Too much public involvment or bowing to interest groups

[Mergingtraffic]

Is it me? But it seems today's DOTs seems to bow too much to public comment and interest groups.  I'm not saying ignore them totally but there should be a fine line.

Case in point:
The CT DOT wants to build a full directional interchange with CT-15 Merritt Pkwy and US 7 where a partial one currently exists.
The DOT actually started the project, complete with flyovers and modern design.  However a group called the Merrit Pkwy conservancy sued in court and won stopping the construction in progress, claiming historic character was damaged considering it's on the Nat'l Register of Historic Places.

If that isn't bad enough the MPC got very vocal as most of these groups do, and hired their own engineer that said a cloverleaf design was the best way to go for character and traffic flow.  And the DOT agreed, they tried to push the cloverleaf design through in 2009 by showing the public at a meeting other "successful cloverleafs" and the publc said no.  The public got mad b/c the cloverleaf design would take more land than a flyover design would therefore interfering with nearby houses.

Thank god people stood their groud b/c what if the cloverleaf design won!?!?  The DOT was all set to push it through to what seemed like to appease the MPC.  This group wants the pkwy to be like it was 1938.

also, the MPC also got mad when a TIGER project cut down too many trees while replacing culverts and guidrails etc. 

Now there have been high profile deaths on the road caused by falling trees on the pkwy during storms etc.  These are trees that are usually in the very narrow median.  The DOT says if they think a tree is unsafe they will cut it down and not contact the MPC.  I dunno, I wonder b/c it seems like people like to satisfy these groups.  To be honest on other roads with a narrow median such as the Merritt's there wouldn't be any trees.


Thoughts? Anything similiar in your area?  It seems the goal should be roadway traffic flow and safety in 2011.
Post Merge: July 13, 2011, 06:09:39 AM
I also notice there were plans to close some entrance ramps to imrpove flow during rush hour on other limited access highways but everytime the DOT suggests that there is some group that complains saying the ramp should be open.  The DOT listens to them and nothing is done and the problem remains the same.

[US71]

That has almost always been Arkansas. So afraid of paving over some farmer's field that they do nothing. It took over 20 years to begin building I-540 north of Alma because (1) there was no money (2) no one wanted it in their backyard

[Scott5114]

I think Connecticut has it worse than most on this. My favorite example of DOT—public interaction was when a car dealership complained in a public meeting when Oklahoma DOT proposed closing the Lindsey Street interchange in Norman, where the dealership was located. ODOT responded by adding a new alternate where the interchange remained open but the ramps were relocated to run straight through the car dealership.

[agentsteel53]

what's the difference between an "interest group" and ordinary NIMBYs?

[NE2]

what's the difference between an "interest group" and ordinary NIMBYs?

AAA is an 'interest group'

[J N Winkler]

what's the difference between an "interest group" and ordinary NIMBYs?

AAA is an 'interest group'

Where infrastructure provision and the motoring agenda is concerned, AAA is both a collection of pet rocks and a stooge of the security state.  In more sharply defined counterpoint to the statement implied in Jake's (rhetorical?) question, ARTBA and AASHTO are also interest groups.

[SSOWorld]

AAA is an 'Interest Group' that wants a 55-mph speed limit law

[agentsteel53]

AAA is an 'Interest Group' that wants a 55-mph speed limit law

what a bunch of assholes.  I can't believe they went from their "good roads" campaign - helpfully signing things, leaving classic porcelain guide signs for collectors - to being a bunch of contrarian dickbags.

[CL]

Two words: Legacy Parkway. Two more words: Sierra Club. Legacy Parkway was originally set to be a six-lane, modern freeway that was situated a bit farther west than it already is. 65 mph speed limits, more interchanges, completion in the early 2000s, and the like.

Well, the Sierra Club, along with the then-mayor of Salt Lake City Rocky Anderson (a left-winger), stepped in. With their intervention, Legacy Parkway became a four-lane "parkway" (aka watered-down freeway) with 55 mph limits, less frequently spaced interchanges, a partial interchange at its southern terminus, a ban on trucks, trail systems, no billboards, etc. I actually don't mind the last three items, but other than that... The Sierra Club and Mayor Anderson (whose jurisdiction didn't even reach to Legacy Parkway!) claimed they were sparing the wetlands of the Great Salt Lake. Eh. I don't know if they really reach as far east as they claim.

Traffic counts have been lower than expected on Legacy, as a result. There's no easy access from I-15 in Salt Lake to Legacy, so instead of a 30% reduction of traffic on parallel I-15, it's been more like 20%.

Oh, and it's Utah's only road with Clearview signage. Take that for what it's worth.

[agentsteel53]

the Legacy Parkway is the most disappointing drive in Utah.  When I first saw it on a map, I was like "I had no idea there was a limited-access road there"... I figured, given the name "Parkway" it was some relic of the 1950s, signed entirely in button copy on black-background signs, with glass cateyed cutout US route markers every quarter-mile (despite it not even being a US highway) and ... err, no, nothing of the sort.

damn you, false advertising.  "parkway" is not to be used on any road built or refurbished more recently than 1962.  See: New York.

[Ned Weasel]

Two words: Legacy Parkway. Two more words: Sierra Club. Legacy Parkway was originally set to be a six-lane, modern freeway that was situated a bit farther west than it already is. 65 mph speed limits, more interchanges, completion in the early 2000s, and the like.

Well, the Sierra Club, along with the then-mayor of Salt Lake City Rocky Anderson (a left-winger), stepped in. With their intervention, Legacy Parkway became a four-lane "parkway" (aka watered-down freeway) with 55 mph limits, less frequently spaced interchanges, a partial interchange at its southern terminus, a ban on trucks, trail systems, no billboards, etc. I actually don't mind the last three items, but other than that... The Sierra Club and Mayor Anderson (whose jurisdiction didn't even reach to Legacy Parkway!) claimed they were sparing the wetlands of the Great Salt Lake. Eh. I don't know if they really reach as far east as they claim.

Traffic counts have been lower than expected on Legacy, as a result. There's no easy access from I-15 in Salt Lake to Legacy, so instead of a 30% reduction of traffic on parallel I-15, it's been more like 20%.

Oh, and it's Utah's only road with Clearview signage. Take that for what it's worth.

I can understand moving a proposed freeway to a less environmentally sensitive location, but I'm not sure what some of the other things like banning trucks and billboards have to do with it.  (I think the rationale for billboard bans is often questionable, but that's a different topic.)  If a six-lane freeway was needed (and I don't know enough about Legacy Parkway to know whether it was or was not needed), couldn't a similar freeway with the same speed limit and the same number of interchanges have been built in the new location?  Also, why would they lower the speed limit when reducing the frequency of interchanges!?

[Brandon]

Take your two word "Sierra Club" and add three "Veterans Memorial Tollway" (aka I-355).  Everyone wanted the extension built for years, but these bunch of bozos tried to tie it up in court over a dragonfly.  Finally got past then when it was shown that the dragonfly breeds all over the river valley, not just in the path of the tollway's viaduct (which, BTW goes way the fuck over the breeding grounds).  Take that, Sierra Club assholes!

[roadfro]

^ Take that two word "Sierra Club" and add "US 95" in Las Vegas. The widening project that was started in the mid naughties was held up in court by the Sierra Club because they believed NDOT overlooked some things during the EIS phase. The suit went in as part of the project was already under construction...sound walls and drainage features were worked on, but the mainline widening was halted for over a year as the trial went on--resulting in vehicles driving on very bumpy and misaligned temporary pavement while the case was heard. Eventually, the suit was settled with NDOT making some minor concessions (including installing some air quality monitoring stations at three school sites that are located adjacent to the freeway).

What I didn't understand about all this was that if the Sierra Club thought NDOT didn't have everything together, why wasn't more said before the final EIS was approved?

[Revive 755]

Take your two word "Sierra Club" and add three "Veterans Memorial Tollway" (aka I-355).  Everyone wanted the extension built for years, but these bunch of bozos tried to tie it up in court over a dragonfly.  Finally got past then when it was shown that the dragonfly breeds all over the river valley, not just in the path of the tollway's viaduct (which, BTW goes way the fuck over the breeding grounds).  Take that, Sierra Club assholes!

Where's the ranting over the in limbo IL 53 extension beyond Lake Cook Road?    That one is just as bad, if not worse - at least the southern extension of I-355 was freeway grade.

[NE2]

All these highways exist because of interest groups pushing for their construction. Don't cry just because not everyone agrees.

[Scott5114]

^{[citation needed]}

[NE2]

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/96summer/p96su2.cfm
AASHO, an interest group, had a large role in getting federal funding for highways.

[CL]

Legacy Parkway has existed on paper in one form or another since the 1960s, as the West Davis Highway. The State Highway Commission/Highway Department envisioned this road, and the latter's predecessor UDOT pushed for its construction. I don't know if you consider a DOT an interest group, but there you have it.

To be fair, the Sierra Club did have a few legitimate concerns about wetlands preservation. But will a six-lane, concrete-surfaced, 65 mph freeway really do more harm than a four-lane, 55 mph, asphalt-surfaced freeway in the same location? No. It's asinine and nonsensical.

[Brandon]

Take your two word "Sierra Club" and add three "Veterans Memorial Tollway" (aka I-355).  Everyone wanted the extension built for years, but these bunch of bozos tried to tie it up in court over a dragonfly.  Finally got past then when it was shown that the dragonfly breeds all over the river valley, not just in the path of the tollway's viaduct (which, BTW goes way the fuck over the breeding grounds).  Take that, Sierra Club assholes!

Where's the ranting over the in limbo IL 53 extension beyond Lake Cook Road?    That one is just as bad, if not worse - at least the southern extension of I-355 was freeway grade.

That has its own special interest group problem in the name of the Village of Long Grove.  Personally, I favor boycotting any and all businesses in Long Grove until they get the point that IL-53 needs to be built.

[Scott5114]

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/96summer/p96su2.cfm
AASHO, an interest group, had a large role in getting federal funding for highways.

Yeah, back in 1916, when federal aid for highways was a new concept. That doesn't equate to the Sierra Club fighting individual highways like the other posters were talking about. Can you provide an instance of a pro-highway interest group existing for the specific cases of:

• I-355/IL 53
  
• the CT 15 widening
  
• I-540 (AR)
  
• Legacy Parkway
  
• US 95
  

Your exact quote is

All these highways exist because of interest groups pushing for their construction.

If you stand by this assertion that, indeed, "all these highways"–I'm holding you to mean all five of these highways, mind you, and not weasel out of it by claiming that you're referring to all the highways in the US or some bullshit like that–exist directly because of an interest group actively pushing them to completion? If not, and you're tying them all to the indirect actions of one interest group in 1916, then you're equivocating. That's not what people were talking about in this thread, and you're trying to be a sleaze by trying to pass that off as analogous to the Sierra Club's actions.

[NE2]

Stop changing the goalposts.

[Scott5114]

Malarkey.

[3467]

There are several interest groups in support of specific routes in Illinois,Corridor 67 and groups for US51,US 30,US 34 ,US 20. There are groups opposed to US 20 and Illinois 336.
No one organized in Chicago

[Brandon]

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/96summer/p96su2.cfm
AASHO, an interest group, had a large role in getting federal funding for highways.

Yeah, back in 1916, when federal aid for highways was a new concept. That doesn't equate to the Sierra Club fighting individual highways like the other posters were talking about. Can you provide an instance of a pro-highway interest group existing for the specific cases of:

• I-355/IL 53
  

The County of Lake, Illinois for the northern extension.  The County has expressed 100% support for the extension as have most of the municipalities in the County except Long Grove and Hawthorn Woods.

And while we're at it, many of the local governmental units have expressed support for:
Prairie Parkway (Kendall County)
Illiana Expressway (Will County is 100% behind it)
[/list]

[Scott5114]

I wouldn't call a local government supporting something an "interest group"; governments typically have a purpose other than acting as advocates for a particular stand on policy.