Triangle road & traffic thread

[orulz]

Things have been silent for the East End connector as well.

The East End Connector actually made it into the TIP as of 2007. It's funded for construction in 2012.

[ChiefJoJo]

540 to 54 could have been opened a while ago, but they held back to not have a second opening to 55.

Now it is held back even longer, despite having next to no rain to hinder work. Will they face fines? Probably not. Deadlines were made to be broken, and DOT doesn't use a carrot (reward) or stick (punishment) to make deadlines mean anything. Crews are *still* adding pavement layers to 55 near the NC 54 and I-40 intersections, so we should be "thankful" for another delayed section of 540?

What is the status of funding for the Triangle Expressway? I haven't heard anything since "General Assembly not willing to provide gap funding." It went from first toll road in the state to nothing somewhat quickly. Things have been silent for the East End connector as well.

It is interesting that the "NC is a bad highway state" study didn't look into the "equity financing formula" and its creation of bottlenecks and misappropriation of funds to areas that had no congestion issues.

DOT often does fine contrators for missing deadlines. The Triangle Expressway is waiting like everyone else on the funding issues being debated in the Legislature. They passed a temporary appropriations bill to get us past July 1, but that will only last so long. Because of the myriad of issues and funding bills (= new taxes ), I wouldn't be surprised if they stayed in session until Sept.

The EEC is slowly coming along. Environmental studies take quite a while, especially on a major project like this. Some call it bureacracy (it is), but it's also important to consider all of the stakeholders needs (neighbors, community, city, MPO, state, feds, permitting agencies, etc). The alternative would be to return to the days of govt jamming freeways and urban renewal down the community's throat--ironically, like Durham Freeway. Anyway, I digress... here's the website for more info.

[RaleighRob]

The East End Connector actually made it into the TIP as of 2007. It's funded for construction in 2012.

Right...and the final alignment has just been finalized. And a large proportion of right-of-way has already been purchased. All that really remains is road design, environmental permitting, a few relocations, and so forth.

It's about time too...that thing's been on the books for almost half a century.

[Bull City Rising]

Right...and the final alignment has just been finalized. And a large proportion of right-of-way has already been purchased. All that really remains is road design, environmental permitting, a few relocations, and so forth.

It's about time too...that thing's been on the books for almost half a century.

Hey Rob -- is the final alignment finalized? I thought NCDOT was studying 3 alternatives (of the original 4) -- which one did they choose? And, any final numbers on relocation & impact?

[orulz]

I read that Durham City Council endorsed alternative 3, but NCDOT hasn't issued a final decision yet.

In my mind, this should be an open and shut case, becuase Alt. 3:

• is the original alignment planned and accomodated for when the Durham Freeway was first built
  
• has been on the books for about 50 years, so it will come as a surprise to nobody and the impact to property values has already had half a century to set in
  
• has the fewest impacts, environmental, historical, and neighborhood-related
  
• makes for the shortest connection
  
• uses the least land
  
• costs the least, and
  
• (in my opinion) yields the best highway configuration.
  

In spite of all the advantages clearly pointing to Alt. 3, NCDOT still has to go through the "alternatives analysis" phase, taking into account every feasible option. Not sure where they are in that process.

ChiefJoJo, care to comment?

[RaleighRob]

Well, I don't think DOT has officially published that they've chosen Alternative 3, but I do know that the resource agencies (environmental, historic preservation, corps of engineers, wildlife service, etc) plus the Durham/CH metro planning org, unanimously endorsed it recently. So, barring something out of the ordinary, it looks pretty certain that Alt 3 alignment will be the one.

As far as final numbers of relocation and impacts, I don't know off the top of my head. But I do know it's way less than any of the other alternatives.

[ChiefJoJo]

I just got confirmation that indeed Alt 3 is the preferred alignment for the project. It is the old "thoroughfare plan" and the previous EIS alignment that was completed several years (20+?) ago and there are actually some portions of Alt 3 that have been purchased by DOT. The old study was collecting dust due to funding constraints and had to be re-evaluated to bring it up to date.

I cannot confirm this, but I believe that part of the reason it remained unfunded for so long was that it was not loop fund eligible, and it now is. Previously, as a result of the 1989 Highway Trust Fund legislation, urban loops areound the main metro areas of the state were included in this bill to keep the urban areas happy while the overarching "intrastate system" of 4-lane highways was constructed (I think it was Gov Martin who decreed that he wanted a 4-lane highway within 10 miles of 90% of the population of NC.) These urban loops (485, 540, 840, I-26, Winston, & Durham loops--I think those were the originals) had a separate pot of money that was unique from the remainder of funds for developing the intrastate system. Durham's loop was the Northern Durham Loop (Eno Drive, etc) which has been argued about for almost 20 years (local residents didn't want it), so those loop funds were never allocated, probably for the ultimate benefit of Wake and I-540, since they are in the same funding region (Division 5).

The bad news is that the cost you see listed on the web, $135M, has now escalated to about $200M, and it's still cheaper than the other alts. The current TIP I believe does not have the money to cover the cost increases that have or will take place on this project prior to construction in 2012. Something will have to be done to cover the rising costs, but I doubt anyone has determined what that is yet.

This is part of the reason for all of the toll projects being studied now, like the 540/147/Triangle Expressway... there are just not any new funds to cover these costs. It's part of a larger problem of a severe lack of funding available for major infrastructure projects. NCDOT has experienced a near 100% inflation rate in just 5 years. As a matter of fact, whether the public realizes it or not (they don't--yet), we don't have the money to do what people expect should be done, and the sooner they come to terms with that fact, the sooner they will inform the politicians that they want something done about it. Right now, politics as usual--no funding increases, despite lots of needs in transportation, schools, health care, etc--dominates. I saw a WUNC Legislative Week in Review recently on the state budget debate where the Republicans said that holding the line on taxes and spending was a win for the people. That position might win the support of some voters back home, but those leaders are conveniently ignoring many of the real problems we face at the expense of those very same people.

[RaleighRob]

Heard on the rumour mill that the DOT's sign-producing people are already making some new 540 signs. But not on red/blue interstate shields. They're making them on NC Hwy diamond signs. Why? Because you can't toll an interstate, supposedly.

That'll be interesting.

[DPK]

For those who can't remember which route was alternative 3, please see page 3 of this pdf:

http://www.ncdot.org/projects/eastendconne...ives1_4Maps.pdf

[orulz]

Heard on the rumour mill that the DOT's sign-producing people are already making some new 540 signs. But not on red/blue interstate shields. They're making them on NC Hwy diamond signs. Why? Because you can't toll an interstate, supposedly.

That'll be interesting.

Saw one such sign today, heading south on NC55 just before the junction with I-540. Interesting.

I didn't realize interstates can't be tolled; the southern connector, a toll highway in Greenville, SC opened recently (2001) and is signed as an interstate (I-185).

Perhaps this is something self-imposed by North Carolina, or there is something about the FHWA interstate standards that makes it difficult or more expensive to construct a toll road as an interstate.

I'm still struggling with the idea that the segment between NC54 and NC55 has been initially constructed as a freeway but will later be converted to a toll road. Public outcry aside,

won't NC be required to refund all federal money recieved for the construction of this segment in order to turn it into a toll road? Or, did NC build the segment of I-540 between NC54 and NC55 without federal assistance?

[ChiefJoJo]

Here's FHWA's policy:

Currently, toll activities eligible for Federal-aid highway funding include:

* Initial construction (except on the Interstate System) of toll highways, bridges, and tunnels, including approaches to these facilities.

* Reconstructing, resurfacing, restoring, and rehabilitating work on existing toll facilities.

* Reconstruction or replacement of free bridges or tunnels and conversion to toll facilities.

* Reconstruction of a free highway (except on the Interstate System) and conversion to a toll facility.

* Preliminary studies to determine the feasibility of the above toll construction activities.

If Federal-aid funds are used for construction of, or improvements to, a toll facility or the approach to a toll facility, or if a State plans to reconstruct and convert a free highway, bridge or tunnel previously constructed with Federal-aid highway funds to a toll facility, a toll agreement is required (See Title 23, United States Code, Section 129(a)(3)). The toll agreement is executed between the Federal Highway Administration, the State Department of Transportation, and the toll authority.

The toll agreement must require that all toll revenues are first used for any of the following: debt service, reasonable return on private investment, and operation and maintenance, including reconstructing, resurfacing, restoring, and rehabilitating work.

The agreement may also include a provision regarding toll revenues in excess of those needed for the required uses outlined above. This provision would allow these excess revenues to be used for highway and transit purposes authorized under Title 23 if the State certifies annually that the toll facility is being adequately maintained.

Although the provision on applies to projects "eligible for federal-aid highway funding" not route signing. If the state pays for the gap funds, there will be no federal-aid funds on I-540 from NC 55 southward, although there were certainly federal-aid funds used to study the project. This is the first I've heard of it.

[RaleighRob]

Interesting.

And what's odder is that (correct me if I'm wrong) the current I-540 may stay that way (from 40 to 64), and only the new section would be called "NC 540".

As if the North Carolina highway map couldn't get more cluttered.

[orulz]

The News & Observer has confirmed this rumor. And sure enough, the segment of 540 from NC54 to NC55 will eventually be tolled. Wonder how the commuting public will react? My guess is that they won't take it too well.

As for me, I say we should rename the whole outer loop to NC540 and toll the whole damn thing. As often as I use it (about once a week) I'd gladly pay a toll.

Not stopping there, let's put a toll on every mile of freeway in the Triangle area. If gas costs aren't enough to get people to think about the ludicracy of 30+ mile commutes, maybe a toll will. In the short term we'd have to deal with increased congestion on the surface arterials, but people would adjust.

[architect77]

Just back from Raleigh and Atlantic Beach.

540 from Capital to Knightdale bypass is very nice. Disappointed at all the new traffic lights on wires at the interchanges though. They could have splurged on mast arms.

I am SHOCKED however that a few of the overhead signs on this new stretch don't have lights attached! What is up with that? I've always liked how NC lit all its signs. Have reflective qualities of these signs improved to the point where lights are no longer necessary? The new overheads at the actual exits are lit however. And while we're at it... why the hell are some overheads lit with amber lights? I hate them and the inconsitentcy factor as well. Furthermore, on the 64/264 bypass someone slapped up a distance to the 540 interchange and used a DOUBLE-SIZE fraction thus tarnishing NC's stellar execution of road signage. I won't allow this digression toward Georgia/Hee-Haw looking signage with different fonts, crooked letters etc. LOL

I would like "Wade Ave/to 440" on I-40 to be changed to something like "I-440 Connector" and say "Central Raleigh". "Wade Ave" shouldn't be both a quaint city street and a freeway also. A visitor wouldn't know that I-40/Raleigh isn't going to get them to the main part of Raleigh. Anyone agree?

The configuration of this little stretch in regards to 440 and 40 presents a challenge as far as naming and guiding those who aren't familiar with the area because it most likely is the route everyone needs to take.

[castong]

I just went on a cross country roadtrip and encountering several flavors of tollroads, I can say that putting toll booths on 540 will be a colossal waste of effort. I saw miltiple-mile backups caused by several toll plazas, electronic tolling seemed to have a minimal effect. 540 was designed to reduce traffic, toll booths increase travel time, what's the point? Tolling existing stretches of 540 is totally unfeasible without putting toll booths on every ramp, which would just encourage traffic to spill into residential neighborhoods.

I dare say nobody but lost out-of-towners following their satnav will pay a toll of any price for a brief 4 mile trip between I-40 and NC55, what will surely be one of the world's shortest toll roads.

[Bull City Rising]

I just went on a cross country roadtrip and encountering several flavors of tollroads, I can say that putting toll booths on 540 will be a colossal waste of effort. I saw miltiple-mile backups caused by several toll plazas, electronic tolling seemed to have a minimal effect. 540 was designed to reduce traffic, toll booths increase travel time, what's the point? Tolling existing stretches of 540 is totally unfeasible without putting toll booths on every ramp, which would just encourage traffic to spill into residential neighborhoods.

I dare say nobody but lost out-of-towners following their satnav will pay a toll of any price for a brief 4 mile trip between I-40 and NC55, what will surely be one of the world's shortest toll roads.

Have you ever been on systems that have in-lane toll collection, a la I-90 in the northwest Chicago suburbs, or the Orlando GreeneWay (eastern/northwestern beltway?)

Those are ideal for situations like this.

The longer I live here, the more peeved I get with folks who want no tolls, no new taxes, no new impact fees, and yet no cuts in government services. Blood from a stone, people.

[Creasy336]

I just went on a cross country roadtrip and encountering several flavors of tollroads, I can say that putting toll booths on 540 will be a colossal waste of effort. I saw miltiple-mile backups caused by several toll plazas, electronic tolling seemed to have a minimal effect. 540 was designed to reduce traffic, toll booths increase travel time, what's the point? Tolling existing stretches of 540 is totally unfeasible without putting toll booths on every ramp, which would just encourage traffic to spill into residential neighborhoods.

I dare say nobody but lost out-of-towners following their satnav will pay a toll of any price for a brief 4 mile trip between I-40 and NC55, what will surely be one of the world's shortest toll roads.

From my understanding the Triangle Parkway will be combined with the Western Wake Expressway to form one toll road stretching from nc 54 to south of Apex.

[ChiefJoJo]

From my understanding the Triangle Parkway will be combined with the Western Wake Expressway to form one toll road stretching from nc 54 to south of Apex.

True. That is the plan anyway, if the state comes up with the gap money.

Castong, the toll systems are going to become totally electronic within about 2 years. I believe the majority of toll traffic will be able to travel the 20 mile trip (not 4 miles) from Apex to RTP without reducing speed at all. The fact of the matter is there is no funding for more large road projects without the use of tolls for financing, so get used to it. I think it's a good option, as if you don't want to pay, no one is forcing you to do so. Even if you don't ride on the toll road, you will experience less congestion on the alternate route (NC 55) as a result of the drivers who do choose to pay... it's a win-win!

[ChiefJoJo]

According to WRAL, the solution to the toll road gap funding issues should be resolved by next week, althought I'll believe it when I see it.

[ChiefJoJo]

Final decision: the DOT will eat the $21M repaving costs for I-40 out of it's admin budget. Good news.

[ncwebguy]

It's not too big of a mistake, but the new section of 540 had incorrect mile markers. I know the alignment was shifted some, but to miss by 19 miles -- 51 vs. 70 -- seems to be a bit much. The column says the section will be open "by the end of the week" but they still have time to find something else wrong.

It is good news that the I-40 repairs in Durham will be paid for by all of DOT and not division 5, but I won't celebrate until the budget is passed. A budget that should include the triangle parkway gap funding. The parkway/freeway extender is exactly the kind of project the transfer tax could help fund. Most people who will benefit from the road live in new developments. Make them pay for a road that only they will benefit from, via toll, impact fees, and transfer tax.

[Cary NC]

My understanding is the toll would be $2 one way.

I guess it is the Starbucks Latte each morning or a round trip on the expressway.

Seriously folks, this is a bargin. Tacoma has a toll of $3 to cross a 1 mile bridge. That opens this month. It cost $849 million to build a bridge. They are propsoing $6 to cross a new 520 bridge built from Seattle suburbs to Downtown Seattle

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/projects/narrows_bridge/

Denver's toll road, which by the way is half toll/half free, cost $6 one way to go 20 miles. So for me it cost $12 to go to the airport and back. The exits were $.75 when you got off. So there was no shortcutting without paying on to side streets.

Just my experience.

[architect77]

it's $6 to cross the GWB, Lincoln or Holland Tunnel into Manhattan.

it's $9 just to cross the Verrazano Bridge.

$2 is reasonable by any measure.

[ChiefJoJo]

I--err--NC 540 opened today... anyone driven it yet? It wasn't open as of about noon today, but all that was left was to remove the barrels on the I-40 ramps (signs are all viewable now). I don't really like the NC 540 designation, as it really doesn't jump out at you on the road signs like the interstate shield does. I suppose it won't matter much since the vast majority of users are daily commuters.

[DanRNC]

^Maybe when its offically the TriEx it will get nifty signage.