Writing to your lawmakers and DOT

[Mergingtraffic]

Over the past several years I have done a lot of writing to my elected officials and to my DOT with less than pleasurable results.

I write my politicians on various transportation issues such as funding and support for certain projects and my regional planning comittees.
I also comment for the DOT during the open comment periods for certain projects but it seems they will do what they want anyway.

However, the only time I got somewhere was with my regional planning organazation, since we don't have county goverment in my state.  My comment actually made it to the DOT and is being considered.  The RPO agrees with my comment and is also pushing for it.

But, after a while I feel like giving up and I feel like they will do what they want anyway.
Thoughts?

[Scott5114]

You could try taking your case to the local paper (write a letter to the editor) or TV station. This is especially good in cases where you think the government agency is doing something they shouldn't be. If you're lucky you might get an investigative reporter looking into the case.

If you consistently feel that you are not getting through to the DOT then there are probably others that feel the same way. Perhaps you should look into forming a political action committee. There's strength in numbers. This is normally a tactic used by anti-road groups (like "Citizens to Preserve Overton Park" that got I-40 rerouted in Memphis, and "Tulsans Against Turnpikes" that failed to get the Creek Turnpike cancelled) but depending on what you're attempting to achieve it might be a useful idea.

[Mergingtraffic]

You could try taking your case to the local paper (write a letter to the editor) or TV station. This is especially good in cases where you think the government agency is doing something they shouldn't be. If you're lucky you might get an investigative reporter looking into the case.

If you consistently feel that you are not getting through to the DOT then there are probably others that feel the same way. Perhaps you should look into forming a political action committee. There's strength in numbers. This is normally a tactic used by anti-road groups (like "Citizens to Preserve Overton Park" that got I-40 rerouted in Memphis, and "Tulsans Against Turnpikes" that failed to get the Creek Turnpike cancelled) but depending on what you're attempting to achieve it might be a useful idea.

Good ideas unfortunately for me, I am all for road expansion, which isn't PC now.  haha  When I write the DOT asking questions about projects I get great and long responses.  When I comment on the TIP or "Public Comment" areas is when I feel my comments aren't dealt with.  They say they are received and then give me an answer as to why it can't be done.  Like their minds are already made up.  I believe my comments and suggestions are in the reality such as restriping a road to add a turn lane or to make a two lane ramp rather than a one lane ramp etc.

[Scott5114]

There is a PAC for EVERYTHING. I'm sure a pro-road one could be done.

[corco]

I agree with you completely, and I find a certain irony.

I'm just starting to take some graduate-level planning classes right now (and will eventually be getting a masters in planning), and they really, really drill into our heads that the most important part of any planning/policy making process is that "YOU MUST LISTEN TO YOUR CITIZENRY. LISTEN TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY. HOLD MEETINGS AND DO WHAT THEY TELL YOU TO DO. CITIZEN INPUT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF ANYTHING. " which I've found completely amusing, because my experiences have been exactly like yours. I wonder where in the jump from academia to the real world that concept gets lost. I suspect it's not actually lost but more of a "we can't please everybody" problem, but it often seems like well-thought comments get shoved aside and completely ignored, especially once you consider that most of us have lives and can't run around joining/creating PACs and large lobbying groups. I'd assume the people who commute on freeways most often work the most hours and therefore have the least amount of time to provide input, while being the people most affected by any given decision.

[hbelkins]

As someone who works for a DOT, I can say that comments are listened to, both general complaints or concerns about different situations, and comments given as part of planning for a construction project.

Too often, what the public wants is not feasible -- such as an entrance permit to a subdivision at a point where sight distance would be a problem, or trying to avoid a certain piece of property in the right-of-way acquisition process. It might be feasible to avoid taking a person's house if it would not add to the cost of the project, but if swerving to miss someone's property would add a few hundred thousand to the cost, then in general it's not going to be done and the person is going to say their comments weren't listened to.

We even have to tell state legislators "no" when they ask for something that is prohibitively expensive that they ask us to do out of our operating budget or our maintenance funding. We tell them that if they want the project, write it into the six-year plan the legislature approves every two years and allocate the money for it if they want it done.

[J N Winkler]

I rarely contact any state DOT or other transportation agency outside the context of an open records request, which is really a specialized form of contact between the DOT and public because the DOT has a legal obligation to respond.  I tend not to lobby for a particular outcome (such as a project design) because I feel I have to consider what the DOT can realistically do and what it can justify to other stakeholders in the transportation planning process, either in terms of lower cost or enhanced efficiency, and that can involve a considerable amount of research before I even get in touch with the DOT.

The last time I contacted a DOT outside the open records request process, I tried to steer KDOT toward a Maltese cross stack at the I-235/US 54 interchange instead of the stack/turban hybrid that is currently planned.  I feel my solution would deliver more benefit for approximately the same construction cost since KDOT's solution calls for a 35 MPH operating speed on one pair of left-turning direct connectors while my solution would provide for 45 MPH operating speed on all left-turning direct connectors for approximately the same bridge square footage.  The problem is that my solution was considered at an earlier stage of the planning process, and was more popular with members of the public who commented on it, but was rejected for reasons which are unclear to me but which I suspect relate to the need to relocate nearby high-voltage power transmission lines.

I would like to do more advocacy work on this particular issue, but for the time being I feel I have reached a blind alley.  Because I do not know KDOT's reasoning for choosing the apparently inferior solution, I can't counter it.  Possibly I could counter it if I did some research and found out what it was, but that takes time and I have other projects which take higher priority.  There is also the fact that the movements getting the lower speeds are not ones I use frequently, and (since I also haven't looked at the traffic estimates in detail) they may not be very heavily used in general.

As a rule I feel knowledge is necessary to leverage lobbying effort--both to avoid wasting time asking for solutions that are not in the realm of the practical, and to make it easy for the decision-makers to conclude that what you suggest is in their interest and that of the general public.

Members of the general public should not have to train themselves as transportation engineers to have a perceptible influence on DOT policy, but the reality is that you have to demonstrate that you know the issue forwards and backwards in order for your views to have any weight on the decision-makers, and that entails a certain level of technical expertise.

Where open-records requests are concerned, I have filed a few on my own account and have been successful for the most part, but I tend to work in close cooperation with others who can do telephone follow-up easily and who, partly for that reason, specialize in difficult cases.

I consider a request to have failed if it is denied outright or is accompanied by charges which I think are too high.  In the case of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, I had partial success with one request for two signing contracts and one of the Mon-Fayette expressway contracts.  The signing contracts were provided, but the Commission said the Mon-Fayette plans were available in paper only, which meant I would have had to inspect them in person in Harrisburg, or pay 25c per sheet for a copy of over 1000 sheets.  To reach this point, I had to appeal an initial denial.

In the case of PennDOT District 6, I asked for all "pure" freeway signing contracts from a given period of time (I think it was 1946 to 1980, but I don't remember exactly).  PennDOT found about 250 sheets of plans which were responsive to my request but indicated that they were not available electronically and would have to be redacted to remove sign structure plans.  Since the only delivery method was prints from microfilm, at a cost of something like 50c per sheet, and I know what PennDOT microfilm looks like, I let the request lapse.  I would otherwise have contested redaction of the sign structure plans.

[D-Dey65]

Good ideas unfortunately for me, I am all for road expansion, which isn't PC now.  haha

That has never stopped me before. You ought to see some of the reactions I've had when I advocated transforming both US 19 and McMullen-Booth Road into limited-access highways. And don't get me started on how the anti-highway zealots in both New York and Florida have reacted to my ideas.

Although, from your original post, I've been a little more successful in getting road improvements taken care of.

[Mergingtraffic]

I should point out that I asked my DOT to add "guide dots" through an intersection as the lanes didn't match up on the other side and drivers were almost side-swiping each other.  The DOT did grant my request.  I drove by three weeks later and saw the new lines much to my delight.

Our state has a transportation committee made up of lawmakers and I wrote all of them for new ideas on funding and only one wrote back saying he agreed with me and plans to use my letter to further new funding.  The others never replied.  I think that is where my frustration lies. 

[3467]

What state are you in. That makes a difference.For big projects  the PAC route works. It worked for US 67 in Illinois.  Better yet own a newspaper and a TV station -that really works. Look up Illinois 110,that exists because of just one man who happens to own a newspaper.
Lawsuits are very effective here if you want to stop something .

On small issues comments work OK here. On a medium issue like a spot improvment I would ask my Congressman for an earmark.