The USA Today did a recent review
of the condition of bridges.  It also provided a state-by-state
update on what each state is doing on the bridge problems.  Here’s
what it said about NC’s recent actions:

“North Carolina ordered
additional inspections on fewer than 30 bridges, but inspectors found
no serious hazards, said Don Idol, an assistant state bridge inspection
engineer. After reports that the Minneapolis bridge was carrying too
much weight from construction equipment when it collapsed, North
Carolina instituted a policy under which engineers calculate load
capacity before work starts, he said. The state plans to spend $289
million on bridge repair and maintenance this year, down $79 million
from last year.”

_______ 

 
“Smart” Growth (i.e. High-Density Development), Environmental
Extremism, and What Really Influences NC’s  Transportation Policy
_______________________

Transportation has very little to do with transportation policy anymore, as discussed in this report and Roy’s report on sustainable growth.

“For transportation planning and decision-making, sustainable
development primarily means reducing our dependence on personal
vehicles to balance mobility needs with commitments to use less energy,
improve air quality, preserve land and conserve limited resources.”
(Emphasis
added.)  – NC’s Transit 2001 Technical Report 

This philosophy is being practiced.  Planners have moved
away from identifying what the public uses and desires for mobility
(i.e. cars), and instead seeks to develop transportation options in a
way so that the public meets the needs of these transportation options
(i.e. transit).   For example, they try and develop
high-density centers where future rail stations would be located and
this way they hope that they have enough people clustered together so
they can build a train.

This philosophy can be seen by the proposed disproportional
spending on transit discussed in the report.  Example:  “In
the Charlotte area, 57.5 percent of the [Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan
Planning Organization] budget would serve 2.6 percent of all commuters.
This 57.5 percent number also would serve, as shown in Figure 3, only
0.54 percent of all urban motorized travel (i.e., not just commuters)
in the Charlotte area.”

You may be asking how anyone can defend these numbers?  The answer is: Very easily–remember, it isn’t about mobility.

?We always saw transit as a means, not an end,? says planning
director Debra Campbell. ?The real impetus for transit was how it could
help us grow in a way that was smart. This really isn?t even about
building a transit system. It?s about place making. It?s about building
a community.?
? Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Director Debra Campbell in the June 2007 edition of Governing.

After the legislature basically ignored bridges and roads again, my
conclusion from last year’s report is even more relevant today:

“Wasting money on transit or highway projects at the expense of bridges
and other critical infrastructure is bad government and arguably
unethical. When it comes to transportation policy, the time for
appeasing environmental special interests at the expense of the public
needs to end.
Admittedly, it is politically incorrect to challenge this new
transportation philosophy. Even a suggestion that rational thinking
should guide funding for public transit could come under attack.

Policymakers, though, need to get back on the right track when it comes
to transportation. Hopefully, it will not require a bridge collapse and
lost lives in North Carolina for
policymakers to rethink priorities and question the merits of spending
excessively on transit or pushing transportation polices that are more
concerned with pretty public spaces than safe roads and bridges.”