PDA

View Full Version : Roads


Brent
05-18-2005, 07:55 AM
I have to be frank here -- I was floored at last night's meeting by the number of people who believe that roads projects can be delayed (for the record, I'm not counting Mr. Curran in this, because he used a methodology of voting in principle to delay anything that staff identified as possible to delay, a methodology that has some merit). Anyway:

Especially for regulars on carypolitics.org, there has been much discussion about providing the basics (public safety, transportation, utilities, etc.) and how the roads budget was cut drastically last year and how traffic is getting worse.

The one item that really stood out for me was the Tryon Road widening. A large number of committee members thought that this could be delayed. Let me say, I don't live in that area and seldom travel the route, so this has nothing to do with my personal interest. However, I invite those who feel that this project can be delayed to travel from Cary to Raleigh on Tryon Road during evening rush hour.

Perhaps part of the reasoning was that it is possible to defer a big-ticket spending item ($8.5M) with one fell swoop. I submit that this is precisely the kind of thinking that led to a 70% cut in roads spending in the first place and that results in traffic woes we will experience for some time to come.

Perhaps part of the reasoning was that people feel that there are higher-priority roads items. Maybe there are, but a lot of work goes into the transportation plan to generate road improvement priorities. That process led to Tryon Road widening bubbling up to near the top of the list over a several-year period. You may or may not agree with that, but many factors go into setting road priorities in the transportation plan, and only the highest-priority items can be accomodated in any given year.

Even if you believe that other projects are more important than Tryon Road widening, I believe that by voting to delay that project, you have effectively voted to delay your favorite projects. If it's delayed, the Tryon Road project will be back next year, and most likely it still will be ahead of other projects. So if you complained about one or more of the worst intersections in Cary elsewhere on carypolitics.org, I think that cutting or delaying roads spending will just keep those intersections horrible for an even longer period of time. In other words, delaying one project almost certainly means cutting overall roads spending and hence delaying all projects.

This is just my opinion. But I really am surprised that, of all the things Cary spends money on, so many people feel that roads spending is something that can be delayed. Public safety is the only thing I would rank above infrastructure, and right now, I believe that roads are the most sorely lacking component of infrastructure in Cary.

kellyc
05-18-2005, 08:22 AM
Brent I dont think I voted to delay any road funding (except Roads that lead to Rono's house - Just kidding Ron). I think delay that is dangerous both from an economic standpoint and safety standpoint. It's kind of like the police/fire department...It's not an area where you want to get behind in.

That being said some people simply see it that if you dont have the money to spend, and its not critical to the town(their arguement not mine) then it can wait.

dhyatt
05-18-2005, 10:04 AM
I agree with you Brent. I don't see how we can continue to approve project after project, keep annexations on the table and cut/delay road projects - especially those in areas known to have problems. "We the people" have to come to grips with fact that you can't have it all - aggressive growth, low/flat taxes, low development fees and have infrastructure keep up. Something either has to give or a deal/balance has to be struck with knowledge aforethought that taxes/fees will go up significantly in the near future.

StanN
05-18-2005, 11:44 AM
Great posts from Brent and Don. I fully agree. (Disclaimer- I do live in that part of town and do use that dammed road virtually every day.) What is true of Tryon is true of any number of other road projects.

My question is how did the citizen's committee get to the point of making that recommendation? Was it that the organizer, sponsor and guiding spirit of that committee ran on a platform of fiscal conservatism; remains true to that policy; attracted or selected others to the committee that highy vaue fiscal conservatism? Gee guys what do you expect!

Now I admire peope who "stick to their guns" and in fairness to MJ he has on occassion spoken up for increased funds for roads. But correct me if I'm wrong, he did vote for the Mayor's push for a 70% cut in the roads budget. And he is loyal to the Mayor who waves the banner of fiscal conservatism.

Don Hyatt is exactly right - we want it all - low taxes and every itch scratched when it comes to the QOL. Thats B S.
The public is conflicted, probably MJ is conflicted - and we don't have a leader or a vision to get us out of this mess. The issue isn't just roads. There are people who feel strongly about parks or cultural centers or a "shining downtown on a hill."

The problem is lack of leadership. Leadership offers a vision of what we aspire to. Being for transparency in government and for greater public participation in government is great. But that's not all there is to leadership. Leadership is having the focus on the critical few challenges (like roads and jobs) and focusing energies (and dollars) on those challenges. Being honest and candid is essential to leadership - but there also must be focus on achievng goals and a credible route toward their achievment. Leadership is the courage to change things and not caving into private interests. Loyalty is a great quality - but to whom? To the people who helped elect you? to Ernie McAlister? or the public? My advice to MJ - choose one - hopefully, he will choose leadership.

stan

Brent
05-18-2005, 12:05 PM
"We the people" have to come to grips with fact that you can't have it all - agrressive growth, low/flat taxes, low development fees and have infrastructure keep up. Something either has to give or a deal/balance has to be struck with knowledge aforethought that taxes/fees will go up significantly in the near future.

Precisely! This also, by the way, illustrates my concern posted elsewhere in this forum about focusing solely on cutting capital expenditures. It leaves out all these other interrelated factors and it's very easy to come up with an "unbalanced equation".

StanN
05-18-2005, 12:08 PM
Roads is a problem elsewhere - same issues and problems involved.

Daring Veto, Senate Passes Roads and Transit Measure
By CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, May 17 - Dismissing a renewed veto threat from the White House, the Senate on Tuesday passed a $295 billion, six-year highway and transportation measure that lawmakers said was essential to easing traffic congestion and improving safety.

"In passing this bill, the Senate puts this nation on the path to better roads, on the path to shorter and safer commutes, and on the path to more jobs," said Senator James Jeffords, an independent from Vermont and a senior member of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

The measure, approved by a vote of 89 to 11, exceeds by more than $11 billion the ceiling that President Bush has set on transportation spending. Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said Tuesday that a final bill that surpasses the $284 billion acceptable to the administration could provoke a veto.

"It's important that we meet our transportation needs," said Mr. McClellan, noting that the lower figure represented a 35 percent rise over the last highway bill. "But it's also important, and the president is very serious about this, that we move forward on a fiscally responsible budget, a budget that keeps us on track to cut the deficit in half over the next five years."

Brent
05-18-2005, 12:11 PM
Stan, although I agree that there are larger issues, I think we should keep the politics out of this particular forum and I think the guidelines for this particular forum call for that (go for it elsewhere on the site).

That said, I agree with you about roads spending and remain perplexed about why others don't believe that roads spending is a high priority.

StanN
05-18-2005, 12:32 PM
Brent,

You can draw some arbitrary line and try to keep politics out of the discussion on the budget - but its like that figure in mythology who told the sun not to rise. The budget is all about politics.

stan

Brent
05-18-2005, 12:42 PM
I don't disagree, Stan, I'm just pointing out that the arbitrary line has been drawn and specified in the "sticky" guidelines" topic in this forum and no one would want to get on Hyatt's bad side, right? :-D

StanN
05-18-2005, 01:03 PM
Who ? Me?

Don
05-18-2005, 01:44 PM
Perhaps part of the reasoning was that it is possible to defer a big-ticket spending item ($8.5M) with one fell swoop. I submit that this is precisely the kind of thinking that led to a 70% cut in roads spending in the first place and that results in traffic woes we will experience for some time to come.

Hear! Hear!

I did not vote to eliminate any roads project. Also, without a list of "road priorities" from staff, I don't see how anyone could have voted to delay any of them.

Roads are NOT where we need to be "trimming the fat"

StanN
05-26-2005, 09:58 PM
I see thr two big ticket items that got the most attention in the CBC, Bartley Park and Tryon Road are in the budget as published. What do you attribute that to? A political compromise?; Adam Arnold's article? - or is nothing over till its over? Where did the extra $6.5M for Tryon come from?

stan

Brent
05-27-2005, 09:13 PM
Maybe it came from future road improvements that will never be done. Tim Bailey seems to think that failing intersections are not an inhibitor to further development and the traffic from R-20 developments is non-existent.

We'll save a bundle on future road improvements when the new Roads APF (should be IPF = Inadequate Public Facilities Ordinance) -- a gift to developers, tied up with a pretty bow -- is passed.