Even Brian Hornback is opposed:

(link...)

It appears that universal opposition has coalesced. So who will come out for it? Road builders, asphalt/gravel providers, etc.? Should be an interesting public hearing on Dec. 6th.

I know it's hard to follow and visualize on maps (mainly because I can't find one that has all the plans that tie together in one place), but I certainly hope someone shows up with an alternative plan to tie the South Waterfront public infrastructure and the Urban Wilderness plans together.

That's a lot of funding to leave on the table simply because someone forgot to update a plan for thirty years.

I would hate to be explaining to my great grandchildren, thirty years from now that we had a great plan during the Obama administration, and a chance to fund it, we just couldn't get everyone on the same page.

Plus, the proposed roadway makes great sense as a greenway route tying into the TWRA land and Ijams from an inland route. It provides simple direct greenway access to thousands of residences with a minimum ecological impact.

Actually, there isn't any money committed to this project. But we certainly should push for improvements to Chapman Highway at this point because the focus is on roads in South Knoxville. Getting money for Chapman has been impossible up to now.

The meeting should be a catalyst for using the money to improve Chapman.

The hostage taking "no-build" translates into "no soup for you!". But that TDOT position is not their only one..

From TDOT: 

The No-Build Alternative would mean that James White Parkway would not be extended and no other major improvements to existing roadways, including Chapman Highway, would occur.

From TDOT's spokesperson: 

He says other improvements can be made and have been made in the past on Chapman Highway.

"Over the years on Chapman Highway, there have been sections that have been widened. There have been multiple improvements that have been made, including pavement markings and center lane rumble strips," Nagi said.

He also says several projects are in the works for the highway. One is about five miles east of the accident site, where a center turn lane will be added from U.S. 411 to Macon Lane.

Other improvements will be made from Evans Road to Burnett Lane.

(link...)

Having it both ways much TDOT? 

You posted this above:

I know it's hard to follow and visualize on maps (mainly because I can't find one that has all the plans that tie together in one place), but I certainly hope someone shows up with an alternative plan to tie the South Waterfront public infrastructure and the Urban Wilderness plans together.

You posted this a day or two ago:

We followed the signage from JWP to the Will Skelton Greenway and back to downtown. The route was straightforward and easy to follow. It was the first time the route from JWP to the greenway made any sense.

Island Home Ave, and the Riverwalk if it's completed that far east, connect the South Knoxville Waterfront with Ijams, and the Will Skelton Greenway connects Ijams with the TWRA Wildlife Management Area and the Urban Wilderness Trail. Don't know that it's available online, however I suggest you find a copy to the City of Knoxville Greenways map of current and proposed greenways

I'm sure from TDOT's perspective, this is just a proposed JWP extension project. It's not a comprehensive "South Knoxville transportation project." It's really not surprising that for this particular project that there would only be "build" and "no build" options. If you want improvements to Chapman Highway instead, that's a different project. It makes sense that a "build" option might include some work on other nearby roadways to facilitate traffic flow for the extension project, but that "no-build" options would not address those things at all.

Think of it this way. If you asked a landscape architect to design a new half-circle driveway for your house, she might come back with a proposal that includes some different possible orientations for the driveway, and additional grading in your front yard, plus options for sidewalks and stoops to get you from the new driveway to any nearby entrances to the house. You can then look at those things and decide whether you want to hire a contractor to build them or not.

The architect is not going to include a proposal that has no driveway at all, but includes a nice paved path from your back door, through the woods behind your house, down to the nearest greenway. While that might be a healthier and more environmentally-friendly transportation option to get you from your house to other places, that's not within the parameters of what you asked for. If an architect did include such an added alternative and then submitted a bill for some number of hours of time spent designing that option, you would likely refuse to pay that portion of the bill. I know I would.

The JWP thing is and should be "build" or "no build." It seems like there's a lot of consensus for "no build." If that's the ultimate decision, then good, they don't build it. Would you like a project to make improvements to Chapman Highway? That's a different project. Frankly it's probably easier to get such a thing designed if the JWP "no build" decision is made and put to bed. Then there's no need to consider the possible JWP extension when designing improvements to Chapman.

Here's my view: those opposed to the JWP extension (and there are obviously many) should emphasize to TDOT what they are FOR rather than what they are AGAINST.

And what they are FOR is the Urban Wilderness and improvements to Chapman Highway.

I have experience working with DOTs and DEISs. I think below is an accurate assessment of what the DEIS is supposed to do, not to, and what you are supposed to do as a commenter.

The DEIS is for JWP proposed extension, and nothing else. Chapman Hwy would be a different project, with a different scope, different alternatives, and a different EIS. The fact that TDOT does not include Chapman hwy improvements doesn't mean anything, except that they are out of scope of the prposed project.

It doesn't mean TDOT will never improve Chapman, but if you read EIS closely, it does make the case that improving Chapman will not solve the road capacity problem in the future. The capacity issue is what gives TDOT the reason for the JWP. There are good reasons to improve Chapman, though, and I suggest we need to push our leaders to ask for these improvements. The DEIS mentions these, as R. notes, but essentially states that they are irrelevant for the proejct under evaluation. In other words, if you want to improve Chapman Hwy, you need an entirely different project for the public's review. That our leaders are engaged in opposition to JWP, and some of them are in support of Chapman Hwy improvements, makes this a good time to essentially -- start over. Get a new Task Force together to fix Chapman Hwy, reach a consensus, and then ask TDOT to design a project around what the community really wants. There may already be something like this out there. It would probably involve some high level meetings between TDOT and our community leaders to get the project going. Is there anyone here who can make that case with Rogero and Burchett? SKNBC?

On the DEIS, it is ok to mention that Chapman hwy improvements are what you prefer. This might help make the point to TDOT, but I strongly recommend to address the DEIS. Stay strongly focused on the merits or deficits of the project that is presented in the DEIS.

The Chapman Highway Corridor Study is available although I don't have a link.

Chapman Highway Corridor Study