Senate prohibits possible highway 540 ("red route") through Garner (Raleigh: house, construction)

[NewUser]

We haven't discussed I540 in a while. . . . .

Senate prohibits possible highway through Garner :: WRAL.com

[orulz]

This is an example of a bill passed with the best of intentions that may have significant unintended consequences.

The bill states that the highway shall not be built north of the protected corridor. But what if deviating even 20 feet north of the protected corridor was found to save money or avoid environmental impacts? Unfortunately, to do so is now illegal.

I wish they had added just a little bit of extra flexibility in the wording of the bill.

[frankpc]

Originally Posted by orulz

This is an example of a bill passed with the best of intentions that may have significant unintended consequences.

The bill states that the highway shall not be built north of the protected corridor. But what if deviating even 20 feet north of the protected corridor was found to save money or avoid environmental impacts? Unfortunately, to do so is now illegal.

I wish they had added just a little bit of extra flexibility in the wording of the bill.

Seems like an attempt to play hard ball with the Feds over the route selection when NC doesn't exactly hold many cards. Essentially telling them to build it where we want it or keep your Federal money.
Bit risky, seems to me. Especially as the Feds know we have a new Toll road that will see much less use w/o their money to extend it.

I should add that I'm not favoring the mussels over the homeowners, just concerned about the message this Bill sends especially in advance of a Fed decision. One of those feel good blusters that might blow up in our faces.

Frank

[NewUser]

Speaking selfishly, as a person whose house would be mowed down by bulldozers if the red route is selected, I'm all for the bill

[North_Raleigh_Guy]

I'm not very familiar with the different routes. Does this mean that the route that is eventually selected will be further awy from Garner? I understand both sides of the arguement, but if the new road is too far away from Garner I would expect them to see less of a boom like Knightdale did when they got conncected to I-540.

[SFspiderman]

Originally Posted by North_Raleigh_Guy

I'm not very familiar with the different routes. Does this mean that the route that is eventually selected will be further awy from Garner? I understand both sides of the arguement, but if the new road is too far away from Garner I would expect them to see less of a boom like Knightdale did when they got conncected to I-540.

If by "further away" you mean "not right through the middle of the dang town", then yes, it'll be further away. But yes, it will be several miles further south than the route right through town, although I imagine Garner will still get a boost.

[Beermat]

let's hope that common sense prevails and the logical route is taken which doesn't bulldoze throught the middle of the community. I find it hard to understand how these proposals get wrapped up in 'process' rather than adopting the best proposal. I am sure the Army Corps of Engineers have better things to do that compare illogical routes because the process says they must have two routes to compare.

[NewUser]

Originally Posted by North_Raleigh_Guy

I'm not very familiar with the different routes. Does this mean that the route that is eventually selected will be further awy from Garner? I understand both sides of the arguement, but if the new road is too far away from Garner I would expect them to see less of a boom like Knightdale did when they got conncected to I-540.

The original route, the "orange" protected route, was conceived and laid out many years ago. It passes a few miles south of Garner.

This newly proposed "red" alternate route (proposed in fall of 2010) cuts right through the middle of Garner.

This bill says to not use the red alternate route. . . . . .if fact don't even waste a half million studying it.

[Sherifftruman]

Originally Posted by frankpc

Seems like an attempt to play hard ball with the Feds over the route selection when NC doesn't exactly hold many cards. Essentially telling them to build it where we want it or keep your Federal money.
Bit risky, seems to me. Especially as the Feds know we have a new Toll road that will see much less use w/o their money to extend it.

I should add that I'm not favoring the mussels over the homeowners, just concerned about the message this Bill sends especially in advance of a Fed decision. One of those feel good blusters that might blow up in our faces.

Frank

As long as the reference "the corridor" it should be no problem. The corridor that is reserved is at least twice as wide as the area they will actually disturb in construction.

[North_Raleigh_Guy]

Ah, I just realized this only passed the senate but has yet to go to the House.

FWIW, I think the Mayor of Garner could use some PR training. His quotes in the WRAL story make him look kind of narrow minded. I get that he thinks he is protecting his constituents, but he can do that and make it come across a whole lot better to the rest of the world if he thought a little longer before he opens his mouth.