Bob Mercer reports that attendance at Department of Transportation public meetings has been declining. DOT officials think that’s a good sign:
Attendance has dropped, acknowledged Mike Behm. He is the director for the state Department of Transportation’s project development program.
“Our customer satisfaction has been fairly to very high,” Behm said.
…The shrinking attendance is a sign that DOT is performing well, said Don Roby, of Watertown. He is the commission’s chairman.
“I think it’s fair to all. There’s confidence in the process,” Roby said [Bob Mercer, “Attendance Has Become Thinner at DOT Highway-Plan Meetings,” Mitchell Daily Republic, 2015.08.29].
That sounds strangely like concluding that lower voter turnout signals confidence in democracy. Generally, lack of participation signals a lack of confidence in the process, a belief that participating won’t really make a difference.
DOT Secretary Darin Bergquist recognizes one reason South Dakotans may not think the DOT meeting process is worth their efforts:
State Transportation Secretary Darin Bergquist said more people tended to come in the past when there was more money available for new work. He said DOT has been in a preservation mode for the past decade.
“People are getting to understand that,” Bergquist said [Mercer, 2015.08.29].
The Legislature passed an $85 million road bill last Session. That additional funding may give South Dakotans more to shout about at DOT meetings, but John Thune’s failure to pass a long-term federal highway bill may be hindering South Dakota DOT’s ability to plan big new projects.
The absence of citizen voices in government processes should never be taken as a good sign. Rather than complacently assuming everything is fine, the DOT should work harder to engage citizens and identify their concerns.
What IS the status of SD’s highways?
MN has a backlog and the money to catch up, but the Republican House stopped that. I guess Republicans like crappy roads.
Do you have any ideas how the DOT might engage the public?
CAH,
These hearings generate citizen input when the projects are new roads or significant changes in the roads/routes. When the only items on the agenda is what is going to be repaired, etc., there isn’t much excitement. In general, roads to be fixed is pretty quantitatively driven:
# of cars that go over the road per day and the condition of the road.
If someone wants to go argue with the math on what is higher on the priority list, they can do that but it has been my observation few if anyone disagrees with the methodology and the math is usually pretty straightforward. The fact nobody comes is an indication the DOT is firmly resistant to political pressure to “fix my road” which has a lower score and pushing down “your road” on the priority list.
Personally, I think the DOT needs a 25 year plan which predicts roads that need to be abandoned/converted to gravel with the population change. Then I think you will see some public input on whether there should be consideration beyond the math. Otherwise, going to a meeting would be a cure for sleeplessness.