Campo, NCDOT and Turnpike Authority present tolling analysis for US 1; officials told legislative changes would be needed

Campo and NCDOT officials told the Wake Forest Mayor and Board of Commissioners that converting the planned U.S. 1 upgrades to a tolled facility could speed construction but would require changes in state law and an updated environmental review.

The presentation, led by Chris Lucassina of the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization and David Roy, director of innovative finance for the N.C. Turnpike Authority, summarized four tolling scenarios analyzed for the roughly 10-mile corridor north of I‑540 through Wake Forest and up toward the Franklin County line. The study examined full tolled expressway and managed/express‑lane variants, estimated capital costs and the facility’s ability to support debt financing.

Campo officials said construction cost estimates and schedule pressure motivated the study: “project costs are increasing about 60% every 2 to 3 years,” Lucassina told the board. The Turnpike Authority noted tolling is one financing and delivery tool among many, and said the choice to pursue tolling must come from local planning organizations and the MPO before the department can act.

Key findings presented to the commissioners included: - Estimated capital costs for the full toll expressway scenarios (all lanes tolled) were in the range of about $1.65 billion (year‑of‑expenditure). An express‑lane (managed lane) scenario had a slightly higher estimated capital cost, about $1.8 billion, because of the additional footprint needed for separation and access points. - Financing capacity (the amount of project debt revenue could support) varied by scenario: one full‑system financing approach was estimated to support roughly $1.4 billion of financing if the corridor were tied into the existing Triangle Expressway revenue system; a stand‑alone tolled facility scenario showed roughly $800 million of potential financing capacity. - Under stand‑alone express‑lane assumptions, early revenues would be low and financing capacity would be minimal, pushing schedule toward the 2030s unless additional state funding is provided. - Because earlier environmental (NEPA) work was completed for the non‑tolled freeway conversion, any toll conversion would require a NEPA re‑evaluation estimated at roughly 9–12 months. Presenters characterized this as a schedule risk but necessary to analyze toll‑specific effects. - State law requires a non‑toll alternative; the analysis assumed frontage/access roads and existing parallel routes would remain available for local and short trips.

David Roy of the Turnpike Authority summarized a policy point: “tolling is 1 tool in the toolbox,” and it can accelerate delivery in some circumstances, especially where committed funding has slipped and inflation is raising costs, he said.

The study also considered traffic diversion. Presenters told commissioners diversion from a tolled, upgraded U.S. 1 to alternate routes depends on the baseline being compared: comparing tolled upgrades to upgraded non‑tolled upgrades produced small travel‑time differences on alternatives (typically about a minute or less on key parallel routes). Compared with a no‑build baseline, an upgraded tolled U.S. 1 generally reduced travel times on local alternatives versus leaving U.S. 1 unimproved.

Public outreach is ongoing. Presenters said pop‑ups, in‑person workshops and paid and earned media have produced about 2,000 online comments to date and roughly 150 attendees at a May public meeting. Campo’s executive board planned to consider whether to send a tolling recommendation to the Turnpike Authority and to seek any needed legislative waivers as early as its May 21 meeting.

Commissioners expressed mixed views during discussion. Several said they opposed tolling in principle; others said they opposed tolls but supported pursuing any realistic path that would accelerate much‑needed corridor improvements. Commissioners and staff asked for more time and for a summary of online comments before a final position.

Next steps listed by presenters include continued public engagement, a draft report due to the core technical team in early June and further review by Campo and the Turnpike Authority if the MPO’s executive board asks them to proceed.

The presentation and the full traffic‑and‑revenue analysis are available on the public input website identified by Campo.