|
Why We Oppose a Bridge Over
Lake Lavon
No
Transparency or Coordination with the Community or Other Officials
Collin County Engineering disregarded
previous engineering study routes:
WHY were the
five proposed bridge routes, on Collin County
mobility maps from
2002 to 2006, dismissed? These routes were part of a map
made by Carter Burges, which were surely paid for with tax payer
money.
Where is the
record of public input that gave Collin County the idea to dismiss
those routes and replace them with the new single blue line?
The single blue
line became the core of the HNTB study area, yet Mr.
Delgado stated that this single blue line “was drawn without the
benefit of engineering.”
Who made the
decision that this single blue line become the center of the HNTB
study area?
Collin County Engineering submitted
this single blue line study area to a bond vote without proper citizen
input:
Engineering
states on
page
5 of this PDF that there was 100% approval by citizens on the
transportation committee to recommend this project to the
Commissioner's Court.
We ask Collin County Engineering to show
us a record of a vote that proves this to be true. Our
investigation reveals that they cannot produce a record of a vote,
because there WAS NO VOTE on the Lavon Lake bridge crossing.
We ask Collin
County Engineering how is it that this proposed blue line route and
the half a million dollars of bond money for the Lavon Bridge
Crossing Study ended up in the 2007 bond package, when they cannot show us a record
of a public vote, or even public discussion, that approved it?
Collin County
Engineering has not properly coordinated their efforts:
On April 27,
2009, a district level representative of the Corps said, "I question
why they chose to bisect the most boat-able parts of the lake.”
On that date, the Corps had NOT been informed of the decision to
drop the five
other proposed bridge routes down to one.
On
October 1, 2009, HNTB presented their feasibility route study to the
USACE team. After HNTB made the presentation to the Corps, USACE
expressed the Corps of Engineers current opinion on this bridge
project. This is a direct quote from Mr. McLane:
"When the project Purpose and Need is defined in the NEPA document,
the description would need to be "tight" for the COE to approve the
project. Currently, the Purpose and Need doesn't appear to warrant
COE approval for constructing a road across COE property because the
road, as it is shown, is not a regional artery and feasible
alternatives exist."
These routes, as planned now, dump into what is virtually a
neighborhood on the west side of the lake, not connecting regional
thoroughfares. The US Army Corps of Engineers Road Policy identifies
criteria that needs to be met for approval to be warranted. A bridge
or roadway through their land, or over their waters, that just
connect city to city (local benefit only) does not meet that
criteria. The bridge and road network MUST provide regional benefit.
As the project stands now, the Army Corps of Engineers does not
think any of these routes pass this test.
Mr. McLane further explained that the roadway and bridge must be the
ONLY feasible alternative to connect one area to the other. There
are specific guidelines on this issue regarding travel time and
distance. As the routes are currently planned, the US Army Corps of
Engineers does not think any of the routes pass the Corps "only
feasible alternative test."
SUMMARY - Collin
County Engineering has repeatedly been wrong:
They left the public out when choosing a study area for the
potential bridge routes.
They did not adequately follow guidelines given to them by the US
Army Corps of Engineers.
They did not adequately inform the citizens prior to the bond vote
(Most voters admit to us that they were not aware that the bridge
study money was in the bond package.)
As
of March 2009, they had no plans for public meetings to
discuss this proposed bridge route because Collin County assumed the
bridge is "a highly popular plan" and "there is no real opposition."
|
