Recent posts

#1

Southeast / Re: Complete NC 540 Project

Last post by architect77 - Today at 08:02:44 PM

This is not correct, due to N.C.G.S. §136-89.188(a) ("Revenues derived from a Turnpike Project authorized under this Article shall be used only for the following costs associated with the Project from which the revenue was derived or a contiguous toll facility"), the Monroe Expressway and the Triangle Expressway each maintain separate operating and capital budgets and are financed as individual projects.

For a broad look at NCTA's finances you can read the statements included in the Series 2024A bonds for the Triangle Expressway: https://www.ncdot.gov/divisions/turnpike/investor/Documents/official-statement-series-2024-a-b.pdf (Page 480 of 550 for Manager's Discussion and Analysis)

Furthermore, per N.C.G.S. §136‑89.196 ("The Authority shall, upon fulfillment of and subject to any restrictions included in the agreements entered into by the Authority in connection with the issuance of the Authority'srevenue bonds, remove tolls from a Turnpike Project."), tolls must be removed from an NCTA project once the revenue bonds have been retired.

While a major expansion project requiring the issuance of new debt could in theory prolong the tolls, a situation like Pennsylvania where Turnpike revenue is used as a slush fund for other unrelated projects is not possible under the current law.

You're right to cite §136-89.188(a) and §136‑89.196 — those statutes do require revenue to be tied to the project it comes from. However, the reality of how the North Carolina Turnpike Authority operates shows a more nuanced picture.

While each project is financed and budgeted individually, the NCTA uses shared systems, centralized toll processing, and administrative functions across its projects — effectively creating a hybrid model. This is evidenced in documents like the FY 2025 NCTA Budget Report, which show up to 5% of total toll revenues can support joint operational expenses. It's not full pooling, but it's not purely isolated either.

So yes, the law outlines separate financing — but the execution leans collaborative, and that's why "pooled financing" remains a valid lens in understanding how these projects are sustained.

While capital and operating budgets are separate, the financial and operational architecture is interconnected. That's why calling it "pooled financing" — or at least a hybrid model — is a fair characterization.

The NCTA doesn't pool toll revenue in the traditional sense of blending all funds into one pot. But it does operate a centralized system where shared services and limited cross-project revenue use create a functional equivalent of pooled support.

The Triangle Expressway is often referred to as a single toll road, but it's actually composed of four distinct segments, each with its own financing and operational structure:
+ Triangle Parkway (NC 885), 3.5 miles, first segment to open (December 2011)
+ Western Wake Expressway (NC 540), 12.4 miles, opened in phases through 2012
+ Southern Wake Expressway (NC 540), 16.5 miles (plus a 4.41-mile extension opened in 2024), completed in stages through 2013 and 2024
+ Phase 2 of the Complete 540 project, 10 miles, scheduled completion: 2028

Each segment was financed separately — with its own revenue bonds, trust agreements, and tolling schedules — and they maintain individual capital and operating budgets.

So while the Triangle Expressway functions as a continuous corridor, it's legally and financially treated as four separate toll facilities built at different times -- and future de-tolling would presumably not be a simple one time event -- so this highway itself is using pooled toll financing.

It sounds like they are pooling only the payment and billing systems for better efficiency at lower costs, just like their refinancing at opportune times.

I would not want them to pool individual toll roads across the state, and it doesn't appear that they do.

If NC540 segments and loans are kept separate, I predict they will de-toll each section as they are paid off. It seems quite easy to remove the tolling gantries from the 1st section upon pay off. People will have the right to complain if it's not done in that manner when the time comes.

#2

Off-Topic / Re: AARoads Wordle

Last post by davewiecking - Today at 08:01:49 PM

RONDA

[fast]

#3

Northeast / Re: Maine

Last post by vdeane - Today at 08:00:38 PM

Looks like the Maine Turnpike wants some new food vendors at its plazas:

https://www.pressherald.com/2025/07/03/maine-turnpike-courts-shake-shack-chick-fil-a-for-service-plaza-upgrades/?fbclid=IwY2xjawLfuSFleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFQaXl0Q1pHUDI4VXJDM21pAR68p-PsqjPD_Se9iqXn5hsMOrj-GdJ7b-tj4wvzp-20ZJIbS3wTcW3xEkrNsg_aem_JdaPLEQG2XAGI-GGL92jRQ

I can't believe they'd consider Chick-Fill-A, considering their policy of not being open on Sundays.  Sunday is a very busy travel day on the turnpike, if not the busiest day of the week (at least during the summer).  Did we not learn anything from the New York Thruway getting Chick-Fill-A and now some of their plazas have no open food service on Sundays? 

Paywalled.

I don't know what they're thinking.  Not only is CFA closed on Sunday (hopefully they would only be in NB service areas, but still), but I don't think "fast casual" places work in service areas.  Service area "food concepts" need to be fast, able to handle lots of customers at once and still get everyone's food to them quickly.  Places that take 10-15 minutes to make your food even when there aren't other customers don't work for that.  There's a reason it takes forever to get food at the new Thruway service areas, to the point where IMO it isn't worth bothering - if you have 1-1.5 hours to take for lunch, you may as well get off and go to a sit-down restaurant!

Even Sbarro can get backed up with too many travelers.  Hopefully whoever was more than one person behind me liked meat lovers or veggie pizza, because I got some of the last slices of cheese and pepperoni.  At 11 AM (it was Sunday).

#4

Southeast / Re: Complete NC 540 Project

Last post by architect77 - Today at 07:53:38 PM

Some Virginia experience may be relevant here. The toll financed Richmond Petersburg Turnpike (I-95) opened in 1958. The original bonds were paid off by 1975. The highway department (now VDOT) took over and issued new bonds to expand the road and upgrade some interchanges. In addition toll revenues were also tapped to support other projects in the Richmond area. Political pressure brought this to an end and tolls were removed in 1992, 34 years after the road opened.

Some years down the road it's easy to imagine the legislature being tempted to tap toll revenues on 540 for other projects in the Raleigh area, like US 64 in Cary/Apex or Capitol Boulevard (US 1).

There is no past evidence or precedent that North Carolina government will ever behave in such a manner. They would not make people pay on one road that benefits them for another distant road that they may never use at all.

At age 56, I have much more faith in NC state government. I honestly don't know of any other state that genuinely has tried to lift up every citizen and handle tax money more prudently than NC. There is a lot of transparency with the state agencies and there are no lavish government buildings like in most other states.

#5

Off-Topic / Re: Minor things that bother y...

Last post by kkt - Today at 07:52:13 PM

Historically, West Virginians drove across the center line in every curve to round out and tack on another 5 MPH in speed.  The extra speed was also necessary to help avoid in the opposing lane doing the opposite manuever in the same curve (both vehicles manuevering at the same time).  Amazingly, I never ever heard of any head-on collisions in curves.  Cannot imagine anyone doing this today without tragic consequences.

On the other hand, this same driving technique was used on narrow hilly roads without pavement striping.  There were plenty of occasions where folks ran off the road to avoid a sideswipe.  After I had graduated, my sisters were riding a school bus that "got run off the road" and got stuck in the mud alongside a 30-foot cliff above the creek.  After a few minutes, the bus flipped onto its side and braced up against a bunch trees suspended over the creek.  In the aftermath, it became clear that it was the bus driver that got a little too aggressive riding the inside of the curve (ergo, the other side of the road) and needed to overcompensate to avoid collision.

I saw the aftermath of such a collision.  It was after a rafting trip in the Sierra Nevada foothills.  We were with a group that raften down a stretch of river that's now part of the New Melones Reservoir.  Anyway, the rafting company was busing all the rafters back to the launch point in the river where we started and where our cars were.  One of the people on our trip was a doctor and called on us to stop so they pulled the bus over.  A motorcyclist and a car had come too close to each other on a blind curve.  The car ended up about 30 feet down the hill.  The bike was so far down I never even saw it, but the first people on the scene had already got the biker back up to the road rather than try to do CPR on a steep slope with bushes all around.  We stopped for about an hour while the doctor did what she could.  As it turned out, not much for the guy but did tell the group that had been doing CPR for a couple of hours already that they could stop and recorded his time of death.  The doctor did stay for the ambulance to come and get him since she signed the paperwork.

#6

Northeast / Re: I 490 Bridge Replacements

Last post by webny99 - Today at 07:30:03 PM

I noticed that as well and had the very fleeting thought that perhaps they could be adding auxiliary lanes from Exit 26 to Exit 27 (I wish!). But the two bridges being replaced are the only ones that would need widening for that to happen, so it is theoretically possible, and it would make a lot of things about the project make a lot more sense.

The plans do show three lanes each way across both bridges, but they're labeled as acceleration/deceleration lanes.  The plans are pretty limited just to the bridges, so how long they'd be or whether there are plans to tie them in to exit 26 are unclear.  That said, I was wondering why there would be a third year of construction (since normally it's one year for one side and then the second for the other), so maybe that's what the third year is?

I don't want to get my hopes up for auxiliary lanes, but it would be really great if that was the case. I wasn't even aware that the new bridges would be wide enough for six lanes, but if the rebuilt EB bridge is going to carry four lanes while the WB side gets rebuilt, it would definitely make sense. And the significant amount of tree clearing on both sides would also suggest a widening. Honestly, if the bridges will be wide enough for six lanes, the biggest constraint to extending auxiliary lanes to Exit 26 would be the lack of shoulders at the NY 31 underpass, and that will be addressed when that bridge gets replaced in a few years anyways.

Regardless, even if they are just lengthened accel/decel lanes à la US 15, that would be a significant improvement. The former EB decel lane for Exit 27 was noticeably short, and the extra distance to get up to speed would be welcome for WB traffic merging from a loop into a 65 mph zone.

#7

Road Enthusiasts Meetings / Re: Feather River Canyon (Orov...

Last post by cl94 - Today at 07:10:29 PM

Meet Facebook event has been created: https://www.facebook.com/share/1E5fSww2pE/

#8

Mid-Atlantic / Re: Delaware

Last post by Alex4897 - Today at 06:30:14 PM

Heck, the average driver on I-95 is more willing to sit in a completely avoidable 10+ minute backup just to cram into the two high speed EZ-Pass lanes than they are to dodge the traffic and use the cash / EZ-Pass lanes that you "stop" at, much less to even dare to exit the interstate.

Too bad they aren't using this project to go AET.

Unfortunately they only just rebuilt the Newark toll plaza within the last decade-ish, right before the more widespread push for AET really took off with covid. I'd imagine its current layout will remain in place for some time, though they could do to at least sign EZ-Pass acceptance for the cash lanes rather than implying EZ-Pass users don't have a choice in which lanes they use.

#9

Northeast / Re: Connecticut News

Last post by shadyjay - Today at 06:20:48 PM

Looks like some significant progress is being made on the northern CT 82/CT 154 rotary in Tylerville.  I took this today...

CT154SB@CT82EB by Jay Hogan, on Flickr


Also, the new 2-lane offramp from I-691 East to I-91 North in Meriden has opened within the past few days.  It's been substantially complete for a few weeks now and just needed striping and cleanup.  Opened a few months ago, a 4th lane on I-91 North from the merge of I-691 East up to the Rest Area.  This helps with trucks climbing the hill as well.

691EB-Exit1A-2laneopen by Jay Hogan, on Flickr

Hopefully that horrid "East Main St 1/2 mile" sign will go and get replaced with a sign saying "66 EAST/Middletown".  There is currently no signage marking the end of I-691 and the start of CT 66.  There are also no reassurance shields on CT 66 East until you get to the CT 147 intersection at Guida's in Middlefield, about 2 miles to the east of here.

#10

Southeast / Re: Complete NC 540 Project

Last post by wdcrft63 - Today at 06:08:09 PM

Some Virginia experience may be relevant here. The toll financed Richmond Petersburg Turnpike (I-95) opened in 1958. The original bonds were paid off by 1975. The highway department (now VDOT) took over and issued new bonds to expand the road and upgrade some interchanges. In addition toll revenues were also tapped to support other projects in the Richmond area. Political pressure brought this to an end and tolls were removed in 1992, 34 years after the road opened.

Some years down the road it's easy to imagine the legislature being tempted to tap toll revenues on 540 for other projects in the Raleigh area, like US 64 in Cary/Apex or Capitol Boulevard (US 1).