HomeMy WebLinkAbout20120285_02_DEISGaston_Ch2_Alts_20101222
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS
2-1
CH. 2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE ALTERNATIVES SCREENING PROCESS
The development and evaluation of alternatives to determine the Detailed Study Alternatives
(DSA) included in this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) is documented in
detail in the Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report for the
Gaston East-West Connector (PBS&J, October 2008), incorporated by reference, and available on
the NCTA Web site (www.ncturnpike.org/projects/gaston).
The Alternatives Screening Process flow chart presented below shows the overall alternatives
evaluation process and the general timeframe for when the different screenings occurred.
In the First Screening – Project Concepts, six alternative concepts (listed in Section 2.2.1) were
evaluated in an iterative process to determine if they were reasonable and practicable, based
upon their ability to meet the project’s purpose and need, potential impacts, and their financial
feasibility. After the project became a candidate toll facility and 2030 traffic forecasts were
completed, applicable project concepts were reevaluated considering tolling options.
In the First Screening (Section 2.2), each alternative concept was developed to the point needed
to decide whether to retain or eliminate the alternative concept from detailed study. The
Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives and the New Location Alternatives scenarios were
developed in more detail than the other concepts. For these two concepts, traffic forecasts and
traffic operations analyses were prepared. Impacts to the human and natural environments also
were considered as part of the First Screening in the evaluation of the Improve Existing
Roadways Alternatives.
In the Second Screening – Project Corridors (Section 2.3), the alternative concept (the New
Location Alternative) that made it through the First Screening process was further refined and
evaluated to determine the specific DSAs. In the Second Screening, approximately 116 miles of
Preliminary Corridor Segments were developed for the New Location Alternatives. The
Preliminary Corridors were then evaluated and compared in order to narrow that group down to
the Functional Design Corridors. There were 90 endpoint-to-endpoint alternatives (from I-85 to
I-485) that were created from the Functional Design Corridors. Functional roadway designs were
prepared for this set of alternative corridor segments. Impacts to the human and natural
environments were estimated based upon the functional roadway designs. DSAs were identified
based upon design considerations, estimated impacts, and agency/public input.
Preliminary roadway designs were then prepared for the DSAs (Section 2.4). The preliminary
engineering designs include more detail than the functional roadway designs. The impacts
documented in this Draft EIS are based upon the preliminary engineering designs for the DSAs.
Chapter 2 explains how project alternatives were developed and evaluated to determine the Detailed Study
Alternatives. The preliminary engineering designs for the Detailed Study Alternatives are described in Section 2.4. The
Recommended Alternative is presented at the end of this chapter in Section 2.5.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-2
As shown in the flowchart, the DSAs were reevaluated in 2008 based on new information
provided by Duke Energy Corporation regarding operations at the Allen Steam Station
(Section 2.3.4.2). The preliminary engineering designs also were reevaluated to verify they
would provide adequate capacity for implementing the project as a toll facility (Section 2.4.4.2).
Section 2.5 documents the DSA currently recommended by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) and the North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA). This recommendation is a
preliminary step toward identification of a Preferred Alternative, and is subject to change based
on public and agency review of this Draft EIS and comments from the Public Hearing. The
Preferred Alternative will be identified in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final
EIS).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-3
2.1.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION RELATED TO THE
ALTERNATIVES SCREENING PROCESS
Public and agency coordination for the project is discussed in detail in Chapter 9. This section
briefly summarizes the coordination and public involvement activities relating to the
development and evaluation of the DSAs.
The first and second screenings of alternatives were originally discussed with the environmental
resource and regulatory agencies through the NEPA/404 Merger 01 Process under the
administration of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). A series of eight
meetings regarding project alternatives were held from February 2004 through September 2005,
resulting in concurrence on the DSAs on September 20, 2005 (Section 9.2.3.3). At that time,
three agencies (US Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA], US Fish and Wildlife Service
[USFWS], and NC Wildlife Resources Commission [NCWRC]) elected to abstain, rather than
expressing concurrence or non-concurrence in the DSAs.
After the initial concurrence was achieved on the DSAs in September 2005, the FHWA and
NCTA reevaluated the alternatives screening process in light of the project being determined a
candidate toll facility and the receipt of updated travel demand forecasts. The FHWA and NCTA
coordinated with the environmental resource and regulatory agencies on this reevaluation at
several Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAC) meetings held in January, June,
and September 2007, and February, July, September and October 2008 (Section 9.2.3.3). The
environmental resource and regulatory agencies confirmed concurrence on the DSAs at the
October 2008 TEAC meeting, and the concurrence form is included in Appendix A-1. The three
agencies that previously had abstained, the USEPA, USFWS and NCWRC, concurred at this
stage along with all the other cooperating and participating agencies.
Public comment regarding alternatives was solicited at all three Citizens Informational
Workshop series. Public comment on project concepts and preliminary alternatives was solicited
at the first series of Citizens Informational Workshops held in September and December, 2003
(Section 9.1.1.1). A majority of commenters supported a new location roadway. However, about
20 percent of the comments supported other types of alternatives, including improving I-85 and
US 29-74, and mass transit. Specific comments about locations and preferences regarding the
preliminary new location alignments provided at Citizens Informational Workshop Series #1 are
summarized in Section 9.1.1.1.
The Detailed Study Alternatives were presented for public comment and input at the second
series of Citizens Informational Workshops held in January and February 2006 (Section
9.1.1.2). None of the comments received resulted in the addition, elimination, or substantial
modification of the DSAs.
The third series of Citizens Informational Workshops, held in August 2008 (Section 9.1.1.3),
provided the public an opportunity to comment on the elimination of Corridor Segment K1D from
detailed study (due to interference with critical operations at Duke Energy Corporation’s Allen
Steam Station), presented the remaining DSAs, announced the availability of the Addendum to
the Final Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report for the Gaston East-West Connector
(PBS&J, October 2008) on the project web site, and showed the right-of-way limits for the
preliminary engineering designs within the DSA corridors. None of the comments received
resulted in the addition, elimination, or substantial modification of the DSAs.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-4
2.2 FIRST SCREENING - PROJECT CONCEPTS
2.2.1 FIRST SCREENING METHODOLOGY
The project concepts evaluated in the First Screening include:
• No-Build Alternative
• Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative
• Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Alternative
• Mass Transit Alternative and Multimodal Alternative
• Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives
• New Location Alternatives
The First Screening was iterative. Initially, the First Screening focused on the ability to meet
Purpose and Need. Several alternatives were eliminated largely or entirely based on their
inability to meet the Purpose and Need (TSM, TDM, Mass Transit, Multimodal). In response to
requests from environmental resource and regulatory agencies, more detailed information about
impacts and traffic forecasts was developed for the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives and
the New Location Alternatives. In some instances, financial feasibility also was addressed. This
iterative process resulted in some alternatives being developed to a higher level of detail than
others in order to determine whether they should be retained for the Second Screening or
eliminated.
Qualitative and quantitative performance measures were used in the First Screening to the level
of detail necessary to evaluate the ability of the various project concepts to meet the project’s
purpose, including the mobility and direct access components stated in Section 1.3. To meet the
purpose and need, an alternative must provide more than a minor improvement. An
improvement would be considered minor if it is localized, temporary, and/or largely unnoticeable
to the typical user of the transportation system. Alternatives that provide only a minor
improvement do not meet the purpose and need, and therefore are not reasonable alternatives.
To evaluate their ability to meet the purpose and need, alternative concepts were evaluated to
determine whether they would:
• Reduce travel distances and/or travel times between representative origin/destination
points within southern Gaston County and between southern Gaston County and
Mecklenburg County.
• Provide a transportation facility that would operate at acceptable levels of service
(generally Level of Service [LOS] D or better on the mainline) in the design year (2030)
for travel between Gaston County and Mecklenburg County.
• Reduce congested vehicle miles traveled and/or congested vehicle hours traveled in
Gaston County compared to the No-Build Alternative in 2030.
In the following sections, there is a description of each alternative concept followed by a
discussion of the estimated effects that concept would have on traffic volumes and operations on
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-5
existing roadways. This is followed by a listing of reasons why that particular alternative concept
was retained for the Second Screening or eliminated from further consideration. For the Improve
Existing Roadways Alternatives, potential impacts to the human and natural environment also
were evaluated and documented (Section 2.2.6.4).
Traffic forecasts and information for the year 2030 are included in this chapter for the No-Build
Alternative, Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives, and the New Location Alternatives
(Gaston East-West Connector (U-3321) Traffic Forecasts for Toll Alternatives,
Martin/Alexiou/Bryson, August 2008), incorporated by reference, and available on the NCTA Web
site (www.ncturnpike.org/projects/gaston). The traffic forecasts were developed using the 2030
Metrolina travel demand model (April 13, 2006 version). The Metrolina travel demand model is
the traffic forecasting model for the region developed and maintained by the Charlotte
Department of Transportation. The model has a horizon year of 2030, and it covers a thirteen-
county region that includes both Gaston County and Mecklenburg County.
When the analyses were initially conducted for the development of project alternative concepts,
the planning horizon year was 2025 and there were two travel demand models covering the
Project Study Area—one for the Gaston County area and another for the Mecklenburg County
area (Gaston County East-West Connector Study- Transportation Demand Modeling Technical
Memorandum, Martin/Alexiou/Bryson, February 2005), incorporated by reference. Traffic
information using the 2025 Gaston travel demand model is not included in this chapter, but is
provided in the Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report for the
Gaston East-West Connector (PBS&J, October 2008).
2.2.2 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE
Alternative Description. The No-Build Alternative is the baseline
alternative for the design year, which is 2030 for this project. In
general, the No-Build Alternative assumes that the transportation
systems for Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would
evolve as currently planned in the Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization (GUAMPO) 2030 Long Range Transportation
Plan (LRTP) and in the Mecklenburg-Union MPO (MUMPO) 2030
LRTP, but without the proposed project. In addition, as noted in Chapter 1 (Section 1.6.2.1),
the No-Build Alternative also does not assume completion of the US 321 Bypass; funding for that
project is too uncertain to assume that it will be completed by 2030.
Traffic operations analyses for the No-Build Alternative are summarized in Section 1.6.2 and
Figure 1-5. I-85 in the Project Study Area is projected to operate at LOS E and F in 2030.
US 29-74 is projected to operate at LOS F east of McAdenville. I-485 is projected to operate at
LOS E.
Decision to Retain as a Baseline for Comparison. The No-Build Alternative would not meet
the project’s purpose and need. It would not improve mobility, access, or connectivity in southern
Gaston County, nor between southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. Also, it
would not improve travel times within southern Gaston County nor between southern Gaston
County and western Mecklenburg County, nor would it provide a facility that operates at an
acceptable level of service in the design year (2030). For this reason, the No-Build Alternative
was eliminated from further consideration. However, in accordance with the National
The No‐Build Alternative
This alternative is retained
for detailed study to
provide a baseline for
comparison to the Detailed
Study Alternatives.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-6
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR 1502.14(d)) and FHWA guidance (Technical Advisory
T 6640.8A; p.16), the No-Build Alternative is given full consideration in this Draft EIS to provide
a baseline for comparison with the DSAs.
2.2.3 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE
Alternative Description. The TSM Alternative includes modest
physical and operational enhancements to improve performance,
safety, and management of traffic operations without major
construction. These improvements may include installing or
optimizing traffic signals, adding medians or turn lanes, ramp
metering, and other simple measures to improve traffic flow within the
Project Study Area. When used, these alternatives generally yield fewer impacts on the
environment, shorter implementation schedules for various components, and lower costs; but also
reduced benefits.
Fifty-eight intersection and ramp improvements at nineteen locations were included in the TSM
Alternative. The locations and improvements are listed in the Addendum to the Final
Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report for the Gaston East-West Connector (PBS&J,
October 2008). The nineteen locations include the ramps and/or ramp termini intersections at
eleven exits along I-85, six intersections along US 29-74, and two intersections along US 321.
The nineteen improvement locations are areas wherein potential deficiencies in intersection or
ramp operations became apparent when evaluating year 2025 traffic operations for the Improve
Existing Roadways Alternatives (Phase II Traffic Analysis Technical Memorandum – Gaston
County East-West Corridor Study, PBS&J, February 2004), incorporated by reference.
It was not necessary to reanalyze potential TSM Alternative improvement locations using traffic
volumes from the 2030 Metrolina travel demand model because, overall, traffic volumes were
higher in the 2030 model, and this would result in the same locations having congestion issues.
Decision to Eliminate from Further Study. TSM improvements alone would not meet the
purpose and need of the proposed project, as described below. Therefore, the TSM Alternative
was eliminated from further study. Key factors considered in reaching this decision included:
• TSM improvements on I-85 ramps and ramp termini, US 29-74, and US 321 would not
noticeably improve mobility, access, or connectivity within southern Gaston County, nor
between southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. Travel distances
would remain the same, and travel times would not be noticeably reduced.
• Although signal coordination and intersection improvements at I-85 ramp termini and
selected locations along US 29-74 and US 321 could provide minimal improvements to
traffic flow along US 29-74, US 321, and cross streets over I-85, the volumes of projected
traffic would cause congestion and poor levels of service (LOS E or F) on I-85, and
congestion would continue on US 29-74 and US 321. These minimal improvements would
not be expected to noticeably improve congested vehicle hours traveled or congested
vehicle miles traveled in Gaston County compared to the No-Build Alternative.
TSM Alternative
This alternative was
eliminated from
further study.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-7
2.2.4 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
ALTERNATIVE
Alternative Description. The TDM Alternative includes measures
and activities that change traveler behavior. Typically, TDM
improvements do not involve major capital improvements. The TDM
Alternative includes demand management strategies currently being
implemented in Gaston and/or Mecklenburg County—such as a freeway management system,
staggered work hours, and flex-time (employer-focused); and one additional measure not
currently being implemented, involving the conversion of existing lanes on I-85 to high-occupancy
vehicle (HOV) lanes or high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes. North Carolina legislation (NCGS 136-
89.187) prohibits “converting any segment of the non-tolled state highway system to a toll
facility,” so a TDM Alternative involving conversion of existing free lanes on I-85 to HOT lanes is
not possible without a change in state law.
The existing freeway management system in the Charlotte region is the Metrolina
Transportation Management Center, operated by the NCDOT. This system, which helps
optimize the efficiency of the region’s traffic operations, includes features such as video cameras
and other resources for incident management, dynamic message boards, and real time traveler
information (NCDOT Web site:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/Operations/dp_chief_eng/its/aboutITS/tmc.html).
Decision to Eliminate from Further Study. The TDM Alternative was eliminated from
further consideration because it would not meet the project’s purpose and need. TDM measures
would promote ride-sharing, dynamic message boards and other freeway management systems
could help optimize traffic operations, and a HOV or HOT lane would provide travel time savings
for users.
• TDM measures would not improve mobility, access, or connectivity within southern
Gaston County nor between southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County.
Travel distances would remain the same, and travel times would not be noticeably
reduced.
• Freeway management system measures such as dynamic message boards, ramp meters,
incident management systems, etc., would help optimize the efficiency of traffic flow on
existing I-85, but I-85 would remain congested due to the projected high volumes of
traffic. HOV or HOT lanes would improve traffic flow along existing I-85 for travelers
using those lanes, but general purpose lanes on I-85 would remain congested. The TDM
alternative also would not reduce congestion on US 29-74 and US 321.
• This minimal level of improvements would not be expected to noticeably improve
congested vehicle hours traveled or congested vehicle miles traveled in Gaston County
compared to the No-Build Alternative.
TDM Alternative
This alternative was
eliminated from
further study.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-8
2.2.5 MASS TRANSIT AND MULTIMODAL ALTERNATIVES
2.2.5.1 Mass Transit Alternative
Alternative Description. The Mass Transit would include bus or
rail passenger service. A major advantage of mass transit is it can
provide high-capacity, energy-efficient movement in densely
traveled corridors. It also serves high- and medium-density areas
by offering an option for automobile owners who do not wish to
drive, as well as service to those without access to an automobile.
For purposes of screening, this alternative is considered in two
ways: (1) a version that only includes improvements to existing facilities, and (2) a version that
includes construction of transit on dedicated new alignment. The version that only improves
existing facilities would include expansion of existing bus routes on existing roadways or
potential use of the existing rail corridor that generally parallels I-85 and is currently used for
freight traffic and Amtrak passenger rail service (Section 1.5.2.1). The version that includes
transit on new location would include a dedicated new alignment for light rail or bus rapid
transit connecting southern Gaston County to west Mecklenburg County. This new-location
transit facility would generally follow the corridors of the proposed new location roadway
alternatives. Ideally, this transit service would connect to the planned transit service in the
Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) West Corridor, described below.
Existing transit services in the City of Gastonia and Mecklenburg County are described in
Section 1.5.2.3. Rail operations (passenger and freight rail) are described in Section 1.5.2.1.
Separate studies of mass transit are being undertaken in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties.
The status of these transit studies are described herein.
CATS is planning and implementing a major expansion of its mass transit service throughout
Mecklenburg County. One of the five major corridors under study is the West Corridor, which
extends from uptown Charlotte to Charlotte-Douglas International Airport along the US 29-74
corridor (2030 Transit Corridor System Plan, Metropolitan Transit Commission, November 2006).
CATS plans to implement enhanced bus service to Charlotte-Douglas International Airport. A
streetcar system is planned from uptown Charlotte to the airport beginning in 2024 (Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Web site:
www.charmeck.org/Departments/CATS/Rapid+Transit+Planning/West+Corridor/).
The City of Gastonia and the GUAMPO studied improving transit in the Gastonia-Charlotte
corridor (Gastonia Rapid Transit Alternatives Study: Corridor and Modal Options, December
2005). Relevant recommendations from the report included increasing service for Route 85X, the
express route from Gastonia to uptown Charlotte, and coordinating with CATS regarding the
West Corridor and any improvements into Gaston County.
Decision to Eliminate from Further Study. The Mass Transit Alternative, using expanded
bus service on existing roadways or expanded rail service on the existing rail line near I-85, was
eliminated from further study because it would not meet the project’s purpose and need. The
Mass Transit Alternative including bus rapid transit or light rail on new alignment also was
eliminated from further study because, although it could provide increased connectivity and
mobility, it would not meet the project’s purpose and need and would not be financially feasible.
Mass Transit and
Multimodal Alternatives
These alternatives were
eliminated from further
study.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-9
• Mass Transit Improvements on Existing Locations. Expanded bus service that uses
existing roadways or rail service that uses the existing rail line near I-85 would not
establish direct connectivity within southern Gaston County or between southern Gaston
County and west Mecklenburg County. The bus service would continue to use existing
roadways projected to operate at poor levels of service (LOS E or F). Neither the bus
service nor rail service and would attract enough trips to noticeably reduce vehicle miles
traveled and/or congested vehicle miles traveled in Gaston County compared to the No-
Build Alternative, nor would travel times or distances noticeably improve. Therefore,
this version of the Mass Transit Alternative would not meet the Purpose and Need, and is
not a reasonable alternative.
• Mass Transit on New Location. Rapid transit service (bus or light rail) on dedicated new
alignment would provide increased mobility between Gaston County and Mecklenburg
County by providing an alternative travel mode choice. It could also provide connectivity
within southern Gaston County and between southern Gaston County and west
Mecklenburg County and provide shorter travel times or distances for the transit users.
However, the Mass Transit Alternative on new alignment would carry a much lower
volume of trips than a new highway facility and would be ill-suited to the dispersed low-
density land uses in southern Gaston County (resulting in even less trips). The resulting
lower volume of trips accommodated would not noticeably reduce vehicle miles traveled
and/or congested vehicle hours traveled in Gaston County compared to the No-Build
Alternative. Therefore, this version of the Mass Transit Alternative would not meet the
Purpose and Need, and is not a reasonable alternative.
• Cost Considerations for New Location Mass Transit. Construction costs for a Mass
Transit Alternative that is on dedicated new alignment through southern Gaston County
and connecting across the Catawba River to Mecklenburg County and CATS’ West
Corridor would be extensive. For example, the CATS South Corridor Light Rail Project,
opened for service in November 2007, had a cost of $462.7 million for the 9.6-mile long
project along an existing rail corridor (personal communication, CATS Assistant Project
Manager, April 17, 2009). Mass transit on new alignment through the Gaston East-West
Connector project study area would be at least 22 miles long (likely longer to connect to
the West Corridor). If a 22-mile-long Gaston Mass Transit Alternative light-rail project
could be built for the same per-mile cost as the South Corridor project, it would have a
cost of at least $1.06 billion In fact, the per-mile cost of a Gaston East-West Connector
new location light-rail facility would likely be substantially higher than the South
Corridor project, due to inflation, the need to purchase right of way (very little new right
of way was required for the South Corridor Light Rail Project since it utilized an existing
rail corridor), and the major structures (bridges) that would need to be constructed over
the South Fork Catawba River and the Catawba River. Therefore, a 22-mile Gaston
East-West Connector new location light rail facility would likely cost much more than the
South Corridor light rail project, while serving lower volumes of travelers due to the low-
density land uses in the Gaston project area. In addition, there is no program currently
in place within North Carolina or in Gaston County to fund such improvements. For all
of these reasons, at this time the Mass Transit Alternative would not be financially
feasible. The lack of financial feasibility is an additional reason for finding that this
alternative is not a reasonable alternative.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-10
2.2.5.2 Multimodal Alternative
Alternative Description. The Multimodal Alternatives would include the Mass Transit
Alternative as described above, together with improvements to existing roadways. The roadway
improvements could include those described for the TSM Alternative (Section 2.2.3) or those
described for the Improve Existing Roadway Alternatives (Section 2.2.6.1). Thus, the
Multimodal Alternative is essentially a combination of the TSM Alternative and the Mass
Transit Alternative, or a combination of the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives and the
Mass Transit Alternative. For purposes of screening, this alternative is considered in two ways:
(1) a version that only includes improvements to existing facilities, and (2) a version that includes
improvements to existing facilities as well as construction of transit on new location.
Decision to Eliminate from Further Study. As described in Sections 2.2.3, 2.2.5.1, and
2.2.6.1, the TSM Alternatives, the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives, and the Mass
Transit Alternatives would not meet the project’s purpose and need. Combinations of these
alternatives as Multimodal Alternatives also would not meet the project’s purpose and need, as
described below.
• Improvements on Existing Locations. A Multimodal Alternative could be defined to
include expanded bus or rail service that uses existing roadways, together with either
TSM improvements or improvements to existing roadways. These potential combinations
of roadway and transit improvements would not meet the Purpose and Need. They would
not establish direct connectivity within southern Gaston County nor between southern
Gaston County and west Mecklenburg County. In addition, these potential combinations
would not attract enough trips to noticeably reduce vehicle miles traveled and/or
congested vehicle miles traveled in Gaston County compared to the No-Build Alternative,
nor would they provide a facility with an acceptable level of service because they would
not attract enough trips to change the poor levels of service projected to occur on I-85 and
other area roadways under the TSM Alternative or Improvement Existing Roadways
Alternatives. Travel times and distances also would not noticeably improve. Because
this version of the Multimodal Alternative would not meet the Purpose and Need, it is not
a reasonable alternative.
• Roadway Improvements on Existing Locations with Mass Transit on New Location. A
Multimodal Alternative also could be defined to include transit on new location in
combination with improvements to existing roadways. These potential combinations also
would not meet the purpose and need, and would likely be cost-prohibitive. As discussed
in Section 2.2.5.1, rapid transit service (bus or light rail) on dedicated new alignment
would provide increased mobility between Gaston County and Mecklenburg County by
providing an alternative travel mode choice. It could also provide some improved
connectivity within southern Gaston County and between southern Gaston County and
west Mecklenburg County and provide shorter travel times or distances for the transit
users (for those who take transit). However, mass transit on new alignment would carry
a much lower volume of trips than a new highway facility and would be ill-suited to the
dispersed low-density land uses in southern Gaston County. Neither the bus service nor
rail service on new alignment would attract enough trips to noticeably reduce vehicle
miles traveled and/or congested vehicle miles traveled in Gaston County compared to the
No-Build Alternative, nor would it attract enough trips to change the poor levels of
service projected to occur on I-85 and other area roadways under the TSM Alternative or
Improvement Existing Roadways Alternatives. Travel times and distances also would
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-11
not noticeably improve for non-transit users. Therefore, while a Multimodal Alternative
with transit on new location would improve mobility for transit users, it would not meet
the Purpose and Need and is not a reasonable alternative.
• Cost Considerations for New Location Mass Transit. As discussed in Section 2.2.5.1,
construction costs for a Mass Transit Alternative that is on dedicated new alignment
through southern Gaston County and connecting across the Catawba River to
Mecklenburg County would be extensive. Adding TSM improvements or improvements to
existing roadways under the Multimodal Alternative would make the Multimodal
Alternative with new location mass transit even more expensive than the Mass Transit
Alternative. There is no program currently in place within North Carolina or in Gaston
County to fund the transit improvements, and at this time the Mass Transit Alternative,
and consequently the Multimodal Alternative that includes mass transit on new
alignment, are not financially feasible. The lack of financial feasibility is an additional
reason for finding that this alternative is not a reasonable alternative.
2.2.6 IMPROVE EXISTING ROADWAYS ALTERNATIVES
2.2.6.1 Alternative Description
This chapter evaluates two versions of the Improve Existing
Roadways Alternative using forecasts from the 2030 travel
demand model: Scenario 4 and Scenario 8. As described below,
these Improved Roadways Alternatives were modeled as Non-Toll
Scenarios. Toll Scenarios for these Improve Existing Roadways
Alternatives also were considered, as described in Section 2.2.6.2.
As analyzed in this chapter, Scenario 4 is a combination of two
similar versions of the Improved Roadways Alternative that were known as Scenarios 4+ and 4a.
Scenarios 4+ and 4a were developed using forecasts from the 2025 travel demand model. The
2025 forecasts for those two scenarios are documented in the Addendum to the Final Alternatives
Development and Evaluation Report for the Gaston East-West Connector (PBS&J, October 2008).
Because the 2025 projected daily traffic volumes for these two scenarios were almost the same,
and 2025 regional statistics were similar, a single scenario was modeled with the 2030 Metrolina
model. This scenario was labeled as “4+/4a” in the October 2008 Addendum. For simplicity, it is
labeled as “Scenario 4” in this Draft EIS.
Other scenario numbers (Scenarios 1, 2, 3, 5, 5a, 6, and 7), are documented in the Gaston County
East-West Connector Study- Transportation Demand Modeling Technical Memorandum
(Martin/Alexiou/Bryson, February 2005). Scenario 1 was the No-Build Scenario. Scenarios 2 and
3 were interim networks used strictly to evaluate sensitivities in the travel demand model for
improvements to existing roadways, and were not developed, nor intended to be developed, as
Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives. Scenarios 5, 5a, 6, and 7 were various configurations
of the New Location Alternative used to determine sensitivities to number of lanes (four lanes for
Scenario 5 or six lanes for Scenario 5a) and location of alignment (Scenarios 6 and 7).
Improve Existing
Roadways Alternatives
The Improve Existing
Roadways Alternatives
were eliminated from
further study.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-12
Scenario 4 - Improve I-85 to 8-10 lanes and US 29-74 to 6 lanes plus TSM-type measures.
Roadway improvements included in Scenario 4 are shown in Figure 2-1. Scenario 4 would
widen I-85 to eight lanes from Exit 10 (US 29-74) to Exit 26 (Belmont) and to ten lanes from
Exit 26 to Exit 29 (I-485).
Along US 29-74, the roadway would be widened from four lanes to six lanes on the bridges
over the Catawba River and the South Fork Catawba River and along the segment from
Myrtle School Road (west of Gastonia) west to I-85. Widening US 29-74 to more than six
lanes would not be practicable. There are numerous commercial driveways along US 29-74
and high demand for turn movements at intersections and along each block. It would not be
desirable to have an eight-lane cross section on a non-controlled access roadway, as there
would be too many lanes for drivers to maneuver across to make turns safely.
Scenario 4 also includes the 58 improvements referenced in the TSM Alternative and
additional improvements to I-85 ramps and cross-streets. These are listed in the Addendum
to the Final Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report for the Gaston East-West
Connector (PBS&J, October 2008).
Scenario 8 - Scenario 4 plus capacity improvements to north-south feeder roads.
Roadway improvements included in Scenario 8 are shown in Figure 2-2. Scenario 8 includes
widening I-85 to eight lanes from Exit 10 (US 29-74) to Exit 19 (Ozark Avenue) and to ten
lanes from Exit 19 (Ozark Avenue) to Exit 29 (I-485). Improvements to US 29-74 and I-85
ramps and cross-streets would be the same as those described for Scenario 4.
In addition, Scenario 8 would include capacity improvements (one lane in each direction) to
north-south feeder roads that connect southern Gaston County to US 29-74 and I-85. This
scenario was suggested in a general way by some of the state and federal environmental
resource and regulatory agencies. This was suggested as a potential way for the Improve
Existing Roadways Alternative to meet the connectivity aspect of the project’s purpose and
need by improving connectivity within southern Gaston County and between Southern
Gaston County and Mecklenburg County.
Figure 2-2 shows the north-south feeder roads where capacity improvements were added.
The improvements are listed in the Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development and
Evaluation Report for the Gaston East-West Connector (PBS&J, October 2008). The list was
developed with input from GUAMPO. It does not include all the feeder roads that have exits
on I-85, just those that GUAMPO determined would be most effective at improving access
between southern Gaston County and I-85 and US 29-74.
2.2.6.2 Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives – Toll Options
Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives Scenario 4 and Scenario 8 include widening I-85 by one
to two general purpose lanes in each direction. The new capacity on I-85 could be implemented
as toll lanes. By North Carolina law (NCGS 136-89.187), the existing lanes on I-85 cannot be
tolled, but the new capacity could be tolled. Tolling new or existing lanes on I-85 would require
federal approval, since tolling generally is prohibited on highways constructed with federal-aid
(Title 23) highway funds. FHWA could authorize tolling of new lanes under various pilot
programs or other authorities. Obtaining permission to toll existing lanes is more difficult, but it
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-13
could be allowed under some circumstances. For further information, refer to FHWA Web site:
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/tolling_pricing/index.htm.
The following paragraphs describe three toll options considered for the new capacity on I-85.
These options, from most- to least-intensive improvements and right-of-way requirements,
include constructing a fully barrier-separated toll facility, constructing toll or HOT lanes with a
lower level of physical separation from the non-toll lanes (such as delineating buffer zones by
pavement markings), or reconfiguring existing pavement to add the toll or HOT lanes.
Fully Barrier-Separated Toll Facility on I-85. If the additional one to two lanes were added
as a physically-separated toll facility, the toll lanes would be located to the inside of the general
purpose lanes. The additional capacity could be in the form of bi-directional or reversible toll
lanes. Since there is only a narrow existing median (consisting of a jersey barrier and paved
shoulders), new pavement would need to be added to the outside of the existing pavement and the
lanes reconfigured.
The physical separation would include jersey barriers, additional shoulders, and access ramps to
and from the toll lanes, which would require significantly more right of way than a standard
widening. Also, significantly more right
of way would be required at interchanges.
In this option, the toll lanes would need
their own ramps as either nested
interchanges with existing non-toll
facility ramps, or at new interchanges
constructed solely for the toll lanes. The
tight spacing of many of the interchanges
through Gastonia east of US 321 (about
1 mile apart) would result in the toll
lanes having fewer interchanges through
Gaston County than the general purpose
lanes, and less accessibility for people
traveling to/from Gaston County. A fully
barrier-separated toll facility could be
used by vehicles with and without
electronic toll collection, as the controlled
access would provide the ability to capture
video images of license plates entering and
exiting, enabling the NCTA to identify and
bill owners of vehicles that have used the
toll lanes.
Toll or HOT Lanes on I-85 Not Fully
Barrier-Separated. If the additional
capacity added to I-85 was constructed with
a lower level of physical separation, the
right-of-way requirements would still be
greater than if the additional lanes were
general purpose lanes. As in the previous
option, the new lanes would need to be
Separated reversible lanes on I‐394 in Minneapolis, Minnesota
Source: FHWA
I‐405 HOV Lanes in Orange County, CA separated by pavement
markings
Source: Charlotte Region Fast Lanes Study
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-14
located to the inside of the general purpose lanes. The new pavement would need to be added to
the outside of the existing pavement and the lanes reconfigured.
The separation between the toll/HOT lanes and general purpose lanes would be provided via
pavement marking or a physical barrier (such as pylons). The toll/HOT lanes would need
additional right of way to account for a recommended minimum four-foot buffer zone between the
toll/HOT lanes and the general purpose travel lanes, and a wider (14-foot-wide) inside shoulder to
provide room for enforcement activities (HOV Systems Manual, National Cooperative Research
Program [NCHRP] Report 414, 1998). A separation, or buffer zone, of at least 4 feet is
recommended by FHWA as a desirable condition for HOT lanes (A Guide for HOT Lane
Development, available at the FHWA Web site:
www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/13668.html).
Although there would be less physical separation between the toll/HOT lanes and the general
purpose lanes, access into and out of the toll/HOT lanes would need to occur at specific locations
along the highway in order to capture appropriate toll charges. The access areas could be
indicated by changing buffer zone pavement markings to dashed lines, indicating that vehicles
can pass into and out of the toll/HOT lanes. Access into and out of the toll/HOT lanes would need
to be between interchanges, and designed with sufficient weaving length to allow vehicles to
safely enter and exit. There would then need to be sufficient length provided from the access
point to the next downstream interchange so vehicles would be able to cross the general purpose
lanes to the interchange exit ramp.
Due to close spacing between interchanges on I-85 within the Project Study Area and existing
horizontal curvature along the facility, access to/from the toll/HOT lanes would be limited and
would not be provided between every interchange. The reduced access points would provide less
accessibility to people traveling to/from Gaston County than with a non-toll option for widening
I-85.
Reconfigure Existing Pavement on I-85 to Add Capacity. The third option for tolling lanes
on I-85 is to reconfigure existing pavement to add one new lane in each direction. This type of
option currently is being studied by transportation planners in the Charlotte region as part of the
Fast Lanes Study. The Fast Lanes Study, expected to be completed in April 2009, is examining
the feasibility of various types of managed lanes (e.g., HOV, HOT, and special use lanes) on major
highways within the Charlotte region (Fast Lanes Study project Web site:
www.charmeck.org/fastlanes).
For I-85 through the Gastonia area, the Fast Lanes Study is evaluating the feasibility of
providing one additional managed lane in each direction by restriping the existing pavement.
Currently, I-85 in the Gastonia area has three 12-foot-wide travel lanes in each direction and
10-foot-wide inside and outside shoulders. Restriping the existing pavement could accommodate
one additional lane in each direction by reducing the existing inside shoulder to two feet and
having the four lanes in each direction be 11 feet wide, which is substandard for an interstate
facility.
The reduced shoulder and lane widths are major design exceptions that would need to be
approved by NCDOT and FHWA before this reconfiguration could be implemented. The design
exceptions likely would not be approved since they would not be consistent with the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Policy on Design
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-15
Standards- Interstate System (January 2005), which recommends minimum shoulder widths and
states all traffic lanes shall be at least 12 feet wide.
If the new lane added as a result of restriping was a HOT lane, the two-foot shoulder would
effectively eliminate the ability for enforcement of the occupancy requirement. Automated
vehicle occupancy verification technologies are currently being tested in the United States.
However, there is no existing facility that has deployed this technology. A two-foot inside
shoulder would make enforcement almost impossible. In addition, installing toll-collection
equipment would be a challenge since there would be little room in the center of the roadway for
such equipment with such a narrow shoulder.
If the new lane added as a result of restriping was a toll-only lane, the limited two-foot shoulder
would be undesirable from a customer-service standpoint. Any vehicles that break down within
the single toll lane would block the toll lane until such time that they could be safely removed.
Also, the installation of toll equipment within a narrow median/shoulder area could potentially
pose design challenges if there are system limitations on the proximity of equipment located
overhead and at ground level.
2.2.6.3 Traffic Operations – Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives
Various traffic operations analyses conducted for the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives
using the 2030 Metrolina travel demand model are described in detail in Appendix C. These
analyses were run for Scenario 4, and the performance of Scenario 8 was assessed based on the
results for Scenario 4 as well as previous traffic forecasts (for 2025) for Scenario 8. Conclusions
from these analyses are summarized as follows:
• Based on the 2030 Metrolina travel demand model, latent demand for interstate travel
exists in the area. As used here, latent demand refers to trips people desire to make over
the Catawba River (between Gaston County and Mecklenburg County) that are not being
made under existing conditions, but would be made if capacity over the Catawba River
was increased.
• Year 2030 regional network statistics project an increase in congested travel with
Scenario 4 as compared to the No-Build Alternative. Increased congestion under
Scenario 4 is reflected in several measures: vehicle miles of travel (VMT), vehicle hours of
travel (VHT), congested VMT, and congested VMT as a percentage of total VMT. This
somewhat counter-intuitive result (i.e., improvements to existing roadways result in more
congestion) is discussed in more detail in Appendix C, Section C.1.2. Briefly, the
reason that Scenario 4 results in more congestion overall is that adding capacity to I-85
causes some reduction in congestion on I-85 itself, but I-85 still remains congested and
congestion actually increases on other routes that feed into I-85.
• If Scenario 8 were modeled, the traffic forecasts would likely show less congestion than
under Scenario 4 because Scenario 8 includes improvements to the north-south feeder
routes that serve I-85. Unlike Scenario 4, Scenario 8 may represent a net improvement
over the No-Build Alternative in terms of congestion levels. However, the improvements
with Scenario 8 would likely be less than improvements achieved with the New Location
Alternative. As stated in Appendix C, the feeder-road widening in Scenario 8 would
allow more traffic to be delivered to the same bottlenecks faster. This alternative would
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-16
not produce enough improvements in congestion levels to compete with the New Location
Alternatives.
• Only minimal improvements to traffic flow on I-85 would be achieved with the Improve
Existing Roadways Alternatives, and I-85 would continue to operate at LOS E and F.
Most improvements in traffic flow achieved by increasing additional capacity would be
offset by the increase in traffic volumes attracted to the facility.
• If the new lanes on I-85 were tolled, the toll rate could be adjusted to manage the LOS in
the tolled lanes, which would improve traffic flow for only those lanes. However, tolled
lanes would have less accessibility than if the new capacity was used for general purpose
lanes. The existing (non-tolled) lanes on I-85 would remain congested.
• The Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives would not improve east-west connectivity
or mobility within southern Gaston County or between southern Gaston County and
western Mecklenburg County, and travel times for most intra- and inter-county trips
would lengthen compared to the No-Build Alternative. Appendix C, Section C.2
explains this result. For example, improvements to existing roadways result in longer
travel times because the north-south roads in the Project Study Area become more
congested with travelers seeking access to the widened I-85.
2.2.6.4 Impact Evaluation – Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives
Several potential impacts were considered in the evaluation of the Improve Existing Roadways
Alternatives. Impacts from the toll options for adding new capacity to I-85 under any of the
scenarios would be greater than discussed due to the larger footprint required for right of way,
particularly at interchanges under the toll option that would construct fully-separated toll lanes.
The estimates of potential impacts were based on information obtained from NCDOT and Gaston
County GIS databases, aerial photography, and preliminary field observations.
Impacts to the Human Environment. The following human environment impacts are for
improvements to I-85 and US 29-74 and for the improvements along the feeder roads. Potential
impacts to the human environment would be greatest for improvements along I-85, US 29-74,
US 321, and NC 279.
Relocations and Community Facilities. Widening sections of the north-south feeder roads would
impact residences, businesses, churches, and community facilities along all these roadways. In
general, potential residential impacts are greatest along existing two-lane routes (such as
NC 273, NC 279, and NC 274) where single-family homes and their individual driveways are
located on both sides of the roadway. Potential business impacts would be greatest at the
intersections along US 29-74 and the I-85 ramps, and on the feeder roads near or between I-85
and US 29-74, such as along US 321 and NC 7.
Parks. Widening of NC 7 through Belmont could impact publicly-owned Crescent Park and the
widening of NC 279 could impact the privately-owned Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden.
Historic Sites and Districts. There are approximately twenty historic sites potentially impacted
by north-south feeder road improvements. The intersection of US 29-74 and US 321 is located in
Gastonia’s Downtown Historic District (which is listed in the National Register of Historic
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-17
Places), and impacts to the Historic District would be unavoidable. Improvements to US 29-74
(Wilkinson Boulevard) through Belmont could impact the Belmont Historic District.
Hazardous Materials Sites. Two known hazardous material sites could be impacted by widening
US 321.
Impacts to the Natural Environment. Where improvements are proposed along US 29-74,
there are several stream and floodplain crossings. Six new bridge crossings would be required:
one over the Catawba River, one over the South Fork of the Catawba River, and four west of
Myrtle School Road. Potential impacts to the natural environment also could occur where
widening of I-85 and improvements to feeder roads would cross streams and floodplains.
Potential Engineering Issues. The discussion of potential engineering issues associated with
widening I-85 applies whether the widening is tolled or non-toll. However, the engineering issues
would be more complex and result in more impacts under the toll options.
Constructability. All interchanges along I-85 within the Project Study Area (a total of 11) would
need to be reconstructed in order to meet current design standards (NCDOT and AASHTO) and
to provide enough width under bridges to accommodate additional lanes. In addition, there are
fifteen cross-street bridges and six railroad bridges that would need to be replaced because of
inadequate horizontal clearances for additional lanes.
Maintenance of Traffic and Travel Delays. The reconstruction of interchanges and replacement
of structures along I-85 would result in lengthy construction periods with significant travel
delays through these construction zones for an extended period of time. There are no controlled-
access routes between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties that could serve as an alternate route
to I-85 during construction.
Safety, Bridge Replacement, and Construction Schedule. The construction of new bridge
structures would result in increased driver delay and could impact driver safety during the
construction period. There could be a delay of ten years or more before widening of I-85 could be
completed, resulting in continued driver delays. This estimated construction schedule was based
on the NCDOT Division 12 Construction Engineer’s professional judgment and experience
(Meeting, June 25, 2004).
Diversion of Traffic Patterns. Construction of feeder road improvements outside of urban
areas would be disruptive to traffic patterns in southern Gaston County. Improving the feeder
routes (while at the same time constructing or making improvements along existing I-85 and
US 29-74) would reduce mobility and increase travel times between Gaston and Mecklenburg
County during the construction period. Completing I-85 and US 29-74 improvements before or
after the feeder roads would extend the construction period, which is already extremely lengthy.
Inconsistency with Local Transportation and Land Use Plans. The Improve Existing
Roadways Alternatives would not be consistent with local transportation and land use plans.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-18
2.2.6.5 Decision to Eliminate the Improve Existing Roadways
Alternatives Scenarios 4 and 8 from Detailed Study
The reasons for eliminating each of the Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenarios from
further study are described below. The discussions also address adding the new capacity on I-85
as either non-toll or toll/HOT lanes.
Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenario 4. This version of the Improve Existing
Roadways Alternative, with new I-85 lanes as non-toll or toll/HOT, was eliminated from further
study based on the following reasons:
• Improving existing I-85 and US 29-74 under Scenario 4 (with two to four new I-85 lanes
as non-toll or toll/HOT) would not meet the need for mobility, access, and connectivity
between southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. Drivers would still
have to travel north on two-lane roadways (many through downtown areas and some
through historic districts) in order to go east and west. If the new capacity under
Scenario 4 was tolled, accessibility of these lanes through Gaston County would be even
less than if the lanes were added as general purpose lanes because access would be
provided at only limited locations along the roadway.
• Travel times between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties would not improve compared to
the No-Build Alternative, and in many instances would increase (Appendix C). If the
new capacity on I-85 were tolled, travel-time savings for toll facility users may improve,
but some of these savings would be offset because vehicles would still need to drive on
congested roadways to reach the interstate. Year 2030 regional network statistics project
an increase in congested travel in Gaston County with Scenario 4 as compared to the No-
Build Alternative.
• South of
US 29-74, there
are no continuous
east-west
roadways in the
southern half of
Gaston County.
Improvements to
I-85 (with new I-
85 lanes as non-
toll or toll/HOT)
and US 29-74
considered under
Scenario 4 would
not improve east-
west mobility
within southern
Gaston County, and travel times for intra-county travel would generally be slightly
longer.
• I-85 is projected to operate primarily at LOS E/F in 2030. Under the Improve Existing
Roadways Alternative Scenario 4, most improvements in traffic flow that would be
achieved along I-85 by adding additional lanes would be offset by the increase in traffic
PROS CONS
• Provides additional
capacity on I‐85 and
increases capacity over
the Catawba River.
• Avoids impacts associated
with a new location
facility.
• If capacity on I‐85 added
by restriping existing
pavement, limited right of
way needed.
• Would not improve travel times, mobility, access,
or connectivity between southern Gaston County
and western Mecklenburg County.
• Would not improve travel times, mobility, access,
or connectivity within southern Gaston County.
• Would result in the greatest construction delays
of all alternative concepts.
• Would disrupt local and through travelers for an
extended period of time.
• Bridge deck construction for I‐85 widening would
require intermittent closures of I‐85, with poor
alternatives available for off‐site detours of I‐85
traffic.
• If capacity on I‐85 added by restriping existing
pavement, resulting substandard lane and
shoulder widths would require a design
exception not likely to be approved by FHWA.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-19
volumes attracted to the facility. If the new lanes were toll lanes, traffic flow for those
lanes would improve, but traffic flow for the general purpose lanes would not.
• Improving existing I-85 under Scenario 4 would result in travel delays during
construction, long construction duration, and community disruption caused by the
required improvements to existing I-85. At a minimum, Scenario 4 would require
construction at eleven interchanges and fifteen cross-street bridges along I-85 and
replacement of six bridges along US 29-74. Constructing the new capacity as a separated
toll facility would incur more construction impacts due to the need for wider footprints at
interchanges, and possibly new interchanges. There are no controlled-access routes
between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties that could serve as an alternate route to I-85
during construction.
• Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenario 4 would not be consistent with the local
transportation plans or land use plans.
• Implementing Scenario 4 by reconfiguring existing pavement would avoid the need for
additional right of way (and the issues associated with the increased footprint) described
above. However, this option would result in substandard lanes and shoulders that would
constitute major design exceptions for an interstate facility not likely to be approved by
FHWA. Also, as a toll option, the substandard inside shoulder would not allow for toll
enforcement activities and would not provide a breakdown lane for disabled vehicles that
could block the toll/HOT lanes. Although this option (as an HOV facility or HOT facility)
may be found to have merit under the purposes of the Fast Lanes Study (the results of
which are to be released in April 2009), it would not meet the purpose and need for this
project.
Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenario 8. Improve Existing Roadways
Alternative Scenario 8, which includes two to four new lanes on I-85 as non-toll or toll/HOT lanes
and widening of north-
south feeder roads, was
eliminated from further
study based upon the
following reasons:
• Unlike Scenario 4,
Scenario 8
includes the
widening of the
north-south feeder
roads from
southern Gaston
County to provide
improved access
to the widened
I-85 and
US 29-74. As a
result, it would
provide some
improvements to
connectivity
PROS CONS
• Provides additional
capacity on I‐85 and
increases capacity over
the Catawba River.
• Avoids impacts
associated with a new
location facility.
• Provides improvements
to congestion in the
travel network of
Gaston County.
• If capacity on I‐85
added by restriping
existing pavement,
limited right of way
needed.
• Provides minimal improvements to connectivity
between southern Gaston County and western
Mecklenburg County.
• Would not improve east‐west mobility within
southern Gaston County.
• Provides no travel‐time savings compared to the
No‐Build Alternative.
• Would result in the greatest construction delays
of all alternative concepts.
• Would disrupt local and through travelers for an
extended period of time.
• Bridge deck construction for I‐85 widening would
require intermittent closures of I‐85, with poor
alternatives available for off‐site detours for I‐85
traffic.
• Would have high levels of impacts to the human
and natural environments.
• If capacity on I‐85 added by restriping existing
pavement, resulting substandard lane and
shoulder widths would require a design exception
not likely to be approved by FHWA.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-20
between southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. However, these
improvements in connectivity would be minimal. Motorists in southern Gaston County
would still have to travel north on non-controlled access roadways, many through
downtown areas, and some through historic districts, in order to travel east and west.
Even considering the improvements to approximately 51 miles of north-south feeder
roads included in Scenario 8, connectivity between southern Gaston County and western
Mecklenburg County would still not be direct.
• Travel times between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties would not improve compared to
the No-Build Alternative, and in many instances would get longer. If the new capacity on
I-85 were tolled, travel-time savings may improve, but some of these savings would be
offset because vehicles would still need to drive on congested roadways to reach the
interstate. Also, for inter-county travel, travelers would need to use I-85 or US 29-74 to
cross over the rivers, and this routing constrains traffic flow. Travel times under
Scenario 8 likely would be shorter than under Scenario 4, as more capacity is provided on
north-south feeder roads, but travel-time savings would not reach the levels achieved by a
New Location Alternative, as discussed in Appendix C. Also, congested vehicle miles
traveled and congested vehicle hours traveled likely would be less than under Scenario 4,
but would not show the same improvements achieved by the New Location Alternative.
• Improvements to I-85 and US 29-74, and the additional improvements to north-south
feeder roads proposed under Scenario 8, would not improve east-west mobility or travel
times within southern Gaston County.
• Scenario 8 is neither a reasonable nor practicable alternative due to travel delays during
construction, long construction duration, and community disruption caused by the
required improvements to existing I-85 and, under Scenario 8, the 51 miles of north-south
feeder roads in the Project Study Area to improve access to the interstate. Scenario 8
would, at a minimum, require construction at eleven interchanges and fifteen cross-street
bridges along I-85 and replacement of six bridges along US 29-74. Constructing the new
capacity as a separated toll facility would incur more construction impacts due to the
need for wider footprints at interchanges, and possibly the need for new interchanges.
Scenario 8 also would require replacing ten bridges along the feeder roads. There are no
controlled-access routes between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties that could serve as
an alternate route to I-85 during construction.
• Scenario 8 would impact the human environment considerably within the entire Project
Study Area, with impacts to businesses, residences, community facilities, historic sites,
safety, and travel patterns.
• Improve Existing Roadways Alternative Scenario 8 would not be consistent with the local
transportation plans and land use plans.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-21
2.2.7 NEW LOCATION ALTERNATIVE
2.2.7.1 Alternative Description
During the First Screening, the New Location Alternative was
developed as a controlled-access highway represented by the
conceptual alignment and interchange locations in the GUAMPO
2030 LRTP for STIP Project U-3321. The GUAMPO conceptual
alignment for STIP Project U-3321 is shown in Figure 1-2.
The New Location Alternative would extend from I-85 west of Gastonia, through southern Gaston
County, to connect to I-485 and NC 160 in western Mecklenburg County. There would be new
bridge crossings of the South Fork Catawba River and the Catawba River.
Freeway-to-freeway interchanges would be provided at I-85 and at I-485. Service interchanges
were assumed at nine to ten locations: US 29-74, Linwood Road, Lewis Road (only included in
some alignments), US 321, Robinson Road, Bud Wilson Road, NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279
(New Hope Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), and Dixie River Road.
One of the primary needs for the project is to improve mobility, access, and connectivity within
southern Gaston County and between southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg
County. Alignments in the northern half of Gaston County would not serve the southern half of
Gaston County.
2.2.7.2 Traffic Operations – New Location Alternative
Various traffic operations analyses conducted for the New Location Alternative using the 2030
Metrolina travel demand model (Toll and Non-Toll Scenarios) are described in detail in
Appendix C, together with the Improve Existing Roadways Alternatives. Conclusions from
these analyses are summarized below:
• Based on the 2030 Metrolina travel demand model, some diversion of traffic off of I-85
and US 29-74 is projected to occur in 2030 if a New Location Alternative (Toll or Non-Toll
Scenario) is built. Due to the latent demand for travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg
counties, the diversion of some traffic off I-85 would be partially offset because some trips
that currently use other facilities would be attracted to I-85 as it becomes less congested.
• Based on the 2030 Metrolina travel demand model, 2030 regional network statistics
demonstrate a reduction in congested travel for a New Location Alternative, with the Toll
Scenario demonstrating the best performance compared to all alternatives.
• Traffic operations would improve on I-85 and on segments of US 29-74 with the New
Location Alternative (Toll or Non-Toll Scenario) compared to the No-Build Alternative,
since there would be less traffic on I-85 and US 29-74 (Appendix C, Table C-2). The
New Location Alternatives would provide travelers an alternate facility that would
operate at acceptable levels of service (based on year 2030 projected traffic volumes).
New Location Alternative
The New Location
Alternative Toll Scenario
was retained for detailed
study. The New Location
Alternative Non‐Toll
Scenario was eliminated
from further study.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-22
• The New Location Alternative (Non-Toll and Toll Scenarios) would improve east-west
transportation mobility, access, and connectivity within southern Gaston County and
between southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County, and also would
improve travel times for intra- and inter-county travel.
2.2.7.3 Decision to Retain the New Location Alternative Toll Scenario
for Detailed Study and Eliminate the New Location Alternative
Non-Toll Scenario
The New Location Alternative (Non-Toll and Toll Scenarios) would meet the project’s purpose
and need. Also, this alternative concept would be consistent with local transportation plans.
However, only the Toll Scenario is retained for detailed study, because the Non-Toll Scenario is
not financially feasible. The reasons for retaining the Toll Scenario and eliminating the Non-Toll
Scenario are summarized below:
• The New Location
Alternative Non-Toll
or Toll Scenarios
would both improve
connectivity and
shorten travel
distances between
southern Gaston
County and western
Mecklenburg County
by linking the
counties with a new
crossing of the
Catawba River.
• Substantial travel
time savings for
inter-county travel
would be achieved by the New Location Alternatives (Toll and Non-Toll) compared to the
No-Build Alternative.
• The New Location Alternative Toll and Non-Toll Scenarios would both improve mobility,
access, connectivity, and travel times within southern Gaston County by providing a
direct and continuous east-west route across this part of the county on a facility that
would operate at acceptable levels of service in the design year (2030).
• Traffic flow on I-85, US 29-74, and US 321 would improve under the New Location
Alternative Toll and Non-Toll Scenarios because traffic would divert from these roads to
use the new highway. Also, when incidents occur on I-85 (or on the New Location
Alternative), there would be another controlled-access route available.
While the New Location Alternative Non-Toll Scenario would meet the purpose and need, it is not
financially feasible. The current NCDOT 2009–2015 STIP includes the project as a toll facility,
and traditional (non-toll) transportation funding for this project is not likely in the foreseeable
PROS CONS
• Improves connectivity and travel
times between southern Gaston
County and western
Mecklenburg County by
providing a new crossing of the
Catawba River.
• Improves connectivity, mobility,
and travel times within southern
Gaston County.
• Improves traffic flow and some
levels of service on I‐85,
US 29‐74, and US 321.
• Could serve as a controlled‐
access alternate route during
incidents on I‐85.
• Legislation passed in July 2008
to fund bond financing for tolled
facility.
• A New Location Alternative Non‐
Toll Scenario is not financially
feasible within the long‐range
planning timeframe of 2030.
• A new location highway would
have substantial construction and
right‐of‐way costs.
• Impacts to the natural environment
would likely be greatest compared
to the other alternative concepts.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-23
future (as acknowledged in the May 21, 2007, letter from the NCTA to the NCDOT
[Appendix A-5]). GUAMPO, as part of the metropolitan planning process, has decided to
allocate the limited available federal and state funds to other projects. In the 2030 LRTP, the
Gaston East-West Connector is listed as the No. 1 project on the Unmet Needs List. In
September 2000, the GUAMPO TAC passed a resolution stating that it supports the use of
alternative funding methods, including methods that would require the payment of a toll by
motorists (GUAMPO, 2030 LRTP, May 2005).
Based on preliminary traffic and revenue forecasts, the NCTA determined that the Gaston East-
West Connector is financially feasible with the collection of tolls. Using tolls, the NCTA can
provide the funding and construct the project many years earlier than with traditional funding
sources. Using tolls as the funding mechanism for construction and maintenance allows needed
capacity to be added when budget shortfalls would other wise prevent or delay completion of
critical projects.
Based on these planning decisions, the New Location Alternative Non-Toll Scenario is not
financially feasible and, consequently, is not considered a reasonable alternative. The New
Location Alternative Toll Scenario is considered financially feasible because toll revenues would
provide a substantial funding source that could be used to support bond financing. In addition,
legislation was passed in July 2008 authorizing $35 million annually for the life of the bonds to
help cover the “gap” between toll revenues and revenues needed to cover bond financing needs
(NCGS 136-176). Therefore, only the New Location Alternative Toll Scenario is carried forward
for detailed study.
2.2.8 SUMMARY OF FIRST SCREENING RESULTS
Each of the basic alternative concepts listed in Section 2.2.1 was evaluated to determine if they
were reasonable and practicable, based upon their ability to meet the project’s purpose and need,
potential impacts, and their financial feasibility.
Table 2-1 summarizes the results of the First Screening – Project Concepts process. Based on
the First Screening, the New Location Alternative Toll Scenario is carried forward for detailed
study.
TABLE 2-1: Summary of Results for First Screening – Project Concepts
Ability to Meet Purpose and Need*
Project Concept Reduces Travel
Times/
Distances
Provides a
Transportation
Facility with
Acceptable Levels
of Service in the
Design Year
Reduces
Congested Vehicle
Miles and/or
Congested Vehicle
Hours Traveled
Compared to No‐
Build Alternative
Decision to
Eliminate/
Retain for
Second
Screening
Reason for Decision
TSM Alternative ³ ³ ³ Eliminated
Does not meet the
project’s purpose
and need.
TDM Alternative ³ ³ ³ Eliminated
Does not meet the
project’s purpose
and need.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-24
TABLE 2-1: Summary of Results for First Screening – Project Concepts
Ability to Meet Purpose and Need*
Project Concept Reduces Travel
Times/
Distances
Provides a
Transportation
Facility with
Acceptable Levels
of Service in the
Design Year
Reduces
Congested Vehicle
Miles and/or
Congested Vehicle
Hours Traveled
Compared to No‐
Build Alternative
Decision to
Eliminate/
Retain for
Second
Screening
Reason for Decision
Mass Transit
Alternative –
Transit on Existing
Alignment
³ ³ ³ Eliminated
Does not meet the
project’s purpose
and need.
Mass Transit
Alternative –
Transit on New
Alignment
9
(for transit users only)
9
(for transit users only) ³ Eliminated
Does not meet the
project’s purpose
and need. Not
financially feasible.
Multimodal
Alternative –
Transit on Existing
Alignment
³ ³ ³ Eliminated
Does not meet the
project’s purpose
and need.
Multimodal
Alternative –
Transit on New
Alignment
9
(for transit users only)
9
(for transit users only) ³ Eliminated
Does not meet the
project’s purpose
and need. Not
financially feasible.
Improve Existing
Roadways
Alternative –
Scenario 4 – Toll or
Non‐Toll on I‐85
³ ³ ³ Eliminated
Does not meet the
project’s purpose
and need.
Improve Existing
Roadways
Alternative –
Scenario 8 – Toll or
Non‐Toll on I‐85
³ ³ ³ Eliminated
Minimal
improvements do
not meet project’s
purpose and need.
High levels of
impacts.
New Location
Alternative – Non‐
Toll Scenario
9 9 9 Eliminated
Meets the project’s
purpose and need.
Not financially
feasible.
New Location
Alternative – Toll
Scenario
9 9 9 Retained
Meets the project’s
purpose and need.
Is financially
feasible. Retained
for detailed study.
No‐Build
Alternative ³ ³ ³ Retained
Retained for
comparison
purposes.
* See Sections 1.2 and 1.3 of this Draft EIS for details on the purpose and need for the project. The column headings are abbreviations
for the evaluation measures listed in Section 1.3.
³ ‐ means the alternative concept cannot meet this evaluation factor.
9 ‐ means the alternative concept does meet, or could be designed to meet, this evaluation factor.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-25
2.3 SECOND SCREENING – PROJECT CORRIDORS
2.3.1 METHODOLOGY FOR SECOND SCREENING
2.3.1.1 Introduction
The Second Screening focuses on the alternative concept that made it through the First
Screening (the New Location Alternative Toll Scenario). The Second Screening involves two
main steps:
• Step 1 involved developing and analyzing “Preliminary Corridor Segments” for the New
Location Alternative concept. Preliminary Corridor Segments were 1,200 feet wide. They
were evaluated to determine which specific segments should be advanced for consideration as
“Functional Design Corridors.”
• Step 2 involved developing designs within the Functional Design Corridors that were selected
in Step 1. The Functional Design Corridors were 1,400 feet wide. They were evaluated to
determine the Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs) – that is, the corridors that will be studied
in detail in this Draft EIS. Preliminary engineering was then developed for each of the DSAs.
In the Second Screening, alternative corridors generally were eliminated based on being less
“desirable” than other alternative corridors, rather than on a finding of unreasonableness. In
accordance with guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), this approach is
appropriate when there are large numbers of potentially reasonable alternatives. Only a
reasonable number of examples must be analyzed and compared in the EIS (Forty Most-Asked
Questions Regarding CEQ’s NEPA Regulations, Question 1.b., CEQ Web site:
www.nepa.gov/nepa/regs/40/40P1.htm).
The Second Screening process and decisions were originally based on a non-toll version of the
New Location Alternatives, but they also apply to the toll facility version. The functional
engineering designs of the alternatives would be similar enough to not make a significant, or
even notable, difference in the construction footprint used to estimate impacts in the Second
Screening.
There are few differences in the designs of the non-toll facility compared to the toll facility. The
toll facility’s toll-collection process is proposed to be solely electronic, avoiding the need for cash
toll booths, which may have a construction footprint that would be wider than a non-toll facility.
Some interchange ramps may have a slightly different alignment between a non-toll facility and
a toll facility to ensure that electronic toll-collection sensors have adequate line-of-sight to
vehicles. This difference in interchange ramp alignments would not change the basis of the
decision-making, as documented in Part II of the Addendum to the Final Alternatives
Development and Evaluation Report for the Gaston East-West Connector (PBS&J, October 2008).
2.3.1.2 Evaluation Process
The process used to develop and evaluate preliminary alternatives to ultimately determine DSAs
is summarized in the flowchart in Section 2.1.1 and described in detail below.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-26
1. A Refined Study Area for the New Location Alternatives was identified, relying upon
land suitability mapping (Section 2.3.2.1).
2. Numerous 1,200-foot-wide Preliminary Corridor Segments were developed within the
Refined Study Area using the land suitability mapping and design criteria. These
Preliminary Corridor Segments (approximately 116 miles of corridors) were
presented to the public at the first series of Citizens Informational Workshops in
September and December 2003 (Chapter 9 provides more detail on public involvement).
3. Second Screening Step 1 - Preliminary Corridor Segments were reviewed with
local, state, and federal resource and regulatory agencies to determine if any should be
eliminated based upon “fatal flaws” or high levels of estimated impacts to the human
and/or natural environments, as compared to other segments under consideration.
4. The remaining Preliminary Corridor Segments (approximately 72 miles) were
connected to form endpoint-to-endpoint corridors from I-85 to I-485 and the corridor
width was extended from 1,200 feet to 1,400 feet in order to allow for more flexibility in
establishing alignments.
5. Functional designs were prepared within these corridors, taking into consideration
engineering design constraints and the locations of known sensitive human and natural
resources. These are referred to as the Functional Design Corridors. The 1,400-foot-
wide Functional Design Corridor boundaries then were shifted to be centered around the
functional design alignments.
6. Second Screening Step 2 - Impacts to the natural and human environments based on
the functional designs within the Functional Design Corridors were estimated and
tabulated. There were 90 possible endpoint-to-endpoint combinations of Functional
Design Corridors evaluated.
7. From the set of Functional Design Corridors, sixteen DSAs were recommended based
upon estimated impacts to the natural and human environments, engineering design
considerations, and input from local, state, and federal resource and regulatory agencies.
These recommendations were presented to the public for comment and input at the
second series of Citizens Informational Workshops in January and February 2006.
8. Preliminary engineering designs were developed for the 16 DSAs, based on 2030
Non-Toll Scenario traffic forecasts.
9. New information became available after the DSAs were identified and preliminary
engineering designs completed. The new information included:
• New information provided by Duke Energy Corporation regarding Allen Steam
Station operations.
• New traffic forecasts for various year 2030 scenarios, including the New Location
Alternative Toll Scenario.
10. Four DSAs were eliminated due to unavoidable interference with critical operations at
Duke Energy Corporation’s Allen Steam Station.
11. The 2030 Toll Scenario traffic forecasts were used to verify that the DSAs’
preliminary engineering designs would provide adequate capacity for implementing the
project as a toll facility.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-27
2.3.1.3 Design Criteria
The design criteria used to develop the Preliminary Corridor Segments and Functional Design
Corridors were based upon the project’s location, function, classification, and design speed. The
design criteria conform to the standards established in the Roadway Design Manual (NCDOT,
2002) and A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (AASHTO, 2004).
The typical roadway cross section for the New Location Alternative is shown in Figure 2-3. The
design criteria and typical roadway cross-section are influenced by the type of facility required to
fulfill the project’s purpose and need. For the proposed project, a six-lane, median-divided,
controlled-access highway was determined necessary for adequately carrying projected 2025 non-
toll traffic volumes.
The 2025 Non-Toll Scenario traffic forecast was the one available at the time the Preliminary
Corridor Segments and the Functional Design Corridors were developed. When the Functional
Design Corridors were developed, the project was being potentially considered as either a toll
facility or a non-toll facility, and traffic volumes for a non-toll facility were expected to be higher.
Functional designs created based upon the higher volumes (non-toll) also would function if the
project were a toll facility.
The proposed design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph) for the mainline of the New Location
Alternative, with a posted speed limit of 65 mph. The functional designs include three 12-foot
lanes for each direction of travel, separated by a 46-foot median. The total right of way is
proposed to be a minimum of 300 feet. Right-of-way requirements would be more extensive
around interchanges. Interchange locations were chosen to be consistent with the GUAMPO 2030
LRTP.
The functional designs were based on 2025 traffic forecasts for a Non-Toll Scenario. The traffic
forecasts for the 2030 Toll Scenario may indicate that four lanes may be sufficient. If the number
of lanes is reduced from six to four, that reduction would be achieved by removing the two lanes
in the center. The outside footprint of the project would remain the same. The number of lanes
and median width will be confirmed prior to the Final EIS.
2.3.1.4 Evaluation Criteria
The factors listed in Table 2-2 were considered in the evaluation and screening (Second
Screening Steps 1 and 2) of Preliminary Corridor Segments and/or the Functional Design
Corridors. Data on these factors were obtained from GIS databases (NCDOT, Gaston County,
Mecklenburg County), US Geological Survey (USGS), USFWS, state resource agency files, aerial
photography, and field visits.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-28
TABLE 2-2: Second Screening Evaluation Factors
Impact Estimate Method
Factor Second Screening Step 1
– Evaluate Preliminary
Corridor Segments
Second Screening Step 2
– Evaluate Functional
Design Corridors
Source of Data
Length Miles Miles Measured
Number of
Interchanges Number along corridor Number along functional
design
Based on proposed project as listed
in the GUAMPO 2030 LRTP and
design constraints
Construction Cost
(Millions $)
(2005 dollars)*
Not calculated
2005 dollars based upon
functional design
estimated quantities
Based upon standard unit costs
Number of Minor
Road Crossings
Number counted along
corridor segments
Number counted along
functional designs GIS databases
Number of Major
Power Easement
Crossings
Number counted along
corridor segments
Number counted along
functional designs GIS databases, aerial photography
Number of Railroad
Line Crossings
Number counted along
corridor segments
Number counted along
functional designs GIS databases, aerial photography
Residential
Relocations
Number counted within
corridor segments
Number counted within
functional design
footprints
GIS databases, tax‐parcel mapping,
aerial photography
Business Relocations Number counted within
corridor segments
Number counted within
functional design
footprints
GIS databases, tax‐parcel mapping,
aerial photography
Low‐Income or
Minority Populations
Present within corridor
segments
Present within corridor
segments Census data
Parks/Recreation Sites
Number counted within a
300‐foot‐ wide alignment
centered in the corridor
segments
Number counted within
functional designs
GIS databases, aerial photography,
and site visits
Schools/Libraries/ Fire
Stations
Number counted within a
300‐foot‐ wide alignment
centered in the corridor
segments
Number counted within
functional designs
GIS databases, aerial photography,
and site visits
Churches
Number counted within a
300‐foot‐wide alignment
centered in the corridor
segments
Number counted within
functional designs
GIS databases, aerial photography,
and site visits
Cemeteries
Number counted within a
300‐foot‐wide alignment
centered in the corridor
segments
Number counted within
functional designs
GIS databases, aerial photography,
and site visits
National Historic
Register Sites
Number counted within a
300‐foot‐wide alignment
centered in the corridor
segments
Number counted within
functional designs
NC State Historic Preservation
Office, GIS databases
Properties Potentially
Eligible for National
Register
Number counted within a
300‐foot‐wide alignment
centered in the corridor
segments
Number counted within
functional designs
Phase I Historic Architectural
Resources Survey for the Gaston
East‐West Connector (Mattson,
Alexander, and Associates, 2003)
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-29
TABLE 2-2: Second Screening Evaluation Factors
Impact Estimate Method
Factor Second Screening Step 1
– Evaluate Preliminary
Corridor Segments
Second Screening Step 2
– Evaluate Functional
Design Corridors
Source of Data
Hazardous Materials
and Superfund Sites
Number counted within
corridor segments
Number counted within
functional design
footprints
GIS databases, NCDENR
Linear feet within the
corridor segments
Linear feet within
functional design
footprints
GIS databases
Streams Number of crossings
based on the corridor
centerline
Number of crossings
based on the functional
design centerline
GIS databases
Wetlands Acres within the corridor
segments
Acres within functional
designs
USFWS National Wetland Inventory
Maps
Floodplains Linear feet crossed by
corridor centerline
Linear feet crossed by
functional design
centerline
GIS databases
Protected Species and
Natural Heritage
Program
Occurrences/Sites
Number counted within
corridor segments
Number counted within
functional designs NC Natural Heritage Program
Watersheds Number counted within
corridor segments
Number counted within
functional designs GIS databases
303(d) Listed Streams Number counted within
corridor segments
Number counted within
functional design
footprints
NCDENR Division of Water Quality
Groundwater
Discharge Sites
Number counted within
corridor segments
Number counted within
functional design
footprints
GIS databases
Source: Addendum to the Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report , PBS&J, October 15, 2008.
* Construction costs for the second screening were estimated in 2005 dollars because that is the time period in which the costs used in
the second screening comparisons were calculated.
The criteria listed in Table 2-2 are discussed below:
Design Factors. Length, number of interchanges, number of minor road crossings, number of
major power easement crossings, and number of railroad line crossings affect the design and
construction costs of an alternative. Longer corridors with higher numbers of interchanges,
grade-separated road crossings, and easement crossings generally have higher costs.
Socioeconomic Criteria. Socioeconomic criteria included residential and business relocations
and impacts to community facilities (churches, libraries, parks, etc.). Corridor locations
contributing to excessive community disruption or isolation were avoided where possible. A
higher number of minor road crossings can indicate more disruptions to neighborhoods.
Relocations of residences and businesses (and associated social or economic impacts) are often of
greatest concern to the public and local officials. A higher number of residential and business
relocations also represents higher right-of-way costs.
Historic Resource Criteria. A Phase I (Reconnaissance Level) Historic Architectural Survey
for the Gaston East-West Connector (Mattson, Alexander and Associates, May 2003), incorporated
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-30
by reference, was conducted to identify known historic sites and additional properties potentially
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Known and potential historic properties
were avoided to the extent possible in the development of Preliminary Corridor Segments and
Functional Design Corridors. The Phase I study was later updated for the DSAs in the Phase II
Architectural Resources Report, Gaston East-West Connector (Mattson, Alexander, and
Associates, February 2008), incorporated by reference, and available on the NCTA Web site
(www.ncturnpike.org/projects/gaston).
Hazardous Materials Sites. Known sites of hazardous materials or waste were obtained from
the NCDOT GIS database, and more detailed information was obtained for some sites from
research at the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR).
Remediation and acquisition activities associated with hazardous materials/waste sites can
increase project costs and delay construction schedules. These types of sites were avoided in the
development of Preliminary Corridor Segments and Functional Design Corridors, whenever
practicable.
Natural Resource Criteria. Construction in jurisdictional resources (e.g., wetlands, ponds, and
streams that would require mitigation if impacted) requires a permit from the USACE pursuant
to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and a permit from NCDENR pursuant to Section 401 of
the Clean Water Act. USACE and NCDENR require a permit applicant to demonstrate that all
practical measures have been taken in order to avoid and minimize wetland and stream impacts.
Impacts to floodplains and streams indicate areas where culverts or bridges may be required,
which represent increases in construction costs. Higher values for total lengths of streams and
floodplains within a corridor can indicate that there will be less flexibility in designing roadway
alignments within these corridors that avoid or minimize impacts to streams and floodplains.
None of the Preliminary Corridor Segments encroached upon recorded protected species sites or
watersheds/public water resources. Therefore, these two factors are not discussed in the
evaluations described below.
2.3.2 DEVELOPING THE PRELIMINARY CORRIDORS
2.3.2.1 Land Suitability Mapping
Land suitability mapping was developed for the Project Study Area by identifying constraints
presented by major features of the natural and human environments. As described above, data
sources included aerial photography, USGS topographic information, GIS databases from
NCDOT, Gaston County, and Mecklenburg County, state resource agency files, stakeholder
interviews, and field visits.
The land suitability mapping information was used to create a Refined Study Area within the
overall Project Study Area that was suitable for developing Preliminary Corridor Segments for
the New Location Alternatives. The Refined Study Area for New Location Alternatives is shown
in Figure 2-4.
Primary constraints in establishing the northern boundary of the Refined Study Area included
the more densely developed areas within the City of Gastonia municipal boundaries, Gastonia
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-31
Municipal Airport, and the water supply watershed located on either side of the Catawba River in
Belmont.
To the south, constraints included the North Carolina/South Carolina state line and the Daniel
Stowe Botanical Garden. I-485 and Charlotte-Douglas International Airport comprise the
eastern boundary. The western boundary is Crowders Mountain State Park.
2.3.2.2 Preliminary Corridor Segments
Using the land suitability mapping described above, 107 Preliminary Corridor Segments (totaling
approximately 116 miles) were developed. The Preliminary Corridor Segments are shown in
Figure 2-5a–b.
Major constraints considered in the development of the Preliminary Corridor Segments are
described below. The Refined Study Area was divided into three parts for this discussion: West
Portion (from I-85 to US 321), Central Portion (US 321 to the vicinity of NC 279 or the South
Fork Catawba River), and East Portion (from the vicinity of NC 279 or the South Fork Catawba
River to I-485).
West Portion Preliminary Corridor Segments are labeled beginning with “A” or “B.” They can be
categorized into four general routes that link I-85 to US 321. The routes include corridors in the
east that follow Crowders Creek, corridors in the west that are near Crowders Mountain State
Park, and corridors that criss-cross between the east and west corridors.
Central Portion Preliminary Corridor Segments are labeled beginning with “C,” “D,” or “E.”
These corridors start at two general locations on US 321 and extend to one of five crossings of the
South Fork Catawba River.
East Portion Preliminary Corridor Segments are labeled beginning with “F” or “G.” They begin
at the five crossings of the South Fork Catawba River and end at two locations on I-485. Most of
these corridors are located north of the Duke Energy Corporation’s Allen Steam Station power
plant. Three preliminary corridor routes were located south of the Allen Steam Station power
plant.
All Preliminary Corridor Segments were 1,200 feet wide. The Preliminary Corridor Segments
were located to avoid or minimize impacts to known natural and human resources, whenever
possible. Those segments that most closely correspond to the alignment shown in the GUAMPO
Thoroughfare Plan and LRTP are noted in the descriptions below.
West Portion Preliminary Corridor Segments. Notable natural resources in the West
Portion of the Refined Study Area include Crowders Creek and its named (Abernethy Creek,
Oates Creek, Blackwood Creek, Ferguson Branch, and McGill Branch) and unnamed tributaries,
and a Natural Heritage Program (NHP) site, Site No. A04 – Stagecoach Road Granitic Outcrop.
Crowders Creek has a 100-year floodplain defined and is also a 303(d) listed stream, meaning its
water quality has been determined by NCDENR Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) as being
impaired. The NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) site is located on privately-owned land
just south of Blackwood Creek and west of Stagecoach Road (SR 1136).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-32
Notable human resources in the West Portion
include numerous churches, neighborhoods, and
subdivisions; several schools and potential historic
sites; and the Linwood Springs Golf Course (which
is privately-owned but open to the public). A
parallel railroad track is directly adjacent and east
of US 321. There is also a dormant Superfund site
located between Forbes Road to the south and
Crowders Creek Road to the north.
Engineering design considerations include the
need to provide appropriate spacing between a new
I-85 interchange and adjacent I-85 interchanges,
and the need to provide adequate horizontal
curvature along each corridor length to accommodate the 70 mph design speed. Bessemer City
has expressed a need to maintain access to the interstate at Exit 13 (Edgewood Road).
The potential locations for a new interchange on I-85 in the Refined Study Area are highly
constrained. Existing I-85 interchanges in the Refined Study Area include Exit 10 (US 29-74),
Exit 13 (Edgewood Road), Exit 14 (NC 274 [Bessemer City Road]), and Exit 17 (US 321). At all
potential locations, the first upstream and first downstream existing interchanges on I-85 would
need to be modified to accommodate the new interchange. Also in this area, an interchange with
US 29-74 is proposed. US 29-74is about one-half to one mile south of I-85 in this area and
Crowders Creek runs parallel to the south of US 29-74. There are two major tributaries to
Crowders Creek that run north-south, crossing under I-85 between Exit 13 (Edgewood Road) and
Exit 14 (NC 274 [Bessemer City Road]). Crowders Mountain State Park constrains the western
limits. Sadler Elementary School (opened in 2005) is located on the north side of US 29-74, just
west of Edgewood Road.
The potential for the roadway to be extended north of I-85 sometime in the future (by
constructing the US 321 Bypass) also was considered. The US 321 Bypass is shown on the
Gaston Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan, but would be developed as an independent project if
funded and programmed some time in the future. The alignment and location of the termini at
I-85 took into account features to the north of I-85, including the downtown area of Bessemer
City. The Gaston East-West Connector is being developed in a manner that allows for, but does
not require, the future completion of the US 321 Bypass.
The segments that most closely correspond to the alignment shown on the Gaston Urban Area
Thoroughfare Plan are Preliminary Corridor Segments A3, A6, and B3. Most of the area of these
segments is within the 100-year floodplain of Crowders Creek. Therefore, Preliminary Corridor
Segments A4, A7, and B4 were created and shifted eastward slightly to stay out of Crowders
Creek’s 100-year floodplain as much as possible, while still trying to minimize residential
impacts.
Belfast Drive – A Neighborhood Area in West Portion of
Refined Study Area
Source: PBS&J
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-33
Central Portion Preliminary Corridor
Segments. Notable natural resources in the Central
Portion of the Refined Study Area include tributaries
of Crowders Creek, including a major tributary of
Crowders Creek that runs north to south just east of
US 321 and other unnamed tributaries. Other creeks
in this area are Mill Creek and Catawba Creek (and
their tributaries), which are tributaries of the
Catawba River.
There also is a 152-acre conservation easement that
lies partially within Preliminary Corridor Segments
E6 and E7 on property owned by Duke Ventures LLC
(the real-estate arm of Duke Energy Corporation)
(Figure 2-5b). This conservation easement was
secured by the Catawba Lands Conservancy, a non-
profit regional land trust serving the Lower Catawba
River Basin. According to the conservancy, this
property includes steep slopes, mature hardwood
forests, pine forests, extensive wetlands, and important riparian buffers along Catawba Creek
and numerous tributaries.
Notable human resources in the Central Portion
include numerous churches and subdivisions and
several historic sites. Forestview High School,
W.A. Bess Elementary School, and the Union
Road Branch Library are located on NC 279
(Union Road) south of Beaty Road (Figure 2-5b).
Just south of the NC 279 (Union Road)
intersection with Union-New Hope Road, on the
east side of Union Road, is the privately-owned
Carolina Speedway. It is approximately 28 acres
in size and includes a dirt-track speedway and
bleachers.
The following Preliminary Corridor Segments,
from west to east, are similar to the alignment
shown on the Gaston Thoroughfare Plan: C1,
C5, C8, D2, D4, D8, D9, E3, and E8.
East Portion Preliminary Corridor
Segments. Notable natural resources in the
East Portion of the Refined Study Area include
the South Fork Catawba River, Catawba River,
and Beaverdam Creek. When possible, the
Preliminary Corridor Segments cross these
rivers at narrow areas and in a perpendicular
manner.
Carolina Speedway on Union Road
Source: PBS&J
South Fork Catawba River
Source: PBS&J
Catawba Creek ( Source: S&ME)
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-34
In Mecklenburg County, there is undeveloped parkland (Berewick District Park, owned by the
county) on the north side of Dixie River Road, directly west of I-485.
Notable human resources in this portion of the Refined Study Area include several historic sites
and churches and numerous subdivisions, including riverfront developments. Other features
include the Allen Steam Station power plant and associated facilities, and a planned intermodal
facility and new runway at Charlotte-Douglas International Airport.
The Allen Steam Station is on the Belmont
peninsula—the land between the South
Fork Catawba River and Catawba River
(Figure 2-5b). The Allen Steam Station is
a major coal-fired power plant owned and
operated by Duke Energy Corporation. It
began operations in 1957 and currently
serves more than one million homes.
Facilities associated with the power plant
include a water discharge canal, air
pollution control facility and associated
future landfill, fly ash basins, rail line, and
numerous major power-line easements.
These facilities are described below.
North of the power plant building, Duke Energy Corporation is constructing new pollution control
devices at the Allen Steam Station to comply with the NC Clean Smokestacks Bill enacted in
June 2002. In 2006, the Allen Steam Station began installing flue gas desulfurization equipment,
commonly known as scrubbers. The project is expected to be completed in 2009 (Duke Energy
Corporation Web site: www.duke-energy.com). The scrubbers are located within Preliminary
Corridor Segments G3 and G-X14, which are the corridor segments similar to the Gaston Urban
Area Thoroughfare Plan alignment (Figure 2-5b).
Fly ash basins are areas where by-products of the coal energy production processes are stored.
There are two fly ash basins located just south of the power plant building (Figure 2-5b). The
northern fly ash basin currently is inactive. The basin to the south is currently being used.
An active freight rail line that serves the Allen Steam Station is located along the west side of the
Catawba River. Crossings of the Catawba River will also need to provide a minimum vertical
clearance for the rail line.
As shown in Exhibit 2-1, Charlotte-Douglas International Airport is constructing a new major
runway to the west of its existing runways. This new runway is near and parallel to I-485 to the
east. Between the existing and new runway, the airport plans to construct an intermodal freight
facility. The airport plans to relocate West Boulevard to the south of its property to accommodate
the new intermodal freight facility. An interchange with I-485 along Preliminary Corridor
Segment G9 (black dashed line labeled Segment G9 on Exhibit 2-1) would have ramps located
within the new runway area. The airport completed a previous version of its master plan in
September 2003, after the Preliminary Corridor Segments were developed in August 2003. The
previous version of the site plan had the intermodal facility adjacent to I-485, with the new
runway just east of it.
Allen Steam Station
Source: PBS&J
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-35
Exhibit 2-1: Charlotte-Douglas International Airport
Site Plan
Source: Charlotte‐Douglas
International Airport – April 2008
New Intermodal
Facility
New
Existing
Runway
Relocated West Blvd
Segment G9
Segments G10,G11,G12
I‐485
The project terminus at I-485 is
constrained by the airport’s new
runway and intermodal facility
(under either the previous or
current site plans) and by the
undeveloped Berewick District
Park on the west side of I-485,
north of Dixie River Road. The
existing I-485 interchange to the
north of the Preliminary Corridor
Segments is with US 29-74 and the
existing I-485 interchange to the
south is with Steele Creek Road
(NC 160).
2.3.3 STEP 1:
ANALYZING THE
PRELIMINARY
CORRIDOR
SEGMENTS TO
IDENTIFY THE
FUNCTIONAL
DESIGN CORRIDORS
This section describes the Second Screening Step 1, and how the 107 Preliminary Corridor
Segments (totaling approximately 116 miles) were evaluated to determine which corridor
segments could be eliminated and which should be used to develop functional engineering designs
for further screening. The 59 corridor segments making it through this screening process were
named the Functional Design Corridor Segments. There were approximately 72 miles of
Functional Design Corridor Segments.
2.3.3.1 Screening Methodology
Table 2-2 lists the evaluation factors used in the Second Screening Step 1 to estimate and
compare potential impacts. Quantities of resources were estimated either within the Preliminary
Corridor Segments or within a representative 300-foot-wide alignment in the center of the
corridor segment, depending on the resource. The method used for each factor is listed in
Table 2-2 in the column “Impact Estimate Method – Second Screening Step 1 – Evaluate
Preliminary Corridor Segments.” A representative 300-foot wide alignment in the center of the
corridor segment was used to estimate impacts to parks, community facilities, churches,
cemeteries, and historic sites. It was assumed that many of these types of resources would be
avoided when functional designs were developed and the use of a representative alignment better
reflected the potential for impacts.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-36
The estimates are for comparison purposes only and are intended to aid in deciding between
segments, and should not be considered an estimate of the actual impact of a roadway within a
corridor segment. When necessary, series of Preliminary Corridor Segments were connected to
provide for a common basis of comparison, such as similar length and/or termini.
For example, the numbers of residences within a set of 1,200-foot-wide corridor segments
compared to the numbers of residences within another set of corridor segments of similar length
and/or termini can indicate the relative ability of developing an alignment that minimizes
residential impacts. It does not indicate the projected number of residences that would actually
be impacted. The quantities generated in this screening evaluation were considered together
with other qualitative factors, as described under each decision point within the next section.
2.3.3.2 Screening Results
All evaluation factors listed in Table 2-2 were used in comparing Preliminary Corridor Segments
in the Second Screening Step 1. In some cases, impacts between Preliminary Corridor Segment
combinations would be similar. In other cases, particular impacts would be different, and would
be the differentiating factors. The evaluation emphasized the differentiating factors.
Below is a list of the 59 Preliminary Corridor Segments, totaling approximately 72 miles,
retained for functional design. The 48 segments eliminated also are listed. Figure 2-6a–b shows
these Preliminary Corridor Segments. The details of the evaluation are discussed in Section
II.4.2 of the Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report for the
Gaston East-West Connector (PBS&J, October 2008).
Preliminary Corridor Segments Retained as Functional
Design Corridor Segments
West Portion of
Refined Study Area
A1, A4, A7, A7a, A5a
B1a, B1, B2, B2a, B-X2a, B-X1, B4, B5, B6, B7, B9
Central Portion of
Refined Study Area
C1, C5, C6, C8, C4, C-X4, C-X5
D2, D3, D4, D5, D-X6, D7, D8, D8a, D9
E1, E3, E-X8, E8, E-X9
East Portion of
Refined Study Area
F2, F-X9a, F4, F5, F6, F7a, F8, F9, F10, F-X11, F-X13
G4, G5, G10, G11, G13, G14, G15, G16, G17, G18, G19
Preliminary Corridor Segments Eliminated
West Portion of
Refined Study Area
A2, A3, A3a, A5, A6, A6a, A3-XA7, A4-XA5, A4-XA6
B3, B8, B10, B-X1a, B-X2, B-X3
Central Portion of
Refined Study Area
C2, C3, C3a, C9, C7
D1, D6
E2, E4, E5, E5a, E6, E7, E-X7
East Portion of
Refined Study Area
F1, F3, F7, F-X10, F11, F12, F-X12, F13
G1, G2, G3, G6, G7, G8, G9, G12, G-X12, G-X13, G-X14
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-37
2.3.3.3 Functional Roadway Designs
The Functional Design Corridor Segments listed in Section 2.3.3.2 and shown in Figure 2-6a–b
were connected to form 90 endpoint-to-endpoint Functional Design Corridors from I-85 to I-485.
Total lengths range from 21.4 to 25.6 miles. Figure 2-7 shows the Functional Design Corridors.
The Functional Design Corridors were 1,400 feet wide. The corridor width was widened from
1,200 feet with the Preliminary Corridor Segments to allow for more flexibility in establishing
alignments. Functional roadway designs were prepared within these corridors, taking into
consideration the design criteria, traffic projections, engineering design constraints, and locations
of known sensitive resources. Functional roadway designs include horizontal alignment for the
roadway, basic layouts for interchanges, and consideration of major service roads to reconnect
subdivisions.
The 1,400-foot-wide Functional Design Corridor boundaries then were shifted to be centered on
the functional roadway design alignments. Because the corridor segments were modified
somewhat when they were shifted, the Functional Design Corridor segments were renamed.
Segments labels beginning with “H” are in the West Portion of the Refined Study Area. Segment
labels beginning with “J” are in the Central Portion, and segment labels beginning with “K” are
in the East Portion.
The typical section for the designs within the Functional Design Corridors included a six-lane
highway with a 46-foot-wide grass median and 12-foot-wide paved shoulders. The functional
roadway designs were prepared for a non-toll facility. However, the functional engineering
designs would be similar enough between a non-toll and toll facility to not make a significant, or
even notable, difference in the construction footprint used to estimate impacts.
2.3.3.4 Traffic Analysis of Functional Roadway Designs
After the Preliminary Corridor Segments were narrowed to those for which functional designs
should be developed, year 2025 travel demand forecasting and traffic operations analyses for a
non-toll facility were performed. These were the traffic forecasts available at the time of this
screening.
The functional roadway designs created for the Functional Design Corridors were developed
through an iterative process between design, environmental impact considerations, and traffic
capacity analysis. Functional roadway designs were developed to accommodate projected traffic
at LOS D or better. The traffic operations analysis is documented in the Draft Traffic Technical
Memorandum for the Gaston County East-West Connector Study (PBS&J, May 2005),
incorporated by reference.
At the time the Functional Design Corridors were developed, the project was being studied as
both a toll facility and a non-toll facility. The Non-Toll Scenario 2025 forecasts indicated a six-
lane facility would be needed. The traffic volumes for the Non-Toll Scenario were expected to be
higher, so designing to these 2025 forecasts results in functional designs that could also
accommodate the traffic volumes that would be generated in the Toll Scenario.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-38
The traffic projections for the Toll Scenario may indicate that four lanes may be sufficient. If the
number of lanes is reduced from six to four, that reduction would be achieved by removing the
two lanes in the center. The outside footprint of the project would remain the same. The number
of lanes will be confirmed prior to the Final EIS.
Although the New Location Alternative is planned to terminate at I-85, geometry for the I-85
system interchange was developed so it would not preclude an extension of the New Location
Alternative to the north (the US 321 Bypass), if that project is funded and programmed at some
time in the future. The Gaston East-West Connector allows for, but does not require, the future
completion of the US 321 Bypass.
2.3.4 STEP 2: ANALYZING FUNCTIONAL DESIGN CORRIDORS TO IDENTIFY
THE DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES
This section describes how the Functional Design Corridors were evaluated in Second Screening
Step 2 to identify those that should be carried forward as DSAs.
2.3.4.1 Impact Estimate Methodology
Impacts to the natural and human environments (based upon the functional roadway designs
within the Functional Design Corridors) were estimated and tabulated. Table 2-2 lists the
evaluation factors used to estimate and compare potential impacts. Quantities of resources were
estimated based upon the functional roadway designs. The method used for each factor is listed
in Table 2-2 within the column “Impact Estimate Method – Second Screening Step 2 – Evaluate
Functional Design Corridors.”
The quantities generated in this screening evaluation were considered together with other
qualitative factors, as described in detail in the Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development
and Evaluation Report for the Gaston East-West Connector (PBS&J, October 2008).
2.3.4.2 Evaluation Results
From the set of 90 endpoint-to-endpoint Functional Design Corridors, sixteen DSAs were
originally recommended based upon estimated impacts to the natural and human environments,
engineering design considerations, and input from the public as well as the resource and
regulatory agencies. These original sixteen DSAs are listed in Table 2-3. These
recommendations were presented to the public for comment and input at the second series of
Citizens Informational Workshops in January and February 2006 (Chapter 9 provides more
detail on public involvement).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-39
TABLE 2-3: Sixteen Original Detailed Study Alternatives
West Area –
Generally west of
US 321
Central Area –
Generally east of US 321 and west
of NC 279 or the South Fork
Catawba River
East Area –
Generally east of NC 279
or the South Fork
Catawba River
Detailed Study
Alternative
H Segments J Segments K Segments
4 H2A‐H3 J4a‐J4b‐J2c‐J2d‐J5a‐J5b K2A‐KX1‐K3B‐K3C
5 H2A‐H3 J4a‐J4b‐J2c‐J2d‐JX4‐J1e‐J1f K1A‐K1B‐K1C‐K4A
6 H2A‐H3 J4a‐J4b‐J2c‐J2d‐JX4‐J1e‐J1f K1A‐K1B‐K1C‐K1D
9 H2A‐H3 J4a‐J4b‐J2c‐J2d‐JX4‐J1e‐J1f K1A‐K3A‐K3B‐K3C
22 H2A‐H2B‐H2C J3‐J2c‐J2d‐J5a‐J5b K2A‐KX1‐K3B‐K3C
23 H2A‐H2B‐H2C J3‐J2c‐J2d‐JX4‐JIe‐J1f K1A‐K1B‐K1C‐K4A
24 H2A‐H2B‐H2C J3‐J2c‐J2d‐JX4‐JIe‐J1f K1A‐K1B‐K1C‐K1D
27 H2A‐H2B‐H2C J3‐J2c‐J2d‐JX4‐JIe‐J1f K1A‐K3A‐K3B‐K3C
58 H1A‐H1B‐H1C J1a‐JX1‐J2d‐J5a‐J5b K2A‐KX1‐K3B‐K3C
64 H1A‐H1B‐H1C J1a‐J1b‐J1c‐J1d‐J1e‐J1f K1A‐K1B‐K1C‐K4A
65 H1A‐H1B‐H1C J1a‐J1b‐J1c‐J1d‐J1e‐J1f K1A‐K1B‐K1C‐K1D
68 H1A‐H1B‐H1C J1a‐J1b‐J1c‐J1d‐J1e‐J1f K1A‐K3A‐K3B‐K3C
76 H1A‐HX2 J2a‐J2b‐J2c‐J2d‐J5a‐J5b K2A‐KX1‐K3B‐K3C
77 H1A‐HX2 J2a‐J2b‐J2c‐J2d‐JX4‐J1e‐J1f K1A‐K1B‐K1C‐K4A
78 H1A‐HX2 J2a‐J2b‐J2c‐J2d‐JX4‐J1e‐J1f K1A‐K1B‐K1C‐K1D
81 H1A‐HX2 J2a‐J2b‐J2c‐J2d‐JX4‐J1e‐J1f K1A‐K3A‐K3B‐K3C
Refer to Figure 2‐8 for a map of the DSAs and their corridor segments
The Functional Design Corridor Segments eliminated in Step 2 of the Second Screening are
shown in Figure 2-7 and listed below, along with a summary of the reasons for elimination.
Eliminating these segments eliminated 74 of the 90 possible endpoint-to-endpoint segment
combinations.
Functional Design Corridor Segments Eliminated
West Portion of
Refined Study Area HX1
Central Portion of
Refined Study Area JX2, JX7, JX6
East Portion of
Refined Study Area K2B, K2C, K2D, KX2, KX3, KX4
Functional Design Corridor Segment HX1. Combinations of segments that include Corridor
Segment HX1 were eliminated because these combinations had substantially more stream
impacts than other segment combinations in the west portion of the Refined Study Area (“H”
segment combinations) extending from I-85 to US 321 (about 4,080 linear feet more stream
impacts than then the next highest impacts), and would be substantially more expensive.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-40
Functional Design Corridor Segments JX2 and JX7. Combinations of segments that
include Corridor Segments JX2 orJX7 were eliminated because the constraints resulted in a
functional design in this corridor that was not desirable. The design in this area includes a half-
clover interchange at US 321 due to a railroad paralleling the east side of US 321. Corridor
Segments JX2 and JX7 would cause back-to-back horizontal curves in this interchange area, and
superelevations (i.e., the slope of the lanes from side to side) of the ramps and the mainline that
would be in opposite directions, making it difficult to tie the ramps into the mainline. This
combination of design issues makes the design undesirable.
Functional Design Corridor Segment JX6. Combinations of segments that include Corridor
Segment JX6 were eliminated because these combinations were longer and more expensive than
other combinations that began and ended at the same points (US 321 and NC 279 [South New
Hope Road]).
Functional Design Corridor Segments K2B, K2C, K2D, KX3, and KX4. These five
segments (together with Functional Design Corridor Segments K3B and K3C) form the four
northernmost segment combinations over the Catawba River east to I-485: K2B-K2C-K2D, K2B-
KX4-K3C, KX1-KX3-K2D, and KX1-K3B-K3C. Corridor segment combinations that use Corridor
Segment K2D have a less desirable design than those using Corridor Segment K3C due to a
curve immediately east of the Catawba River Bridge and west of I-485. This curve cannot be
flattened due to space constraints related to tying into I-485. Corridor segment combinations
that use Corridor Segment K2D also have more stream impacts and would require a longer
bridge to span the Catawba River and adjacent railroad tracks. Of the two corridor segment
combinations that use Corridor Segment K3C, the combination K2B-KX4-K3C had substantially
more residential impacts.
Corridor Segment KX2. This corridor segment was eliminated because it only connected to
Corridor Segment K2D, which was eliminated from further study (as described above). Corridor
segment combination KX2-K3C was not feasible due to horizontal curvature constraints.
Later Elimination of Corridor Segment K1D. As project studies progressed, new
information became available regarding the viability of Detailed Study Corridor Segment K1D in
relation to operations at Duke Energy Corporation’s Allen Steam Station. As discussed below,
this segment has been eliminated from further study, thereby eliminating DSAs 6, 24, 65, and 78
from further consideration. More detailed discussion of this decision is included in the
Addendum to the Final Alternatives Development and Evaluation Report for the Gaston East-West
Connector (PBS&J, October 2008).
The Allen Steam Station is described in Section 2.3.2.2. Duke Energy Corporation is installing
air pollution control equipment to comply with the NC Clean Smokestacks Act (enacted in 2002).
As part of the installation, the Allen Steam Station needs to reuse, as a storage area for coal
combustion products, a basin that is currently storing fly ash, which is a by-product of the power-
generating process. The Allen Steam Station states several alternatives and sites were evaluated
for the future storage area, but that the retired fly ash basin was the only viable site that
provided the required capacity (Appendix A-5, Letter from Duke Energy Corporation to NCTA,
August 7, 2007).
This fly ash basin is located within Corridor Segment K1D and spans the corridor. As described
above, use of this retired fly ash basin by the Allen Steam Station as an active storage area is
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-41
critical to the operation of the air pollution control facilities at the Allen Steam Station.
Therefore, the four DSAs using Corridor Segment K1D (DSAs 6, 24, 65, and 78) have been
eliminated from study.
The environmental regulatory and resource agencies agreed that DSAs 6, 24, 65, and 78 should
be eliminated from detailed study in a Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination meeting on
September 27, 2007 (Section 9.2.3.3). The elimination of Corridor Segment K1D and its
associated DSAs was presented to the public at the third series of Citizens Informational
Workshops in August 2008.
2.3.4.3 Twelve Final Detailed Study Alternatives
Figure 2-8a–b and Table 2-4 present the 1,400-foot wide Corridor Segments that comprise the
twelve DSAs. Figure 2-9a–ii shows the corridor boundaries and the preliminary engineering
design right-of-way limits in each Corridor Segment. Corridor Segments are wider than 1,400
feet at areas for which interchanges and/or service roads will be considered. These twelve DSAs
are carried forward for detailed study as toll facilities only.
In addition to the twelve new location DSAs, the No-Build Alternative is being retained for
comparison purposes throughout the planning process, in accordance with NEPA regulations (40
CFR Part 1502.14(d)) and FHWA guidelines (Technical Advisory T 6640.8A; Section V.E.1). The
No-Build Alternative does not assume any capacity improvements to I-85 or to US 29-74. The
No-Build Alternative would not meet the project’s purpose and need.
TABLE 2-4: Twelve Final Detailed Study Alternatives
West Area –
Generally west of US
321
Central Area –
Generally east of US 321 and west
of NC 279 or the South Fork
Catawba River
East Area –
Generally east of
NC 279 or the South
Fork Catawba River
Detailed Study
Alternative
H Segments J Segments K Segments
4 H2A‐H3 J4a‐J4b‐J2c‐J2d‐J5a‐J5b K2A‐KX1‐K3B‐K3C
5 H2A‐H3 J4a‐J4b‐J2c‐J2d‐JX4‐J1e‐J1f K1A‐K1B‐K1C‐K4A
9 H2A‐H3 J4a‐J4b‐J2c‐J2d‐JX4‐J1e‐J1f K1A‐K3A‐K3B‐K3C
22 H2A‐H2B‐H2C J3‐J2c‐J2d‐J5a‐J5b K2A‐KX1‐K3B‐K3C
23 H2A‐H2B‐H2C J3‐J2c‐J2d‐JX4‐JIe‐J1f K1A‐K1B‐K1C‐K4A
27 H2A‐H2B‐H2C J3‐J2c‐J2d‐JX4‐JIe‐J1f K1A‐K3A‐K3B‐K3C
58 H1A‐H1B‐H1C J1a‐JX1‐J2d‐J5a‐J5b K2A‐KX1‐K3B‐K3C
64 H1A‐H1B‐H1C J1a‐J1b‐J1c‐J1d‐J1e‐J1f K1A‐K1B‐K1C‐K4A
68 H1A‐H1B‐H1C J1a‐J1b‐J1c‐J1d‐J1e‐J1f K1A‐K3A‐K3B‐K3C
76 H1A‐HX2 J2a‐J2b‐J2c‐J2d‐J5a‐J5b K2A‐KX1‐K3B‐K3C
77 H1A‐HX2 J2a‐J2b‐J2c‐J2d‐JX4‐J1e‐J1f K1A‐K1B‐K1C‐K4A
81 H1A‐HX2 J2a‐J2b‐J2c‐J2d‐JX4‐J1e‐J1f K1A‐K3A‐K3B‐K3C
Refer to Figure 2‐8a‐b for a map of the DSAs and their corridor segments
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-42
2.4 PRELIMINARY DESIGNS FOR THE DETAILED STUDY
ALTERNATIVES
2.4.1 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING DESIGNS
The design criteria used to develop the preliminary engineering designs are included in
Appendix D. The preliminary engineering designs for the DSAs are based upon a controlled-
access highway with six lanes and a 46-foot-wide grass median. The typical cross section for the
mainline is shown in Figure 2-3. The mainline design speed is 70 mph, with a planned posted
speed limit of 65 mph.
The development of the preliminary engineering designs was initially based upon traffic
projections for DSAs for the Non-Toll Scenario. At the time the preparations of traffic projections
and preliminary engineering designs were begun in 2006, the proposed alternatives were being
studied as both non-toll and toll facilities. The Non-Toll Scenarios were expected to generate
higher volumes of traffic along the DSAs. Preliminary engineering designs prepared using the
Non-Toll Scenario traffic volumes were expected to also accommodate the Toll Scenario traffic
volumes at an acceptable LOS because the Toll Scenario projected traffic volumes are less than
the Non-Toll Scenario projected traffic volumes (Section 2.4.4.2).
Traffic projections may be updated during preparation of the Final EIS, and will be for the Toll
Scenario. The traffic projections may indicate that four lanes may be sufficient. If the number of
lanes is reduced from six to four along the Preferred Alternative, that reduction would be
achieved by removing the two lanes in the center. The outside footprint of the project would
remain the same. The width of the grass median in the middle would change from 46 feet to
70 feet.
2.4.2 DEVELOPING THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING DESIGNS
The preliminary engineering designs
within the DSAs are shown in
Figure 2-9a–ii. This figure shows
the study corridor boundaries and the
preliminary engineering design right
of way on GIS-based resource
mapping.
After the DSA corridors were
identified, aerial photography and
more detailed mapping of the corridor
areas were created to aid in preparing
the preliminary engineering designs.
The more detailed mapping (which
includes topographic contour lines
and locations of items such as electric
power transmission towers) is needed because the preliminary engineering designs include
vertical as well as horizontal elevations of the roadway, ramps, and cross streets.
Example of preliminary engineering design
Source: PBS&J
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-43
Additional information available during the development of the preliminary engineering designs
that was not available for the functional designs included: delineated wetlands and streams
inside the corridors (Section 6.4), updated information on parcel boundaries and buildings, and a
Final Preliminary Hydraulic Technical Memorandum, Gaston East-West Connector (a study to
identify major drainage culverts and bridges) (PBS&J, December 2007), incorporated by
reference, and available on the NCTA Web site (www.ncturnpike.org/projects/gaston).
The horizontal alignment of the functional designs was reviewed and adjusted where possible to
avoid or minimize impacts to resources such as neighborhoods, churches, streams, wetlands,
historic resources, and major electric power transmission towers.
Interchanges and major cross streets were evaluated to determine whether the project’s
mainlines should go over or under the crossing roadway (this type of evaluation is known as an
“over/under study”).
All the DSAs were reviewed to identify where apparent service roads should be included in the
preliminary engineering designs to provide access to existing neighborhoods or other major
facilities. However, all properties were not reviewed at this stage. A detailed service road study
will be conducted during final design of the Preferred Alternative.
The appropriate configuration for each interchange was determined through review of year 2030
traffic forecasts for the Non-Toll Scenario and the wetlands, streams, residences, businesses,
churches, and other resources within the interchange area. Impacts to resources were avoided
and minimized to the extent possible in the selection of the interchange form. The year 2030 non-
toll forecasts were used because, at the time the preliminary engineering design effort began in
2006, the project was still being studied as both a toll facility and a non-toll facility. The traffic
volumes for the non-toll forecasts were higher, so designing according to these forecasts would
result in designs that could also accommodate the Toll Scenario forecasts (Section 2.4.4).
The potential for the roadway to be extended north of I-85 sometime in the future (by
constructing the US 321 Bypass) also was considered. The US 321 Bypass is shown on the
Gaston Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan, but would be developed as an independent project if
funded and programmed some time in the future. The preliminary engineering designs for the
interchange at I-85 would not preclude a future extension. The Gaston East-West Connector is
being developed in a manner that allows for, but does not require, the future completion of the
US 321 Bypass.
The preliminary engineering design alignments and major drainage crossings were reviewed by
the Agency Coordination Team at meetings on February 5, March 4, and April 8, 2008. The
Agency Coordination Team agreed that the preliminary engineering design alignments avoid and
minimize impacts to wetlands and streams where practicable. In addition, bridges were added at
other locations to span particularly sensitive wetlands and streams based upon input from the
Agency Coordination Team (Section 6.4.5 and Section 9.2.3.3).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-44
2.4.3 CONSIDERING TOLLING IN THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING DESIGNS
For the New Location Alternative Toll Scenario, access to any portion of the facility will require
payment of a toll. The Proposed Gaston East-West Connector Preliminary Traffic and Revenue
Study Final Report (Wilbur Smith Associates, October 12, 2006, available on the NCTA Web site
at www.ncturnpike.org/projects/gaston/documents.asp) was prepared for the project. This study
recommends a toll of about $2.50 in the estimated opening year (2015) to drive the length of the
project, which equates to approximately $0.11 per mile.
The NCTA has not made any decisions about toll rates. The actual initial price of the toll will be
recommended following preparation of the Investment Grade Traffic and Revenue Study, to be
completed around the time of the issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD). The price of the toll
will increase over time, based upon variables such as managing demand, financing the initial
construction of the project, and paying for roadway operations and maintenance. The toll rate
likely will differ for cars and trucks.
Tolls will be collected by an electronic toll
collection (ETC) system. There will be no cash
toll booths. The primary means of ETC will
involve pre-registration with NCTA and use of a
transponder/receiver system. The transponder
may be mounted on the windshield of a vehicle.
This allows the vehicle to move through the toll-
collection locations at highway speeds. The
user’s account is then debited for the cost of the
toll. The NCTA will work with other toll
authorities to enable, where possible, other
system’s transponders to work on the Gaston
East-West Connector. For travelers who do not have a transponder, a video system will capture
license plate information and NCTA will bill the vehicle’s registrant. In addition, in accordance
with State law (NCGS 136-89.213), NCTA will operate a facility in the immediate vicinity of the
project that accepts cash payment for prepaid tolls, so establishing an account is not required. It
is anticipated that this facility will operate from an existing commercial building within the
project area.
There are few differences in the designs for a facility with and without an ETC system. The ETC
equipment, which is primarily an overhead structure like the one shown in the photo simulation
above, takes up little space, and can be accommodated within the standard right of way for the
proposed highway. No additional right of way is needed specifically for this equipment. While
the right-of-way requirements may not differ between a non-toll facility and a toll facility, the
alignment of some interchange ramps that have ETC equipment may slightly differ. At these
locations, the ramp is lengthened to provide a straight segment that facilitates accurate video
capture of license plates.
The Proposed Gaston East-West Connector Preliminary Traffic and Revenue Study Final Report
(Wilbur Smith Associates, October 2006) also recommends preliminary locations for the toll
collection locations. These preliminary locations, shown in Exhibit 2-2, capture all trips
entering and exiting the facility. The preliminary toll collection locations are also shown on
Electronic toll collection site
Source: NCTA
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-45
Figure 2-9a–ii. These toll collection locations may change after the Investment Grade Traffic
and Revenue Study is completed.
2.4.4 TRAFFIC FORECASTS AND OPERATIONS ALONG THE DETAILED STUDY
ALTERNATIVES
An important factor in developing the preliminary engineering designs for the DSAs was
consideration of traffic operations. As described below in Section 2.4.4.1, 2030 traffic forecasts
were developed for the DSAs. Using these forecasts, traffic operations analyses were performed
concurrently with the preliminary engineering design preparations so that an acceptable LOS
was projected along the roadway mainline and at the interchanges (LOS D or better)
(Section 2.4.4.2).
2.4.4.1 Travel Demand Modeling
The April 13, 2006 version of the 2030 Metrolina travel demand model was used for all year 2030
project-related traffic forecasts because this was the current version when the updated
forecasting activities began. The 2030 Metrolina travel demand model covers a thirteen-county
region (including Gaston County and Mecklenburg County) within a single model. The 2030
Metrolina travel demand model also uses population and land use forecasts that extend out to
2030. The Metrolina travel demand model is updated on a continual basis.
Two travel demand forecasts for the toll scenario were prepared, the NEPA Forecast and the
Traffic and Revenue Forecast. The NEPA Forecast is prepared to evaluate impacts and
determine the design of the facility using standard procedures for FHWA NEPA documents. The
Traffic and Revenue Forecast is a separate forecast used for predicting revenue. It is usually
lower than the NEPA Forecast so that potential revenue is not overstated. The Traffic and
Revenue Forecast is documented in the Proposed Gaston East-West Connector Preliminary Traffic
and Revenue Forecast Final Report (Wilbur Smith and Associates, October 12, 2006). The Traffic
Exhibit 2‐2: Preliminary Toll Collection Locations
Source: Proposed Gaston East‐West Connector Preliminary Traffic and Revenue Study Final Report, Wilbur Smith Associates,
October 12, 2006
Note: Interchanges are drawn as schematics and are not intended to show the preliminary engineering design ramp configurations
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-46
and Revenue Forecast was not used to evaluate impacts or determine the facility design
documented in this Draft EIS.
The NEPA Forecast is documented in the Gaston East-West Connector Traffic Forecasting and
System Level Analysis for the Detailed Study Alternatives (Martin/Alexiou/Bryson, April 2007),
incorporated by reference. Year 2030 Non-Toll Scenario traffic volume forecasts for the sixteen
original DSAs were developed by modeling six representative DSAs: 4, 5, 58, 64, 76, and 77. At
the time when the forecasts were prepared, the group of sixteen original DSAs had not yet been
narrowed down to the final twelve DSAs.
The regional model lacks sufficient precision to accurately distinguish among some of the DSAs.
Coding these alignments and assigning traffic to them would yield results that would not differ in
any meaningful way. Therefore, traffic forecasts for the DSAs not specifically modeled were
obtained by manually adjusting forecasts from the most similar coded alternative that was
modeled.
Year 2030 Toll Scenario traffic volumes were developed by modeling three representative DSAs:
DSA 4 (the northernmost DSA), DSA 64 (the southernmost), and DSA 77 (a crossover DSA). The
modeling effort and the forecasts are documented in the Gaston East-West Connector (U-3321)
Traffic Forecasts for Toll Alternatives (Martin/Alexiou/Bryson, August 2008). Appendix E
provides the 2030 daily traffic volume forecast sheets. A review of the Non-Toll Scenario
forecasts showed that these three representative alternatives would provide the full range of
volumes forecasted along the DSAs, and all DSAs are represented by various portions of these
three DSAs. Table 2-5 shows the forecasted 2030 Toll Scenario traffic volumes along the
mainline for DSAs 4, 64, and 77.
TABLE 2-5: Year 2030 Traffic Volumes Along the Detailed Study Alternatives
Modeled Detailed Study Alternative (Toll Scenario) Segment
4* 64 77*
I‐85 to US 29‐74 12,800 10,000 12,200
US 29‐74 to Linwood Rd (SR 1133) 20,800 11,400 18,000
Linwood Rd to Lewis Rd (SR 1126) 15,400 9,600 17,400
Lewis Rd to US 321 15,400 14,200 17,400
US 321 to Robinson Rd (SR 2416) 20,000 18,800 21,400
Robinson Rd to Bud Wilson Rd (SR 2423) 29,200 29,400 30,400
Bud Wilson Rd to NC 274 (Union Rd) 28,000 28,600 28,200
NC 274 to NC 279 (S New Hope Rd) 31,600 35,000 34,800
NC 279 to NC 273 (Southpoint Rd) 42,200 44,200 43,400
NC 273 to Dixie River Rd (SR 1155) 58,400 61,800 60,600
Dixie River Rd to I‐485 55,400 54,400 53,000
Source: Gaston East‐West Connector ‐ (U‐3321) Traffic Forecast for Toll Alternatives (Martin/Alexiou/Bryson,
August 2008)
* Alternatives 4 and 64 do not have an interchange at Lewis Rd, and therefore the volumes in the 3rd and 4th
rows are repeated.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-47
2.4.4.2 Traffic Operations along the Detailed Study Alternatives
Traffic operations analyses performed for the DSAs are documented in two reports, both
incorporated by reference. The first, Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum – Gaston East-
West Connector (PBS&J, December 2007), incorporated by reference, used the year 2030 Non-Toll
Scenario traffic forecasts. The second, Final Toll Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum –
Gaston East-West Connector (PBS&J, September 2008), incorporated by reference and available
on the NCTA Web site (www.ncturnpike.org/projects/gaston), used the year 2030 Toll Scenario
traffic forecasts.
The traffic operations analysis using the Non-Toll Scenario forecasts initially were used in the
preparation of the preliminary engineering designs. For most of the analyzed interchanges, more
than one modeled corridor passes through the interchange. In those cases, to assume a worst-
case operations scenario, the corridor with the largest overall volumes for that location was used.
All freeway element and intersection analysis was performed following the Capacity Analysis
Guidelines for TIP Project Traffic Analyses (NCDOT Congestion Management, February 15,
2006). LOS D was assumed as the minimum standard for all operational elements related to new
location alignments. All elements of the preliminary engineering designs (mainlines, ramps, and
interchanges) met LOS D or better in 2030 under the Non-Toll Scenario.
After completion of the preliminary engineering designs, it was determined that the project
would be studied only as a toll facility, and the Toll Scenario traffic analysis was completed
(Section 2.2.7.2). The traffic operations analysis was performed to verify that the preliminary
engineering designs for the DSAs would provide adequate capacity for implementing the project
as a toll facility (Final Toll Traffic Operations Technical Memorandum – Gaston East-West
Connector, PBS&J, September 2008).
Based on the reassessment of the preliminary engineering designs using Toll Scenario traffic
forecasts, all individual freeway and ramp merge-and-diverge elements would operate at an
acceptable LOS without adjustment to the preliminary engineering designs for each DSA.
Analysis of the ramp terminal intersections using the toll scenario traffic forecasts show that all
intersections would operate with acceptable LOS, except at the Bessemer City Road interchange,
which is included in the preliminary engineering designs for the I-85 interchange for DSAs 4, 5,
9, 22, 23, and 27. Due to the higher traffic volumes at this interchange, minor modifications to
the preliminary engineering designs were recommended to achieve an acceptable LOS. These
modifications include adding a second turn lane at the northbound and westbound approaches of
the southbound I-85/Bessemer City Road ramp terminal intersection. These modifications can be
accommodated within the proposed right of way in the preliminary engineering designs. If DSA
4, 5, 9, 22, 23, or 27 is selected as the Preferred Alternative, the change will be incorporated into
the designs.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-48
2.4.5 DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS AND COST ESTIMATES
2.4.5.1 Descriptions of the Detailed Study Alternatives
Table 2-6 presents the length of each DSA, number of proposed interchanges, and preliminary
estimates of construction costs, environmental mitigation costs, and right-of-way costs. Cost
estimates are discussed in Section 2.4.5.2. The preliminary engineering designs are presented
in Figure 2-9a–ii.
The lengths of the DSAs are similar, ranging from 21.4 miles for DSA 4 (the northernmost DSA)
to 23.7 miles for DSA 68.
TABLE 2-6: Cost Estimates for the Detailed Study Alternatives
Probable Range of Costs Through Year of Expenditure
DSA
Approximate
Length
(miles)
Number of
Interchanges
Construction
Cost
(millions $)*
Environmental
Mitigation Cost
(millions $)*
Right‐of‐Way
Cost
(millions $)*
Total Cost
(millions $)*
Median Total
Project Cost
(millions $)
4 21.4 11 955.0‐1,140.8 38.9‐41.1 186.7‐228.5 1,180.6‐1,410.4 1,280.5
5 21.5 11 980.2‐1,173.2 34.8‐36.7 199.1‐243.0 1,214.1‐1,452.9 1,316.9
9 21.9 11 974.5‐1,168.4 32.2‐34.0 173.9‐213.0 1,180.6‐1,415.4 1,282.0
22 21.9 11 999.5‐1,195.0 40.4‐42.6 197.0‐241.1 1,236.9‐1,478.7 1,342.2
23 22.0 11 1,022.6‐1,228.2 36.4‐38.4 208.8‐255.5 1,267.9‐1,522.0 1,378.4
27 22.4 11 1,019.7‐1,221.7 33.8‐35.7 183.5‐224.5 1,237.1‐1,481.9 1,342.9
58 23.1 12 978.2‐1,171.3 41.5‐43.7 197.3‐241.3 1,217.0‐1,456.3 1,321.2
64 23.3 12 992.4‐1,188.6 34.3‐36.1 215.7‐263.2 1,242.4‐1,488.0 1,348.2
68 23.7 12 986.2‐1,180.9 31.8‐33.5 190.8‐233.2 1,208.7‐1,447.6 1,312.6
76 21.8 11 982.1‐1,174.0 37.7‐39.8 182.4‐223.2 1,202.1‐1,436.9 1,304.3
77 21.9 11 1,007.4‐1,209.6 33.2‐35.0 194.6‐237.6 1,235.2‐1,482.3 1,341.9
81 22.2 11 1,000.5‐1,199.7 31.1‐32.8 169.6‐207.3 1,201.2‐1,439.8 1,305.0
Source: Gaston Cost Estimation Support Memorandum, HNTB, March, 2009
* Assumptions and notes regarding costs:
1. Total cost may not add up exactly due to rounding.
2. Construction costs include construction, utility relocations, and agency costs.
3. Year of expenditure costs were modeled using a range of possible inflation rates.
4. Future construction costs were modeled to mid‐year of construction using inflation rates ranging from 5%‐10%, with 6.02% being
most likely.
5. Future right‐of‐way costs were modeled to anticipated year of acquisition using inflation rates ranging from 5%‐12%, with 8% being
most likely.
6. Future agency costs (included in construction costs) were modeled to anticipated year of expenditure using inflation rates ranging
from 2.5%‐4.5%, with 4% being most likely.
7. Ranges of costs are based on cost projections in which the lowest 10% and highest 10% were discarded. There is an 80% probability
associated with these costs.
8. Year of expenditure costs assume an award date of December 2010 and an opening in August 2015.
9. Environmental mitigation costs are based on current costs of estimated impacts to streams and wetlands.
10. Utility relocation costs (included in construction costs) were estimated in the Utility Impact Report for the Gaston East‐West
Connector (TBE Group, Inc., August 2008).
11. Right‐of‐way costs were provided in the Relocation Reports for the Gaston East‐West Connector (Carolina Land Acquisitions, Inc.,
April 2008).
As discussed in Section 2.4.1, each DSA is a controlled-access toll facility. The preliminary
engineering designs show a six-lane facility with a 46-foot-wide grass median. Each DSA
currently is proposed to have 11 to 12 interchanges (depending upon the DSA), as listed below
from west to east.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-49
• I-85 • Bud Wilson Rd (SR 2423)
• US 29-74 • NC 274 (Union Rd)
• Linwood Rd (SR 1133) • NC 279 (South New Hope Rd)
• NC 273 (Southpoint Rd) • Lewis Rd (SR 1126)
(DSAs 58, 64, and 68 only) • Dixie River Rd (SR 1155)
• US 321 • I-485
• Robinson Rd (SR 2416)
For this Draft EIS, all interchanges listed in this section were included in the impact evaluations.
However, once a Preferred Alternative is identified, the need for each interchange will be
reevaluated. Traffic and revenue studies will be conducted for the Preferred Alternative and will
include a review of all interchange locations to optimize traffic and revenue, as well as toll
operations.
I-85 and I-485 Interchanges. The interchanges at I-85 and I-485 would be system
interchanges, meaning they would be freeway-to-freeway interchanges with no traffic signals or
stop signs. The other interchanges would be service interchanges, meaning that there would be a
traffic signal or stop sign on the cross street where the highway ramps would connect.
Due to the close spacing of interchanges along I-85, the construction of the Gaston East-West
Connector interchange at I-85 would require the reconfiguration of adjacent interchanges. For
the DSAs that tie into I-85 using Corridor Segment H1A (DSAs 58, 64, 68, 76, 77, and 81), the
existing I-85 interchange at Edgewood Road would need to be reconfigured to maintain access to
I-85 at that interchange (Figure 2-9a). The ramps for the Edgewood Road interchange would be
braided with the ramps for the Gaston East-West Connector interchange, so that motorists using
the Edgewood Road interchange could access I-85 but not the Gaston East-West Connector.
Travelers on the Gaston East-West Connector would have access to I-85, but would not be able to
exit I-85 at the Edgewood Road interchange.
For the DSAs that tie into I-85 using Corridor Segment H2A (DSAs 4, 5, 9, 22, 23, and 27), the
same situation occurs with the existing interchange at NC 274 (Bessemer City Road). The
NC 274 (Bessemer City Road) interchange would need to be reconfigured to maintain access to
I-85 at that interchange (Figure 2-9c). The ramps for the Bessemer City Road interchange
would be braided with the ramps for the Gaston East-West Connector interchange, so that
motorists using the Bessemer City Road interchange could access I-85 but not the Gaston East-
West Connector. Travelers on the Gaston East-West Connector would have access to I-85, but
would not be able to exit I-85 at the Bessemer City Road interchange.
All DSAs would tie into I-485 at the same location (Figure 2-9gg, hh, and ii), due to constraints
described in Section 2.3.2.2. East of I-485, the Gaston East-West Connector would tie into
relocated NC 160 (West Boulevard), which is being constructed as part of the Charlotte-Douglas
International Airport runway expansion project. Relocated NC 160 will not be access-controlled.
US 29-74 Interchange. After a Preferred Alternative is selected, the NCTA has committed to
considering the potential elimination of the US 29-74 interchange.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-50
The NCTA met with the environmental resource and regulatory agencies (USACE, USFWS,
USEPA, NCDWQ, NCWRC) at Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAC) meetings
on February 5, March 4, and April 8, 2008, to discuss bridging and alignment decisions for the
DSAs’ preliminary engineering designs. In the NEPA/404 Merger Process (Section 9.2), this is
Concurrence Point 2a – Bridging and Alignment Review.
As a result of those meetings, the environmental resource and regulatory agencies requested that
NCTA consider eliminating the US 29-74 interchange due to impacts to floodplains, streams, and
high-quality wetlands associated with Crowders Creek. The interchange’s proximity to the I-85
interchange for all the DSAs restricts design options available to avoid and minimize impacts.
(Figure 2-9d and 2-9e).
The estimated reductions in impacts to wetlands and streams resulting from the removal of the
US 29-74 interchange from the preliminary engineering designs are listed in Table 2-7. As
shown in the table, there would be substantial reductions in impacts to wetlands and streams if
this interchange were removed from the project.
TABLE 2-7: Estimated Impact Reductions Without the
US 29-74 Interchange
Estimated Reduction in Impacts if US 29‐74
Interchange Not Included in the Project Detailed Study
Alternative Reduction in Wetland
Impacts (acres)
Reduction in Stream
Impacts (linear ft)
4, 5, 9 1.4 1,336
22, 23, 27 1.9 2,708
58, 64, 68, 76, 77, 81 2.0 553
Source: Memorandum – Gaston County East‐West Connector – TIP Project U‐3321 ‐
Effects on Impacts if the US 29‐74 Interchange is Removed from the DSAs (PBS&J,
September, 2008), incorporated by reference.
The option of removing the US 29-74 interchange from the project was presented to the public at
the third series of Citizens Informational Workshops held in August 2008 (Section 9.1.1). Of the
205 written comment forms received, 48 comments specifically included or indicated a preference
regarding the US 29-74 interchange, with 23 comments stating there was no need for the
interchange and 25 comments stating there was a need. After a Preferred Alternative is selected,
the NCTA will coordinate with the FHWA, NCDOT, GUAMPO, and the environmental resource
and regulatory agencies, to determine whether the US 29-74 interchange should remain a part of
the proposed project. The decision will be documented in the Final EIS.
2.4.5.2 Cost Estimates for the Detailed Study Alternatives
The cost estimates presented in Table 2-6 are based on the preliminary engineering designs and
are in year-of-expenditure dollars, as described in the table notes. Cost estimates are provided as
a range of probable project costs by DSA for construction, right-of-way acquisition, and
environmental mitigation (mitigation of impacts to streams and wetlands).
The total estimated median costs range from $1.280 billion for DSA 4 to $1.378 billion for
DSA 23, a range of approximately $100 million. DSA 4 is the shortest alternatives, and is the
least expensive due to having some of the lowest right-of-way and environmental mitigation
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-51
costs. DSA 9 has the second lowest total cost at $1.282 billion. In order from lowest estimated
median total cost to highest, the DSAs are: DSA 4, 9, 76, 81, 68, 5, 58, 77, 22, 27, 64, and 23.
2.5 RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
Based on the information available to date, including this Draft EIS, the FHWA, NCTA and
NCDOT have identified DSA 9 as the Recommended Alternative. This alternative is comprised
of Corridor Segments H2A-H3-J4a-J4b-J2c-J2d-JX4-J1e-J1f-K1A-K3A-K3B-K3C, as shown in
Figure 2-8a-b.
It should be noted that the “Recommended Alternative” is only a recommendation; it is not a
Preferred Alternative and it is not a final decision. FHWA, NCTA and NCDOT have identified a
Recommended Alternative as a way of giving readers of the Draft EIS an indication of the
agencies’ current thinking. After the Draft EIS comment period ends, FHWA, NCTA and
NCDOT will identify a Preferred Alternative based on consultation with local transportation
planning agencies, and state and federal environmental resource and regulatory agencies, as well
as consideration of agency and public comments on this Draft EIS and at the public hearings.
The Preferred Alternative may be developed further in the Final EIS. The NEPA process will
conclude with a Record of Decision, which will document the Selected Alternative to be
constructed.
DSA 9 has been identified as the Recommended Alternative based on the following
considerations. Please note this list is not in order of importance, but is organized by issues as
they are presented in the Draft EIS. Also, this list does not represent all benefits or impacts of
DSA 9, just those elements that differentiated DSA 9 when compared to the other DSAs.
Cost and Design Considerations
• DSA 9 is one of the shortest alternatives at 21.9 miles (all alternatives range from 21.4 to
23.7 miles).
• DSA 9 has the second-lowest median total cost ($1,282 million) (all alternatives range
from $1,281 million to $1,378 million).
Human Environment Considerations
• DSA 9 is one of the four DSAs with the fewest numbers of residential relocations at 348
residential relocations (the range being 326 to 384 residential relocations).
• Although DSA 9 is higher in the range of business relocations at 37 (the range being 24 to
40 business relocations), it would avoid impacts to Carolina Specialty Transport (provides
transportations services to special needs groups) that would occur under DSAs 58, 64, 68,
76, 77 and 81.
• DSA 9 is in the middle of the range of total neighborhood impacts at 25 impacted
neighborhoods (the range being 21 to 31 impacted neighborhoods).
• DSA 9 would have no direct impacts to schools. (DSAs 5, 23, and 27 also avoid direct
impacts to schools.)
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-52
• DSA 9 would not require relocation of known cemeteries. (DSAs 27, 68, and 81 also
would not require relocation of known cemeteries.)
• At Linwood Road, DSA 9 is one of three alternatives (DSAs 4, 5, and 9) that would avoid
impacting either the Karyae Park YMCA Outdoor Family Center or the Pisgah Associate
Reformed Presbyterian Church (part of the church property is also an historic site eligible
for listing on the National Register of Historic Places).
• DSA 9 is one of the three alternatives (DSAs 4, 5, and 9) farthest from Crowders
Mountain State Park.
• DSA 9 would avoid right-of-way requirements from Daniel Stowe Botanical Garden.
(DSAs 4, 22, 27, 58, 68, 76, and 81 also avoid these right-of-way requirements.)
• DSA 9 would avoid the relocation of Ramoth AME Zion Church and cemetery, which is
part of the Garrison Road/Dixie River Road community. (DSAs 4, 22, 27, 58, 68, 76, and
81 also avoid this church.)
• DSA 9 is one of the eight alternatives (DSAs 4, 9, 22, 27, 58, 68, 76, and 81) with the least
amount of right of way required from future Berewick District Park in Mecklenburg
County.
Physical Environment Considerations
• DSA 9 is in the middle range of estimated numbers of receptors impacted by traffic noise
at 245 receptors (the range being 204 to 309 impacted receptors).
• DSA 9 is one of the alternatives (DSAs 4, 5, 9, 22, 23, and 27) that would impact the least
acreage of land in Voluntary Agricultural Districts. DSA 9 also is one that is expected to
have the least indirect and cumulative effects to farmlands.
• DSA 9 is one of the alternatives with the fewest power transmission line crossings at 14
crossings (the range being 13 to 18).
Cultural Resources Considerations
• DSA 9 is one of six alternatives (DSAs 4, 5, 9, 22, 23, and 27) that would not require right
of way from the Wolfe Family Dairy Farm historic site. Selection of DSA 9 makes it more
likely that, if the US 321 Bypass is constructed at some future time, the project would
also avoid the Wolfe Family Dairy Farm historic site.
• DSA 9 is one of four alternatives (DSAs 5, 9, 23, and 27) with low to moderate potential to
contain archaeological sites requiring preservation in place or complex/costly mitigation.
Natural Resources Considerations
• DSA 9 is one of eight alternatives (DSAs 4, 9, 22, 27, 58, 68, 76, and 81) that would cross
the South Fork Catawba River and the Catawba River where the rivers have been more
affected by siltation and they are less navigable, and water-based recreation would be
affected less than with DSAs that cross farther south.
• DSA 9 would impact the least amount of Upland Forested Natural Communities at 882
acres (all alternatives range from 882 to 1042 acres).
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Chapter 2
APRIL 2009 GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR DEIS 2-53
• DSA 9 is one of the alternatives (DSAs 4, 9, 22, and 76) having the lowest potential to
indirectly affect upland wildlife species due to habitat fragmentation.
• DSA 9 is lower in the range of impacts to ponds at 4.1 acres (all alternatives range from
2.1 to 6.3 acres).
• DSA 9 is lower in the range of impacts to wetlands at 7.5 acres (all alternatives range
from 6.9 to 13.2 acres).
• DSA 9 is lower in the range of impacts to perennial streams at 38,894 linear feet (all
alternatives range from 36,771 to 50,739 linear feet).
• DSA 9 would have the fewest number of stream crossings at 91 (all alternatives range
from 91 to 120 crossings).
• DSA 9 is one of eight alternatives (DSAs 5, 9, 23, 27, 64, 68, 77, and 81) that has a
biological conclusion of No Effect relating to the federally endangered Schweinitz’s
sunflower.