We’ve learned that “repaving” means so much more than that, as Maryann McArthur noted last week [Letter to the Editor, Sept. 24]. And yet, two weeks out from an obscure Zoom forum on the subject, we remain mostly uninformed with regard to some fundamental questions that were raised by the public:
What is the proposed timeline for this project?
Are there any other “authors” besides Trustees Georgia Lopez and Morgen Fleisig, and Hugh Greechan Jr., the county commissioner of public works and transportation, who also had a letter in last week’s issue?
What studies, on the scale that have been done in support of the Southern Corridor project, have been done for the “repaving” project? Traffic and impact?
What are the underlying assumptions about the benefits, in the abstract?
Thorough documentation of this process is absent.
We have been assured that community is “being heard,” but the process, especially as constrained by its reliance on Zoom meetings, belies that comfort.
And, oh yes… why is Farragut being “repaved” at this time? I drive it all the time. It’s not in terrible condition.
Even with the best of intentions, our confidence in our representative governance is challenged (yes, on all levels). The best we can do is to demand it on this most local of levels.
On the morning of Sept. 27, I watched the traffic on Farragut, in front of the middle school. I had spent a year doing just this, a while back. It is little improved from then. If the concern for safety of children is sincere, then we will get infinitely more “bang for buck” by enlisting the County’s real engagement in solving that problem. The current proposal will make things much worse.
I will be curious to see how the forum regarding the Southern Corridor, scheduled for Sept. 29, will have played out. We have already invested a considerable amount in the project. Does this mean that it will happen, even if the data is questionable?
The board of trustees should take the process of real engagement with community more seriously.