Raleigh City Council reluctantly endorses making part of US 1 a toll road
The Raleigh City Council has endorsed charging tolls on Capital Boulevard between Interstate 540 and Wake Forest, but, as some council members made clear, not enthusiastically.
The tolls will allow the N.C. Department of Transportation to accelerate plans to turn the congested four-lane road into a six-lane expressway, with interchanges instead of traffic lights.
Without tolls, NCDOT doesn't anticipate having money to begin building the expressway until 2031, a decade later than originally planned. Rising costs and competition from other projects across the state forced the delay, NCDOT officials say; the latest estimate is that converting 10 miles of Capital/U.S. 1 to an expressway would cost $1.34 billion.
'With what's going on in Western North Carolina, that really is just a projection,' said city transportation planning manager Kenneth Ritchie, referring to the rebuilding after Hurricane Helene. 'Certainly costs will continue to increase and impact this project the longer that it draws out.'
Under the option backed by the City Council on Tuesday, construction could begin in 2027 and be completed by early 2033.
'There are implications to saying no,' council member Mitchell Silver said. 'Doing nothing will be unsustainable long term.'
The tolls would be collected by the N.C. Turnpike Authority, a branch of NCDOT. At the request of regional transportation planners, the authority studied tolling and presented four scenarios, all four of which would result in the six-lane limited-access highway:
▪ Scenario 1: Tolling the entire 10-mile stretch from I-540 north through Wake Forest as a standalone toll road. Would raise an estimated $800 million.
▪ Scenario 2: Tolling the entire 10 miles but adding it to the N.C. Turnpike system, which would allow the state to borrow more money. Would generate an estimated $1.4 billion.
▪ Scenario 3: Build and toll one express lane in each direction, again as a standalone toll road. The existing four-lane road would remain free. Would raise an estimated $100 million.
▪ Scenario 4: Build and toll one express lane in each direction and add them to the N.C. Turnpike system. With the additional borrowing power, the lanes would generate an estimated $600 million.
The Turnpike Authority didn't provide specific toll costs, but said the rates for a fully tolled expressway would be similar to what drivers pay to use the Triangle Expressway in southern Wake County. This year, drivers with an NC Quick Pass pay about 23 cents a mile, though the rates rise a bit each year. The toll rates for the express lanes would vary during the day, depending on traffic.
Council vote wasn't close
The City Council voted 7-1 to back Scenario 2, in part because it would generate the most money. Opposing tolls was Megan Patton, whose district straddles Capital Boulevard north of I-540 and who said her constituents are generally opposed to the expressway itself.
'When I've taken this out to the community, every resident I've spoken to understands that no toll means no build,' Patton said. 'And for them that seems to resonate as being the better option than any of the tolled scenarios.'
Patton understood, though, that the council would back tolls and the expressway. She urged that the tolls be cheaper at night or off-peak hours and that the road be designed to accommodate bus rapid transit in the future.
At-large council member Jonathan Lambert-Melton indicated that he'd also heard from residents who questioned tolling the road. Lambert-Melton said he believed the project would move ahead with tolls anyway and that it was more a matter of which scenario the council wanted to endorse.
'People keep saying, 'Why do you want to put tolls on Capital Boulevard?' This is the N.C. Department of Transportation,' he said. 'This is not any of us saying, 'Let's go ahead and add toll lanes to a city road' or anything like that.'
The council's endorsement will be passed on to the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, which does transportation planning. The CAMPO board, which includes representatives from cities, towns and counties in and around Wake County, will make the final decision on whether to ask the Turnpike Authority to toll Capital Boulevard.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘Dumb flags' and a ‘dumb bill': Utah governor rolls his eyes at SLC's workaround of flag ban
Flags adopted as official banners of Salt Lake City, circumventing the state's ban on most flags being displayed at government buildings and schools, hang outside the Salt Lake City and County building on Wednesday, May 7, 2025. The official city flags include the Salt Lake City flag, pride flag, Juneteenth flag and transgender flag. (McKenzie Romero/Utah News Dispatch) 'Dumb.' That was the word Utah Gov. Spencer Cox used Tuesday to express his annoyance with a new law that bans certain flags in schools and government buildings while also criticizing Salt Lake City leaders' move to circumvent the ban by adopting pride and other flags symbolizing diversity and inclusion as official city banners. 'They're dumb flags and it was a dumb bill,' Cox said curtly when asked during his monthly PBS Utah news conference about Salt Lake City's response to the flag ban. Salt Lake City adopts new banners, sidestepping pride flag ban Last month, hours before the new flag ban law took effect in Utah, Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall unveiled a proposal to adopt three new city flags: a rainbow one symbolizing support for LGBTQ+ communities, a pink and white one for transgender people, and a red and blue one emulating the Juneteenth flag — all with Salt Lake City's official white sego lily symbol. That evening, the City Council voted unanimously to adopt the flags. Cox allowed HB77, the bill Utah lawmakers passed aimed at banning many flags — including pride or LGBTQ+ flags — from schools and all government buildings to become law without his signature. The bill made Utah the first state in the nation to enact such a sweeping flag ban. Though he let it become law, Cox wasn't a fan of HB77. He described it in a letter as 'one of the most divisive bills of the session' and lamented that it didn't result in a compromise. Supporters of the flag ban, sponsored by Rep. Trevor Lee, R-Layton, have argued it was meant to promote 'political neutrality' in government spaces. But critics argued the broad ban would invite free speech litigation while also leaving some Utahns, especially the LGBTQ+ community, feeling unwelcome and erased. Cox could have vetoed the bill, but he indicated in his letter that it would likely have been overridden by the Republican-supermajority Utah Legislature. Instead, he urged lawmakers to 'consider commonsense solutions that address the bill's numerous flaws.' While Cox said he agreed with the 'underlying intent' to bring 'political neutrality to the classroom,' he also wrote 'unfortunately, this bill does not do that.' 'As tired as Utahns are of politically divisive symbols, I think they are also tired of culture war bills that don't solve the problems they intend to fix,' Cox wrote in his letter. On Tuesday, Cox called the ongoing debate over the flag ban and Salt Lake City leaders' response 'ridiculous.' As Sundance leaves, Utah Gov. Cox allows first-in-the-nation flag ban to become law without his pen 'You know, I feel bad for Japanese Americans. I feel bad for Polynesian Americans. I mean, who are we leaving out, here?' Cox said of Salt Lake City's new banners. 'I'm sure they feel great that they got around this dumb law, and they did it with dumb flags. The whole thing's dumb.' Pressed on what he thinks should be done instead, Cox said, 'We should raise the American flag, and let's unify around that. It's a great flag. It represents everyone. And the Legislature doesn't need to be in everybody's business all the time.' Cox let out an exasperated laugh before adding: 'we're living in the dumbest timeline right now. That's all I can say.' In response to a request for comment on Tuesday, a spokesperson for the Salt Lake City Mayor's Office said 'we've had an overwhelmingly positive response' from Salt Lake City residents for the newly adopted city banners. Lee, in a post on X responding to Cox's comments on Tuesday, wrote: 'So the bill to stop the divide and get everyone to raise one flag… was dumb?' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Springfield grants $3.5M for 19 preservation projects, rejects 1 housing request
SPRINGFIELD — The city will help replace leaking roofs on five historic buildings, fix the Buckingham Fountain that has been dry for years and make Marshall Roy playground handicap accessible, but will not assist an affordable housing project with units earmarked for people with mental illness. The City Council approved spending $3.5 million in Community Preservation Act funding to be divided among 19 projects to help preserve historic churches, build affordable housing, and boost open space and recreation. This year, the act raised more than $2.5 million from a surcharge of 1.5% that has been added to taxpayers' bills since voters adopted the law in 2016. In addition, the state is expected to match the contributions with nearly $400,000, and there were additional funds from interest and money allocated but not used from last year from projects that were not done or came in under budget, said Robert McCarroll, chairman of the Community Preservation Committee. 'It was a very difficult year for the committee,' McCarroll said, about the body that vets the projects and recommends them to the City Council. 'Although we had $3.5 million to recommend to you, we had 35 projects — the most we have ever had — asking for more than $8 million.' About half the grants recommended were less than the amount requested, but those organizations can return next year for additional funds, McCarroll said. The City Council passed 19 of the recommendations without a concern but narrowly rejected a proposal to continue to support the efforts to convert the historic Kavanaugh building on State Street into 35 affordable housing units, some of which will be leased to clients of the Department of Mental Health. 'The location is just about on the front lawn of (the High School of) Commerce, and I don't think it is an appropriate location,' said City Councilor Sean Curran, who has opposed the project in the past. In addition, he argued that the city granted developer Donald Mitchell, owner of Renaissance Development LLC, $2.8 million in federal pandemic money, and the Community Preservation Committee awarded him $210,000 for the project in past years. 'I think that is a significant contribution to this project and to come back tonight for an additional $300,000 of additional taxpayer's dollars, I think is a bridge too far,' Curran said. City Councilor Malo Brown agreed, saying he does not want to put more money into a project that has stalled and added that the building has been sitting vacant with no activity for some time. Mitchell said there were some design flaws in the $10 million project that caused him to part ways with the original architect. The company now has a new designer on board and hopes to begin construction in the fall. To speed up the time when people can move in, his company has now decided to do the work in two phases, so 25 apartments will be built and occupied first, and the remaining 10 will be completed later. In responding to Curran's concerns, Mitchell said he did talk to officials at the High School of Commerce when proposing the project, and the educators did not object to it. Other councilors said they did support the project, especially since Springfield faces a shortage of affordable housing and lacks apartments for people with mental health illnesses. 'I think it addresses many needs (for) the city of Springfield, and I'm not in favor of having another empty building on State Street,' City Councilor Kateri Walsh said. 'It will help a lot of people.' There were no objections to the remaining projects. City Councilor Jose Delgado called the proposals a good mix of improvements that will affect 10 different neighborhoods. He said he was happy that several other projects will help the city address the affordable housing crisis. Among the grants is one for $250,000 that will be given to Habitat for Humanity to help build a home for a low- or moderate-income first-time homebuyer on Hancock Street. The committee also continued its annual contributions to a program that helps first-time homeowners with down payment assistance and another that helps residents improve historic homes. 'We had many applications this year for (a) leaky roof and, of course, the worst thing for a historic building is water penetration,' McCarroll said. The committee recommended assisting the new owners of the historic Paramount Theater and Massasoit House with their $1.2 million project to replace the roof with a $300,000 grant. It also awarded the Ecumenical Church on Eastern Avenue $151,000 and Daniel's New Bethel Church $94,000 each for roof replacement. The historic Ames House on Maple Street, owned by Commonwealth Academy, also will receive a grant to replace the roof. 'This is one of the still-damaged historic homes on Maple Street from the 2011 tornado. We are recommending $155,000 … to rebuild the roof to the appearance it had prior to the tornado.' Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
East Grand Forks considers first increase in trash fees since 2015
Jun. 10—EAST GRAND FORKS — The East Grand Forks City Council on Tuesday considered the first increases to residential trash fees in more than a decade. The need to increase the fees is quite pressing, East Grand Forks Public Works Director Jason Stordahl told the council during Tuesday's work session, as the city's refuse fund is nearing unsustainable low levels. "City Council has kept rates for services very low in the last few years," Stordahl said. "The reason that we're bringing this before you tonight is that our refuse enterprise (fund) balance is shrinking and we need to raise the rates." The last rate increase was in 2015. Since then, landfill fees have increased by 22% and fees for refuse and recycling have increased by 61%. Raising the rates would eventually close the gap between what the city is charged and what the city charges residents for trash collection. Currently, a 35-gallon container with recycling services costs a resident $13. The city is charged $15.45 for that from Countrywide Sanitation, the company with which the city contracts for residential curbside pickup. Per the contract City Council agreed to last year, that rate will increase to $16.07 on July 1 and 4% each year after. That $2.45 gap is covered from the reserve balance in the refuse enterprise fund. After doing this for a decade, the fund has been depleted. To bring the fees back up to what it actually costs to pick up trash, Public Works has proposed incremental increases to the rates over the next year. Under the proposed structure, a 35-gallon container with recycling services would increase to $16.33 in July, $19.67 in January 2026, and finally to $23 in July 2026. At that point, the fees would then be reviewed on an annual basis. "It's going to take a while (to build up reserves again)," Mayor Mark Olstad said. "That's something we have to be cognizant of, trying to make sure that by statutory reasons, we get that backup." Public Works also will be bringing forward a review of commercial rates in the near future. Unlike residential services, the city collects the trash from commercial buildings and doesn't contract that service out. Potentially having the city also go into residential collection is something to consider as a potential cost savings, City Council member Don Casmey said. Additionally, revamping how Greensite fees work is being discussed. Rather than having a separate, additional fee, it's being proposed that everyone is charged a fee. That would also mean that all residents could use the site instead of only those who pay a fee to use it. Often, access to the site is broken or troublesome with "never-ending" issues for Public Works and actually policing who is and is not using the site is difficult under the current system. In other news, the council: * Received updates about the Safe Streets for All Safety Action Plan. Public comment on a final draft of the plan will open June 16 and both the Grand Forks City Council and East Grand Forks City Council are proposing to have a joint meeting in July to provide comment as a group. * Discussed authorizing the creation of designs for the renovation of Fire Station No. 2. Located at 243 Fifth Ave. SE in the South Point area, the last renovations occurred to repair damage after the Flood of 1997, but it hasn't seen any other work since it was built in 1977. Structurally, the building is fine, but the mechanicals are reaching end of life and it has accessibility issues . Council President Brian Larson said staff should also look into material remediation to see if there's asbestos in the building. * Reviewed plans to drill soil borings near the Point Bridge in preparation for a rehabilitation project. An in-depth study of issues with settling and sliding has not been done in some time, City Engineer Steve Emery said, and doing these borings will allow the city to figure out the best way to eliminate the dip the road takes.
