 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
FEBRUARY/MARCH 2005 COMMENT SHEET SUMMARY Do you have any comments on the impact analyses? Cost "Cost of building is too much." "Yes, why go into all of those alternatives which cost so much money when one single yes would suffice." "In building the road, either paved or gravel, the cost of this is around $350 million for the paved road, and quite a bit less for the gravel." "I believe that the impact and cost of the road have been greatly understated." "Environmentally safe construction will not come this cheaply. Environmentally insensitive construction should not be considered." "Underestimates costs by excluding mitigation costs." "The opportunity cost of not providing an immediate cash settlement to Swain County is not analyzed. If the road is built in place of a Monetary Settlement, the interest lost to Swain County from the Monetary Settlement trust over the course of the 15 years it is projected to build the road would be extremely significant by itself." "Need to look at additional road projects for cost comparisons. Ex. US Highway 321, Phase 1: 2.6 miles, approximately $30 million. Corridor K - Highway 64 through Ocoee River gorge, 20 miles = $1.5 billion." "Cost estimate of roads seems too high. In the agreement, the road to be built would have been rebuilt using the parts of old 288 that were not flooded, and the standards of today would not have been used. For example, the percent of grade up and down hills. In that time period, they went up the hill and down, if it was to steep they went around not through it with big cuts and fills used today. This adds much expense and causes big slides in periods of wet weather. This road was never intended to be a major type of highway but to serve the communities along the North Shore of the river and lake. This road should be built the way it would have been in the late forties." "Preliminary project costs" seem unrealistic (since they assume constant 2004 dollars). If the Northern Shore Corridor option is chosen, the cost is approaching $1 billion." "Price of road construction appears to be highly inflated." "Estimated costs (of construction, etc.) seem to be understated." "I do not see Operations and Maintenance costs accounted for." "Costs for the road should include all the increased funds that will be required to maintain all the increased human impacts (not just as it relates to the road, bathrooms, and picnic areas) in terms of opening up so much more of the Park to people who will inevitably get hurt, cause vandalism, and break laws. The lack of a road keeps this from happening." "Price of road construction appears too high." "Construction cost, regardless the cost, should not be of concern. The road should have been built years ago." "Price of construction seems too high." "Cost of road inflated." "Cost of construction inflated." "Cost would have been reasonable if road built when promised, delays mean rising cost." "Price of road too high." "Price of road looks good." "The road construction costs are biased to make it seem relatively inexpensive. It should be clear how much contingency is allotted for construction delays due to lawsuits (a surety), rock slides (as with the Foothills Parkway ), and remediation of acidic releases. Costs should also be allocated for car crashes and associated lawsuits against the U.S. government, fuel spills and cleanup costs, increased costs of Park involvement of accidents in the newly accessible Park lands (as occur routinely on Newfound Gap Road and in Cades Cove)." "Costs should reflect total project costs which should include some amounts for mitigation." "The cost estimates seem to be too low and there is no mention of the extermination that will be involved." "I think realistically, the monetary costs are low. It will be years before this is settled and costs will rise." "How were the potential costs determined?" "Cost estimates for road construction don't appear to consider change orders or over runs or budgetary delays." "Cost estimates appear highly inflated - but cost does not matter to me - if the road had been built when it should have, it would not cost near as much." Economics "I see many jobs during and after construction. I think this road gives tourists another option to GSMNP and could maybe reduce the huge load on 441." "Looks good on economic possibilities if paved version of road is build. There is potential for spin-off." "Some economic assumptions are worrisome." "The economic impact of loss of this use of the park must be considered." "People had questions which weren't really within the scope of the DEIS. Would it be possible to ballpark some high-low numbers in response to those questions, from the work done in the DEIS? Only examples I can recall are traffic impacts and dollar comparisons with the Tennessee side." "At a time of increasing fuel costs, government rising deficit spending, and a declining, legal, construction labor pool, it is reasonable to predict significant inflationary pressures on the CY 2004 dollar costs estimated for any of the build options, over the time for them. Whether it is full or partial build, if such a project is stranded due to future realization that cost to benefit is excessive, and it already is, the environmental damage is done, with no return on investment. A longer Road to Nowhere is throwing good money after bad. The road was a weak idea to begin with. It has not gotten any better, and it never will." "Swain County would get more money if the road is built in terms of tourist dollars." "It shows good job growth for Swain County. The auto traffic alone could generate thousands per month." "How is tourism/visitation determined through IMPLAN? What are the assumptions and problems?" "How does a 35 mile road generate 200+ jobs after its completion? And who pays for these jobs?" "I think the number of jobs listed as permanent from the road building is misleading the surface, as many will be seasonal or part-time." "I believe the economic analyses are tenuous at best." "This road potentially hurts Graham County economically. It would divert traffic away from Robbinsville, thus costing our community thousands of tourist dollars, something we need." "Build the road, create jobs, and invite tourism to an economic depressed area." "Road would severely impact existing economic assets." "Not enough information on how road will help economy." "Dollar amount from tourism not explained." "Implies an economic increase during construction." "Need a breakdown of tourism traffic and money that will be generated, explain in simple terms." "Not enough information on how the road would economically benefit Swain County." "The north shore area is a hidden treasure that most people do not get to see. We need it opened up to help our economy. With the federal government owning most of the land in Graham and Swain counties, we need some help from them." "Dollar amount from tourism traffic not explained sufficiently." "Fails to fully show predictable positive economic growth daily and yearly after construction of road." "First let me state that I am a Ph. D economist, so I feel somewhat qualified to make the following observations. I don't believe the sort of economic impact analyses being presented here (or in similar studies) are entirely valid. First, federal dollars spent on this project will indeed bring jobs to the area, but much of the economic benefits will be construction-related, and in the era of tight Federal budget that we presently face, the benefits to the Swain County economy are offset by lost benefits in another area of the country. A fair comparison of the cost/benefits from the national economy perspective would not even count the construction employment benefits in an environment where dollars spent on this road mean less dollars spent elsewhere. The same argument applies to the "permanent jobs" created. A truly valid analysis would have to evaluate the jobs created in connection with the North Shore Road project to those lost by not undertaking a similar level of expenditure elsewhere, and frankly, the nature of this entire project suggests that were it not for the 1943 agreement, this road would never have been considered on economic merits. A second point is that even if the road project were adopted by congress today, if past experience is any guide, it would probably be much longer than the projected 15 years before it was completed. Third, a major cost not taken into consideration is the squandering of a precious and irreplaceable natural resource. The Road would bring about a reduction in the size of what is probably the largest roadless area in the eastern United States . As the country grows and the population density increases, such areas will be increasingly valuable, and I believe will, in the long run, attract many more visitors to the general area of the Great Smoky Mountains , creating tourist-related jobs without destruction of roadless areas. Indeed, we ought to be looking at ways to expand such areas, not diminish them. My guess is that Swain County would benefit much more from having the same amount of money spent on increasing Federal Forest Service or Park Service land holdings in the area in or around Swain County. "
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
