Taxpayers Opposed to Useless Roads


Stop The Fifth Interchange

at Mine Lick Creek Road

Cookeville, Tennessee



DEconstructing the Concocted Road Avrice Propaganda IN General

TRANSPORTATION POLICY


Last updated 22 NOV 2011

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 in Cookeville, Tennessee but,there are many projects like this throughout Tennessee.

Since the justification for the Interchange has changed substantially from a interconnection between two four lane highways to serving a new business park with no four lane intersection, that business park and especially the construction of infrastucture will be added to the content. Besides that, the application for a certificate of need calls for the construction of a four lane down the middle of the park, including a 300 foot long bridge. Unless this is a tourist attraction so people in Nashville can come and see what an empty street looks like, it is just another useless road and bridge. This is going to be our bridge to nowhere. An unused road, business park or auto factory will operate at a low economic efficiency and have substantial long term impacts and consequences for the taxpayer.

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

1445 Hillsdale Drive, Cookeville, 38506

931-432-5345

931-520-8337

CONTACT TOUR EDITOR Alternate email address




15 MAR 07 TO 22 OCT 07 ARCHIVE
23 OCT 07 TO 31 DEC 07 ARCHIVE
01 JAN 08 to 15 MARCH 08 ARCHIVE
09 MAR to 03 MAY 08 ARCHIVE
09 MAY 08 to 12 JUNE 08 ARCHIVE
13 JUNE 08 to 31 AUG 08 ARCHIVE
09 AUG 08 to 11 NOV 08 ARCHIVE
12 NOV 08 to 12 MAR 09 ARCHIVE
13 MAR 09 to 22 NOV 11 ARCHIVE
USELESS ROAD DETECTION KIT
FIFTH INTERCHANGE TIMELINE


NOVEMBER 17, 2011 EXECUTIVE MEETING OF CENTER HILL RPO



      The Executive Meeting of the Center Hill RPO started a little after 10:30 on Thursday, 17, November, 2011. Herd Sullivan was presiding. TDOT representatives with project and engineering backgrounds were not there because they were meeting their new boss. There was no change in the project rankings and they were approved without opposition. The climbing lanes on I-40 are going to be constructed out of a different category of money, so those projects would be free to be constructed outside of the RPO approval process and out of prior agreed sequencing. This was discussed at the last meeting. The work plan was approved by nine yes votes.

     

Even though the rankings were now solid, it was mentioned that this order could be changed next spring if some unforeseen problem or situation were to appear. The mayor of Crossville asked that he be given "fodder of his cannon," or a good reason for the slow progress on road construction. For instance, what was taking so long to build a road from I-40 to Fairfield glade? Apparently, he had already used the fact that Tennessee has a pay as you go system that only borrows very small amounts to build roads. There was also an inquiry about the unlikely possibility of more stimulus money coming into the program.

     

I was the TOUR/CARA spokesman in the public comment section of the meeting. I offered to suggest a few reasons why there was a problem getting a road built in the state of Tennessee. First I pointed out that the average expenditure in 2010 per capita was at an all time low, $281. I have no idea why the average was down since that year should have had some stimulus spending in it. None the less, this amount is below the past levels that were slightly above $300 per capita. The $300 per person, in approximately 2007, translates into an inflation adjusted amount that is slightly below the per capita spending during the Great Depression.

     

I also warned that at the next meeting, I would ask TDOT how it could spend a Billion dollars on Corridor K in Polk County, approximately 17,000 people, and not have an impact on the other RPO's ability to construct roads. Already, in the discussion about there being another pile of money for climbing lanes, there was yet another clue that there is a mysterious and non-public mechanism for apportionment of project money to RPO's. I have already determined that it is highly possible that it is based on population but direct requests to TDOT have not made it clear how the system works. One of the justifications for not making that clear is that there is another mystery pile of money within the RPO pile of money set aside for economic development in case someone lands another car plant. This only deepens the mystery about why that mystery economic development money cannot be made to magically appear for the Fifth Interchange. I ended my discussion by pointing out that it would be cheaper to move the people in the east end of the county to the west end of the county than to pay one billion dollars.

     

There are about 377 Tennesseans living outside of Polk County for every one person inside of Polk County. If you think of Corridor K as being a two county project, about 55 Tennesseans live outside of Polk County and Bradley County for every one person inside of the two adjacent counties. Nowhere in the RPO public process are the 377 or the 55 people consulted about the wisdom of spending so much money so far from their home or where they worked. This project is larger than what was spent on maintenance and construction in Tennessee during the whole year of 2010. It is nearly five times the early estimates of that needed to be spent widening of the Interstate through Knoxville. Furthermore, the estimates provided by consultants are not consistent with the earlier and higher ones done by Wilbur Smith Associates. The new consultants, URS, have a history of low balling construction estimates for toll roads in Texas and Florida. After the projects went broke, the state had to take them over and feed the project more money on top of the tolls.

     

TDOT needs to prepare well for the next meeting because we are going to want to know how they are going to handle a financial fiasco in case of a cost overrun. If Polk County handed over the entire average per capita transportation taxes it generates or $4.77 million dollars per year to TDOT as payment for the billion dollar road, it would take 209 years to get reimbursed if there was no inflation or time value of money. The only problem is that the road would be worn out and would have to be replaced after the first fifty years. This is an asphalt welfare scheme with a never ending commitment.



RPO MEETING 03 NOV 2011 REPORT FROM CARA



Dear CARA Members and Supporters:

     Here's a summary of the recent RPO meeting, plus other info regarding the Center Hill RPO.

     I) CARA was represented at the recent RPO Technical Committee meeting by Marge Rios, who has provided us a summary of the meeting. Many thanks to Marge for attending, taking notes, and speaking out for CARA. BTW, Marge says she was the only person who said anything during the opportunity for public comment and that she appeared to be the only member of the public there, which is a shame.

     OK, meeting summary: Meeting started on time, stuck to the published agenda, and was over in just a little over a half hour. They did not discuss the various TDOT highway projects one by one, but voted to retain all the same rankings for the projects as approved last year. What this means for Putnam County is that for Fiscal Year 2014-15 the following two projects are under consideration: Project "U" --improvement of SR-136 (South Jefferson St.) from I-40 south to SR-111, and Project "O" --the I-40 interchange at Mine Lick Creek Rd. Project "U" is given Rank 1, and it is to be funded for ROW acquisition in FY14/FY15. According to a sheet distributed at the meeting Project "U" current status is "Environmental Studies Underway and Survey Underway". Project "O" is given Rank 2, and it is to be funded for construction in FY14/FY15. The current project status for Project "O" is "Preliminary Design Underway".

      The next RPO meeting will be the RPO Executive Committee meeting, which will be held on Nov. 17, at 10:30 AM, at the Clarion Hotel on South Jefferson. This meeting is open to the public.

      Thank you, Marge for attending the meeting, representing CARA, and providing this info for us.

      II) Precisely what is implied by these project Rankings is not clear to me, nor do I know if funding for either project is guaranteed in FY2014/FY2015. But it would appear from this that construction of the Mine Lick Creek Rd. interchange cannot start before 2014. Anyone who would like more information can call the TDOT Project Manager for the Interchange at Mine Lick Creek Rd.. Her name is Amber Thornton and her phone number is (423) 510-1225.

      Something we need to find out is whether or not TDOT intends to construct the interchange by itself, or if they intend to follow up interchange construction with the so-called "Northern Connector" from I-40 north to US 70 W. The interchange by itself is what the city and county want, and one can see some need for it to serve the new business-park-to-be. But the "Northern Connector" (which TDOT at one time said must be built if the interchange is built) would serve no good purpose and would be very destructive. Building the "Northern Connector" is something all CARA members should vigorously oppose.

      III) Background info for anyone who might not remember just what the RPOs are. Several years back TDOT set up a number of Rural Transportation Planning Organizations across the state, to give local officials a means of providing TDOT with input on transportation needs. These organizations are generally known as "RPOs". Putnam County belongs to the Center Hill RPO (along with DeKalb, White, Cumberland, Cannon, Warren and Van Buren counties). The current chairman of the Center Hill RPO Technical Committee is none other than Cookeville's City Planner, Mr. James Mills.

      Because the RPOs include several counties they tend to force one county's officials to have to justify the transportation projects they'd like to have TDOT do in their county, vis-a-vis what officials from competing counties would like to see done in their own counties. So there is some give and take in the competition to get TDOT to undertake projects. This is good. It should help weed out senseless, porkbarrel projects (such as the "Northern Loop" that some Putnam "movers and shakers" still want). By attending RPO meetings and speaking out CARA members and other representatives of the public can use this inherent competition set up in the RPO to discourage wasteful TDOT projects from getting funded.

      Attached is a map-- well, part of a map...it was longer than my scanner bed-- of the seven couny Center Hill RPO area showing the various TDOT projects under consideration for the Work Program 2013-2015. The map is color coded, green indicating projects already totally funded (some of which are already under construction), red indicating those scheduled for 2013, and yellow/orange for the FY14-15 projects.

Editor's note: The map is ommitted, call Ken Mayberry at the Upper Cumberland Development District at 931-432-4111 and ask him to send you the full sie map.

      IV) Hope some of you can attend the Nov. 17 RPO meeting and let the rest of us know what goes on. And don't forget to sign in as a CARA member and if you speak out, mention CARA. The RPO and TDOT people need to be reminded from time to time we are watching them!

      Thanks,

      Ric



   TENNESSEE LEGISLATIVE ACTION IN FEBRUARY 2011  



27 FEB 2010, by the TOUR editor

      There have been a few changes in the way the legislature operates since the Republicans took over the transportation committees in the Senate and House. Senator Tracy and Representative Johnson should be congratulated for their dual meeting concept that allows lobbyist to come before the Senate Committee and share the expertise information and documents with their counterparts in the other body. This unofficial collection of transportation committees is like a Joint Committee and will save a lot of time for TDOT, the lobbyist and the legislature.

      Unfortunately, all three Wednesday meetings in February were started out with a lobbyist that seemed to be full of suggestions on how to raise transportation taxes. The best presentation was by the Tennessee Trucking Association, and it turned into unqualified support for tax increases plus a prediction of doom if the environmentalist ever got their dream of taking trucks off of the road. With one of every thirteen jobs in Tennessee associated with trucking, it would be risky to do something that has so much potential for unintended consequences. For fear or repeating a script written by Stephen King and violate copyright law, it is best to say that the presentation beats most of the disaster documentaries on cable. Ninety-one per cent of cities in Tennessee do not have railroads so putting the freight on trains is not going to work very well. Even though unions do not impact the whole trucking industry, there are union agreements that limit how much freight can be transferred to trains even if the trip starts and ends on a truck.

      Senator Doug Henry, a Democrat, provides a lot of comic relief as he interrupts and is always angling for some kind of new way to tax or justify a tax that will bring in more money to TDOT. This tax it if it moves mind set is due to well oiled practice plus natural ability after his long service in the Ways and Means Committee. Now that Representative Henry Fincher is not in the legislature anymore, it is safe to mention toll roads and red-light cameras without fear of vigorous rebuttal. Other possible future taxes mentioned was a per mile tax, a ton-mile tax for trucks, indexing for inflation, making diesel and gas taxes the same and doing something about the possibility of an electric car not paying enough for use of the roads.

      A group of engineers, the American Council of Engineering Companies, provided very good graphics that showed that the supply of lane-miles was not keeping pace with either the population or the vehicle-miles traveled. Any business would love to have the customer increase and the increased usage per customer shown on these graphs but only if the business was charging more for the service than it actually cost. More damage plus wear and tear is actually resulting in less income for states. Federally imposed fuel standards are having the same effect on the state as an unfunded mandate. It could be that the recent decrease in Tennessee fatalities can, in part, be attributed to the fact that congestion is making it harder and harder to go fast enough to kill yourself. With one consistent voice, the engineers insisted that any new tax be constructed as a user fee but they failed to make it clear that the discipline to put user fees back to the place of use has deteriorated badly since the construction of the Interstate system. All of the blame for the gas tax losing its power to build roads fell upon inflation and the taxpayer's unwillingness to pay for what was received. No one mentioned the diversion or borrowing of gas tax money by both the federal and state government nor did they mention that gas money is used for transit and other non-road projects. A very odd development was the federal action to reduce trucker driving time by one hour. This action, supposedly to reduce accidents, is being taken at a time of record low truck fatality rates. The state will be forced to build more trucker rest stops and more parking pavement for idle trucks as a result. Perhaps this is the old union ploy to increase jobs by decreasing the number of hours that truckers can work.

      The search for villains and the quest for new tax victims continues. There is no failure of imagination in the Tennessee legislature, only a failure to imagine the right thing. The trucking association thinks that the people should be promised something to overcome the resistance to new taxes. The last time the legislature tried that, they promised a County Seat Connector Program that still remains financially impossible and undone for more than 20 years. Another point that makes tax increases unpalatable is the fact that you have to raise the tax more than a penny to get a penny to spend on roads. The same federal system that makes donor states and donee states is used by Tennessee to create, donor local governments and donee local governments. The common mistake is using area and population formulas to redistribute funds. The federal system of redistribution is highly complex and more complicated but the area and population methodology within the formulas assures that money will flow toward rural areas and states from urban areas and states. The only exception would be the portion of the federal gas tax that flows to urban areas as transit funds. These formulas prevent the user from actually getting significant use out of their own transportation dollar. In other words, it seems like you are always paying for someone else's infrastructure in another state, county or city before you get yours.

      The third group of lobbyist that testified was the Triple A. They showed the weakest support for new transportation taxes but managed to resubmit an old 2009 letter of ideas for new taxes that was passed onto the new Senate and House transportation committees. AAA was more interested in restoring driver education to the schools in Tennessee. AAA is involved in driver education and because of an unmentioned controversy and statistical evidence about how well it works to reduce accidents, the testimony before the committee was about the need to restore the status quo. The justification was simply pointing out the obvious: Someone has to teach them. Thankfully, no one suggested that a portion of the highway trust fund be sent to the schools.

      Even though there is new management in town, the Republicans don't seem to have any answers to capacity or the slow decay of mobility except new taxes. They still do not realize that the transportation system can never be over supplied with cash because it is cleverly crafted with redistribution mechanisms to less efficient modes of travel and redistribution to areas with the lower vehicle mile use. The economic winners that produce more tax than they need to sustain themselves are forced not only to pay for the economic losers but to build more losers. The definition of need has drifted away from what is truly transportation need to what is political need. The RPO and MPO system is designed to carve the carcass of transportation taxation without accountability or punishment for bad choices. The inclusion of economic development into the criteria for selecting good projects from among the bad projects has put an improper emphasis on providing money for what might happen instead of what is already happening. The federal government is not only pressing fuel economy measures that stem road funds, it is waging, with the help of environmentalist, a jihad on vehicle miles traveled. The system pays for the infrastructure with vehicle miles traveled. Hope springs eternal that the magic pavement will be finally laid that causes jobs to gush forth in the manner of the mythical cornucopia. This quest is doomed because there is no concern or discussion of productivity. It was increased productivity that fueled the economic gains after the construction of the Interstate. Nearly every state and federal action since the inception of the Interstate retards transportation system and seeks to live lavishly off of its last remaining capacity.

       Transportation has lost its ability to focus on mobility and economic efficiency. Everyone remembers the remarkable changes made in the economy after the construction of the Interstate but few take into the consideration the many jobs lost and road side service businesses shut down on state roads that were parallel to the new interstate. Americans do not mind losing a job when they can get a better one but we are no longer facing that prospect. Transportation improvements have a lower capacity to make a difference in future manufacturing jobs because the main driver of job loss is the increased cost of labor per item produced or service provided. The state economic development system is a partner in the shedding of jobs when it moves a business from outside the state to Tennessee.

      An efficient transportation system, focused on maximizing mobility, can make it possible to ease the transition to new jobs by making the search zone for new jobs bigger instead of smaller. A good transportation system makes it possible to draw from a larger pool of employees who are willing and able to reliably commute. There are only fifteen counties in 2008 that exported paychecks to other counties and states. The other 80 counties in Tennessee need to import paychecks from outside of their political boundary to maintain their tax base and standard of living. Doing nothing has become as dangerous as doing the wrong thing.



  RPO MEETING 15 NOV 2010  



15 NOV 2010, by the TOUR editor

      The November meeting of the Center Hill RPO started on time and with a quorum. The representatives from DeKalb County were missing however and since the main point of business was to rank priorities, James Mills expressed concern that there might not be adequate representation in the event that DeKalb County had priorities that were moved down the list.

      Another surprise was that TDOT had added two new projects to the list of projects that were to be ranked. The two new projects,"X" and "Y" were climbing lanes for I-40. According to the map, these projects are located to the east of Crossville and the "Y" project was east of Crab Orchard. George Adcock, the train specialist, suggested that there be escape lanes for runaway trucks. Many agreed. The location of the work was mile marker 326 and 339.

      It looked like the ranking would begin in secret but James Mills was clearly uncomfortable with this method even though it had been done in the past. The contingent from Cumberland County started out with a suggestion and eventually, it was approved. The list for FY 2012 is below:



Map Locator County Route Project Description Length Phase Funded Last Year's Rank Nov 2010 Rank
B CUMBERLAND SR-462 PROP SR-28 (US-127) to SR-298 (Genesis Road) 1.6 ROW 10 9
M CUMBERLAND SR-462 PROP SR-1 (US-70) to SR-24(US-70) 2 Construction 5 6
C CUMBERLAND SR-28/US-127 North of I-40 to Legion Road 4.6 ROW 6 10
D CUMBERLAND SR-28/US-127 Legion Road to Hollow Lane 3.8 ROW 7 11
E CUMBERLAND SR-28/US-127 Hollow Lane to Lowe Road 3.1 ROW 8 12
V CUMBERLAND SR-101 East of Lakeview Drive to east of Winchester Dr. /Catoosa BLVD in Fairfield Glade 2.3 Construction 11 2
F CUMBERLAND/FENTRESS SR-28/US-127 Lowe Rd. to SR-62 at Clackrange in Fentress County 2.6 ROW 9 8
H DeKalb SR-56 Warren County Line to north of SR-288 2.9 Construction 4 5
I DeKalb SR-56 Warren Co line to north of Bryant Street in Smithville 4.9 Construction 3 4
J DeKalb/Wilson SR-26/US/70 West of Wilson County Line to SR-96 6.2 Construction 1 3
X Cumberland I-40 Westbound Truck Climbing Lane at Mile Marker 326 1 Construction no rank 13
Y Cumberland I-40 Eastbound Truck Climbing Lane at Mile Marker 339 1.3 Construction no rank 14
L Cumberland SR-101 Firetower Rd to east of Lakeview Dr. 2.9 Construction 1 Bottom 1
N Cumberland SR-462 PROP SR-24(US-70N) to SR-28(US-127 1 Construction 4 Bottom 7
Map Locator County Route Project Description Length Phase Funded Last Year's Rank Nov 2010 Rank


      Even though the greatest good for the greatest number would have been better served by ranking the projects with the highest traffic counts as first, the traditional pork carving required that the Interstate projects be dropped to the bottom of the list. This philosophy would also place the Fifth Interchange as dead last in all of the years that it was ever considered. The Fifth Interchange was ranked behind and below the improvements on Jefferson street this year. This is probably because the city was reported as losing nearly half a million dollars when it jumped ahead of TDOT to upgrade the street because of a school construction south of the Interstate.

      The multi modal report was a brief description of the efforts to make Putnam County a hub for bus traffic from surrounding counties. Surprisingly, they also plan to have bus service to Knoxviulle, Chattanooga and Nashville.

      A great deal of the meeting was devoted to the problems getting the data assembled to get consideration for a dangerous road project. It takes three years of data but there have been problems with case sensitivity of data and making sure that the location of the accident is not described differently in different reports. There now seems to be computers, programs and training available but the group was warned that there would be a possible two year delay in analysis. No one complained about TDOT using other governments labor in order to get what should be TDOT's job done. There is also a minimum threshold of accidents required to get the project started. This means that a lot of work might come to nothing.

      There was the usual question and answer period in which the TOUR editor was able to ask about the length of the I-40 projects. They seemed to be too short to address the problems. There was a public meeting and comment period for this and there was a suggestion that there be work done on entrance and exit ramp geometry. None of these projects are on the steep grade up to Crossville. Several times the town of Monterey was mentioned but these projects are many miles away from Monterey.

      There was a request to provide estimates for the Fifth Interchange since the scope of the project seems to change often. Chester Southerland, the project manager, verified that this estimate would come in the engineering phase of the project. Nothing was said about ranking projects according to the possibility that they were earmarked. Earmarked projects often require another earmark to finish them after construction costs become more obvious. This means that TDOT might have to eat the cost overrun.



CUMBERLAND BUSINESS JOURNAL ANNOUNCES THE FIFTH INTERCHANGE WITH THE CONNECTOR ROAD



CUMBERLAND BUSINESS JOURNAL

TOUR EDITOR'S COMMENTS

According to the TDOT project manager, the project that was approved is the same as it was in 2006 and 2008, with the connector road. Apparently, the local officials gave up and just asked for the connector as the FHWA wanted it back in 2002.

If the City and the county throw in $11 million dollars, that means that the expected price is $22 million, well below the estimate that was made in earlier efforts to get the interchange approved. This could be because of the elimination of the more elaborate modified clover leaf in favor of a low volume diamond interchange. This does not specify if it is the cost of the two lane or the final four lane desigfn that is approved.

This is a big scoop and the Herald-Citizen really missed it. Halford, at the February County Commission meeting could not tell the commissioners of one potential client for the park and now Halford is talking about them as if they were stars in the sky.

The growth of Cookeville was estimated to be 20 per cent in 10 years?. Is that people growth or new land growth by pushing the city limits out?

The recession must be over if the city and the county can find so easily $14.4 million for work inside of the park and another $11 million for work outside of the park plus who knows how much to finish the project out in the future as a four lane as approved by the FHWA.



  FHWA APPROVES THE FIFTH INTERCHANGE WITH THE CONNECTOR ROAD  



24 AUG 2010, by the TOUR editor

     The day before the news hit the local fish wrapper, better known as the Herald-Citizen, word leaked out that the Fifth Interchange had been approved by the Federal Highway Administration. The TDOT web site had no announcement on it so TOUR used its own resources to confirm that the FHWA had approved the road plus connector. It was not possible to confirm that the actual route was the one approved as the route fought over for the Corridor J project. It seems unlikely that there would be a change in the route since this would ignite another environmental assessment and these assesments usually take an average of seventy months.

The timing for the announcement was perfect for Representative Henry Fincher since he can now claim to have gotten the project done only forty days before the election. This leaves his opponent Ryan Williams, also a supporter of the interchange, with not a whole lot to promise in the future. Representative Fincher, even though he is very conservative, will not be the next state representative without a fight. There is an anti-incumbancy mood in the county as evidenced by the county commission race.

     The fish wrapper used a lot of weasle words describing the victory and there is always a few choice pieces of information that the Fish Wrapper hides to support the continued need to keep that brass plaque up at the Chamber of Commerce that announces the Herald-Citizen Room which is upstairs. The information I got was that the approval was not conditional nor was it contingent on any special requirements. It is expected, however that the $10 million that is currently in the project for the diamond interchange will have to be increased to about $35 million just to get the project back to the 2002 level. There will have to be an ammendment to the State Transportation Improvement Plan or STIP. The county will have to pay the equivalent of two schools or maybe a school and a jail for this interchange.

      Assuming that the project costs the city and the county $18 million dollars and money is borrowed at 4.5% for 20 years the county and city would need about $1.38 million dollars a year in tax income for 20 years to pay off this investment. If you assume that each industrial job yields $15 dollars per hour and that 60 percent of the gross wage ends up as vulnerable to sales taxes, each new job will yield $514.80 for the two local governments if their combined local government sales tax percentage is 2.75%. This means that the new industry is going to have to employ 2681 employees which is much bigger that the estimated local work force employed by VW in Chattanooga.

      No one knows exactly how many people can be employed in this new industrial park nor does anyone know the probable wage. Some workers may decide to take the new job at a lower wage just to keep from driving to other citites to work. Some new employees export their paychecks to other cities and retail outlets in the surrounding counties. Until a client is found for the industrial park, the citizens must subsidize this "investment."

      Even though we have a county executive that carries the credentials of a CPA, the county is walking into this fiasco with open arms. So far, there is no sign that the $14 million dollars for infrastructure inside the park is still on the agenda and there was in the last county audit a $14 million dollar surplus in the debt service fund. This makes the inside infrastructure plus the outside the park infrastructure $32 million. This would translate to a industrial force of 4766 needed to get back the investment via local sales taxes. Furthermore, there would have to be no decline in industrial workers, a phenomenon in this county since 1995 and the nation since 1979. If the decline in industrial workers because of productivity is taken into consideration, the actual count of industrial workers inside the park would have to be started at 6196 so that a three percent decay per year would average 4766 workers over 20 years. The citizens of Putnam County and the City of Cookeville would still be stuck with paying for all of the additional services required by new people as a result of the new industrial jobs even if the tax revenue was self sustaining. If the plan falters in any way, the costs are socialized and competing government services are going to be sacrificed or taxes raised.

      The county already needs a jail and the city has needed a new police station for years. The police station was put on hold the last time there was a big pile of extra cash so that the Chamber of Commerce Building could be built. The Fish Wrapper mentioned that the local governments have already made promises to financially support the Fifth Interchange "if needed." These two bodies, the city and the county, have had major changes in their membership as a result of the last election. The only thing we have not seen is how they are going to handle the problem of TDOT demanding 50% of the costs before the work begins, including the design work.

  CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVES FIFTH INTERCHANGE AND LOOP AROUND COOKEVILLE



TOUR COMMENTS ON CITY PLANNING MEETING 23 AUG 2010



27 AUG 2010, by Danny Newton

      The Monday night meeting of the Cookeville Planning Commission was attended mostly by people requesting variances in zoning and a rather predictable contingent from the Cookeville Area Residents Association. Ric Finch was out of the country. When the TOUR representative, and editor of this web site signed in, there were a total of 16 people on the sign-up sheet.

      The overall tone of the TOUR and CARA comments was directed at trying to figure out why the city and the county had rejected professional advice and engineering advice on the Fifth Interchange and the Industrial Park. The Wadley Donavan report did not suggest getting a 500 acre park. What was suggested was a 20 to 100 acre park as a later phase, not an immediate necessity. TDOT engineers have already studied the impact of the Fifth Interchange on the traffic on Willow and found it insignificant when the traffic from Corridor J was applied to it. The traffic to be accommodated without Corridor J will be about one-tenth of that amount over Mine Lick Creek Road as a Corridor J. conduit for traffic. The Corridor J project was moved away from the Mine Lick Road Location several years ago.

      As usual, in a city meeting, after a few people got up to criticize the project of putting a loop around Cookeville, the sound system began to develop feedback. James Mills ordered that the system be shut off. Gene Mullins, who is still an acting Commissioner, came to speak against the loop around Cookeville because it is wildly unpopular in his district. This will be one of the last acts by Commissioner Mullins since he is not returning to his duties as a result of not running for re-election this year. Since Liz Engle was the reporter for the Herald-Citizen, No comment from the TOUR editor was allowed to find its way into print.

      James Mills told the crowd about the city needing to spend $500,000 to build extra lanes at the site of a new school on Jefferson even though TDOT had a project in the hopper to do the same road project. It was not yet approved at the state level. This is possibly because of missing environmental approvals. One of the reasons that there was such a push on this project was three fatalities near the water treatment plant. Mr. Mills did not mention the fact that the $500,000 might not have had to be spent if the project on Jefferson had been pushed as hard as the project to get a Fifth Interchange.

      The main objection by TOUR is that the loop around Cookeville was mostly a north-south arterial among numerous north-south arterials that already exist. What is missing is an east-west arterial at approximately one to two mile intervals. Even though the chairman agreed that was a major drawback on the map, the planning document still stated that there was a need for a circumfrencial route around the city. The popularity of the Route around Cookeville would not be nearly as high if there was honesty about how it was going to be funded. Most people think that this is a road paid for out of the $24 million dollars a year that the people of Putnam County send to TDOT. This is not true according to TDOT policy and the latest version of the Interstate Connector Act. The latest version also includes interchanges on any controlled access highway like SR 111. The existing law requires that the requesting government pay for half of the cost of the interchange. When people find out that their property tax will be used for half of the construction, the "need" for this loop will disappear. TDOT keeps about 90% of the money they get from the County to spend in other counties. An attempt to get James Mills to confirm that there is a plan to enter into a 50-50% split with TDOT failed, but I have gotten such assurances from TDOT.

      Tour also predicted continued problems with the Fifth Interchange. The Federal Highway Administration is apparently looking at a plan to build a two lane road on a four lane right of way. This is going to be problematic since the Federal Highway Administration requires that there be some kind of obvious need and copious assurance that the missing two lanes will be built in less than twenty years. The approval by the Federal Highway Administration could be stopped on this slight technicality alone. A quick check on the county audit last year shows that there was $14 million dollars in the debt service fund to be transferred to the fifth interchange for infrastructure. This pile of cash makes sure that there is no chance that a demand for a vote on this project can be forced since there will be no borrowed money involved. The county can hand over their cash to TDOT instead of spending it on the infrastructure within the park. Another problem is a change in the federal law that requires the environmental study to be done again if the construction does not take place within eight years. The average time in completing an environmental study is about 70 months.

      This spending supports the looming commercial real estate bubble that is yet to break. The city and county, by claiming a need for visibility from the Interstate, sent a signal that this property in the Industrial/Mixed-Use park could also be for other commercial property besides industrial property. The current stock of land and empty industrial buildings in Putnam County should support over 10,000 industrial workers since this was the count back in 1995 according the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The count of industrial workers in Putnam County right now is about 6000. That is equal to the workers required for two local VW plants! without building any new buildings.

      For there to be a Fifth Interchange, somebody has to lie. The penalty for lying that results in federal money being misdirected is $10,000 and five years in jail. Somebody at the Federal Highway Administration has to certify that there is no other way to accomplish access to the Industrial park. Somebody has to certify that the total project will be completed in twenty years. New federal rules dated 18 AUG 2009 require even more assurances that the statements made to the Federal Highway Administration are true.

      There were numerous assurances that the inclusion of a project in the list in no way created a priority for the project. The Planning Commission had to include the Fifth Interchange in the plan to keep the City and County from looking foolish and to show some respect to the County Executive and others who voted for the Fifth Interchange at the Rural Planning Organization Meetings. Taking the loop road and interchange out would also be a stab at the large crew of local officials and Chamber of Commerce members that went to Nashville to literally beg for it at the Certificate of Need hearings in the Economic and Community Development meetings.



23 AUG 2010   AUGUST RPO MEETING 20 AUG 2010



by Danny L. Newton 20 AUG 2010

     The Center Hill RPO meeting was held this morning at the Leslie Towne Center and there was a quorum for the purpose of conducting business. It was not until the end of the meeting that anything about the Fifth Interchange came up. Chester Sourtherland, the TDOT project manager stated, in the public comment segment of the meeting, that the Federal Highway Administration has before it a request to approve the original version of the Fifth Interchange with a northern connector. James Mills further clarified that the road would be a two lane but that the land for the four lane road would be acquired. Mr. Southerland further clarified that there was no local agreement between the city/county and the state to share the cost of the project as requires by state law TCA 54-5-507.

     Public comment on this project is coming up next week at the regular meeting of the Cookeville City Commission at 5:30 P.M. The new officers elected in August have been sworn in. This new commission is very pro-road but the Cookeville Area Residents Association and Tour plan to attend to dispel any illusion that there is total public support for this project. No matter how popular the project seems to be, the main obstacle seems to be the Federal Highway Administration. There are rumors from people who work at the Federal Highway Administration that TDOT owes the feds a few very expensive connector roads in other parts of the state. The state was allowed to build only the interchange with the connector to come later and this violates Federal Policy. New management at the Federal Highway Administration seems to be determined to correct the idea that these agreements and Federal Policy can be violated as a matter of convenience.

     There is also the matter of the unfinished lanes. Federal Policy as found in the Congressional Record requires that the purchase of future right-of-way not be done without copious assurances that the future construction will be built within twenty years. The existing bridge at the Mine Lick Creek Road and I-40 is not wide enough for a four lane road so some kind of redesign is in order whenever this road changes into a four lane. What is at stake is the 50% cost sharing plus the takeover of maintenance of the interchange. A five lane bridge over I-40 in Crossville is expected to cost about $4 million dollars. Even though there are monies available for right-of-way and preliminary engineering, there is no available estimate of the cost of the road.

     

In the original proposals to build the Fifth Interchange it was obvious that the cost of the interchange and its northern connector was being understated. The cost of the land was about a third of the going price for land in that area. The constant speculation created by the chatter at the Chamber of Commerce also tends to raise expectations. Complaints about using the road as an excuse to get TDOT to clean up a Brownfield at Kenny's Auto Salvage resulted in a promise not to include Kenny's in the project, but that was only after it looked like the Federal Highway Administration would approve the project without the connector. The reason costs are important is that the Interstate Connector Act requires local participation in the costs at 50%.

     There is no doubt, from TDOT comment cards, that the original road and connecter was not a popular project and that popularity improved once the road was taken out of the project. If it becomes certain that the cost of the project is to be partially borne by the local governments, it could be that the shorter route could be considered. This might inject further delay because it could restart the Environmental Evaluations which are about eight years old now. At any rate, no person can assure anyone that when the bridge needs work, replacing or other future work required, the Interstate Connector Act could be enforced even though it was not enforced in the beginning of the project.



22 MAR 2010, by Danny Newton

     The ongoing landslide problems along US64 in Polk County have given another push to the pressure construct at least the Tennessee side of Asheville to Chattanooga four lane called Corridor K. No one knows yet the final cost but good estimates of the slide repairs from TDOT support the idea that the amount will be close to $3 million dollars. US 64 has been closed since 10 NOV 2009 and is scheduled to open on 16 APRIL 2010. This corridor was proposed in 1965 but never built because of the massive costs in difficult terrain. The House joint resolution was passed with unanimous yes votes. An ammendment to the bill was used as an accounting trick to change the estimated cost from $900 million to zero. The resolution has no impact because the cost were imputed to the federal government rather than the state. This is totally opposite the usual customary and legal requirements for road costs to be divide as 20% state and 80% federal. This joint resolution seems to be saying that the state of Tennessee is 100 percent ready for this road if the federal government pays 100% of the costs. The bill was sent out of the Senate Transportation committee with unanimous yes votes, even by Jim Tracy who is running for the sixth-district congressional seat of Bart Gordon.

     There are multiple possible routes for Corridor K but none has been blessed by the environmental process. There is no reason to believe that North Carolina will have any urge to build their end of the road so this portion in Tennessee will end up being a road to nowhere for many decades. One estimate of the cost was $1.4 Billion dollars and that is nearly 90 percent of the entire budget of TDOT for a year. Furthermore, Polk County is a county of only about 16,000 people. This project shows once again that the project selection system is broken. Why should 6 million people spend so much money for 16,000? It would be cheaper to turn the county into a state park and move everybody out.





H-C FINALLY TELLS THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE FIFTH INTERCHANGE SETTLEMENT



City to settle case with property owner

Liz Engel

Herald-Citizen Staff

Tuesday, Mar 02, 2010

COOKEVILLE -- A settlement has been reached in a long-running case between the City of Cookeville, Putnam County and a property owner with land surrounding the planned Highlands Business Park. And the Cookeville City Council will consider approval of the settlement agreement later this week.

Norma Faye Pyles Lynch, who had owned a 20-percent interest in more than 70 acres now surrounding the planned park south of Interstate 40, will receive 15 acres in the settlement, per an agreed order filed in Putnam County Circuit Court in mid-February. Both the council and Putnam County Commission must approve that document -- the council will vote Thursday evening and the commission is expected to consider the issue later this month.

"We can either accept this or let the court decide how to do it," Cookeville City Manager Jim Shipley told the council during a work session held Monday afternoon.

The land, which is divided out in three separate tracts, includes a triangle of 6 acres north of Interstate 40 and bordering Mine Lick Creek Road, 3.5 acres cornered by Stewart Cemetery Road and Bennett Road and 5.5 acres joining Bennett Road and Lee Seminary Road. In the agreement, both parties acknowledge they have no control over what the state may do in regards to roads in and around the business park, and all three parties worked to satisfy Lynch's concerns about access to the properties. For example, parcels that currently have road frontage will continue to have road frontage, the agreement says.

The case has been a long-running one for the city and county -- in late 2007, both the council and commission voted to condemn Lynch's interest in the property and filed a petition to acquire the property by eminent domain in 2008. Later that year, Lynch, under a formed LLC, filed a motion to dismiss, saying the city and county had not obtained a certificate of public purpose from the state. The city and county then requested that the eminent domain petition be voluntarily dismissed. In early 2009, the city and county filed notice to dismiss the condemnation petition and soon after voted to reconfigure the park to exclude the disputed tracks. The agreed order was signed by Judge Amy Hollars, county attorney Jeff Jones, city attorney Dan Rader and Lynch's attorney Robert Anderson.

In other business Thursday, the Cookeville City Council will also set a date for a public hearing and first reading of a rezoning effort at 1629 McCulley Road in east Cookeville. The Cookeville Planning Commission last month approved a developer's request to change the zoning of a 15.5-acre tract from RS20 to a higher density RS10. If approved as part of the consent agenda, that hearing will be held April 1. The council will meet starting at 6 p.m. at city hall. The public is invited to attend.





THE DAY THE FIFTH INTERCHANGE NEARLY DIED OF NEGLECT



      The last item of business at the County Commission was to vote for a resolution to work with the Tennessee Department of Transportation to keep the Fifth Interchange an active project. According to the County Executive, Kim Blaylock, the resolution was cobbled together after a meeting with unnamed TDOT officials who expressed concern that the local community was divided about the fate of the Fifth Interchange. Not told to the County Commission was that Ric Finch and Wayne Pegram, officials in the Cookeville Area Residents Association were asked to come to Kim Blaylock's Office before the County Commission meeting and asked not to oppose the resolution that the City already passed during a meeting that was held before the regular Thursday night meeting.

      Earlier in the day, Ric Finch sent out a letter alerting CARA and TOUR that a new move to get the Fifth Interchange moving again was in the wind. County Commissioner Greg Rector confirmed, earlier in the day and before the meeting that the plan to seek a resolution had not been in the works very long but that there had been some brain storming on how to fund the project with federal money making up the bulk of the matching funds, perhaps with a federal 75%-25% program, only 25% of the funds as a local government contribution would be required.

      The Tennessee law still exists and is on the books requiring the requesting government to pay for 50% of the costs. It also forbids engineering expenditures to be made by TDOT on the project until the funds have been deposited. Altogether, the law provides for three discrete stages of disbursement, the engineering, half of the estimated construction cost and the final costs. The current engineering work done is not for construction but for making an application to the Federal Highway Administration for approval. During the final land negotiations in the Pyle Property partition suit, it finally became obvious that the state planned on a low volume diamond interchange and submitted it to the Federal Highway Administration.

      Kim Blaylock tried to explain the reasons that there seemed to be such a scramble to get approval of the resolution of cooperation between the County, City of Cookeville and TDOT. For the first time, Kim Blaylock told the Commission that they were being pressured by TDOT to pay for part of the connector road. Apparently, this has been known since March 2009. TDOT rejected a letter crafted by both the County Executive and the City manager that says the same thing and now, the issue had to come before the governing bodies of Putnam County and the City of Cookeville. It is possible, but not mentioned that TDOT wanted the city-county partners to pay for the traffic study showing the connector road to the south rather than the north. Bob Luna, CEO of the Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of the project and reminded everyone that they represented 800 businesses and 1600 people.

      Some of the County Commission was suspicious of the proceeding because of fear that it contained an implied and uncertain financial obligation on future commissions. The County Attorney, Jeff Jones, assured the County Commission that the resolution contained no promise of financial obligation because it was in no way a binding contract. The appearance of an emergency plus the need to act so quickly that the resolution was not on the agenda created some suspicion. County Commissioner, Gene Mullins, from the tenth District, then followed up with the observation that if the resolution had such little ability to bind the governments to future sums of money, then why was TDOT asking for it? Eventually, Kim Blaylock, the County Executive was obliged to tell everyone that without the resolution the Fifth Interchange would die.

      The county lawyer was also asked about the legal wrangling over the Pyle Property and the county attorney announced that the suit was over and that the county would be required to pay only $25,000 of the $150,000 of legal fees that were requested by the Pyle family. Next, George Halford came forward and announced that he had another secret deal simmering behind the scenes. The details were secret however but they involved a total of $425 million dollars worth of investment in real and personal property. Later on it came out that their "suspect" or "prospect" had made application at seven other locations in the state. There was also a lot of sad stories about how nearly daily chances that slipped through our Industrial Park dragnet because the newest park was not ready. It will take 18 to 24 months to get the park ready, meaning that the infrastructure will be installed. The alleged prospect plans to be in operation by 2014.

      Gene Mullins told the Commission and the audience that he had reservations about the assumption that you have to have the park ready with infrastructure but moved on to ask Kim Blaylock why there was a business at the end of an interchange in Roane County? Once Again Kim Blaylock was unable to answer this question, even to her own satisfaction. The county executive said that they had some people "helping us with the FHWA." She even told about trying to use her mother, Senator Charlotte Burks, to get information that had been hard to pull out of TDOT. That did not work either. Kim Blaylock wants another access study done to get the connector road connected to the one going through the business park. Commissioner Mullins, clearly exasperated tried to explain to Kim Blaylock, supposedly a CPA, that the estimated cost of the project was a critical factor in determining the benefit-cost ratio. Still, this is unknown.

      The old Corridor J estimates of the cost of the Interchange was $12.2 million for Route A and $8.7 million for route B. When the interchange was perceived as a gift, the more expensive solution was the preferred option. An approximate cost on the $12.2 million dollar project would be $16 million in current dollars if the consumer price index was used but if a construction price index, targeted mostly on highway historic costs was used, it would be closer to $20 million. Changing the design to the less elaborate diamond interchange will help however.



CITY AND COUNTY FINALLY ADMITS PROBLEM WITH FIFTH INTERCHANGE





CITY AND COUNTY FINALLY ADMITS PROBLEM WITH FIFTH INTERCHANGE

by Liz Engle, Herald Citizen

PUTNAM COUNTY -- Plans for a fifth interchange in Putnam County have hit a serious snag with federal officials -- bringing up concerns about the future of the project and its potential impact on the development of the Highlands Business Park. The Tennessee Department of Transportation recently issued a letter to city and council officials about the status of the interchange, which would add a fifth Interstate 40 exit at Mine Lick Creek Road. But in recent discussions with the Federal Highway Administration, the letter says, serious concerns have been raised about the lack of development and funding for a northern connector to Highway 70 -- bringing into question the validity of the entire project.

Despite the letter, local officials are pledging that the latest news is just a bump in the road and are now focusing their efforts into figuring out exactly how this happened and how to move forward. "We've already had several meetings and at each juncture the issue of the connector has been discussed. And at each juncture it was my understanding that the connector was important to the plan, but it didn't have to be concurrant, or happen at the same time as the interchange," said Rep. Henry Fincher, D-Cookeville. "This is far from being a deal-breaker for the fifth interchange. I think it's a question of finding out how much of this is from the feds or how much of this is what TDOT prefers rather than requires."

TDOT anticipates that the latest FHWA comments will now be incorporated into a revised interchange justification study set for resubmission on Jan. 29. The department recommends that "to receive FHWA approval, we believe that this document will need to include written commitments regarding funding and schedule of the connecting road no later than concurrent with the construction of the proposed interchange." Since the connector would be considered a local road, it would be the responsibly of the local government entities to fund its construction -- at last estimate, that cost was around $11 million. TDOT's letter does reference a local interstate connector program for which the city and county may be eligible -- it would provide funding up to 50 percent of the cost.

"There's no way we can fund it. It's going to take about all our debt capacity to build our roads into the business park," Cookeville City Manager Jim Shipley said during a council work session last week. "It doesn't make sense to me, the way the economy is, that there's a community that's going spend $14-15 million on a business park to try to provide jobs and all we need is an interchange."

Fincher said he, Sen. Charlotte Burks and Rep. Charles Curtiss will all be working to resolve the issue, including a possible meeting with TDOT Commissioner Gerald Nicely in the coming weeks. Meanwhile, leaders at the Cookeville-Putnam County Chamber are also urging community support. The lack of a fifth interchange would have a direct impact on the development of the Highlands Business Park, which continues to take shape in south Cookeville.

"The business park will survive without the fifth interchange, but it will impact the marketability of that park land," said former chamber board member Joe Albrecht. "As a community, we need to do everything we can to support this interchange being built. This project is not dead," he continued. "It's just a road block that we've got to overcome."





TDOT ANSWERS INQUIRY ABOUT THE SLIGO BRIDGE



Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:19:50 -0600

From: Ed.Wasserman@tn.gov

To: dnewton@multipro.com

CC: TDOT.Comments@tn.gov

Subject: Sligo and Hurricane Bridges

Thank you for your inquiry of the 12th, subject above. Contrary to your expressed outlook, there is light at the end of the tunnel, but perhaps not immediately. Development of plans to replace the Sligo Bridge and rehabilitate the Hurricane Bridge are well underway, however, funding issues will require several years to be able to let contracts.

The Hurricane Bridge was last rehabilitated in 1977 with a repainting in the 1990's. Recent inspections and analysis have found section loss in several members. These, along with a complete re-decking will be required.

As to concerns for two businesses potentially closing, it is doubtful that the bridges are the primary reason, as opposed to other dynamics in the economy. For example, the automobile parts company shipping via I-40, would only experience a 26-mile round trip increase for each shipment in bypassing the Hurricane Bridge. nonetheless, we will be addressing these bridge needs as funds become available.

Edward P. Wasserman, CE Director

TDOT - Structures Division

1100 James K. Polk Bldg.

505 Deaderick Street

Nashville, TN 37243-0339

Phone - 615-741-3351

Fax - 615-532-7745

ed..wasserman@tn.gov





NOVEMBER RURAL PLANNING MEETING CONFIRMS TECHNICAL COMMITTEE CHOICES



The November Rural Planning Meeting has held on 12 November at the Clarion Motel which is the former Holiday Inn in Cookeville. The Former road priority picks were confirmed from the October technical meeting. The Fifth Interchange was scheduled for Construction in 2013 but technically has no money. For some reason, the Right-of-Way step was skipped over and it went straight to construction. In the last meeting, Chester Sutherland, the Fifth Interchange project manager, seemed to admit that there was a change in the design to a traditional diamond and that the connector road no longer goes northward toward U.S. 70 but south to Lee Seminary Road. This means that the deceleration loop in the southeast quadrant of the modified clover leaf that forced the city to condemn the structures on the Pyle Property is no longer in the plan. This explanation is finally conforming to the cost estimate. The northward connection was estimated at three times the cost.

The most disturbing revelation during the meeting is that there is no relief in sight for the Sligo Bridge. This project failed to get an earmark form Senator Alexander and for some reason, Representative Bart Gordon has gotten earmarks all over his district but is uninvolved in this problem. Maybe, he exhausted the earmark money in Cumberland County? On top of that, was the revelation that the Hurricane Bridge would be posted with new and lower load limits. A fully loaded 18-wheeler can weigh up to 40 tons but the new limits are going to be set at 18 tons. This mysterious action by TDOT follows a pavement upgrade that took place near the time that the Minnesota bridge went down. The Hurricane Bridge is similar to the Minnesota bridge over the Mississippi that collapsed on 01 AUG 2007. It has been more than 24 hours since TDOT has been asked to explain this action.

Missing from this meeting was Kim Blaylock, Putnam County Executive, state representative Curtis and state senator, Charlotte Burks. On one level,it is too bad the state representatives were not at the meeting but on the other hand, these state representatives are a big part of the problem. This week, TDOT is accepting comments on two projects that are not nearly as important as the upgrade on Jefferson in Putnam County or the repairs on Hurricane and Sligo Bridge. One of the projects is earmarked from the federal level but TDOT is doing these projects in Van Buren County also because of state earmarking of projects associated with the County Seat Connector Program. This is the poorly managed and ill conceived idea of furnishing every county seat a four lane connector to the Interstate no matter how much it costs and no matter how little the benefit. Without Sligo Bridge, there are two industries that might leave Dekalb County. These industries have a total of 1527 employees.

Mayor Sam Sallee was at the meeting and with Chairman James Mills tried to make it clear that the City would be experiencing the cost of installing a turn lane on Jefferson to ease the traffic problem for the new 1600 student school on the south side of the interstate. That turning lane would have to be either torn out or in some way modified later during the change from a two lane to a four lane road. James Mills told the panel that this road already has a very high traffic count of 17,000 per day.

The Sligo Bridge Fiasco, which is over two years old, and the Jefferson Street rehab in Putnam County is only two examples of the failure of the project selection process. Nothing was said about the Fifth Interchange or Mine Lick Creek Interchange Project except by the TOUR editor. My comment was that the Fifth Interchange should be cashed in for the Jefferson Ave. School road project. It is also totally ridiculous that Putnam County, which sends about $21.3 million to the TDOT Highway Fund every year, cannot get a road project done that costs a lot less than that. An attempt to mention the problem of sharing money with TDOT through the local aid mechanisms was also mentioned and it was mentioned that the Putnam ounty is already using 3 out of 8 dollars of its own sales tax and property tax money because the sharing formula is inadequate.





TDOT RELEASES AMENDMENTS TO STATE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM



LIST OF NEW OR AMENDED PROJECTS

TOUR ANSWERS TDOT CHALLENGE TO COMMENT ON FIFTH INTERCHANGE

Amendment 238, Putnam County Fifth Interchange

Unless TDOT has found some magical way of controlling costs, this interchange is not the one that was presented in public meetings. The Federal Highway Administration approved a modified cloverleaf with a connector road to US-70. The project that was approved by the FHWA was associated with the Corridor "J" money, not Interstate Maintenance. Even though Interstate Maintenance money is allowed to maintain capacity of the Interstate, there is no connection or capacity to maintain. This is the use of maintenance money for what is clearly a capital project.

It is greatly disappointing to me that the Federal Highway Administration has abandoned their federal roll to protect the Interstate from gratuitous Interstate Connectors like this one. Every new exit is a potential threat to the utility of the Interstate. Exits tend to be the most dangerous places along the Interstate and so adding another one will have social costs that have not been discussed. The Interstate is a national defense asset and has been, until recently, a source of prosperity for the average citizen. The economic development aspects of the Interstate flows from increased productivity which means goods, services and people flow faster from point to point and there are new economic possibilities with shorter travel times. The Interstate is being treated like a cash cow that provides spare income for other less deserving projects throughout the state but cannot even raise enough cash to finance its own expansion to a six lane minimum. The incremental economic benefits are declining every year because of lower average speeds and a greater than expected fraction of truck traffic.

When the original Corridor "J" project moved in March of 2003, so did the theoretical traffic counts and the transportation justification. The traffic across the existing bridges is still bi-modal with morning and afternoon peaks and is about 1000 vehicles per day instead of a daily traffic count over nine times as large when it was associated with Corridor "J". This connector no longer meets FHWA published guidelines for approval because it cannot be demonstrated by a reasonable person that there is no alternative access. An alternative access road was part of the Certificate of Need application and the City /County partnership is building that alternate access road, including a bridge to nowhere over 200 feet long, as a part of the $14 million bond issue that was advertised in the local paper. Tennessee Law (54-5-403.) also mimics the Federal Highway Administrations standard of requiring "no other feasible means" to accomplish the objectives. It goes even farther to discourage frivolous exchanges by demanding local governments pay for the engineering and maintenance.

TDOT has never been given proper credit for increasing the number of exits per factory worker in Tennessee. From 1979 to 1999, the number of exits per manufacturing worker increased 2.1 % without spending anything on bulldozers or dynamite. From 2001 to 2007, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis Table CA25N, the number of Interstate exits per manufacturing worker increased by no less than 2.8% per year. Again, this expansion was done with no cost to the taxpayer because the apparent expansion of exits per manufacturing worker was accomplished by the shrinkage of that worker population. Since 1979, there is no long term correlation between increased manufacturing employment to any government effort, law or subsidy. The decline in manufacturing employment is due to factory productivity increases that targets high-wage manufacturing jobs. This decline in real inflation adjusted wages and manufacturing employment will continue as long as there is an economic incentive to do so.

Only willful self deception can permit anyone from recognizing that this project is not supporting the economy of Tennessee or Putnam County as TDOT likes to claim to do. For every dollar flowing into Putnam County there is about $2.27 flowing out of Putnam County according to Bureau of Economic Analysis inflow and outflow data on table CA91 from 2001 to 2007. Inflows plus outflows in 2007 totaled $462 million dollars. The existing system of roads is providing a means of support to adjacent counties and, from anecdotal evidence, beyond the adjacent counties. Supporting these commuters means maintaining a reasonable time required to commute from wherever workers are to Putnam County and return home. The enemy of these commuters is shrinkage of commuting distances caused by creeping congestion, declining safety and an existing road system that could become seriously impaired by weather. This proposed project does nothing for the very large group of commuters that come into or leave Putnam County every day.

The proposed Industrial Park is a "high-end park" with respect to zoning standards thus giving other low-end areas in the county a higher probability of becoming the next factory if the choices have anything to do with keeping the fraction of capital cost per manufactured unit below existing competitors. The probability of getting an important client for an industrial park in Tennessee in the over 1200 available parks or properties is about one in 600 per year. It would be more likely that one might flip a coin 9 times in a row and get all heads or all tails nine times in a row than land a major client in twenty years.

Speculative interchanges with weak connections to true transportation need should not be built and maintained with transportation money. The chances of concrete and asphaltic concrete deterioration from the day they are laid down due to chemical and physical forces is one-hundred percent. The provision of excess capacity beyond what is reasonably expected in the future is a manifest waste of tax money. A much better deal would be to buy Pick Three lottery tickets, especially since about 29% of the money lost would return to education. The time to build a major manufacturing facility and the time to build or upgrade an interchange is virtually the same provided that there are no environmental challenges. This interchange has been an ongoing project for over 11 years and as of March of 2009, the Chamber of Commerce can only report in the public County Commission meeting a few "suspects" but no prospects since Katrina blew in ORECK from Louisiana.

Providing an interchange without a committed industrial client has profound ethical problems when condemnation is used. There is no provision in the law that allows condemnation to be used for non-industrial projects. The temptation to convert speculative property to non-industrial uses or incidental non-industrial uses will be enormous. The government has a moral obligation to provide the service that was promised when they use the power of eminent domain but have only charm and more tax money to make a deal happen against all odds. The government is in a buyer's market and wields no important power to change the economic forces operating on the manufacturing sector of the economy. The fact that everyone else is doing it is emotional, not rational, since the other people are also flailing against the same wave of impossible financial barriers. As long as the final use and the speculative use of property is an uncertain possibility, the land should be acquired only by negotiations between the government and willing sellers.

Federal law permits and encourages the taking of Interstate related property for future high capacity interchanges but only if there is a reasonable expectation of need for that high capacity interchange in 20 years. Changing this interchange from a modified clover leaf to a low volume diamond interchange and the eliminating the connector road to Highway 70 means that there is no real transportation related need in the near or far future. There never was enough technical data available to the public for TDOT to rid itself of the suspicion that of the four leaves of the clover leaf that could have been built, only the one that went through the most resistant owners land was thought to be required by TDOT. TDOT's superior ability to condemn at will would therefore be brought to bear to support the local government rather than be properly used to solve the technical transportation problem of exiting safely from the Interstate.

In spite of many announcements of success, the government data still says that the losses are exceeding the gains in manufacturing employment. By March of 2009, the number of manufacturing workers should have fallen below the number of government workers in Tennessee. The definition of "success" has been degraded to include pirated factories from other states and projects moved from county to county within the state. This is a dishonest way of pretending that the subsidy created a job when it is more likely that the subsidy helped the industry move and shed workers in a restructuring of its work force. There is industrial property or industrial zoning already at three of the four existing exists in Cookeville and it did nothing to prevent the loss of 2223 jobs in Putnam County from 2001 to 2007. Before building another connector, someone should be tasked to find out why the existing infrastructure has been losing its factory magnetism and then concentrate on that cause in a moral and ethical way.

The purpose of a road is access to land and all of the dozens of current local manufacturing properties for sale, both public and private, have road access at least to the edge of the property. An Interstate access would be nice to have for anyone trying to sell or lease industrial property but I see no particular advantage to the large numbers of people who have to pay for it. Socializing the cost makes them more bearable but does not make it right or ethical when the benefit goes only to a few. Beyond a certain point, the concept of user-based fees within the transportation tax system is violated when the non-user is so heavily burdened. An upper limit of non users can be estimated by dividing the estimated cost by the average per capita transportation tax in Tennessee. This calculation shows that it takes over 37,000 people to pay for this interchange with a one-year contribution of $300 each.

To recover the estimated cost of the connector, $11,210,920, over 40 years at 5% would require a yearly income of $653,351.80. This translates into 26.1 million vehicle miles traveled every year or a daily traffic count of 71,551 over one mile for the next 40 years. That is about 1.5 times the current traffic passing under the Mine Lick Creek bridges over I-40 right now. If the mythical 2000 workers at the mythical factory at the Business/Industrial Park each drove 50 miles or averaged 50 miles per day in a five day week, the incremental Vehicle Miles Traveled would actually pay for the interchange. No new worker could be allowed to quit the current job to get the new ones however and there is also a nagging problem of industrial productivity. If worker productivity continues to increase at 2.8 percent per year for the next 40 years, the mythical workforce at the mythical business park would decline from 2000 to 663. Perhaps the declining worker numbers would accommodate the calculation by moving farther away every year or agree to pay 2.8% more transportation related taxes each year? Even if the park expands from its current 290 acre size, the daily inflow of workers to the site, even if it were to become an auto manufacturing plant, assures that this project is nothing short of welfare for a well-to-do county that can handily afford, according to testimony at the Certificate of Need proceedings this year, to pay $5 million for the land plus $14 million for the internal infrastructure.

Two thousand workers going and coming to the mythical and imaginary plant on the Fifth Interchange would need to pay a daily toll of $1.25 for 40 years just to pay for this Interchange. Failing to get a client in a timely manner has the same effect as capitalizing the interest or turning the interest payment into principal. A five year delay in filling the park and attempt to recover the initial cost over the same 40 year period would raise the toll to $1.67 per mythical worker. It is easy to find partially filled parks all over Tennessee, some of them along the Interstate and some are 30 years old. There is no greater hypocrisy than a legislature being opposed to real tolling with actual toll booths and at the same time letting TDOT do invisible tolling of non-users to recover losses on unwise projects like this one.

The social cost of not having this connector is the cost of driving from the closest existing exit and driving on Gould Avenue from Highway 135 or Mine Lick Creek from Highway 56 at Baxter. Even with a new mythical worker population of 2000 accessing the new Business Park five days per week, the difference in the distance to the site from a direct new exit and using the one at Baxter or Cookeville is barely a mile per worker per day if you assume all workers will use the new exit. The social cost borne by these mythical workers in the no-build scenario is still below the cost of construction even if you count driving costs at a dollar per mile. They would be better off without the Connector. The City, the County and Chamber of Commerce however would be inconvenienced by having to do a better job of marketing the community and their property which includes another industrial park on STR 111.

It is not at all clear how this connector somehow got an exemption from the requirements of the Interstate Connector Act (54-5-507. State-local agreements. ) and the requirement of the requesting entity to come up with matching funds. The law says that there will be an agreement to share costs and nothing has been said about that so far. The lack of public disclosure on this point has, no doubt, contributed to the appearance of public support. The law is attached below the body of this comment. The efforts to purchase this Business Park/Industrial Park property and the infrastructure costs have a history of understating the financial requirements that can not be explained by mere inflation. For instance, on 30 SEPT 1988, the local paper reported the Mayor of Cookeville stating the costs was estimated to at $1 million dollars and the connecting road along Gould Ave was to cost half of that. According to the Amendment 238, there are no local funds involved. The City and County currently do not have a clear title to all of the property required because of court actions that are currently in the State Supreme Court. That problem should disappear in a few months but it does not clear up the question of whether there will be more money required in the future for the local taxpayers to finance this connector. In my opinion, there has been a lot of deception about costs and it would be best to expose any more surprises as soon as possible.

TDOT is opening a Pandora's Box of future projects like this by abandoning its own rules, set by the legislature, which mimic FHWA federal guidelines. This Business Park project is seeking to exploit a weakness in the law that permits creeping toward incidental non-industrial use of the property. The current City Manager of Cookeville has stated in an open meeting that was recorded, that the City and County intend to sell the property for $50,000 per acre. There is Industrial property all over Tennessee that is out there for much less than that and some of it is on existing Interstates and near existing exits. If the entire state inventory of 84 square miles were sold to a manufacturer or multiple manufacturer's who had capital cost at the national average of 3.5% of the product cost, it would cost over $161 million dollars to buy it at a bargain basement price of $3000 per acre and those manufacturers would have to produce products valued at $4.6 Trillion to support the capital costs. The Tennessee GDP from manufacturing was measured in current dollars in 2008 at only about $40.6 Billion dollars. Tennessee manufacturing GDP would have to grow over 113 times the 2008 estimate provided by the Bureau of Economic Analysis to afford to occupy and pay for the existing stock of empty land that we had in 2008. There is a glut of these properties and TDOT cannot sustain the effort to serve one percent of them with ideal conditions.

In marketing this site, and application for Certificate of Need, the local governments never miss a chance to tout its visibility from the Interstate. This is not something that traditional manufacturing needs but it is highly prized by road side service and commercial enterprises that have a superior capacity to recover the cost of high land prices at exits. The loose definition of an industrial park or business park and the poorly limited "incidental use" exception means that others will demand parity and that the demands for completion of the grossly unwise Interstate Connector projects will proliferate for the purpose of being fair to local governments. Being fair to local governments has overwhelmed the concept and consideration of being fair to the taxpayer.

The cost of this project and the associated future loop connecting to SR 111 is more than the costs of the current three year work program for I-69 projects in Obion County, about $268 million, or Cumberland County, $234 million. The only reason these counties have such generous allotments is due to earmarking. While TDOT may be forgiven for building its way to the poor house because of federal mandates and federal earmarks, there is no rational excuse for this project now, especially in this era of low reimbursement per vehicle mile. The gas tax has declined in inflation adjusted terms to Depression levels. Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, Cash for Clunkers legislation and a demographic change in driving habits makes future increased consumption of Vehicle Miles Traveled a minimum requirement for just a flat yearly income. The County Seat Connector Legislation by the state was never funded to a level that was adequate for the task and is a constant drag on building and sustaining a reasonable system with a tax rate that is competitive with adjacent states. Even the federal government, with larger resources and the ability to reach into general funds was never able to finish the Appalachian Highway program for the same reason. Some of the most difficult terrain and the highest cost roads have been saved until last.

The ability of the employer and the employee to connect to each other via a financially sustainable infrastructure is shrinking because of projects that cost more than they reasonably can be expected to bring in as yearly income. Instead of supporting the current need, the project supports a need that cannot possibly materialize. In an odd way, the mirage of the bird in the bush is worth more than the one in the hand. The tens of thousands of people who pass under Mine Lick Creek Road every day and those who will never or rarely pass under Mine Lick Creek Road are better off without this exit. TDOT is trading a very large pile of 2010 and 2011 cash for an inadequate flow of future revenues that cannot possibly replenish the state Highway Fund with the income from transportation taxes.

TDOT is already rationing asphalt by limiting the size of a project. A five or ten mile section of improved road may not compensate for the rate of decline in average speeds in the rest of the trip to work. Projects like the Fifth Interchange and perhaps a hundred other projects that have similar financial short comings are proof of a lack of fiscal discipline and concern for financial stability. TDOT looks no farther into the future than what is in the cash box next year. Building this connector is the greatest leap of faith since Jack traded the family cow for magic beans.

Danny L. Newton

Cookeville,

Tennessee 38501

54-5-403. Industrial highways authorized. -


(a) In order to facilitate the development and expansion of industry and to provide access to industrial areas, the department, with the approval of the governor, is authorized to use any powers granted under any general law to construct and maintain industrial highways when there is a finding by the department that the highways are clearly necessary to secure the development of an industrial site or park or lessen serious congestion and hazards or facilitate the movement of persons, commodities or raw materials, and no other feasible means exist for accomplishing these objectives.

54-5-507. State-local agreements. -

(a) The department will receive proposals from local agencies, either city or county, for the construction of a connector. Proposals shall contain an agreement on the part of the local agency to participate in the amount of fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the project, and to maintain the connectors at its own expense after completion of the project. The department shall receive the proposals on the basis of coordinated development of access to the various sections of interstate highway routes or fully controlled access highways as they become open to traffic, and in accordance with established departmental criteria for priority of construction and in accordance with the availability of funds.

(b) In no event shall the engineering phase of a connector project be begun by the department until the entire cost of the engineering, as estimated by the department, is deposited with the department by the local agency.

(c) After the engineering phase of the project has been completed, the right-of-way phase of the project shall not be begun by the department until fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the right-of-way phase of the project, as estimated by the department, is deposited with the department by the local agency.

      (d) (1) After the right-of-way phase of the project has been completed, the construction phase of the project shall not be begun by the department until fifty percent (50%) of the remaining cost of the project, as estimated by the department, is deposited with the department by the local agency.

      (2) In arriving at the amount mentioned in subdivision (d)(1), the local agency shall receive a credit of fifty percent (50%) of the amount deposited by the local agency for the engineering phase.

      (e) In the event the local agency does not deposit with the department fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the right-of-way phase of the project, as estimated by the department, within sixty (60) days after the completion by the department of the engineering for the project, or should the local agency not deposit with the department fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the construction phase of the project, as estimated by the department, within sixty (60) days after the completion by the department of the right-of-way phase of the project, the department may, at its option, terminate any agreement with the local agency with respect to the local connector, and any funds deposited with the department by the local agency for the engineering phase or the right-of-way phase, or both, shall become part of the general highway fund free from all claims by the local agency.

      (f) In the event the local agency does not deposit with the department fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the construction phase of the project as provided for in subsection (d), and the department exercises its option to terminate any agreement with the local agency with respect to the project, the local agency shall pay to the department, upon written demand, the actual amount necessary to reimburse the department for expenditures made in accomplishing the engineering and right-of-way phases after deducting the amounts previously deposited by the local agency as the entire estimated cost of the engineering phase and as fifty percent (50%) of the estimated cost of the right-of-way phase.

      (g) In the event of the failure of the local agency to fully comply with this section, the department shall be authorized to receive any funds, excluding rural roads and federal-aid secondary roads funds, that would otherwise be payable to the local agency for highway purposes from the state, until the department has recovered the amount necessary to result in the fifty percent (50%) financial participation in the actual total cost of any phase, or reimbursement in full, as provided for in subsection (a), (c) or (d).

      (h) Following the completion of the project, the department shall determine the actual total cost of the project and either pay to or receive from the local agency an amount that results in the equal financial participation by the parties in the total cost of the project.

      (i) It is the intent of this part for the local agency to participate in the cost of connector projects with road or street funds of the local agency that shall, in no event, include in any part funds from the rural roads program or the federal-aid secondary roads program.

      (j) The maintenance of any road designated as a connector under this part shall be the responsibility of the local agency that participated in the cost of the project.

[Acts 1965, ch. 159, § 7; 1967, ch. 19, § 1; 1968, ch. 577, § 3; 1971, ch. 93, § 1; impl. am. Acts 1972, ch. 829, § 7; T.C.A., § 54-575; Acts 1981, ch. 264, § 12; 1991, ch. 133, § 4; 1999, ch. 249, §§ 5, 6.]



How Not to Regulate Greenhouse Gases by Dr. Robert W. Poole,Jr.



On Earth Day, April 16th, the Environmental Protection Agency is widely expected to announce an endangerment findings about CO2. That would be a legal declaration, under which EPA would then be required to prepare a proposal to regulate CO2 like other criteria pollutants that come out of factories, refineries, dry cleaners . . . and motor vehicles. That may not sound like a big deal on first hearing, but the consequences could be hugely negative for transportation on our highways.

It was unclear for a long while whether the EPA had legal authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs). But in Massachusetts vs. EPA, the US Supreme Court held that it does, if it chooses to exercise it. So last fall the Bush EPA put out an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) laying out how it might go about regulating GHG under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The comments filed in response to Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0318 make for chilling reading.

In order to regulate GHGs under the CAA, the EPA must establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for CO2 and other GHGs. And since the sources of GHGs are global, and concentrations produced today remain in the atmosphere for decades, under the CAA transportation conformity provisions, the entire country would be a non-attainment zone, and would probably remain there for decades or centuries regardless of what regulatory actions are taken here. That means federal transportation funds would be withheld unless and until states produced implementation plans showing the attainment of conformit”very likely impossible for the next few decades. As the US DOT comments made clear, Such a finding would reach beyond power plants and other installations to include vital transportation infrastructure such as roads, bridges, airports, ports, and transit lines. At a time when our country critically needs to modernize our transportation infrastructure, the NAAQS that the draft rule would establish and the development of the implementation rules that would follow—could seriously undermine these efforts. You can read a lot more of the gory details in the docket submission by my former Reason colleague Marlo Lewis, PhD, former staff director of the House Government Affairs subcommittee on national economic growth, natural resources, and regulatory affairs.REPORT)

It’s clear to me that using the Clean Air Act in this way would be disastrous for the economy as well as for transportation. It’s the wrong tool to use against GHGs. As I’ve written elsewhere, the least-bad approach is a revenue-neutral carbon tax, which would accomplish what a cap-and-trade system aims to do (put a price on emitting CO2) but without either (a) creating huge political gains and losses as various sectors jockey for allocations of free permits or (b) producing windfall revenues to be allocated to politically favored purposes.

The transportation community should line up in favor of a revenue-neutral carbon tax, because the alternatives—especially EPA regulation under the CAA—would be so much worse.

GAS TAX INDEXING PLAN DIED!

by Danny Newton

06 MAY 2009


The plan to index the gas tax to the Consummer Price Index is dead for this legislative year according to taxpayer advocate Ben Cunningham at his blog. This makes one wonder if there was another balencing plan somewhere that also died that was being used as a trade off to get the tax.

CITY MISSES DEADLINE... ON WE GO TO COURT OVER THE BUSINESS PARK

by Danny Newton

30 APRIL 2009


The city and the county have rejected the proposed partition made by the owners of the Pyle Property and have ignored the 30 APRIL 2009 deadline for avoiding a trip to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Case is primarily a move to clarify the law with respect to procedures used against the owners in order to bully them into submission in this outrageous eminent domain abuse case.

If the city/county should lose this case, there will be a precedent set for other counties wishing to use eminent domain abuse and it will mean that the attorney's fees will have to be paid by the city/county The city and the county have already complained about the dollar amount on the basis that they were unusual. This will not settle the owners petition for a partition of the land rather than taking the money offered by the government. The defendants lawyer has already presented an outline of his case in an earlier court hearing for actual partition by asserting that the law gives preference to this solution over simply buying out the owner.

Maybe Bob Anderson, the defendant's attorney, has to charge extra because he is always going up against two attorneys whenever they meet the city and county in court?

WILL THE FIFTH INTERCHANGE GET STIMULUS MONEY?

by Danny Newton

30 APRIL 2009


Several people have told me that they heard that the Fifth Interchange is going to get stimulus money but it seems unlikely that this will happen unless we are still stimulating the economy several years from now. The Fifth Interchange is not shovel ready because it does not have land purchased and it does not have a set of plans. We still don't know what the geometry of the road is going to be. The Diamond or Modified Cloverleaf layout is a closely guarded secret. Only the Modified Cloverleaf design with a connector road to US 70 has a blessing from the Federal Highway Administration but the amount of money available is more consistent with the cheaper low volume diamond interchange that the city/county have shown on some of their planning documents.

There is a possibility that the city or the county could come up with some stimulus money that might help with the hidden cost that have not been sprung on the public yet. That would be the matching money required by the Interstate Connector Act of 1965. I have a letter from TDOT that assures me that the Interstate Connector Act will be applied to this interchange. That means at least $15 million, in addition to the $5 million purchase price plus the $14 million dollar infrastructure costs. TDOT has also administratively modified the amount they will assist in the cost of an interchange by limiting the state participation to only $2 million dollars. That won't even pay for a new bridges over the Interstate. The current bridges are a little narrow for the car volumes that they project.

PUTNAM COUNTY AND THE CITY GET DUAL CERTIFICATE FOR THE INDUSTRIAL PARK

KANGAROO COURT IGNORES THE FACTS AGAIN.

by Danny Newton

6 MAR 2009

      A delegation of 18 people plus Representative Henry Fincher and Senator Charlotte Burks converged on the Building Finance Committee of the Department of the Economic and Comunity Development to plead their case for another industrial park in Putnam County. Everyone got to say something positive about the project and the result was that the Certificate of Need was authorized not only for a Business Park but for an Industrial Park.

      Attorney Bob Anderson, speaking for the Lynch Family, reminded the committee that the current legal action in the state supreme court was still pending and that the only assurance that the most valuable property near what might be the Fifth Interchange would not be in the park was a few city and county resolutions. The attorney for the Lynch family has yet to see confirming paperwork that the battle is really over.

More about the meeting later....

RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS LINKS

FIFTH 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 AUG 2005     City of Sparta, in White County, throws in $50,000 for the Highlands Iniative

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.

21 JAN 2005   City of Cookeville announces taking an option on property to be in future industrial park. Mayor Doubts that Fifth Interchange will be built. Sam Salee says more industrial properties needed.WARNING! HERLD CITIZEN VERSION OF THE TRUTH

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.

29 JUNE 2006    Putnam County loans Cookeville $2,452,685 for their share of the Business Park.

14 DEC 2006    TDOT Signs the Environmental Assessment FHWA concures later on 18 APRIL 2008. The connecting road is to have a design speed of 70 MPH and 250 foot wide controlled access right-of-way.

05 JUNE 2006    Tennessee Governor signs bill limiting the ability of the state, county and city to condemn property. PDF FILE HERE

16 JAN 2007    County Commission votes to listen to Mrs Lynch's side of the story and votes down condemnation request.

05 FEB 2007     Center Hill Regional Planning Meeting votes on transportation projects

06 MARCH 2007     TDOT Holds a public Meeting on the Fifth Interchange

29 JUNE 2007   $5 million transferred out of Putnam county Debt Service Fund to buy an estimated 400 Acre Business Park.

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 Sheriff Served Mrs. Lynch a summons this morning to initiate the condemnation process on her land.

17 MAR 2008   The City and the County ammend their condemnation suit. This will push back the court date into April 2008.

17 MAR 2008   The Herald-Citizen quotes TDOT spokesperson Jenifer Osborne Flynn as saying that the Fifth Interchange and the Northern Connector are "non related." This suggests that the useless road attached to the interchange can be built later.

18 APRIL 2008    Federal Highway Adnistration, Charles J O'Neil, signs Finding of No Signifigant Impact Statement For Mine Lick Creek Interchange Road And Northern Connector Road.

25 APRIL 2008    THE LYNCH FAMILY ANNOUNCE THAT THE COUNTY AND THE CITY HAVE WITHDRAWN FROM LEGAL ACTION TO PRESS THEIR OUTRAGEOUS EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE UPON THE LYNCH FAMILY

01 MAY 2008    TDOT puts up a partial electronic copy on their web site of the FONSI. This describes the staged construction of the connecting road from two to four lane but on a four lane right-of-way.

08 MAY 2008    The Lynch Family files a petition for Partition in Kind in Circuit Court. Attorneys ask for legal costs and damages.

09 MAY 2008   Herald-Citizen prints Finding of No Signifigant Impact or FONSI claiming that the Northern Connector and the Fifth Interchange are Connected.

18 JUNE 2008   The City Attorney suddenly discovers that he has to go on vaction on the same day that the City and County are scheduled in court to continue their campaign of eminent domain abuse. The Judge rescheduled the next court date to 21 JULY 08.

03 JUL 2008   City announces on the radio that they are paying $16 million to the Upper Cumberland Electric Membership Corporation to compensate them for land annexed in the past few years.

21 JUL 2008   Judge Turnbull permits the city and the county to witdraw from their previous motion to withdraw from the suit. The judge further suggests that the two parties settle the matter out of court in a judicial confrence in November. The Judge allows further delay, until next year for the city and the county to obtain a Certificate of Public Purpose.

03 OCT 2008      The Herald Citizen reported that The city of Cookeville and Putnam County are seeking a certificate of public purpose and necessity from the state Building Finance Committee of the Tennessee Board of Economic Growth. The Cookeville City Council approved a resolution authorizing City Manager Jim Shipley to apply for the certificate during its meeting Thursday.

09 OCT 2008    the Cookeville City Council applies to the Building Finance Committee of the Tennessee Board of Economic Growth for a certificate of public purpose and necessity for the proposed Highlands Business Park."

14 OCT 2008     County Planning Commission approves petition for Certificate of Public Purpose and Necessity at the regular meeting. Kim Blaylock announces that the Business Park is on a "Fast Track." Linda Owens was denied chance to speak at the County Commission Meeting.

23 OCT 2008    The Lynch Family Attorney, Bob Anderson's Appeal to alter the discretionary finding by Judge Turnbull earlier in the year was denied. The Judge also denied a request that the money held in escrow be held in an interest bearing account.

14 NOV 2008     Centerhill RPO moves Fifth Interchange back down to 2011/2012 time frame after voting 11 projects ahead of it in 2010. Project Manager states that this was at the request of local officials.

17 NOV 2008    The county Commission again refused Linda Owens a spokesperson for Mrs Lynch and the family to address the county commission or accept a written summary of her intended remarks. A resolution to issue general Obligation bonds was passed for the county portion of the $14.28 million of infrastructure costs.

20 NOV 2008    The Cookeville City Council approved a resolution to move forward with a PILOT program of tax incentives and to issue General Obligation Bonds to fund the $7.2 portion of the work in the Business Park. The City Council voted to pay the consultants for their work on water, sewer, gas and road design in the new park.

03 DEC 2008     The city of Cookeville let it be know publicly that contacts with TDOT have been made that suggest that use of connector road that was approved by FHWA and shown to the public in the public meetings could be elimiminated and instead, they wanted a road built by the city and the county to be considered as the connector road. The connector road in the original design was originally designed as a four lane that was part of the Corridor J project. It also was a fragment of a half loop around Cookeville that went from SR111, south of Cookeville to SR111 North of Cookeville.

8 DEC 2008    Recently elected state Representative Henry Fincher criticizes the City of Cookeville for lobbying TDOT to alter the plan for the Fifth Interchange.

27 JAN 2009 City of Cookeville and County Officials request secret meeting with the Department of Economic and Community Development to discuss their application for a Certificate of Need.

05 MARCH 2009 Cookeville and Putnam County gets certificate for an industrial park and a business park for a reduced footprint of about 290 acres. This excludes land under contention because of the partition and condemnation suits.

30 APRIL 2009 Deadline for City/County to respond or withdraw from suit passes. State Supreme Court to hear the case and make a decision, possibly in six months.

03 JUNE 2009 Tennessee Supreme Court hears Eminent Domain Abuse case concerning the government land grab at the Fifth Interchange.

24 JAN 2009 Herald-Citizen finally admits that there is a problem with funding the new Interchange. Federal Highway Administration refuses to certify the Project. TDOT demands local payments to get the project back on track.

12 JUNE 2010 Judge Amy Hollars Hears request for the city and county to pay for the legal fees associated with the condemnation of the Lynch Property.

.

16 FEB 2010 County Lawyer Jeff Jones tells County Commission that the Law Suit was settled last Friday and that the defendant was only awarded $25k out of the maximum of $150+k that was submitted to her.

16 FEB 2010 Putnam County Commission votes on a blank check commitment to work with TDOT to build the Fifth Intechanghe. County Lawyer, Jeff Jones assured all that the resolution does not contain a dollar amount and can not be considered as a commitment that can fall on future County Commissions. County Executive, Kim Blaylock predicted that this is the only way to keep the project alive. The vote was 3 against and 21 for the resolution.

20 AUG 2010 CENTER HILL RPO MEETING at Leslie Town Center. Fifth Interchange is to be built with a northern connector. The land for a four lane is to be bought but the road is only going to be a two lane road. Chester Southerland announced that TDOT is still waiting on the Federal Highway Administration to give the approval.

23 AUG 2010 Cookeville Planning Commission approves Road Plan with Fifth Interchange and Loop Road as major features.

21 SEPT 2010 First internet hint that the Federal Highway Administration had approved the Fifth Interchange with the connector road attached.

02 OCT 2010 CUMBERLAND BUSINESS JOURNAL Exposes critical details about deal to finish the Fifth Interchange. City/County commits to $14 million last Febuary. Also according to the CBJ, the city/county asked for the connector road and the interchange.

03 NOV 2011 RPO Meeting announces delay in the construction of the Fifth Interchange. Right of Way Acquisition is now to be in 2014 and 2015.

RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS LINKS

CONTACT YOUR TENNESSEE

STATE TRANSPORATION OFFICIALS



House Committee on Transportation


REPRESENTATIVE BILL HARMON, CHAIRMAN

District 37 — Sequatchie, Van Buren, Grundy and Marion Counties

Phone (423) 949-5100

Fax (615) 253-0264

Phone (615) 741-6849

CONTACT:Sandy Sain


REPRESENTATIVE VINCE DEAN, VICE CHAIR

District 30 — Part of Hamilton County

Phone (615) 741-1934

Fax (615) 253-0271

CONTACT: Joan Achuff


REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE FRALEY, SECRETARY

District 39 — Franklin, Moore, and part of Lincoln Counties

Phone (615) 741-8695

Fax (615) 741-5759

CONTACT: Stephanie Peterson


REPRESENATIVE JUDY BARKER

District 77 — Obion, Lake and part of Dyer Counties

Phone: (615) 741-0718

Contact: Audrey Jenkins


REPRESENATIVE TY COBB

District 64 — Part of Maury County

Phone: (615) 741-3005

CONTACT: Connie Phelps


REPRESENTATIVE HENRY FINCHER

District 42 — Part of Putnam County

Phone (615) 741-1875

Contact: Jennifer Murphy


REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD FLOYD

District 27 — Part of Hamilton County

Phone (615) 741-2746

Fax (615) 253-0304

Contact: Cheryl Goodson


REPRESENTATIVE MATTHEW HILL

Phone: 615-741-2251

District 7 — Part of Washington County

Contact: Carol Burroughs


REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIP JOHNSON

District 78 — Cheatham and part of Montgomery and Williamson Counties

Phone (615) 741-7477

Contact: Celeste Thomas


REPRESENTATIVE JIMMY MATLOCK

District 21 — Parts of Loudon and Monroe Counties

Phone (615) 741-3736

Contact: Brenda Moore


REPRESENTATIVE BARRETT RICH

Phone: (615) 741-6890

District 94 — Fayette and parts of Hardeman and Tipton Counties

CONTACT: B. L. Rhodes


REPRESENTATIVE TONY SHIPLEY

District 2 — Part of Sullivan County

Phone: (615) 741-2886

CONTACT: B. L. Rhodes

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN C. TIDWELL

District 74 — Houston, Humphreys, Perry, and parts of Hickman and Maury Counties

Phone (931) 535-2619

Phone (615) 741-7098

Fax (615) 741-4324

Contact: Debra Webb

REPRESENTATIVE BEN WEST Rep. Ben West Jr. D-Hermitage

District 60 — Part of Davidson County

Phone (615) 889-0801

Phone (615) 741-6959

Fax (615) 253-0331

Contact: Mary Adair


You 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 HERE

RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS LINKS

SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE:

All legislators may be reached at 1-800-449-8366, then enter the last five digits of their nashville office phone number listed below.

SENATOR JIM TRACY, CHAIRMAN

District 16 — Bedford, Moore, and part of Rutherford Counties

Phone 615-741-1066

Fax 615-741-2255


CONTACTS: Christina Barber Warren Wells, Research Analyst


SENATOR STEVE SOUTHERLAND, VICE CHAIR

District 1 — Cocke, Greene, Hamblen, and Unicoi Counties

Phone (615) 741-3851

Fax (615) 253-0330

CONTACTS: Carolyn Newman Loudene Gee, Research Analyst


SENATOR TIM BARNES,SECRETARY

District 22 — Cheatham, Houston, and Montgomery Counties

Phone: (931) 648-9400

Phone: (615) 741-2374

Fax: (615) 253-0193

CONTACT: Megan Callis


SENATOR MAE BEAVERS

District 17 - Cannon, Clay, DeKalb,Macon,Smith, part of Sumner, Trousdale and Wilson County

Phone: 615-741-2421

Staff Contact: Patti Saliba, Alexander McVeagh, Research Analyst


SENATOR ANDY BERKE

District 10 - Parts of Hamilton and Marion County Counties

Phone (615) 741-6682

Staff Contact: Sam Neel


SENATOR LOWE FINNEY

District 27 - Madison, Gibson, and Carroll Counties

Phone (615) 741-1810

Contact:Lynette Morris


SENATOR DELORES GRESHAM

District 26 — Chester, Crockett, Fayette, Hardeman, Hardin, Haywood, McNairy, and Wayne Counties

Phone (615) 741-2368

Staff Contact: Linda Klingman Nathan James, Research Analyst


SENATOR 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 Baldwin


SENATOR KEN YAGER

District 12 — Campbell, Fentress, Morgan, Rhea, Roane, and Scott Counties

Phone (615) 741-1449

Fax (615) 253-0237

Staff Contacts: Zach Bates


RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS LINKS

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)


RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS LINKS casino online
web counter