20120285 Ver 1_Meeting Minutes_20090826

Garden Parkway (U -3321) Practical Design Workshop
August 26, 2009
8 30 AM — 4 30 PM
Overarching Theme
To develop a cost effective project within the context of the project environment that meets the
transportation needs with a reasonable application of design and construction standards
1 Consider your vision of a Garden Parkway and see what can be developed to meet this
overarching theme
2 Figure out a way— if possible —to construct a transportation solution that can go all the way
from 1 485 to 1 85 as part of the initial construction
Agenda
1 Welcome & Introductions DeWitt
2 Workshop Vision & Purpose DeWitt
3 Review Current Design Approach Bass
a General Overview
b Current design criteria
c Discussion of Facility Type
d Current Project Phasing Concept
e Projected Traffic Volumes Franklin
f Lane /Capacity Requirements
g Current Cost Estimates Keener
4 Opportunities for Context Sensitive Practical Design Solutions DeWitt
a National Examples
b Interchange Concepts /Phasing
c Design Considerations on Y lines
d Right of Way Requirements ( current and future)
e Basic Design Requirements
f Aesthetic Treatments McBurney
g Tree Preservation /Reestablishment
5 Brainstorming Session DeWitt
a Breakout
b Report Results
6 Wrap up DeWitt

58 I
58 I my FFJ,
`.c�'�,'LC,
yo 3
v C'1,sT
9�
W FRANKLIN BLVD �11��
Z
0
CD
�o
coa
r
m A
3
C) O LINWOOD RD
r Cn n n
C7 O
OZ °Z
r m w
r r
rm O
N 3
m� Z�
C-> Cn m N
z
H i m
O:*
:am
cn
cn —A
C->
= c->
m O
M 2 oz
M
m m ° 4>aoa�
Cn � n ° oao,�o
=r— a
cn
C -i cn
c)= Oa S1
�W �m
C+3 r- m
O N c v,
�i p
ti�

C7 z
M o
0--1
'-' M
n
C�
Do
r r
r r
o z
--4 cn
C") =
o =
m
r
M
r
M
m
n N
-� _
o°
Z�
z
O Gl>
r :I>
r �
oMM
r m
M:I>
n cn
--i --I
H i
0
:am
cn
cn
m o
Rc Z
m z
��
cn o
2 =
m
N W
cia
O N
n 1
N
n n
� z
r
O z
r m
r
N O
o r
z r
M
N
O
Z
m
Z
O
CD -4
-� o
V
O
O C7
cc a
r
M
1
a Hl� °S
d�Md i
eU0
soH
9p
pArAjDK Rp
0 �L
MA TCHLINE
SEE S�T 1
U oll
RA CHFORD
W ROAD
3
DIXIE RIVER RD 0 %
�a °i `*
o% 6�1 485
-Xz
v:*
LCI)
v--4
C
t
L

PROPOSED DESIGN CRITERIA
RpROUTE �- 7- 7g W Conn "ecctaor �� US 321 SR 2418 �' , SR 2423 LNG 274
. y �.. -L.. _.3 _cRobmsonRd. Bud Wrlson.Rd,s� Umon,Rd,
TRAFFIC DATA
TIP U 3321
STATE PROJECT
F A PROJECT
PAGE 1 of 2
COUNTY
Gaston /Mecklenburg DIVISION 10 and 12
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
East West Connector between 1-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to
DATE May 25 2007
1- 485 1NC 160 in Mecklenburg County
Revised June 15 2007
65 —200k
Section J MIDDLE
35 600
PREPARED BY
Gibson Engineers
19 800
RpROUTE �- 7- 7g W Conn "ecctaor �� US 321 SR 2418 �' , SR 2423 LNG 274
. y �.. -L.. _.3 _cRobmsonRd. Bud Wrlson.Rd,s� Umon,Rd,
TRAFFIC DATA
ADT LET YR
ADT DESIGN YR = 2030 - -�-
65 —200k
_
35 600
_
21 400 _
—T11 000
19 800
TTST-
t
7/
6/
4/
2/
2/—
DUALS
3/
2/
) 2/
121
2/
DHV
)
10/
11/
10/
11/
10/
60/
_
55/
55/
55/
55%
CLASSIFICATION
g
Freeway
Rural Arterial
Rural Collector
Rural Collector
Rural Arterial
TERRAIN TYPE
Rolling
Rolling
Rolling
Rolling
Rolimg�
DESIGN SPEED km/hr or mph
_
_
70 mph
60 mph 50 mph
60 mph
___AO mph _____�
POSTED SPEED km /hr or mph
65 mph
45 8_50 mph
45 mph
no posted (55 mph)
45 mph
PROP R/W WIDTH m or ft
'
300 ft
- 200 ft
Vanable
_ Variable
_
Variable _
CONTROL OF ACCESS
W�- (
Full
Partial
Partial
�
Partial
Partial
RUMBLE STRIPSY /N)
f
Y
N
N
N
��_2
N
�TYPICAL SECTION TYPE
6 lane divided
4 lane divided
4 lane divided
lane shld
4 lane divided
_ _
NE WIDTH m or ft �
µ
12 ft _
� �12 ft
12 ft _-
�� 12 ft
12 f
SIDWAL
N
N
N
N
N
BICYCLE LANES (Y /N)
N
N
N
N
N
MEDIAN WIDTH m or ft _
_
46 ft
46 ft_
17 5 Note 3
- _NIA
23
—N
MED PROTECT_ GR/BARRIER)
Y/ GR
N/A
N/A
1 N /A,y
/A
SHOULDER WIDTH (total)
)
MEDIAN m or ft
12 ft
6 ft
1 6 C&G
N/A
1 6 C&G _ f
,OUTSIDE w/o GR m or ft
_
_
14 ft
_
8 ft
- _8 ft �
_8 ft
� �11
I0 U T S I ff w/ GR m or ft
17 ft
lift
lift
ft
lift t
PAVED SHOULDER
OUTSIDE TOTALFDPS m or ft
12 ft/ 12 ft
_
4 ft/ 4 ft
4 ft/ 4 ft
4 ft/ 4 ft
4 ft/ 4 ft
MEDIAN TOTAUFDPS m or ft
12 ft/ 12 ft
t
2 ft/ 2 ft
N/A
N/A
N/A
GRADE
MAX
4/
4/
1 7/ _
1 6/
5/
MIN
03/
_;
t
03/
03/
03/
03/ _
K VALUE
-136
W 96
_
SAG 181 96- 136
CREST
247
I
151
I 84
151
84
HORS IZ ALIGN
MAX SUPER_
8 /
8/
I 8/ —
- -
_ _ _ _8 / --
8/ _
—
_
MIN RADIUS m or ft _ -
_
1 810
1 200�v—
758
1 200
758
SPIRAL Y /N)
Y _
Y
) N
1 N
Y I
ACROSS SLOPES
I
)
PAVEMENT
2/
2/_
2/
- - -__ _
2/
2/
-2/
_ __ �
PAVED SHOULDER _
_ _
4/
_ - -
2/
) 2/
2%
TURF SHOULDER
4/
8/
8/
8/�
8/
MEDIAN DITCH
61
61
NIA
N/A
NIA
DITCH TYPICAL (A .B C)
A
A t
B
B
B
CLEAR ZONE m or ft
&
r
�TYPICAL_SECTION NO
General Note Accommodate for future loops at all diamond interchanges
Note 3 The median outside the ramp terminals voll transition out in the future to the desirable 23 raised median

PAGE 2 of 2
PROPOSED DESIGN CRITERIA
Section J MIDDLE TIP U 3321
ROUTE Lao Rams M�sc QM�SC
L3NE � � � > � Local I Rds ,�' ��CoIlector Rds
TRAFFIC DATA
ADT LET YR = ��
ADT DESIGN YR = 2030 )
TTST
N
I N
N
N
DUALS
N/A
_—
( N/A
N/A
DHV
— -
�10/ I
-
10/
W _ W
W w
DIR
i 60/
60/
8 ft
8 ft
__
LASSIFI_CATION
t�
Local
_
Collector
TERRAIN TYPE
Rolling _ _�
ing Roll
_Rolling w
_Rolling
DESIGN SPEED k-n hr or mph
30 mph
60_mph
30 to 60 mph
50 to 60 mph a
POSTED SPEED km /hr or mph
N/A
N/A
25 to 55 mph i
45 to 55 mph
PROP R/W WIDTH m or ft
' 100 ft
100 ft_
a
OF ACCESS
Full
mmFull
N
N—
_CONTR_OL _ _
RUMBLE STRIPS µ(�
_ _ _ _ N _ ....
—_ N ..._ ..._
.._ � N
_ . _.
TYPICAL SECTION TYPE
1 lane °
1 lane shld
I Z lane shad
2 lane shld
LANE WIDTH m or ft
_ 17 ft (note 1) `
16 ft
12 ft t
12 ft
SIDEWALKS (Y /N)
N
N
e N
N €
BICYCLE LANES (Y /N)
N
I N
N
N
aMEDIAN WIDTH m or ft
N/A
N/A
( N/A
N/A
�MED PROTECTGR/BARRIER)
SHO_ULDER_WIDTH
MEDIAN m or ft _
N/A
14 ft
NIA
�- 12 ft
_NIA
N/A
v N/A
N/A
IOUTSIDE w/o GR m or ft
12 ft
14 ft
8 ft
8 ft
OUTSIDE w/ GR m or ft
NIA
17 ft
lift
lift
PAVED SHOULDER
2/
2/
2/
OUTSIDE TOTAL/FDPS m or ft
4 ft/ 4 ft
4 ft/ 4 ft
4 ft/ 4 ft
4 ft/ 4 ft s
MEDIAN TOTAL/FDPS m or ft
( C & G
4 ft/ 4 ft
( N/A
N/A
GRADE
758 to 1 200
CPIRASglN
LROSS SLOPES
t
( m
10 /
_ z
4 /MAX _
_ 6 /
_ _ 6 /
�03/
MIN_
03/
037
03/
PAVED SHOULDER
LK VALUE
2/
2/
2/
SAG
! 37 _
136
_ 37 to 136
96 to 136 1
CREST
19 (
151
It 19 to 151
84 to 151
MAX SUPER
t 8/
8/
f 8/ j
8/ 1 (
MIN RADIUS m or ft
230 (note 2 )
�j—
1200
F 214 to 1 200
758 to 1 200
CPIRASglN
LROSS SLOPES
Y
Y
N
_
N
PAVEMENT
( 2/
2/
2/
2/ E
PAVED SHOULDER
t 2/
2/
2/
2/
TURF SHOULDER
IMEDI DITCH _
AN
8 /
r N/A
8_ /
N/A
8/
_ NIA
8/
NIA
DITCH TYPICAL (A B C)
A
A
C
B
CLEAR ZONE m or ft
a
TYPICAL SECTION NO
General Notes Accommodate for future loops at all diamond interchanges
Note 1 2004 AASHTO page 220 exhibit 3-51 case II vehicle A 26 ft for two lane loop (13 ft lanes)
Note 2 R = 230 ft per NCDOT Roadway Design Manual R= 213 ft per 2004 Green Book
Note 3 The median outside the ramp terminals will transition out in the future to the desirable 23 raised median

PROPOSED DESIGN CRITERIA
STATE PROJECT
c't
E W Connector
F A PROJECT
FSUS 29174
COUNTY
Gaston /Mecklenburg DIVISION 10 and 12
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
East West Connector between 145 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to
_
1 -485 /NC 160 in Mecklenburg County
Linwood oad Linwood Rioa�
Section H WEST
PREPARED BY
PBS&J
TIP U 3321
PAGE 1 of 2
DATE May 25 2007
Revised June 15 2007
ROUTE , "
L#NE
c't
E W Connector
- fa-"
1-85
FSUS 29174
Sfi 1122
SR 1 2
_
-L
_
✓
Linwood oad Linwood Rioa�
TRAFFIC DATA
03/
K VALUE
Alt 4 & 5
Alt 58, 64 i 77
ADT LET YR =
SAG
181
iADT DESIGN YR = 2030
48 800
136 000
56 400
22400
4 0_00
TTST
8/
16 /v -
-- 5/
_
3/
4/
DUALS
3/
4/
3/
2/ _
2/
DHV
10/
9/
_
DIR
_60/
�60/
55/
55/
55/
CLASSIFICATION
Freeway
Interstate
Rural Arterial
Rural Collector
Rural Collector
TERRAIN TYPE _
Rolling
RoIhng __Rolling
N
Rolling_ Rollin
IDESIGN SPEED km/hr or mph
70 �h
70 mph
60 mph
50 mph 5
0 mph
OP STED SPEED km /hr or mph
65 mph
65 mph
55 mph
45 mph
45 mph
PROP RIW WIDTH m or ft
��300 ft
300 ft
200 ft
200 ft
200 ft
CONTROL OF ACCESS
Full
Full
Partial
N
RUMBLE STRIPS
Y
I
N_
N
N
�TYPICAL SECTION TYPE
_
_ �6 lane divided 6
_ _
_Y
8 lane divided 1
—12
4 lane_drvided� -- -'-
4 lane divided
3 lane shld
LANE WIDTH m or ft
12 ft
ft _
12 ft _
12 ft _ T
_ 12 ft
ISIDEWALKS
N
N
N
N
N
BICYCLE LANES Y( /N)
MEDIAN
N _
N
N
N
N_
WIDTH m or ft
1 46 ft _
22 ft
60 ft
23 ft
17 5 ft_ (note 3)
MED PROTECT (GR/BARRIER)�
Y/ GR
Y/ BARRIER F
_ _ N/A _1--
NIA
NIA °
SHOULDER WIDTH (total)
t
ME_DIA_N_m or ft _
_ 12 ft
_
12 ft
loft
'1-6 CBG
1 -6 C&G
OUTSIDE Wo_GR m or ft
I 14 ft
14 ft
loft
8 ft
ft_
OUTSIDE w/ GR m or ft _ t ____ —17 ft
— 17 ft
13 t
lift _
_8
11 ft
PAVED SHOULDER
sOUTSIDE TOTAL/FDPS m or ft
i 12 ft/ 12 ft
12 ft/ 12 ft
10 ft / 4 ft
4 ft/ 4 ft
2 ft/ 2ft
MEDIAN TOTAL/FDPS m or ft
_ 12 ftl_12 ft, ______ ___10
ft/ 10_It t
4 ft/ 4 ft
1 6 C &G
1 6 C &G I
AMAX
41
4/
4/
7/
7/
MI-N
t 03/
03/
03/ I
03/
K VALUE
SAG
181
181
136
96�
-03/
96 6
CREST
247
247
151
84
84
IHORIZ. ALIGN
�
�
_
MIN RADIUS m or ft
1 810
I 1 630
1 200
758
T TM758 _
gSPIRAL YY /N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
)CROSS SLOPES
(
�
PAVED SHOULDER
M _
4/12/
4
4/ 1 2°/ _ I
2/
—2-/---
TURF SHOULDER
4/
4/
8/
8/
8/
,MEDIAN DITCH
6 1
81
81 N/A
N/A
DITCH TYPICAL A B C
A
A
��
A
B
f C
CLEAR ZONE in or ft
I
TYPICAL SECTION NO
General Note Accommodate for future loops at all diamond interchanges
Note 3 The median outside the ramp terminals will transition out in the future to the desirable 23 raised median

PROPOSED DESIGN CRITERIA
Section H WEST
PAGE 2 of 2
TIP U 3321
ROUTE` SR 1112 Loops 7RamwMtsc �� Ailisc t
�L3NE .<� ?� L%ew�s Road. �� � _ . _ � � Colleaoi Rds , Local Rds._
TRAFFIC DATA
ADT LET YR =
_
_ADT _DESIGN YR = 2030
5 400
)
TTST
2/
DU_A_LS
�DHV _ _ A_ _
2 /
�_ _ 11/
-` _ _ -10/_
70/
D I R
CLASSIFICATION
_
TERRAIN TYPE — _ _
DESIGN SPEED km /hr or m h
POSTED SPEED km/hr or mph
55/
Rural Collector
Rolling_
h
45 mph
60/
_
I _Rolling
30 m__h
NIA
60/
___ Colle_ct_or
_
_� Rolling ) Rolling
_ 60 mph_ -- _ 50 to 60 mph
N/A I 45 to 55 mph
_r—
(
Local _
Rolling
30 to 60 mph
25 to 55 mph
PROP RIW WIDTH m or ft
a 200 ft
100 ft
100 ft
CONTROL OF ACCESS _ _ N
RUMBLE STRIPS (Y/N) ( N
_ Full ��
N
Full
�N
_
N
N
N r
TYPICAL SECTION TYPE
4 lane divide
1 lane
1 lane shid
2 lane shid
I
2 lane shid
LANE WIDTH m or ft _
_ _ 12 ft
17 ft (note 1)
16 ft
12 ft
)
12 ft
SIDEWALKS (Y /N) T
BICYCLE LANE�Y�
_ N�
N _
I_ N
N
N
- -N -�-
N
_ _ N_ _
)
N
I _ _ _
eMED1AN WIDTH m or ft
( 17 5 ft (note 3
t N/A
N/A (
N/A
N/A
MED PROTECT (GR/BARRIER)
N/A
N/A
N/A r
NIA
NIA
SHOULDER WIDTH (total ...
MEDIAN m or ft
_ _ _ -- —
1 6 C & G 14 ft
12 ft _
NIA
_ NIA
OUP TSIDEw /oGRmorft
8 f
12 ft
C 14 ft 9.
8 f
8ft
IOUTSIDE w/ GR m or ft
ft
I N/A
17 ft
lift
(
lift
PAVED SHOULDER
OUTSIDETOTAL/FDPSmorft
��4ft/Oft
_
� W4ft/ Oft
4ft/4ft_
_
4ft/4ft
4t/4ft
)MEDIAN TOTAUFDPS m or ft_
) 1 -6 C 8 G
2-6 C& G
4 fti O ft
N /A
N/A _
GRADE
/MAX
03/
_10/_
03/
_4/ I
03/ _
_6/
�03/rv03/
6/
_K VALUE
SAG
( 96
' 37
136
96 to 136
�
37 to 136 �
ICREST
84
19
151
84 to 151
19 to 151 I
HORIZ ALIGN
MAX SUPER
t 8/
8/
8/
8/
8/
MIN RADIUS m or ft
758
230 I (note 2)
1 200 ft
758 to 1 20p___j
214 to 1 200
SPIRAL Y/N
N
, Y
Y )
N
N
CROSS SLOPES
(
€
PAVEMENT
2/
2/
2/
2/
1
2/.._
PAVED SHOULDERY
2/
t 2/
2/ I
2/
2/
TURF _SHOULDER
MEDIAN DITCH m _
8/
) N/A
8/
NIA
8/ )
N/A
8/
N/A
8/
N/A
DITCH TYPICAL (ABC )
�I «.B
Am�m�
A
B
I
C
CLEAR ZONE m or ft
tTYPICAL SECTION NO
(
)
General Note Accommodate for future loops at all diamond interchanges
Note 1 2004 AASHTO page 220 exhibit 3-51 case II vehicle A 26 ft for two lane loops (13 ft lanes)
Note 2 R = 230 ft per NCDOT Roadway Design Manual R = 213 ft per 2004 Green Book
Note 3 The median outside the ramp terminals will transition out in the future to the desirable 23 raised median

STATE PROJECT
F A PROJECT
COUNTY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PREPARED BY
PROPOSED DESIGN CRITERIA
Gaston /Mecklenburg DIVISION 10 and 12
East West Connector between 185 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to
1- 485 /NC 160 in Mecklenburg County
Section K EAST
PBS&J
TIP U 3321
PAGE 1 of 2
DATE May 25 2007
Revised June 15 2007
ROUTES �' E W C nnector ��NC n9 NC 273 SR1� T
�L1NE F -L T ; x ffizt� Rwar Read
TRAFFIC DATA
12 t 1 6 G&G
-
1 5 G&G
9 12ft
OUTSIDE w/o GR m_orft
NOUTSIDE w/ (R m or ft
IADT LET YR =
t
_
8 f
_ 11 ft _
( _ -
ft
ADT DESIGN YR = 2030 - —
110 800
—� - - --
-- 29 400
39 800
-3/ -
22 400 -
-
- -- 125 200 -
TTST
6/
2/
12 ft/ 12ft_
5/
5/
DUALS
2/
2/�
2/
3/
2/
DHV_
10/
10/
11 / 10/
11 /
'DIR
60/
55%
55/� 60%
55/
CLASSIFICATION
Freeway
Rural Arterial
Rural Ar„ ten al
r Rural Collector
Interstate
TERRAIN TYPE
Rolling
Rolling
Rolling
Rolling
Rolling_,._.,
DESIGN SPEED km/hr or mph
�T 70 mph
50 mph
50 mph
50 mph
_.
70 mph r
POSTED SPEED kmlhr or mph
_ v 65 mph
45 mph )
45 mph
45 mph
-300
65 mph
PROP R/W WIDTH m or ft
300 ft
200 ft
200 ft
ft
300 ft
CONTROL OF ACCESS
Full I
N
N
N
Fuld
RUMBLE' (Y/N)
Y
N
N
N
Y t
ATYPICAL SECTION TYPE_
} 6 lane divided
4 lane divided
4 lane divided
�4 lane divided
6 lane divided
WI
LANEDTHmorft
12ft
12ft
-12ft --
— 12ft
_ 12ft
SIDEWALKS (Y/N)
N
N
N
I N
N
IBICYCLE LANES (YIN)
N
N
N
N
N
MEDIAN WIDTH m or ft
46 ft )
17 5 ft (note 3)
17 5 ft (note 3)
23 ft
46 ft
_
MED PROTECT(GR/BARRIER) --
_ -Y/ GR
_
_ N/A
_ N/A
- N/A
_I
N/A
SHOULDER WIDTH (total)
�MLUTANmortt
12 t 1 6 G&G
1 1 6 G&G
1 5 G&G
9 12ft
OUTSIDE w/o GR m_orft
NOUTSIDE w/ (R m or ft
_ 14 ft
o- 17 ft
8 f
11 ft
8 f
_ 11 ft _
8ft _
11 ft _-4-417-ft-1
ft
IPAVED SHOULDER
OUT SIDE TOTAUFDPS m or ft
12 ft/ 12ft_
I
4 ft/ 4ft
a 4ft/4ft
4fU4ft
12_ ft/ 12ft
MEDIANTOTAUFDPSmorft
12 ft/ 12ft
1 6 C8<G
I 1-6 C&G
1 6 C&G
12 ft/ 12ft
GRADE
!
WAX
4/
5/ �a
__
5/
7/
41
IN
_K VALUE
SAG �
03/
__
...__181 _ _ ... ._..______96
03/
_
03/
�._ __..._9fi _.
03/
g _
96
03/
181
CRESST�
HORI2_ ALIGN
247
—
c
84
84
84
247
IMAX SUPER _
MIN RADIUS m or ft - - _
8/
- 1 810
8/
_ 758
8/
- - 758
8/
- 758
10/
- 1 630
SPIRAL Y/N
ICROSS SLOPES
Y
Y
Y
N
Y _
,PAVEMENT _
PAVED SHOULDR
2/
4/-— _.T
2/
2i _
2/
_ �2 /T—
2/
_ _ _ _ 2/ _ _
2/
_ 4/
TURF SHOULDER
4/
8/
8/
I 8/
41
'MEDIAN DITCH
DITCH TYPICAL (A.B.C)
61
A
N/A
B
I NIA
B
N/A
1 B
81
A
General Note Accommodate for future loops at all diamond Interchanges
Note 3 The median outside the ramp terminals will transition out In the future to the desirable 23 raised median

PROPOSED DESIGN CRITERIA
Section K EAST
PAGE 2 of 2
TIP U 3321
� Ramps � �
� �*� �
��� �
LIME
rr l
N
w
Collector Rds
Local Rids
�
m
TRAFFIC DATA
w w
ry
MEDIAN WIDTH m or ft _
MED PROTECT (GR/BARRIER)
_ _ _ N/A __�
NIA
ADT LET YR =
N/A
N
N/A
) N/A
)
SHOULDER WIDTH (total) _
—1
LAS DT DESIGN YR = 2030
r
MEDIAN m or ft
i ft
12 iF
NIA
NIA
OUTSIDE w/o GR m or ft
12 ft
14 ft_
1 8 ft
OUTSIDE w/ GR m or ft
N/A
DUALS
17 ft
lift
lift
PAVED SHOULDER
DHV
f
MEDOUTSIDE TO_TAUFDPS m or ft
IAN TOTAUFDPS m or ft
4 ft/ 4 ft
2 -6--& G
DIR
6-0/
4 ft/ 4 ft
i N/A r
60/
_
$
GRADE
CLASSIFICATION
1
Collector
Local
_t
10/
_�
TER_RAIN_TYPE
Rolhng��—
6/ _
Rolimg
Rolling f
Rolling_
��-
DESIGN SPEED km/hr or mph 30 M- h
03/
60 mph 50 to 60 mph (
30 to 60 mph
POSTED SPEED kmlhr or mph
N/A
t
N/A
45 to 55 mph [
25 to 55 mph
_____
PROP RIW WIDTH m or ft
100 ft
100 ft
1
37 to 136
CONT_R_OL OF ACCESS
Full
Full )
N
(
RUMBLE STRIPS (Y /N)
I TNN
N I
_N
N��
_
SECTION TYPE T
1 lane
:
1 lane shld
2 lane shld
2 lane shld
c
ETYPICAL
WIDTH m or ft
17 ft (note 11
_
16 ft
12 ft e
12 ft
SIDEWALKS (YIN)
N
N
N
N
BICYCLE LANES (YIN)
N
_�—
N
N�
N
MEDIAN WIDTH m or ft _
MED PROTECT (GR/BARRIER)
_ _ _ N/A __�
NIA
_
N/A
N
N/A
) N/A
N/A
NIA
SHOULDER WIDTH (total) _
—1
MEDIAN m or ft
i ft
12 iF
NIA
NIA
OUTSIDE w/o GR m or ft
12 ft
14 ft_
1 8 ft
OUTSIDE w/ GR m or ft
N/A
17 ft
lift
lift
PAVED SHOULDER
f
MEDOUTSIDE TO_TAUFDPS m or ft
IAN TOTAUFDPS m or ft
4 ft/ 4 ft
2 -6--& G
4 ft/ 4 ft
I 4 ft/ 4 ft
4 ft/ 4 ft
i N/A r
4ft/ 4 ft
N/A
_
$
GRADE
1
MAX
_t
10/
4/
6/ _
_ _ 6/
MIN
03/
03/
03/
03/
K VALUE
_ I
_
SAG
) 37
136
96 to 136
37 to 136
CREST
19
151
( 84 to 151
19 to 151
HORIZ ALIGN
MAX SUPER_
8/
8/
8/
8/
c
_
tMIN RADIUS m or ft
230 (note 2)
_
1 200
758 to 1200 €
214 to 110
2/ ( 2/ 2/ 2/
2/ 2/ 2/ L 2/
8/ 8/ 1 8/ 8/
MEDIAN DITCH
DITCH TYPICAL (A B C)
K
General Note Accommodate for future loops at all diamond interchanges
Note 1 2004 AASHTO page 220 exhibit 3 51 case II vehicle A 26 ft for two lane loop (13 it lanes)
Note 2 R= 230 It per NCDOT Roadway Design Manual R = 213 ft per 2004 Green Book
Note 3 The median outside the ramp terminals will transition out in the future to the desirable 23 raised median

CONFIDENTIAL
GARDEN PARKWAY ALT 9 PHASED 4 LANE OPTIO
NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY
US 321 SOUTHEAST OF GASTONIA TO 1485 IN MECKLENBERG COUNTY /16 072 MILES /4 LANE SECTION
FUNCTIONAL ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION
LEVEL E ESTIMATE
IF � 1 L$YLibC / r
ESTIMATED TOTAL COST = $554 1 MILLION
ESTIMATE DATE 07/30/09
SECTION ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL COST
1nRnenwev
1 A CTntir` mmFC
New Bridges on Tang t Ahgnm t Over Roadway
18 480
SF
$ 9700
$ 17 797 560
Cl anng & Grubbing
719
AC
$ 21 000 00
$ 15 099 000
New Bridges o Curved Alignment Over Roadway
187 40
SF
$ 12000
$ '12 480 800
Earthwo k
80 496
SF
$ 12000
$ 9 659 520
Ex a n
11 556 187
CY
$ 430
$ 49 691 604
Borr w
5 106 751
CY
$ 570
$ 29 678 481
Fm Grading
1 730 975
Sy
$ 2 0
$ 98124
Smgl Barr 1 RCB
2214 8
SF
$ 3000
$ 664 140
New P em nt
7 124
SF
$ 25 00
$ 1 828 100
Mainhn (4 Ian divided)
472 878
Sy
$ 4000
$ 18 915 120
Mamhn (P d shoulders)
85 600
Sy
$ 4000
$ 15 424 000
SUBTOTAL DRAINAGE
Loo (C&G)
64 700
Sy
$ 550
$ 2 296 850
Rams
271 800
Sy
$ 3550
$ 9 648 900
SUBTOTAL STRUCTURES
Y Lin s
175 905
Sy
$ 550
$ 6 244 628
W d ning Pvmnt
Ramps Y Lines et
81 150
Sy
$ 5100
$ 41 8 650
Resurl mg
Rams Y Lines etc
19 850
Sy
$ 1175
$ 2 3 238
Subgrade Stab hzano
1 30 208
Sy
$ 690
$ 9 1784 5
26 Co cret Curb and Gutter
12 175
LF
$ 1550
$ 18871
16 Concrete Curb and G tter
57 300
LF
$ 1200
$ 687 600
4 Concr to S d walk
0
Sy
$ 350
$
7 Mo ohthic Islands
2 930
Sy
$ 4950
$ 1 184 5 5
SUBTOTAL ROADWAY $166 590 995
1 A CTntir` mmFC
311 DRAINACR
New Bridges on Tang t Ahgnm t Over Roadway
18 480
SF
$ 9700
$ 17 797 560
New Bridges o Tang t Alignment Over Water
355 074
SF
$ 9700
$ 34 442 178
New Bridges o Curved Alignment Over Roadway
187 40
SF
$ 12000
$ '12 480 800
New Bridges Cury d Al gnment Ov W ter
80 496
SF
$ 12000
$ 9 659 520
New Railroad Bridges
0
SF
$ 1000
$
W dental; Bridges Over Roadway
0
SF
$ 15500
$
W denmg Bndg Over Water
0
SF
$ 11500
$
Smgl Barr 1 RCB
2214 8
SF
$ 3000
$ 664 140
D bl Ban 1 RCB
7 124
SF
$ 25 00
$ 1 828 100
Tnpl Barr 1 RCB
42 024
SF
$ 2025
$ 850 986
Noise Wall
197 860
SF
$ 3050
$ 60 4 730
SUBTOTAL DRAINAGE
N se Wall o Structure
700
SF
$ 14000
$ 98 000
SUBTOTAL STRUCTURES
$99 835 014
311 DRAINACR
Level E Esbmate Pag 1 8/6/2009
Mainline Dramag (6-lane divided freeway)
16 1
MI
$ 454 500 00
$ 7 304 724
Mainline Dram (4-lane divided freew )
00
MI
$ 18 500 00
$
Mainline Dramag (2 Ian )
00
MI
$ 182 000 00
$
Ranip Dmmag (1 lane sho Ider)
90
MI
$ 136 500 00
$ 1 223 040
Rarnp Drainage (2 Ian shoulder)
67
MI
$ 182 000 00
$ 1 219 400
Loop Drainage (1 lane C &G)
7
MI
$ 136 500 00
$ 510 510
Loop Drainag (2 lane C &G)
00
MI
I $ 227 500 00
$ 9 100
Y Lm Drainage (5 Ian )
12
MI
$ 41 000 00
$ 398 970
Y Lm Drainage (4-tan divided)
40
MI
$ 18 000 00
$ 1278 60
Y Lm Drainage ( lane)
06
MI
$ 250 000 00
$ 145 000
Y Line Dramag lane shoulde)
47
MI
$ 182 000 00
$ 851 760 00
SUBTOTAL DRAINAGE
$12 940 864
Level E Esbmate Pag 1 8/6/2009

CONFIDENTIAL
SECTION ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL COST
4 0 MISCELLANEOUS
5 0 TOLLING POINTS and ITS
Traffi Control
0
EA
S 457 000 00
$
Traffic Contr I Y Lines
12
EA
$ 45 500 00
$ 546 000
SUB -TOTAL TOLLING AND ITS COSTS
Traffi Co trol Interchanges
7
EA
S 45 500 00
S 18 500
Traffic Co trol C inplex Inter hanger
1
EA
S 1 014 000 00
S 1 014 000
Traffi C tr 1 Railroads
1
EA
$ 91 000 00
S 91 000
2 Lane Ramp Gantry T Ring Equipment
4
EA
S 252 500 00
S 1 010 000
Th rmo nd Markers
9
EA
S 9725000
$ 800 083
Mainline (6-lan divided)
00
MI
$ 39 100 00
S
Mainhn (4 -lane divided)
161
MI
$ 30 000 00
S 482 160
Ram s/Loo (1 Ian)
1 5
MI
$ 10 000 00
S 134 900
Ramps/Loops (2 Ian)
67
Ml
S 20 000 00
S 1 4 800
Y lines (2 lane shoulder)
47
MI
$ 20 000 00
S 9 600
Y hn s (3 Ian curb & gutter)
06
MI
$ 24 600 00
S 14 268
Y Imes (4-lan divided)
40
MI
$ 30 000 00
S 120 600
Y hues (5 lane curb & gutter)
12
MI
$ 4 600 00
S 40 482
SUBTOTAL TOLL PLAZAS and ITS
S10 853 683
New Traffic Si pals
15
EA
$ 98 250 00
S 147 750
Interchange S going
Larg Free Flow Interchang
1
EA
S 620 000 00
S 620 000
Diamo d Interchang
1
EA
S 525 000 00
S 525 000
D amo d Interchange w/ 1 Loop
1
EA
S 525 000 00
$ 525 000
Diamond Interchan +1 Loo (5 too in is)
2
EA
$ 546 000 00
S 1 092 000
Half -Cl er Inter han e
3
EA
S 525 000 00
S 1 12 500
Diamond Interchange w/ Loops and 2 Ramps
0
1 EA
S 546 000 00
S
F eeway S going
16
MI
$ 27 300 00
S 438 766
C/A Fence
184 935
LF
S 600
S 1 109 610
Railroad S gnal w/ Gates
0
EA
S 114 000 00
S
Eros o Control
871
AC
S 14 600 00
S 12 716 600
SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS
$22,803,536
5 0 TOLLING POINTS and ITS
CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY TOLL EOUIPMFNT AND ITS
6-Lan Mamlan Gantry Space Frain (b th directions)
0
EA
S 457 000 00
$
6 Lane Mamlan T Iling Equipment (both directions)
0
EA
S 697 000 00
S
SUB -TOTAL TOLLING AND ITS COSTS
4 Lane Maritime Gantry Space Frame (both dtrecti ns)
5
EA
S 79 000 00
$ 1 895 000
4-Lane Mamlane Tolling Equipment (both directi ns)
5
EA
S 505 000 00
S 2 525 000
2 Lane Ramp Gantry Space Frame
4
EA
S 174 000 00
S 696 000
2 Lane Ramp Gantry T Ring Equipment
4
EA
S 252 500 00
S 1 010 000
ORT $ ace Frame Foundations
9
EA
S 9725000
$ 800 083
CCTV
26
EA
$ 9 150 00
$ 237 900
Dynamic Messaging S gn Structures
4
EA
$ 105 000 00
S 420 000
Dynamic Messaging Signs
4
EA
$ 122 000 00
S 488 000
4-2 Condmt (1 run)
18
MI
$ 11 200 00
$ 207 007
F bet Optic Cabl (1 run)
18
MI
$ 8325000
S 1 538 693
Weather Stations
1
EA
$ 91 000 00
S 91 000
Microwa a Vehi I Det ctors
70
EA
$ 13 500 00
S 945 000
Pavement Sensors
0
EA
S 1025
S
SUBTOTAL TOLL PLAZAS and ITS
S10 853 683
CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY TOLL EOUIPMFNT AND ITS
CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY HIGHWAY
Subtotal Constructio
S 6 836 000
Engin ering and Mobilization (25 /)
S 1 709 000
Subtotal Construction
S 8,545 000
Construction Contingency (25 /)
S 2137 000
SUB -TOTAL TOLLING AND ITS COSTS
S10 682 000
CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY HIGHWAY
Level E Estimate Pag 2 8/6/2009
Subtotal Construction
S 306189 000
Aesthetics (2 /)
S 6123790
Mobilization (10° /)
Is 30 618,900
Subtotal Construction
Is 342,931 680
Construction Contingency (25
Is 85,733 000
SUB -TOTAL TOLLED FACILITY CONSTRUCTION COST
I 5428 664 680
Level E Estimate Pag 2 8/6/2009

CONFIDENTIAL
SECTION ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL COST
7 0 ROW a d UTILITIES
8 0 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION COST
ROW Land and D splacements
79 701
LS
I $ 68800
$ 86 511 000
TOTAL PROJECT COST (CURRENT COST Jun 2009)
Rt anan W tlands Impacted
5 151
AC
1 $ 126 828 00
1 $ 665 900
Relocate M for Exisn g Unlity Lmes
1
LS
$ 11 996 00
$ 10 865 000
TOTAL MITIGATION COST (CURRENT COST)
Util ty C nn envy (mmo mo ement)
1
LS
$ 1 612 000
SUBTOTAL ROW nd UTILITIES
$99 998 000
8 0 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION COST
TOTAL PRn.TRCT COOT SUMMARY (CURRENT COST)
Sub-T tal Constr uctio C t
Streams Impact d
79 701
1 LF
I $ 68800
1 $ 204 4 000
TOTAL PROJECT COST (CURRENT COST Jun 2009)
Rt anan W tlands Impacted
5 151
AC
1 $ 126 828 00
1 $ 665 900
No n anan W Hands Imp t d
000
AC
$ 11 996 00
1 $
TOTAL MITIGATION COST (CURRENT COST)
1 $21 099 900
TOTAL PRn.TRCT COOT SUMMARY (CURRENT COST)
Sub-T tal Constr uctio C t
$432 952 000
Sub -Total ROM and Uttbtres
$99 998 000
Sub -Total Mitig h n C t
$21 099 900
TOTAL PROJECT COST (CURRENT COST Jun 2009)
$554 049 900
SAY $55410 000
Not s
1) Th unit sts t construct th s f hty ar based o th unit pnces of rec tly onstructed surular f cil ties and/or the 1 t st erag unit pnces of NCDOT pr j cts
2) Pr burunary honzo tal and rncal ahg»m is ar d el ped App oximat q annnes f m j dw ay and stru tur lements can be calculat d.
) Pr po d dramage and til n 1 ments are of d I ped and quanttn ar of calcul t d mdtvtdua14 yet
4) Malo abo a surf cc nl ty elocano uld be denn5ed ( 1 ctnc transmtno hn s t 1 pho a poles et )
5) Appr ztmat nght of way eeds an be sttm ted
6) Appr xnnate ITS lements eeds can be denti5 d
7) U t sts of stmtlar pr 1 cts are sed t calcul t co stntcno st
8) Cc tmgen ar appl ed to th o strucno cost
Le el E Est mate Pag 3 8/6/2009

CONFIDENTIAL
GARDEN PARKWAY ALT 9 - 4-LANE OPTIO
NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY
I 85"EST OF GASTONIA TO 1485 IN MECKLENBERG COUNTI /21 92 MILES /4 LANE SECTION
FUNCTIONAL ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION
LEVEL E ESTIMATE
ESTIMATED TOTAL COST = $803 6 MILLION
ESTIMATE DATE 07/30/09
SECTION ITEM DESCRIPTION QuANTrff UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL COST
10ROADWAY
,X,V �y1�i14"1J 7*1
New Bridges o Tangent Alignment Over Roadway
2562 1
SF
$ 9700
$ 24 854 407
Clearing & Grubb g
971
AC
$ 21 000 00
$ 20 391 000
New Bridges o Cury d Al gnment Over Roadway
280 174
SF
$ 12000
$ 3 620 880
E rthw k
80 496
SF
$ 12000
$ 9 659 520
Excavation
141 5 957
CY
$ 430
$ 60 784 615
B rr w
9 365 76
CY
$ 570
$ 53 382 64
Fm Grading
7 76 5 1
SY
$ 230
$ 5 466 072
Smgl Barr I RCB
30 702
SF
$ 3000
$ 9 111 060
New Pa m nt
1 3 956
SF
$ 2500
$ 48 900
Mamh (4-lan divided)
646 275
SY
$ 4000
$ 25 851 000
Mamh a (P d shoulders)
52 00
SY
$ 4000
$ 209 2000
SUBTOTAL DRAINAGE
Loops (C &G)
96 150
SY
$ 550
$ 41 25
Rarnp
80 000
SY
$ 5 50
$ 1 490 000
SUBTOTAL STRUCTURES
Y Lines
255 500
SY
$ 3550
$ 9 070 250
Wdnm Pvm t
Ramp Y Lm s etc
107 350
SY
$ 5100
S 5 474 850
Resurfacing
0
Ramps Y Lm et
16 700
SY
$ 1175
$ 192 475
S bgrade Stab hzation
1 810 298
SY
$ 690
$ 12 491 05
2 6 Co Crete Curb and Gun
19 075
LF
$ 1550
$ 29566
16 Comet Curb and G tier
15 550
LF
$ 1200
$ 186 600
4 Co Crete S dewalk
0
SY
$ 50
$
7 M ohthrc I lands
29 605
SY
$ 4950
$ 1465448
SUBTOTAL ROADWAY $234 617 943
,X,V �y1�i14"1J 7*1
30DRAINAGE
New Bridges o Tangent Alignment Over Roadway
2562 1
SF
$ 9700
$ 24 854 407
New Bridges o Tang t Ahgnm t Over Water
395 4
SF
$ 9700
$ 8 47 398
New Bridges o Cury d Al gnment Over Roadway
280 174
SF
$ 12000
$ 3 620 880
N w Bndg Cury d Ahg=mt Over W ter
80 496
SF
$ 12000
$ 9 659 520
New Railroad Bridges
18 144
SF
$ 1000
$ 5 624 640
W denmg Bridges Over Roadway
5 600
SF
$ 15500
$ 868 000
W denmg Bridges Over W ter
0
SF
$ 11500
$
Smgl Barr I RCB
30 702
SF
$ 3000
$ 9 111 060
Doubl Barr I RCB
1 3 956
SF
$ 2500
$ 48 900
Tnpl Barrel RCB
42 024
SF
$ 2025
$ 850 986
N s Wall
285 640
SF
$ 3050
$ 8 712 0 0
SUBTOTAL DRAINAGE
No se Wall on Structure
700
SF
$ 14000
$ 98 000
SUBTOTAL STRUCTURES
$135 095 811
30DRAINAGE
Level E Estimate Pag 1 8/612009
Mainline Drainage (6 -lane divided freeway)
219
MI
$ 454 500 00
$ 9 962 640
Mainline Dramag (4 -lane divided freeway)
00
M1
$ 18 500 00
$
Mainline Dramag (2 lane)
00
Ml
$ 182 000 00
$
Ramp Drainage (1 Ian sho Ider)
1 3
Ml
$ 136 500 00
$ 1 808 625
Ramp Drainage (2 lane shoulder)
91
Ml
$ 182 000 00
$ 1 654 380
Loop Dram (1 lane C&G)
57
MI
$ 136 500 00
$ 776 685
Loop Dram g (2 lane C&G)
03
Ml
$ 227 500 00
1 $ 70 525
• Line Dram (5 Ian )
12
MI
$ 41 000 00
S 398 970
• Line Dramag (4 Ian di d d)
52
MI
$ 18 000 00
$ 1 666 10
• Lm Dramag ( Ian )
23
MI
$ 250 000 00
$ 567 500
• Line Drainage (2 lane shoulder)
78
MI
$ 182 000 00
$ 1 415 060 00
SUBTOTAL DRAINAGE
$18,330 705
Level E Estimate Pag 1 8/612009

CONFIDENTIAL
SECTION ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL COST
40NESCELLANEOUS
5 0 TOLLING POINTS and ITS
Trfffil Control
0
EA
S 457 000 00
S
Traffic Control Y Lines
23
EA
$ 45 50000
S 1 046 500
SUB -TOTAL TOLLING AND ITS COSTS
Traffic C ntrol I ter han es
10
EA
$ 45 500 00
S 455 000
Traffi Control Comple Interchanges
3
EA
S 1 014 000 00
S 042 000
Traffi C ntr 1 Railroads
2
EA
$ 91 000 00
$ 182 000
2 Lan Ramp Gantry Tolling Equipment
4
EA
S 252 500 00
S 1 010 000
Th rm and Markers
12
EA
S 87 250 00
S 1 061 8 3
Mamlm (6-lan divided)
00
MI
$ 39 100 00
S
Mamlm (4 -lane (bvided)
219
MI
S 30 000 00
S 657 600
Ram (I Ian )
197
MI
S 10 000 00
$ 196 600
Ramps/Loops (2 lane)
94
MI
S 20 000 00
S 188 000
Y lines (2 Ian h ulder)
78
MI
S 20 000 00
S 156 600
Y hn s (3 lane curb & gutter)
2
MI
S 24 600 00
S 55 842
Y Imes (4 -lane divided)
52
MI
S 30 000 00
S 157 200
Y hn (5 Ian urb & gutter)
12
MI
S 34 600 00
S 40 482
SUBTOTAL TOLL PLAZAS and ITS
$15.272128
New Traffic S gnats
20
EA
$ 98 250 00
S 1 965 000
Interchange S gnm
Large F ee FI w Interchange
2
EA
S 620 000 00
S 1 240 000
Diamond Interchange
1
EA
S 525 000 00
S 525 000
Diamo d Inter hang w/ 1 Loop
2
EA
S 525 000 00
S 1 050 000
Dimond Interchange +I Loo (5 mo ements)
2
EA
$ 546 000 00
S 1 092 000
Half -Clo er Interchange
5
EA
S 525 000 00
S 2 625 000
Ihamond Interchang w/ 3 Loops and 2 Ramps
0
EA
$ 546 000 00
S
F eeway Sigamg
22
MI
$ 27 300 00
S 598 416
C/A Fence
282 505
LF
S 600
S 1 695 030
Railroad S pal w/ Gates
0
EA
$ 114 000 00
S
Er Control
1 71
AC
S 14 600 00
S 20 016 600
SUBTOTAL MISCELLANEOUS
I S36 984 870
5 0 TOLLING POINTS and ITS
CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY TOLL EOUIPMENT AND ITS
6 Lan Mainlane Gantry Spare Fram (both directions)
0
EA
S 457 000 00
S
6 Lan Mandan T Ihng Equipment (both dtrecn ns)
0
EA
S 697 000 00
S
SUB -TOTAL TOLLING AND ITS COSTS
4 Lane Mainline Gantry Sp ce Frain (both directions)
8
EA
$ 79 000 00
S 30 2000
4-Lane Mainlan Tolling in ent (both direcu ns)
8
EA
$ 505 000 00
S 4 040 000
2 Lane Ramp Gantry Space Frain
4
EA
$ 174 000 00
S 696 000
2 Lan Ramp Gantry Tolling Equipment
4
EA
S 252 500 00
S 1 010 000
ORT Space Frain Foundations
12
EA
S 87 250 00
S 1 061 8 3
CCTV
36
EA
$ 915000
S 329 400
Dynami M ssaging Sign Structures
6
EA
S 105 000 00
S 630 000
Dynamic Messaging S gns
6
EA
$ 122 000 00
S 7 2000
4-2 Co dint (1 run)
25
MI
S 11 200 00
S 282 30
F ber Opti Cabl (1 run)
25
MI
S 8 25000
S 2 098 566
Weather Stations
I
EA
S 91 000 00
S 91 000
Ivhcr w v V In Ie Detectors
94
EA
S 13 500 00
1 $ 1 269 000
Pavement Sensors
0
EA
S 1025
1 S
SUBTOTAL TOLL PLAZAS and ITS
$15.272128
CONSTRUCTION COST SUMMARY TOLL EOUIPMENT AND ITS
CONSTRUCTION COST SIIMMARV HIGHWAY
Subtotal Cost. bon
S 9 570 000
E guiecring and Mobilization (25 /)
$ 2,392,500
Subtotal Construction
S 11%2,500
Construction Contm envy (25 /)
$ 2991 000
SUB -TOTAL TOLLING AND ITS COSTS
514,953,500
CONSTRUCTION COST SIIMMARV HIGHWAY
60
Le el E Estimate Pag 2 8/6/2009
Subtotal Construction
$ 430 732 000
A sib tics (2 /)
S 8,614 640
Mobilization (10/)
S 43073,200
Subtotal Construction
S 482 419,840
Construcho Contingency (25 0° /)
$ 120 605 000
SUB -TOTAL TOLLED FACILITY CONSTRUCTION COST
5603 024 840
60
Le el E Estimate Pag 2 8/6/2009

CONFIDENTIAL
SECTION ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST SUBTOTAL COST
7 0 ROM and UTILITIES
8 0 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION COST
ROW Land and D spl ements
4 ) 419
LS
1 $ 68800
$ 146 01 000
TOTAL PROJECT COST (CURRENT COST Jun 2009)
Rt anan Wetlands Impact d
7501
AC
1 $ 126 828 00
1 $ 951 00
Relo t M for Existing Utility L nes
1
LS
$ 11 996 00
$ 14 840 000
TOTAL MITIGATION COST (CURRENT COST)
Uul ty C tin en (rnmo m ements)
1
LS
$ 528 000
SUBTOTAL ROW and UTILITIES
$16479-1000
8 0 ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION COST
TOTAL PRO.IF.CT COST SUMMARY t(-ITRRFNT COST)
S b -Total C n tru h n Cost
Streams Impact d
4 ) 419
1 LF
1 $ 68800
1 $ 19 191 400
TOTAL PROJECT COST (CURRENT COST Jun 2009)
Rt anan Wetlands Impact d
7501
AC
1 $ 126 828 00
1 $ 951 00
Non n anan Wetlands Imp t d
000
AC
$ 11 996 00
$
TOTAL MITIGATION COST (CURRENT COST)
$30 142 700
TOTAL PRO.IF.CT COST SUMMARY t(-ITRRFNT COST)
S b -Total C n tru h n Cost
$609 056 000
Sub -Total ROW nd Utilities
$164,391 000
Sub -Total M fig h C st
S30142700
TOTAL PROJECT COST (CURRENT COST Jun 2009)
$803 589 700
SAY $803 600 000
N tes
1) The umt st t co stmct this f hty ar based on th unit pnce f re a tly structed stmtlar f cd ties and/o the lat st erag unit pnces of NCDOT pr 1 cts
2) Pr hint ar} bonzontal and ertical abgnm t ar d v loped App oxmtate quantin s fm 1 adway and stru tur elements can b al I t d
) Pr po ed dramag and til n s lements ar t d loped and quannn s ar of cal ul ted mdb d ally yet
4) Malo ab surf ce unl ty rel eons could be dennfi d ( e ele to tran mm n h s t 1 ph a pol s et )
5) Appr xtmate nght f way Beds an b tim t d
6) Approxmtat ITS lements needs an be dennfied
7) Umt osts of smular pr 1 ct are used to cal I t tructio cost-
8)C nnngenc es ar appl d to the constructio st
Le el E Estimate P g 3 8/6/2009

Summary of Public & Agency Comments
Gaston East -West Connector
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
STIP Project Number U 3321
Post - Hearing Meeting
August 4, 2009
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Gaston East West Connector (STEP Project U 3321)
was signed on April 24 2009 A notice of availability was published in the Federal Register on May 22
2009 (Vol 74 No 98 pg 24006) The public comment period for the project ended on July 21 2009
This document is a summary of the comments received during the public comment period and is
organized as follows
1 Workshop Dates Locations and Attendees
2 Total Number of Comments Received
3 Summary of Comments from the Public
a Pre Hearing Open House and Public Hearing Comments
b Verbal Comments from Public Hearing
c Letters from the Public
d Email Comments from the Public
e Public Comments Related to Design Issues
4 Summary of Comments from Agencies Local Governments and Interest Groups
a Comments from State and Federal Agencies
b Comments from Local Governments
c Comments from Interest Groups and Organizations
Details are included in the following appendices
A Locations of Pre Hearing Open Houses and Public Hearings
B Detailed Comments Provided on Comment Forms
C State and Federal Agency Comments
D Local Government Comments
E Interest Groups and Organizations Comments
1 WORKSHOP DATES, LOCATIONS, AND ATTENDEES
Four Pre Hearing Open Houses and two Public Hearings were held June 22 23 24 and 25 2009
Formal presentations were made at the two Public Hearings by Steve DeWitt of the North Carolina
Turnpike Authority (NCTA) (June 23 and 25) David Bass of PBSU (June 23) and Clint Morgan of
PBSU (June 25) Comment sheets were made available at all Pre Hearing Open Houses and Public
Hearings and through the project website (www ncturnnpike ore /projects /gaston/deis asp) Table I
summarizes the details for each meeting

Gaston East West Connector (U 3321) Summary of Comments
August 4 2009 — Post Hearing Meeting
Table 1 Dates Locations and Attendees Pre Hearing Open Houses and Public Hearings
Date
June 22
2009
June 23 2009
June 24
2009
June 25 2009
Type of Meeting
Pre hearing
Pre hearing
Public
Pre hearing
Pre hearing
Public
open house
open house
Hearing
open house
open house
Hearin
Workshop
Workshop
Presentation
Workshop
Workshop
Presentation
Components
and slide
and slide
and formal
and slide
and slide
and formal
presentation
presentation
comment
period
presentation
presentation
comment
period
Gastonia
Adult
Forestview
Forestview
Southpoint
Olympic
Olympic
Location
Recreation
High
High School
High
Center
S hool
S hoo l
School
Charlotte
School,
Gastoma
Gastonia
Gastonia
Belmont
Charlotte
Time
2 30 —
2 30 —
7 00 —
2 30 —
2 30 —
700—
6 30 PM
630 PM
1015 PM
730 PM
630 PM
830 PM
Number of
Attendees"
287
352
700
191
57
85
Number of speakers
verbal comments
N/A
N/A
53
N/A
N/A
29
Number of written
Included
Included
comments received
25
59
with open
28
5
with open
at workshop /hearing
house total
house total
T- Noi mcivamg Nl i A, Nuvu i rH WA and Consulting Staff in attendance Number of attendees estimated based on
sign in forms for the Pre Hearing Open Houses and an approximate head count for the Public Hearings
In addition to the activities above a Local Officials Meeting was held from 1 00 2 30 PM on June 22
2009 at the Gaston County Police Department 420 West Franklin Boulevard Gastonia, NC All Pre
Hearmg Open House materials were available for their review and a presentation was made by Steve
DeWitt This meeting was attended by 27 people
2 TOTAL NUMBER OF COMMENTS RECEIVED
The DEIS comment period was from April 25 2009 to July 21 2009
As of midnight, July 22 2009 a total of 256 written comment forms /letters /emails have been received
along with 7 resolutions and 3 petitions There were 82 speakers at the Public Hearings (please note that
there were seven people who spoke at both Public Hearings They were counted as individual speakers at
each meeting because they provided different comments at each Hearing) Comments are categorized as
follows
• 153 comment forms
• 63 emails
• 14 letters from citizens
• 7 comment letters from interest groups /organizations
• Catawba Riverkeeper
• Connect Gaston
2

Gaston East West Connector (U 3321) Summary of Comments
August 4 2009 — Post Hearing Meeting
• Gaston Together
• Ed Eason (citizen with strong interest in air quality)
o Southeast Connector Coalition
o Stopthetollroad com (Mr Bill Toole)
o Southern Environmental Law Center
• 19 comment letters from federal state and local agencies
0 82 speakers from the two formal Public Hearings
• 7 resolutions (all supporting the Garden Parkway)
• 3 petitions (note the petitions were not reviewed for duplicates or validity of signatui es)
o Over 7 000 Signatures (Approximate) — Opposed to the Garden Parkway — submitted by
Bill Toole of stopthetollroad com
0 275 Signatures — Opposed to the Garden Parkway — submitted by the Harrison Family
0 109 Signatures — Oppose Segment KX1 due to potential impact to Mt Pleasant Baptist
Church Cemetery— submitted by Barbara Hart (Segment KX1 not a part of DSA 9 the
Recommended Alternative However Segment K3A which is a part of DSA 9 has the
same preliminary design footprint in the area of the Mt Pleasant Baptist Church
cemetery A memo dated August 15 2008 was sent to Ms Hart describing impacts to the
Mt Pleasant Church property The preliminary engineering designs would not impact
the area of the cemetery where there are existing marked gravesites )
3 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC
Comments from the public were submitted in a variety of ways as noted in the previous section
While selection of a Preferred Alternative is not by popular vote it is noted that of the 153 comment
forms and 63 emails received 58 were specifically in favor of the project and/or selection of Detailed
Study Alternative (DSA) 9 and 129 were specifically opposed to the project overall and/or selection of
DSA 9 Please note that not all comments received stated a DSA preference but the majority was against
the project
There were 82 speakers at the two Public Hearings Of these 19 speakers specifically stated they were in
favor of the project and the Recommended DSA 9 while 51 specifically expressed opposition
There were approximately 7 275 signatures submitted on two petitions (see summary above) opposing the
project One other petition (109 signatures) was opposing Segment KX1 which is not apart of DSA 9
However Segment K3A which is a part of DSA 9 has the same preliminary design footprint in this area
so these signatures were considered as opposing DSA 9
Based on a review of the comments listed below in no specific order are general issues that were found
to be frequently stated in the comments received
• A new connection across the river is needed
• DSA 9 is a reasonable choice
• The road will encourage needed economic development
• The project should provide sidewalks at cross streets
3

Gaston East West Connector (U 3321) Summary of Comments
August 4 2009 — Post Hearing Meeting
• Ending the project at US 321 will adversely impact traffic on this overcrowded roadway and will
bring trucks through the lustonc York Chester neighborhood
• The Garden Parkway will only benefit developers and land owners especially David Hoyle and
Robert Pittenger
• The Garden Parkway costs too much and this money should be spent on education
• The Garden Parkway is not the best use of taxpayer dollars
• Air quality is bad in the region and this project will not help
• The Garden Parkway will spur more development and urban sprawl There will not be enough
money to build schools and other facilities associated with development
• This project will change the rural character of Gaston County that the residents have chosen
• This road will be another Greenville Toll Road
a Pre - Hearing Open House and Public Hearing Comment Forms
Most of the correspondence received during the public review period was from the public either via email
or via the comment forms provided at the Pre Hearing Open Houses and Public Hearings While the
comment form did request responses to specific questions there was also an opportunity for the
respondent to ask questions or provide additional comments
Questions asked and responses received on the comment forms are as follows
1 Wluch part of the project area are you most interested in (west, central east)?
# of Responses
Response
36
Central
40
West
41
East
11
All
31
Blank
la Do you commute through live in or have other interests in the area?
# of Responses
Response
9
Commute through
74
Live m
3
Other interests
28
All
44
Blank
4

Gaston East West Connector (U 3321) Summary of Comments
August 4 2009 — Post Hearing Meeting
2 What comments do you have regarding the Recommended Alternative (DSA 9)? Do you agree or
disagree with this recommendation?
# of Responses
Response
36
Agree /support
74
Disagree /oppose
39
Blank
2
I like this route it rmsses my land
2
Traffic concerns /want noise bamer
1
Finish 485 rather than do this
1
N/A
0
No comment
1
Build it on the recommended route
1
Just want to know specific dates
1
This is the best choice
I
I would be happier if it went a bit farther
from my home
2
1 DSA 9 looks okay to me
3 All alternatives will require the purchase of land from property owned by Mecklenburg County that is
to become Berewick District Park (between 0 6 and 3 3 acres depending on the alternative) Do you
feel that the purchase of this property would adversely affect the activities features and attributes of
the proposed Berewick District Park?
# of Responses
Response
32
Yes
14
No
74
Blank
6
Don t care
6
No comment
3
N/A
10
Don t know
4
Northern route #9 will have less impact on Berewick
2
Maybe
1
I had not heard of Berewick but think it should take priority
I
No objection
4 What concerns do you have regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement?
# of Responses
Response
72
Blank
43
Additional comment see attached sheets
6
Noise /pollution
2
Your road will destroy the land and habitat
2
Traffic

Gaston East West Connector (U 3321) Summary of Comments
August 4 2009 — Post Hearing Meeting
# of Responses
Response
2
I believe it is the best route for the connector
2
Environmental impact on Gaston County is too great
2
Negative environmental impacts
2
EIS has done a wonderful fob examining environmental impacts
2
No toll roads
2
Study it thoroughly
2
Road not needed
2
Don t want it
1
Treat people fairly
1
Roadway is needed and will be a benefit to the area
1
Concerned with the location of point 3
1
Consideration of people s opuuons /comments
1
Loss of property value
1
Extremely lengthy for the average homeowner
1
It will be bad
1
Seems unbiased well done
1
Decrease in home value
1
Need to look at more alternatives
1
I do not like it
1
Will increase run off water in creeks causing erosion
1
I in sure it has been well researched
5 Other comments or questions
# of Responses
Response
33
Blank
108
Additional comments see attached sheet
2
This is a needed project
2
This is very unnecessary
2
Don t want it
1
Want a copy of the final report
1
Highly disturbed that it would change
1
Get it done
1
Road not needed
1
HWY 321 will not survive the increase in traffic
1
Abandon this project
b Verbal Comments from Public Hearings
A total of 82 individuals spoke at the two Public Hearings There were 53 speakers on June 23 2009 and
29 speakers on June 25 2009 While a variety of topics were discussed several were clear either in their
support or opposition to the recommended DSA Nineteen speakers were in favor of the recommended
DSA while 51 were opposed Because some speakers had more than one comment responses below will
not equal the total number of speakers or the number of speakers either in favor or opposed to the
recommended DSA
R

Gaston East West Connector (U 3321) Summary of Comments
August 4 2009 — Post Hearing Meeting
Summary of Verbal Comments Received at the June 23 Public Hearina
Comment
# of Commenters Making
the Remark
Against the toll road
34
Support the toll road
10
Improve or widen existing roads instead
13
There is not enough money to build the road and the toll fees will
not pay for it or never be removed
12
Increased traffic through historic neighborhood at 321 if Connector
stops there & 321 already dangerous
9
Money could be spent on better things and Connector is a waste of
taxpayer dollars
9
Connector will decrease traffic congestion
8
People will not pay a toll to use the road
8
More teachers could be hired instead of building road
8
Losing land that has been in family for generations or losing home
7
Citizens do not want the road
7
Connector will not connect two points and likely never will
7
Connector will promote unwanted growth urban sprawl and no
money to widen local roads or enlarge schools
7
Fair market value of homes impacted may be less in today s bad
economy than what was paid
6
Road is not needed
6
Connector will decrease air quality or DEIS does not evaluate air
quality impact properly
5
Likes small town feel and doesn t mind commuting lives out in
country for that
5
Connector will improve air quality
4
The Connector may not be finished through to 185 and needs to be
4
Connector will boost economy commerce and trade encourage
growth and bring jobs
4
Negative environmental impacts of river crossings
3
The Connector will divide the community
3
Make sure all the displaced farruhes and businesses are treated fairly
and relocated well and supported
3
Connector will make local roads safer and communities more
peaceful
3
Improve transit instead
3
Certain politicians bought land in Connector area to profit from
Connector which is wrong
3
Connector will not save travel time
3
Commend NCTA on work, DEIS/NCTA thoughtfully considered
environmental and safety concerns
2
Very technical and in depth analysis of the numerous route options
2
Older generation are the ones being asked to move
2
Secure rights of way ASAP throughout entire Connector
2
Well established business is not easily moved and if it is may not be
in same area
2
Consider the employees of relocated businesses
2
Connector is poorly planned
2
Norse level will be much higher if not given a sound bamer
2
Connector will not alleviate traffic on 185 as stated in Purpose and
Need
2

Gaston East West Connector (U 3321) Summary of Comments
August 4 2009 — Post Hearing Meeting
Summary of Verbal Comments Received at the June 23 Public Hearina
Comment
# of Commenters Making
the Remark
Connector will make local roads more congested
2
Connector will decrease quality of life
2
Told 19 years ago that Connector was to transport hazardous
materials from 485 to landfill not to transport public
2
Safety issues around steam fog & fly ash drift hazard
1
Very thorough information sessions and opporturuties for comments
1
Connector will provide direct access to region s most significant
tourist attraction
I
Connector will provide another evacuation route
1
Tolling the road helps pay for it
1
Don t go through new fields at Belmont Optimist Club
1
Relief of congestion and potential for economic development are not
reasons to seize land
1
Let local city and county planners deal with secondary roads not the
state
I
Was not notified by NCTA of the road and it s going through where
he lives
1
185 is not congested
1
Catawba bridge should be repaired instead
1
Homes not taken but near the Connector will be negatively impacted
and not compensated
1
Not told when bought house that road will be going through there
1
Does NCTA have the authority to use DOT and federal funds
1
No secondary impact analysis in DEIS
1
Connector will sacrifice natural undisturbed and pristine areas of
county
I
Pollution will be close to schools from Connector
1
Gastonia should grow out to the road not grow around it already
1
Wants a specific date when decision will be made on route chosen
for peace of mind for impacted
1
Connector will be like a barricade around Gastonia
1
No frontage roads planned that would be good for economic
development
1
Keep the recommended route
1
Do not disrupt the cemeteries
1
Connector will take natural resources and farmland
1
Waste of postage to get out of town people to pay for tolls
1
Connector will hurt Carolina Speedway
1

Gaston East West Connector (U 3321) Summary of Comments
August 4 2009 — Post Hearing Meeting
Summary of Verbal Comments Received at the June 25 Public Hearina
Comments
# of Commenters Making
Remark
Against the toll road
17
Support the toll road
9
There is not enough money to build the road and the toll fees will not
pay for it or never be removed
8
Connector will not connect two points and likely never will
7
Connector will boost economy commerce and trade encourage
growth and bring jobs
6
Increased traffic through historic neighborhood at 321 if Connector
stops there & 321 already dangerous
6
Commend NCTA on work, DEIS/NCTA thoughtfully considered
environmental and safety concerns
5
Negative environmental impacts of river crossings
5
Homes not taken but near the Connector will be negatively impacted
and not compensated
5
Connector will decrease air quality or DEIS does not evaluate air
quality impact properly
5
Losing land that has been in family for generations or losing home
4
Connector will decrease traffic congestion
4
Make sure all the displaced families and businesses are treated fairly
and relocated well and supported
4
Improve or widen existing roads instead
4
Citizens do not want the road
4
Connector will make local roads more congested
4
Connector will decrease quality of life
4
Connector will improve air quality
3
Secure rights of way ASAP throughout entire Connector
3
People will not pay a toll to use the road
3
Money could be spent on better things and Connector is a waste of
taxpayer dollars
3
More teachers could be hired instead of building road
3
Certain politicians bought land in Connector area to profit from
Connector which is wrong
3
Connector will promote unwanted growth urban sprawl and no
money to widen local roads or enlarge schools
3
Improve transit instead
2
Road is not needed
2
Connector will not save travel time
2
No secondary impact analysis in DEIS
2
Safety issues around steam fog & fly ash drift hazard
1
The Connector may not be finished through to 185 and needs to be
1
185 is not congested
1
Catawba bridge should be repaired instead
1
Connector will not alleviate traffic on 185 as stated in Purpose and
Need
1
Interchange at 485 does not meet airport s needs
1
Robinson Rd is one lane under bridge using honor system and cannot
handle more traffic from Connector
1
Put pedestrian walkways and bike lanes on Connector
1

Gaston East West Connector (U 3321) Summary of Comments
August 4 2009 — Post Hearing Meeting
c Letters from the Public
Fourteen letters from the public were received during the public comment period All but one was
opposed to the project
Comments in Letters from the Public
Letter
Last Name
Comment
N umber
Name
LC O1
Armstrong
Harriet
Concerned about impacts to the Carolina Speedway
which her family owns Also concerned about
acquisition of her family property Against the project
overall
LC 02 &
Babmgton
Jon
Believes the mill ruins on his property are of the Stowe
LC 03
Mill and that they are significant along with
Stowesville
Stated South Fork Catawba was 40 feet deeper 40 years
ago but now has toxic materials from Duke Energy s
canal Also an illegal chemical dump site with
hundreds of rusted 55 gallon drums saturated the ground
and has been leaking into the river for many years
LC 04
Clark
Gary and
Not in favor of project Concerned with relocation
Charla
Concerned about stoppmg project at US 321 Wants I
85 widened instead with a HOT lane Wants lughway
funds to be spent on education instead
LC 06
Mason
James and
Not in favor of project or DSA 9 Does not think it is
Marveta
needed Use money to widen existing road bring
businesses to Gaston County and fund education
Concerned about wildlife /forests relocations air
quality and noise I feel this is just another fast
track public review process with little or no concerns
of the people living within these communities I feel our
comments will not even be considered I have heard that
someone(s) will be making a lot of money if this
Parkway is pushed through
LC 07
D Amore
Kirsten
Strongly opposes project Lives on west side of
Robinson Road Interchange ramp on her horse farm
Wants ramp moved Project will have negative impact
on farmland and forests and the Catawba River
LC 08
Moffett
Jim
Does not think the toll road will be financially feasible
Does not believe he could afford to use it Thinks less
trucks will use the toll road than projected Does not
think it is needed at this time
LC 09
Daughtndge
James
Opposed to project overall The new proposed toll road
serves no real purpose other than to certainly destroy
Belmont as we know it today Not a good use of
taxpayer dollars
LC 11
Horne
Bobbie
Opposed to DSA 9 as it would take his home where he
is the 3rd generation owner The project would only
benefit developers politicians and business people
10

Gaston East West Connector (U 3321) Summary of Comments
August 4 2009 — Post Hearing Meeting
Comments in Letters from the Public
Letter
Last Name
First
Comment
Number
Name
LC 12
Long
Marilyn
Spend this money on widening 1 85 and the Catawba
River bridge on Hwy 74 Spend the money on
education and improving existing roads This project
will only provide access to David Hoyle s and Robert
Pittenger s properties
LC 13
Pierce
Heather
Project is a waste of taxpayer money Cross streets are
already congested and will worse with the project and
there are no plans to widen them Concerned with the
Belmont peninsula ecosystem Widen 185 and US 29
74 and consider light rail This road will bring urban
sprawl and will devalue her property which will be
adjacent Don t believe the travel time numbers
LC 14
Willis
Marshall
Mr Willis was part of the ongmal bypass committee
formed by Gaston County If the Alternate 9
recommended route gets final approval and funding is
not available it is respectfully requested that route be
designated and Gaston County be asked not to issue
building permits within the ROW of the route to allow
private property to be sold outside the ROW without
having to notify buyers of possibility of the road taking
the property or selling at a large financial loss Having
been in this position for over twenty years the recent
announcement of the northern route being
recommended has been a relief
LC 15
Porter
Debra
Not in favor of project Road should not stop at US
321 Improve local roads instead The project will
bring urban sprawl and overcrowd schools Alternative
9 has become the chosen and recommended route
instead of a more northern route that would pass through
David Hoyle s property I don t like the presumption of
the city that the road would not pass through this parcel
and that there was enough pull in politics that these
costly street lights have already been installed and are
burning nightly You would have a hard time
convincing me that politics did not have a hand in this
matter
LC 16
Medlin
John
This letter is submitted to formally request an extension
of the report I have noted several deficiencies and
errors in the analysis and conclusions drawn Thus I
believe that the DEIS deserves a close examination in its
entirety This review will require a great deal of time
because the report is very extensive (MANY pages)
The required time would have been available had it been
released as originally scheduled Note that the DEIS
was onginally scheduled to be released in January of
2009 Later the date was changed to first quarter of
2009 The report was eventually released on
approximately May 1 2009 At no time did the original
comment deadline change So even though the report
was issued three months late the comment period did
not appropriately shift
11

Gaston East West Connector (U 3321) Summary of Comments
August 4 2009 — Post Hearing Meeting
d Email from the Public
Sixty three emails were received during the comment period Of the 63 emails 42 expressed opposition
to the project and 21 expressed support for the project
Summary of Emailed Comments
Comment
# of
Responses
Agree/for/support
21
Disagree/against/oppose
42
Makes perfect sense
1
DSA 9 is the most reasonable choice
1
Money would be betterspent on education/balancing state budget
1
Need solution for traffic but this is not it
2
This will force more debt on us
2
Will contribute to increases in traffic pollution crowded schools etc
2
DSA 9 has less impacts /is the most econorrucal and environmentally
fnendl
2
Do it right the first time
1
Wants list of all affected properties and property owners
1
Fix what we have rather than build something new
i
Want to extend public comment period enod was extended 5 s)
1
Public meetings were conducted well
1
Concerns about collecting toll fees
1
Toll road is not necessary
1
Design parkway in a manner which will encourage pedestnans and
c chsts
1
Additional Comments
52
Against terminus at 321/Road will have negative impact on
York/Chester historic district
1
e Public Comments Related to Design Issues
The following comments or excerpts from comments related to the prelumnary designs were received
from the public via the What I Heard forms comments forms emails or letters The comments are
organized by location along the designs and are listed from west to east The comments are applicable to
the Recommended Alternative unless otherwise noted (the last comment)
Matthews Acres Access Road
Matthews Acres residents may prefer different access to US 29/74 instead of the access to
Edgewood Road shown on the Public Hearing Maps Some Pre Hearing Open House attendees
suggested connecting to US 29 74 directly south removing the adult video store
The access road proposed to be build from Matthews Acres to Diane Theater Road needs to be
built south to come out on US 29 74 It would only be half the distance and not require a bridge
This would save several rmlhon dollars The road from Matthews Acres to Diane Theater Road
would disturb a whole lot more than going south to US 29 74
12

Gaston East West Connector (U 3321) Summary of Comments
August 4 2009 — Post Hearing Meeting
Pam Drive and Saddlewood Drive (near Robinson Road interchange)
• The toll road will come in behind Pam Drive and access to Robinson Road will change
Saddlewood Drive is the worst place to bring people because of traffic I am concerned about
your plan for our neighborhood — traffic — getting out of our neighborhood — the fence
• Do not close off the opening of Pam Drive Closing off the current entrance will add 2 miles to
my daily commute due to having to drive through Saddlewood Saddlewood entrance is at a
dangerous curve and this will increase wrecks
• We were told Pam Drive would be closed where it intersects with Robinson Road and all Pam
Drive residents would be required to access Robinson Road by going through Saddlewood Road
via anew road that would be cut at the end of Pam Drive Joining the two subdivisions This will
add approximately 2 miles to every trip Pam Drive residents make and in my case that will equal
about $27 00 in gas per month
• We think there would have to be a stoplight for cars getting on and off the turnpike at the present
entrance to Pam Drive If this is the case why close Pam Drive? It would make much more
sense to leave it open since the traffic will be controlled by the light anyway With the difficulty
Saddlewood residents now have with trying to get out on Robinson Road adding more traffic
would be even more dangerous
• If you close Pam Drive @ Robinson Road and force us to go through the Saddlewood
subdivision you will cut off our emergency response and access
• Add that to the eyesore of a giant fence and decrease in property value
• We also find fault with the super long controlled access Most other roads do not have the long
approaches you call for
• All traffic through to Saddlewood comes out in a dangerous curve You need to come up with a
way to control traffic ie traffic light Does Saddlewood know that double the traffic will come
through their neighborhood? Roads through the neighborhood are narrow
Crossing and Interchange at Robinson Road
• Alternative #9 crossing of Robinson Road Land on east of road is farmland The road
approaches to the connector should be all on the east of Robinson Road so as to not impact the
houses on the west side of Robinson Road I own that land (eastside) My neighbors do not need
additional roads on their property
• If DSA 9 is selected we (the D Amore family) want the interchange eliminated or moved all on
the east side of Robinson Road since ramp impacts our property at 1030 Robinson Road The
current maps indicate that an access ramp would cut directly in front and through my property
cutting within feet of my house The property is a 28 acre farm with a house (newly renovated
vintage custom home championship ndmg arena (also taken) 5 000 square ft horse barn pond
(taken) hay barn 20 acres of 4 board wood fenced pastures and baseball field (taken) The right
of way appears to take the access of our property including a custom built security gate and
totally devalues the property I ask that you reconsider the design of the road moving it further
13

Gaston East West Connector (U 3321) Summary of Comments
August 4 2009 — Post Hearing Meeting
south or relocating the access ramp across the street and somehow preserving the access to the
land
Wilson Farm Road lust south of Umon Road
• We (Margaret and Bob Ferguson) own 140 acres of relatively flat land (162 Wilson Farm Rd
Parcel ID 193024) and one proposal shows a right of way cutting off a narrow strip near our
northern property line This strip will become near worthless if this road is built Why not shift
the road north to eliminate this strip?
Carohna Speedway
• DSA 9 should be moved north to avoid the Carolina Speedway and homes Concerned with
impact to racetrack parking and pit area Is it possible to shift the road north of racetrack on
Union Road toward Crawford Road?
Interchange at NC 273
• I was surprised you were considering an interchange on NC273 because it is only a 2 lane road
and there is already bumper to bumper traffic due to South Point High School Young lugh
schoolers walk on side of road to get to the high school from the adjoining housing developments
Consider safety of high school students
• I won t be able to exit Graystone Estates which only has one way in and out from NC 273 We ll
be completely locked between the High School traffic and the parkway traffic
Boat Club Road and Access to the Optumst Club/Duke Enemy Recreational Fields
• The route affects our youth recreational fields on Boat Club Road which we ve worked hard to
establish for years As the youth cheerleading program manager with the Belmont Opturust Club
I am extremely concerned about the impacts to our fields
• I am concerned with the existing entrance to Boat Club Road off of South Point Road We see
that you are adding an extension from Boat Club Road to Mary Tate Road to Henry s Chapel
Road to South Point Road Tlus would add at least 2 miles from Drennan Home Drive on Boat
Club to South Point Bottom line please keep existing entrance to Boat Club off of South Point
Sunderland Road/Albson Street off of NC 273
• We would like the Sunderland Road access moved north 800 feet No one beyond 331
Sunderland would need access and it would be a waste of money to pave additional roadway
when you d save 1 500 feet of roads by dust going west across South Point from 331 Sunderland
• Comment from a citizen who dust built house on Allison Street about 200 feet from proposed
ramp New access will not allow buses to go into neighborhood because there is nowhere to turn
them around An oversized cul de sac may help
• The proposed extension of Sunderland Road includes taking part of my yard (wooded area
included) (Emma Julian 331 Sunderland Road Parcel IDs 192093 192092) If this plan as now
14

Gaston East West Connector (U 3321) Summary of Comments
August 4 2009 — Post Hearing Meeting
projected is implemented I suggest that the extension of Sunderland Road be angled off my
property to the vacant property to the west side
NC 273 Interchange (2030 Southpoint Road Rhonda Harmon)
• This property is located adjacent to the eastbound off ramp We will have limited access and my
house will be completely useless to myself or anyone else You have made it so that I cannot
even sell to a convenience store or gas station You need to shift this right of way and road so
that I am not land/road locked
1485 Interchange
• Piedmont Natural Gas dust bought from John Burke a 50 foot easement along the west side of
1485
General Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Comments
Connect Gaston is a diverse group of Gaston County citizens who have promoted the development of
non motor vehicle transportation options in our County since the early 1990s While we understand that
thoroughfares are constructed for motor vehicle use we believe the builders are obliged to consider the
current and future needs of the pedestrian public Specifically we make these requests
1) Bridges over streams be constructed in a manner that allows future walking and bike paths to pass
beneath them
2) All bridges over roads and interchanges with roads be constructed with sidewalks (north south)
that allow access from one side of the thoroughfare to the other
3) All sidewalks be constructed sufficient in width to allow foot bike wheelchair and stroller
traffic to travel in both directions simultaneously
4) Bridges over the South Fork and Catawba Rivers be constructed with provisions for pedestrians
to cross the rivers
Gaston Together also submitted similar comments related to sidewalks and greenways as listed below
1) All interchanges need to be constructed with sidewalk access from one side of the toll road to the
other Sidewalk width should accommodate both wheelchairs and foot traffic in both directions
2) Where toll road crosses over a road the span beneath the bridge must be wide enough on either
side of the road to allow future greenway construction
3) Bridges of the South Fork Catawba and Catawba River should be constructed with ADA
appropriate walkways across the rivers accessible from both sides of the toll road
4) Bridges at Blackwood Creek Brandon Creek, Catawba Creek, and an unnamed perennial branch
dust south of the US 29/74 interchange should be designed to allow greenway construction
5) There is a greenway planned to follow a section of Crowders Creek south of Linwood Road that
should be taken into consideration
15

Gaston East West Connector (U 3321) Summary of Comments
August 4 2009 — Post Hearing Meeting
Access to South End of Bay Shore Dnve (Corridor Segment K4A — not in the Recommended
Alternative DSA 9)
• The access road proposed to provide access to remaining homes on the south end of Bayshore
Drive would connect Bayshore Drive to Magnolia Way Lane in Woodland Bay which would
then allow drivers to access South New Hope Road via Woodland Bay Drive Woodland Bay is a
gated community whose roads are privately owned This proposed access to loin Bayshore Drive
to a development that is not part of the Woodland Bay Homeowners Association
4 COMMENTS FROM AGENCIES, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AND INTEREST GROUPS
Letters and resolutions specific to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement were received from the
following entities Unless otherwise noted as a resolution the agency /group provided a letter
Federal and State Agencies
1 United States Fish and Wildlife Service
2 United States Environmental Protection Agency
3 Natural Resources Conservation Service
4 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources— Raleigh Central Office
5 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources — Division of Water Quality
6 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources — Division of Environmental
Health
7 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources — Division of Environmental
Health— Public Water Supply Section — Raleigh Central Office
8 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources — Division of Environmental
Health— Division of Land Quality
9 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources — Division of Environmental
Health— Division of Air Quality
10 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources — Division of Environmental
Health— Public Water Supply Section — Mooresville Regional Office
11 North Carolina Department of Administration— State Environmental Review Clearinghouse
12 North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources — Division of Parks and
Recreation
13 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission — Habitat Conservation Program
14 North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources — State Historic Preservation Office
15 North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services — Agricultural Services
Local Governments
16 Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization ( GUAMPO) (Resolution supporting the
project and the Draft EIS)
17 GUAMPO comment letter
18 Mecklenburg Union Metropolitan Planning Organization (MUMPO)
19 Gaston County Commissioners
20 City of Belmont (Resolution supporting an alignment along Segment K1D)
21 Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department
Interest Groups and Organizations
22 Gaston Regional Chamber of Commerce (Resolution supporting the project and the Draft EIS)
23 Montcross Area Chamber of Commerce (Resolution supporting the project and the Draft EIS)
16

Gaston East West Connector (U 3321) Summary of Comments
August 4 2009 — Post Hearing Meeting
24 Gaston Together (Resolution supporting the project and the Draft EIS)
25 Gaston County Travel and Tourism Advisory Board (Resolution supporting the project and the
Draft EIS)
26 Southern Environmental Law Center
27 Catawba Riverkeeper
28 Ed Eason
29 Mr Bill Toole — stopthetollroad com
30 Gaston Southeast Connector Coalition
Specific comments by these groups are listed in Appendix C (Agencies) Appendix D (Local
Governments) and Appendix E (Interest Groups and Organizations)
a Comments from Federal and State Agencies
• NRCS One statement indicating that there were no comments at this time
• NC Department of Admimstration —State Environmental Review Clearinghouse
Acknowledged receipt of the Draft EIS and submission to the State Clearinghouse
• NCDENR Protect Review Coordinator NCDENR stressed that there are still concerns about
the secondary and cumulative impacts of the project and urged continued cooperation with
environmental agencies to address the concerns
• NCDENR Division of Water Quality 33 comments all concerning water resources
particularly 303(d) listed streams Eight comments specifically referenced indirect and
cumulative effects two addressed the alternatives considered four focused on hazardous
materials two referenced land use and transportation issues and one referenced floodplains and
floodways In general they are concerned with the levels of erosion and sedimentation that could
affect the many waterways in the project area with the amount of stormwater runoff that could
result from the project and about hazardous materials that can pollute the waterways and threaten
aquatic life in the project area NCDENR would like to see a quantitative analysis of ICE and a
description of any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts
• NCWRC Six comments two concerning erosion and sedimentation and the negative impact on
the waterways in the project area two concerning the disturbing of the habitats of wildlife in the
project area and two concerning indirect and cumulative effects on the community (fishing
contests etc)
• NCDENR Division of Parks and Recreation One comment supporting alignment DSA 9 as
the recommended alternative for the project
• NCDENR Division of Environmental Health One comment stating that if existing water lines
must be relocated during the construction phase plans must be submitted
• NCDENR Division of Environmental Health — Public Water Supply Section Two
comments concerning the community water wells in the area and approval for the relocation of
water lines if needed
• NCDENR Division of Environmental Health — Land Quality Section One comment stating
that an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Permit is required
• NCDENR Division of Environmental Health/Mooresville Regional Office One comment
stating that water supply wells impacted by the project may need to be abandoned
17

Gaston East West Connector (U 3321) Summary of Comments
August 4 2009 — Post Hearing Meeting
• NCDENR Division of Environmental Health — Division of Air Quality One comment stating
that open burning that meets regulations is allowed in Gaston County and that an air permit for
temporary concrete plants may be needed
• NC Department of Cultural Resources — State Historic Preservation Office Two comments
one that agrees with the Draft EIS that an archaeological investigation will be undertaken before
any earth moving activities and one confirming the information on the Determination of
Eligibility and Findings of Effects
• NC Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services Four comments on the loss of
farmland and how the land and farm businesses can t be replaced or relocated It concludes this
project will have adverse impacts on the agricultural economy and resources of the study area
• US Department of the Interior — Fish and Wildlife Service Five comments two focused on
protected species and three address indirect and cumulative effects The Fish and Wildlife
Service is concerned with habitat fragmentation and the impact on streams and wetlands in the
project area
• US Environmental Protection Agency The EPA letter contains 34 comments some addressing
multiple related issues Eight comments addressed air quality four of which were about MSATs
and two that focused on the SIP and conformity There were three comments focused on purpose
and need There were three continents each concerned with land use and transportation and
alternatives considered and six comments about water quality There were thirteen comments on
indirect and cumulative effects and a request for quantitative analysis There were two comments
on environmental justice There were also two comments on hazardous materials and one each
referencing protected species and farmlands
b Comments and Resolutions from Local Governments
Gaston Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Submitted a letter dated June 3
2009 with an attached resolution dated May 26 2009 and another letter dated July 27 2009 The
June 3 2008 letter states the project will improve air quality conditions The resolution endorses
the Draft EIS The July 27 2009 letter asks to eliminate or move the Bud Wilson Road
interchange requests that the 185 interchanges at NC 274 and Edgewood Road remain open asks
for clarification of 185 traffic projections requests a grade separation for the future Belmont Mt
Holly Loop and requests that the project avoid the Belmont Optimist Fields
Mecklenburg Union Metropolitan Planning Organization 29 comments 19 addressed land
use and transportation issues four were editorial comments two centered on community
characteristics and resources and six addressed air quality MUMPO is concerned about
accommodations for alternative modes of transportation and ozone /air quality issues
• Gaston County Commissioners Commented that the Garden Parkway should not terminate at
US 321 The Garden Parkway was intended to be the major backbone of Gaston County s
transportation network
City of Belmont Submitted a resolution containing two comments one urging NCTA to
reconsider the former Middle Alignment (K1D) and one in support of another bridge crossing the
Catawba River
18

Gaston East West Connector (U 3321) Summary of Comments
August 4 2009 — Post Hearing Meeting
• Mecklenburg County Park and Recreation Department Three comments MCPR concurs
that the identified impacts stemrmng from the various detailed study alternatives will not
adversely affect the use function or development of the property [Berewick Regional Park] as
intended
c Comments, Resolutions and Petitions from Interest Groups and Organizations
Catawba Riverkeeper Foundation, Inc Provided a letter with 13 comments two concerning
purpose and need and land use and transportation two about water quality four concerning
indirect and cumulative effects one focusing on floodplains and floodways one on protected
species two on alternatives considered and one referencing visual resources CRF is concerned
with the health of the waterways within the Catawba River Basin It believes that the DEIS does
not meet its own purpose and need and that the need can be met by other methods of
transportation
• Ed Eason Subnutted a letter containing NAAQS and Mobile Source Air Toxics research and
nine comments Two comments focused on land use and transportation and seven focused on air
quality Mr Eason questions the costs of the project and the need for the toll road and then
centers on the negative impacts of particulate matter criteria pollutants and mobile source air
toxics He believes the air quality assessment is inadequate
• Gaston 2012 Four comments all focusing on land use and transportation and community
characteristics and resources Urges consideration of alternative modes of transportation in the
form of sidewalks and areas for greenway construction along the toll road It asked for special
consideration for four creeks where greenways are already planned Gaston Together also
submitted a resolution endorsing the DEIS
Southern Environmental Law Center Provided a letter with 35 comments some of which
addressed multiple related issues Twelve comments addressed air quality three of which
centered on MSATs and three which focused on ozone levels Nine comments focused on
indirect and cumulative effects particularly as they relate to air and water quality There were
nine comments each about alternatives considered land use and transportation and purpose and
need Four comments focused on water quality and one comment referenced community
characteristics and resources centering on the impact the connector would have on low income
communities in the project area
Gaston Southeast Connector Coalition Four comments which discussed alternatives
considered land use and transportation and hazardous materials The Coalition commends
NCTA on the DEIS and supports the choice of DSA 9 The Coalition pointed out the need to
address a fog issue at the South Fork River crossing and blowing fly ash near the Catawba River
crossing In the fall of 2008 and before the release of the DEIS this group presented a petition to
the NCTA and various officials that contained approximately 1200 signatures of Gaston County
property owners who were opposed to the southern route
Stop The Toll Road com William Toole submitted a letter with 27 comments seven on purpose
and need eleven focusing on alternatives considered six that concern indirect and cumulative
effects seven that reference land use and transportation two each referencing air quality and
water quality and one that references cultural resources He questions whether the project meets
the stated purpose and need if all of the alternatives were adequately and correctly researched
and whether proper consideration was given to the impacts on growth air quality and water
19

Gaston East West Connector (U 3321) Summary of Comments
August 4 2009 — Post Hearing Meeting
quality in the project area This group also turned in petitions signed by over 7 000 people
opposed to the toll road
• Gaston Regional Chamber Submitted a resolution encouraging the NCTA to secure the entire
right of way to 185 for the project and endorsing the DEIS
• Gaston Together Subrmtted a resolution endorsing the DEIS
• Gaston County Travel and Tourism Advisory Board Subrmtted a resolution encouraging the
NCTA to secure the entire right of way to 185 for the project and endorsing the DEIS
• Montcross Area Chamber of Commerce Submitted a resolution encouraging the NCTA to
secure the entire right of way to 185 for the project and endorsing the DEIS
• Connect Gaston Four comments all pertaining to land use and transportation Connect Gaston
is concerned that any bridges be constructed to allow future sidewalks greenways walling paths
etc to pass beneath them
• Harrison Family Petition The Harrison Family of Union Road in Gastonia collected 275
signatures on a petition in opposition to the toll road because it is not needed
• Mt. Pleasant Baptist Church Petition This petition subrmtted by Barbara Hart is signed by
109 citizens who are opposed to the use of Segment KX1 for the toll road because the highway
would eliminate the Mt Pleasant Baptist Church Cemetery The petitioners declare this
cemetery which dates to the 1890 s is an important African American historical landmark
Previous correspondence was held with Ms Hart A memo dated August 15 2008 explains the
impacts Segment KXI and Segment K3A (part of LISA 9) would be to land owned by the church
but that no marked gravesctes were expected to be impacted
20

0
m w r W o
Q O a A
m 3 Z N M
O 3 ym m v
G V N
m? m f � O ♦ � O ♦ m
a
�m
c � �
< a
¢:
_ -i fD 0 �
3 0
m 0 m m n
CD
0 0 ° m a
M �
3 m m n a
� y
� V
A
O
O
O O O O O O O O O
8 i $
m
6 O
;a
O
a r+♦ 'I � c y° ? �
o N ° o O
O m
,9
a
M o ♦ N
°
0
0
0
a
o N O
a
0
0
Jo m
A
O
0
D A
p° -♦ ♦ ti ° A
a o.
o u
o �
4 o N e
m
o
0
� I

I
0
0
R O
3Z �= -�
w � N
CD
p � rii
vo
Z_ °= A 00 m
mm
n
A N �
� N
m
OI
N
a
0
N
r V V
j O� V tD P O 10 O
�O 01
O O O h � O O O O O
8 i INiI 8 C'NO
m I
A j
v �
m p
N
01
Y
O
O N O
m
O
O 4 O
o m
i DO
� O v
V W
p � <
° +♦ CL
a g n
m
w A O
O
I�
O
O

• x
x
° _ < m
Z
0
�&
O
O
O Z 1 =
D
m
<o
c m
N A m
Cb cc
H
0
V
n
rt
m
N
� O
O
3 m
m
3 %=
m C
N
ti
W n
cn q
O1 7
_ ID
K n
C7 d
<a
O �
C �
N
Om
v
n
z
n.
N tJ
W P
z
0
P
� A
O 4
� O
n
m
0
a
p A
a
m
e
{mil N
� h /� O � /A O ♦ m
7 m
N
m
m
nn m
m
s 0
m
� Z
I
twJ
J O
V Y O O'l V ONi (J
a
N m O o
m �
N
a C ®E
e p1 = y
N
° m p
S �
o. n
°
to o o C]
0
J° +
g QI
m
O
+ O +
44 r'
0
v ° o
a° � ♦ m ° a
a
0
°
i
M
m
I
lf,Y(>