Skip to main content

NCDOT Releases Construction Project Rankings

From an WRAL.com story tonight: http://www.wral.com/traffic/story/7087906/

NCDOT, ahead of its public meetings on Monday, has released its rankings of state highway projects, both statewide, and by division, for two different categories: highway and non-highway and for highways using three different components: Safety, Mobility, and (Infrastructure) Health, and three tiers: Statewide, Regional, and Subregional. These in turn are broken down into many 'sub-modes' such as pavement rehabilitation, highway construction, etc. At this time all projects are listed even if they are not ultimately going to be paid for by the state and included in the state TIP. The document is available in the link above, and here:
http://www.ncdot.org/performance/reform/documents/

The new rankings are part of a process to remove politics from determining what highway projects are chosen. The highest ranked project according to Mobility is the paving of Secretary of Transportation Gene Conti's driveway (just kidding). Actually, the highest ranked mobility project regionally is: the widening of NC 54 in Durham from I-40 to NC 55. While Statewide its widening I-85 in Davidson County. For Safety the top ranked score Regionally is the upgrading of NC 65 from Germantown to the Virginia state line in Stokes County. Statewide the top safety project is upgrading NC 107 in Jackson County. For Infrastructure Health regionally its replacing a bridge, but not the bridge you're probably thinking of. This is the US 17 Business bridge over the Perquimans River in Perquimans County. Statewide its the widening and modernizing of NC 11 in Duplin and Lenoir County.

Breaking it down by Division, particularly Division 5 which includes Wake and Durham Counties the top regional project is, as stated before, the widening of NC 54. The repaving of I-440 also gets top ranking in the pavement subcategory. The top state highway project is the widening of US 1/64 from 6 to 8 lanes from I-40 to Lake Wheeler Road (while removing the existing concrete layer, apparently another pavement problem has cropped up?). The 'high priority' East End Connector project in Durham is not even listed, yet alone ranked. This may mean it has just been pushed back to after FY 2012 (July 2011) when this system (only listing projects that can be completed within 5 years or by 2016) is supposed to start.

Since the document is long (452 pages) I, for now, concentrated on I-73/74 projects. At the division level most are ranked high, not a similar case for all projects though at the state level. The upgrading of US 74 east of NC 41 to west of Whiteville is given a ranking of 8 in Division 6, however it's No. 200 statewide. In Division 7 and 8 the upgrading of I-73 and I-73/74 to interstate standards is ranked 3rd under infrastructure health in the modernization sub-mode. The Number 1 statewide mobility highway project in Division 7 is to reconstruct the I-74/US 311 interchange with NC 68 in High Point. Number 2 is to build the connector for I-73 between NC 68 and Bryan Blvd. by the airport interchange (3rd statewide). Number 7 is the connector between I-73 and the W-S Beltway (I-74). In Division 8 the number 2 Infrastructure project in the Highway Misc. category is to upgrade signage along I-73 from Ellerbe to Asheboro to interstate standards (this is ranked 3rd at the state level). Upgrading US 220 through Asheboro, scheduled to start this year is ranked number 2 in statewide modernization projects for Division 8, but 218th statewide. Number 3 is the long put-off shoulder widening project from Steeds to Emery. Upgrading US 52 north of Winston-Salem to Interstate standards is ranked No. 2 for Modernization in Division 9. The upgrading of US 74 between Laurinburg and Rockingham is only ranked 139th statewide. The US 74 Rockingham Bypass is 128th.

Comment: Since the document is long, and ranks many projects using different guidelines, then breaking them down into categories, then subcategories, etc., though probably necessary to determine a project rank, it is going to make it more difficult for the general public to understand what a ranking means. Feel free to browse the document on your own and see how your favorite project is ranked and whether you think its number is accurate.

Comments

John said…
The ranking system is very complicated, so much so that even the people I work with don't understand how certain projects were ranked where they were on the list. Is that deliberate so they can "hide" the political influence, or is it necessary? Again, not even my coworkers know; the specific criteria that create the rankings have not been released even to our office.
Fantastic post, project ranking is very important for contractors and your post is very beneficial for readers.

Popular posts from this blog

Yes, the color of your nearby fire hydrant matters...

...and here's why. You will find White, Red, Yellow and Violet colored fire hydrants pretty much everywhere.  But there's a reason for this - and it's because of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).  This association has issued guidelines for color coding standards for fire hydrants.  These color codes from the body of the hydrant, top of the hydrant, and in some municipalities the outlet caps are designed to allow fire fighters to know what type of system, water flow rate (Gallons Per Minute or GPM), and level of water pressure.  This guideline is known as NFPA 291 and is intended to be used universally throughout the United States. The NFPA guidelines are specific to the body and the top cap of the hydrant.  If a hydrant is WHITE or YELLOW - it means that it is connected to a public/municipal water system.  If a hydrant is RED - the hydrant is connected to a private system, typically a well.  These are most common in rural or unincorporated areas

Phase 1 of the California State Route 132 West Expressway (in the making since 1947)

On September 15, 2022, the Phase 1 of the California State Route 132 West Expressway opened in the city of Modesto from California State Route 99 west to North Dakota Avenue.  Phase 1 of the California State Route 132 West Expressway was built upon a corridor which was tentatively to designated to become the branching point for Interstate 5W in the 1947 concept of the Interstate Highway System.  The present California State Route 132 West Expressway corridor was adopted by the California Highway Commission on June 20, 1956.  Despite almost being rescinded during the 1970s the concept of the California State Route 132 West Expressway corridor lingered on for over half a century and became likely the oldest undeveloped right-of-way owned by California Transportation Commission.  Pictured above is the planned California State Route 132 freeway west of US Route 99 in Modesto as featured in the May/June 1962 California Highways & Public Works.   The history of the California State Route

Aptos Creek Road to the Loma Prieta ghost town site

Aptos Creek Road is a roadway in Santa Cruz County, California which connects the community of Aptos north to The Forest of Nisene Marks State Parks.  Aptos Creek Road north of Aptos is largely unpaved and is where the town site of Loma Prieta can be located.  Loma Prieta was a sawmill community which operated from 1883-1923 and reached a peak population of approximately three hundred.  Loma Prieta included a railroad which is now occupied by Aptos Creek Road along with a spur to Bridge Creek which now the Loma Prieta Grade Trail.  The site of the Loma Prieta Mill and company town burned in 1942.   Part 1; the history of Aptos Creek Road and the Loma Prieta town site Modern Aptos traces its origin to Mexican Rancho Aptos.  Rancho Aptos was granted by the Mexican Government in 1833 Rafael Castro.  Rancho Aptos took its name from Aptos Creek which coursed through from the Santa Cruz Mountains to Monterey Bay.  Castro initially used Rancho Aptos to raise cattle for their hides.  Following