NCDOT’s Rebuttal

As required by the schedule set by the court, today NCDOT filed their brief in opposition to our motion for summary judgment.

You can download it here:

15 CVS 1076 – State Defendants Response-Reply

One thing that really caught our attention:

Remember the “Toll Summit” that was held in Cornelius last month?  In order to terminate the contract NCDOT officials said they needed approval of the Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization (CRTPO) .  We have always pointed to the contract that states quite plainly the NCDOT alone has that authority.

On page 5 of their defense, in direct contradiction to their public statements, NCDOT says it “may terminate the contract in ‘its sole discretion’ at any time.”

6 Responses to NCDOT’s Rebuttal

  1. Anette says:

    How cancNCDOT be held publicly accountable for their stallings and diversions with misrepresentations and outright lies? How can we get the word out to the public? Their irresponsibility can only be tolerated so long.

  2. Dave says:

    Indisputable and concrete proof that NCDOT is lying to the very people who pay for its existence. Completely unacceptable.

  3. William Rakatansky says:

    All three (3) of the alternatives studied after the end of the Defendents response, compare travel times and speed of travel between the two general purpose lanes presently existing and different quantities of HOV/HOT lanes. The alternatives suggest that with the addition of various quantities of HOV/HOT lanes to the two general purpose lanes, travel speeds in the general purpose lanes will increase by either single digit or low double digit percentages.
    What the study apparently does NOT address is comparin the travel speeds and travel times of the two existing general purpose lanes, with either one or two addiitonal general purpose lanes. The study referenced contains incomplete analysis and faulty logic for not comparing general purpose lanes to additional general purpose lanes. It would be interesting to see a scientific study performing this latter comparison, since one addiitonal general purpose lane adds 50 percent more capacity to the existing general purpose lanes; and two addiitonal general purpose lanes adds 100 percent capacity to the existing general purpose lanes.
    Therefore, using the referenced study’s findings as a starting point, one would expect to see the travel times and travel speeds in the exisitng general purpose lanes be very substantially increased beyond the study’s findings, simply with the addition of one more general purpose lane.

  4. A Mooresvile Resident says:

    So, NCDOT says CRTPO holds the cards to get the toll lanes stopped. Their implication is, CRTPO votes to cancel and then NCDOT will oblige.

    Or, McCrory takes a stand and says to cancel. NCDOT implies they will oblige.

    But, what part of the definition of “sole discretion” does the media, the pundits, public fail to grasp?

    Sole discretions means NO matter what anyone else wants done, NCDOT holds ALL the cards. NCDOT makes ALL the decisions.

    That is, until the court steps in or the Legislature and Governor read the clear, simple writing on the wall.

  5. former Lake Norman RPO member says:

    There is nothing in this rebuttal defending the position of whether or not NCDOT has exceeded their authority in this contract by “giving” CINTRA the HOV lanes Between Exits 13 and 19 already paid for by taxpayers to become part of this project as toll lanes. Also given this, wouldn’t any taxpayer that has paid taxes supporting the building of these HOV lanes have standing in a trial to discuss NCDOT giving away taxpayer assets to a private company. Also there is nothing defending why the cancellation terms in this contract are not “cost plus” for costs incurred up to the point of the cancellation. NCDOT claims a ridiculous $100M cancellation cost. By allowing for such a ridiculously expensive cancellation cost and not a typical cancellation cost of a government contract, they have essentially allowed for no reasonable cancellation of this contract. Was this deliberate in an attempt to scuttle opposition or are they just terrible contract negotiators.

  6. Cindy says:

    Questions to think about.
    1.Are the members of the Charlotte Transporation Authority elected or appointed?
    2. If they are appointed by whom?
    3.When and why did these members of the Charlotte Transportation Authority contact the MLP Partners based in Spain?
    4. How well did they investigate this company and when did they sign a contract?
    5. If the company does not receive any profit will the taxpayers of North Carolina have to pay again for this road?
    This does not seem fair to the taxpayers who will never use this road.
    6. Who benefits from this toll road.?
    7. Is the state purchasing the property or the company purchasing the property needed for the proposed exits?
    Will North Carolina taxpayers be paying again?

Leave a Reply

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