|
|
‘Full house’ gets view
of possible 127 paths
|
Many Clinton County landowners whose property could be impacted by a realigned U.S. 127 were on hand last week to view maps showing the possible paths the road could take.
Above, several Clinton County landowners are shown looking at and discussing the maps that were on display at a public hearing last Thursday in Russell County. Shown above, from left to right, are Larry Conner, Lois and Rob Winsett, Edaline Hurst, Tim Hurst and Jimmie Sloan.
|
In Thursday, August 26, 2010 issue
A “full house” would be the best way to describe the crowd of local and area residents who took the time last week to attend the public hearing that offered a look at the latest proposals concerning the route of a realigned U.S. 127 might take.
Hosted by the Kentucky Department of Transportation, last Thursday’s gathering at the Freedom Christian Church Activity Center in Russell County saw people lined up outside the front entrance as the hearing first got underway at 5:00 p.m.
Some stayed a few minutes while others stayed for the duration of the scheduled two-hour long event, but everyone left with an understanding of where the road “might” be located.
However, it could be years, even decades before actual construction begins and is completed, and the word “might” is a key one in the process as well.
Thursday evening’s hearing included the presentation of several large aerial maps of the stretch of U.S. 127 involved in the rebuild, or realignment, project, which begins at the intersection of Ky. 90 in the Snow Community of Clinton County, and proceeds north across the Cumberland River and joining with the now completed the Jamestown, Kentucky bypass.
The project, which will be built in four separate sections or phases, will include a new bridge spanning the Cumberland River at a location downstream of Wolf Creek Dam.
Currently, U.S. 127 traffic goes across the dam, but it is the desire of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that the traffic be removed from atop the earthen and concrete structure.
Thursday’s presentation gave local residents and landowners a look at four possible routes the Department of Transportation is considering for the realignment project, including one route in particular that is favored by the KDOT, referred to as the “recommended preferred” alignment According to Stephanie Daffron, the Public Information Officer for the KDOT District 8 Office in Somerset, about 220 people signed in at the front door when entering Thursday’s hearing.
Far more people actually attended Thursday’s hearing, as many do not sign in and families with more than one person attending together often only have one representative sign the registration books.
Many of those attending were landowners whose property lies in the area where the road will be built and were attending the hearing to see if, and how severe, the project might impact their land.
Some left happy, others were clearly upset at how the road project would or would not cross their property lines.
“I’m just glad I’m 79 years old and I won’t live to see this,” Jimmie Sloan said after noting that the roadway would divide her family’s farmland.
Those signing in at Thursday’s hearing were also given “comment cards” to fill out and leave with the KDOT officials on hand, with comments, favorable or otherwise, or any other information they felt the agency should be aware of regarding the road project.
Neal Shoemaker, the Chief Engineer for the District 8 Somerset office, told the Clinton County News that the range of emotions of those attending Thursday’s hearing would be from one extreme to the other.
“This meeting’s intent is to give public notice. Half of the people in here just want to come and see where it is and they’ll say ‘good, it doesn’t affect me’ and they’re out the door, then some will come in and say ‘Oh shoot, I wish it would get me - I was hoping they would buy me out,’ “ Shoemaker explained. “There are a whole lot of people that think if the road chops them in two, then they are going to be rich, but the value of the property is just whatever it is.”
Shoemaker also said that the exchange of valuable information at a hearing such as the one held Thursday would flow in both directions, noting that the design team for the project would learn as much from those attending Thursday’s presentation as the public would learn from them.
“When they come in, everyone gets a comment card and they’ll look at these maps and on the comment cards, they’ll tell us ‘there’s a cemetery here that you all didn’t see or there’s a sink hole or cave under this part,’ “ Shoemaker said. “They provide a lot of information that we need, for instance one guy was telling me a while ago that although it isn’t marked, when he mowed the area as a kid, there was a cemetery there.”
Shoemaker confirmed that the location of a cemetery along the highway route was considered to be a major impact factor, with either the road path having to be re-routed around the cemetery, or the graves themselves having to be relocated to a different area.
He added that as far as actual construction, or even right-of way acquisition work goes, there was no way a projected date of any sort could be given, mainly because of funding issues for the project.
“This is just a continued planning phase. Funding has not been appropriated that I know of,” Shoemaker said. “What we’ve done is we have added more money into the design phase to keep the project moving.”
Still, he stressed the importance of the kind of public hearings held Thursday night, both in terms of keeping the public informed as well as allowing the design teams and engineers to continue to learn from the public and area landowners.
“Even though they are asking us questions, they are giving us valuable information also,” Shoemaker said. “The designers turn around and use this information to make changes - it’s a very big deal.”
Although the design and engineering team has spent a great deal of time and effort plotting and establishing the four proposed routes presented Thursday night, Shoemaker confirmed that by no means were any of these routes set firm in their respective locations.
He said that any of the routes could be moved for a variety of reasons before they are presented again, or before a final route determination was established.
He noted that environmental, cultural or historical issues could all come into play causing the routes to be shifted to move around a particular area with an issue.
Still, meetings and hearings like Thursday night’s gathering, were important steps in the process.
“Were getting it closer and closer to where it needs to go,” Shoemaker said. “It’s all just part of the design process, and it’s a long, drawn out deal.”
Shoemaker also said that he couldn’t speculate what the next part of the process would be as far as another hearing or public meeting, but he added that the design teams would be dealing with what was gathered from last week’s hearing for some time to come.
“I don’t know what the next phase is - there will be a lot of information given and learned here that we’ll have to go back and go through and answer every comment and reply to every comment and then they will come back and say ‘based on those comments, we’ve got to do this and this or this,’ “ Shoemaker noted. “The design phases on a road like this are tremendous.”
According to a handout that was provided at Thursday’s hearing, a proposed date of May, 2011 is projected as when a final route alternative will be announced.
Anyone who was unable to attend Thursday’s hearing can still submit comments concerning the project.
Comments will be accepted until September 9, 2010. Readers can submit comments online by going to the web page: http://envdoc.qk4.com/us127.html, click on Public Hearing Comment form to submit comments online.
That same web page also offers downloadable maps of the project showing the alternative routes that were presented last week.
Send this page to a friend
|
|
