Forest Hill Road  

Macon, Ga

    Please help support safer road designs at Forest Hill Road
- Mayoral Candidates comments -

Forum at the Grand Theater on Thursday evening, July 12, 2007 

Citizens are asking for a redesign of Forest Hill Road consistent with modern planning practices.
 
            At a meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee of the Macon Area Transportation Study, A Federal Highway Administration official told Macon that the “community should tell GDOT how it wanted its roads to look, and should not let GDOT dictate design.” 

            We think that effective transportation planning is crucial to the economic growth and vitality of Macon.  Effective transportation planning must consider quality of life, vitality of our neighborhoods, safety, and traffic circulation.  Bibb County and GDOT’s approach to transportation planning has always been from an isolated project standpoint and not from the overall system needs and impacts.  

            We have always supported effective transportation planning in Macon.  We only have a problem when there is no plan and when specific road projects are counterproductive. 

            We agree that many aspects of our road system require improvement, and we have supported such improvements.  Many of the most irritating problems can be effectively and economically addressed through intersection improvements; none of them require the wholesale destruction of neighborhoods.
 
”Done Deal”
 We have heard this refrain about projects for years.  It is not true.  GDOT makes the claim to avoid making changes.  The Presidential Parkway in Atlanta was stopped after rights-of-way were purchased and construction had begun.  The Northern Arc in Atlanta was also described as a done deal.  Like Forest Hill Road the public steadfastly opposed these projects.  The citizens in Atlanta had more political power and the funding to sue.  Citizens should not have to resort to expensive litigation to resolve differences with GDOT.  Macon could realize broad support for road projects if the public were involved and allowed to have authentic participation from the outset.  This requires political leadership!
 
Policy Committee
At the last MATS policy committee meeting, FHR was discussed again.  The vote to ask GDOT to change the project was 4 to 5, with all city representatives voting to ask for change.  Leadership from a new mayor could easily switch this vote.  FHR is a city road, city council has voted in favor of a redesign twice, but its wishes are defeated by the votes of Bi bb County representatives and the votes of other entities including Jones County, Payne City, and the Macon Water Authority.  Strong leadership from the city can correct this problem, and hopefully focus the decision on logic and good planning, not politics and personalities (after one on the FHR votes Charlie Bishop told a citizen that he just couldn’t vote for anything that Jack Ellis supported).  

            The city abrogated its responsibility to protect the interests of its citizens when it let the county control decisions about a city road.  Review of city records reveals that the city never formally ceded authority to the county or to the Road Improvement Program.  We think the city should retain final approval authority on any project within the city, ones that always impacts city citizens and the city’s general well-being.
 
Petition
Citizens of the neighborhoods around FHR submitted petitions signed by over 900 voters to the county commissioners and the policy committee asking for a redesign. This is a significant block of votes of citizens who expect more that empty words or vague promises.  They want a firm commitment from their mayor to “do things right” and to protect their property values, safety, and quality of life.
 
Drainage
There will be drainage problems if FHR is built as designed; the city will be liable for damages.  Cole Thomason stated that this was his particular concern with the design. 
The hydrology study showed that there would be a 30% increase in run-off from the road in the drainage basin.  This is unacceptable under state rules which require detention ponds or other impoundment measures when run-off increases 1%.   Instead of providing a design solution, a local engineering firm decided to redefine the drainage basin until the area was large enough to keep the increase at 0.4%, which is within state rules.  This is sleight of hand and will not stand the test of legal claims against the city, as is the case with drainage problems at the intersection of FHR and Northside Drive, an earlier RIP project,. The intersection has had consistent drainage problems since its completion, resulting in lawsuits against the city.  The acting city engineer had pointed out the problem to the engineering firm, but was ignored.
 
Safety
GDOT stated that FHR had 10% more accidents than comparable roads in the state to justify the scale of improvements proposed.  Review of the accident counts revealed that GDOT was in error, and that FHR actually had 20% FEWER accidents than the statewide average (GDOT subsequently acknowledged the error).  Most of the accidents were rear end collisions that did not result in serious injury.  The GDOT plan will widen the lanes,  increasing speed but not adding capacity.  Accidents occurring at greater speeds cause more serious injuries, as demonstrated by our experience with Zebulon and Forsyth roads.  Both of these roads were widened, resulting in average speeds in excess of 60 miles an hour. Many people travel at far greater speeds, on roads that are not limited access.  There have been 5 fatalities on Zebulon in the last 5 years.  These accidents were in the residential sections of the road, which is also where the speeds are highest and turning movements the most dangerous.  GDOT turned a safe road into a killing field.  Forsyth road shows comparable accident numbers (with 2 fatalities) in an even shorter distance.
 
            There is a perception that narrow, curving roads are unsafe.  It is counter-intuitive (as are many facts about roads,) but according to professional urban planners and engineers these roads are actually safer.  This is not a local phenomenon, but it is observed around the world: the reason these roads are safer is that people travel at safe speeds. The most dangerous roads in the country are wide and straight.  Such observations by progressive road designers form the basis of modern transportation planning and “traffic calming” techniques. We have asked such concepts be employed on FHR.

            The section of FHR from Wimbish to Northside Dr. has a “suicide lane” proposed along the entire length.  Modern transportation planning prohibits suicide lanes, preferring dedicated turn lanes.  Many communities in Georgia (for example, Hinesville) are removing suicide lanes and redesigning their roads with dedicated turn lanes, both for efficiency and safety.  We are asking for dedicated turn lanes instead of a suicide lane, as we have all had near-death experiences in the suicide lanes throughout the county.
 
Property Values
The homeowners along FHR have already suffered devaluation of their property, and the road is not yet built.  When residents throughout Bibb county were crying foul over that skyrocketing property values, the homes along FHR were devalued. This is NOT consistent with what happened in the surrounding neighborhoods.  The city cannot afford to devalue its tax base in a prosperous part of town.  If this road is built as designed the surrounding areas will be devalued as the properties along the road evolve to marginal commercial use.  We need to protect our vibrant neighborhoods to keep our population here and preserve our tax base.  It is not acceptable to sacrifice any neighborhood to service outside traffic.
 
 GDOT Over-designs routinely
A clear-cut local example can be found on Hardeman Avenue at the intersection of Monroe Street, next to the historic fire station.  There were numerous accidents at this intersection; many were T-bone accidents which are far more dangerous that routine fender-benders.  Local business owner Lee Martin documented the accidents for many years and requested that GDOT install a light at the intersection.  GDOT replied with a huge expensive re-design of the intersection.  This design would have disrupted access at the fire station, taken the parking of several local business and isolated adjacent neighborhoods.  When an outside consultant actually modeled the community proposal, which consisted of two synchronized lights, he admitted that the proposal worked just fine and satisfied anticipated need until 2030.  GDOT continued to fight for the over-built design, but city council installed a single light.  The accidents ceased shortly after the light was installed.  This is a graphic example of local knowledge and common sense trumping GDOT’s over-designed plans.  It was cheap too!  The estimated cost of the GDOT solution was $1.5 million.
 
SPLOST
The citizens have an understandable suspicion about SPLOSTs.  Support for future SPLOSTs is questionable if local governments can’t show that they can manage at least one part of the current SPLOST effectively.  Failure to demonstrate responsibility will cut off this needed source of funding in the future.

Access
The section of FHR from Vineville  to Wimbish has 4 through lanes (8 at the intersection with Vineville) with a continuous median.  This means that NO left turns are possible along this section except at Ridge Ave.  One resident drove the route that he would have to take to legally reverse course; he had to go one mile out of his way.  There will be no access for emergency vehicles unless they go the wrong way down a one-way street.  For example, a fire truck from the station on Forsyth road will have to travel the wrong way down FHR to get to the St. Francis Church.  This is not safe!  Businesses, St. Francis Church, Montessori School, Forest Pointe Appartments and residents are extremely worried about access and public safety.
 
Solution:
             A modern solution t hat addresses the concerns of the neighborhood and accommodates future traffic needs would incorporate traffic calming designs and roundabouts at the major intersections.  Such a design would maximize capacity, contain speeds and dramatically reduce the number and severity of accidents while minimizing congestion and allowing traffic to flow smoothly.  This can be accomplished while allowing the scenic sections of the road to remain 2-lanes.

             Compared to roads with traffic signals, roundabouts reduce delays in traffic 62-74%, according to Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.  Each roundabout saves 32,500 hours of driving time and 25,000 gallons in fuel.  Emissions decrease as well.  Accidents are reduced significantly – 37% overall reduction, injury crashes by 75%, and fatalities by 90%.

            Other neighboring communities have embraced roundabouts.  The mayor of Centerville, Bubba Edwards is preparing the design for a roundabout at Gunn Road and Margie Dr.  Ned Sanders from Houston County is fully supportive of roundabouts and looking for a location to build one.  Macon needs to show that it is progressive.
 
This is a win-win solution that satisfies all the concerns and needs at substantially reduced cost.

Posted on Fri, Jul. 13, 2007

Mayoral candidates take stage in final forum before election

By Travis Fain - tfain@macon.com

The final major debate before Tuesday's city primaries was also the largest, drawing more than 300 people to the Grand Opera House downtown to hear Macon's seven mayoral candidates address the issues.

The candidates hit on themes that have become familiar.

On the Democratic side, Thelma Dillard reminded people of her community involvement, City Council Appropriations Chairman Henry Ficklin focused on his knowledge of city finances, City Council President Anita Ponder pushed her diplomacy and experience, Lance Randall positioned himself as a prepared young leader and Robert Reichert relished his role as a family man and former legislator.

For the Republicans, David Cousino promised to be apart from politics and a man of the people, though his decision to walk the stage during his speech - while his colleagues remain seated for theirs - kindled laughter in the crowd. Arlan Gibson said he'd cut taxes and bureaucracy.

But beyond the repeated themes, some of the questions touched ground seldom trod in a campaign that culminates next week in what Mercer University President Bill Underwood, who handled some of the introductions Thursday, called "a pivotal election" for the city.

What follows are paraphrased versions of selected questions and answers, with a focus on questions that have not been printed in Telegraph coverage of previous forums.

What measures does the city need to take, and what leadership will you provide, in raising the city's bond

rating?

Reichert: The first thing is to garner confidence from the people and council, then address deficiencies from the last audit. We also need to make long-term plans for big ticket expenditures down the road. I've made a commitment to improve the rating within 12 months.

Cousino: Businesses need to be brought in from the outside. We need incentives to do this, and to make them feel at home.

Ponder: Moody's credit rating service has given us a check list. They speak to solid waste management, what we do with rising health costs and whether we privatize some services. We've already transferred garbage fee collections to the tax commissioner and we're working on health-care costs by making employees pay more for insurance.

Gibson: We need weekly departmental accountability and to lower discretionary spending thresholds. Detailed financial information should be easily available to the public.

Dillard: Build our reserves. Have a clean and accurate audit. Bring more businesses into the city so we can fund essential services. We have to find the people who owe us money and collect. We need to improve our schools to bring in new businesses.

Ficklin: The bonding issue is basically dependent on our financial reserves. We've begun to answer some of the rating services' questions, such as the garbage fee collections and health care costs. But the basic problem is we haven't kept our financial reserves in order.

Randall: The first thing is to follow the recommendations of our auditors, then let Wall Street know we're addressing the issues. We also need to improve our accounting hardware and software, implement an inventory tracking system and bring in a chief financial officer. But the main thing is not to issue bonds for projects not guaranteed to be successful, such as the convention center hotel recently approved.

How will you prepare to close the landfill?

Cousino: We have to find a way to capitalize on the garbage that's there, use the methane gas there, and get people to realize the importance of recycling.

Ponder: The landfill's life expectancy is about 9 years, though the number has changed over the years. We need about $3 million up front to cover it with dirt and put in monitoring devices. The other $14 million in closure costs can be spent later. The first thing I would do is put aside some landfill tipping fees toward that $3 million.

Gibson: We can do a public-private partnership, and maybe have garbage collections done cheaper, allowing us to save money for the closure. That's one solution. There are many solutions out there.

Dillard: We don't have all the answers. I do propose educating the community on recycling. And we should seek expert advice on ways to improve the landfill, as well as seek funding for it.

Ficklin: The landfill is a political issue. It seems like the life expectancy has been growing over the years. Now it's at 9 years. Our landfill makes money, but it supports the general fund. I would propose a penny sales tax and put some money into a closure fund.

Randall: I would put together a plan for pre-closure, closure and post-closure. To fund it I propose putting some landfill tipping fees into a closure fund. We also need to recycle.

Reichert: We should be ashamed of that landfill. It's a mountain of garbage that's long since needed closure. Twenty years ago we set up a reserve fund, but it was raided and spent. The only way out is to pass a penny sales tax to pay for closure and find a new landfill.

Can the airport be made competitive? And if so, how?

Dillard: I think so. I think the public-private partnership being discussed is a good idea. I think some of Atlanta's flight traffic can be brought here.

Ficklin: We spent a lot of resources upgrading the airport, and it can be competitive. We have to aggressively pursue pre-arranged deals with businesses to use our airport. We have a grant to help with that. And bringing in TBI to manage the airport may be something we need to do. They have a good reputation.

Randall: It's not about being competitive, but we can make it serve this area. Private management, as is being discussed, is a good move. We need service to southeastern cities other than Atlanta.

Reichert: We got out-negotiated again with this management company, which we would pay $135,000 a year and give a portion of new profits. We've got to take a different approach, and I would collaborate with other counties, perhaps under an airport authority, to operate and fund the airport.

Cousino: We need other airlines to come in, and privatizing it is a great idea. The city should take care of the people, not run businesses. We cater to businesses so they will bring revenue into the city.

Ponder: The Atlanta airport's success gives us an opportunity. Middle Georgia is a prime area to take some of the overflow. While Delta may be leaving Macon, other airlines would be a perfect fit, and we will pursue them.

Gibson: Yes. We need a good aviation director. We have to look for different airlines that will use Macon as a hub, and have freight business here to provide more jobs.

What attribute will cast a shadow on your leadership?

Ficklin: I have many outstanding attributes, and some that have been highlighted by the media in the past. The community had different attitudes back then, and some people said I was confrontational. I think controversy is not a bad thing. In fact it is the mother of progress. If you want someone perfect, then I couldn't run and you couldn't either.

Randall: I look younger than I actually am. I'm 41 and I have a grandson. I'm not too young to lead, as some people say. All the candidates are stepping up for this community and have run campaigns and, whoever wins, we're going to support them.

Reichert: The community wants a leader they can respect, and I bring the reputation and the contacts to do that. But I tend to be too much of a perfectionist. I need to do a better job of delegation. I promise to bring on a chief administrative officer who will be one of the best in the country.

Cousino: I know business. I don't want politics as usual. I'm a Godly man and I love Jesus. I look to the people to participate and attend meetings.

Ponder: I think my weakness has been articulating my views as council president. I have been dubbed a fence straddler, but I've seen myself as the tie that binds, with 14 members of council and a strong mayor to keep together.

Gibson: I'm optimistic. I'm a team player and a consensus builder. Whoever wins this race, I'll be there to support them. I don't delegate like I should. You guys pray for me on that.

Dillard: I have been criticized for standing up for other people's rights. My faith in God has been criticized. But I pride myself on loving people and not just coming around during election time.

Would you support moving the money to widen Forest Hill Road to the Jeffersonville Road and Houston Avenue projects?

Reichert: The first question is: How much money is left? If there's money left, it's a delicate balance between progress and having an adequate road system.

Cousino: Sometimes Forest Hill Road is dangerous, but it doesn't need three lanes. It needs wider margins along the side.

Ponder: Houston Avenue is under way. I can't take an either/or position on Forest Hill and Jeffersonville. Both projects are desperately needed. But I'm not convinced the Forest Hill project should be as massive as it's planned to be.

Gibson: I don't support the expansion of Forest Hill Road. That money can be used for Jeffersonville and Houston Avenue.

Dillard: I oppose the present plan for widening Forest Hill. The people on that street are speaking out and they're not being heard. The funds should be used in other areas, such as along Jeffersonville.

Ficklin: It's an unnecessarily large widening of a very scenic road. The improvements should be the least bit disruptive possible, and people in the area should be listened to. And people have begged for improvements along Houston Avenue and Jeffersonville Road.

Randall: Work needs to be done, but it's minimal. We need a turn lane near Ridge Avenue and to time the lights. We should listen to the voters, and we probably could move some money to the Jeffersonville Road area.

To contact writer Travis Fain, call 744-4213.

- CAUTION Macon -