Wednesday, December 13, 2000

Recently several articles and editorials have been printed in your newspaper regarding Georgia Department of Transportation's involvement in the State Route 54/Wal-Mart development project in Peachtree City. Our department understands concerns that the public has regarding new developments in their community, including traffic congestion, overcrowding and poor air quality, among others. However, there seems to be some misconception regarding the Georgia DOT's role in this issue.

Peachtree City is a thriving and progressive city. The city leaders recognize this and have a very thorough and sophisticated zoning process in place as a means to prevent overdevelopment. RAM Development initiated zoning on State Route 54 and the Wal-Mart development, and the Peachtree City Planning Commission approved this plan.

RAM Development sent this plan to our department for review and approval of access to the state route. The Georgia DOT has a process that we follow for commercial development. RAM Development's plan met all of our regulations; therefore, we have no grounds on which to deny their request.

Often when people hear about a road project in their neighborhood, they automatically assume that it is the Georgia DOT's baby. Many times Georgia DOT only plays a small role in city projects, such as in this case. Peachtree City approved the development of this project, not the Georgia DOT. The Peachtree City Council would better answer any questions or concerns you may have regarding the proposed State Route 54 development.

Furthermore, I want to address the references to Mr. Keith Rohling, traffic operations engineer for our Thomaston district. On Dec. 6 you published a letter from Steve Brown titled "Questions raised about DOT approval of Hwy. 54Wal-Mart traffic plans." In it the writer indicated that he had spoken with Mr. Rohling on Nov. 30 about this situation.

His words were strong and his allegations were wrong. We responded to him but feel that your readers deserve to hear the facts as well.

The truth of the matter is that Mr. Rohling was on official leave on Nov. 30 and Dec. 1. The leave records are on file at the district office. So, Mr. Brown never spoke with Mr. Rohling. He did speak with Steve Blackston, district signal engineer, who explained that Steve Daniel, district access management engineer, was unavailable, but he would gladly take his questions and forward them when he returned. Mr. Brown is right in that Mr. Rohling is the person in the district office to speak with only he never did on Nov. 30.

Without belaboring the point, I want to be clear that we are open to citizen input, questions, and concerns about transportation matters. As a matter of fact, we recently responded to a request for information and correspondence about this very development in Peachtree City. Our staff is made up of skilled, dedicated, knowledgeable engineers who take pride in the work they do. Many of them are your neighbors and friends. All of them are just doing their job. To infer otherwise is both unfair and unwarranted.

Bottom line, folks, is that the Georgia DOT's role in this development project is minimal. Our primary concern is that any alterations or tie-ins to our state highway system be safe, up to standards, and in accordance with our policies and regulations. Using the Georgia DOT as the stopgap in this instance is pointless. The issue lies with local zoning and planning.

Harold Linnenkohl

Deputy Commissioner

Georgia Department of Transportation

Atlanta

[Editor's note: For the record, the Peachtree City Planning Commission disapproved the Wal-Mart-Hwy. 54 traffic plan. On appeal, the Peachtree City Council approved the project.]

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page