34.5 F
Clarksville
Thursday, March 28, 2024
HomeCommentaryEast – West Corridor

East – West Corridor

By Councilman Bill Summers

On the evening of June 10th, the city held a public informational meeting at the Kleeman Community Center. The purpose was to provide background information to property owners affected by the proposed East-West Corridor, also known as Jack Miller Blvd.

A couple of months ago the Planning Commission alerted the city council that proposed new residential developments in and around the 2007 proposed corridor were about to close it off completely. Traffic engineers and long term planners had marked this corridor as a “must have” given that all the traffic models and population growth patterns predicted that by year 2030/35 existing roads would be inadequate. 

This would occur even if the following were to happen: 

1) expansion of the 101st Parkway from two to four lanes (completed),

2) the expansion of Tiny Town Road from two to four lanes (completed), and the expansion of Trenton Road (which has NOT happened and is nowhere on the state’s list to get done in the next 10 to 15 years at the earliest). The city and county offered both financial and engineering services to the state in order to speed development and construction of Trenton, but to no avail.

There have been some concerns expressed by the affected property owners such as the need of such a road at all, why haven’t other considerations or alternatives been looked at and put it somewhere else. The meeting, which I had proposed for last Thursday, would answer those questions. 

History

Segments and the need for road sections associated with what is now know as the East-West Corridor were first identified in 1995 in the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The LRTP is updated every five years and the needs for additional roads in this part of the city have been retained and updated every five years. The LRTP gathers data and analyzes population growth, job growth, traffic and transportation needs. This need identification was again cited in the 2000 and 2005 plan updates. In 2006 (May as I recall), the city (under Mayor Trotter) requested a study on the Northeast St. Bethlehem area based on factors seen and identified in these other studies. While this study looked at and suggested several actions needed for improving future transportation requirements, it said a preferred Transportation Network Alternative was needed for the area. Areas such as prioritization of land use and management was needed, travel demand forecasting and modeling was needed, and transportation network analysis required. Based on that the city commissioned the study.

In October 2006 the City of Clarksville requested a specific study that would start at Jack Miller Blvd and conclude at South Hampton Road on Wilma Rudolph Blvd. This road would cross areas of projected growth and traffic to include the Airport,  Trenton Road and Peachers Mill. The school system has decided to build a major school complex on Peachers Mill, which has made the city invest around $11 million to widen this road to handle the school and predicted residential traffic. Tiny Town Road and 101st Pkwy are the only east-west roads in this part of Clarksville, and Tiny Town does not extend all the way to Wilma Rudolph. 

Based on this data and analysis, a report was presented to the city in Jan 2007. I recall the presentation we were given and we were told that in the near future we would need to take action if we were to address future traffic needs.  It is now three years later and the alarm to take action has sounded. 

Current Situation

When the Jack Miller study was finished it listed five (5) possible routes for the road listed as A thru E. The corridor would have up to a 250-foot width, 125 feet would be for actual road, costs would be in the $30 million range, there would be limited access and it could be built in phases.

Here are the proposed routes in red (Chart 1):

East-West Corridor (Chart 1)
East-West Corridor (Chart 1)

As you can see, there were several legs proposed generally in the middle of the route.  However, the leg starting at Peachers Mill and connecting to Jack Miller was always the same.

As time has gone by all of the initially proposed legs (A – E) have been blocked or hampered by growth and development. Thus, the last remaining leg in this area is somewhat a combination of legs C & D in green.  See chart below (Chart 2):

East West Corridor (Chart 2)
East West Corridor (Chart 2)

Approximately 3400 home lots have been approved for building between 2005 and 2010 in this area. Within the last year additional properties totaling 2800 lots have been submitted for more home building/development. The following chart shows, in orange, these new proposed lots (Chart 3):

East West Corridor (Chart 3)
East West Corridor (Chart 3)

If you compare Chart 3 with Charts 1 and 2 you will note that development has eliminated route A, much of B, sections of C and D and just about all of E. Thus, you see the effort to use some of C and D to thread the corridor with the least total impact on property owners (the green route).

Note the red area next to Peachers Mill Road. This is the proposed housing development that sent the Planning Commission straight to the council with an alert that the corridor is about to become closed. This proposed development is set for 400 homes and is in the direct path of the proposed corridor. It is this development that is forcing a decision by the council to either set aside land by ordinance to protect the last route available, or forego a transportation corridor that planners and engineers have been telling us is needed for some time.

At several of the council meetings, property owners have come before the council asking that this corridor not be selected and other alternatives be looked at. In addition, a few have said no additional routes are needed at all and that this is the latest land grab for developers to make money. I will go through the alternatives/options that have been suggested.

Option.  Don’t build the road, it isn’t needed and is a land grab for developers.

I’ll start with this one as it questions the need for an additional road in this area. There are several issues that make this assertion wrong. 

First, studies going back to 1995 have stated a requirement for some additional road development in this area. So the need to look at additional roads in this area is not new. 

Second, the 2006 Northeast/St. Bethlehem and the follow-on 2007 Jack Miller studies were recognized as needs under the administration of Mayor Trotter and that council. The final report was completed in January 2007 and was one of the first studies we were briefed on when I arrived on the council. The 2007 council concurred there was a need according to the studies, but due to the financial status of the city and the number of other pressing matters that were ongoing with some city operations, further action was delayed. Time has run out and decisions can no longer be delayed.

If you compare Chart 3 with Charts 1 and 2 you will note that development has eliminated route A, much of B, sections of C and D and just about all of E. Thus, you see the effort to use some of C and D to thread the corridor with the least total impact on property owners (the green route).

Note the red area next to Peachers Mill Road. This is the proposed housing development that sent the Planning Commission straight to the council with an alert that the corridor is about to become closed. This proposed development is set for 400 homes and is in the direct path of the proposed corridor. It is this development that is forcing a decision by the council to either set aside land by ordinance to protect the last route available, or forego a transportation corridor that planners and engineers have been telling us is needed for some time.

At several of the council meetings, property owners have come before the council asking that this corridor not be selected and other alternatives be looked at. In addition, a few have said no additional routes are needed at all and that this is the latest land grab for developers to make money. I will go through the alternatives/options that have been suggested.

Option.  Don’t build the road, it isn’t needed and is a land grab for developers.

I’ll start with this one as it questions the need for an additional road in this area. There are several issues that make this assertion wrong. 

First, studies going back to 1995 have stated a requirement for some additional road development in this area. So the need to look at additional roads in this area is not new. 

Second, the 2006 Northeast/St. Bethlehem and the follow-on 2007 Jack Miller studies were recognized as needs under the administration of Mayor Trotter and that council. The final report was completed in January 2007 and was one of the first studies we were briefed on when I arrived on the council. The 2007 council concurred there was a need according to the studies, but due to the financial status of the city and the number of other pressing matters that were ongoing with some city operations, further action was delayed. Time has run out and decisions can no longer be delayed.

Third, gaining the land for the road will do little for any developer. If you look at Chart 3 you can see property owners have been selling their property and developers buying it. If residents think stopping the corridor will eliminate growth and development then they are not looking at the facts. Development and homes are going up and no corridor is within years of being built. In addition the corridor is to have limited access in order to speed traffic along. So there will not be a multitude of street connections from all the new neighborhoods.   

Fourth, some say the city could stop all of this if it wanted to. State law is specific on how and when a city and Planning Commission may control development. Property owners have the right to sell their land and if they sell, the buyer can request to have the land zoned and developed. While the laws will support a community not putting heavy industry next to residential area, there is little to fight the addition of putting residential next to residential. That is what is occurring in much of this area. Once a residential zoning is in place, if the developer meets all local and state guidelines, then there is little a Planning Commission can do to stop or disapprove the development by law.   

Fifth, all of the data and scenarios point out that if this additional corridor weren’t built, Tiny Town, 101st and Trenton (even if it were widened) would fail to handle the traffic loads by 2035.

Thus, this option is not a realistic.

Additional Options and their issues.

Widen Tiny Town Rd (SR 236)-$27 Million
 25 acres ROW required
 Approximately 80 impacted parcels (all widening to one side)
 At least 40 commercial properties
 Road belongs to the state and any improvements are theirs to make

Widen 101st Airborne PKWY (SR 374)
 $36 Million
 No additional ROW required
 Road belongs to the state and any improvements are theirs to make
 
Widen Trenton Rd (SR 48)
 $35 Million
 12 acres ROW required
 Approximately 150 impacted parcels
 At least 20 commercial properties
 Road belongs to the state and any improvements are theirs to make

Issues that also affect these options
 Statewide money short fall
 Hundreds of projects currently on the shelf
 Current TDOT projects in Montgomery County
  SR 374
   Stokes Rd to Dunbar Cave Rd
   Dunbar Cave Rd to Madison St
   Dover Rd to SR 149
  US 41A (Madison St)
   SR 76 to McAdoo Creek Rd
  SR 48/13
  Trenton Rd (SR 48)
 101st Pkwy and Tiny Town Rd Recently Widened

Another alternative mentioned
 New I-24 Interchange Connection to Ft Campbell Gate 4
  No control by City of Clarksville
  FHWA & KYTC approval and funding required
  No increased connectivity in Clarksville
  No development access

So basically, the proposed east-west corridor has been a long studied option and the window of opportunity is closing.  No other options presented are without issues and do little if anything to provide an improvement transportation network in this area. This route will displace around 12 homes or less, and it does not rely on TDOT’s schedule or financial situation to address our need. 

The proposed corridor does have issues in that it crosses long established farms, the proposed moratorium on development can only be maintained for three years (one year to survey and two to buy) until the city must buy all the land or forfeit the corridor.  The project has three budget targets.  First, money is needed to survey an exact route.  Second, money will be needed to buy the land.  Third actual construction financing will be required.  Money for construction could be 15 to 20 years away and allows the city time to prepare financially.  However, after purchase of the land the city would not need to start construction until the road was required.

Because of this, the city can allow farmers the continued use of the land until it is needed. For farms that are divided, underpasses could be built to allow the movement of farm equipment and animals among fields.  There is some leeway in laying out the road by up to a few hundred feet in either direction.  This could lessen the impact of the road upon farming or housing considerations.

After much study and consideration of the data and alternatives, I cannot see any other options than to approve and attain the east-west corridor for the future of Clarksville and its citizens.  Thus, I will vote yes when this comes before the council.  I have only heard from two individuals from within our ward that would not support my vote.  Others see this as proper long-term planning for Clarksville’s future and should be carried out while being as fair and accommodating as possible to the affected property owners.

RELATED ARTICLES

Latest Articles