Press Releases and Newsletters
Thousands Seek Aid from DOT’s 2010 Grant Pool (Journal of Commerce)
Thousands Seek Aid from DOT’s 2010 Grant Pool (Journal of Commerce)
Initial requests for piece of $600 million fund top $20 billion
A Department of Transportation discretionary grant pool for 2010 awards drew thousands of pre-applications seeking tens of billions of dollars to aid infrastructure projects, from a “TIGER II” fund that has $600 million to spend.
DOT officials told The Journal of Commerce that more than 2,300 pre-apps came in by the July 16 deadline, seeking about $26 billion in federal money.
That list could be whittled down before the final application deadline on Aug. 23, but it shows how many projects around the nation are competing for federal dollars to shore up ailing infrastructure or to make upgrades.
The grant pool was approved for the DOT by Congress as a follow-up to the popular $1.5 billion in discretionary grants the department is distributing from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. That fund drew 1,400 applications totaling $57 billion in aid requests, but the DOT is spreading it among 51 construction projects. Those grants are going to a wide array of multi-modal freight rail, waterway, port and highway infrastructure projects, and some that target commuter travel.
While most of the ARRA’s $48 billion in total economic stimulus funds for the DOT are being parceled out under longstanding state allocation formulas for federal highway and transit funding, the measure also handed out $8 billion for the DOT to spend on intercity passenger rail development.
And it set aside the $1.5 billion for grants that DOT policymakers could spend on projects they deem especially important on a regional or national basis, not limited to traditional allocation formulas or transportation modes. The DOT labeled that fund as its Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery grant program, or TIGER. So when Congress gave it another $600 million to spend this year it called them TIGER II.
For the longer term, President Obama has asked Congress to create a $4 billion a year infrastructure fund that the DOT would also administer at its discretion, outside the normal spending formulas, but Congress has yet to approve that fund for the budget year that begins Oct. 1.
— Contact John D. Boyd at [email protected].
John D. Boyd | Aug 3, 2010 4:40PM GMT
Road funding emerges as campaign issue in Idaho governor’s race (Times News)
Road funding emerges as campaign issue in Idaho governor’s race (Times News)
In 2009, Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter’s quest for roads funding led to near-gridlock in the Legislature.
One year later, it’s emerged as a key issue debated by both Otter and his Democratic challenger in the November election, Keith Allred. As campaign season hits its stride, a gubernatorial task force is working to modernize transportation funding, with a report that is due by December — after the election.
Allred on Monday unrolled a proposal that calls for cutting the gas tax for motorists, with heavy trucks paying a larger share. Allred’s proposal came in response to a study that emerged last week from consultants for the task force, which concludes that passenger-car drivers pay a disproportionate share of highway maintenance costs compared to heavy trucks.
Otter, for his part, isn’t proposing anything yet.
“I can understand wanting to have the perfect solution in a campaign cycle, but the bottom line is the task force has not completed its work. We need to respect its bipartisan process,” Otter said in a statement Tuesday. “Leadership requires we deal with reality rather than theory. There are many factors to consider, but once again my Democrat opponent chooses to posture and ignore reality — his plan simply shows a lack of leadership and credibility.”
Allred’s proposal would reduce the gas tax from 25 cents per gallon to 22 cents per gallon for motorists, saving them an estimated $19.2 million yearly. That amount would then be shifted onto drivers of heavy trucks weighing more than 60,000 pounds, a move that Allred contends would be more fair.
“We’ve had four studies, and we’ve been deliberating on this issue for three years,” Allred stated in a response to Otter later Tuesday. “Each one of those studies concludes that I’m right on this issue. It’s not about campaign rhetoric. It’s about taking appropriate action.”
The campaign aside, the study, completed by Richland, Wash.-based consulting group Battelle, is drawing criticism from the trucking industry.
In different analyses, the study says that passenger cars are paying more than their share by 8 percent to 26 percent, with heavy trucks that cause more wear and tear on roads underpaying by 14 percent to 27 percent.
The Idaho Trucking Association disagrees with statements in the study, which suggests solutions like increasing the 25-cent diesel tax to $1.30 a gallon.
Kathy Fowers, president of the association, said that an increase of that magnitude wouldn’t be fair. She noted that cars get better gas mileage now than in the past, while trucks have worse mileage because of emissions standards.
Fowers said the association is willing to reach a compromise and deal with a slight increase, but not the $1.30-per-gallon that the study recommends. Any increase, she said, ultimately is passed on to others.
“It’s going to come back to the consumer,” she said. “The consumer is going to pay in the end.”
Rep. Leon Smith, R-Twin Falls and a task force member, said he finds the study a “pretty thorough document.”
“I think it’s pretty credible,” he said.
Highway maintenance of Idaho’s roads is crucial, Smith said, because the alternative is astronomical reconstruction costs.
He doesn’t expect the study to be changed.
“They’re not going to amend it to make the trucking industry feel better,” Smith said.
Ben Botkin may be reached at [email protected] or 735-3238.
Story Discussion By Ben Botkin – Times-News writer | Posted: Wednesday, August 4, 2010 9:45 am | (0) Comments
Some state road projects lose out under new funding formula (WRAL.com)
Some state road projects lose out under new funding formula (WRAL.com)
Raleigh, N.C. — Removing politics from state road projects means that some projects have been dropped from North Carolina’s priority list under a new funding formula.
The state Department of Transportation has identified the need for 1,100 road and bridge projects over the next decade. The projects cost an estimated $45 billion combined, but the DOT expects to have only $9 billion during that period.
So, officials have created a formula that scores each project based on factors like traffic congestion and the condition of the roadway to prioritize them. Traditionally, political influence played a role in what road projects were completed in different parts of the state.
“We have the statewide tier, which is interstates. We also a regional tier, which is typically North Carolina and U.S. routes, and the sub-regional, which is secondary roads,” said Wally Bowman, division engineer for the DOT. “As you work your way down through those tiers, I think you’ll see higher priority by us on some of the higher-level tiers, and you’ll see a higher priority by some of the local folks on some of the lower-level tiers.”
In the Triangle, some of the higher-ranked projects include work on Interstate 40 between the Interstate 440 Beltline and Johnston County, widening the Beltline from Wade Avenue to Walnut Street and building the so-called East End Connector in Durham.
Interstates 40, 85 and 95 also will get more money for maintenance, Bowman said, adding that local municipalities might have to pick up more of the cost for secondary roads.
“That doesn’t mean we didn’t rank some of the lower ones. We actually have Hillsborough Street at the Blue Ridge Road intersection – that needs to be an interchange with bridges going over – on our list, and it’s funded in the current (priority list),” he said.
The DOT plans to spend a majority of its limited funding on existing roads rather than investing in new ones, Bowman said.
Reporter: Bruce Mildwurf
Photographer: Geof Levine
Web Editor: Matthew Burns
Change in ARC funding formula bodes well for WNC (Asheville Citizen Times)
Change in ARC funding formula bodes well for WNC (Asheville Citizen Times)
For too much of our history, Western North Carolina and the rest of the Appalachian region has been the lost land where you couldn’t get there from here.
Now thanks to long overdue action by our General Assembly, WNC may at long last receive all the federal money annually earmarked to build and improve highways across our mountains.
The mission of the Appalachian Regional Commission has been to build highways across the mountains that had been bypassed by the nation’s interstate highway system and the growing economy of the 20th century. Congress created the commission in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty, making good on President John F. Kennedy’s promise to help the mountain people who had historically lagged the rest of the nation.
The agency started funneling money toward the 13 states that have Appalachian counties, hoping to end the region’s relative isolation by developing the Appalachian Development Highway System. Over the years, that money has gone to build and improve thoroughfares such as U.S. 19-23 through Asheville, which later grew into Interstate 26 through Madison County.
But unfortunately, North Carolina had a long-standing formula that mixed ARC money slated for the western 29 counties with the N.C. Department of Transportation’s general budget. Money meant for mountain roads was going to pave Piedmont and Coastal projects as well.
Sen. Martin Nesbitt, D-Buncombe and the Senate’s majority leader said it was one of the legislature’s chief accomplishments during the short session in a year marked with budget shortfalls and hard decisions to change that formula. “This is huge for our region,” Nesbitt told the AC-T editorial board this week.
That should mean $30 million annually focused specifically on highway needs in the mountains, in addition to the state highway funds allotted for the western counties.
Nesbitt said the funding could be used to improve the Corridor K series of highways — U.S. 64 and U.S. 74 — from Sylva to Bryson City, Andrews and Murphy over into Chattanooga, Tenn. Some portions of that road remain controversial in Graham County, where environmentalists worry about destruction of natural habitat while business leaders welcome potential economic benefits.
Along with meeting road needs in the region, the ARC has helped finance economic development projects in the Appalachians, originally serving 360 counties in 11 states.
Nesbitt and Sen. John D. Snow, D-Murphy, who helped change the highway funding allocation, hope to get the region more economic development money as well from the ARC for the region.
North Carolina, although it has the highest mountains east of the Rockies, has lagged behind other Appalachian areas in receiving the federal money from ARC. Since 2005, North Carolina with its 29 western counties has received $17 million compared to $33 million that’s gone to Mississippi, a state added to the compact along with New York through laws pushed through Congress.
Mississippi wouldn’t seem to have much in the way of mountains, but that state gets more ARC funding since it has more economically distressed counties compared to North Carolina, which has none under ARC formulas.
Money for worthy projects may have gone elsewhere since Nesbitt said local officials have not always bothered to apply for ARC grants. “I always made the argument that was because we were used to being told no.”
But ARC funding has been critical to completing many area projects. Southwestern Community College, for example, used a $300,000 grant for a study of local telecommunications needs, which led to the private and public investment in the BalsamWest fiber optic network that brings super-fast Internet access to the westernmost counties of the state.
Each year, ARC funding supports staffers at the Land-of-Sky Regional Council and other councils of government, who help local municipalities with a variety of projects. Last year, North Carolina received $4.3 million in ARC grants, which went to 16 projects including sewer infrastructure in Cherokee County to an industrial park in Wilkes County.
Western North Carolina has benefited greatly with improved roads and infrastructure over the years, thanks to the Appalachian Regional Commission. It’s in America’s best interests if all of Appalachia succeeds. We can’t afford as a nation to write off whole counties or regions as forever poor with no road to a better future.
August 5, 2010
Urban loops (Jim Trogdon Ltr to Editor) (Winston Salem Journal)
Urban loops (Jim Trogdon Ltr to Editor) (Winston Salem Journal)
I’m writing to clarify information regarding NCDOT’s ranking of urban loops (“Beltway betrayal,” Aug. 1).
There are 25 urban loop projects in North Carolina that are candidates for funding from the state. The total cost of all those projects is $8 billion, but the state has only $150 million a year in tax revenues to fund them.
To choose projects for funding, we developed a system for ranking loop projects based on criteria related to needs, benefits and costs. All the loop areas, including Winston-Salem, had input into that process.
It has been suggested that Winston-Salem was treated differently because in other areas we evaluated only segments of a loop, instead of the entire project, lowering the cost factor. That is not the case. The two loop projects in Winston-Salem were evaluated and ranked independently against all 23 other projects. Individual segments of loop projects could not be evaluated separately because the result could have been segments that didn’t connect at either end.
I understand the concern of Forsyth County residents, especially right-of-way property owners. We will work with the community to address those concerns and to identify funding solutions for the area’s transportation needs.
Finally, I’d like to emphasize that this loop-prioritization ranking is a draft document, which will be put out for review by local communities over the coming months before final adoption by the Board of Transportation in mid-2011. We welcome and encourage the public’s input to help us arrive at a final plan.
JIM TROGDON
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Raleigh
Published: August 5, 2010
Sell — Then Make a Political Sale (Video Poker and ABC Privitization) (Carolina Journal)
Sell — Then Make a Political Sale (Video Poker and ABC Privitization) (Carolina Journal)
RALEIGH – Gov. Beverly Perdue remains one of the most unpopular governors in recent North Carolina history. But lately she’s been toying publicly with some ideas that could help boost her political bottom line a bit – while also boosting the state’s fiscal position.
As the Associated Press reported over the weekend, Perdue made two interesting statements while signing some 2010 legislation into law. After affixing her signature to the General Assembly’s latest, ill-advised attempt to prohibit video gambling, the governor indicated that she might be willing to rethink the idea of legalizing it during a future legislative session.
And after signing a bill promising to clean up corruption around North Carolina’s system of government-owned liquor stores, Perdue said that she was willing to consider the next step: privatizing all or part of the ABC system.
I’m not crazy about most proposals for legalizing video gambling, since they assume that the state would impose heavy taxes and intrusive regulations on private casinos – and perhaps even that the state lottery commission would run them. Yikes!
But I do think that a reasonable argument in favor of legalization is that some counties and municipalities would welcome viable, taxpaying businesses on real estate that would otherwise stay vacant, run-down, and a net cost to the jurisdiction. Video-gambling enterprises ought to pay the same state and local taxes as other businesses do, which may itself help some wobbly governments get through another recessionary year.
Far more interesting, from a fiscal-policy standpoint, would be the prospect of privatizing North Carolina’s liquor stores. Based on the experience of other states, it is likely that proceeds from a sale would be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. It is possible that the inventory, stores, and real estate could be worth even more. We’ll never know unless we take bids in the marketplace.
These asset-sale proceeds could be shared among the state and local governments, giving them one-time revenue to use to offset one-time expenditures, pay down debt, or complete capital projects without drawing on general taxes. Furthermore, converting government-owned property into viable, taxpaying businesses has long-term revenue implications – at least partially and probably fully offsetting the lost of annual revenues that localities have lobbied so furiously for so long to prevent.
As is now widely recognized, North Carolina state and local governments have a large structural deficit. Our politicians have promised much more in government spending for health care, education, transportation, and other services than can be financed at currently scheduled tax rates. At the state level, the gap is in the billions of dollars. Add in the local level and the number swells by several hundred million dollars, at least.
The current leaders of the North Carolina legislature, state government, and many localities plan to address the structural deficit in 2011 with another round of costly tax increases. The retail sales tax is their favorite one to raise, though the plan may encompass other state and local levies, as well.
Does Gov. Perdue agree with this plan? Perhaps ideologically. But surely she has sense enough to know that any governor signing a multi-billion-dollar tax increase months before beginning her reelection campaign is a governor unlikely to succeed in her reelection campaign.
Any organization facing the kind of chronic deficits North Carolina state government faces should be searching its balance sheet for low-performing assets to sell off. Households do it all the time. So do businesses and nonprofits.
In the case of our state government, obvious candidates for asset sales would include land, office space, and state-owned enterprises such as liquor stores. Yes, some voters might be queasy about North Carolina opening up the liquor business to private vendors. But these voters are unlikely to support Perdue for reelection in any event.
On the other hand, swing voters who focus mostly on economic issues might well reward a governor who finds an innovative way to balance government budgets without raising taxes. Perdue ought to consider taking that job.
——————
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation and publisher of CarolinaJournal.com.
By John Hood
July 30, 2010
NC angles for bigger slice of ARC money (Asheville Citizen Times)
NC angles for bigger slice of ARC money (Asheville Citizen Times)
The year after federal lawmakers added two counties in Congressman Lincoln Davis’ sweeping mid-Tennessee district to the Appalachian region, the government spent more than a quarter-million dollars there for a new water tank.
Lawrence County, where Davis and local leaders broke ground in April on the 700,000 tank, and its neighbor, Lewis County, to the north, form an island on the government’s map of Appalachia. They don’t touch any other Appalachian county in Tennessee, but Lawrence does connect to an Appalachian county across the state line in Alabama.
Congress added the Tennessee counties to the decades-old Appalachian Regional Commission in 2008, along with eight other counties in three states. It was the biggest increase to the region’s 13-state service area since just after its creation.
Lawrence County Executive Paul Rosson makes no bones about getting a spot inside the ARC. His county needs the help, he said, though most people there identify with Middle Tennessee instead of the Smokies to the east or even the Alabama foothills to the south.
“We have lobbied 30 years for inclusion because it’s extra funding for capital improvements,” he said.
The commission was created to pull mountain people out of poverty, but it spends millions of dollars each year on parts of the South not commonly considered Appalachia, according to an analysis by the Citizen-Times.
North Carolina, with the highest mountains east of the Rockies, was near the bottom of the list of spending this year. The state received $3.4 million, compared with $5.9 million spent in Mississippi, which has more counties in the region and is
poorer.
State lawmakers, fresh off a successful push to get more ARC money for highway construction in the Western North Carolina mountains, say they will try to change that. The state has received funding for every project on its list during the last five years — a trend one powerful senator says points to more opportunity.
“Any time you get everything you ask for in this business, you didn’t ask for enough,” said Senate Majority Leader Martin Nesbitt, D-Asheville.
Critics said the commission’s expansion shows it hasn’t helped fight poverty.
“The question is, do these kinds of programs work?” said Roy Cordato, vice president of research for the conservative John Locke Foundation in Raleigh. “At best what they can do is transfer economic development to some place from some other place without net expansion of the economy.”
Commission spokesman Louis Segesvary disagrees. He said the agency focuses on development of local assets, like Asheville’s handicraft industry, instead of transferring economic development.
“This strategy means that businesses and the jobs that go with them stay in the locality instead of leaving it,” he said.
The commission meets in Waynesville this week.
Political animal
Nesbitt and others representing WNC this year convinced the General Assembly to change a longstanding state funding formula that mixed ARC highway money with the N.C. Department of Transportation’s general budget.
The old formula meant the $30 million in extra money the state was supposed to be getting for road construction in its 29 Appalachian counties was being spent across North Carolina. Now, the federal money will be spent on top of the state highway money allocated in the mountains.
That could mean progress on roads such as Corridor K, which is slated to go from Asheville to Chattanooga, Tenn. It’s been under construction in some form since the 1960s partly because the state couldn’t afford to finish the most expensive part
through Graham County.
The highway is controversial, with environmentalists opposing it and business leaders saying it will mean more economic opportunity.
One of the key issues the ARC was established to tackle was improving access to isolated communities through the Appalachian Development Highway System.
Highway money was a batch of ARC funding that state lawmakers had some control over because it went directly to the state.
State lawmakers don’t have direct control over ARC’s second focus: economic development. That duty lies with the governors of the 13 ARC states, which make up the full commission.
Nesbitt and Sen. John Snow, D-Murphy, who helped change the highway funding allocation, are exploring whether there’s a chance to get the region more economic development money.
“We found out years ago that we have a problem in our part of the state with people not applying for stuff,” Nesbitt said. “I always made the argument that was because we were used to being told no.”
Getting more of that money might be harder than battling for WNC’s fair share of road funds.
A slice of the pie
Each state is allocated a part of the commission’s economic development budget, which was $76 million this year.
The allocation to a state is made based on a formula that takes into account the amount of land a state has in the region, its population, poverty level and educational level. North Carolina’s slice in 2009 was $4.3 million, which went to 16 projects ranging from sewer infrastructure in Cherokee County to an industrial park in Wilkes County.
Mississippi gets more than North Carolina because it has 12 economically distressed counties. North Carolina has none.
ARC spokesman Louis Segesvary said about 30 percent of ARC’s funding is taken off the top for 82 distressed counties in eight states.
ARC funds are typically the smallest amount in any project. Local districts typically get large matching grants to leverage the government money.
“Without our seed and glue money many of these projects would never get off the ground, as it is what attracts and makes possible additional funding,” Segesvary said. “We are often the place of last resort for communities when they have no other
funding options left.”
He pointed to a grant to Southwestern Community College of $300,000 to undertake a study of local telecommunication needs, which resulted in the construction of a major broadband network serving the area.
“That represents funding, telecommunications development and jobs that remained right there in Appalachian North Carolina,” he said. “None of that was transferred out.”
Governors make project recommendations to the commission staff in Washington. ARC’s federal Co-Chairman Earl Gohl makes the final call on what gets funding.
The formula means more money for states like Kentucky and Alabama, which are poorer than North Carolina and have more counties in the ARC service area.
Olivia Collier, ARC program manager in North Carolina, said the agency looks at what’s best for the entire region in making funding decisions.
She said the only way for North Carolina to get more money would be for Congress to increase the agency’s entire budget.
“It’s very much a partnership,” she said. “It’s our job to come to work everyday and make sure we are working for the citizens of Appalachia.”
The agency since 2005 has spent $37.8 million on the administrative costs of the 73 local development districts in the region, according to the newspaper’s analysis. In North Carolina they are generally called “council of government” agencies, such as the Southwestern Commission.
The districts make sure ARC funds are used effectively, according to the agency, and work to identify local needs. The second highest single funded area was water systems. The money helps local districts with grant writing and project development, said Segesvary.
Congress has been tinkering with the funding formula and the size of the Appalachian region almost since ARC’s inception in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson’s war on poverty. The region in 1965 originally included 360 counties in 11 states. Two years later, the region had grown to nearly 400 counties and included additional states of Mississippi and New York
through laws passed in Congress.
And states have been able to add miles to the Appalachian Development Highway System.
Nesbitt said Alabama added miles in 2004, and he’s interested in adding miles in North Carolina.
“Anything that is granted by Congress is by its very nature a political thing,” he said. “Compromise is part of that process.”
U.S. Rep Heath Shuler, D-Waynesville, said through a spokeswoman that there is a finite amount of money in the ARC budget.
“Any expansion should be well thought-out and thoroughly considered,” he said. “North Carolina needs to continue to work closely with our partners at the ARC and promote worthy projects in the Appalachian region.”
Segesvary said the agency’s framework — with governors and a federal co-chairman running the commission — doesn’t provide an opportunity for Congress to steer spending, aside from occasional earmarks.
Cordato, the research vice president with John Locke Foundation, disagrees. He said there’s plenty of room for influence.
“The fact is this money is being distributed by politicians and you should expect that it be distributed based on politics,” he said.
The shape of the ARC’s service area seems to highlight that concern.
Where is Appalachia?
Macon County, Alabama, is far from any sizable mountain. The county seat of Tuskegee is 340 feet above sea level.
Its people are mostly African-American, compared to the mostly Scots-Irish people who settled the heart of the Appalachia.
But since 1998, Macon County has been part of the region. It came in with Public Law 105-178, along with its neighbor Hale County and two counties each in Georgia and Virginia, and one in Mississippi.
ARC spent $200,000 on dropout prevention there in 2009, where 30 percent of people live below the poverty level.
The boundaries of Appalachia are hard to nail down in any sense.
Scott Philyaw, director of the Mountain Heritage Center at Western Carolina University, said the geographic notion of Appalachia for most people means the mountains of the eastern U.S. and Canada but not urban centers such as Winston-Salem. Yet, many people from the mountains have migrated to these cities for employment.
The government considers Winston-Salem and the northern suburbs of Atlanta part of the Appalachian region.
Economically, Appalachia is noted for extraction industries like mining and timber that gave way to manufacturing.
Plantations and large-scale farming were relatively scarce in Appalachia, because the region didn’t have the vast amounts of flat, fertile land like the rest of the South. Slavery was also less common.
People have been moving in and out of the region since the early 18th century.
In the years before the American Revolution, Scots-Irish and German settlers followed the Great Wagon Road from Philadelphia, down the Shenandoah Valley, to Western North Carolina in search of available and affordable land.
The mountains were similar in some respects to their homelands.
The Civil War devastated the South but was especially hard on Appalachia, where the rough terrain and few roads pushed the region deeper into isolation through the Reconstruction era.
Many people left to find work after the war.
Large-scale timbering, for a time, took over in the Southern Appalachians.
That work gave way to manufacturing in some places, and when those jobs started disappearing after World War II, Appalachian residents again moved.Some left for the auto industry in Detroit and others for work in the growing Southern cities just outside the mountains, like Winston-Salem, Knoxville, Tenn., and Atlanta.
Philyaw said all of this movement in and out of the region makes it hard to pin down a precise boundary for Appalachia. He said that while the federal government’s map appears to be a political creation, it does include some areas relevant to the
migration of the Appalachian people.
“One way to look at it is to say that it is simply a state of mind,” he said.
Shuler, whose district includes the ARC service area, declined to specifically address whether he had concerns that the agency was spending more in Alabama and Mississippi than the mountains of Western North Carolina.
He said the agency was “an active and valuable partner in promoting economic prosperity to its service region.”
The differences in Macon County, Alabama, and Graham County, North Carolina, where unemployment has hovered around 20 percent, don’t bother Nesbitt.
He understands ARC’s mission was to fight poverty, though he’s interested in bringing more of the fight to his state.
“Poverty doesn’t stop at the county line, and it doesn’t stop at the foot of the mountain,” he said.
Database Editor Michael McGlone contributed to this article.
By Jon Ostendorff • August 1, 2010
2 sections of Greensboro loop tapped for completion (Greensboro News and Record)
2 sections of Greensboro loop tapped for completion (Greensboro News and Record)
GREENSBORO — The Greensboro Urban Loop ranks high in a new statewide review of such projects by the N.C. Department of Transportation, meaning two of its last three sections could be finished by mid-2020.
A new ranking of 21 unfinished sections of North Carolina’s planned urban loops rates the two unfinished Greensboro segments high — a 5-mile stretch of the western loop from Bryan Boulevard to Lawndale Drive, and a 5-mile part of the eastern loop between U.S. 70 north to U.S. 29.
A draft timetable calls for DOT to start buying the remaining land needed for Bryan-to-Battleground next year, with construction starting in 2014. It schedules final land-buying for the eastern-loop section in 2015, with construction from 2017 to 2020.
After their completion, one segment of the eastern loop would remain before the entire loop is complete; across Greensboro’s heavily populated northern tier between U.S. 29 and Lawndale.
The DOT screening process ranked loop projects from Wilmington to Raleigh, Charlotte and Asheville on such factors as their ability to reduce travel times, move freight and spur economic development.
Winston-Salem fared poorly in the rankings. Its proposed loop finished low and was not recommended for land-buying or construction during the next decade.
Contact Taft Wireback at 373-7100 or [email protected]
Thursday, July 29, 2010 (Updated Friday, July 30 – 9:19 am)
Good news, bad news for Brunswick leg of bypass (Wilmington Star News)
Good news, bad news for Brunswick leg of bypass (Wilmington Star News)
Road project scheduled for completion by 2020
The entire Brunswick leg of the U.S. 17 Wilmington Bypass should be ready to drive on by 2020, according to an urban loop funding schedule released by the N.C. Department of Transportation on Thursday.
The draft plan, which prioritized 21 unfinished sections of urban loops across the state, ranked the Wilmington bypass high on the list. As such, it is expected to get built during the next 10 years, while projects in other parts of the state must wait longer.
According to the draft schedule, which could change over the next year after a lengthy public comment period, the remaining part of the bypass would be constructed in three phases between 2013 and 2020.
Construction of the stretch from U.S. 74/76 east of Malmo in Brunswick County to Cedar Hill Road would begin in 2012 or 2013 and wrap up around 2016. The segment from Cedar Hill Road to U.S. 421 in New Hanover County, including a bridge over the Cape Fear River, would begin in 2015 or 2016 and be completed around 2019. Finally, the paving of both stretches would start in 2018 or 2019 and wrap up around 2020, according to the draft schedule.
Alpesh Patel, with the DOT strategic planning office, said the paving was put at the end as a way to make the available funding go farther.
“What you see now is the best way to stretch every dollar in the loop fund,” he said. “We can’t do too much in any one year.”
But depending on available dollars in coming years, it’s possible that the stretch from U.S. 74/76 to Cedar Hill Road could be paved and opened to traffic by 2017, rather than waiting several years until the final stretch is complete, Patel said.
The DOT’s latest road funding plan is good and bad for motorists in Southeastern North Carolina. It’s good because the DOT included the bypass as a priority for the next decade, while important urban loop projects in other parts of the state, such as Winston-Salem, will have to wait longer.
Other cities with projects on the 10-year schedule are Charlotte, Fayetteville, Durham, Greensboro and Greenville.
But it still will be another decade before the entire bypass is complete, while motorists have been clamoring for congestion relief on the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge and other roadways between New Hanover and Brunswick counties, especially at rush hour. The new schedule appears to push the final completion date back at least a couple of years compared to the DOT’s existing plan.
But DOT officials say the new schedule is more realistic from a funding standpoint, and that there’s a strong likelihood that the bypass will be ready for traffic by 2020.
Under the old DOT process, projects were completed on time and budget only about half of the time. But Greer Beaty, a DOT spokeswoman, said the department is now striving to complete 90 percent or more of its projects on time.
“We’re really committed to meeting these deadlines,” she said.
Many regions won’t be pleased with the new schedule, but Beaty said it’s the best the DOT could do with available money. To build all loop projects today would cost about $8 billion, while the state has just $150 million this year for that work, she said.
“Obviously, we can’t build them all at one time,” Beaty said. “We just don’t have enough money.”
Mike Kozlosky, executive director of the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization, a regional transportation planning agency, said the new schedule shows the DOT is committed to funding the Cape Fear’s top transportation priority.
“It’s going to help to alleviate congestion throughout the region,” he said. “I certainly believe that this is good news for the Wilmington region.”
Eventually, the bypass will stretch from U.S. 17 in northern New Hanover County to U.S. 17 in Brunswick County.
The stretch of the Brunswick leg of the bypass from U.S. 17 to U.S. 74/76 in Brunswick County is currently under design.
Jackson Provost, DOT division construction engineer, said Barnhill Contracting Co. has submitted initial roadway and drainage designs for the project. Grading work should begin this winter or early next spring, and that stretch is expected to be completed some time in 2013, Provost said.
Meanwhile, unless other funding is identified, the extension of Independence Boulevard from Randall Parkway to the Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway, another top priority of local transportation planners, will have to wait. The draft DOT schedule calls for right of way acquisition for that project to begin in 2020, with construction after that.
Patrick Gannon: (919) 836-0889
On Twitter.com: @StarNewsPat
By Patrick Gannon
[email protected]
Published: Thursday, July 29, 2010 at 3:13 p.m.
Fayetteville’s I-295 tops draft priority list for DOT (WRAL.com)
Fayetteville’s I-295 tops draft priority list for DOT (WRAL.com)
Raleigh, N.C. — The outer loop of Interstate 295 in Fayetteville ranked high on list of 21 major road projects the North Carolina Department of Transportation is considering.
A draft of a priority list made public Thursday put the project ahead of several others, including several extensions of N.C. Highway/Interstate 540 in Wake County.
The U.S. 501 Bypass and East End Connector in Durham, which would link the N.C. Highway 147, the Durham Freeway, with U.S. Highway 70, were also on the draft list.
The prioritization schedule reflects what the DOT can accomplish with the $150 million per year it receives for loop funding.
The official release of the list is planned for next week at a state Board of Transportation meeting.
Although the list is a draft and subject to change, Fayetteville Mayor Tony Chavonne said he was encouraged the I-295 project was high on the list.
“This positive development will help address a major transportation need for our civilian and military communities,” he said in a statement. “It is another sign of Fayetteville and Cumberland County moving forward in an important infrastructure area.”
The funding formula used to prioritize the projects is based on the needs and benefits of the 25 loop projects in North Carolina that need funding.
The DOT uses crash data and traffic congestion figures to calculate the roles the project would play in improving safety and mobility. It also examines factors, such as travel-time savings, economic development and future traffic levels.
Building every loop, the DOT estimates, would cost about $8 billion.
Web Editor: Kelly Gardner