Council right on rail, wrong on 23
IT WAS A SPLIT
decision for the Plymouth City Council last week on important transportation issues.
The council was wise to get on board with the county’s application for a $15 million TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) II federal grant to rehabilitate the Plymouth-Kohler rail line, but they did their constituents a disservice by continuing to drag their feet on plans for a north side bypass after State 23 is upgraded to freeway status.
The council, after a two-week delay, endorsed the county’s grant for federal stimulus funds to get the rebuilding of the rail line back on track. If the county’s application is successful, it would require only a $600,000 local match to move the long-needed project forward, as opposed to the $3 million match earlier plans required.
The council made the right move in not making a financial commitment part of their support at this time. Determining where the local match funds will come from can be done at a later date, if the county’s application is successful. It seems likely a publicprivate partnership, with the local costs shared among a number of different groups and entities, can be forged.
What was needed now was to get the grant application moving forward with the maximum amount of local support, and the council’s action was a key part of that.
The state Department of Transportation is presenting two alternatives for when intersections with State 23 at Pleasantview Road, Highland Avenue and Fairview Drive are closed — which DOT officials have indicated may be imminent, within the next several years.
One would be south of State 23, in essence continuing Kiley Way to State 67 across the Mullet River. The other would be a new road from County OJ to State 67 somewhere north of the city. The only route for extending Kiley Way that DOT officials have said they would accept, for safety reasons, would require purchasing and razing a number of existing homes in the Riverview subdivision and run between Riverview Middle School and the St. John the Baptist Cemetery.
In addition to the inevitable disruption this would cause, it would be a much more costly alternative requiring a bridge across the Mullet River. The consensus among all involved seems to be that this alternative is totally unacceptable.
Yet, the council was split on a resolution endorsing the northern bypass alternative, citing concerns about the cost of the new road, who would pay for it, and whether other involved entity are on board with the plan.
Those are legitimate concerns and questions that must be answered, but it does nothing to reassure residents and property owners who would be directly impacted — negatively — by the unwanted alternative. The city should at least give them reassurance, on the record, that the city does not support that route.
The council must adopt a resolution supporting the northern bypass, to make it plain that the city is against the disruptions a southern route would cause. It could easily be amended or rewritten to include reservations that details concerning the northern route, including costs and who will pay for it, should be resolved before any work proceeds there or on State 23.
But the residents of that area, and of the entire city, deserve a strong statement from city officials that they officially oppose the Kiley Way extension to State 67.
At issue: Something or other Bottom line: Do something about it
