Just when you thought CRTPO was going to do the right thing….

When the Technical Coordinating Committee recommends a vote to CRTPO, it’s usually a fait accompli: perfunctory, box checking, zero drama. Usually, unless it has to do with I-77 tolls.

Two weeks ago we reported CRTPO was poised to approve a project list at their next meeting. That list included a general purpose lane project, a prerequisite for general purpose lanes being funded through normal appropriations. The project would be scored and ranked along with all the other projects on the list. If the toll project is cancelled, this project would be plan B.

The benefit vs cost of such a project is so great that we’re confident it would rank high enough to be funded. We’ve been asking for a good faith effort to develop and score such a project.  We thought that was finally going to happen.

It isn’t.

During their Sept 16th meeting some delegates questioned why the project was on the list when we already have the toll “solution.” They expressed concern it would take up slots from other projects. (Only the top 22 or so will score high enough to get funded.)

And here’s the kicker: according to our source, CRTPO would add the toll cancellation penalty to the cost of the GP project.  

So, we’re told, there is no way the GP project would score high enough carrying a $100 million elephant on its back.

Of course, this raise some questions and inconsistencies:

  • If it won’t score high high enough, why worry about it taking up a slot?
  • If the toll lanes get built, won’t that slot be opened up anyways?
  • Where did the $100 million figure come from?
  • Where is the statutory language that allows the TCC to apply the penalty of a state contract to a local planning area?

As far as we know, these questions were never asked.

CRTPO postponed the vote.

Any bets on what will happen at October’s meeting?  Do you think CRTPO will do the right thing and keep the GP project on the list?

When it comes to I-77 tolls,  CRTPO doing the right thing would be unprecedented.

6 Responses to Just when you thought CRTPO was going to do the right thing….

  1. Anette says:

    Sinister. Just Cinister.

  2. Jay Privette says:

    Contemptible. There has been plenty made public about the connections between Cintra lobbying activities, high officials in the NC Republican Party and Governor Pat McCrory. If people aren’t aware of corruption in this deal, they need to take a look at the backgrounds and affiliations of the three main contractors involved: Cintra, Parsons Brinckerhoff and Louis Berger. This is not about what’s best for the public, it’s about greed. The TCC and CRTPO have been given their marching orders. Robert Brawley and Larry Pitman are examples to what happens to those that march out of step.

  3. Kathy Butterfield says:

    You reap what you sow. Watch CRPTO begin to disintegrate right before your eyes.

  4. Connie Evans says:

    It seems the game of “cat and mouse” continues. The citizens of LKN are being toyed with or tormented by misinformation before destroying us, Our lives spent on the road is life changing…in time, money, loss of businesses, safety and property values. Questions are unanswered. One that hounds me is: Who has the power/authority to demand the breakdown of the $100 million that the transportation department officials claim the Charlotte region would loose? Figures can be manipulated. Is the cat just playing with the mouse before killing our rights? This game is not amusing and is destroying lives.

  5. […] go through several layers of approval and public involvement.  As we’ve discussed elsewhere, the current public involvement process is a joke, but that aside, consider the practical reality […]

  6. Andy Kunik says:

    Cintra is depending on morning and evening commuters to pay for this project. If a petition is signed by a large percentage of these commuters vowing to never use toll lanes Cintra would be begging to get out of the contract.

Leave a Reply to Anette Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>