How the plan to fix the Howard Frankland Bridge fell apart, told in legos

Started by mrsman, December 23, 2016, 12:13:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic


Rothman

Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Max Rockatansky

That's actually a pretty creative way of conveying a story and the main points.  That stupid bridge is a complete disaster and is always backed up, especially on the original one which heads eastbound.  Thankfully when I was generally heading through the area I was usually heading up the 589 which usually was pretty accessible from that "not general use lane" in question.  :rolleyes:

silverback1065

the local leaders should have asked questions to clarify the lane configuration.  the DOT also should have shown a graphic.  both parties are at fault, the DOT with being vague, and the leaders for not trying to understand what was actually being proposed. the leaders should have known that the engineers would speak using engineer's terminology, and should have made sure they understood what it meant.

jeffandnicole

I could've read the story in 1/3rd of the time if I didn't have to click after every 2 sentences for them to play with legos.  And I like legos.

Some DOTs think they can trick the public.  And depending on the public's perception of traffic and building roads, it may work.  But today, there's just too much info out there.  Eventually, that info comes out.  And it's usually going to result in delays...and more money.

silverback1065

Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2016, 02:56:57 PM
I could've read the story in 1/3rd of the time if I didn't have to click after every 2 sentences for them to play with legos.  And I like legos.

Some DOTs think they can trick the public.  And depending on the public's perception of traffic and building roads, it may work.  But today, there's just too much info out there.  Eventually, that info comes out.  And it's usually going to result in delays...and more money.

I'm not convinced they tried to "trick" the public here, they simply have a different way of saying things, just because the leaders didn't understand what they were saying doesn't mean they were "tricked". Travel lanes, or through lanes, serve a different purpose than auxiliary lanes, if you don't understand the jargon, seek clarification.  each industry has a proper term for different things in their field, and if you do business with them, you need to make sure you're familiar with the jargon.  I wasn't at the meetings, but they should have clearly conveyed what was going to happen with schematics, then this wouldn't have happened.

Rothman

I am convinced that they were trying to trick the public and then tried hiding behind the engineering jargon "defense."
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

silverback1065

Quote from: Rothman on December 30, 2016, 08:49:12 AM
I am convinced that they were trying to trick the public and then tried hiding behind the engineering jargon "defense."

goes both ways, the leaders should have known what they were going with.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: silverback1065 on December 29, 2016, 03:44:53 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2016, 02:56:57 PM
I could've read the story in 1/3rd of the time if I didn't have to click after every 2 sentences for them to play with legos.  And I like legos.

Some DOTs think they can trick the public.  And depending on the public's perception of traffic and building roads, it may work.  But today, there's just too much info out there.  Eventually, that info comes out.  And it's usually going to result in delays...and more money.

I'm not convinced they tried to "trick" the public here, they simply have a different way of saying things, just because the leaders didn't understand what they were saying doesn't mean they were "tricked". Travel lanes, or through lanes, serve a different purpose than auxiliary lanes, if you don't understand the jargon, seek clarification.  each industry has a proper term for different things in their field, and if you do business with them, you need to make sure you're familiar with the jargon.  I wasn't at the meetings, but they should have clearly conveyed what was going to happen with schematics, then this wouldn't have happened.

If DOT talked to a contractor, the contractor is doing business with DOT and should understand the lingo.  The elected officials aren't doing business with DOT.  Basically, DOT is giving an informational seminar, informing them of the future plans.    While we look up to those elected leaders, they aren't masters in everything.  They are usually investors, bankers, lawyers, etc.  They are usually not engineers.  When it comes to roads, they probably don't know anything more than the average everyday commuter.

If around 75% of those in attendance didn't correctly understand the info, then those leading the seminar failed to do their job in providing their audience with the correct information.  Most people don't know what an auxiliary lane, for example.

Meterologists are a perfect example of a group of people that need to convey information not using scientific, industrial lingo, but by using everyday language.  DOTs need to do the same if they don't want to be blamed for tricking the public.

silverback1065

Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 30, 2016, 09:54:27 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 29, 2016, 03:44:53 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 29, 2016, 02:56:57 PM
I could've read the story in 1/3rd of the time if I didn't have to click after every 2 sentences for them to play with legos.  And I like legos.

Some DOTs think they can trick the public.  And depending on the public's perception of traffic and building roads, it may work.  But today, there's just too much info out there.  Eventually, that info comes out.  And it's usually going to result in delays...and more money.

I'm not convinced they tried to "trick" the public here, they simply have a different way of saying things, just because the leaders didn't understand what they were saying doesn't mean they were "tricked". Travel lanes, or through lanes, serve a different purpose than auxiliary lanes, if you don't understand the jargon, seek clarification.  each industry has a proper term for different things in their field, and if you do business with them, you need to make sure you're familiar with the jargon.  I wasn't at the meetings, but they should have clearly conveyed what was going to happen with schematics, then this wouldn't have happened.

If DOT talked to a contractor, the contractor is doing business with DOT and should understand the lingo.  The elected officials aren't doing business with DOT.  Basically, DOT is giving an informational seminar, informing them of the future plans.    While we look up to those elected leaders, they aren't masters in everything.  They are usually investors, bankers, lawyers, etc.  They are usually not engineers.  When it comes to roads, they probably don't know anything more than the average everyday commuter.

If around 75% of those in attendance didn't correctly understand the info, then those leading the seminar failed to do their job in providing their audience with the correct information.  Most people don't know what an auxiliary lane, for example.

Meterologists are a perfect example of a group of people that need to convey information not using scientific, industrial lingo, but by using everyday language.  DOTs need to do the same if they don't want to be blamed for tricking the public.

if they have to approve the project, then they are in fact doing business with the DOT.  And since they are, they need to clarify by asking questions.  yes the DOT should have been more clear, but it goes both ways, even in the article someone was quoted as trying to rush the meetings along saying something to the effect of "we already understand this" they clearly didn't. we elect these representatives to represent us, and therefore understand what they actually are voting for.  let me be clear, my opinion is that it's both parties fault, for the reasons i've already stated.

Rothman

Quote from: silverback1065 on December 30, 2016, 09:48:20 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 30, 2016, 08:49:12 AM
I am convinced that they were trying to trick the public and then tried hiding behind the engineering jargon "defense."

goes both ways, the leaders should have known what they were going with.
I agree, but there was definitely a concerted effort to hide the true plan by the Department.  Every DOT plays PR games, but this was ridiculous.

The fact the one local leader thought he knew the plan well enough to move a meeting along faster than it should have and the number of people who thought they knew the plan but actually did not is further evidence that the DOT did not fulfill its duty to present its plan in a comprehensible manner.

Kind of hard to get at the real plan if you already think you have it well in mind due to deceptive practices.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

silverback1065

Quote from: Rothman on December 30, 2016, 10:20:49 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 30, 2016, 09:48:20 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 30, 2016, 08:49:12 AM
I am convinced that they were trying to trick the public and then tried hiding behind the engineering jargon "defense."

goes both ways, the leaders should have known what they were going with.
I agree, but there was definitely a concerted effort to hide the true plan by the Department.  Every DOT plays PR games, but this was ridiculous.

The fact the one local leader thought he knew the plan well enough to move a meeting along faster than it should have and the number of people who thought they knew the plan but actually did not is further evidence that the DOT did not fulfill its duty to present its plan in a comprehensible manner.

Kind of hard to get at the real plan if you already think you have it well in mind due to deceptive practices.
I see your point, I do think the dot should have known that they wouldn't understand the way they count lanes and they should have just clarified that point.

jeffandnicole

Quote from: silverback1065 on December 30, 2016, 10:23:06 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 30, 2016, 10:20:49 AM
Quote from: silverback1065 on December 30, 2016, 09:48:20 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 30, 2016, 08:49:12 AM
I am convinced that they were trying to trick the public and then tried hiding behind the engineering jargon "defense."

goes both ways, the leaders should have known what they were going with.
I agree, but there was definitely a concerted effort to hide the true plan by the Department.  Every DOT plays PR games, but this was ridiculous.

The fact the one local leader thought he knew the plan well enough to move a meeting along faster than it should have and the number of people who thought they knew the plan but actually did not is further evidence that the DOT did not fulfill its duty to present its plan in a comprehensible manner.

Kind of hard to get at the real plan if you already think you have it well in mind due to deceptive practices.
I see your point, I do think the dot should have known that they wouldn't understand the way they count lanes and they should have just clarified that point.

It's clear DOT knew they wouldn't understand it.  That's why they presented the meetings in such a way.  Once the elected officials realized what was going on, they quickly put a stop to it.

Elected officials tend to get pushed in every direction.  Better roads, Fewer roads.  Ban cell phones while driving.  Stay out of my life and let me talk on my phone while driving.  Better Healthcare.  Lower taxes.  More Laws.  Fewer Laws.  Save the Manatee.  Save the Mosquito.   Police Suck.  We Need More Police....

Don't matter the issue.  They hear it all.  They don't have the ability to sit down for days on end to study a single bridge.  That's not their job.  Their job is to get good, concise updates.  FDOT didn't do their job.

Notice in the article one of the main managers on the job resigned.  That tells you that word went thru DOT that the elected officials were not pleased...and DOT most likely got quite a beatdown from some of the top ranking officials in the state.   

Rothman

I am betting the resignee will land on their feet.  They were just the fall guy for when this scheme went awry.

My bet is that the State didn't want to pony up more money for the bridge and put the DOT in a vice:  Sell a lesser plan any way you can.

DOT does what it is told.  Plan blows up.  Higher officials say don't implicate us and you will land on your feet when you resign.

Seen this play out before.

(personal opinion strongly emphasized)
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

silverback1065

Quote from: Rothman on December 30, 2016, 11:08:04 AM
I am betting the resignee will land on their feet.  They were just the fall guy for when this scheme went awry.

My bet is that the State didn't want to pony up more money for the bridge and put the DOT in a vice:  Sell a lesser plan any way you can.

DOT does what it is told.  Plan blows up.  Higher officials say don't implicate us and you will land on your feet when you resign.

Seen this play out before.

(personal opinion strongly emphasized)

this may be your opinion, but from my experience, everything you've said is true.  that person that resigned probably already is working for a private engineering firm, and the DOT, at least in Indiana, is mostly just doing what the governor wants, they do what they're told.

Revive 755

Quote from: Rothman on December 30, 2016, 11:08:04 AM
I am betting the resignee will land on their feet.  They were just the fall guy for when this scheme went awry.

Straying from topic, but humor me on why we have engineering licensing when people who are engaging in deceptive practices are able to simply resign like this (assuming that was what actually happened in this case).

Regarding the bridge, it looks like the auxiliary lanes are long enough that they would be used the same as a general purpose lane across the bridge?

Max Rockatansky

Quote from: Revive 755 on January 01, 2017, 07:40:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 30, 2016, 11:08:04 AM
I am betting the resignee will land on their feet.  They were just the fall guy for when this scheme went awry.

Straying from topic, but humor me on why we have engineering licensing when people who are engaging in deceptive practices are able to simply resign like this (assuming that was what actually happened in this case).

Regarding the bridge, it looks like the auxiliary lanes are long enough that they would be used the same as a general purpose lane across the bridge?

They are quite long, long enough that eastbound they really can be effective if you aren't staying on I-275.  The problem is that a lot of people staying on I-275 will use them to cut around traffic in the left three lanes and have to cut over at the last second which only leads to more back up:

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.9416114,-82.5482695,3a,75y,90h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seAr7FkpNYoDCOtm5-fjmDA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

jeffandnicole

Quote from: Revive 755 on January 01, 2017, 07:40:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 30, 2016, 11:08:04 AM
I am betting the resignee will land on their feet.  They were just the fall guy for when this scheme went awry.

Straying from topic, but humor me on why we have engineering licensing when people who are engaging in deceptive practices are able to simply resign like this (assuming that was what actually happened in this case).

Regarding the bridge, it looks like the auxiliary lanes are long enough that they would be used the same as a general purpose lane across the bridge?

And even if that's true, someone resigning from a state job to a private job still has to go thru quite a bit of a chance, including changes with generally lucrative state benefits to generally less lucrative private engineering firm benefits.  Did this person have a pension with the state?  Probably not anymore.  How long until they have health/dental benefits again? Etc. 

silverback1065

Quote from: Revive 755 on January 01, 2017, 07:40:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 30, 2016, 11:08:04 AM
I am betting the resignee will land on their feet.  They were just the fall guy for when this scheme went awry.

Straying from topic, but humor me on why we have engineering licensing when people who are engaging in deceptive practices are able to simply resign like this (assuming that was what actually happened in this case).

Regarding the bridge, it looks like the auxiliary lanes are long enough that they would be used the same as a general purpose lane across the bridge?

the licence is about design, just to prove you're good enough to seal plans, the test is usually over state rules, and college classes.  i don't think it has anything to do with ethics, although there is a section on it on the test.  I don't think this engineer violated ethics anyway. i haven't taken the test yet, i will in another year.

Rothman

Quote from: Revive 755 on January 01, 2017, 07:40:03 PM
Quote from: Rothman on December 30, 2016, 11:08:04 AM
I am betting the resignee will land on their feet.  They were just the fall guy for when this scheme went awry.

Straying from topic, but humor me on why we have engineering licensing when people who are engaging in deceptive practices are able to simply resign like this (assuming that was what actually happened in this case).


We have engineering licensing so our engineers are proven to have the knowledge needed to design their projects to the proper standards.  However, when engineers move up in DOTs, they become more managers than engineers.  I really don't see how licensing affects political moves that are bound to happen in executive agencies like DOTs -- DOTs' bosses are governors, via their commissioners.

That said, I don't agree that the resigned manager will end up at a private firm, although that's not impossible.  If they were indeed the designated sacrificial lamb, they'd be moved into another state position.  At least in NY, people who are laid off still remain on a preferred list for hiring, so if FL has a similar mechanism, having the manager land somewhere else would be a simple matter.

(personal opinion emphasized)
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.