Mr. Kulash,
Thank you so much. I’ve been in contact with Mike Nadeau so he has answered the majority of my questions, so I just have a few quick ones if you don’t mind answering them.


1) Who contacted you to work on the traffic analysis?  
Mike Nadeau

2) How long did it take you to complete the traffic study? Around 2 – 3 weeks (not continuous)

3) How were your findings received when brought to the NCDOT’s attention? I did not receive reactions directly from NCDOT. From Mike, I gather that the initial reactions focused on trying to discredit the report (as inappropriate method for road design, as using wrong edition of ITE Trip Generation manual, as done by an out-of-state registered PE (myself), etc).  Most certainly, nothing about the initial reactions from NCDOT was concerned with trying to understand or resolve the difference in outcomes, and seeing if such resolution could result in a modified design. The NCDOT reaction — attempting to discredit rather than resolve — is by no means unusual or unexpected, but rather is absolutely typical of of most DOT’s when publicly questioned or  challenged by citizen advocacy groups. Eventually, resolution is reached when it becomes clear that the advocacy groups will not “give up and go away”, or as local governments adopt resolutions calling for restudy, as “blue ribbon” committees are formed by DOTs and local governments, or as higher-level (and less personally invested) DOT staff intervenes, or as a DOT’s own “Value Engineering” process searches for more efficient solutions, etc.    

4) How can there be such a huge difference between your more accurate traffic study and what the NCDOT is projecting? Think of the NCDOT process as a “one size fits all” approach, based on estimates from bypasses throughout the state.  Our approach, on the other hand, is tailor made to the detailed future projections for the community. The huge difference is occurring because the travel-related data in Hampstead (population, employment, school enrollment)  does not fit the one-size-fits-all model.   Some basic checking (“validation”, a normal step in forecasting but apparently not done here) of their initial findings by NCDOT would have quickly revealed the lack of fit, and the need for appropriately adjusting their approach, and would have given results comparable to what we found.