FW U-5760 External Scoping Meeting

Strickland, Bev
From:Stroud, Wilson
Sent:Wednesday, September 21, 2016 8:21 AM
To:[e-mail]; Wanucha, Dave
Cc:'[e-mail]'
Subject:FW: U-5760 External Scoping Meeting
John and Dave,

Good morning – wanted to share some e-mail correspondence from last week with you regarding today’s ESM for U-
5760, including some thoughts on Merger screening. See you at 10:15.

Thanks,
Wilson

Wilson Stroud

Project Development Engineer

Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit

North Carolina Department of Transportation

919 707 6045 (office)
[e-mail]

1548 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-1548

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the

North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: Gresham, Teresa R
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 12:03 PM
To: Van Der Wiele, Cynthia <[e-mail]>; Stroud, Wilson <[e-mail]>
Cc: Abernathy, Brett <[e-mail]>; Hampton, Diane K <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: U-5760 External Scoping Meeting

Cynthia,

Looking solely at the local plans, we were at first unsure as to what typical section the locals (government
agencies and citizens) supported. After much discussion with both staff and residents, we have a much better
understanding as to the history and desires regarding this project. Generally, the local staff understands that
the traffic forecast will be a large part of our determining factor. However, they also recommend considering
context sensitive solutions in addition to the complete streets guidelines. We held a public meeting in August,
attended by 250 citizens, where we clearly heard a preference for a 2-lane road IF that provides the service
and safety needed.

1

Multimodal accommodations were less consistently endorsed by residents, but there are several factors we
will need to take into consideration. First, all local plans support addition of bicycle and pedestrian facilities,
both for local residents and as part of the larger multimodal network in Kernersville. Second, attendees at the
meeting were primarily focused on the footprint of the road, and generally wanted to keep it as small as
possible. Third, the demographics of the adjacent neighborhoods are primarily middle/upper income,
middle/older residents. However, the homes have begun to turn over to families with younger children, and
so we saw a pull between residents in conversations, between the majority of residents who did not think
they would use the facilities themselves and the smaller percentage of residents who did. We have many
options regarding multimodal infrastructure - and at a minimum can make sure the new bridge structure
across I-40 Business has sufficient width.

Regarding Merger - since most of the sensitive resources (streams and wetlands in this case) will be bridged,
the Merger team may not feel they need to be part of the project discussion. There are no other competing
protected resources (historic, etc.). We do have options for alternatives (typical section and interchange), but
the Merger team may feel that NCDOT will adequately minimize and avoid impacts to the extent feasible. If
this is the case, NCDOT will likely recommend pre-permit meetings, once NEPA and preliminary design is
complete.

After the external scoping meeting, we will follow back up with you to share the discussion and any additional
information that comes from that.

Thank you,
Teresa
From: Van Der Wiele, Cynthia <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 9:52:56 AM
To: Stroud, Wilson
Cc: Gresham, Teresa R; Abernathy, Brett; Hampton, Diane K
Subject: Re: U-5760 External Scoping Meeting

Thanks very much Wilson. It was difficult to know how to respond with appropriate comments given the unknowns. The
typical section should be based on land use plans, local preferences, along with traffic projections. Transportation mode
choices have been proven by engineering studies to prolong the life of a roadway in terms of not having to go back for
costly re-do's.

Thanks,
Cynthia

Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, Ph.D.
USEPA R4 NEPA Program Office
c/o USEPA-RTP
109 T.W. Alexander Drive
Mail Code: E143-08
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Phone: [phone]

On Sep 16, 2016, at 9:46 AM, Stroud, Wilson <[e-mail]> wrote:
Cynthia,

2

Thanks very much for your message, comments, and questions. I’ve cc’d Teresa Gresham of KHA and
Brett Abernathy and Diane Hampton of the Division 9 office, so that they’ll be aware of your
message. Sorry you can’t make the meeting; but, we certainly appreciate your input and questions, in
advance.
As a heads-up, Division 9 is assuming project management studies for this particular project, and we’re
currently transitioning that responsibility.

Regarding the proposed typical section: we have not yet made a recommendation on that. NCDOT’s
Transportation Planning Branch is currently preparing a traffic forecast for the project. After that work
is complete, KHA will conduct a traffic operations analysis to determine how many lanes are needed to
accommodate the projected traffic volumes. Two traffic forecast scenarios are being considered: (1)
improve Big Mill Farm Road and Hopkins Road and construct an interchange at Business-40 (near the
south project terminus) and (2) same as first scenario, but provide a grade-separated crossing at, but no
access to, Business-40. Our plan is to let the projected traffic volumes lead us to a recommended typical
section, as we would want the project to function properly for a good number of years, without our
having to go back in and perform “re-dos” after just a few years.

Regarding the Merger process: Teresa will be contacting USACE (John Thomas) and NCDWR (Dave
Wanucha) before the ESM to begin Merger screening discussions. The project will be State-funded; thus,
FHWA will not be one of the co-team leaders. We plan to meet with John and Dave right after the ESM
to discuss whether the project should follow the Merger process. As you probably saw in the meeting
packet, JD resources are present near Business-40 (associated with Smith Creek) and in the vicinity of
Timberwood Trail (associated with Kerners Mill Creek).

Teresa,

I know you’ve looked into the evolution of the locally-endorsed typical section over the past few years a
good bit, and I believe your idea was to touch on that during the ESM next week. If you would, please
provide additional information on that topic to Cynthia. Please feel free, in addition, to elaborate on the
proposed typical section, proposed bike-ped-greenway (multimodal) accommodations, and Merger
screening.

Thanks, all.

-Wilson

Wilson Stroud

Project Development Engineer

Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit

North Carolina Department of Transportation

919 707 6045 (office)

[e-mail]

1548 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, NC 27699-1548

<image001.png>

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the

North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: Van Der Wiele, Cynthia \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 12:53 PM
3

To: Stroud, Wilson <[e-mail]>
Subject: U-5760 External Scoping Meeting
Importance: High

Wilson:

I will be unable to attend next week’s external scoping meeting due to a national NEPA program
th
meeting at US EPA HQ in Washington, DC the week of September 19. I’ve reviewed the project
information package and have the following comments/questions:


The proposed roadway typical section notes a 2008 Kernersville Feasibility Study with 4-lane

divided road with bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The 2011 Kernersville plan recommends a 2-
lane Complete Street and context sensitive design. The WSMPO 2012 recommended the 4-lane
divided and bicycle/ped facilities, and then the WSMPO 2035 LRTP 2013 update goes back to
recommending a 2-lane divided (??) with bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Can you provide some
information as to the evolution of these typical section types and why the WSMPO and
Kernersville went back to a 2-lane avenue T.S.? what is the typical section that NCDOT is
recommending? It didn’t seem to be included. The US EPA supports a Complete Streets
approach with the inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian facilities as it supports a range of
transportation modes. In addition, the Kernersville area is in “maintenance” in terms of air
quality issues. Bicycle and Pedestrian facilities would help to ensure that air quality in the region
continues to improve.

I’m not sure whether this project should go into Merger.

Thanks,
Cynthia

MAILING ADDRESS

Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, Ph.D.

USEPA R4 NEPA Program Office

c/o USEPA-RTP

109 T.W. Alexander Drive
Mail Code: E143-08
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
4