Stop The Fifth Interchange
at Mine Lick Creek Road
Cookeville, Tennessee
DEconstructing the Concocted Road Avrice Propaganda IN General
TRANSPORTATION POLICY
Last updated on 06 MAR 2008
THE NEWS, OPINION AND COMMENTARY NOT AVAILABLE IN THE HERALD-CITIZEN
Welcome to the TOUR website. (Taxpayers Opposed to Useless Roads) This web site is for those people who want better government policy in road building. It is an exploration of the factors and frustrations surrounding the planning and management of transportation infrastructure in the state of Tennessee. Particular emphasis will be on the Proposed Mine Lick Creek Interchange but, there are many projects like this throughout Tennessee. If you pump gas, pass through the state or ride the bus, you are going to be effected by the policies and proceedures of the Tennessee Department of Transportation or TDOT. I believe that better transportation policy is achievable through the ethical treatment of all taxpayers and seek to provide the other side of the story that is not known either through ignorance, blind trust or strategic misrepresentation.
Danny L. Newton
1018 Rose Garden Lane 38501
931-432-5345
TOUR EDITOR COMMENTS ON RECENT RELEASE OF VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED AND ATTEMPTS TO RESCUE TDOT
by Danny L. Newton
DECISION BY INDECISION: TOLLING THE INTERSTATE MUST BE CONSIDERED
Since 1982 there have been 14 months in which the moving one year average of the total vehicle miles traveled has gone negative. These events usually coincide with recessions but seven of these months have been recorded since July of 2006. Total US Vehicle Miles Traveled in 2007 dropped 3.9 % from the previous year. The states with the largest drops in vehicle miles traveled were in the Northeast except for Iowa. Only the state of North Dakota, in 2007, recorded a weak increase in the number of vehicle miles traveled over the previous year. Seven months in 2007 showed declines in Vehicle Miles Traveled in the US over the previous year.
The January 2008 highway-related taxes for Tennessee are generally down. Motor vehicle fuel tax collections were $1.1 million under last years January level. Even Tennessee title and registration taxes were down slightly in January. The special petroleum tax was up but it responds to the storage of fuel rather than the use of fuel. The legislature has already responded by proposing HB 2837 and SB 2953. This bill, if passed, will stop the routine administrative diversions of fuel tax money that used to go to the general fund. This administrative fix will put about $11.4 million dollars back into the hands of TDOT and about $2.3 million dollars back into local city and county governments. People who believe that we have too much pavement now and would like to raid the highway trust fund for non-highway purposes are going to be understandably shocked.
The drop in Tennessee travel translates into a loss for TDOT of approximately $2.9 million just in December 2007. This drop in Vehicle Miles Traveled is a continuation of a trend that goes back over two years. Even if there was no drop in Vehicle Miles Traveled, there would be a loss to TDOT because of inflationary pressures in the energy sector. Many critical components of road building like steel, concrete and asphalt are energy intensive and running around 9% per year. When those components are mixed with other construction activities, the inflation rate is about 6% for highway construction.
Many will be quick to point out that the $3 dollar gasoline is causing the problem but the inflation adjusted cost of a gallon of retail gasoline in 1980 was $1.245. That same inflation adjusted price in 2007 would be $3.51 per gallon. From 1970 to 2004, the cost of food, shelter, apparel and medical care have all risen faster that the real cost of motor fuel according to the records in Table 3-9 in the extensive data base held by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Likewise, Table 3-14 in the same publication, proves that it is the fixed costs of automobile ownership like finance, taxes, insurance and registration that have risen at an annual average rate of 5.16 percent per year between 1975 and 2006 while the background average rate of inflation for the same time period was 4.61%.
The recent actions of the Tennessee legislature are similar to tossing a drowning person a cork from a wine bottle. The effect of inflation on the TDOT budget is like losing $102 million dollars from their budget every year. Even if the $13.7 million from the legislation is matched to federal funds, it is no match for the power of inflation or the CAFÉ standards that seem to finally be making a difference in transportation income. TDOT is rapidly becoming a maintenance only operation that can do nothing but watch as congestion gets worse. Routine maintenance of tangible and in place infrastructure is not yet threatened but the ability to maintain future utility in terms of average speed is being threatened. TDOT is failing to grow enough additional lane miles to serve the new vehicle population that comes on every year. The result is that the average distance between vehicles is shrinking. The number of registered tractor trailer trucks in the State of Tennessee, if parked so that every driver was 75 feet apart, could occupy one lane of all of the Interstate miles in the state. The result of one year of inflation is like losing the ability to construct four diamond interchanges per year, seven miles of four lane road at Interstate standards or 30 miles of additional lanes in rural areas.
The viability of the gas tax as a way to finance transportation is declining by choice and by design. Had the legislature based a tax on the cost of automobiles, or the cost of their auto insurance policies, TDOT would have been protected from the ravages of inflation. Even states with inflation adjusted gas taxes are not protected from loss of income from declining use.
If diesel fuel was sold with no fuel tax and the tax had been placed instead on the value of the goods transported by trucks, TDOT would have adequate income. If the legislature continues to mismanage financial and project selection aspects of transportation, we are going to be forced to toll the Interstates just to raise enough money to sustain the average speed of vehicles. The legislature has failed to manage the tolls already charged at the gas pumps. Unfortunately, their past record of mismanagement in no way disqualifies them from fixing the problem some more.
COURT CASE OVER PYLE PROPERTY RESCHEDULED
by Danny L. Newton
The court case over the Pyle Property, the last 15 acres of the Highlands Mixed Use Business Park, has been moved to 31 March 2008 because the original notification went to the wrong address and because there was not adequate notification as required by Tennessee law. Assuming that there would be no problem in taking the property, the City Attorney asked for immediate permission to use the land. That was denied.
Of course in a small way, the city and the county have already taken the house. By turning off the power, they have made it vulnerable to vandalism and the mold that the County Executive has already used as an excuse for taking the house in the first place.
The city and the county still seem to be operating on the theory that there is going to be a cloverleaf interchange at Mine Lick Creek Road in the near future even though at least one of their drawings shows a diamond interchange. I can not figure out why the county and the city would be so eager to seize and pay for property that TDOT would take later in a diamond, clover leaf or possible I-40/I-81 Upgrade. This reverses their previous and "generous" offers to give back the land owner, Mrs. Lynch, the portions of her property most likely to be condemned by future TDOT activity. TDOT has passed up a lot of chances to clarify the geometry of the interchange. TDOT did however send a recent traffic study of the exchange with and without the corridor J intersection.
The traffic counts without corridor J dropped to 2400 on the road south of the bridge and was estimated to be 3800 on the north side of the bridge. I have done some three hour counts at the bridge during what should be peak hours and don't see how the counts could be any higher than a 1000 per day now and maybe 2000 twenty years in the future. At peak times it was easy to get one vehicle per minute. This traffic study showed a connection to US-70 that does not exist yet and was the main cause of controversy for this project. The original design as a clover leaf only featured a loop in the south east quadrant, on the Pyle Property. I have always wondered why, if a loop was justified in the southeast quadrant, it would not be required in the other quadrants also.
TOUR EDITOR COMMENTS ON BIG DIG
The Big Dig was a transportation success, based upon improvement of traffic movement, but continues to be a financial failure in which the final bill never seems to stop changing and the promises of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority to end tolls was broken. This financially failed project was approved and financed largely from massive assistance from the federal government. This proves that the federal role in transportation policy has nothing to do with protecting the state citizen from unwise transportation projects.
The "savings" in time and the increases in productivity that are now available can not return to the project except over the most torturous and indirect route. This project continues to be a good bad example of how not to build highway infrastructure. The fact that it is a toll road only makes the problems more immediate and harder to cover up. A successful transportation project must be financially successful at the same time that it is a transportation success.
LETTER FROM RIC FINCH
TDOT FAILS TO COMMUNICATE AND COORDINATE WITH CITY AND COUNTY
RIC FINCH CLARIFIES HISTORY OF FIFTH INTERCHANGE
6:00 AM 02 / 21 / 2008
|
Dear CARA, TOUR, and Neighbors members: This is old news, but still news to most of us and very interesting: Sometime in late 2007 Putnam County Executive Kim Blaylock, Cookeville Mayor Sam Sallee, and Cookeville City Manager Jim Shipley met with Ed Cole and other TDOT officials to discuss the Fifth Interchange and to show TDOT a new plan in which Gould Dr. would be extended west to connect to I-40 at both the new Fifth Interchange and also the existing interchange at SR-56. When the TDOT officials reviewed the map presented by the Putnam and Cookeville representatives they expressed surprise to learn that the county and city had bought land on the SOUTH side of I-40 for the proposed new business park. The TDOT officials stated that it had been their understanding that the site for the new business park was to be on the north side of the interstate, this constituting the need or justification for the Northern Connector from I-40 to US 70! Hello? How many times and how many places have the plans for the business park been published? But then it is not TDOT's business to read the Herald-Citizen or follow other local news sources. Still one has to wonder how they got this idea... During this same meeting TDOT officials mentioned that they had met with a delegation from Cookeville businessmen sometime before meeting with Blaylock, Sallee and Shipley. We know the Chamber is pushing for the whole "Northern Loop". Could it be the businessmen (probably Chamber members) left the impression with TDOT that the new business park would lie to the north of I-40? As for the plan of extending Gould Dr. west to the existing SR-56 interchange, Ed Cole is reported to have stated that this made sense...however, inasmuch as so much effort had been expended on the environmental studies for the Fifth Interchange/Northern Connector, he advised the Putnam/Cookeville delegation NOT to raise this issue now. He recommended instead that they (TDOT) go ahead and submit the current proposal (Fifth Interchange with Northern Connector) to the FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) to get the funding, build the Fifth Interchange first, then later ask for a change in plans regarding the connector highway. Folks, I do not think TDOT's ignorance of where the new business park is to be located speaks well for their attention to and planning for this project. One has to wonder if they have been deliberately misinformed. And I don't like Ed Cole's don't-rock- the-boat recommendation regarding the existing project proposal (Fifth Interchange with Northern Connector). If he really thinks the other plan makes more sense, then that's what they should be asking the FHWA for.We need to find out if TDOT is willing to consider building the Fifth Interchange without the Northern Connector. We need to find out if Ed Cole is actually favorable to the concept of extending Gould Dr. west to the existing SR-56 interchange. In any case, I thought you would be interested to know that Co. Exec. Blaylock and Mayor Sallee have proposed to TDOT an alternative to the Northern Connector. They should be supported in this. Ric |
LETTER FROM RIC FINCH
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE POLISHES ITS PAVEMENT LIST
6:00 AM 02 / 16 / 2008
|
Dear CARA, TOUR, and Neighbors members and supporters, The Cookeville-Putnam County Chamber of Commerce recently published its "Legislative Agenda for 2008". Not surprisingly, they want the Fifth Interchange and the Regional Economic Development Corridor. In fact "transportation infrastructure" is at the top of their political agenda (ahead of healthcare!). 1) Here's their big dream, in their own words: "New 5-lane economic development corridor (fifth exit) connecting U.S. Highway 111 north in Overton County and its new 160-acre industrial park, south to Putnam County at I-40 and the 400-acre, mixed-use business park, south to the Upper Cumberland Regional Airport and the proposed airport business park of 100-plus acres, continuing south to White County and its 250-acre proposed business park." Somebody ought to tell the Chamber members that 111 is a state route, not a U.S. highway. But anyway, read that description carefully: It includes the "Northern Loop" around Cookeville from the proposed Fifth Interchange to SR-111. It includes the Fifth Interchange itself. It includes the "Southern Loop" from the Fifth Interchange south to the Regional Airport and then tying back into SR-111 somewhere in White County. Folks, this proposal is ridiculous. If you wanted to get from the new business park in Overton County to either I-40 or on to the proposed new business park in White County you would come straight south on SR-111, you wouldn't go swirling off on the new loop...that would only add miles to your journey. If you wanted to get from the proposed new business park in White Co. to I-40 you'd head due north on SR-111. If you wanted to go from the proposed new business park west of Cookeville to the new business park in White Co. you might save a minute or two by following the "Southern Loop" rather than going east to SR-111 and then south. But the savings in time and distance would be miniscule, certainly not enough to justify destroying people's homes and ruining prime farmland for building the new road. It's a crazy proposal. If you know George Halford, Joe Albrecht,Bob Bell, Bobby Williams or other Chamber members, I highly recommend you express your disapproval of the Chamber's support for these destructive and unnecessary roads! 2) Chamber members need to be reminded that TDOT has already done a study on the so-called "Regional Economic Development Corridor" or Cookeville Loop and found that it is not justified on the basis of traffic flow, that it would bring no significant economic benefits, that it would not help solve Cookeville's traffic problems, and that if built it would get little use. This report was sent to all of you some time back, but I still have it on file should you want another copy.3) Other paving projects on the Chamber's wish list: Local: --5-lane South Jefferson Ave. to SR-111 south. --5-lane Broad St. (US 70 North) west to the new Fifth Interchange connector road. --5-lane Spring stip (US 70 North) east to SR-111. --extend Gould Av. west through the proposed new business park. Regional: --4-lane SR-56 north from I-40 to Gainesboro in Jackson Co. --4-lane Highway 111 north from Livingston to Static on the Tenn./Ky. line. --4-lane Highway 52 from Overton Co. to Celina in Clay Co. Sounds like the Chamber needs a new motto: "Paving the Upper Cumberland is Our Goal!" Ric |
HUCKABEE ECONOMIC RECOVERY PLAN
IS INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT BETTER THAN A TAX CUT?
9:40 PM 02 / 07/ 2008
The only person running for president who has noticed a possible problem with transportation and infrastructure is Mike Huckabee. The suggestion that an economic stimulus package, possibly $150 billion could be crafted from the upgrade of roads represents a daring and bold attempt to think outside of the box on the economy. The only problem is that some ideas are outside of the box for a good reason. Governor Huckabee is half right when he says that mechanisms for distribution resources are essentially the same as they were 50 years ago.
A major change happened in 2005 that put performance measures in the formulas that decide how to redistribute federal transportation money. The old distribution mechanisms that were inherited from before the Depression were based heavily on area and population. The new formulas are based largely on lane miles and vehicle miles traveled but Interstate data is not included. There is an odd 30% of the total that is based on diesel fuel consumption and another 10 percent based upon the ratios of lane miles per capita. This 10% portion is the only fragment of the formulas that retain a reference to population. When the computer runs started generating frightening reductions in federal entitlements to states , the congress neutralized the whole system by minimum guarantee legislation plus another program that took into effect maintenance of effort. This system of performance measure overrides is costing the federal highway trust fund dearly and the trust fund will be broke in 2009.
The Congress has split on how to adjust to the eventual failure of the federal gas tax to support transportation requirements. A special commission formed in 2005 to address this problem has split with the majority wanting to retain the federal role as provider of standards and 40% of the total transportation spending. This will require a large federal tax increase from 25 to 40 cents per gallon and it is assumed that the states will mirror that increase. The minority, which includes the Secretary of Transportation, wants no increase in federal taxes without an effective performance based method of redistributing transportation dollars. In a nice way, it was suggested that giving the feds more money to keep up the existing system of redistribution would be rewarding bad behavior.
Governor Huckabee’s plan probably would not work in the short run because the average transportation project now takes 13 years. By the time you get the stimulus, most people would forget why it was done in the first place and after it did nothing in the first six months, political enemies would call it a failure. The ability of the Highway Trust Fund to protect states from these performance standards will end. Metropolitan Planning Organizations no longer seek to reduce vehicle miles traveled but instead will seek to reduce the average time of travel between destinations. The next president of the United States will be asked to sign legislation that either restores the traditional federal role or lets the existing system evolve into an uncertain mix of financing options in which the gas tax will become a less and less important fraction of the whole.
Retrospective economic studies of the Interstate system by the Federal Highway Administration have been made that suggests that the Interstate system, soon after being built, provided a rate of return of 30 percent per year on the original investment but later studies show that that rate of return is declining to something closer to 10 percent per year. This decline in the rate of return on highway investment is partially due to the failure to address congestion and partially on a project selection process that has been hijacked by an earmarking process. Tennessee has a double dose of earmarking both at the federal and the state level. In both cases, earmarked projects escape objective scrutiny and can possibly get funding while leaving more worthy projects undone. Earmarking at the federal and state level must be addressed before we can return to high value added transportation projects. No federal funds should be allowed for roads earmarked by the state legislature.
RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS LINKSLETTER FROM THE CASTLE COALITION
ANNOUNCEMENT OF EMINENT DOMAIN STUDY
The results are in: States can pass strong eminent domain reform and have economic development, too.
Surprised? Neither are we.
In the Institute for Justice’s new study, Doomsday? No Way: Economic Trends and Post-Kelo Eminent Domain Reform (available here: http://www.ij.org/publications/other/doomsday.html), we found that strong protections against eminent domain abuse have no ill effect on economic growth.
Using rigorous statistical methods, we examined economic indicators nationwide between states with varying degrees of reform and looked at pre- and post-reform trends. Despite doomsday predictions from eminent domain apologists like former Riviera Beach, Fla., Mayor Michael Brown, who said, "[I]f we don't use this power, cities will die," even the strongest reforms - like those passed in Florida - have caused no negative economic
consequences.Legislators, especially those in states that have passed no reforms, should be encouraged by this study to protect and pass strong property rights protections so that home and small business owners across the country can keep what is rightfully theirs. We encourage you to spread the word and share this study, as well as today's excellent Wall Street Journal editorial (below), "Eminent Reality."
Best,
Christina Walsh
Castle Coalition Coordinator
Institute for Justice
901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22203
(703) 682-9320
www.ij.org
www.castlecoalition.org
Eminent Reality
The Wall Street Journal
January 30, 2008
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120165400238627033-email.html
Does restricting "eminent domain" -- the power of government to seize private property -- harm economic growth? A new report from the Institute for Justice looks at the evidence and concludes the answer is no.
Since the Supreme Court sanctified eminent domain on behalf of private developers in the dreadful 5-4 Kelo ruling in 2005, 42 states have passed some restriction on the practice. Some reforms have been far-reaching, as in Florida, which barred public entities that seized property from transferring it to private hands for 10 years after the seizure. Other reforms are more modest, changing the definition of "blight" or throwing up other obstacles to overeager planners.
But one constant since Kelo v. New London has been the refrain, echoed by developers and politicians alike, that eminent domain is necessary for redevelopment. In 2006, Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack vetoed an eminent-domain reform, arguing that it would harm the economy if the state restricted the power to expropriate private property. Groups such as the National League of Cities make similar arguments.
So the Institute for Justice, which spearheaded the original campaign to save Suzette Kelo's home, decided to crunch some numbers. First, the report assigns each state to one of three categories according to the level of reform implemented after Kelo: "strong," "moderate" or "none." Then it compares the data for construction jobs, building permits and property-tax revenue before and after the effective dates of the reforms for each state. The verdict: So far, there has been no discernable hit to economic activity from the restriction of eminent domain, even in those states with the broadest reforms.
This result isn't surprising. Developers love eminent domain because it's easier to snap up land when government forces owners to sell -- no unpleasant dickering over price, etc. Local politicians likewise believe they are best positioned to pick winners and losers and to shape the future of their cities.
But private development went along very nicely for two centuries before politicians began seizing one person's property for the benefit of another private citizen. Sometimes the marketplace adapted in amusing ways, as when major building projects were forced to go up around, or even on top of, older buildings. But in the absence of the coercive state, buildings still got built.
The most grandly conceived plans are also often those most likely to fail. If a project cannot proceed without government interference, it is reasonable to ask whether it is worth putting the hamfist of government on the scales at all. As the Institute for Justice's report notes, Baltimore's much-touted Inner Harbor redevelopment remains dependent on government handouts. At the same time, private redevelopments without eminent domain, such as in Anaheim's A-Town, are thriving.
The backlash against Kelo has had the healthy effect of limiting the hubris of local politicians, which is why they have resorted to these scary economic claims. We're glad to see them debunked on the merits.
------
P.S. HELP THE CASTLE COALITION RING IN THE NEW YEAR! Forward this message to your friends. If you recruit five new members, you'll be entered in a drawing to win one of 10 prizes from our Freedom Market (http://fmarket.ij.org/! They can join here: http://www.castlecoalition.org/join/. Be sure that they enter your name next to "referred by" on the second registration page.
To unsubscribe from IJ's distribution list, please reply to this email with "unsubscribe" in the subject line or send an email to cgrodecki@ij.org.
RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS LINKSVDOT STOPS PROCUREMENT OF TRUCK ONLY LANES
TDOT MAY COPY VDOT LEAD
11:40 PM 01 / 21 / 2008
The state of Virginia is several years ahead of the state of Tennessee on the upgrade of I-81 and it looks like the public meeting process has killed the truck lanes only solution to the problem of congestion. As the size of cars get smaller becase of CAFE standards and the size and weight of trucks get bigger, the idea of separation of trucks from cars makes more sense. Not mentioned in this report is that the environmental groups did not buy the idea that heavier cargoes promoted less pollution per pound of cargo carried. The state of VA offered higher weight limits on trucks, 98K lbs versus 86K lbs as an inducement to accept the solution. It is not within the right of the state to let trucking firms expand the number of trailers that can be pulled on an interstate since 1991. Some states claimed safety concerns over multiple trailers but there were also fears that allowing greater productivity in trucking would damage the railroad industry during a time that it was just starting to recover since deregulation in 1981.
READ PETER SAMUEL'S ARTICAL HERERPO MEETING 16 JAN 2008
NO MAJOR CHANGES
9:40 AM 01 / 19 / 2008
The RPO meeting at the Southern Hills Golf Course was mostly a repeat of the last RPO meeting because TDOT was unable to start or finish the projects that were on last years list. New officers were selected for the technical committee and it was decided that the only change would be to move one project in White County up the list but only because there was progress in acquiring right-of-way. TDOT officials claim that they have a billion dollar backlog of projects. It takes TDOT about 8 months to collect that much money.
No one for the City of Cookeville or the Putnam County attended for the purpose of trying to advance the Fifth Interchange up the list of priorities. James Mills represented the mayor of Cookeville by proxy but Kim Blaylock and Charlotte Burks were not there. After it became obvious that there was not going to be any major change, Wayne Pegrahm, representing CARA and Mel Maxwell, representing TOUR left.
The meeting was gaveled to a close without public comment as shown in the agenda. After people left the tables, started going home and were talking on their cell phones, the public comment period was suddenly remembered and I had a chance to talk over the confusion and ask a few questions. There are still a couple of unresolved issues with the Fifth Interchange.
The first is just which Interchange are they planning to build, the Modified Clover Leaf that went through the environmental and public comment process or the Diamond Interchange that the City is using in land negotiations with Mrs. Lynch? I still did not get an answer on that. TDOT "responded" to an e-mail on the same subject back on 08 JAN 08 but left out the answer to that particular question.
The second question was just exactly how could the state begin right-of-way acquisition on a project that they had no permission to build from the Federal Highway Administration? The hand out at the meeting gave the impression that the project was ready for right-of-way acquisition. It is impossible to get right of way until one has a full set of plans. The Federal Highway Administration has authorized a second study but I seriously doubt that they have any plans since no one seems to know if the interchange is either a diamond or a modified clover leaf.
I tried to point out that the Fifth Interchange is another proof positive that there is no system of objective project selection. I was interrupted at least twice and asked to put all of this in writing. About that time, I wish I had left with Mel Maxwell and Wayne Pegrahm. The bottom line is that I found nothing out but discovered another mystery: Why is TDOT not fully candid about exactly how hard it will be to get an interchange approved by the FHWA at Mine Lick Creek Road?
I have concluded that the illusion of a new interchange or the possibility of a new interchange can be just as valuable as the real thing to anyone visiting the Internet and searching for a place to put down a new business in Putnam County. In fact, it looks like this thing has been coming for ten years and is just a couple of bulldozers away right now. This illusion could be key in getting the next factory or prospect. We have a local representative who campaigned to get a fifth Interchange. We have a Rural Planning Organization that put it on the "B" list twice. We have a city and a county willing to condemn property and spend millions of dollars on a mixed use industrial park. I could forgive anyone who might leap to the conclusion that the Federal Highway Administration will ignore their duty to defend the Interstate from gratuitous interchanges. People get fooled all the time.
RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS LINKSCHARLOTTE NORTH CAROLINA ROAD SYSTEM
NEEDS MORE MONEY
9:40 AM 01 / 19 / 2008
The facination with ring roads continues in North Carolina even though there is no proof whatsoever that they are superior in any way to any other well designed transportation system. Charlotte has three rings around it not counting the minor bullseye Interstate in the middle. This ring system aged and died over and over again and they just kept replacing it with more rings. Some people and some cities are only good as good bad examples. Part of Charlotte's transportation money problems is in the over investment in light rail. This one decision probably prevents them from having adequate money for their local road system though it is unmentioned in the following artical. RING ROADS FAIL TO BRING TRANSPORTATION UTOPIA
RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS LINKS
TOUR APPEALS TO FHWA
TO STOP WASTE OF TAXPAYERS MONEY
2:40 PM 01 / 14 / 2008
BODY OF LETTER TO FHWA:
TOUR (Taxpayers Opposed to Useless Roads) is deeply distressed by the inclusion of the Fifth Interchange on Mine Lick Creek Road as a project to be prioritized in the next Center Hill RPO meeting. The ability of this project to come back again from the last vote only proves once and for all that there is no objective system of selection of highway projects, the written assurances of TDOT in their Long Range Plan not withstanding.
No query to TDOT has yet caused me to understand exactly what has transpired in federal highway policy that could lower the federal standards on the addition of new interchanges to the Interstate. This interchange has nothing to do with traffic volume, safety or any other transportation motivation that is usually a deciding factor in allowing an interchange.
I have concluded that the justifications for this interchange are so flimsy that there must be some kind of plan to get the Secretary of Transportation to issue a waiver based upon misrepresentations of facts.
The original engineering package on this interchange was an analysis of an intersection with Corridor J, an Appalachian Development Highway. That alignment has been changed and will be under construction shortly so that it uses an already existing interchange between I-40 and SR111. This only leaves a road with a thousand cars a day passing over I-40 but not connecting to I-40.
By the time this interchange comes to construction in 2010, there will be a speculative business park established with no clear major tenants yet publicly announced. There will be two dual lane entries with 12 foot lanes into the park from both the east and the west parallel to I-40. This interchange solves no traffic problems.
TDOT has also failed to respond to requests about exactly what kind of Interchange this is going to be. Originally, it was a modified cloverleaf with signalized exits to control the volume of traffic that would be attracted to Corridor J. The city and the county are currently condemning a small fraction of the Business Park and they are using interchange drawings in those negotiations that indicate that the new interchange is a low volume diamond.
It seems possible that there is a plan to build this interchange and add the usual connecting road later. It is the connecting road that has been such a sensitive subject to the members of TOUR. We are not a group of people opposed on the grounds of environmental concerns. We object to this project on the basis of its low utility or low traffic counts. The cost of the connecting road can never generate a capital recovery from the gas taxes even based upon the Corridor J traffic. The traffic generated can not even pay for the yearly mowing.
We question the use of Interstate Maintenance money in this project. This is not a maintenance project and while there is justification for building new lanes or augmenting an existing interchange, we are unaware of any new flexibility that would allow this.
This connecting road has more to do with urban renewal than transportation necessity. The terminus of the original connecting road was at a piece of property needing an environmental cleanup. We object to wandering alignments that visit brownfields or other targets of opportunity when simply moving the end of the road 800 feet to the west would miss the problem and let the superfund money take care of the brownfield.
We are well aware of the pressure put on to build this interchange on the basis of its alleged economic development potential. For every square foot of industrial land in this park industrial park, there is 298 square feet elsewhere in the state of Tennessee. There are already 17 empty industrial buildings in this county with all infrastructure intact. There are over 1200 buildings state wide ready for the next factory. We already have industrial zoning on three of the existing four interchanges in Putnam County.
We object to the construction of this interchange because of the plan and promise of TDOT to upgrade I-81 and I40 in the Ten Year Transportation Plan. There are consultants working on this now. Building this interchange now only means having to reconfigure it later with I-40 going to 6 lanes or possibly truck lanes only down the middle. The current two bridges across I-40 are adequate for the existing traffic but they are not wide enough for a four lane crossing. If this interchange is built, the new bridges are highly likely to have a very short service life and just have to be replaced during the I-81/I-40 upgrade.
I am absolutely amazed that the FHWA would abandon its traditional advocacy for the people in the 44,000 vehicles per day in this stretch of I-40 to support this project. This highway is a national defense asset and is critical to transportation productivity. Burdening it with gratuitous interchanges is a reversal of reasonable policy for at least fifty years.
Danny L. Newton
http://uselessroads.org RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS LINKSTOUR APPEALS TO REPRESENTATIVE CURTIS
TO STOP WASTE OF TAXPAYERS MONEY
2:40 PM 01 / 14 / 2008
Representative Curtis:
It is quite awkward to contact a representative that I can not vote for, but such is the way of things within a Rural Planning Organization. It is a strange feeling to watch people from other jurisdictions voting on projects that are potentially out of their districts.
I am an active member of TOUR or Taxpayers Opposed to Useless Roads and we are an organization that is trying to reduce the waste in TDOT. This Wednesday, there will be a vote at the Rural Planning Organization to prioritize projects and we feel that the Interchange at Mine Lick Creek Road has come to the top of the list for the wrong reasons.
TDOT has already held public meetings on the upgrade of I-81/I-40 and even though the consultants do not have their recommendations in yet, it looks like there will be either a six lane solution or possibly truck only lanes down the middle of the Interstate 40. In either case, any action taken by TDOT to construct the Mine Lick Creek Road Interchange will have to be at least partially demolished in order to reconnect it to the new Interstate.
The existing two bridges are too narrow for four lane traffic and will have to be replaced with four other bridges. This is because I-40 at this point is wider than a standard cross section. If this interchange is built now, there is a possibility that up to six bridges will have to be demolished and 4 more installed to serve the I-81/I40 upgrade in the next ten years.
I will be at the RPO meeting on 16 JAN 2008 to challenge TDOT on this matter however the agenda only lets people speak after the vote is taken. If this interchange must be built it makes more sense to incorporate it into the upgrade and save the costs of building and demolishing four new bridges after a very short service life.
Danny L. Newton
Cookeville, Tennessee
RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS LINKSMRS LYNCH APPEALS TO HERALD-CITIZEN EDITOR
TO PRINT A PUBLIC APPEAL TO SAVE HER LAND
11:55 PM 01 / 09 / 2008
Letter to the Editor
Herald-Citizen
Cookeville, TN
Please help me to stop the use of Eminent Domain Abuse of my property by the City of Cookeville and Putnam County. The City and County should not take my property just so someone else can make more money. If the government can take my property for private development, then no one's property is safe.
Please help by calling your City and County representatives and asking that they not condemn my property. The City and County have purchased all the property needed for the Chamber of Commerce's Highland Business Park, the Gould Road extension and the 5th Interchange. There is also property available in the area owned by Chamber of Commerce members.
My property, located at 5199 Bennett Road, is not for sale. Please help stop this abuse of government power! Private property should only be taken for necessary public use.
Faye Pyles Lynch
FIFTH INTERCHANGE
BACK FROM THE GRAVE
18:30 01 / 08 / 2008
The latest agenda package from the Center Hill RPO contains a warning that the Fifth Interchange or the Mine Lick Creek Interchange is back up for consideration in 16 JAN 2008 at the regular RPO meeting.
I called Randy Williams and asked him exactly which Fifth Interchange they were talking about since there were several proposed. One was with Corridor J and the other was without corridor J and possibly no connecting road.
A Freedom of Information request has been made to the Center Hill RPO to determine exactly what put this project back on the agenda. This is too short a time span to work this issue. If this project gets on the list, TOUR will follow up with Freedom of Information Requests to the Federal Highway Administration. The Interchange that they approved died when Corridor J was moved to an alignment along SR111. I sense a bit of strategic misrepresentation going on here.
It is highly unlikely that we are going to get an idea of what happened before the vote takes place. It is possible to protest this vote because of the lack of adequate and usual notification but I don't think that will change the outcome.
It is very difficult to get to these meeting since they take place on work days and during times when most people who can not get away. If anyone needs a ride or wants to go from TOUR or any other group, e-mail me and I will see what can be done.
TOUR EDITOR COMMENTS ON BIG DIG CLAIMS
19:46 01 / 02 / 2008
The Big Dig in Massachusetts has been a tremendous technical achievement but it has also been a financial disaster. I have seen claims of public benefit up to $500 million per year but the author of this analysis of the financial successes of the big dig is quite wrong. A discussion of the economic failure as an economic development project has already been saved in the March to October archive.
What is missing here is a realization that the alleged $168 million dollars worth of yearly public benefit does not equal the present worth of the final price tag. For the purposes of simplification, let us assume that the total cost of the project was $14.2 billion. If you won a lottery worth $14.2 billion, you would not take in trade a yearly payment of $168 million dollars because you would never live long enough to collect the equivalent annual payment that finally totals 14.2 billion dollars. It would take 85 years to break even (assuming no inflation)and by that time the original infrastructure would have exhausted its service life several times over. If you could live 200 years, you would only get a return on the original investment of 1.03%. This amount of money is not enough to keep up with inflation. The annualized inflation rate from 1941 to 2006 was 4.13%.
Even if the claims that there were $500 million dollars of annual benefit for the project were true, and that amount of money were paid every year for 215 years, the rate of return on the investment would never rise above 3.52%. The State of Tennessee forbids the financing of anything beyond its useful service life or 40 years which ever is shorter. If the Big Dig had taken place in Tennessee, the public benefit of 168 million dollars per year could not support, at 4% interest rate, a project larger than $3.325 billion dollars because the years allowed to recover the original investment would be fixed at 40. At 3% interest, the rate used in the long term transportation plan, the maximum first cost of the project could only be $3.883 billion dollars.
Either way, the Big Dig sucked about $10 billion dollars out of the state economy. That $10 billion dollars could have been used on better projects that would have produced more benefit. If someone who was managing your money parked your $14.2 billion dollars in an account that only got a 0.343% return over 100 years, you or your children would find a lawyer and try to put that person in jail.
THE BIG DIG NEWS ARTICAL IS HERETOUR CONNECTS FIFTH INTERCHANGE TO THE TVA POWER LINE CONTROVERSY
EDITORIAL
19:46 01 / 01 / 2008
This project calls into question the judgment of TVA. The alleged reason for not releasing the engineering report is not good enough. I don't see any reason to even begin a project like this with an agreement limiting public disclosure. The EIS probably used some facts that the engineers failed to gather because they are not part of the inner circle of those knowing what the Chamber of Commerce is doing from time to time.
TOUR has taken a keen interest in this project because of the similarities between the Fifth Interchange and this TVA power line. In both cases, there is uncalled for exuberance and hyperventilation caused by the Chamber of Commerce. There seems to be overblown or artificially inflated demand that must be met under what seems to be an emergency situation. A highly technical subject has been dressed up in an economic development fabric that makes nearly everyone think that they can master the subject with a minimum of study and a maximum of cliché thinking. Anyone who objects or questions the need for this line is automatically dismissed as a NIMBY.
The Fifth Interchange is an attempt to provide an over supply of exits from the Interstate 40 at a cost that can not be recovered from the means that we have to recover costs except income transfers from other parts of the state. The partially purchased 400 acre industrial park/business park is an attempt to provide an over supply of commercial property in a county that already receives a very high fraction of income from industrial and residential development. Only seven other counties in Tennessee have higher percentages of industrial and commercial tax receipts from industrial and commercial property. This data is easily found on the Internet. The counties are: Hamblen, Montgomery, Madison, Shelby, Sevier, Davidson and Hamilton. The only thing missing in the future 400 acre Mine Lick Creek Business Park is another over supply of road and utility infrastructure to attract some kind of business.
The TVA power line may also be an attempt to oversupply the Algood area with electrical capacity by inflating the need. I suspect that the original engineering report did not have anything in it about the apartment houses, the school, the bank, the three future industries etc. which was mentioned on Adobe page 11 of the report. Another commonality of these three projects is that the cost of the oversupply is communized or shifted to the public at large. The mistakes that TDOT makes when providing an oversupply of asphalt or asphalt in the wrong place is passed to the traveler through the many transportation means, mostly gas taxes, that the legislature provides to fund TDOT. The business park mistake will be passed to the city of Cookeville and to Putnam County as higher taxes and lost property tax revenue. If TVA is moving precipitously into this power line project, those costs will also be passed to the local UCEMC and then to the people with electric meters on their houses.
I don't know what industry they were talking about in the report. There are at least three parcels of land along SR111 totaling 88 acres that are for sale as industrial properties but there are no major empty buildings to be served in the area of Algood. There are currently at least 17 empty buildings in Putnam County ready for the next call center, warehouse or factory. The TVA EIS report does not mention the recent 400 acre business park that is under development on the west side of Cookeville. Since this property is already within the city limits, it is probably going to be served from the Cookeville East substation. Adding capacity to Algood gives additional capacity to the East Cookeville substation and thus to the City of Cookeville to serve this future industrial park on Mine Lick Creek Road on I-40. This additional capacity also allows the city to expand its borders without challenge to its capacity to serve the willing and unwilling residents by incorporation. By expanding the availability of industrial property in the county, they have lowered the probability that the new industry, real or imagined, would end up in Algood.
Do not hold your breath for the three industrial buildings that are claimed in the report. Tennessee lost over 15,000 industrial jobs since 2002. The rate of industrial jobs lost due to productivity is approximately 2.29% per year every year in spite of all of the efforts of the State Economic and Community Development plus local efforts. Over 13% of those 15,000 jobs lost were losses in Putnam County. Manufacturing jobs in Cookeville declined 18.1% and 13.9% in Putnam County from 2000 to 2004.
Many people are victims of Chamber of Commerce hyperventilation about jobs, jobs, jobs but TVA can not pretend to be unaware of the realities in this case. They have years of data that could be easily put in a table showing the historic electrical consumption from that particular sub station. Instead, they decided to tell everyone that there was going to be a 30% increase in demand in the next three to five years. From here on out, we are on our own to imagine the missing details.
A perpetual increase of 30% over 5 years would work out to an annual increase of about 5.38% per year. The new capacity of 33MVA would be exceeded in 10.86 years. I seriously doubt that TVA or anyone else would rebuild a substation with a service life of less than 11 years. Let's say that the miracle development boom is going to be over in five years and there is no sub prime morgage crisis ever or looming. The Algood station would be producing 24.27 MVA or about 75% of its capacity. If the remaining capacity was spread out over 25 years, then the average increase per year would be 1.2 percent per year. This would place the next capacity crisis 30 years down the road. As long as no one invents an economical electric car with a 300 mile driving range or an aluminum plant does not come to town, the 1.2% increase in consumption per year will be above the probable increase in population or per capita consumption. According to data provided on the state Economic and Community Development web site, the population projections from 2006 to 2011 anticipate an increase in Putnam County population of that would cause it to double every 56.78 years. A 1.2% per year increase per year in electrical demand would double demand every 35 years. If electrical demand follows per capita population, there is no crisis with or without the imaginary and suddenly mysteriously appearing economic development.
It is very difficult to escape the conclusion that this "crisis" real or not, should have been seen sooner if it is as dire as presented. If, in fact, there are transformers in the system with a name plate date of maufacture going back to 1968, this is a strong and convincing suggestion that the area is due for an upgrade if not now then soon. A justification for this project based upon a 2002 study probably would have included a stagnant rate of increase in electrical demand for industrial enterprises, especially if the data included the recession of 2001. Even though this new power line is a logical step for both reasonable and possibly unreasonable future growth, TVA should no longer be given future respect or the benefit of a doubt because of their failure to release supporting documents. TVA should not be using short term speculative promises from the Chamber of Commerce to justify infrastructure management decisions. Secrecy does not foster public trust and takes a long time to regain once lost. It seems that TVA is working for the UCEMC and the Chamber of Commerce a lot harder than the citizens of Putnam County.
CLICK HERE AND SEND YOUR COMMENTS TO TVA BY 15 JAN 2008EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE BUMPER STICKERS AVAILABLE NOW
19:46 12/14/2007
STOP Eminent Domain Abuse Bumper Stickers are available by contacting the TOUR editor via e-mail. Members of the Chamber of Commerce need not apply. Special $100 each price will be levied against City and County Politicians who voted to condemn Mrs. Lynch's Property. Tour Members will get them free.
RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS LINKSUPDATE ON FIFTH INTERCHANGE
12:00 01 JAN 2008
by Danny L. Newton
The quest to have a Fifth Interchange in Cookeville seems to be hibernating for the next three years but TOUR needs to continue to be alert for another run at this project. It is highly probable that the problem with the mixed use business park is preventing another full court press on the interchange. Linda Owens, Mrs. Lynch's daughter, will meet with the city manager, Jim Shipley to see if there is a way to resolve this problem without condemnation after the New Year.
Since the theoretical cost of the land that is suppose to be a 400 acre business park has exceeded the $5 million limit set by the County Commission, the city and the county have either lined up additional money from someplace in their budgets or could possibly try to cut a deal for less than the last 15 acres that they think that they need to have a perfect business park. After this park is put in place the quest for the Fifth Interchange will be more credible even if it is empty for years.
The continued shortage of transportation money to do legitimate projects relieving congestion will continue to make a Fifth Interchange a project that is unlikely to be constructed in the near future. Even though the three year list of projects from 2008 to 2010 is, by federal law, suppose to have a good change of being built with the resources provided, it is not likely that there will be enough money in the next three years to fund the existing plan. The transportation bill that was passed can not be fully funded with the tax enhancements that were passed. Many of the enhancements in the Federal tax code and energy efficiency provisions will drain the trust fund even more.
The senate version of the bill transferred resources to the Federal General Fund from what is popularly called the Gas Guzzler Tax. The pattern of announcing a state appropriation from the Federal Highway fund followed by another announcement that the money is being pulled back to Washington will continue until both the state and the federal government raise the gas taxes. The press will play this up as missing money and some groups will exploit it as another proof that we need more gas taxes. The truth is that these rescissions will be occurring because the federal tax mechanisms failed to produce the expected revenue. The new fuel economy standards will probably make the shortage worse but there will be at least ten years between the action and the reaction since people keep their autos longer than they used to keep them.
The Chamber of Commerce missed the Golden Ring twice to get this interchange built. Once when it was a part of Corridor J and once when it was pretending to be critical transportation asset that would save Willow Avenue from congestion. The elimination of the connecting road may have lowered opposition to the project but it made it very difficult to pass through the Federal Highway Administration. The Fifth Interchange violated policies that have been in effect for decades.
RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS LINKSFIFTH INTERCHANGE TIMELINE
30 SEPT 1988 Herald-Citizen Reports that Vice Mayor Grogan expects Fifth Interchange by the year 2000. Estimate for the interchange is $1 million. The estimated cost of extending Gould drive to the industrial park is $500 thousand.
03 DEC 1998 Cookeville City Council asks TDOT to perform a feasibility study on constructing fifth interchange on I-40 at Mine Lick Creek Road. SPONSOR-JIM SHIPLEY
01 APRIL 1999 The Cookeville City Council asks TDOT to study the Maple Avenue flyover at I-40 as the new Fifth Interchange.
25 OCT 2000 TDOT dates the Interschange Justification Study for Federal Highway Administration Review as part of Corridor J intersection at Mine Lick Creek Road.
20 MAY 2002 Cookeville proposes to move the city limits to the vicinity to surround the Fifth Interchange
21 JUNE 2002 TDOT Advance planning report on the Northern Connector
15 JULY 2003 Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury releases report to the legislature with reccommendations for objective system of project selection.
AUG 2003 Final Report of Independant Investigation Sanctioned by TDOT. Studies selection process of 15 problematic road projects in Tennessee, Mine Lick Creek Road is one of them.
24 FEB 2003 City of Cookeville approves alternate "A" as Phase I Councilman Sam Sallee asks that The Northern Connector be Considered as Phase II.
22 SEPT 2005 Herald-Citizen reports Highlands Initiative Kickoff with $2million.
OCT 2005 State Transportation Improvement Plan Shows Project #71005 "Construct New Interchange at Mine Lick Creek Road" ROW acquisition marked for 2006 and construction marked for 2008. See Adobe Page 41/99. Estimated Cost is $10.3 million.
DECEMBER 2005 TDOT Provides explaination of the Project Evaluation System
23 MAR 2003 TDOT report reccommends using SR 111, not Mine Lick Creek Road for Corridor J intersection with I-40.
24 MAY 2006 Tennessee Legislature removes protection from land owners when government acts to build roads or build industrial parks. Bill allows transfer of property to private concerns. Charlotte Burkes listed as a sponser.
14 DEC 2006 TDOT Signs the Environmental Assessment
05 JUNE 2006 Tennessee Governor signs bill limiting the ability of the state, county and city to condemn property. SB3296/HB3450
16 JAN 2007 County Commission votes to listen to Mrs Lynch's side of the story and votes down condemnation request.Warning!: Herald-Citizen Version
05 FEB 2007 Center Hill Regional Planning Meeting votes on transportation projects
06 MARCH 2007 TDOT Holds a public Meeting on the Fifth Interchange
01 NOV 2007 Condemnation of Pyle Property on the City Council Agenda. The vote was unanimous.
12 NOV 2007 The County Planning Commission in a voice vote decides to condemn the Pyle Property.
13 NOV 2007 The Cookeville Chamber of Commerce Refused Tour Editor Access to Engineering Report on the Highland Business Park.
14 NOV 2007 The Chamber of Commerce called a little after 5 PM to advise the Tour Editor that they had prepared a copy of the report that is being used to justify the condemdation of the Pyle Property and that it would be available at the front desk.
12 FEB 2008 The Sherrif Served Mrs. Lynch a summons this morning to initiate the condemnation process on her land.
RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS LINKSCONTACT YOUR TENNESSEE
STATE TRANSPORATION OFFICIALS
House Committee on Transportation
Phillip Pinion, Chair ( D - Union City, District 77 - Obion, Lake, and part of Dyer counties) rep.phillip.pinion@legislature.state.tn.us Representative Phillip Pinion
George W. Fraley, Vice-Chair ( D - Winchester, District 39 - Franklin, Moore, and part of Lincoln counties) rep.george.fraley@legislature.state.tn.us
Representative George FraleyBill Harmon, Secretary ( D - Dunlap, District 37 - Sequatchie, Van Buren, Grundy, and Marion counties) rep.bill.harmon@legislature.state.tn.us
Representative Bill HarmonCurt Cobb ( D - Shelbyville, District 62 - Bedford and parts of Lincoln and Rutherford counties) rep.curt.cobb@legislature.state.tn.us
Representative Curt Cobb Vince Dean, (R - East Ridge, District 30 - Part of Hamilton County ) rep.vince.dean@legislature.state.tn.us Represenattive Vince DeanHenry Fincher, D - (Cookeville, District 42 - Most of Putnam County) rep.henry.fincher@legislature.state.tn.us
Representative Henry, The Fifth Interchange, FincherDale Ford, (R - Jonesborough, District 6 - Part of Washington and Hawkins Counties ) rep.dale.ford@legislature.state.tn.us
Representative Dale FordG. A Hardaway, (D - Memphis, District 92 - Part of Shelby County, Midtown and Inner City Memphis; Communities of Orange Mound, Rozelle, Bethel Grove, Glenview, Magnolia, Copper-Young and Lamar/Parkway corridors, part of Binghampton.) rep.ga.hardaway@legislature.state.tn.us
Representative G.A. HardawayMatthew Hill, ( R - Jonesborough, District 7 - Part of Washington County) rep.matthew.hill@legislature.state.tn.us
Representative Mathew HillCurtis Johnson, (R - Clarksville, District 68 - Part of Montgomery County) rep.curtis.johnson@legislature.state.tn.us
Representative Curtis JohnsonPhillip Johnson, (R - Pegram, District 78 - Cheatham and part of Montgomery and Williamson counties.) rep.phillip.johnson@legislature.state.tn.us
Representativ e Phiillip JohnsonDebra Maggart, (R - Hendersonville, District 45 - Part of Sumner County) rep.debra.young.maggart@legislature.state.tn.us
Representative Debra MaggartJimmy Matlock, (R - Lenoir, District 21 - Parts of Loudon and Monroe counties.) rep.jimmy.matlock@legislature.state.tn.us
Representative Jimmy MatlockRepresentative John C. Tidwell, (D - New Johnsonville, District 74 - Houston, Humphreys, Perry, and parts of Hickman and Maury counties.) rep.john.tidwell@legislature.state.tn.us
Representative John TidwellRepresentative Nathan Vaughn, (D - Kingsport, District 2 - Part of Sullivan County) rep.nathan.vaughn@legislature.state.tn.us
Representative Nathan VaughnEric Watson, (R - Cleveland, District 22 - Meigs, Polk and part of Bradley counties) eric.watson@legislature.state.tn.us
Representative Eric WatsonBen West, Jr. (D - Hermitage, District 60 - Part of Davidson County - Donelson, Hermitage and Antioch Communities) rep.ben.west@legislature.state.tn.us
Representative Ben West Jr.Les Winningham (D-Huntsville, District 38 - Clay, Jackson, Pickett, Scott and parts of Anderson counties.) rep.leslie.winningham@legislature.state.tn.us
Represenatative Leslie WinninghamYou can find all bills, fiscal notes, bill histories and co-sponsors, U.S. mail legislative and district office addresses and streaming video of committee and subcommittee meetings at www.legislature.state.tn.us/
RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS LINKSSENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE:
RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS LINKSSen. Jim Tracy, Chair - R - Shelbyville
District 16 - Bedford, Moore and part of Rutherford counties
Phone: 615-741-1066
Staff Contact: Judi Butler and Clint Hall
sen.jim.tracy@legislature.state.tn.us
Senator Jim TracySen. Tommy Kilby, Vice Chair - D - Wartburg
District 12 - Campbell, Fentress, Morgan, Rhea, Roane and Scott Counties
Phone (615) 741-1449
Staff Contact: Michelle Stephenson, Brenda Gadd
sen.tommy.kilby@legislature.state.tn.us
Senator Tommy KilbySen. Jack Johnson, Sec. - R - Brentwood
District 23 - Williamson, and part of Davidson Counties
Phone (615) 741-2495
Contact: Catherine Haire
sen.jack.johnson@legislature.state.tn.us
Senator Jack JohnsonSen. Jack Cooper - D -Morrison
District 14 - Franklin, Bledsoe, Coffee, Grundy, Sequatchie, Van Buren, and Warren counties
Phone (615) 741-6694
Staff Contact: Christina Barber
sen.jerry.cooper@legislature.state.tn.us Senator Jerry CooperSen. Doug Jackson - D - Dickson
District 25 - Dickson, Giles, Hickman, Humphreys, Lawrence, and Lewis counties
Phone (615) 741-4499
Fax (615) 741-8745
Staff Contacts: Kim Andrews
sen.doug.jackson@legislature.state.tn.us
Senator Doug JacksonSen. Rosalind Kurita -D - Clarksville
District 22 - Cheatham, Houston and Montgomery counties
Phone (615) 741-2374
Toll Free (800) 449-8366 Ext. 12374
Staff Contacts: Pamela George and Andrea Smith-Hummel
sen.rosalind.kurita@legislature.state.tn.us Senator Rosalind KuritaSen. Steve Southerland R - Morristown
District 1 - Cocke, Greene, Hamblen, and Unicoi counties
Phone (615) 741-3851
Staff Contacts: Carolyn Newman, Loudene Gee
sen.steve.southerland@legislature.state.tn.us
Senator Steve SoutherlandSen. Micheal R. Williams - I - Maynardville
District 4 - Claiborne, Grainger, Hancock, Hawkins, Jefferson, and Union counties
Phone (615) 741-2061
Staff Contact: Rosalyn Martin
sen.micheal.williams@legislature.state.tn.us
Senator Micheal WilliamsSen. Jamie Woodson - R - Knoxville
District 6 - Knox County
Phone:(615) 741-1648
Staff Contact: Pat Farmer, Alexanderia Honeycutt
sen.jamie.woodson@legislature.state.tn.us
Senator Jamie Woodson
YOU MIGHT HAVE A USELESS ROAD IF...
1. The road cost more money than it could ever hope to generate in taxes in a lifetime.
2. The local Chamber of Commerce says it will be good for the economy
3. The Chamber of Commerce organizes a pilgrimage to the Governor's office to tell him that everyone wants it.
4. The local paper tells everybody that if you don't want it your are a NIMBY
5. The local Chamber of Commerce is telling everyone that we have to do this because everyone else is doing it too.
6. The local Chamber of Commerce is claiming that we have to do this to get ahead of everyone else who isn't doing it.
7. TDOT says that it will cure the traffic problems.
8. TDOT says it won't cure the traffic problems.
9. The Chamber of Commerce claims that it will be good for the quality of life.
10. The Chamber of Commerce says it will help get the next factory
11. Your State Representative just thinks you are against it because of a pre-existing oppositional character flaw.
12. The Chamber of Commerce is in secret negotiations with the next whiz-bang company that only needs this road to make the whole deal come together.
13. TDOT is building a four-lane road when a two-lane would still have a high life cycle service level.
14. TDOT is building a road that will damage your business but does not go through your business. (No blood, No foul)