Mediate-NRs 5-29-08

Mediation - http://www.macon-bibb.com/FHR/Mediation_20080228.htm
Mediation or Smoke-Screen? (here)

Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 11:57:02 -0400
To: "Dorothy Toth Beasley" <beasleydt@bellsouth.net>,
<donna@henningmediation.com>
From: Holliday Dental <teeth@mindspring.com>
Subject: FHR position 5-29-08
Cc: "Daniel P. Fischer" <FISCHER_DP@Mercer.edu>,
Holliday Dental <teeth@mindspring.com>,
Susan Hanberry <shanberry@stratford.org>,
Lee Martin <mermaidlover@bellsouth.net>,
Alice Boyd <dmbx1@cox.net>,
Carol Lystlund <clystlund@atlanticsouthernbank.com>,
Rick Chellman <chellman@tndengineering.com>

Dear Judge Beasley,

I am having a hard time arranging for us to meet to telephone you today.

Would tomorrow (Monday) at 6:30pm work for you?

Also, maybe we can discuss our latest summary position below.

Thank-you,
- Lindsay

FHR Neighborhood Reps Position 5-29-08

The Country Representatives “final” position of May 14, 2008, fails to address the residents’ serious concerns regarding safety for residents and the traveling public, access, and neighborhood impact. It is, therefore, not acceptable.

We have made our concerns clear from the initial stages of mediation: a reasonable footprint appropriate for an established residential area, access to adjoining properties, and safety. The Country Representatives have not addressed these concerns to our satisfaction.

The County Representatives’ contention that a design speed significantly greater than the proposed posted speed is safe defies logic and modern traffic design theory. That assertion is presented as unsubstantiated opinion, with the admission that MAAI does not conduct post-construction reviews of previously built projects to test design assumptions. The residents of the FHR area have provided, at their own expense, the expertise of Mr. Rick Chellman, an internationally recognized expert in modern traffic planning and design; his valuable insights which address modern design practice and safety issues have been ignored.

The separated four-lane configuration of the Wimbish to Ridge segment is of a scale without precedent in Bibb County for even the exaggerated traffic volumes cited for FHR. The width, comparable to that of the newly completed section of Riverside Drive, is inappropriate for an existing residential neighborhood (the Country Representatives are referred to the preface of the ASHTO Greenbook, which makes explicit reference to context-sensitive design). To add injury to insult, the design denies safe and convenient access to adjacent residential properties and to St. Francis Church.

Refusal to address the conflicts caused by the proximity of the Northminster/Wimbish intersection with both Wimbish/Forest Hills and the High Point North Condominium Townhouse complex entrance results in aggravating the existing problem at substantial expense rather than effectively eliminating it through realignment of the intersections, as proposed by Mr. Chellman..

We, the Residents Representatives, cannot in good faith acquiesce to a plan that defies good transportation planning while compromising public safety and neighborhood integrity. With current constraints on transportation funding, a more cost-effective and reasonable design is mandated.

- The FHR Neighborhood Representatives:

- Carol Lystlund <CLystlund@AtlanticSouthernBank.com>
[478] 477-3389
730 Forest Hill Rd.
Macon 31210

- Lindsay Holliday <teeth@mindspring.com>
o-746-5695, h-742-8699, c-335-3452
744 Forest Hill Rd.
Macon 31210

- Susan Hanberry Martin <shanberry@stratford.org>
w-477-8973 , h-474-4437
4831 Guerry Drive
Macon 31210

- Dan Fischer <FISCHER_DP@Mercer.edu>
h- 477-3875 h, w- 301-2489,
489 Ashville Drive
Macon 31210

- Alice Boyd <dmbx1@cox.net>
h-477-6407
540 Forest Hill Rd
Macon 31210

Dear Judge Beasley,

Thank-you for speaking with us yesterday evening by phone. We are currently perfecting our written position statement that we plan to send to you by tomorrow evening. However, I am willing to explore one more discussion before we close-out our options with a "final position".

As I reflect on our yesterday's discussion, I see there may be another possibility for some movement towards a compromise agreement.

We heard you say that Van Etheridge now admits he was wrong in his recollection that "Stakeholders had accepted 2 sidewalks" - one on each side of the street in the northern section of the design for FHR. The verbatim minutes clearly show the Stakeholders did Not accept 2 sidewalks.

This sidewalk issue shows there may be a way around some of the other major design issues - If Mr Etheridge can show us where the Stakeholders ever accepted any other aspects of the GDOT designs.

Specifically, we have always believed that the Stakeholders never agreed to either a 3-lane nor a 4-lane section anywhere in the proposed design for FHR. Therefore, we are asking for Mr Etheridge to show us (anywhere in verbatim minutes) where the Stakeholders agreed to either a 3 or 4-lane design for FHR.

We believe the consensus of the Stakeholders at the May 2002 meeting was probably best summarized by Mr Dwight Jones when he asked Mr Palladi to "bring back a modified design that reflects the input from the Stakeholders". I was there. I remember a murmur of agreement among the participants in support of Mr Jones proposal.

If Mr Etheridge can produce proof that the Stakeholders ever supported a 3 and 4-lane design, then we, the FHR-NRs, may dramatically soften our opposition to the MAAI and GDOT designs.

Sincerely,
- Lindsay Holliday


	Date: Sun, 01 Jun 2008 11:57:02 -0400 To: "Dorothy Toth Beasley" <beasleydt@bellsouth.net>, <donna@henningmediation.com> From: Holliday Dental <teeth@mindspring.com> Subject: FHR position 5-29-08 Cc: "Daniel P. Fischer" <FISCHER_DP@Mercer.edu>, Holliday Dental <teeth@mindspring.com>, Susan Hanberry <shanberry@stratford.org>, Lee Martin <mermaidlover@bellsouth.net>, Alice Boyd <dmbx1@cox.net>, Carol Lystlund <clystlund@atlanticsouthernbank.com>, Rick Chellman <chellman@tndengineering.com> Dear Judge Beasley, I am having a hard time arranging for us to meet to telephone you today. Would tomorrow (Monday) at 6:30pm work for you? Also, maybe we can discuss our latest summary position below. Thank-you, - Lindsay FHR Neighborhood Reps Position 5-29-08 The Country Representatives “final” position of May 14, 2008, fails to address the residents’ serious concerns regarding safety for residents and the traveling public, access, and neighborhood impact. It is, therefore, not acceptable. We have made our concerns clear from the initial stages of mediation: a reasonable footprint appropriate for an established residential area, access to adjoining properties, and safety. The Country Representatives have not addressed these concerns to our satisfaction. The County Representatives’ contention that a design speed significantly greater than the proposed posted speed is safe defies logic and modern traffic design theory. That assertion is presented as unsubstantiated opinion, with the admission that MAAI does not conduct post-construction reviews of previously built projects to test design assumptions. The residents of the FHR area have provided, at their own expense, the expertise of Mr. Rick Chellman, an internationally recognized expert in modern traffic planning and design; his valuable insights which address modern design practice and safety issues have been ignored. The separated four-lane configuration of the Wimbish to Ridge segment is of a scale without precedent in Bibb County for even the exaggerated traffic volumes cited for FHR. The width, comparable to that of the newly completed section of Riverside Drive, is inappropriate for an existing residential neighborhood (the Country Representatives are referred to the preface of the ASHTO Greenbook, which makes explicit reference to context-sensitive design). To add injury to insult, the design denies safe and convenient access to adjacent residential properties and to St. Francis Church. Refusal to address the conflicts caused by the proximity of the Northminster/Wimbish intersection with both Wimbish/Forest Hills and the High Point North Condominium Townhouse complex entrance results in aggravating the existing problem at substantial expense rather than effectively eliminating it through realignment of the intersections, as proposed by Mr. Chellman.. We, the Residents Representatives, cannot in good faith acquiesce to a plan that defies good transportation planning while compromising public safety and neighborhood integrity. With current constraints on transportation funding, a more cost-effective and reasonable design is mandated.


	- The FHR Neighborhood Representatives: - Carol Lystlund <CLystlund@AtlanticSouthernBank.com> [478] 477-3389 730 Forest Hill Rd. Macon 31210 - Lindsay Holliday <teeth@mindspring.com> o-746-5695, h-742-8699, c-335-3452 744 Forest Hill Rd. Macon 31210 - Susan Hanberry Martin <shanberry@stratford.org> w-477-8973 , h-474-4437 4831 Guerry Drive Macon 31210 - Dan Fischer <FISCHER_DP@Mercer.edu> h- 477-3875 h, w- 301-2489, 489 Ashville Drive Macon 31210 - Alice Boyd <dmbx1@cox.net> h-477-6407 540 Forest Hill Rd Macon 31210
	Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:00 To: "Dorothy Toth Beasley" <beasleydt@bellsouth.net>,<teeth@mindspring.com>, <CLystlund@AtlanticSouthernBank.com>,<shanberry@stratford.org>, <FISCHER_DP@Mercer.edu>,<dmbx1@cox.net> From: Holliday Dental <teeth@mindspring.com> Subject: Re: Forest Hill Road Project - Mediation - CONFIDENTIAL Cc: "Donna Thompson" <donna@henningmediation.com>, Rick Chellman <chellman@tndengineering.com>, Dear Judge Beasley, Thank-you for speaking with us yesterday evening by phone. We are currently perfecting our written position statement that we plan to send to you by tomorrow evening. However, I am willing to explore one more discussion before we close-out our options with a "final position". As I reflect on our yesterday's discussion, I see there may be another possibility for some movement towards a compromise agreement. We heard you say that Van Etheridge now admits he was wrong in his recollection that "Stakeholders had accepted 2 sidewalks" - one on each side of the street in the northern section of the design for FHR. The verbatim minutes clearly show the Stakeholders did Not accept 2 sidewalks. This sidewalk issue shows there may be a way around some of the other major design issues - If Mr Etheridge can show us where the Stakeholders ever accepted any other aspects of the GDOT designs. Specifically, we have always believed that the Stakeholders never agreed to either a 3-lane nor a 4-lane section anywhere in the proposed design for FHR. Therefore, we are asking for Mr Etheridge to show us (anywhere in verbatim minutes) where the Stakeholders agreed to either a 3 or 4-lane design for FHR. We believe the consensus of the Stakeholders at the May 2002 meeting was probably best summarized by Mr Dwight Jones when he asked Mr Palladi to "bring back a modified design that reflects the input from the Stakeholders". I was there. I remember a murmur of agreement among the participants in support of Mr Jones proposal. If Mr Etheridge can produce proof that the Stakeholders ever supported a 3 and 4-lane design, then we, the FHR-NRs, may dramatically soften our opposition to the MAAI and GDOT designs. Sincerely, - Lindsay Holliday
	At 10:55 AM 6/3/2008, Dorothy Toth Beasley wrote: Dear Residents' Representatives: Thank you for gathering last night for a discussion of your reply to the County representatives' Response to Citizens dated May 14. In addition to what was contemplated during our discussion, I suggest that you go back through the proposals and responses of the County representatives and state what, if anything, you are willing to accept. An example is the change from 3 lanes to 2. Another is the reduction in width of the 4-lane section. You can decide if a partial resolution is better than none at all. When I have your reply, which is due by extension from May 21 to the close of business tomorrow (Wednesday, June 4), I will submit it to the County representatives. If can be of assistance in the interim, don't hestiate to call. I expect to be back here by 3:30 this afternoon, through the evening. I will not be available tomorrow except for early morning (7-9). I have not added Lee Martin's e-mail address to the list because I do not see that he signed the confidentiality agreement. Best regards, Dorothy Toth Beasley Mediator 404/256-3723
	HR Neighborhood Reps Position 6-4-2008 The County Representatives “final” position of May 14, 2008, fails to address the residents’ serious concerns regarding safety for residents and the traveling public, access, and neighborhood impact. It is, therefore, not acceptable. We have made our concerns clear from the initial stages of mediation: a reasonable footprint appropriate for an established residential area, access to adjoining properties, and safety. The County Representatives have not addressed these concerns to our satisfaction. The County Representatives’ contention that a design speed significantly greater than the proposed posted speed is safe defies logic and modern traffic design theory. That assertion is presented as unsubstantiated opinion, with the admission that MAAI does not conduct post-construction reviews of previously built projects to test design assumptions. The residents of the FHR area have provided, at their own expense, the expertise of Mr. Rick Chellman, an internationally recognized expert in modern traffic planning and design; his valuable insights which address modern design practice and safety issues have been ignored. The separated four-lane configuration of the Wimbish to Ridge segment is of a scale without precedent in Bibb County for even the exaggerated traffic volumes cited for FHR. The width, comparable to that of the newly completed section of Riverside Drive, is inappropriate for an existing residential neighborhood (the County Representatives are referred to the preface of the ASHTO Greenbook, which makes explicit reference to context-sensitive design). Additionally, the design denies safe and convenient access to adjacent residential properties and to St. Francis Church. Refusal to address the conflicts caused by the proximity of the Northminster/Wimbish intersection with both Wimbish/Forest Hills and the High Point North Condominium Townhouse complex entrance results in aggravating the existing problem at substantial expense rather than effectively eliminating it through realignment of the intersections, as proposed by Mr. Chellman. We, the Residents Representatives, cannot in good faith acquiesce to a plan that defies good transportation planning while compromising public safety and neighborhood integrity. With current constraints on transportation funding, a more cost-effective and reasonable design is mandated. We repeat our preferences and compromises that we would find acceptable: Wimbish Avenue to Northside Drive: We prefer the current two-lane configuration, with an improved road bed and dedicated left turn lanes where warranted (roundabouts at the intersections with Forest Lake Drive South/Newport Road and Lokchapee Drive/Old Lundy Road would be ideal solutions incorporating modern traffic-calming technologies!). As a compromise, we agreed to a two-lane configuration with 11 foot driving lanes and 5 foot shoulders as proposed by Mr. Rick Chellman, with dedicated left turn lanes where warranted. A grassy swale is preferable in either iteration, as on and off-site drainage problems are minimized and the character of a beautiful urban-rural roadway – one of the hallmarks of Macon, is preserved. A sidewalk/multi-use path detached from the roadway on one side only is desirable given the residential density of this segment; a detached walkway/path that follows the terrain will reduce the fill and grading impacts of the roadway and will also be safer, more attractive, and consistent with the overall character of the neighborhood. . Wimbish Road to Ridge Avenue: We remain convinced that a two-lane configuration with dedicated left and right turn lanes where warranted is adequate for future traffic requirements on this segment. As a compromise, we agreed to three-lane section (preferable) or alternately a four-lane section with no median strip or center lane and minimal shoulders. In either case, the width of the travel lanes plus shoulders could be accommodated in a 50 foot to 52 foot footprint, and should allow access (right and left turns) to the church and adjoining properties. A sidewalk/multi-use path detached from the roadway on one side should be adequate, but we would accept sidewalks on both sides in this segment. Ridge Avenue to Vineville Avenue: We would accept a wider profile and additional lanes, as adequate stacking in this segment will be most effective in improving the flow and capacity of Forest Hill Road. The width of the street and the presence of stacked vehicles justifies sidewalks on both sides in this segment. We remain puzzled as to why this segment is proposed for construction after the northern segment, as it will provide the greatest benefit. Forest Hill/Wimbish/Northminster intersection(s): The current plan offers minor relief from conflicts with the Forest Hill/Wimbish intersection, but greatly aggravates dangers between the Wimbish/Northminster intersection and the sole access road for the High Point North Condominium Townhouse complex. The Condo residents have repeatedly expressed their grave concern about poor safety here. Mr. Rick Chellman’s proposal for realigned and integrated intersections solves both conflicts, rather than just shifting the problem from one section of road to another. It or an alternative plan that addresses serious safety concerns must be considered. A roundabout at a realigned Forest Hill/Wimbish/Northminster intersection would address the County Representative’s concern regarding predominate traffic flow, as all legs of a roundabout are equal. The design speed of all sections must be 35 mph to assure the safety of residents and through traffic alike. It is not acceptable to have incongruity between the posted speed of 35 mph which you proposed and the design speed which exceeds 47mph. Respectfully submitted, The Forest Hill Road Neighborhood Representatives Wednesday, June 4, 2008. At 06:41 PM 6/4/2008, you wrote: Respectfully submitted by the The Forest Hill Road Neighborhood Representatives Wednesday, June 4, 2008. http://www.macon-bibb.com/FHR/FHR-Citizens_6-4-2008.doc


	This webpage originates from some of the Mediators for the Friends of Forest Hill Road in Macon , Georgia. It contains information which may be confidential or privileged and is intended only for the individuals or entity named above. It is prohibited for anyone to disclose, copy, distribute, or use the contents of this webpage. All personal messages are the express views of Concerned American Citizens and Taxpayers, and nothing here may be copied or distributed without their specific and individual permissions. If you reached this webpage or this message in error, please notify me immediately - Lindsay Holliday <teeth@mindspring.com> 478-742-8699