Charlotte

[PColumbus73]

Meanwhile in Charlotte . . .

https://www.axios.com/local/charlotte/2026/05/26/charlotte-growth-population-1-million

As Charlotte barrels toward a population of 1 million, the city of transplants and unicorn natives is uniting behind a common phrase: "We're full."

Doesn't Charlotte have Atlanta envy?

[architect77]

Raleigh's outerloop is 60% tolled with the NC Quickpass price for the full Southern half of I-540/NC540 at $12.01 per trip. No free lanes at all. People seem ok with it.

You're right, we are okay with it. Thats because its not a complete rip-off.

The tolls on NC 540 are fixed. it costs $8.04 with a NCquickpass to drive the entire 33 miles, according to NCquickpass website (not sure where you got $12.01 from). Same goes for the US 74 Bypass in Monroe. $3 to drive the entire 18 mile road. That is a huge difference from the I-77 dynamic toll lanes. During peak times, I-77 express can easily cost upwards of $30 to go 26 miles. On top of that, the tolls from 540 and 74 go back into the state transportation fund, unlike the 77 tolls that go straight to a private corp. Additionally, there is a non-compete clause in the 77 express lanes contract that basically forbids any major improvements on I-77 and any parallel roads for 50 YEARS. Mecklenburg county and the NCDOT got completely screwed by the 77 express lanes.

It will be interesting to compare the pricing on the 77 express lanes VS the new 485 express lanes, which are not controlled by a private corp. However i don't believe the 485 lanes are fully operational yet.

The $12.01 will be the price of the tolled portion once complete. All of the info is available online. Yes the I-77 deal sucks and Charlotte native Pat McCrory arranged it.

He should have gotten I-77 widened through the state and the turnpike authority.

But Express Lanes are different from a typical toll road, and they are quite genius in their sole mission of offering a free flowing lane of travel at 45mph or faster guaranteed. The dynamic tolls can keep it moving. Atlanta's Express Lanes are a perfect example of how prices should be initially set.

I suggest lots of people do what I did and contact NCDOT reminding them that the tolls by cintra are discouraging adequate usage of the lanes which defeats the whole purpose of building them in the first place.

[The Ghostbuster]

Does anyone believe the canceled Interstate 77 Express Lanes might be revived at some point?

[architect77]

Does anyone believe the canceled Interstate 77 Express Lanes might be revived at some point?

The problem remains. I also like someone's suggestion of building a I-77 bypass of Charlotte which on undeveloped land to the East could be done for far less than the proposed elevated Express Lanes.

I can't believe that anyone would consider another deal with Cintra though. They are holding I-77 hostage with such overpriced toll rates.

[Plutonic Panda]

Tolls on the I-485 express lanes might be adjusted due to the increased demand:

https://www.wcnc.com/article/traffic/i-485-toll-rates-to-be-adjusted-to-support-growing-traffic-ncta/275-472430a3-aae5-43f2-9f20-68e79606cee5

[architect77]

Here is an interesting document that lists lots of specifics about total mileage and vehicle miles traveled for NC cities and all urbanized areas of over 1 million people for the year 2024.

highway miles by Stephen Edwards, on Flickr

[CanesFan27]

Interstate 277 around Uptown Charlotte can be an adventure. From backed-up traffic and crazy merges to slaloming through lane changes, I-277 is one of Charlotte's most talked-about highways. One of its most challenging interchanges has been memorialized in a video game. There are also proposals to turn the urban Interstate into a river. And on the Sunday of Labor Day Weekend, they run a 10k on it.

I-277 isn't a long highway, running at just under 4.5 miles. It offers great views of the skyline and of the constantly changing cityscape. And I will admit, I'll sometimes drive around 277 just to get a view of the growing city.

If you are stuck in traffic on the Outer 277 between Graham Street and Interstate 277, you may have noticed an odd feature of the road where an onramp to 277 once was or was supposed to go. There is an answer: it is a remnant of an old I-277 on-ramp from North Graham Street, eliminated around 2005. The ramp began at the modern intersection of Music Factory Boulevard and North Graham. It curved up to I-277 over what is now the residential parking lot for the Cadence Music Factory Apartments.

The removal of the ramp did not prevent drivers on North Graham Street from accessing Interstate 277. Drivers would now turn at 12th Street to use that on-ramp, which has been part of the highway since the beginning. The ramp's elimination removed one of the merge points in the Interstate's last mile before the Interstate 77 interchange, making one less lane weave and merge delay on I-277.

https://www.gribblenation.org/2026/06/the-north-graham-street-ghost-on-ramp.html

[wriddle082]

So nobody here is going to talk about the elephant in the room which is the rejection by Charlotte City Council of the NCDOT/Cintra plans for the I-77 South Express Lanes, and the legislative aftermath that has ensued, requiring Charlotte and neighboring cities to repay the engineering costs incurred?

https://www.qcnews.com/charlotte/charlotte-leaders-withdraw-support-of-i-77-expansion-project/

(This is one article, many others are out there.)

[PColumbus73]

So nobody here is going to talk about the elephant in the room which is the rejection by Charlotte City Council of the NCDOT/Cintra plans for the I-77 South Express Lanes, and the legislative aftermath that has ensued, requiring Charlotte and neighboring cities to repay the engineering costs incurred?

https://www.qcnews.com/charlotte/charlotte-leaders-withdraw-support-of-i-77-expansion-project/

(This is one article, many others are out there.)

I haven't heard of a state trying to get a city to recoup engineering costs for a canceled project. On the face of it, it sounds spiteful. The I-77 express lanes isn't the first project to be canceled for lack of support, either from the public, or a government.

[Rothman]

So nobody here is going to talk about the elephant in the room which is the rejection by Charlotte City Council of the NCDOT/Cintra plans for the I-77 South Express Lanes, and the legislative aftermath that has ensued, requiring Charlotte and neighboring cities to repay the engineering costs incurred?

https://www.qcnews.com/charlotte/charlotte-leaders-withdraw-support-of-i-77-expansion-project/

(This is one article, many others are out there.)

I haven't heard of a state trying to get a city to recoup engineering costs for a canceled project. On the face of it, it sounds spiteful. The I-77 express lanes isn't the first project to be canceled for lack of support, either from the public, or a government.

Federal funds are repaid if projects aren't progressed to construction...after a long while.

[mvak36]

So why can't the state just take over the Express lanes like they do on I-485? I wouldn't be excited about giving control of the roads to some foreign company. Those existing I-77 toll lanes seemed empty during rush hour the past few times I've visited Charlotte.

[wriddle082]

So why can't the state just take over the Express lanes like they do on I-485? I wouldn't be excited about giving control of the roads to some foreign company. Those existing I-77 toll lanes seemed empty during rush hour the past few times I've visited Charlotte.

Yep, they're empty because they're overpriced.  Locals seem content sitting in traffic out of protest.

Personally, if I have to go north of Charlotte up 77, I take NC 16 up into Catawba County, backroads to I-40, and rejoin 77 in Statesville.  It breaks up the monotony a little bit, and I generally don't have traffic issues except maybe in NW Charlotte.

[jdunlop]

So nobody here is going to talk about the elephant in the room which is the rejection by Charlotte City Council of the NCDOT/Cintra plans for the I-77 South Express Lanes, and the legislative aftermath that has ensued, requiring Charlotte and neighboring cities to repay the engineering costs incurred?

https://www.qcnews.com/charlotte/charlotte-leaders-withdraw-support-of-i-77-expansion-project/

(This is one article, many others are out there.)

I haven't heard of a state trying to get a city to recoup engineering costs for a canceled project. On the face of it, it sounds spiteful. The I-77 express lanes isn't the first project to be canceled for lack of support, either from the public, or a government.

The Charlotte area MPO voted to support the project and include it in its project list.  NCDOT then spent multi-millions on the preliminary engineering.  Then Charlotte didn't like the project due to the design or more precisely the negative public feedback (it wasn't an easy design fitting the road in the tight corridor.) They then voted to cancel the project they requested.  So, NCDOT wants the money it spent on developing the project paid back by the ones (Charlotte) who cancelled the project they initially requested  (beyond the usual pre-commitment work.)

[jdunlop]

So why can't the state just take over the Express lanes like they do on I-485? I wouldn't be excited about giving control of the roads to some foreign company. Those existing I-77 toll lanes seemed empty during rush hour the past few times I've visited Charlotte.

The express lane construction was fully paid for by the private company (they did bid on the contract) with the understanding that essentially all revenue would be paid to them over the contracted time period (50 years.). For the State to take over the lanes, they'd have to pay the private company back the cost of constructing the lanes.  It's allowable under the contract, but costly to do so.

It's the only P3 contact in the state for toll roads; other states have done something similar.  Virginia's express lanes on 95 and 495 were built (or improved) in the same manner. 

At least one Midwest state (Indiana?) sold or leased their existing toll roads to a private company for a quick influx of cash, and now those tolls go to the private company instead of the state.

[PColumbus73]

So nobody here is going to talk about the elephant in the room which is the rejection by Charlotte City Council of the NCDOT/Cintra plans for the I-77 South Express Lanes, and the legislative aftermath that has ensued, requiring Charlotte and neighboring cities to repay the engineering costs incurred?

https://www.qcnews.com/charlotte/charlotte-leaders-withdraw-support-of-i-77-expansion-project/

(This is one article, many others are out there.)

I haven't heard of a state trying to get a city to recoup engineering costs for a canceled project. On the face of it, it sounds spiteful. The I-77 express lanes isn't the first project to be canceled for lack of support, either from the public, or a government.

The Charlotte area MPO voted to support the project and include it in its project list.  NCDOT then spent multi-millions on the preliminary engineering.  Then Charlotte didn't like the project due to the design or more precisely the negative public feedback (it wasn't an easy design fitting the road in the tight corridor.) They then voted to cancel the project they requested.  So, NCDOT wants the money it spent on developing the project paid back by the ones (Charlotte) who cancelled the project they initially requested  (beyond the usual pre-commitment work.)

Why should the City of Charlotte be punished when the public response was negative enough that it was better to cancel the project?

The double-deck portions of the project might have been too hard to sell to the public. But isn't that also an inherit risk Charlotte and NCDOT accepts in that public opinion might shift against a project?

[jdunlop]

So nobody here is going to talk about the elephant in the room which is the rejection by Charlotte City Council of the NCDOT/Cintra plans for the I-77 South Express Lanes, and the legislative aftermath that has ensued, requiring Charlotte and neighboring cities to repay the engineering costs incurred?

https://www.qcnews.com/charlotte/charlotte-leaders-withdraw-support-of-i-77-expansion-project/

(This is one article, many others are out there.)

I haven't heard of a state trying to get a city to recoup engineering costs for a canceled project. On the face of it, it sounds spiteful. The I-77 express lanes isn't the first project to be canceled for lack of support, either from the public, or a government.

The Charlotte area MPO voted to support the project and include it in its project list.  NCDOT then spent multi-millions on the preliminary engineering.  Then Charlotte didn't like the project due to the design or more precisely the negative public feedback (it wasn't an easy design fitting the road in the tight corridor.) They then voted to cancel the project they requested.  So, NCDOT wants the money it spent on developing the project paid back by the ones (Charlotte) who cancelled the project they initially requested  (beyond the usual pre-commitment work.)

Why should the City of Charlotte be punished when the public response was negative enough that it was better to cancel the project?

The double-deck portions of the project might have been too hard to sell to the public. But isn't that also an inherit risk Charlotte and NCDOT accepts in that public opinion might shift against a project?

I would submit that the MPO asked for the project, and they're supposed to be the "local voice". It then got too hot politically.  (I think both entities knew what the response was going to be, but the MPO pushed for the project originally.) At a minimum, I'd want the MPO (or the local municipalities that voted to terminate the project) to share in the cost of the cancelled project.

[I-55]

So why can't the state just take over the Express lanes like they do on I-485? I wouldn't be excited about giving control of the roads to some foreign company. Those existing I-77 toll lanes seemed empty during rush hour the past few times I've visited Charlotte.

The express lane construction was fully paid for by the private company (they did bid on the contract) with the understanding that essentially all revenue would be paid to them over the contracted time period (50 years.). For the State to take over the lanes, they'd have to pay the private company back the cost of constructing the lanes.  It's allowable under the contract, but costly to do so.

It's the only P3 contact in the state for toll roads; other states have done something similar.  Virginia's express lanes on 95 and 495 were built (or improved) in the same manner. 

At least one Midwest state (Indiana?) sold or leased their existing toll roads to a private company for a quick influx of cash, and now those tolls go to the private company instead of the state.

You are correct that Indiana leased the toll road. Ironically, the first company to operate the lease from 2006 until bankruptcy in 2014 was a joint venture by Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte SA and Macquarie Infrastructure Group. (source). Quite possible that Cintra is hiking the rates out of fear of repeating their bankruptcy on the Charlotte I-77 lanes.

The original lease plus amendments gave INDOT 3 lump sum payments equivalent to about $73.3 million per year over 75 years that INDOT can use on other projects. Without the lease, that money would have been tied to the Toll Road and unavailable for use elsewhere. The remaining toll revenue (which I estimate to be anywhere from $300-400 million per year) is used for upkeep of the toll road and the operator pockets the rest. The rates have hiked a good amount since 2006 as the amendments have allowed. I also estimate that 75-80% of revenue is generated from commercial vehicles, per traffic counts and rates.

Perception of the lease is split in Indiana. Many people I know think it is good because we got the better end of the deal, citing the bankruptcy. Others think its like most other government leases where we're losing too much in the long run compared to the lump sum we received. With that said, I think the lease has benefitted the state more than it has taken away, as the Toll Road doesn't have traffic issues (aside from toll barriers) and receives appropriate maintenance.

[mvak36]

So why can't the state just take over the Express lanes like they do on I-485? I wouldn't be excited about giving control of the roads to some foreign company. Those existing I-77 toll lanes seemed empty during rush hour the past few times I've visited Charlotte.

The express lane construction was fully paid for by the private company (they did bid on the contract) with the understanding that essentially all revenue would be paid to them over the contracted time period (50 years.). For the State to take over the lanes, they'd have to pay the private company back the cost of constructing the lanes.  It's allowable under the contract, but costly to do so.

It's the only P3 contact in the state for toll roads; other states have done something similar.  Virginia's express lanes on 95 and 495 were built (or improved) in the same manner. 

At least one Midwest state (Indiana?) sold or leased their existing toll roads to a private company for a quick influx of cash, and now those tolls go to the private company instead of the state.

I believe you might be talking about the existing I-77 toll lanes, which Cintra built. I was referring to the new ones that Charlotte cancelled. It might not matter now, but I was just wondering why the state couldn't take on that project and toll it like they are doing on I-485.

[Dirt Roads]

So why can't the state just take over the Express lanes like they do on I-485? I wouldn't be excited about giving control of the roads to some foreign company. Those existing I-77 toll lanes seemed empty during rush hour the past few times I've visited Charlotte.

The express lane construction was fully paid for by the private company (they did bid on the contract) with the understanding that essentially all revenue would be paid to them over the contracted time period (50 years.). For the State to take over the lanes, they'd have to pay the private company back the cost of constructing the lanes.  It's allowable under the contract, but costly to do so.

It's the only P3 contact in the state for toll roads; other states have done something similar.  Virginia's express lanes on 95 and 495 were built (or improved) in the same manner. 

At least one Midwest state (Indiana?) sold or leased their existing toll roads to a private company for a quick influx of cash, and now those tolls go to the private company instead of the state.

I believe you might be talking about the existing I-77 toll lanes, which Cintra built. I was referring to the new ones that Charlotte cancelled. It might not matter now, but I was just wondering why the state couldn't take on that project and toll it like they are doing on I-485.

There appears to be some misunderstanding running in this thread.  Apologies to <jdunlop> as I don't want to be arguing with his professional opinions, but this reply might step on some toes.

When the Regional MPO (Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization) rescinded its support of the public-private partnership for adding toll lanes, the I-77 South widening project simply reverts back to NCDOT as a traditionally-funded STIP project that has a pretty high priority.  Ergo, this road is still going to be widened soon.  If CRTPO does not subsequently request that the project be transferred back to the North Carolina Turnpike Authority to be funded with [whatever], then this project will have traditional funding and endure a traditional project schedule.

To clarify, for NCDOT to relinquish an STIP to the North Carolina Turnpike Authority for construction as a tolling facility (which includes HOT lanes), the local MPO must make a formal request to the State.  (And I suspect that the MPO is expected to support its decision with a planning report that indicates that toll-backed public bonds or in this case, an extension of toll-backed private bonds under a PPP. 

It is my understanding that the I-77 South project was not an extension of Cintra's current I-77 HOT Lane contract (although the media seems to think otherwise).  However, it is fair to say that Cintra would have had a contract cost/price advantage because of its existing local infrastructure.  Whether to say it would be a signficant cost/price advantage in this high-tech world is questionable nowadays.

With respect to Cintra, there are recent media reports about the I-77 North HOT lanes widening proposal, which indeed would expand Cintra's contract to add an additional HOT lane.

So why can't the state just take over the Express lanes like they do on I-485? I wouldn't be excited about giving control of the roads to some foreign company. Those existing I-77 toll lanes seemed empty during rush hour the past few times I've visited Charlotte.

So back to your original question.  CRTPO could indeed request that the I-77 South project go back to the North Carolina Turnpike Authority (and if my suspicions are correct, they would need to provide a planning report with a funding strategy that avoids the PPP options).  But if anything suggests that Cintra could get hold of an extension contract or possibly win a more-traditional non-PPP contract, you can take it to the bank that CRTPO will just simply let NCDOT run this as a traditional lane widening project (no tolls whatsoever).  Hope that clarifies.

[Rothman]

An MPO is just a committee of its membership.  Its main purpose is to facilitate expenditures of federal funds (at least IMHO) by its committee memberships competing for slots on its TIP (transportation improvement program), which then feeds the STIP, along with other MPOs' TIPs and rural projects.  Federal funds flow through State DOTs to MPOs.  Some MPOs receive a formal suballocation from their DOTs to facilitate programming, others do not (at least in NY, this latter situation causes the MPO's projects to compete with other DOT Regional priorities, which can be a negative, but, in some cases (e.g., being a small city amongst smaller municipalities) a huge benefit).

A project cannot be federally funded within an MPO's metropolitan planning area (MPA) without MPO approval.

If the North Carolina Turnpike Authority takes it over for a non-federally funded project, so be it, but if it ain't on CRTPO's TIP, it cannot be federally funded.

[jdunlop]

@mvak36, I did interpret your post as being about the existing express lanes, not the proposed ones, sorry 'bout that!

@Rothman, thanks for adding the points about MPOs and federally funded projects.

@Dirt Roads, you explained things better than my rant, no apologies necessary. 

I dealt with these municipalities/MPOs for years, and couldn't say anything publicly about their about face (we want this project...no, we're against the project and evil NCDOT for proposing it!, so my comment is somewhat personal.)  I did say things on occasion in meetings with the locals (one in particular when a "transportation professional" from the city (not Charlotte in this case) complained about "NCDOT's project", when it was the City pushing it from the start, and the local Division only OK-ing it after my team showed that the (in this case) road diet would work with some modifications.  I lit into him during that Teams/Zoom meeting-benefits of being about three months from retirement!  Got a few attaboys later from my fellow State people on that call!)  I did develop somewhat thick skin from selling "alternative" designs such as roundabouts and RCUTs/Superstreets for 25 or so years (both from locals and far too often from inside the Department.)  I'm amused/pleased that both have become fairly routine these days, after battling for so many years.

One thing I don't think will happen:  CRTPO will NOT ask for a traditional widening on I-77.  That would go against their anti-car montra.  It wasn't Cintra's involvement that killed the project (not that it helped) it was the preliminary design's impacts that killed it.  So even NCDOT running the lanes as they do with the 485 and Monroe projects won't change their mind on this, IMO.

[Dirt Roads]

An MPO is just a committee of its membership.  Its main purpose is to facilitate expenditures of federal funds (at least IMHO) by its committee memberships competing for slots on its TIP (transportation improvement program), which then feeds the STIP, along with other MPOs' TIPs and rural projects.  Federal funds flow through State DOTs to MPOs.  Some MPOs receive a formal suballocation from their DOTs to facilitate programming, others do not (at least in NY, this latter situation causes the MPO's projects to compete with other DOT Regional priorities, which can be a negative, but, in some cases (e.g., being a small city amongst smaller municipalities) a huge benefit).

A project cannot be federally funded within an MPO's metropolitan planning area (MPA) without MPO approval.

If the North Carolina Turnpike Authority takes it over for a non-federally funded project, so be it, but if it ain't on CRTPO's TIP, it cannot be federally funded.

Good point.  But it has been legislated in North Carolina (they use the term "State Law" here perhaps improperly) that no toll roads can be collected unless the regional MPO requests that the project be transferred from NCDOT (juridiction) to North Carolina Turnpike Authority (jurisdiction).  The issue here was that [somebody] moved the I-77 South project forward as a PPP and, as a result of poor public perception/reception, the CRTPO withdrew its support for the project (officially, withdrew its request that the project be constructed as a PPP).  From all indication, that decision should totally rescind the project from the North Carolina Turnpike Authority (and return it to NCDOT jurisdiction) at least for now.

I have not ever heard of any highway PPP projects that move forward without Federal funding, so the rules that you mention are still in play.  <<My obligatory rant about locally-funded projects being much less expensive than Federally-funded projects has been redacted, again.>>

[Dirt Roads]

One thing I don't think will happen:  CRTPO will NOT ask for a traditional widening on I-77.  That would go against their anti-car montra.  It wasn't Cintra's involvement that killed the project (not that it helped) it was the preliminary design's impacts that killed it.  So even NCDOT running the lanes as they do with the 485 and Monroe projects won't change their mind on this, IMO.

That makes sense.  HOV Lanes (and by logical jump, perhaps in err, HOT Lanes as well) historically have a perceived environmental benefit as compared to a full-blown free lane widening on a congested freeway.  I'm not an expert here, but the thought process is that one new lane running at Level A service during rush hour (and causing an improvement to level-of-service on all the other lanes in the same direction) will reduce "smog" from stop-and-go traffic.  From what I can tell, HOT lanes hardly ever improve the level-of-service on all the other lanes (hence my hesitation to assume that HOT lanes will get the same environmental rating).

You are a good person to ask and perhaps <Rothman> as well.  Several years ago upthread, I asked whether anyone knew of whether the FHWA still requires the construction of HOV/HOT lanes when a full-blown widening is justified in situations like in South Charlotte.  (Those rules were in place back in the late 1990s and were VERY useful for us when we compared the costs of proposed transit projects with the costs of comparable highway projects).  Any idea if Federal funding still forces HOV/HOT, or if indeed the MPO has to push for such restrictions?

[Rothman]

<<My obligatory rant about locally-funded projects being much less expensive than Federally-funded projects has been redacted, again.>>

<<mutters about locally-funded projects being sometimes crap quality because they're not held to higher standards when the states or feds are involved>>

[Dirt Roads]

<<My obligatory rant about locally-funded projects being much less expensive than Federally-funded projects has been redacted, again.>>

<<mutters about locally-funded projects being sometimes crap quality because they're not held to higher standards when the states or feds are involved>>

One of the hardest things that I ever had to do is judge whether a perhaps desperate low-ball contractor could actually make money on a low bid.  (For the record, a low financial score wasn't much of a ding on the RFP evaluation overall scoring and we had to convince the client that they were going to lose money by accepting an underbid).  Someone else recommended that the client spend a lot of money to prove that the bid wasn't financially responsible.  IIRC, the contractor withdrew their low bid and may have settled for a refund on their costs to prepare a pricy RFP.

In other words, I certainly don't disagree with your concern here.