CAMPO, Turnpike Authority present US‑1 tolling study; council members weigh quicker delivery vs. local impacts

Regional and state transportation officials briefed Raleigh City Council on a tolling analysis for the US‑1/Capitol Boulevard corridor from I‑540 to the Wake‑Franklin county line and outlined tradeoffs between accelerating construction and local impacts.

Chris Lucassina, executive director of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), reviewed the corridor’s planning history and funding delays. He said the project — which would convert the corridor to a full‑control‑of‑access freeway — has been repeatedly delayed and that “time is money”: delays and inflation have driven costs substantially higher and a funding gap now threatens schedule stability.

David Roy, director of innovative finance at the North Carolina Turnpike Authority, summarized the authority’s tolling analysis. He described four scenarios the study tested: two “all‑lanes toll” expressway options and two express‑lane (managed‑lane) options, analyzed both as stand‑alone projects and as a potential expansion of the Triangle Expressway system. He told council “tolling in North Carolina truly is a local decision,” and said CAMPO requested the analysis to understand whether tolling could accelerate delivery.

Roy said the all‑lanes toll scenarios could produce substantial financing capacity. Treated as a stand‑alone toll facility, the corridor could reach contract award and financial close as early as spring 2027 with an opening in the early 2030s; treated as an expansion of the existing Triangle Expressway system, financing capacity increases and the state funding gap could shrink. In contrast, express‑lane scenarios would be more complex to implement and carry higher NEPA/review risks; they also rely on congestion in general‑purpose lanes to generate revenue and therefore may yield lower early revenue.

The analysis forecast some toll diversion to local streets in the toll vs. non‑toll comparison but found that in most modeled cases the additional travel time on alternate local routes would be small — on the order of about a minute during peak periods — and that planned local improvements could mitigate most diversion impacts. Roy emphasized that additional traffic analysis would be required during any NEPA reevaluation and that legislative action would be necessary in most scenarios because state law restricts tolling currently non‑toll highway capacity and restricts use of toll revenues to pledged facilities.

Council members expressed mixed views. Several said delays already have economic and mobility costs for the region and that tolling — particularly an all‑lanes toll treated as part of the Triangle Expressway financing system — could accelerate delivery and bring benefits. Others raised concerns about diversion and local pedestrian and transit access, pressing for guarantees on local improvements and better transit/bus rapid‑transit design to avoid creating a car‑dependent corridor. Council members sought assurances the project would include frontage/service roads and multimodal connections and asked staff about bonus allocation guidance and use of potential bonus funds to mitigate diversion impacts.

Lucassina said CAMPO intends to solicit public comment and that the CAMPO executive board planned to review public and stakeholder feedback before a potential May decision. He pointed council to public-input sessions scheduled by CAMPO and encouraged the city to submit comments to the public comment email on the project website.

No action was taken at the council meeting; staff noted the tolling decision rests with CAMPO and any implementation would require state legislative changes and further NEPA and financing steps.