INC NEWS - DOT carrying a grudge? (Herald-Sun letter)

[bragin at nc.rr.com]

it's unfathomable to me that cost overruns should be the cause of having to shift budgets around to "balance" spending from one area to another. if spending were balanced among regions before the cost overruns, then the cost overruns should also be balanced among the regions.

if they are not balanced, that suggests mismanagement in one geographic region.

if the budget was not being distributed equitably beforehand, i'd certainly like to see the figures. the I-85 bypass around Greensboro, for example, was a much bigger project than the I-85 widening in Durham. it may be that the Durham project is more complex, and thus more expensive, but from a users standpoint, it's hard to see that.

regardless, claiming that rural areas have been shortchanged in prior budgets, and that needed projects in rapidly growing metropolitan areas must be put on hold, is the same sort of bureacratic mentality that leads to spending 6 times as much per capita on Homeland Security in Montana as opp
osed to New York City.

barry ragin

----- Original Message -----
From: Mike - Hotmail <mwshiflett at hotmail.com>
Date: Tuesday, April 5, 2005 9:53 am
Subject: Re: INC NEWS - DOT carrying a grudge? (Herald-Sun letter)

> To clarify,
> 
> The majority of cost overruns involving I-85 have been the 
> ballooning costs 
> of both steel, concrete and asphalt (phenomenal demand for these in 
> China 
> are driving costs  to records never seen before).
> 
> Other items pale in comparison from what I've come to understand 
> from 
> several meetings with representatives present from Mark Ahrendsen, 
> NCDOT and 
> Granite Construction.
> 
> mike shiflett
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "pat carstensen" <pats1717 at hotmail.com>
> To: <inc-list at DurhamINC.org>
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 4:14 PM
> Subject: RE: INC NEWS - DOT carrying a grudge? (Herald-Sun letter)
> 
> 
> > My understanding is that I-85 cost over-runs (a teeny tiny part 
> of which 
> > is from noise walls a
nd other mitigation we in Durham asked for, 
> but 
> > mostly just they mis-budgeted) and similar problems in Wake 
> County meant 
> > that we spent more than expected in last couple years.  So it is 
> sort of 
> > legitimate that we get less $$ in next couple years.
> >
> > My questions are:
> > * Are there things that are getting built in next 6 years that we 
> need to 
> > push down -- do we have the right priority list?
> > * The federal government is (on many fronts) pushing their budget 
> problems 
> > down to the states.  Last time I was paying attention, federal 
> > Transportation Bill for next 6 years is pretty generous (it has 
> other 
> > problems, like "streamlining" on evaluating effects (-:) -- but I 
> think it 
> > is a good question what $$ we will have after 2012, especially 
> when we 
> > were already looking at needing to raise funds locally
> > * It would be real interesting to do an exercise of deciding how 
> much 
> > transportation $$ we have 
to spend (including non-road stuff) and 
> use that 
> > as a constraint to look at our future land use patterns
> >
> > Regards, Pat Carstensen
> >
> >>From: "Caleb Southern" <southernc at mindspring.com>
> >>Reply-To: southernc at mindspring.com
> >>To: <inc-list at DurhamINC.org>
> >>Subject: INC NEWS -  DOT carrying a grudge? (Herald-Sun letter)
> >>Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 08:21:42 -0400
> >>
> >>DOT carrying a grudge?
> >>Herald-Sun letter
> >>
> >>I was astonished to pick up the newspaper March 30 and read Ginny 
> >>Skalski's
> >>article that the N.C. DOT is still dragging its heels on the East 
> End>>Connector. Let's recap: The connector has been on the state's 
> books since
> >>1959. It is supported, indeed requested, by an overwhelming 
> majority of 
> >>the
> >>city's citizen organizations. The city and county governments, as 
> well as
> >>the Durham region MPO, all consider it the highest priority road 
> project 
> >>in
> >>the county. It will provide an alternate route
 for the dangerous 
> >>cut-through
> >>traffic that now plagues our urban neighborhoods. It will hasten 
> >>development
> >>in areas of the city that need it. It will encourage trips into 
> downtown>>Durham, instead of through downtown Durham. So why is DOT 
> so reluctant? Is
> >>DOT nursing a grudge because Durham citizens successfully lobbied 
> against>>their pet Eno Drive project? And why is our appointed 
> representative to 
> >>the
> >>State Transportation Board so willing to let this project slide? 
> Shouldn't>>DOT be serving the citizens?
> >>
> >>
> >>BARRY RAGIN
> >>DURHAM
> >>April 4, 2005
> >>The writer is president of the Duke Park Neighborhood Association.