Skip to main content

NC House halts work on I-73/74 Welcome Centers in Randolph County

This past Wednesday, the NC House unanimously approved a bill that halts construction of two highway welcome centers in Randolph County along Interstate 73/74. Construction can only proceed after officials from the Department of Commerce and the DOT consult with the legislature.

The bill also requires both agencies to get a legislative committee's approval before building any future welcome centers.

The I-73/74 rest area's were originally slated to be 'visitor centers'. Visitor centers are operated by local counties promoting their own region. However, over time the visitor centers were promoted to Welcome Centers which are staffed and paid for by the state. Both welcome centers would cost the state $180,000 each to operate.

It appears that miscommunication between the NCDOT and the Department of Commerce led to the rest stops becoming full blown welcome centers. The DOT claims that Commerce insisted on the two rest areas becoming Welcome Centers. The Commerce Department says that they wish they were informed of the intention to make the rest areas visitor centers. The Commerce Department believes that all centers on highways should be welcome centers so that a consistency of services and message be shown throughout the state.

Story:
Welcome centers construction frozen

See Also:
I-73/74 Welcome Centers nixed


Commentary:
And that's why the legislature stepped in. If the Commerce Department wants all "highway visitor centers" to be upgraded to a Welcome Center, the state would have to increase spending to operate the facilities. It was suggested in a transportation forum, that the original intention to build the rest areas as visitor centers was the right approach. And I agree, Randolph and neighboring counties can easily pool resources to operate and maintain the visitor center and hire a staff or support local volunteers interested in promoting their community.

Allowing the two rest areas to be "visitor centers", does accomplish a constant message of promoting North Carolina. The only difference is that is has a more local approach and staffed by individuals that are proud to promote their home. And it also stays out of the state budget.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Porter-Parsonsfield Covered Bridge - Maine

  Spanning over the Ossipee River on the border between Porter in Oxford County, Maine and Parsonsfield in York County, Maine is the 152 foot long Porter-Parsonsfield Covered Bridge. The Porter-Parsonsfield Bridge is built in a Paddleford truss design, which is commonly found among covered bridges in the New England states. The covered bridge is the third bridge located at this site, with the first two bridges built in 1800 and 1808. However, there seems to be some dispute for when the covered bridge was built. There is a plaque on the bridge that states that the bridge may have been built in 1876, but in my research, I have found that this bridge may have been built in 1859 instead. That may check out since a number of covered bridges in northern New England were built or replaced around 1859 after a really icy winter. The year that the Porter-Parsonsfield Covered Bridge was built was not the only controversy surrounding its construction. There was a dispute over building and maintain

Route 75 Tunnel - Ironton, Ohio

In the Ohio River community of Ironton, Ohio, there is a former road tunnel that has a haunted legend to it. This tunnel was formerly numbered OH 75 (hence the name Route 75 Tunnel), which was renumbered as OH 93 due to I-75 being built in the state. Built in 1866, it is 165 feet long and once served as the northern entrance into Ironton, originally for horses and buggies and later for cars. As the tunnel predated the motor vehicle era, it was too narrow for cars to be traveling in both directions. But once US 52 was built in the area, OH 93 was realigned to go around the tunnel instead of through the tunnel, so the tunnel was closed to traffic in 1960. The legend of the haunted tunnel states that since there were so many accidents that took place inside the tunnel's narrow walls, the tunnel was cursed. The haunted legend states that there was an accident between a tanker truck and a school bus coming home after a high school football game on a cold, foggy Halloween night in 1

US Route 299 and modern California State Route 299

US Route 299 connected US Route 101 near Arcata of Humboldt County east across the northern mountain ranges of California to US Route 395 in Alturas of Modoc County.  US Route 299 was the longest child route of US Route 99 and is the only major east/west highway across the northern counties of California.  US Route 299 was conceptualized as the earliest iteration of what is known as the Winnemucca-to-the-Sea Highway.  The legacy of US Route 299 lives on today in the form of the 307 mile long California State Route 299.   Featured as the cover of this blog is the interchange of US Route 101 and US Route 299 north of Arcata which was completed as a segment of the Burns Freeway during 1956.   Part 1; the history of US Route 299 and California State Route 299 The development of the State Highways which comprised US Route 299 ("US 299") and later California State Route 299 ("CA 299") began with 1903 Legislative Chapter 366 which defined the general corridor of the Trinit