Future Projects and the PI meetings

[Mergingtraffic]

Did you ever submit comments to your DOT about a project during a public meeting or the public comment period?
or
ever look at design sketches of a future project and asked "what are they thinking?"

Such as:
too tight ramps
no left turn lanes in some areas
not enough lanes
overall scope of the project is too small
widening areas that don't need it while other sections do etc

[froggie]

Quite often.  I've even gotten new alternatives to be considered.

[corco]

Guy, for any state that has the budget even to propose new highway projects these days, is a godsend.

??

[nerdly_dood]

VDOT and the rest of the Virginia government is hemmorhaging money, so VDOT is stuck to finishing stuff that's already u/c and maintenance of what's already built for the most part...

[roadfro]

ever look at design sketches of a future project and asked "what are they thinking?"

Yeah, I was just looking at one that's bugging me. The US 395 (I-580)/Meadowood Mall interchange project in Reno that's out to bid now. It's an RTC project, and is the recipient of nearly all of Washoe County's ARRA stimulus funding.
* Google Map of project area
* The RTC's I-580/Meadowood Mall page

This is in the heart of the major retail/commercial area of Reno-Sparks, so the whole area is busy. The project involves extending Meadowood Mall Way west under the freeway to Kietzke Lane. New ramps will be built to the north end at Meadowood Mall Way, and new frontage roads will connect Meadowood Mall Way to the existing interchange at Neil Road to the south. The work is necessary to relieve congestion at the S. McCarran Blvd/S. Virginia St (US 395 Bus.) intersection, as well as at the half interchange on Virginia St just north of McCarran Blvd. The project is supposed to improve circulation in the immediate area, especially along Virginia Street.

My problem with the project is that the work will remove the existing northbound on and southbound off ramps at Neil Road to accommodate the frontage roads. I believe the ramps should remain as slip ramps to the frontage roads. The project, as designed, requires driving an extra half-mile or so along frontage road with a potential stop at a new signal if one is coming from/going to the north on 395. It seems to me that by not leaving the existing north ramps, more circulation is required through the area.

[3467]

Yes I have even joined groups (Corridor 67) to push them along and lobby for money Federal and State.
I know a lot of other supporters might disagree but Iwould take shared 4 if the Future 4 ROW was protected so that somthing could move forward faster under the current state and now federal budget crises

[akotchi]

I went to one a few years ago regarding a new hotel, and I was concerned that the developer was not going to improve the signalized intersection nearest to the hotel -- specifically, that the left turn movement that was missing at this intersection was the one most likely to serve the hotel.  My concerns got the left turn lane put in as part of the project.

I usually find myself on the other side of the table in these meetings, as a consultant to the DOT.  Most comments from the public are passed along to us to consider, even during construction of the project.  Some actually result in design changes.

[hbelkins]

I went to a few of these many years ago as a neutral third-party observer, namely a reporter for the local newspaper.

Several years ago I went to one as an interested stakeholder; namely a property owner of a structure that was to be acquired and demolished for a new route. The house was abandoned and was really becoming an "attractive nuisance" liability; people broke into it all the time and my dad and brother (co-owners) were fearful that one of the criminal burglars would get hurt and end up suing us.

Now I go to them as a DOT employee to take pictures and write press releases on the meeting, and to answer reporters' questions. I have occasionally submitted comments or suggestions in all three categories.

[Bryant5493]

I went to a public meeting once. It was discussing ATMS and other improvements to Georgia State Route 279/Old National Highway in Fulton County. They were discussing timing the twelve signals on the state highway; adding mid-block pedestrian crossings; advance street name signage; improving sidewalks; and beautifying the concrete medians at I-85/285. They've started work on the last item: GDOT tore up the concrete medians and put bushes and flowers in them.

I wrote down my thoughts on how to improve the highway. One improvement that needs to be made is that there is a lane that begins on the southbound side of S.R. 279, just before I-85 South/285 West and ends on the other side of the bridge. It causes a bottleneck, because folks get in this lane and try to barge their way back into traffic. This lane should come off of the I-85 North/285 East access road, to allow freeway traffic an easier avenue to merge.

Here's a google map view of what I'm talking about.

S.R. 279 South @ I-85 North/285 East


Be well,

Bryant

[Revive 755]

I've been to several PI meetings, including two by NDOR, one by the Iowa DOT, many by MoDOT and a few by the Illinois DOT.  Usually the engineers have decent justifications for the design being presented.  If I do comment I usually just get a mention in the comments section of the EIS, though once I got a couple different alternative alignments considered.  One time when asking if a Continuous flow intersection had been considered for an intersection, I got a response indicating that I should have been at an earlier meeting to propose it. 

A fun question to ask is why use a SPUI over a diverging diamond; that one usually gets a blank stare at the project map from the project engineer and after a few minutes a response indicating that through traffic volumes are too high or some excuse about drivers not being used to it.