Residents, advocates split over proposed Big Branch Greenway route and costs

Dozens of residents and park and transportation advocates urged the Raleigh City Council during public comment to proceed with the Big Branch Greenway connector, while several neighborhood residents asked the council to reject a stream‑side segment and seek an alternative alignment.

The Big Branch Greenway connector would link Crabtree Creek Greenway to North Hills and beyond; proponents said it would serve transportation, recreation, and safe‑routes‑to‑school needs. Opponents focused on floodplain impacts, a long‑standing deed restriction near part of the route and a city cost estimate they said shows the proposed half‑mile stream‑side segment could exceed the project's total referendum budget.

Supporters stressed the project’s role in the city’s active‑transportation network and in improving safety and connectivity. “This greenway is more than a recreational path. It's a vital piece of Raleigh's active transportation network,” said Michael Porvoznik, who identified himself during public comment as a supporter of staff’s recommended alignment. Rashawn King, a Raleigh resident who cited the citywide greenway plan, said the project would bring “more than 10,000 residents within a 10‑mile walk radius closer to this greenway,” and that it would provide safe routes for children and families.

Homeowners near the proposed stream‑side route pushed back vigorously. “Building a greenway parallel to Big Branch Creek within the 30‑foot riparian buffer violates Neuse River buffer rules, flood plain standards, the city's own Greenway master plan, and design guidelines,” said Helen Kervin, a resident of the Anderson Forest neighborhood. Kervin and other nearby homeowners said the route would run “within feet” of homes, strip privacy and require the city to confront a 39‑year‑old scenic‑preservation deed that they say prohibits greenway construction on certain land.

One resident, citing a public records request, said engineering documents show the half‑mile stream‑side stretch could cost nearly $5,000,000, which she said would exceed the roughly $4,500,000 referendum budget for the full 3.5‑mile connector. That point was repeated by opposition speakers as an argument that the proposed alignment would “blow the budget for the entire project.” Supporters countered that engineers and staff have designed for safety and maintenance and that greenways often use floodplain space in ways that reduce risk to homes.

Multiple additional speakers described the greenway as a proven benefit elsewhere in Raleigh. “Almost every greenway and trail that Raleigh has built has made a substantial and a positive impact on people's lives,” said Autumn Cobeland, who spoke in favor of the connector. Jared Harbor, another supporter, said the greenway functions as part of the city’s transportation network and warned that leaving a gap would reduce the planned active‑mobility benefits.

Speakers asked the council to weigh tradeoffs: environmental and private‑property constraints versus long‑term connectivity, safety and the potential to reduce car trips. Several urged reliance on the city’s engineers and planners to find a responsible alternative if the stream‑side route proves infeasible.

The city did not take action during the public‑comment period reflected in the transcript. Council members did not announce a vote; speakers asked for staff to explore alternatives or to proceed with the staff‑recommended alignment depending on the outcome of further review.

The debate is likely to reappear when councilors consider staff recommendations and any formal vote on alignment or funding. For now, the public comment record shows a clear split between neighborhood owners worried about floodplain, deed and cost implications and community advocates emphasizing access, safety and system connectivity.