{"id":13640,"date":"2015-07-14T18:52:46","date_gmt":"2015-07-14T22:52:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/?p=13640"},"modified":"2015-07-14T19:18:47","modified_gmt":"2015-07-14T23:18:47","slug":"transportation-explained-to-lowndes-county-commission-lcc-2015-07-13","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/2015\/07\/transportation-explained-to-lowndes-county-commission-lcc-2015-07-13.html","title":{"rendered":"Transportation explained to Lowndes County Commission @ LCC 2015-07-13"},"content":{"rendered":"

\r\nThe county asked SGRC a bunch of questions about the $15,957 public transit and trucking studies at yesterday morning’s Work Session<\/a> that\r\nthey didn’t ask about the $16,915 they spent\r\ntwo weeks ago<\/a> to upgrade a water main to subsize a developer<\/a>.\r\nCommissioners seemed to think VLMPO hadn’t involved them in planning\r\nthe study proposals, when in fact their own Chairman and County Manager\r\nand Engineer had been involved all along, plus five county-appointed\r\ncitizens.\r\n

\r\n\r\n\"300x225<\/a>\r\nCounty Manager Joe Pritchard said Commissioner Joyce Evans and\r\nChairman Bill Slaughter had asked him to get the Southern Georgia Regional\r\nCommission (SGRC) to explain its proposed transportation studies.\r\nHe also introduced Lisa Crib, whom he said was the new SGRC Executive Director.\r\n

\r\nCorey Hull spoke for SGRC, saying he first wanted to know their questions.\r\nChairman Bill Slaughter asked:\r\n\r\n\r\n

\r\n

\r\nOf course we’re talking about the truck traffic study primarily,\r\nand the public transit study as well.\r\nOf course in our previous Commission [meeting], the Commission voted to\r\nnot fund these two studies.\r\n<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\nActually, the Commission did not<\/em> vote.\r\nCommissioner Demarcus Marshall made a motion to fund the studies,\r\nbut couldn’t get a second, so there was no vote.\r\n

\r\n

\r\nWhat Ms. Evans and myself are asking, is we wanted to give you\r\nan opportunity to come forward and explain, if you can,\r\nwhat the benefits are to doing\r\nthe two studies.\r\nDo you have any rationale as to doing the studies, and the time limits\r\nof doing the studies; doing them at this time.\r\nAnd I would like to look at them as an opportunity as well.\r\nIf the timing is correct, is the opportunity at the best at this point\r\nto make the investment in the studies.\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\nCommissioner Evans also wanted to know what were the changes from the\r\nprevious studies.\r\n

\r\nAnswer (paraphrased): VLMPO proposes two new studies, one on truck traffic\r\nand the other on urban transit.\r\n

\r\nThe first is because of truck traffic issues in downtown Valdosta,\r\nfor which a consulting firm would evaluate at least three different\r\npaths for bypassing traffic around downtown Valdosta, plus operational\r\nimprovements seen from an outside perspective.\r\nThe scope of work is still open to changes and no RFP has been sent out.\r\n

\r\nThe previous 2007 study said a transit system would be viable\r\nin the urban area, which includes Moody to Valdosta, Hahira to Valdosta,\r\nand Brooks County through Troupville to Valdosta, then to the\r\ncity limits on the south side of Valdosta.\r\nTransit funds are divided into rural (as the county’s 5311 MIDS bus service)\r\nand urban.\r\nThe county has received a letter saying 5311 funding will be phased out\r\nwithin the urban area, although MIDS can keep operating in the rural\r\narea and through other funding means.\r\nThat was for 10 vehicles on five routes.\r\n

\r\nHowever, there was stimulus (ARRA) funding available then that was not now.\r\nAnd that previous plan assumed heavy city-style busses rather than the\r\nlight vehicles VSU uses.\r\nThere are new technologies in the past five years\r\nsuch as Uber taxis; demand-response;\r\npublic-private partnerships.\r\nSo there are more options to consider.\r\nThe draft scope of work includes that there must be a subsidy from\r\na local entity; which one or several is not determined.\r\nBut the idea is to minimize that subsidy for operations\r\nwhile delivering a good service for our community.\r\n

\r\nNobody mentioned the\r\n2007 mega-mall boondoggle that the county subsidized by widening James Road\r\nfrom 2 lanes to 5<\/a> that we’re still paying for eight years later. Every road and bridge is a subsidy.\r\nHow about the county question each of those projects\r\nlike it questioned this one?\r\n

\r\nCommissioner Scott Orenstein noted they were two separate studies,\r\nand asked:\r\n

\r\n

\r\nWhy did the MPO not give us the opportunity to vote on those or to\r\nlook at those individually?\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\nHull said back in March VLMPO had considered them and in June\r\nhad voted to go ahead with them.\r\nAnd never before have proposals to local governments been broken out into pieces.\r\n

\r\nOrenstein didn’t seem aware that Joyce Evans sits on the SGRC Council\r\nas the Lowndes County representative, nor that the Valdosta-Lowndes\r\nCounty Metropolitan Planning Organization has five Lowndes County\r\nappointments to a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), and a\r\nTechnical Advisory Committee (TAC)\r\nconsisting of county and city engineers.\r\nIts\r\n\r\nPolicy Committee is its final decision-making body<\/a>, and on it\r\nsit the Lowndes County Chairman and Manager and the Valdosta City Mayor and Manager, plus rotating seats for the smaller cities and the outlying counties.\r\nSlaughter asked Hull to explain all that to the County Commission,\r\nwhich he did plus many details about the actual votes.\r\nHe didn’t mention he even makes facebook events for the Policy Committee Meetings<\/a>.\r\n

\r\nHull didn’t say it, but it’s pretty obvious that\r\nif the County Commissioners didn’t get a chance for input to\r\nthese study proposals, that’s not VLMPO’s fault; that’s the county’s\r\nown representatives didn’t tell their own Commissioners.\r\n

\r\nCommissioner Demarcus Marshall complimented the VLMPO and said\r\nhe wanted to clarify that nobody on the Commission is anti-public-transportation;\r\nthe issue is more one of communication and timelines.\r\nHe wondered about the timelines for the studies, which could extend\r\nfive or more years into the future.\r\nHe wondered if there is any way to expediate public transportation\r\nfaster than that.\r\n

\r\nHull said he expected each study to take about 12 months.\r\n

\r\n

\r\nAfter these studies, it’s really up to our community to decide how\r\nfast we can go. A public transit system for instance, you probably need to do it\r\nas quickly as possible: 12 to 18 months to be up and running.\r\n<\/p>\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\nPritchard clarified that a road bypass project with GDOT and federal highway\r\nfunding could take “10, 12, perhaps 15 years, from DOT”.\r\n

\r\nHull agreed that road projects could take years, but public transportation\r\ncould be much more quickly implemented.\r\n

\r\nOrenstein wanted to know the total cost of the studies.\r\n

\r\nAnswer for the truck study:\r\n$103,000, 80% federally funded, 10% by Lowndes County, and 10% by\r\nValdosta.\r\n

\r\nAnswer for the public transit study:\r\n$125,000, $100,000 (80%) federal, $12,000 state, $6200 each by Lowndes and Valdosta.\r\n

\r\nPritchard wanted to know the percentage of the VLMPO budget paid\r\nby local governments.\r\n

\r\nAnswer:\r\nLowndes County and Valdosta currently each pay 50% of the 20% match\r\nto the federal funds which are 80%.\r\nThe state contributes a bit.\r\n

\r\nPritchard wanted to know when the previous study was actually done.\r\n

\r\nAnswer: started May or June of 2009, finalized 2011.\r\n

\r\nPritchard wanted to know whether the $125,000 for the new study\r\nincluded going back to the previous contractor.\r\n

\r\nAnswer: federal requirements include doing a full RFP for a new study.\r\nHowever, whoever was hired would look at the old study, in the light\r\nof assumptions that have changed in the last five years.\r\n

\r\nPritchard wanted to know about the 5316 federal jobs assistance program\r\nreferenced in the old study: would it be applicable to the urban area.\r\n

\r\nAnswer: those funds are no longer eligible from Congress.\r\nNew version is 5307 program, from which comes the $100,000 for the study.\r\nThe state of Georgia is holding $3 million from the federal government\r\nannually for the Valdosta urban area.\r\n

\r\nPritchard asked Finance Manager Stephanie Black whether any county\r\ncontribution would come strictly from the unincorporated area.\r\n

\r\nAnswer: that’s correct.\r\n

\r\nSlaughter wanted to know why implementation didn’t follow on the previous\r\nplan and what would be the cost now.\r\n

\r\nAnswer: Valdosta City Council in June 2009 at the height of the recession\r\nvoted to cut their budget and the Mayor at the time broke a tie to\r\nrefuse funding for the transit system.\r\n

\r\n

\r\nIt was just a bad time to be starting it, with the economy at that time.\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\nHull didn’t say, but I distinctly remember people showing up at\r\ncounty commission meetings to oppose the bus system because they\r\nthought it would only be for Valdosta, and then-Chairman Ashley Paulk\r\ndeliberately waiting for Valdosta to refuse it so the county wouldn’t\r\nneed to vote.\r\n

\r\nRegarding costs, Hull said it was hard to guess, and the community\r\nshould think not only of fixed bus routes, more along demand-response,\r\nwhich is what MIDS is, or like an Uber taxi service.\r\nSome numbers had to be penciled in, and $72 million over 25 years,\r\nwith half from unidentified local sources.\r\n

\r\nCommissioner Joyce Evans gave a few details of how it didn’t work\r\neven before that last attempt.\r\n

\r\nHull said things had changed.\r\nAlso under federal rules, the new plan could not serve Dasher or Lake\r\nPark or Clyattville, because they’re not in the urbanized area.\r\nMeanwhile, soon MIDS will not be able to serve Hahira or Moody,\r\nbecause they are in the urbanized area.\r\n

\r\nOrenstein said his struggle was his family and friends say\r\nthe taxpayers are going to have to spend $228,000 on a study.\r\nHe said he wasn’t confident we had a plan.\r\nHe wanted to know:\r\n

\r\n

\r\nHow do I argue that?\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\nHull said the scopes of work could be changed to help answer questions.\r\nBut of course some things were unknown until the study was done.\r\n

\r\nEvans said the bottom line was the Commission needs to look at\r\nproviding the funds for the study.\r\n

\r\nHull said yes and they could reevaluate the scopes of work so the\r\nCommissioners would get\r\n

\r\nPritchard wanted to emphasize Marshall’s point that nobody was\r\nopposed to public transit by noting for the past 15 years the only\r\npublic transit has been the county’s MIDS service.\r\n

\r\nHe asked someone whether MIDS was maxed out and got an inaudible\r\nnon-response.\r\n

\r\nMarshall and others again thanked Hull.\r\n

\r\nSlaughter said once again that the request for study funding had been denied.\r\n

\r\n

\r\nIf in the future that there is a desire to revisit it,\r\nthen it will have to come back and be added to the agenda for reconsideration.\r\n<\/blockquote>\r\n

\r\nRemember that part about the agenda when you see the LAKE videos of\r\ntonight’s Regular Session.\r\n

\r\nSee also the\r\nVDT story by Joe Adgie<\/a>.\r\n

\r\nHere’s\r\n\r\nthe video:<\/a>\r\n<\/p>\r\n

\r\n