Forest Hill Road

1. Forest Hill Road

2. Forest Hill Road

3. No reason to proceed as proposed • This project should not be a priority for scarce State GDOT funds.  • It does not have regional significance.  • It has no coherent purpose and need, connecting projects have been shunted into future oblivion • There are no safety problems. 

4. No community support • Project has never been supported by the community. • The first public hearing was very well attended, and the vast majority, 232 people, wrote comments opposing the proposed plan. • Subsequent to the public hearing, over 600 people signed a petition opposing the design • The local editorial board has consistently supported the community

5. Some fixes needed • There are some intersections that need minor fixes • The bulk of the money for this project could be spent on more deserving and compelling needs. • FHR needs to be repaved.

6. MAAI responsible for current plan • The current design was drawn by Moreland Altobeli and Associates, Inc. (MAAI) and its subcontractors.  • They are responsible for promoting and defending this inappropriate intrusive and costly project.

7. We want a plan like Second Street! • We are delighted that Macon has embraced the context sensitive design for a major road in the city, Second Street. • We are asking for the same consideration on FHR. • Second Street carries more traffic than FHR, and the same design principles can be applied in both cases.

8. Mediation • Was arranged by the county. • Mediation team members: • County: MAAI representatives, county engineer. No GDOT representatives. • Neighborhood: Rick Chellman PE from TND engineering, Carol Lystlund, Alice Boyd, Dan Fischer, Lindsay Holliday, Susan Martin

9. Mediation • County refused to discuss the section from Wimbish to Vineville and would not accept any proposal for changes. • County refused to accept any changes to the section from Wimbish to Northside. • Neighborhood presented a compromise plan that bridged the difference between what the county plan shows and what the neighbors had proposed. • Roundabouts were not discussed.

10. Mediation • Because the county refused to compromise and accept any changes at all mediation failed. • County representatives have been lying about mediation stating that the team insisted on roundabouts and that is why mediation failed. • Let’s be clear: mediation failed because the county would not compromise on anything

11. Traffic Volumes • MA blatantly ignores the GDOT policy which requires using the last 5 years of traffic counts to make future projections.-look-back priority. • Traffic counts have actually decreased in the last 5 years in two of the segments monitored.   There was a only a slight increase in the third - nowhere close the MAAI projections • MAAI has a pattern of overstating traffic counts

12. Traffic Volumes • MATS has revised the projected traffic projections for this road (for the year 2030) downward by 18%, 35%, 40% and 32% at the various places they measure traffic on the road. • The expected traffic at the Northside Drive end of the road will be at one-half the capacity of at two-lane road in the year 2030

13. Traffic Volumes • One blatant example of MAAI’s inflated traffic projections is the Houston Rd. project where the traffic counts were overstated by more than 2 times.  • Bibb County P and Z had to revise the projections downward to guide appropriate planning decisions.

14. Traffic Volumes • "Verbatim minutes of that executive committee meeting continually reference a report by Jim Evans, a private traffic consultant, that predicts between 20,600 and 24,100 cars a day will use the north end of Houston Road (north of Sardis Church Road) by 2025. The report concludes that 14,700 cars a day will use the southern portion of the road in 2025. But a March 2003 report by the Macon-Bibb County Planning & Zoning Commission drops those projections to 9,430 to 14,480 cars a day for the north end and 6,000 to 11,660 cars for the south end of Houston Road. Evans has declined in the past to comment on why the new projections are lower than the ones he formulated, but did say he was confident of the higher numbers in 1999. "http://www.macon-bibb.com/FHR/traffic.htm

18. Safety • Forest Hill Rd. is already 20% safer than comparable roads in Georgia.  MAAI also misstated this statistic and GDOT acknowledged a 30% error in their figures.

20. Safety • MAAI ignores the flexibility provided in ASHTO guidelines, especially for developed urban areas.  • Proposed design speed is 47.8 mph, yet they are proposing to post a speed limit of 35 mph.  • This design/reality disconnect is unsafe.  • Vehicles travelling at the design speed will kill pedestrians. 

21. Safety • The high design speed means that the power poles will need to be moved • This adds cost to the project and more destruction to property.  • Georgia Power does not want to move the power poles. • A reasonable design will save everyone money and preserve the aesthetics and integrity of the neighborhood.

22. Safety • MAAI admits that they have never gone back to check their safety or design assumptions on completed projects.    • Serious accidents and fatalities have increased on several projects completed by MAAI.

23. Safety • The mediation team took roundabouts off the table, but they should be considered when the plans are revisited. • Roundabouts are the safest, most efficient way to address intersection problems.

24. Storm Water Runoff • Standard practices were ignored when the project was planned, and the amount of runoff from the increased impervious cover was vastly understated.  • The errors were uncovered by the acting city engineer.  • MAAI's response was to bring the project into compliance by calculating the increase in runoff over the entire drainage basin, not the project area. 

25. Storm Water Runoff • This project will exacerbate drainage problems. • This will open the city to liability for damages and the cost of remedial design.  There has already been flooding in this area and a lawsuit. • By rubberstamping this project, GDOT shares liability.

26. Storm Water Lawsuit • Posted on Tue, Jul. 11, 2006http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/local/15009796.htmBibb, private companies sued in floodingWoman seeking funds to pay for damaged propertyBy Phillip RamatiTELEGRAPH STAFF WRITERA woman who sustained damage to her property because of flooding last summer filed a lawsuit Monday in Bibb County Superior Court.Patricia Busby, a schoolteacher whose property flooded after a wall of a sediment pond burst near her home at 4573 North Beachwood Drive, named Bibb County in the lawsuit, along with Northside Development LLC; Cunningham & Co. Engineers Inc.; and G.A. Faulkner Jr. Co.Sam Wilson, one of Busby's attorneys, said all the defendants were named to get the matter settled in one proceeding."We'll sort things out and see what happens," he said. "(Busby) just wants her home fixed."Monday's lawsuit does not ask for any specific amount in damages, Wilson said, because of continuing problems on the property.In May, Busby sent a letter to the county asking for $48,000 in damages to be used to replace 250 feet of inadequate drainage pipe, which will require removing 2,000 square feet of concrete driveway. The yard also needs sod and dirt to replace what was lost through erosion. The $48,000 was the estimate by an insurance company to fix the driveway.

27. Storm Water Runoff from Telegraph Article • Stantec calculated the runoff change from Forest Hill Road based on the entire drainage basin, as opposed to the project area alone. This is a much larger area, leading to a smaller percentage increase. • Because Forest Hill Road is a long, linear project, it's appropriate to base the calculations on the basin as a whole, Sheets said. Stantec's written explanation states that local runoff policies have "some inconsistencies," but "the accepted engineering standard ... is to evaluate the drainage basin as a whole." • Bill Causey, who manages the city of Macon's engineering department, has pushed for the drainage ordinance to be enforced on the project since September. He feared erosion and flooding problems along Savage Creek - where runoff will be piped - would be worsened by the project. His requests led to Stantec's hydrological study.

28. Changes to Purpose and Need Stated in EA • Original purpose and need was to provide an enhanced route to the to Macon mall • The Mall is no longer viable and is in receivership. • Connecting roads in the original plan – all separate projects – have been placed in long range and are not scheduled for construction in the foreseeable future.

29. Changes to the Purpose and Need • Without any projects that connect to FHR the logical terminii and the independent utility of the proposed design must be questioned.

30. Changes to Purpose and Need Stated in EA • While FHR can be a route to the new mall, there are many others, and it is not a direct connection. • MAAI and other county and city officials claim that FHR will provide a better route to the new mall. • It is not acceptable to change the purpose and need without revisiting the EA • Current traffic counts do not support this assumption

31. Changes to Purpose and Need • Vineville Ave./Forsyth Rd./US 41 is at capacity. • Because there are no plans to make changes to Vineville Ave./Forsyth Rd. planning to add capacity to this road runs contrary to AASHTO’s definition of logical terminii • FHR will add traffic to Vineville.

32. Misrepresentation of Conditions • Savage Creek is listed as an intermittent “seasonal” creek in the EA. • It is, in fact, a perennial creek. It flows all year long • Misrepresenting the official designation of this creek allows MAAI to skirt mitigation requirements.

34. Other Engineers and Planners agree with Neighborhood • Rick Chellman, Walter Kulash, Dhiru Thadhani, Joe Passonneau, and Michael Wallwork – all internationally acclaimed designers agree that Moreland Altobeli got it wrong!

35. Present and Future costs • The city will have to maintain and repair this swath of unnecessary pavement. • Bad designs cost the community tax money today and into the future.