Raleigh council approves Big Branch Greenway route despite easement, floodplain and cost concerns
Loading...
Summary
After hours of public comment and debate, Raleigh City Council approved alignments for segments 1A and 4 and the Streamside West alignment for segment 1B of the Big Branch Greenway, with staff and the parks board citing safety and long-term connectivity; opponents warned of riparian buffer violations, eminent-domain takings and uncertain costs.
Raleigh City Council voted to approve the next segments of the Big Branch Greenway on Tuesday, advancing segments 1A and 4 and selecting the Streamside West alignment for segment 1B despite objections from nearby homeowners and some council members.
Parks staff and the Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board recommended the Streamside West route, saying it offers better sight lines and fewer road and driveway crossings than street-side alternatives. Stephen Bentley, director of Raleigh Parks, noted the project is a top priority from the 2022 bond and the 1976–2022 greenway master planning efforts and estimated the project budget (including stormwater collaboration) at roughly $5.6–$5.7 million, not including easement acquisition costs.
Opponents, including several Anderson Forest homeowners, urged the council to reject the streamside option or delay approval. They said a 1970s conservation easement along Big Branch prohibits trail construction and warned that building in the riparian zone could violate Neuse River buffer rules and set a precedent for future easement condemnations. Helen Kervin told the council the city would be “condemning this conservation easement and then turn around and violate state riparian buffer rules,” a claim staff said would require NCDEQ approval for any work in Zone 1 riparian areas.
Parks board chair Chris Perea told the council the advisory board was split on 1B: it voted to approve sections 1A and 4 and supported proceeding on 1B in some form but could not reach consensus on a single alignment. The board urged the council to use its leverage to obtain further facts, including property appraisals and cost estimates for potential takings.
Council discussion centered on safety, environmental compliance, costs and the project’s dependence on a multimodal bridge over I-440 to complete a continuous regional connection. Transportation staff estimated the bridge could cost $50 million to $75 million, a figure councilors said would require supplemental funding and federal grants.
Councilors weighing votes said the project’s benefits—expanded nonvehicular access, safety and long-term connectivity—were substantial but that the route is imperfect and carries risks. One councilor described the west streamside option as “the best bad choice we have,” while another pressed for additional time and more precise cost data. Ultimately the motion to approve the staff-recommended package passed at the dais.
What happens next: Parks staff said design and permitting could be completed by 2027 with construction taking roughly 12–14 months once funding and easements are resolved. The council authorized staff to move forward consistent with the adopted alignment, noting that NCDEQ approval and property easement negotiations remain necessary prerequisites.
