SCDOT

[digital_sandlapper]

Dig, the issue with the ACE permitting process is exactly my point. Most organizations will start organizing financial structure for the financing of a building project during the permit application approval. The state did not do this at all. Instead, there was political pandering from the CCL and other environmentalist groups. On top of that, Colleton County (the region where the majority of the widening would occur) stalled in stating if they would even help with financing. SCDOT has proven time and again that they are incompetant in money management as well as our idiotic state legislature. Not to mention county officials who can't get off their ass for a project that would save lives.

One of our forumers who hasn't been on here in awhile lost his son to a head-on collision a few years ago, and he has had to practically become an activist for something that the government (any government for that matter) is supposed to take care of. Safe roads, i.e. infrastucture is one of the government's jobs. And they suck at it.

I know I sound angry, but this does not help my confidence in changing how this state works.

You're right, the govt. ideally should budget enough $$ for projects, but sometimes the amount of study and mitigation is more than anticipated (and budgeted), and so the work gets delayed. After so many years of stalling, the permits expire, so then the process has to start over again. This happens from time to time, and of course is a huge waste of time and especially tax money, not to mention terribly frustrating. This is the sort of waste that the DOT has been accused of, among others. (Our state's agency is not unique in that regard, though. Any waste is bad, of course, and hopefully Sanford can put an end to it and the many other examples in the State Government.)

[g-man430]

I'm glad they haven't widened the road and I hope they don't either.

[Charleston native]

^ Um, OK...what is the basis for your opinion?!?! Please read this thread which highlights the problem with this road that have been documented for decades. If your basis for not widening this road is the environment, I'd like you to tell that to our forum member whose son was killed as well as other people who have lost family members.

It seems like you're either trying to goad an argument or practice at being rude. Either way, a negative reaction could be avoided if you explain your opinion.

[g-man430]

I should of been more clear in my previous post. That's my bad. If they widen it to 4 lanes, then they'll have to spend more money in the future to pave it. Widening highway 17 will just put more cars and 18-wheelers on it and will probably wind up causing even more accidents. The environment has nothing to do with me being against this widening project. I'm sorry some of you fellow forumers on here have lost family members, but I just think adding some curbs to the sides, then putting in a median, and paving it would help just as much if not more than widening it to 4 lanes. Also, it would be cheaper too. The SCDOT currently doesn't have any money to widen this road to 4 lanes or do my plan and won't for sometime until they actually raise the gas tax, which will problem happen never unfortunately. I'm probably going to get a whole bunch of people now arguing with me over my plan vs. theirs, but hey if you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen. However, I still think SOMETHING, anything needs to be done immediately with that highway. It is indeed in terrible shape and the SCDOT needs to step up to the plate NOW and fix it.

[Charleston native]

Thanks g-man for being more clear. I still disagree with you, though. Have you ever traveled this highway? This is not exactly a rural road which is damaged or a rarely used highway. This is the principal north-south route for port trucks, vacationers, and travelers between Chas and I-95. "Fixing" it as you say, is really redundant. The only way to really fix this road is to make it safer by widening it. Curbs and medians won't cut it with the amount of traffic that is on there now. And no offense, but G'ville sure has plenty of safe, 4-lane highways that SCDOT saw fit to build, even if they're hardly being used at all (i.e., Interstate 185 ).

You see, the highway primarily runs through the ACE Basin. Maintenance to the road, as you suggested, is not going to significantly cost more than current maintenance on it right now. Portions of the highway were widened for passing, but there are only 2 segmented portions, and the amount of accidents and deaths have not been reduced.

[g-man430]

^^^I'll admit I haven't been on that stretch of highway 17 in at least 8 years, so it probably has changed a good bit since then. If it were 8 years ago, my proposal might make more sense, but maybe today the traffic is soo bad and the road is in such terrible shape that it needs to be widened to 4 lanes. I'll try to get down there during spring break or over the summer and check it out to see what it's like. From what i've heard, it sounds like it won't be pretty though.

[Charleston native]

^ Just be careful when driving through there. Be especially careful when trying to pass the many trucks that travel in that section. It's not "driving hell", but it will put your nerves in a twist.

[Captain Worley]

It IS a very heavily traveled road, and has been for many, many years. Far too many accidents, injuries and deaths have occured on that stretch of road.

[BrasilnSC]

More traffic doesn't necessarily mean more accidents. Two-lane highways are the most dangerous roads by far, while interstates are the safest. Widening it to 4 or 5 lanes will make a huge difference, especially with the amount of traffic, especially truck traffic, on this road.

[Spartan]

I heard on the radio that a bill to reorganize the DOT undernead the Governor's Cabinet has passed the House and will move to the Senate. I can't find any links right this second... but it may bee goof to keep an eye out for this.

[Spartan]

Correction- the Senate subcomittee approved the legislation, so now it moves on to the Senate floor. They didn't get the opposition that was expected, so it was approved more quickly. This is seemingly good news!!

The State {sodEmoji.|} SC Politics Today

[Spartan]

Here's the story from the Greenville News. Not much new information though.

[krazeeboi]

Correction- the Senate subcomittee approved the legislation, so now it moves on to the Senate floor. They didn't get the opposition that was expected, so it was approved more quickly. This is seemingly good news!!

The State {sodEmoji.|} SC Politics Today

Wow--great news!

Now let's see if we can get something similar happen for similar agencies. I won't hold my breath though, as I think our Legislature would rather do damage control when the crap does hit the fan instead of being proactive.

[krazeeboi]

Here's an editorial in The State about past efforts to supposedly "reform" the DOT (particularly the one in the 90's) and why they didn't work. Interesting stuff.

Our leaders are really a stubborn bunch here in SC.

[Spartan]

I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same when it comes to our state legislature. The difference this time aroudn is that the Governor would actually get to appoint some members of that board, and actually have SOME say in it. Its better than nothing, and at this point any small change is a step in the right direction. Our representiatives really need to take a look at themselves and ask if what they are doing is in South Carolina's best interest, or their own?

[Charleston native]

...Our representiatives really need to take a look at themselves and ask if what they are doing is in South Carolina's best interest, or their own?

What a better representative system we would have if those individuals did that, for certain. But that is exactly what most SC reps will not do, because it effects their ambitions in one way or another. Also, with the current system so deeply ingrained into the legislature, it is highly improbable that good change will occur to streamline state bureaucracy such as the DOT.

[Spartan]

Exactly. Thats why a system with real checks and real balances is desparately needed at the state level.

[krazeeboi]

Here's an update concerning where we are as it relates to the restructuring of the DOT. It doesn't look good.

Excerpt:

Last week, on a lopsided 26-13 vote, the Senate rejected a plan by Sen. John Courson to let the governor appoint the director, as governors in 47 states do. Senators then embraced a plan that's not just inadequate but actually harmful. It does let the governor, instead of legislators, appoint the board, but a small group of legislators would actually control it. The governor couldn't remove board members, even if they kept approving bridges to nowhere. What Gov. Mark Sanford calls a shadow commission

[Spartan]

That plan was fortunately rejected. It would have reformed the DOT to the extent that the gorvernor could at least appoint the board. But what I don't understand is why, if youre going to let him appoint the board, you would let him have the power to fire the board too. You must have complete accountablity, not partial. Its the partial accountability set up that leads to shade of grey and confusion when it comes to state government (which there is already more than enough of).

Voting for reform is one thing, but lets do it right to start with, and not go back and fix it later. Givethe governor's office full control over DOT and you will see real changes, progress, and more importantly- accountability that makes sense.

[krazeeboi]

Senate approves DOT reform bill

The Senate has given key approval to a bill restructuring the state Transportation Department, but the bill falls short of changes supported by Gov. Mark Sanford.

The Senate plan creates a seven-member board -- one member from each congressional district and one at-large member -- selected by the governor. The board then selects the agency's executive director.

A 10-member legislative committee would report back to the General Assembly on the board's performance, the agency's policies and the statewide transportation plan the board would create.

I think this just might create more problems down the road. These half-assed "solutions" are really starting to get on my nerves.

[Spartan]

Seriously. That may actually take things in the opposite direction. I won't be satisfied until the Legislature completely removes itself form the process unless its in the form of an oversight comittee.

[Charleston native]

I think this just might create more problems down the road. These half-assed "solutions" are really starting to get on my nerves.

Come on krazee, you know how this state is. Many things are done around here half-ass, from legislation to interstates to street lighting.

[krazeeboi]

I know, but with something that is so obviously broken and was brought to light through an audit, you'd think the Legislature would at least do the obvious thing when it came to this. These clowns are a trip.

[krazeeboi]

The State has several editorials on the shortcomings of the new Senate bill.

Senate DOT bill is irredeemable, should be killed

To the casual observer, the bill the Senate is set to give final approval today puts the governor in charge of the troubled agency. In reality, it takes an extraordinarily small step in that direction, but at the same time leaves an unaccountable, uncontrollable commission in charge, still leaves that agency outside of the normal budgeting process that every other agency in state government follows, and puts in place a meddlesome legislative review committee that will be able to thwart gubernatorial appointments and exercise subtle influence over the agency that should only be exercised by the full Legislature, in the open.

Senate DOT plan miles short of real reform

This

[MikesLogic]

Frustrating.