orulz, on 04 January 2010 - 02:11 PM, said:
NCDOT's projects and priority lists (known as the TIP) are written by MPO's and RPO's. MPO's take input from the counties and municipalities within their jurisdiction. Each body creates a "priority list" ranking the projects that they think are the most important. The MPOs then weigh those priority lists against each other to come up with a final TIP. I think the projects you suggest would be in the
FBRMPO. So, you should figure out which city / county the project you want to see belongs in. Then, find out which commissioner / councilor / whatever represents that location at the MPO, and let them know what you would like to see. It would also be worthwhile to find out what staff member from that county/city/whatever compiles the priority list and copy them on your e-mail as well. Even more effective would be to combine the political route (state reps and senators) with the MPO route.
The suggested projects are in Polk County, which is part of the
Isothermal RPO. I have thought about communicating with them first, since the MPO's and RPO's are focused on local planning and generally more involved with the public, so I'd likely hear a response. This is probably the route I will take.
orulz, on 04 January 2010 - 02:11 PM, said:
Projects that are already planned will often have public input sessions, though it is unlikely that a single voice will be heard, so you'll need to bring a large group of like-minded individuals. And this only goes for projects that are already planned; though it is quite possible that the improvements you suggest could be included in some other project (for example, I-26 reconstruction if it's already planned).
You hit the nail on the head with that one. Repaving I-26 (TIP project I-5100) is on the
January 19, 2010 project letting list. The section being repaved is where the exit I mentioned in the original post is located. The only problem is they don't have public hearings for pavement rehabilitation projects.
The pavement width is already there for a two-lane exit at Exit 67. The only things needed to upgrade it are for the lines to be painted differently and new signs denoting a two-lane exit. Seriously, that's it. Maybe a couple of days worth of work. It would make the exit more efficient and less confusing (some drivers already think that it
is a two-lane exit). Why it's not now, I don't know. It looks as if it was initially planned to be a two-lane exit, but somebody screwed up the paint or didn't order the right signs and they had a no-return policy. U.S. 74 continues with two lanes as a freeway literally feet after the exit splits from I-26, so it's essentially a bottleneck having this one lane exit leading from one freeway to another when it's completely unnecessary.
So, what my thinking for that improvement is, e-mail the division engineer and ask him if there are plans for Exit 67 to be upgraded to a two-lane exit during this project, and if not, why not? Is there a specific reason this was never done before, and are there no plans for improving it? That would be a simple, yet effective, improvement that can be done during the upcoming pavement rehabilitation project for I-26 when new lines are painted. Perhaps all that is needed is some prodding, but such a small improvement hardly seems like something members of Congress need to be contacted about. It's something I honestly don't think the public should even have to be contacting the DOT for! It should have been done correctly the first time. If I was suggesting a completely new exit or highway, then yes, I'd need all the political help I could get and would be facing a long and arduous process.
As for the other two ideas I mentioned, it looks like contacting the RPO will be my best bet for working them into the planning process.
staffer, on 05 January 2010 - 03:58 PM, said:
Make a $4,000 contribution to the campaign of each candidate for Governor for both parties. This will cover your bases.
I wouldn't even get $4,000 for my car. I'm sure it'd work, though!
0
