3

12/13/2007 4:15:54 PM

Quote :

"partly true... you can't toll an existing road, but you can toll an existing bridge"

So on a technicality we might be able to rebuild all the bridges on I-95 and put tolls on them? lol

12/13/2007 4:34:30 PM

Quote :

"YOU ARE SHITTING ME RIGHT???? THE DOT DOES A GOOD JOB???? "

actually, yes, i think the NCDOT does a decent job. to have to build and maintain the second largest network of roadways in the US, and still appear decent in most cases, i think they do a decent job. sure, the DOT has its downfalls, not sure of any organization that doesn't, but overall, the roadways look and function well. and, the NCDOT has not, up to this date, followed suit with any toll booths. i mean, that large of an infrastructure and they have never tolled a roadway, and now talk of one has everyone complaining.

12/13/2007 4:34:32 PM

You can most definitely toll an existing road.

You can't use federal funding to maintain the road if you begin to toll it.

Hence, NC 540, and not I 540.

12/13/2007 4:39:35 PM

^i was thinking the same thing. i've never heard that you couldn't toll an existing road. and what about tolling a new bridge? seems like the designers wouldn't typically want cars stopped, backed up daily with a toll booth on a bridge?!?! just my opinion, no facts behind it.

12/13/2007 4:47:00 PM

SandSanta, from what I gather that's right, but there'd be a lot of red tape involved. That and I doubt you'd get massive approval in this state for an interstate as vast as I-95 to get off Federal funding:

Quote :

"§ 136-89.187. Conversion of free highways prohibited. The Authority Board is prohibited from converting any segment of the nontolled State Highway System to a toll facility, except for a segment of Interstate 540 under construction as of July 1, 2006, located in Wake and Durham Counties, and extending from I-40 southwest to N.C. 55. No segment may be converted to a toll route pursuant to this section unless first approved by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) or Rural Planning Organization (RPO) of the area in which that segment is located. (2002-133, s. 1; 2006-228, s. 3.)"

Where the money goes is only to the road on which the toll is taken. So we won't see this money go to other parts of the state, a good thing since the road will be able to maintain itself with all the traffic it will be getting:

Quote :

"§ 136-89.198. Authority to toll existing interstate highways. (a) General. – Notwithstanding any other provision of this Article, the Authority may collect tolls on any existing interstate highway for which the United States Department of Transportation has granted permission by permit, or any other lawful means, to do so. The revenue generated from the collected tolls shall be used by the Authority to repair and maintain the interstate on which the tolls were collected. These revenues shall not be used to repair, maintain, or upgrade any State primary or secondary road adjacent to or connected with the interstate highways. (b) Method. – The Authority shall establish toll locations on the permitted interstate highway in accordance with federal guidelines. Toll locations shall be erected at or near the borders of the State and at such other locations that are not impracticable, unfeasible, or that would result in an unsafe or hazardous condition. (c) Severability. – If any provision of this section or its application is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of this section that can be given effect without the invalid provisions or application, and to this end the provisions of this section are severable. (2005-276, s. 28.21(b).)"

In regard to removing tolls, because someone said they won't remove them. When this was all being drafted up a provision was made for this:

Quote :

"§ 136-89.196. Removal of tolls. The Authority shall, upon fulfillment of and subject to any restrictions included in the agreements entered into by the Authority in connection with the issuance of the Authority's revenue bonds, remove tolls from a Turnpike Project. (2002-133, s. 1.)"

[Edited on December 13, 2007 at 5:09 PM. Reason : -]

12/13/2007 5:02:07 PM

Remember this all stemmed from the Democrat Governors balancing the NC Budget by robbing the Highway Trust Fund back in the early nineties/late eighties

12/13/2007 5:25:38 PM

This was in the paper a few weeks ago:

Quote :

"Workers slam DOT in surveys They griped about favoritism and waste. The agency's head says criticism is constructive Benjamin Niolet, Staff Writer The N.C. Department of Transportation is inefficient, unfocused and inflexible, according to a consultant's report released Wednesday. The report is based on surveys filled out anonymously by nearly 9,000 employees and on interviews with dozens of state, business and local officials. The employees said the department wastes money and time because upper managers change priorities, sometimes daily. They said that projects drift for years, that low-level workers fear political consequences if they express new ideas, and that better leadership could shave years off the time it takes to finish major projects. "Imagine two guys in a garage full of car parts, with a black curtain that splits the garage in half," said one engineer in the Preconstruction section of the highway division, which handles planning and design, among other functions. "These guys have to build a car by passing notes to each other from either side. That's Preconstruction." State Transportation Secretary Lyndo Tippett said Wednesday night that the report provides an honest look at the department which will help make it a better organization. "You don't know how you look until you get your picture took," Tippett said. The department, which has a $3.8 billion budget, hired McKinsey & Co., an international management consultant, to evaluate the agency. The department agreed to pay McKinsey $1.1 million for an evaluation and an additional $2.5 million for help in making changes. The review came as the department was losing credibility with state legislators, who control funding for the agency. "What they really need over there is a couple retirement parties," said state Sen. Clark Jenkins, a Tarboro Democrat who spent 10 years on the N.C. Board of Transportation and leads legislative committees that watch over the department and control the purse strings. The report recommends broad changes in the way the department's managers think, plan and act. It recommends steps to recruit and keep top workers, and it calls for the department to be more transparent and to finish projects faster and more cheaply. The report also recommends the department work with the legislature to tie new funding to meeting its goals. Last week, department officials briefed lawmakers on progress toward making changes. The legislators said they were generally pleased with what they heard. The consultants wrote that the department does have some advantages. Employees are proud to serve and tend to respect their direct supervisors. The department has support from both internal and external leaders to change, according to the report. Tippett said the consultant has already helped the department find ways to be more efficient that could save $50 million. "Our motive from the outset was to take a good organization, which DOT is, in my opinion, and make it better," he said. "I think what we've done with hiring this consultant is something unheard of in state government." Much of the document is written in a dense, jargon-laden prose. One disclaimer repeated on several pages cautions: "This material, while thorough, does not represent the totality of our transformation capacity building or contribution." According to the report, another problem the department faces is that department policy keeps salaries low, which makes it difficult to hire or keep talented employees. At one 200-person branch office, nine job candidates in three years turned down job offers because of low salary. Several managers often don't interview individuals with excellent experience and credentials because they know the department can't afford them, according to the report. New engineers see the department as a "back-up employer." If we've got cutting-edge civil engineers, then why is it we're not paying them?" Jenkins said. "We pay the doctors. We pay the professors. What are we spending, $3 billion a year over there?" Politics vs. merit Other employees said the department rewards connections. A Division of Motor Vehicles employee said: "The NCDOT is too political. Friends looking after friends. You can come in and do nothing or you can be productive, but it pays the same." Even before the report's release Wednesday, department officials and state leaders acknowledged that the department suffers from a "silo" mentality, where different sections do not talk to one other. As one information technology employee said, "There are three different versions of IT, they all fall under different bosses and they are each accountable to different policies." DOT officials also have previously said, and the report repeats, that the department's employees have no unified vision in terms of goals and direction. In recent years, Triangle drivers have had reason to complain about the department. A DOT blunder during a 2003 project to widen Interstate 40 required workers to close lanes nightly this year between Durham and Chapel Hill to resurface the road. At night and on weekends, backups extended two to three miles. That mistake was a big factor in the department's decision to hire McKinsey. Jenkins said the legislature let the department know in February that things needed to change. "Our leadership wasn't inclined, to send any money over there until they changed," Jenkins said. Despite the consultant's recommendations that the department be transparent and open to help restore public confidence, much of the work by McKinsey was at first done in secret. The department had agreed to keep confidential much of the consultant's work, including its proposal to the state. After The News & Observer published a story about the secrecy, Gov. Mike Easley ordered the department to release contract documents. "

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/756487.html

12/13/2007 6:08:19 PM

after reading some of the posts on the first page i'd like to ask...

Is this the worlds first toll road ever? Is it a new concept?

and to the person who said "DOT won't be building new roads for a few years"

GOOD! they need to fix the current roads first! The DOT standard is so pathetic...every new road I see being built is built with fucking pot holes and unleveled surfaces.

12/13/2007 6:12:43 PM

User pay, user benefit

fairest tax out there

12/13/2007 6:19:22 PM

I think before anyone else posts anything else in this thread they should read this:
http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByArticle/Chapter_136/Article_6H.html

Quote :

"§ 136-89.182. North Carolina Turnpike Authority. (a) Creation. – There is created a body politic and corporate to be known as the "North Carolina Turnpike Authority". The Authority is constituted as a public agency, and the exercise by the Authority of the powers conferred by this Article in the construction, operation, and maintenance of toll roads and bridges shall be deemed and held to be the performance of an essential governmental function. (b) Administrative Placement. – The Authority shall be located within the Department of Transportation for administrative purposes but shall exercise all of its powers independently of the Department of Transportation except as otherwise specified in this Article."

I agree the DOT doesn't really know what the hell is going on with anything in this state, but as far as the tolls are concerned they are more or less not in charge. They just have to agree to things here and there. If things go wrong the Turnpike Authority is going to be the one we're going to be pointing our fingers at.

12/13/2007 7:56:24 PM

Quote :

"i've never heard that you couldn't toll an existing road. and what about tolling a new bridge? seems like the designers wouldn't typically want cars stopped, backed up daily with a toll booth on a bridge?!?! just my opinion, no facts behind it."

a couple of states have actually tried to toll an existing road in the past and removed them almost immediately... another reason you can't is because it's not in the legislature to be able to do so - and you won't find anyone running for office that will support doing it... as for the bridge, it wouldn't back up, it would likely be open road tolling as i explained before... an example of such project would be the possibility of rebuilding the bridge for I-85 over the yadkin river north of charlotte - ncta may replace that bridge and toll it (but it will remain I-85)

12/13/2007 7:58:12 PM

Quote :

"Hence, NC 540, and not I 540. "

I think its fucking retarted and confusing (to people who don't use it everday) to call the beltline 2 different names

NC540 and I540

12/13/2007 8:51:44 PM

^^^ the NCTA is not really independent of the DOT at least not yet. A lot of the people that work there are ex-dot employees and the majority of their funding also comes from the DOT. Also the DOT still has to approve all their projects.

Its kind of like a college student who's parents are paying his rent and tuition. Sure your somewhat independent, but as long as your parents are paying your bills they have a lot of say in what you can and can't do.

[Edited on December 13, 2007 at 8:57 PM. Reason : :]

12/13/2007 8:57:39 PM

Gov't bureaucracy/ corruption strikes again. After waiting two years for them to open the Davis drive exit which problem saves me 10-20 mins in drive time per day to Sony Ericsson they are going to destroy. So now instead I have to go through 5 mins of stoplights/traffic on NC 54 per trip or pay a fucking toll to hit up the RTP freeway so that some rednecks in Garner can get the beltloop NC540 to their houses faster.

If anyone has ever driven the back roads of RTP T.W. Alexander/Hopson/Louis Stevens would know that negligable traffic even moves through there. With the widening of Davis dr going ahead full steam I doubt any would bother paying a fucking toll to save 5 mins coming from durham. Instead they will punish the raleigh commuters 10-15 minutes in drive time.

12/13/2007 9:05:29 PM

Quote :

" I think its fucking retarted and confusing (to people who don't use it everday) to call the beltline 2 different names NC540 and I540"

the beltline is 440

12/13/2007 9:14:25 PM

^^ well i guess they should just do whatever benefits you the most ... and the money isn't for other parts of the loop... it will be to pay for the western loop to be opened in 2010-2011... when the southern/eastern sections are built - the tolls from that part will pay for it to be built

12/14/2007 7:33:41 AM