along the

western edge of the road to minimize encroachment, tinting the concrete

wall a dark color to reduce its visibility, retaining the historic brick

wall along the north edge of the existing driveway, reconstructing the

driveway between the creek and the road to insure access to the

property, and coordinating with utility companies to minimize or avoid

further encroachment on the property from power or telephone lines along

the reconstructed roadway.

>We understand that the project plans call for minor encroachment into

the historic property and the cutting of one tree possibly 50 years old

near the driveway. However, given the current conditions along the

roadway (steep embankment, periodic clearing of the utility-line

right-of-way, lop-sided trimming of the driveway tree, clear-cutting of

the sewer-line easement along the creek), the distance of the house from

the road, and the intervening heavy vegetation, we believe the no

adverse effect finding is consistent with both National Register and

Advisory Council (Section 106) criteria and guidelines.

>You may of course contact me by e-mail or telephone if you have

questions about this.

>Richard Cloues

>Survey and Register Unit Manager

>Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer

>Historic Preservation Division

>Georgia Department of Natural Resources

>34 Peachtree Street, Suite 1600

>Atlanta, GA 30303

>404-651-5983

http://www.gadnr.org

cell 770-789-8810

http://hpd.dnr.state.ga.us/

http://www.macon-bibb.com/FHR/Letter-Bibb-RIP-Sheets.htm