Re: A proposal to toll I-95 and I-85 in Virginia/North Carolina

"Larry Gross" <gross.larry@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
>John Lansford wrote:
>> "Larry Gross" <gross.larry@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >John Lansford wrote:
>> >> "Larry Gross" <gross.larry@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >> A parkway is a nebulous definition.
>> IMO VDOT's calling this road a "parkway" is their attempt to say it
>> will be heavily landscaped, with few billboards or interchanges. If
>> it is the road I think you're talking about that runs through the
>> Chancellorsville battlefield, no way could it be a "parkway" and still
>> fulfill the need for the road.
>
>same road. they don't define what a parkway is or how it is different
>from other 65mph highways (they did say it was 65mph) nor do
>they show a design and compare than design to a non-parkway
>design. It's just a "parkway" done in an environmentally-sensitive
>fashion - which can mean just about anything to anybody - which
>I believe is intentional on their part to deceive the general public
>about it's actual design and purpose.
>
>Knowing what I know now, I think this aspect can be ferreted out by
>basically putting forth a design about what it will probably look like
>and then put the onus on VDOT to say what is wrong with what
>is put out.

IMO what they are meaning by a "parkway" is to just landscape the heck
out of the basic freeway design, perhaps depress the road through the
sensitive areas to reduce its visibility, and restrict commercial
signs. As far as designing it, however, it will be a typical freeway
with a typical high speed design.


>> Going back to TTA's light rail system, it is obvious their project was
>> not cost effective, when they admitted their ridership was far below
>> what they themselves felt was the 'breakeven' number, while their
>> costs kept accelerating upward.
>
> ... which is a performance metric by which to measure cost
>effectiveness....which is a good thing

Yet they keep saying it should be built!

>> As far as highways go, the ones that keep getting postponed and
>> delayed due to high cost sound to me that they are being considered
>> "not cost effective", or the money would be found and constructed
>> instead of some other project.
>
> I can think of one - cost per lane mile... not just construction
>cost -
>but total cost which includes design, etc.
>
>When I worked for the govt - one of the metrics that we ended up
>being measured by was what was called our "overhead" cost.

In that case, I-26 would have never been built. It's cost per mile was
on the verh high end of what I've ever seen for a road, at over $20
million/mile for a 10 mile road that we projected to carry no more
than 12000 vpd.

>It was the cost per project that INCLUDED our pay. Roads and
>road planning cost much more than the lane-mile construction
>cost. Every single person working on that road whether it is
>design or doing EIS paperwork... or field visits - is generating
>billing hours - that ultimately translate into the true and total
>lane-cost per mile (or some relevant equivalent).

Except, for example, when I was responsible for the I-26 design, I
also had about 30 other projects to work on at the same time, so my
salary (and the salaries of anyone working on it) couldn't be applied
totally to that project. I was asked a long time ago what was
estimated for design costs; it came to somewhere around $2 million
IIRC. Compared to the R/W and construction costs it was peanuts.

>> I've gotten tired of going around and around with you, Larry. I recall
>> this very topic was one you and I discussed long, long ago, and now I
>> find you're right back on it as if nothing changed at all.
>
>in my defense... it has changed... I think my views are much more
>specific now... and focus more on what could be different than what
>was wrong (without ideas about how to do differently).
>>
Same old generalizations, though. If you want to replace "all DOT's"
with "VDOT" I would have no problem with your statements, but I doubt
you know what all 50 DOT's do when it comes to scheduling and funding
their projects.

>two comments:
>
>1. - JLARC in Virginia (their CBO) has suggested that VDOT change it
>road
>classification system and one cataegory - the top one - should be
>"roads of statewide significance" .. then the next one - "roads of
>regional significance" ... AND that the funding allocations be adjusted
>accordingly.

We have that as well. The "strategic highway network" or whatever
they are calling it today. It includes all the interstates and many
of the major US routes across the states. Basically it is the
"intrastate system" that a previous governor had designated as wanting
to have four laned throughout the state.

>2. - I like your list .. I actually went thru Greensboro twice in the
>last week or
> so ... using US 29 in Va and 220/I-73 in NC.... easy to connect
>southbound
>.... and bit tricky northbound... has taken us 3 tries to get it right.
>
>... but your list... what criteria did you use to rank them... ??? I'm
>sure it was need... right?

It was my personal opinion, which anyone would have used had they done
such a ranking. Notice I didn't put much emphasis on anything around
Charlotte, because I rarely if ever go anywhere near that city. Like
anyone else, I rank what I am familiar with; I just happen to be more
familiar with the state's highway system than the average citizen.

John Lansford, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/
.