Skip to main content

Raleigh TV Station Criticizes NCDOT

WRAL TV has completed an investigation into the possible spending of millions of dollars by NCDOT on a consultant report that may not have been needed.

Riddled by delayed and botched road projects and criticized for its inefficiency, the North Carolina Department of Transportation paid millions of dollars for a report last year that offered some of the same recommendations it got at no cost nearly a year earlier.

That's according to Kathryn Sawyer, executive director of the American Council of Engineering Companies of North Carolina.

In May 2006, the member organization paid to bring experts and transportation department officials from Florida, Missouri and Virginia -states that lead the nation in transportation project management - to find ways to help North Carolina become more efficient and successful when it comes to finishing projects on time....

Among the think tank's findings were needs to improve productivity, use key performance indicators and increase accountability - an area Sawyer said North Carolina needs improvement.

In the other states, like Missouri, a project deadline is locked in place, and if it is not met, project managers are held accountable for it, Sawyer said.

"(Project managers in North Carolina) had goals, but if they didn’t meet them, then (the goals) were moved," she said. "If a project was not completed, they just moved the date to where they thought it could be completed next."

Those three recommendations were some of the same more than a year later in a 472-page report from management consultant McKinsey & Co. The state paid $3.6 million to the international agency to analyze the DOT's entire organization and its practices.

Story: WRAL.com

Quick Commentary:
Didn't I say in my previous post, the last thing NCDOT needs is another story about it wasting money? What most of the problems with NCDOT that have been exposed over the last few years have in common in my opinion, and it's sort of ironic coming from someone sometimes described as being quiet, is a lack of communication. Between contractors and engineers (botched I-40 pavement), between separate departments in NCDOT (wrong exit numbers on NC 540), between engineers themselves (what is the proper thickness of pavement for an interstate highway, in this case what became I-795), and spending millions of dollars to find out something many in the department already new (the McKinsey Report). It would be interesting to know if the Missouri, et al DOT recommendations made it all the way to the top or were held back by some in management who did not want to change their practices that would make them more accountable.

It will also be interesting to see how this affects the debate about funding going on in the legislature.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The history of US Route 80 and Interstate 8 in California

The historic corridor of US Route 80 and Interstate 8 through the borderlands of southern California share a largely mutual history.  Both highways originated in the city of San Diego and departed the state at the Colorado River into Yuma, Arizona.  Both highways share numerous famous geographical components such as the Mountain Springs Grade and Algodones Sand Dunes.  This article serves as a comprehensive history of the combined US Route 80/Interstate 8 corridor in California from the tolled stage route era of the nineteenth century to the development of the modern freeway.   The blog cover photo features US Route 80 along the Mountains Springs Grade through In-Ko-Pah Gorge during late 1920s.  This photo is part of the Caltrans McCurry Collection. Part 1; the history of US Route 80 and Interstate 8 in California US Route 80 and Interstate 8 in California share a largely mutual history.  The backstory of both highways is tied heavily to the corridors of the Old Spanish Trail, Legisl

The Central Freeway of San Francisco (US Route 101)

The Central Freeway is a 1.2-mile elevated limited access corridor in the city of San Francisco.  As presently configured the Central Freeway connects from the end of the Bayshore Freeway to Market Street.  The Central Freeway carries the mainline of northbound US Route 101 from the Bayshore Freeway to Mission Street. The Central Freeway has origins with the establishment of Legislative Route Number 223 and is heavily tied to the history of the once proposed Panhandle Freeway.  The Central Freeway between the Bayshore Freeway and Mission Street was completed during 1955.  The corridor was extended to a one-way couplet located at Turk Street and Golden Gate Avenue in 1959 which served to connect US Route 101 to Van Ness Avenue.  The Central Freeway was damaged by the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake and has since been truncated to Market Street.   The Central Freeway as pictured on the blog cover was featured in the May/June 1959 California Highways & Public Works.  The scan below is fro

The Bayshore Freeway (US Route 101)

The Bayshore Freeway is a 56.4-mile component of US Route 101 located in the San Francisco Bay Area.  The Bayshore Freeway connects the southern extent of San Jose to the Central Freeway in the city of San Francisco.  The corridor was originally developed as the Bayshore Highway between 1923 and 1937.  The Bayshore Highway would serve briefly as mainline US Route 101 before being reassigned as US Route 101 Bypass in 1938.  Conceptually the designs for the Bayshore Freeway originated in 1940 but construction would be delayed until 1947.  The Bayshore Freeway was completed by 1962 and became mainline US Route 101 during June 1963.   Part 1; the history of the Bayshore Freeway Prior the creation of the Bayshore Highway corridor the most commonly used highway between San Jose and San Francisco was El Camino Real (alternatively known as Peninsula Highway).  The  American El Camino Real  began as an early example of a signed as an Auto Trail starting in 1906.  The era of State Highway Mainte