Thursday, May 6
South Doyle Middle School Library
Meeting Summary

Dave Hill, Jeff Welch and Renee Davis from MPC/TPO were present, along with Glenn Malone from TDOT,  Katrina Bell from the City of Knoxville’s Community Development Office, and Doug Berry, a volunteer for the Community Design Center. Jeannie Dulaney, Kathy Hamilton and David Kitts from Leadership Knoxville served as meeting facilitators. Participants, facilitators and staff enjoyed refreshments and informal discussion during a meet and greet social time beginning at 5 PM.

Councilman Chris Woodhull started the program at approximately 5:30 PM by welcoming everyone to the fourth task force meeting. Reminding everyone how important their involvement is, he stressed the importance of cooperation and  communication. Councilman Joe Hultquist summarized the three subcommittee meetings that had been held in the past two weeks. Chairpersons for the subcommittees were introduced – John Finger, Community Impact and Opportunity, Jim Hagerman, Transportation and Mobility, and Ron Emery, Economic Development.  Some questioned why chairs were appointed by the Task Force Co-Chairs instead of being selected by the subcommittees. The Co-Chairs indicated that they felt it was important to have individuals proceeding over the subcommittee meetings that would not push their personal viewpoints, but instead would remain impartial while the group discusses the alternatives. The Co-Chairs spoke to persons whom they thought would be impartial and asked if they were willing to take on the added responsibility of coordinating meetings, facilitating the discussions, etc. The transportation and mobility subcommittee indicated a preference to select their chair at the next subcommittee meeting. The other subcommittees did not.

Jeannie Dulaney from Leadership Knoxville reviewed the broad vision of the group that was developed during an earlier meeting, and reminded everyone of the steps to a performing group – Gathering (what is our group’s purpose?), Chaos (what is my role?), Unity (we’re working well…can we accomplish our goal?), and Performing (we’ve done it…what’s next?). She noted that in the chaos stage, common vision can get lost – to avoid this participants need to slow down and remember the values they want to preserve. Within the subcommittees, a more concrete vision for the future will be developed over the next few weeks.  Jeannie also reminded the group that their learning, thinking and working styles are different and everyone will need to ‘stretch’ in order for the subcommittees to perform well. 

Dave Hill thanked everyone for coming to the task force meetings and subcommittee meetings, and noted that their feedback was useful and will help to plan the process over the next several months. He indicated that the subcommittees have a general sense of what they need to do and that part of their role will be performing a comparative analysis of several alternatives for improving the transportation network in south Knoxville. He stressed that it is not necessary for them to be engineers, scientists or geologists, but it is important that they use their community expertise to look at alternatives without missing opportunities and excluding options that should be considered.

Four major alternatives and three differing road types are being compared. The preferred alternative will depend partly on the age-old debate about the purpose of roads – mobility and access.  Is the goal to move people, or to get property access?

The capacity of each alternative is different, and the degree of access control is different. Several alternatives are also available for improving Chapman Highway.

A recommendation indicating the group’s preferred choice will be developed, along with a recommendation on the type of improvements to Chapman and the type of roadway extension (freeway, parkway, boulevard) unless ‘no build’ is preferred. Dave explained that if the task force does not reach consensus, a minority viewpoint can be expressed. Another option is to prepare a report showing the benefits and weaknesses of each alternative, but the task force participants must realize that the closer they get to agreement and consensus, the more impact they have over the outcome - but that also means greater compromise will be necessary.

The regional transportation model is one tool that can be used to compare the alternatives. Depending on design speed, interruptions in traffic flow, and changes in volume, the attractiveness of a road as a regional traffic mover diminishes. Dave noted that the computer model is intended to be an analytical tool, not a selective tool. At the end of Dave’s discussion, a task force member asked why we were considering an alternative with the Chapman Highway intersection, that the community had already agreed that this was not appropriate. Dave explained that intersection locations can be slightly modified without changing the model results.

Jeff Welch reviewed the alignments in more detail and discussed the quantative data used in the model, indicating that by using information on where people live and work and how they use the transportation network, we can replicate future trips fairly well.

One task force member asked if traffic lights would be included on the ‘parkway’ alternative, and Jeff replied no, that the parkway alternative was controlled access.  Design speeds and other control factors can be used in the model to compare the alternatives.

1. No build, determine that adequate improvements can be made to Chapman Highway to allow sufficient function.
2. Complete the alignment similar to that proposed by TDOT, with the intersection at or near where it is planned with a Chapman highway terminus.
3. Extend to Gov. John Sevier Highway, on either side of Chapman, the transportation subcommittee can look at options. A key component is what will the impact on Chapman Highway be, and what will it look like in 2020, 2030?  
4. Extend to Semour – the areas around Gov. John Sevier Highway is slowly developing, but Seymour is rapidly growing. The transportation network serves more than just Knox County. After the analysis is performed, everyone will need to weigh and assess this information, and based on their values provide input.

Jeff explained that by the end of this month, we should be able to model existing conditions. By mid-June, we should be able to use the model to develop forecasts that can be used to compare the alternatives.

Other questions and comments

• Question about the design of Moody interchange (something the committees can address)
• Would like to see photographs of good examples
• Ed Smith of the transportation subcommittee indicated that subcommittee had asked for a ‘report card’ on the present conditions on Chapman Highway – what it was designed to carry, etc. This will be discussed more at the next meeting of their subcommittee and shared with the other groups.
• Ron Emery of the economic development subcommittee mentioned they had talked about study boundaries at their subcommittee meeting, and they were interested in looking to the county line and beyond, and he asked about the costs of building light rail vs. building roadway. There were also questions about what percentage of the traffic is tourist and what the typical destinations are. Jeff replied that some surveys have been done but it is difficult to accurately determine. 
• John Nolt discussed the opportunity to improve Maryville Pike and Seiverville Pike.
• It was noted that we need to look long-term (30 years) and that we’ll be narrowing down the options as a ‘first-cut’ but we can always go back and reconsider something that we originally ruled out.  A feed-back loop is important. 
• Liz Farr asked for a map and topography of Seymour and north of there. She also asked how you measure the amount of traffic that will be created by new development ‘ if it’s built, they will come’ versus the amount of traffic projected to increase regardless. Dave Hill replied that the linkage between transportation and land use and also how you design the roadway will have some impact, but market demand is more of an influence. The growth pressure will manifest itself regardless of road improvements, and that capacity can be met through a system of smaller local roads and collectors or a major road.
• How do we decide? asked one participant. Dave advised them to pick out what they agree on first, and hash out the other issues, trying to avoid individual voting – he reminded them that the discussion will continue, and part of that decision making process will be developing evaluation criteria at the subcommittee meeting. 

Renee Davis announced when the next subcommittee meetings will be, reminding the groups that whenever they were ready, staff will help them develop and fine-tune their vision.  If anyone needed information that had not been discussed tonight or given to them, to please talk to her. She passed out examples of criteria that can be used to compare the alternatives, and asked the individuals to review this, consider what they think is most important, adding anything else that might not be on the list. The subcommittees will discuss this at their next meeting. 

Everyone was asked to review the sector plans for South City and South County, which have a section that describes and compares the different types of roadway (freeway, parkway, boulevard). They also contain detailed background reports and recommended land use. Both sector plans are available on MPC’s web site, and hardcopies are also available.

 Meeting summary prepared by Renee Davis, 5-10-04