Skip to main content

NCDOT Public Meeting on Winston-Salem Beltway


I attended Thursday's (8/14) NCDOT public meeting on the eastern section of the Winston- Salem Northern Beltway or officially the "Transportation Corridor Official Map Act and Design Public Hearing" and Pre-Hearing Open House. Both took place at the East Forsyth High School in Kernersville. They had large posters of the roadway design plans posted along the wall, blown up versions of those found at the project web site plus a couple additional handouts. I'll first describe the project according to the handouts, then the public comments NCDOT heard, and finally my comments on those comments. (I will bring the handout to next week's Raleigh meeting, whether it's an incentive to attend, I guess we'll see).

The Beltway meeting handout described the basic portions of the project which are actually 2 TIP projects U-2579, the Eastern Section of the Northern Beltway, 12.4 miles from just east of US 52 (the US 52 interchange is actually part of the western section project) to Business 40/US 421/NC 150 and project U-2579A the Eastern Section Extension which goes for 4.4 miles from Business 40 to US 311, for a total of 16.8 miles. The eastern section will have a standard roadway of 3 lanes each direction with additional auxiliary lanes where necessary and a 46-foot median, while the extension will be 2 lanes each way with additional lanes where needed and a 70-foot median. The combined projects will have 9 interchanges; NC 66, NC 8, Baux Mountain Road, US 311, US 158, Business 40, Kernersville Road, I-40 and with US 311 North. The project will also rebuild US 311 between the Ridgewood Road and Union Cross Road interchanges. The cost of the Eastern section currently is $445.2 million including right-of-way (ROW) costs, while the extension will cost $249.5 million.

Since this roadway has been in the planning stages for nearly 50 years, much of the expense will be for buying and condemning properties along the highway corridor, houses and businesses that were not there when the idea was first proposed. The Eastern Section currently will require 452 residential relocations along with 18 businesses, a church, and a farm, total cost $154.1 million. The 4.4 mile Eastern Extension needs to take down 242 houses and 13 businesses, costing $60 million or almost 1/3 of the entire project budget. ROW acquisition, and from testimony at the meeting, structure demolition, has already begun this year for the section between Business 40 and US 158. Construction is to start in 2013. ROW for the next section from US 158 to US 311 is to start next year, with construction to start in 2015. ROW for the Eastern Extension from Business 40 to I-40 is to start in 2010 with construction to start also in 2015. ROW acquisition for the remainder of the extension is to start in 2012 with construction to start after 2015. All other sections of the Beltway are currently unfunded for both ROW and construction.

The public comments, not surprisingly focused on ROW issues. Unlike past hearings I've been to though where people were asking NCDOT not to take there homes, only a couple people did here, in this case most comments where from residents of several subdivisions where most of the houses are to be taken down (50 of 75 in one, 23 of 25 in another) asking that NCDOT consider buying everyone out. They knew that the values of their remaining properties would be going down and that the highway would destroy the value of living there. Other comments, which don't surprise me, see below, had to do with the lack of communication and/or accuracy on behalf of NCDOT. One man complained his subdivision was planned in 2001, completed in 2004, but didn't exist according to the NCDOT's maps. A woman complained that NCDOT suddenly came in and demolished the house across the street from them without notifying her or her neighbors, causing potential risks for the children playing in the area. Another person had insisted on noise walls for his neighborhood, these walls were shown in the plans in the record-of-decision (ROD) but not on the maps for the meeting, thus he questioned the sincerity of NCDOT officials. The NCDOT spokesman finally admitted that some of the information from the maps may be out of date or in error.
Of the 20 or so speakers only the final few (who didn't sign up to speak) actually made statements opposing the Beltway. One said that since the area where the highway was to go was now built up, industrial properties that might be built near other beltways to increase the tax base would not happen in Winston-Salem. He asked the roadway be moved farther out from the city. Another asked that they join him in hiring a lawyer to fight the highway's construction. Most people had left though by the time of his tirade. No one spoke out for using the Beltway money for other transportations purposes, but a couple teachers thought the money would be better spent on education.

COMMENTARY: This meeting was different from other public meetings I have attended. At the other sessions the location of the meeting was clearly signed a good distance from the meeting site and there were often people in the parking lot telling you where the meeting place was, this was certainly the case with a recent I-73 meeting I attended in Hamlet (where no one spoke out against the project). However, for this meeting everyone not familiar with the area trying to find the location was more or less left on their own. There was only one small arrow, hardly visible to anyone driving by the high school building, indicating where the NCDOT meeting was. I ended up moving my car because the notice said only it took place at the old gym so I parked next to a gym, only to find out it was the wrong one. I saw several cars circling the lot and then leaving. You can decide for yourself whether this meant NCDOT was trying to discourage turnout or thought only nearby people would attend.
NCDOT certainly does not inspire those people who do attend a meeting when they ask citizens affected by the project to review what they insist are accurate maps, only to be told later, and seemingly reluctantly, that there may be mistakes on them. And as seen before in construction problems, better communication would help ease some of NCDOT's problems, in this case citizen concerns. While no one should expect the project engineer to go house-to-house telling every resident that there property might be taken for a road project, it's certainly the duty of a public agency to have a clearly identified person who can answer questions and make sure everyone who could be affected be notified. The law may only require a posting in a local paper, but a stronger effort beyond what's required might help. Certainly people in a neighborhood have the right to know that large equipment is going to show up on their street and knock a building down.
Given the large number of properties needed to be taken by NCDOT and undoubtedly disputes arising about the correct values of these properties, I would not be surprised if the construction dates listed in the handout will be pushed back again. NCDOT is starting a project to revamp US 52 through downtown Winston-Salem this year. Who knows, but perhaps I-74 will end up routed along US 52 all the way to I-40 as originally envisioned.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Grand Loop Road of Yellowstone National Park

  Grand Loop Road is a 140 mile loop highway which traverses the interior of Yellowstone National Park.  Grand Loop Road connects all of the major attractions and geological features of Yellowstone National Park along with the entrance roads.  Grand Loop Road is a seasonal highway and despite some conjecture never has been part of the US Route System.   Part 1; the history of Grand Loop Road The majority of history pertaining to Grand Loop Road was taken from the below National Park Service article: Historic Roads - Yellowstone National Park (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov) Yellowstone was declared the first National Park of the United States on March 1st, 1872.  The first real highway to access Yellowstone National Park came in 1873 when a tolled facility was constructed from Bozeman, Montana via Yankee Jim Canyon to Mammoth Hot Springs.  Numerous attempts were made to fund construction of roadway infrastructure during the early years of Yellows...

The last 1956-63 era California Sign State Route Spade?

Along southbound California State Route 170 (the Hollywood Freeway Extension) approaching the Hollywood Freeway/Ventura Freeway interchange a white California State Route 134 Sign State Route Spade can be observed on guide sign.  These white spades were specifically used during the 1956-63 era and have become increasingly rare.  This blog is intended to serve as a brief history of the Sign State Route Spade.  We also ask you as the reader, is this last 1956-63 era Sign State Route Spade or do you know of others?  Part 1; the history of the California Sign State Route Spade Prior to the Sign State Route System, the US Route System and the Auto Trails were the only highways in California signed with reassurance markers.  The creation of the US Route System by the American Association of State Highway Officials during November 1926 brought a system of standardized reassurance shields to major highways in California.  Early efforts to create a Sign State Route ...

California State Route 70; the Feather River Highway

From 2017 through to early 2019 I drove the majority of the California State Route 70; the Feather River Highway from CA 89 southwest to CA 99. CA 70 is an approximately 178.5 mile state highway which starts at US 395 near the Nevada State Line and travels west through the Feather River Canyon to CA 99.  CA 70 is often referred to as the Feather River Highway" given it's close association with the river.  Historically CA 70 was previously signed as US 40A and CA 24.  The Legislative Routes prior to the 1964 California Highway Renumbering that made up the current route of CA 70 are as follows: -  Legislative Route Number 21 from US 395 westward to Oroville. -  LRN 87 from Oroville south to Marysville. -  LRN 232 from Marysville to the current junction with CA 99.  CA 70 was even dual signed with CA 99 into Sacramento on what was LRN 232 for a time. The change from US 40A/LRN 21/LRN 87/LRN 232 can be seen by comparing the 1963 State Highway Ma...