20120285 Ver 1_Meeting Minutes_20050920

UfF
MICHAEL F EASLEY
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AGENDA
Western Concurrence Meeting
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Board Room, Transportation Building
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
PPl-
LYNDo TIPPETT
SFCRETARY
1 00 PM to 4 30 PM— Derrick Weaver, NCDOT -PDEA
TIP U -3321 Gastonia East -West Connector Study, Gaston and Mecklenburg
Counties, Divisions 10 and 12
Team Members
Derrick Weaver, NCDOT PDEA
Steve Lund USACE
Clarence Coleman FHWA
Chris Militscher USEPA
Marella Buncick, USFWS
Polly Lespmasse, NCDWQ
Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Sarah McBride, SHPO
Hank Graham Gaston Urban MPO
Bob Cook Mecklenburg Urban MPO
JM-OM OF ENVIRONMENu j
NATURAL RESOURCES i
MMMMLL-E yAL OFFICE
' rV4
3
BEP 1 3 200,
QUALITY SECTION
NCDOT Technical Support Staff and Other Auncy Staff
Tony Houser and Art McMillan Roadway Design
Mike Holder and Dan Grisson Division 12
Benton Payne Division 10
Shannon Ransom Transportation Planning Branch
Chris Manley PDEA NEU
Gail Grimes Turnpike Authority
Brian Hanks Structure Design
Max Price Hydraulics
* The purpose of this meeting is to achieve Concurrence Point 2
MAILING ADDRESS
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699 1548
TELEPHONE [phone]
FAX [phone]
WEBSITE WWW DOH DOT STATE NC US
LOCATION
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

1
SECTION 404/NEPA MERGER TEAM MEETING —
CONCURRENCE POINT #2
GASTON COUNTY EAST WEST CONNECTOR STUDY
T I P PROJECT NO U 3321
GASTON AND MECKLENBURG COUNTIES
FEDERAL PROJECT NUMBER STP 1213(6)
STATE PROJECT NUMBER 8 2812501
MEETING DATE September 20 2005
MEETING LOCATION TBD
MEETING TIME TBD
MERGER PACKET TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND
1) Purpose of This Meeting (Page 1)
2) Previous Meetings (Page 1)
3) Brief Description of the Preliminary New Location Alternatives (Page 2)
METHODOLOGY
4) Decision Making Methodology To Identify the Detailed Study Alternatives (Page 5)
ANT AT VCTC
5) Eight Key Decisions (Page 7)
RECOMMENDATIONS
6) Alternatives Recommended for Detailed Study (Page 24)
APPENDICES
A) Review Board concurrence forms for CP #2 for non new location alternatives
B) Analysis spreadsheets
C) Postei sized maps showing the functional designs on GIS based mapping
D) Natural Heritage Program Site A04 Description

Section 404/NEPA Merger Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point No 2 — Detailed Study Alternatives
Project No /TIP No /Name/Description
Federal Project Number STP 1213(6) State Project Number 8 2812501
TIP Number U 3321
Description Gaston East West Connector Study in Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties
Alternatives Carried Forward for Detailed Study
The Project Team concurred on this date of with the Detailed Study
Alternatives list above to be carried forward in the Draft EIS for the proposed project
USACE
USEPA
NCDOT
USFWS
NCDWQ NCWRC
NCDCR
GUMPO
FHWA
MUMPO

Gaston County East -West Connector Study
TIP Project U -3321
Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties
Concurrence Point 2
September 20, 2005
PURPOSE OF THIS MEETING
The purpose of the meeting is to identify the new location alternatives to be carried forward for
detailed study from the range of preliminary corridors for which functional designs were prepared
There are about 72 miles of preliminary corridors for which functional designs were prepared There
are 90 possible combinations of corridors that begin at 185 and end at 1485 This packet presents a
policy and decision making method that requires only eight key decisions to arrive at a reasonable
range of Detailed Study Alternatives Section 4 describes the methodology and Section 5 presents
the eight key decisions Section 6 summarizes the Detailed Study Alternatives recommended by
FHWA NCDOT and the Gaston MPO
2 PREVIOUS MEETINGS
21 Concurrence Point #1— Purpose and Need Statement (July 24, 2002)
On July 24 2002 the Merger Team signed Concurrence Point #1 for the purpose and need of the
proposed project The signed concurrence form read as follows
The purpose of the proposed action is to improve east west transportation mobility in the area
around the City of Gastonia between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area in general
and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing area of southeast Gaston
County and west Mecklenburg County This project purpose is based on the following
Improve mobility access and connectivity in southern Gaston County and between
southern Gaston County and Mecklenburg County
Reduce congestion and improve traffic flow on the sections of 185 US 29 74 and US
321 in the project study area improve high speed safe regional travel service along
the US 29 74 intrastate corridor and generally improve safety and reduce above
average accident rates in the project study area
The project study area consists of the following general boundaries 185 to the north the South
Carolina State line to the south the Charlotte Douglas International Airport to the east and the
185 and US 29 74junction to the west

Gaston County East West Connector
Concurrence Point 2 Merger Meeting Packet
September 20 2005
22 Concurrence Point #2 for Non New Location Alternatives (Various dates)
The decision of whether or not to carry forward non new location alternatives for detailed study was
elevated to the Merger Process Review Board The Board was comprised of executive managers of
the Federal Highway Administration (Mr Don Voelker) US Army Corps of Engineers (Mr Kenneth
Jolly) NC Department of Transportation (Mr Roger Sheats) and NC Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (Mr Dempsey Benton)
The Review Board decided not to carry forward the non new location alternatives for detailed study
in July 2005 (signatures received on various dates in July) These alternatives and the reasons for
elimination will be documented in the Draft EIS The Review Board concurrence forms are included
in Appendix A
23 Pre Concurrence Point #2 Meeting for New Location Alternatives (February 17, 2004)
The purpose of the February 17 2004 Pre Concurrence Point #2 meeting was to decide which
corridor segments to eliminate from further consideration and which to carry forward for functional
designs
The Merger Team identified approximately 72 miles of new location preliminary corridors for
functional design level of detail These new location corridors are shown on Figure 1
3 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PRELIMINARY NEW LOCATION
ALTERNATIVES
There are about 72 miles of preliminary corridors for which functional designs were prepared There
are 90 possible endpoint to endpoint combinations of preliminary corridors that begin at 185 and end
at 1485 Total lengths range from 21 4 to 25 6 miles
For impact quantification purposes the preliminary corridors developed are divided into segments
and sub segments These are shown on Figure 2
Appendix B contains tables of impacts for individual segments /sub segments segment combinations
(I 85 to US 321 US 321 to South Fork Catawba River and South Fork Catawba River to I 485) and
the 90 endpoint to endpoint preliminary alternatives Impacts are based on available GIS mapping
and the functional designs (either right of way limits or construction limits depending on the
resource) Limited field observations for wetlands were conducted in specifiC areas
Appendix C contains maps showing the functional designs on GIS base mapping which includes
streets parcels floodplams streams etc
2

Gaston County East West Connector
Concurrence Point 2 Merger Meeting Packet
September 20 2005
4 DECISION MAKING METHODOLOGY TO IDENTIFY THE DETAILED
STUDY ALTERNATIVES
The large number of possible endpoint to endpoint alternatives (90) can be narrowed down to about
20 alternatives using the following process and assumptions which requires eight key decisions
The decision making methodology uses critical pairs of nodes (options) along the functional designs
at four locations 185 (85E and 85W) US 321 (321N and 321 S) a point west of the South Fork
Catawba River (CTR N and CTR S) and at 1485 (485) These are shown in Figure 2
The basic premise of this comparison/decision making methodology is that at least one connection
between critical pairs of nodes should be maintained but if possible redundant connections should be
eliminated There are enough GIS and design data available to be able to decide between redundant
node to node connections This method narrows the alternatives but keeps all basic options open (in
case a fatal flaw is later found along a corridor segment)
The line diagram below shows the current numbers of options available between nodes Redundant
options exist wherever there is a number greater than one along an arrow For example there are two
options between 185 (eastern node) and US 321 (northern node) As shown on Figure 2 these
options use segments 1-12A H3 J4a or 1-12A 1-1213 142C J3
90 Possible Preliminary Alternatives
2
85E
2
321 N CTR N 4
2
1485 1
E
85W 1 321 S 2 CTR S
Ideally for the areas between I 851US 321 and US 321 /CTR each arrow should have one option
From CTR to 1485 more than one option (but less than 4 and 5) may be desired along each arrow
This will narrow down the number of endpoint to endpoint alternatives substantially

Gaston County East West Connector
Concurrence Point 2 Merger Meeting Packet
September 20 2005
The eight key decisions under this methodology are listed below
Key Decision # Node to Node
1
85E to 321N
2
321N to CTR N
3
321N to CTR S
4
321S to CTR N
5
321S to CTR S
6
CTR N to 485
7
CTR S to 485
8
CTR S to 485
Decision Needed
Choose one of the two options
Choose one of the two options
Choose one of the two options
Choose one of the two options
Choose one of the two options
Choose one of the four options
Choose two of the three northern options
Choose one of the two southern options
These above eight key decisions would result in 16 endpoint to endpoint Detailed Study Alternatives
(see following diagram)
Desired Outcome of Options for Detailed Study Alternatives
1 1
85E 321 N CTR N 1
>< 11
85W 321S CTR S
1 1
Data and comparisons for each of the eight decisions are provided in Section 5 on the following
page
Section 6 describes the sixteen Detailed Study Alternatives recommended by FHWA NCDOT and
Gaston County MPO
on

Gaston County East West Connector
Concurrence Point 2 Merger Meeting Packet
September 20 2005
5 EIGHT KEY DECISIONS
Refer to Figure 2 for all segment and node references Alternatives are described from west to east
'DECISION POINT 1 85E to 321NI
There are two options between 85E and 321 N
•
112A H3 J4a
• H2A 112B H2C J3
Table 1 compares the impacts of these two
segment combinations
FHWA/NCDOT /Gaston
Recommendation 85E to 321 N
Retain the option west of Crowders
Creek — H2A H213 H2C P for
detailed study
The FHWA NCDOT and Gaston MPO
recommend the option west of Crowders Creek
for the following reasons
•Substantially fewer relocations (57 fewer)
• Less future development planned in the
area
• Farther from the 303(d) listed stream
_Avoids the NHP site
• Alignment at the US 321 Interchange is
better
ki NNpste G
R
The eastern option that uses H3 runs fairly close along the eastern side of Crowder s Creek a 303d
listed stream 3Although the eastern alternative does not cross Crowders Creek there is more concern
regarding water quality and stormwater management with the eastern alternative because it crosses
several tributaries to Crowders Creek relatively close to their confluences with Crowders Creek The
western option that uses H2C runs farther west of the creek however it does cross the creek twice
and may impact wetlands adjacent to the creek
The eastern option impacts about 2 900 linear feet less stream and 2-400 linear feet less floodplam
crossing
Both options have equal potential to impact a minority community along Shannon Btadley Road dust
south of 185
7

Gaston County East West Connector
Concurrence Point 2 Merger Meeting Packet
September 20 2005
The eastern option has 2 more business relocations and 57 more residential relocations
The eastern option would impact a Natural Heritage Program Site,— Site A04 — Stagecoach Road
granitic outcrop and wetland The site description is included as Appendix D It appears the granitic
outcrop would be avoided by the eastern option (1-12A H3 J4a) but an area west of this outcrop
defined as part of the site would be impacted

Gaston County East West Connector
Concurrence Point 2 Merger Meeting Packet
September 20 2005
TABLE 1— DECISION POINT 1— Node 85E to Node 321N
RESOURCE
H2A + H3 + J4a
(eastern)
H2A + H2B + 112C +
J3 (western)
Length in feet (miles)
32 386 (6 I)
37 543 (7 1)
Construction Cost — 2005 Dollars
$In Progress
$In Progress
Number of Interchanges
5
5
Minor Road Crossings likely requiring grade separation
3
3
Mayor Transmission Line Crossings
5
9
Railroad Line Crossings
2
2
Residences within R/W
233
176
Businesses within R/W
31
29
Parks /Recreation Areas within R/W
l (privately owned golf
course minor impact)
0
Schools within R/W
0
0
Churches within R/W
3
3
Cemeteries in R/W
I
1
Potential Historic Sites within R/W
0
0
Low Income or Minority Populations within R/W
Yes
Yes
Streams (# of crossings in const limits)
47
4S —
Streams Streams (Linear Ft within const limits exclusive of bridge
crossings but inclusive of interchange ramps)
21 094
[23 926
Named Streams (# of crossings)
3
i
Other Perennial Streams (# of crossings)
4
C6 i
Other Intermittent Streams (# of crossings)
40
32�
Other Waterbodmes within R/W
2
`2
Wetlands — field observed
(acres within const limits)
0
(0 58�
Wetlands (acres within const limits) NWI
0
'-0 25
Floodplams ( mainline crossing length (ft))
803
;,3 2067
303 (d) Listed Streams
Yes
6Yes�
Riparian Buffer Impacts
No
No
Dormant Superfund Sites in R/W
2
2
Groundwater Discharge Areas in R/W
1
2
Natural Heritage Program Sites in R/W
1 (Site A04 granitic
outcrop area)
0
Note Gray shaded cells indicate option with least impact to a specific resource or NCDOT recommended option
* Although this option does not cross Crowders Creek it runs parallel to a long length of it and crosses many of
its tributaries near their confluences with the creek This could be a water quality and stormwater management
concern
0

Gaston County East West Connector
Concurrence Point 2 Merger Meeting Packet
September 20 2005
DECISION POINT 2 — 321N to CTR N
There are two options between 321N and CTR N
• J4b J2c J2d J5a J5b K2A
• J4b JX7 J1c JX6 J5b K2A
The option that uses J2d is the northern corridor and the option that uses Jlc is the southern corridor
Table 2 compares the impacts of these two segment combinations
FHWA/NCDOT /Gaston
Recommendation 321 N to CTR N
Retain the northern corridor
J4b J2c J2d J5a J5b K2A for
detailed study
The FHWA NCDOT and Gaston MPO recommend the
northern corridor that uses J2d for the following reasons
(: Design is better (does not use segment JX7 which
has a less desirable design due to a more acute
angle of the alignment with US 321)
• - Shorter less expensive
• Follows original Gaston MPO preferred
Calternative
The southern corridor has about 110 less linear feet of stream impact than the northern corridors The
differences in residential and business relocations are small (90 residences and 1 business for the
northern vs 88 residences and 2 businesses for the southern)
Potential historic resource impacts for both options are due to Y line improvements These potential
historic resources might be avoided during preliminary design
The proposed interchange areas at Robinson Road and Bud Wilson are less developed along the
southern corridor However the northern corridor is shorter and likely less expensive
10

Gaston County East West Connector
Concurrence Point 2 Merger Meeting Packet
September 20 2005
TABLE 2 — DECISION POINT 2 —Node 321N to Node CTR N
RESOURCE
J4b 12c J2d J5a J5b
K2A
(northern)
J4b JX7 Jlc JX6 J5b
K2A
(southern)
Length in feet (miles)
51 162 (9 7)
54 292 (10 3)
Construction Cost — 2005 Dollars
$In Progress
$In Progress
Number of Interchanges
4
4
Minor Road Crossings likely requiring grade separation
4
6
Major Transmission Line Crossings
8
8
Railroad Line Crossings
0
0
Residences within R/W
90
88
Businesses within R/W
1
2
Parks /Recreation Areas within R/W
0
0
Schools within R/W
I
1
Churches within R/W
2
2
Cemeteries in R/W
2
2
Potential Historic Sites within R/W
2
3
Low Income or Minority Populations within R/W
No
No
Streams (# of crossings in const limits)
31
36
Streams (Linear Ft within const limits exclusive of
bridge crossings but inclusive of interchange ramps)
E13 632
13 520
Named Streams (# of crossings)
F2
2
Other Perennial Streams (# of crossings)
� 3)
3
Other Intermittent Streams (# of crossings)
f6jk
31
Other Waterbodies within R/W
06,
7
Wetlands — field observed
(acres within const limits)
(_0
0
Wetlands (acres within const limits) NWI
(2 69 —)
269
Floodplams ( mainline crossing length (ft))
L 2 195 ,
2 195
303 (d) Listed Streams
(--Yes-)
Yes
Riparian Buffer Impacts
CYes J
Yes
Dormant Superfund Sites in R/W
0
0
Groundwater Discharge Areas in R/W
0
0
Natural Heritage Program Sites in R/W
0
0
Note Gray shaded cells indicate option with least unpact to a specific resource or NCDOT recommended option
11

Gaston County East West Connector
Concurrence Point 2 Merger Meeting Packet
September 20 2005
DECISION POINT 3 — 321N to CTR S
There are two options between 321N and CTR S
• J4b J2c J2d JX4 J 1 e J 1 f K 1 A
0
•
JO JX7 Jlc J1d Jle Jlf K1A
The option that uses J2d is the northern corridor and the option that uses Jlc is the southern corridor
Table 3 compares the impacts of these two segment combinations
FHWA/NCDOT /Gaston
Recommendation 321N to CTR S
Retain the northern corridor
J4b J2c J2d JX4 Re J1f K1A for
detailed study
The FHW_A NCDOT and Gaston MPO recommend the
northern corridor that uses J2d for the following reasons
G 1 Design is better (does not use segment JX7 which
has a less desirable design due to a more acute
angle of the alignment with US 321)
• Follows the original Gaston MPO preferred
alternative
• ) Shorter likely less expensive
'The southern corridor has about 820 less linear feet of stream impact 'Relocations impacts to
transmission lines and floodplains are about the same for both corridors The proposed interchange
areas at Robinson Road and Bud Wilson are less developed along the southern corridor
12

Gaston County East West Connector
Concurrence Point 2 Merger Meeting Packet
September 20 2005
TABLE 3 — DECISION POINT 3 —Node 321N to Node CTR S
RESOURCE_
J464J2c J2d' JX4 Jle J1f
K1A
(northern)
J4b JX7 Jlc Jld Jle
Jlf K1A
(southern)
Length in feet (miles)`
4-1402(78)
43 700 (8 3)
Construction Cost - 2005 Dollars
$In Progress
$In Progress
Number of Interchanges
3
3
Minor Road Crossings likely requiring grade separation
3
3
Mayor Transmission Line Crossings
6
6
Railroad Line Crossings
0
0
Residences within R/W
46
44
Businesses within R/W
1
2
Parks /Recreation Areas within R/W
0
0
Schools within R/W
0
0
Churches within R/W
0
0
Cemeteries in R/W
0
0
Potential Historic Sites within R/W
2n =�
3
Low Income or Minority Populations within R/W
No
No
Streams (# of crossings in const limits)
_ 26
28
Streams (Linear Ft within const limits exclusive of
bridge crossings but inclusive of interchange ramps)
C10 9360
- 10 113
Named Streams (# of crossings)
C-0
0
Other Perennial Streams (# of crossings)
C_4_-}
4
Other Intermittent Streams (# of crossings)
r-22)
24
Other Waterbodies within R/W
5
6
Wetlands - field observed
(acres within const limits)
0
Wetlands (acres within const limits) NWI
F-I 15--�
1 15
Floodplams ( mainline crossing length (ft))
( 583 )
583
303 (d) Listed Streams
`No
No
Riparian Buffer Impacts
�No-�
No
Dormant Superfund Sites in R/W
0
0
Groundwater Discharge Areas in R/W
0
0
Natural Heritage Program Sites in R/W
0
0
Note Gray shaded cells indicate option with least impact to a specific resource or NCDOT recommended option
13

Gaston County East West Connector
Concurrence Point 2 Merger Meeting Packet
September 20 2005
DECISION POINT 4 — 321S to CTR N
There are two options between 3215 and CTR N
• JX1 J2d J5a J5b K2A
• J 1 b J1c JX6 J5b K2A
The option that uses J2d is the northern corridor and the option that uses Jlc is the southern corridor
Table 4 compares the impacts of these two segment combinations
FHWA/NCDOT /Gaston
Recommendation 321S to CTR N
Retain the northern option
JX1 J2d J5a J51b K2A for detailed
study
the FHWA NCDOT and Gaston MPO recommend the
northern corridor that uses J2d for the following reasons
�• Shorter less expensive
Design is better (does not use segment JX7 which
has a less desirable design due to a more acute
angle of the alignment with US 321)
The two options have similar levels of impact The southern corridor has about 140 less linear feet ofJ
stream impact crosses slightly less floodplain and has four fewer residential relocations �
The northern option that uses J2d crosses two fewer mteimittent streams and has the potential to
-impact one less potential historic site The northern option also is about 0 3 miles shorter and likely-
less expensive
14

Gaston County East West Connector
Concurrence Point 2 Merger Meeting Packet
September 20 2005
TABLE 4 — DECISION POINT 4 —Node 321S to Node CTR N
RESOURCE
JX I J2d d5a J5b K2A
(northern)
J 1 b J I c JX6 J5b K2A
(southern)
Length in feet (miles)
49 192 (9 3)
50 444 (9 6)
Construction Cost — 2005 Dollars
$In Progress
$In Progress
Number of Interchanges
4
4
Minor Road Crossings likely requiring grade separation
3
5
Major Transmission Line Crossings
5
5
Railroad Line Crossings
0
0
Residences within R/W
88
84
Businesses within R/W
1
2
Parks/Recreation Areas within R/W
0
0
Schools within R/W
l
1
Churches within R/W
2
2
Cemeteries in R/W
2
2
Potential Historic Sites within R/W
2
3
Low Income or Minority Populations within R/W
No
No
Streams (# of crossings in const limits)
-739
36
Streams (Linear Ft within const limits exclusive of
bridge crossings but inclusive of interchange ramps)
[ 14 127
13 983
Named Streams (# of crossings)
i`_2
2
Other Perennial Streams (# of crossings)
­3 }
3
Other Intermittent Streams (# of crossings)
28
31
Other Waterbodies within R/W
6
7
Wetlands — field observed
(acres within const limits)
r-0 }
0
Wetlands (acres within const limits) NWI
—269 )
269
Floodplams ( mainline crossing length (ft))
'2 254 }
2 122
303 (d) Listed Streams
( Yes )
Yes
Riparian Buffer Impacts
Yes 1
Yes
Dormant Superfund Sites in R/W
0
0
Groundwater Discharge Areas in R/W
0
0
Natural Heritage Program Sites in RJW
0
0
Note Gray shaded cells indicate option with least impact to a specific resource or NCDOT recommended option
15

Gaston County East West Connector
Concurrence Point 2 Merger Meeting Packet
September 20 2005
DECISION POINT 5 — 321S to CTR S
There are two options between 321S and CTR S
• JX1 J2d JX4 Jle Jlf K1A
• Jlb J1c Jld Jle Jlf K1A
The option that uses J2d is the northern corridor and the option that uses J lc is the southern corridor
Table 5 compares the impacts of these two segment combinations
FHWA/NCDOT /Gaston
Recommendation 321S to CTR S
Retain the southern corridor
Jlb Jlc Jld Re Jlf K1A for
detailed study
The FHWA NCDOT and Gaston MPO recommend the
southern corridor that uses Jlc for the following reasons
_) Fewer stream impacts
�! )Fewer floodplam impacts
�• ) Keeps a southern option available
The southern corridor has about the same of slightly less
impacts to most resources than the northern option including about 860 less linear feet of stream
impact 130 less linear feet of floodplam impact and four fewer residential relocations
The proposed interchange areas at Robinson Road and Bud Wilson are less developed along the
southern corridor
16

Gaston County East West Connector
Concurrence Point 2 Merger Meeting Packet
September 20 2005
TABLE 5 — DECISION POINT 5 —Node 321S to Node CTR S
RESOURCE
JX1 J2d JX4 Jle Jlf K1A
(northern)
Jlb Jlc JId JIe J1f
K i A
(southern)
Length in feet (miles)
39 432 (7 5)
39 852 (7 5)
Construction Cost - 2005 Dollars
$In Progress
$In Progress
Number of Interchanges
3
3
Minor Road Crossings likely requiring grade separation
2
2
Mayor Transmission Line Crossings
3
3
Railroad Line Crossings
0
0
Residences within R/W
44
40
Businesses within R/W
1
2
Parks /Recreation Areas within R/W
0
0
Schools within R/W
0
0
Churches within R/W
0
0
Cemeteries in R/W
0
0
Potential Historic Sites within R/W
2
3
Low Income or Minority Populations within R/W
No
No
Streams (# of crossings in const limits)
28
28 %
Streams (Linear Ft within const limits exclusive of
bridge crossings but inclusive of interchange ramps)
11 431
10 576
--
Named Streams (# of crossings)
0
�0
Other Perennial Streams (# of crossings)
4
�4 )
Other Intermittent Streams (# of crossings)
24
24 )
Other Waterbodies within R/W
5
6 -)
Wetlands - field observed
(acres within const limits)
0
10 }
Wetlands (acres within const limits) NWI
1 15
Cl 15
Floodplams ( mainline crossing length (ft))
642
510
303 (d) Listed Streams
No
(-No
Riparian Buffer Impacts
No
CNo -!
Dormant Superfund Sites in R/W
0
0
Groundwater Discharge Areas in R/W
0
0
Natural Heritage Program Sites in R/W
0
0
Note Gray shaded cells indicate option with least impact to a specific resource or NCDOT recommended option
17

Gaston County East West Connector
Concurrence Point 2 Merger Meeting Packet
September 20 2005
DECISION POINT 6 —CTR N to 485
There are four options between CTR N and 485
• K2B K2C K27D ✓/
• X2B KX4 K3C V I
• KX 1 KX3 K2D
�
• KX1 K3B K3Q
Jst,OD , /LQGtJrrt � d AVW JtL4L&IILC¢0 1`=.
The options that use K2D cross the Catawba River at a more northerly point
Table 6 compares the impacts of these four segment combinations
FHWA/NCDOT /Gaston
Recommendation CTR N to 485
Retain KXI K3B K3C for detailed
study
The FHWA NCDOT and Gaston MPO recommend the
southernmost corridor for the following reasons
Design is better (does not use segment K2D
which has a less desirable design due to curves
immediately east of the Catawba River bridge and
dust west of I 485)
• Shorter bridge over the Catawba River Even though the bridge is skewed over the Catawba
Rivei for the recommended option the bridge may end up being shorter than the options that)
have a straight bridge over the Catawba River, The options with the straight bridge may
require a longer bridge to cross over both the railroad tracks and the river
• One—of two options With the fewest linear feet of stream impact
• Fewest residential impacts (107 vs 140 155 and 160)

Gaston Count) East West Connector
Concurrence Point 2 Merger Meeting Packet
September 20 2005
TABLE 6 — DECISION POINT 6 —Node CTR N to Node 485
RESOURCE
K2B K2C
K213
K2B KX4
K3C
KXl
KX3 K2D
KX1
K3B K3C
Length m feet (miles)
30 190
(5 7)
29 524 ,
(5 6) 4
30 502
(5 8)
29 370
(5 6)
Construction Cost — 2005 Dollars
$In Progress
$In Progress
$In Progress
$in Progress
Number of Interchanges
3
3
3
3
Minor Road Crossings likely requiring grade separation
0
0
0
1
Mayor Transmission Line Crossings
5
8
5
8
Railroad Line Crossings
1
I
1
1
Residences within R/W
160
155
140
107
Businesses within R/W
1
2
2
1
Parks /Recreation Areas within R/W
(all may impact parkland at Dixie River Rd and i 485)
1
I
I
1
Schools within R/W
0
0
0
0
Churches within R/W
0
0
0
0
Cemeteries in R/W
1
1
1
1
Potential Historic Sites within R/W (all at I 485)
1
1
1
1
Low Income or Minority Populations within R/W
(all may impact same communities near I 485)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Streams (# of crossings in const limits)
25
16
25
' 17
Streams (Linear Ft within const limits exclusive of
bridge crossings but inclusive of interchange ramps)
9 066
5 920
8 815
k }2,41§--j�
Named Streams (# of crossings)
4
4
4
4
Other Perennial Streams (# of crossings)
1
1
1
— 1
Other Intermittent Streams (# of crossings)
20
11
20
'12
Other Waterbodies within R/W
0
0
0
0
Wetlands — field observed
(acres within const limits)
0 OS
0
0
(_0—
Wetlands (acres within const limits) NWI
039
039
039
�0 39 )
Floodplams ( mainline crossing length (ft))
2142
2 382
2 458
"2 382
303 (d) Listed Streams
No
No
No
" No
Riparian Buffer Impacts
Yes
Yes
Yes
(Yes)
Dormant Superfund Saes in R/W
0
0
0
0
Groundwater Discharge Areas in R/W
0
0
0
0
Natural Heritage Program Sites in R/W
0
0
0
0
Note Gray shaded cells indicate option with least impact to a specific resource or NCDOT recommended option
19

Gaston County East West Connector
Concurrence Point 2 Merger Meeting Packet
September 20 2005
DECISION POINT 7 —CTR S to 485 — (northern alts)
There are five options between CTR S and 485 The three northernmost are
• K3A KX3 K2D. /
• K3A K313 K3C (V
• K 1 B KX2 K2D
• Note- KX2 K3C is not feasible
The options that use K2D cross the Catawba River at a more northerly point The options that use
K3A cross the South Fork Catawba River at a more northerly point
Table 7 compares the impacts of these three segment combinations
FHWA/NCDOT /Gaston
Recommendation CTR S to 485
(northern alts)
Retain K3A K313 K3C and
KIB KX2 K21) for detailed study
The FHWA NC150T and Gaston MPO recommend K3A
K3B K3C and K I B KX2 K2D for the following reasons
• K3A K3B K3C has a better design at 1485 but
impacts a potential historic site located at the NC
279 interchange area (Segment K3A) The impact
to the potential historic site is unavoidable with
this option
• (K1B KX2 K2D has a less desirable design at 1485 and over the Catawba River (using
segment K2D see Decision Point 6) but avoids the potential historic site
• K3A K313 K3C has 2 100 to 2 200 fewer linear feet of stream impacts
• K3A K3B K3C and K I B KX2 K2D have about 30 fewer residential impacts than K3A
KX3 K2D
• K1B KX2 K2D includes the alignment over the South Fork Catawba River originally
iecommended by the Gaston Urban Area MPO
Fill

Gaston County East West Connector
Concurrence Point 2 Merger Meeting Packet
September 20 2005
TABLE 7 — DECISION POINT 7 —Node CTR S to Node 485 (northern alts)
RESOURCE
K3A KX3 K2D
K3A K3B 10
KIB KX2 K2D
Length in feet (miles)
42 740 (8 1)
41 608 (7 9)
41 881 (7 9)
Construction Cost — 2005 Dollars
$In Progress
$In Progress
$In Progress
Number of Interchanges
4
4
4
Minor Rd Crossings likely requiring grade separation
0
1
0
Mayor Transmission Line Crossings
6
9
6
Railroad Line Crossings
l
1
1
Residences within R/W
152
119
123
Businesses within R/W
3
2
2
Parks/Recreation Areas within R/W
(all may impact parkland at Dixie River Rd and 1 485)
l
1
1
Schools within R/W
0
0
0
Churches within R/W
0
0
1
Cemeteries in R/W
1
1
0
Potential Historic Sites within R/W
0 in mtchg area)
(1 in mtchg area)
1
Low Income /Minority Populations in R/W (near 485)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Streams (# of crossings in const limits)
27
19
' 2�
Streams (Linear Ft within const limits exclusive of
bridge crossings but inclusive of interchange ramps)
9 015
6 441^
r 8 935 i
—
Named Streams (# of crossings)
6
{ 6 ?
1,-6 }
Other Perennial Streams (# of crossings)
1
I
1
Other Intermittent Streams (# of crossings)
20
L 12 >
11W
Other Waterbodies within R/W
0
r 0 >
(-0�
Wetlands — field observed
(acres within const limits)
0
C 0
(0 )
Wetlands (acres within const limits) NWI
1 16
1 16 '
675
Floodplams ( mainline crossing length (ft))
4 144
4 068
4 658
303 (d) Listed Streams
Yes
/ Yes
(�_ Yes
Riparian Buffer Impacts
Yes
-Yes—_,
(`Yes
Dormant Superfund Sites in R/W
0
0
0
Groundwater Discharge Areas in R/W
0
0
0
Natural Heritage Program Sites in R/W
0
0
0
Note Gray shaded cells indicate option with least impact to a specific resource or NCDOT recommended option
21

Gaston County East West Connector
Concurrence Point 2 Merger Meeting Packet
September 20 2005
DECISION POINT 8 —CTR S to 485 (southern alts)
There are five options between CTR S and 485 The two southernmost are
• K1B KIC KID/
• K1B KIC K4A -/
Table 8 compares the impacts of these two segment combinations
FHWA/NCDOT /Gaston
Recommendation
CTR S to 485 (southern end)
Retain K1B KIC KID for detailed
`study, PENDING RESULTS OF
GEOTECH REPORT
The FHWA NCDOT and Gaston MPO recommend the
northern option`(pendmg results of the geotechnical
evaluation) for the following reasons
�•
-)Fewer stream impacts
• 3 Better alignment with 1485 (does not use segment
K4A which ties into 1485 at a skew)
'! Straighter alignment overall
• )The southern option (K 1 B K 1 C K4A) has curved
bridges (more expensive) over the South Fork
Catawba River and Catawba River
• The southern option (K1B KIC K4A) is far south on the Belmont Peninsula and may not
attract as much traffic
K I B KIC KID has about 480 fewer linear feet of stream impacts is shorter and has stiaight badges
`over the South Fork Catawba River and Catawba River-�)However K1B KIC KID would have more
residential relocations (141 vs 91) and would pass through the Allen Steam Stations s dormant fly ash
basin K1B KIC K4A has greater impacts to the stream east of Dixie River Road due to the need for
service roads to reconnect Garrison Road The ability to use K 1 B K 1 C K 1 D is dependent on the
ability to construct a roadway ovei the currently dormant fly ash basin owned by the Allen Steam
Station
22

Gaston County East West Connector
Concurrence Point 2 Merger Meeting Packet
September 20 2005
TABLE 8 — DECISION POINT 8 —Node CTR S to Node 485 (southern end)
RESOURCE r�r
K1B KIC KID
(northernmost)
KIB K1C K4A
(southernmost)
Length in feet (miles)
37 865 (7 2)
39 775 (7 5)
Construction Cost — 2005 Dollars
$In Progress
$In Progress
Number of Interchanges
4
4
Minor Road Crossings likely requiring grade separation
I
I
Mayor Transmission Line Crossings
6
6
Railroad Line Crossings
1
0
Residences within R/W
141
91
Businesses within R/W
4
0
Parks /Recreation Areas within R/W
(all may impact parkland at Dixie River Rd and 1 485)
i
I
Schools within R/W
0
0
Churches within R/W
2
1
Cemeteries in R/W
0
0
Potential Historic Sites within R/W
3
3
Low Income or Minority Populations within R/W
Yes (near 1 485)
Yes (near 1 485)
Streams (# of crossings in const limits)
r=1 15 i
13
Streams (Linear Ft within const limits exclusive of
bridge crossings but inclusive of interchange ramps)
'f_4 496
5 164
Named Streams (# of crossings)
C 6—)
4
Other Perennial Streams (# of crossings)
F 1)
1
Other Intermittent Streams (# of crossings)
F8
8
Other Waterbodies within R/W
C 1,)
1
Wetlands — field observed
(acres within const limits)
0
Wetlands (acres within const limits) NWI
_098 1
766
Floodplams ( mainline crossing length (ft))
4 698
5 216
303 (d) Listed Streams
[Yes
Yes
Riparian Buffer Impacts
Yes l
Yes
Dormant Superfund Sites in R/W
0
0
Groundwater Discharge Areas in R/W
0
0
Natural Heritage Program Sites in R/W
0
0
Note Gray shaded cells indicate option with least impact to a specific resource or NCDOT recommended option
23

Gaston County East West Connector
Concurrence Point 2 Merger Meeting Packet
September 20 2005
6 ALTERNATIVES RECOMMENDED FOR DETAILED STUDY
Based on the recommendations described in Section 5 for the eight key decisions there are 16
recommended Detailed Study Alternatives These are listed below and the segments included in these
sixteen alternatives are highlighted in Figure 3 See Appendix B for the spreadsheet listing all 90
preliminary new location alternatives
The sixteen alternatives are
Alt #
H Segments
J Segments
K Segments
22
H2A H2B H2C
J3 J2c J2d J5a J5b
K2A KX1 K3B K3C
24
H2A H2B H2C
J3 J2c J2d JX4 Jle J1 f
K1 A K1B K1C K1D
25
H2A H2B H2C
J3 J2c J2d JX4 Jle J1f
K1 K1B KX2 K2D
27
H2A H2B H2C
J3 J2c J2d JX4 Jle J1f
K1 K3A K3B K3C
40
H2A H2B HX1 H1C
J1a JX1 J2d J5a J5b
K2A KX1 K3B K3C
47
H2A H2B HX1 WC
J1a Jib J1c J1d Jle Jif
K1A K1B K1C K1D
48
H2A H2B HX1 WC
J1a Jib J1c Jid Me Jif
K1 K1B KX2 K2D
50
H2A H2B HX1 WC
J1a Jib J1c J1d Me Jif
K1 K3A K3B K3C
58
H1A H1B H1C
J1a JX1 J2d J5a J5b
K2A KX1 K3B K3C
65
H1A H1B H1C
J1a Jib J1c Jid Jle Jif
K1A K1B K1C K1D
66
H1A H1B H1C
J1a Jib J1c Jid Me J1f
K1 K1B KX2 K2D
68
H1A H1B H1C
J1a Jib J1c Ad Me Jif
K1 K3A K3B K3C
76
H1A HX2
J2a J2b J2c J2d J5a J5b
K2A KX1 K3B K3C
78
H1A HX2
J2a J2b J2c J2d JX4 Jle Jif
K1A K1B K1C K1D
79
H1A HX2
J2a J2b J2c J2d JX4 Me A f
K1 A K1 B KX2 K2D
81
H1A HX2
J2a J2b J2c J2d JX4 Me Jif
K1 K3A K3B K3C
24
t
3 (A4 t
..6 Q ttlet

e-8 -05.mxd (8/08/05)
t z
;
z ;
Z
S Z
N y n
N. o N �]
°w
o. A v
G
a
t z
;
z ;
h1wo-,ft
Cleveland County
- - - -- -- -- -- -
oU-40
ti
o \,, �'R,
O Zvi
=B rQ §P
m i
ii
pew xi
w�
y�I�1i 119,1 nqa
i111111,uIIIIIIIIN'�b,
lr �fI��I��i, gill �jli,j1:
II I IIII v) 'b • � i,l
u �a� 11 �. •1
r ,�'. � l.1. . ► ���������"�''ll �����I' 1.. ''Nllillku`�����hs �'o�
r,. ,I glli�I�P?II I Il��,d: lull�;'iUi I'
,, ,,..
j � gal �IIIIMIL.; U° I
`fnn I �-
aUi 1,
1 r.A NI�iIIaI�I�llll n��,l' I.IIIIu�UW
OWIOI
V �
m
z
n
x
0
T �
� v
c p
x �
,� n I�l�iipr
r
�r
II 11 /
VI
n Z
0
Z
D
m —1 0
0 c
r \ \\ Z --I Z
D��
Z -p
ti mom
0n 1
M
z0in
�C0
W Z
n j Z
0 m
C
� C
v
1 \
t \I
77�e� r ff r
) I
\ I
1
)
w�
y�I�1i 119,1 nqa
i111111,uIIIIIIIIN'�b,
lr �fI��I��i, gill �jli,j1:
II I IIII v) 'b • � i,l
u �a� 11 �. •1
r ,�'. � l.1. . ► ���������"�''ll �����I' 1.. ''Nllillku`�����hs �'o�
r,. ,I glli�I�P?II I Il��,d: lull�;'iUi I'
,, ,,..
j � gal �IIIIMIL.; U° I
`fnn I �-
aUi 1,
1 r.A NI�iIIaI�I�llll n��,l' I.IIIIu�UW
OWIOI
V �
m
z
n
x
0
T �
� v
c p
x �
,� n I�l�iipr
r
�r
II 11 /
VI
n Z
0
Z
D
m —1 0
0 c
r \ \\ Z --I Z
D��
Z -p
ti mom
0n 1
M
z0in
�C0
W Z
n j Z
0 m
C
� C
v
1 \
t \I
77�e� r ff r
) I
\ I
1
)
V �
m
z
n
x
0
T �
� v
c p
x �
,� n I�l�iipr
r
�r
II 11 /
VI
n Z
0
Z
D
m —1 0
0 c
r \ \\ Z --I Z
D��
Z -p
ti mom
0n 1
M
z0in
�C0
W Z
n j Z
0 m
C
� C
v
1 \
t \I
77�e� r ff r
) I
\ I
1
)
1 \
t \I
77�e� r ff r
) I
\ I
1
)

Bxse_Seg_mtlOx_senas.— d(OW16105)
z
O
m
m p
r
CJ
2
m
__ Cleveland — r p I ``
IM
z son County
(A O
c Ul I (/i- .0 -... \ \ \\
00
IM
u
0
>
z - o -
IM N
Z _. a
IF
IM
�J
Wa r V L
X �� ;X{ _
L
J
c-
-
ti
0 0 "
O 9
00 r;
0 c-
-
�' X
CID rn
10,� ,� 2
-�� .
Dy
32 z
n
� y
J r
1
_ -
—�
r
3o
1 '
v
ao �� 0 / ✓
bu _
eck
en rg C0'�� �
D
O O
D z
/ O
" D - <
z�<
GM)
," � o m
O
m g D
(� 1 c.) m -1
Z / ��*
m
T q �' z zo O
O
l
O �Nz
Z✓`'O W C 'OY - r+VI n Z
O m -- - �''' - - I COJ-nl
c� r�
M
IM
� � r

B— Sog_, -tl .s os � a�OI41ti,O5i •
m
a
r
o 0 0 3
z �_ Cleveland County / N y -6
;o
z o B - "astGn Count -.• 3
cn _
N i -tir
m
N
� 1
Ln
-
= to
n
0 CD C -
m
Op
IF
m
ti
I.
x
N_
B
r 'Ai _
r
_ - r• I L��
H _
L.
1
e
r
-
`a
Q c ` r
nz
� - h
J
r�
�,
,r
j'
CD 4X
T
_... C
PIP
1°
Cl
A u —
c'� rj /
i
_ 8
Q� r
J7 Z 1
� r
j
w
co
g�
,
tjnt _�,trr - -,
tij
eok�enburg
D
m p o
oe 0
Wn a z
m O `- / O p
z c
m
p� mOcn
1D
ZOzcmi>
W. -{
��
ON D »0C� - 0 z
co i.r m
z r*+ c 1
Fn M
�
m „ c
!r
I