Waxhaw presents Parkway alternatives and engineers back CTPO/CTP amendment as least‑impact option

On July 9, 2024, Waxhaw staff and consultants presented a multi-hour, interactive briefing on the proposed Waxhaw Parkway and alternatives, including findings from a 2022 NCDOT feasibility report and an origin‑destination (OD) study meant to quantify regional traffic flows. Planner James Kelly told the board the recommended CTPO/CTP amendment (concept A2+B3.1) was identified in NCDOT’s 2022 technical report as the most optimal alignment when balancing traffic mitigation, railroad grade‑separation and property impacts.

The presentation emphasized safety and congestion relief as the project’s core purpose. Kelly cited the OD study and feasibility analysis, saying the complete Parkway concept could, in model projections, remove 6,000–8,000 vehicle trips per day from downtown travel paths (6,000–7,000 on the northeast piece; about 2,000 on the southeast piece) and that roughly 67.5% of trips through the corridor are non‑local commuter or regional trips. He also repeated the current cost framing used in the presentation materials: a 2022 high‑cost concept originally priced near $48 million has, after inflation and scoping changes, been presented with an updated figure of roughly $85 million for the 1.7‑mile east segment shown in the handout.

Kelly reviewed seven conceptual alternatives developed to respond to concerns raised by Union County and Mineral Springs. He said the recommended CTPO amendment (the “blue line” shown in materials) would affect only three parcels outside Waxhaw’s jurisdiction and would minimize private‑property takings compared with other options that would impact dozens to hundreds of parcels, impinge on the downtown historic district, or require extensive right‑of‑way acquisition. He described the feasibility study’s recommended concept (A2+B3.1) as a two‑lane road on a four‑lane right‑of‑way from NC‑16 to NC‑75 with a CSX crossing that would be grade separated; the 2022 report’s conceptual cost figures were noted as preliminary and subject to change.

Elected officials and public commenters pushed back on several points. Union County Commissioner Brian Helms (speaking as a private citizen) criticized the town’s earlier resolution on the Parkway and argued that the statutory citation in Waxhaw’s resolution was not applicable to CRTPO’s process; he said the county opposed the Parkway because it acts as a growth facilitator that could shift infrastructure costs to county taxpayers and risk condemning existing properties. Mayor Rick Becker of Mineral Springs questioned the need for Parkway East “at all” and urged the board to consider alternatives that avoid running new roadway through neighborhoods; he and others noted that prior work (Helms Road grade separation and other southern connectors) may provide partial relief.

Board members asked staff whether shorter‑term projects could be advanced while the longer CTP/MTP/TIP processes proceed; staff and presenters replied that Parkway West (a separate, smaller project with an existing step in CRTPO priority listings) could be submitted for CRTPO funding this fall and—if funded—might be delivered on a faster (~five‑year) timeline, providing partial relief and improved emergency access. Kelly emphasized that the full East component remains the regionally optimal solution for projected long‑term congestion and that the CTPO procedural amendment process requires CRTPO, TCC and CRTPO action steps before implementation. He also noted that federally/state‑funded projects typically follow a CTPO→MTP→TIP sequence, and a full build could take decades if it follows traditional state and federal programming schedules.

No formal board action on the Parkway alignment or a CTP amendment occurred during the meeting; the session was informational and interactive. Staff signaled intent to pursue CRTPO grant opportunities this fall for a western connector and to continue regional coordination. The presentation packet and the 2022 NCDOT scoping report were referenced repeatedly; the presenters stressed that conceptual alternatives and cost figures remain preliminary, subject to change and dependent on future funding and railroad coordination.

What’s next: staff recommended continued multi‑jurisdictional collaboration and indicated the town will consider submitting the Parkway West project for CRTPO funding this fall. The CTPO/CTP amendment process remains pending with steps before CRTPO action; no vote on the amendment or on project funding was recorded at the July 9 meeting.