First substantive review August 26, 2026. Updated October 19, 2026 with NCDOT request 789151764736. Facts, analysis, limitations, corrections, and right of response follow Hubert United’s Editorial Standards, Corrections & Disclosures.

Bottom line: the records show measurable traffic demand, documented crash patterns, and multiple identified safety needs in and around ZIP code 28539. They also show a large gap between projects that have been studied and projects that are actually programmed for construction. The most consequential Hubert project—replacement of Queens Creek Bridge—is programmed, with contract letting scheduled for January 2033 in NCDOT’s October 19 response. That response supplies no construction-start, completion, or opening date.

Executive findings

• Queens Creek Bridge (B-5944): NCDOT’s March 2025 concept report used “structurally deficient” and “functionally obsolete” in different sections. Those are the concept report’s historical descriptions; the October 19, 2026 component ratings are reported below. The 1962 bridge is approximately 472 feet long. Alternative 3—approximately 1,623 feet on an alignment about 60 feet south—was selected so the current bridge can remain open during construction.
• Programmed funding: the adopted 2026–2035 STIP programs $32.9 million in future right-of-way, utility, and construction phases for B-5944. The detailed table also carries $500,000 in prior/unclassified funds, producing a $33.4 million total. Programmed funding is not the same as money already obligated or spent.
• Schedule: a February 2025 draft anticipated right-of-way in 2028 and construction in 2030. The adopted STIP showed later phases in 2031 and 2033–2035. NCDOT’s October 19, 2026 response now identifies right-of-way in June 2031, utility relocation in June 2032, and letting in January 2033; no opening date is supplied.
• Traffic: NCDOT counted 15,000 vehicles per day on Queens Creek Road immediately south of NC 24 in both 2023 and 2024. NC 24 east of Hubert Boulevard increased from 17,000 vehicles per day in 2002 to 25,000 in 2024.
• NC 24 / Queens Creek crashes: NCDOT’s spreadsheet contains 126 crash rows for its five-year study area; an accompanying formal report states 125. NCDOT identified 34 injury crashes and a strong left-turn pattern near the commercial driveways.
• Riggs Road / Hubert Boulevard: NCDOT’s five-year report lists 18 crashes, including one fatal crash, four other injury crashes, 13 property-damage-only crashes, and ten people injured. Nine crashes involved left turns and five were rear-end crashes.
• Funded near-term work: HS-2403I programs $390,000 for a signal at NC 172 and Starling Road near Hubert in 2026. R-5885A programs $3.14 million for a culvert replacement east of West Shore Drive in Swansboro, with construction programmed for 2027.
• Unfunded corridor work: R-5885, the proposed reduced-conflict intersection project on NC 24 from Belgrade-Swansboro Road to Front Street, remains “Not Funded” in the adopted STIP. Its planning estimate totals $114.5 million.

1. Queens Creek Bridge: B-5944

Bridge 660077 carries SR 1509 (Queens Creek Road) over Queen Creek. NCDOT calls Queens Creek Road the primary connection between Swansboro and Camp Lejeune’s Triangle Outpost and the only route across Queen Creek in Onslow County. The road is a two-lane major collector with unpaved shoulders and a posted 45 mph speed limit.

Item	Documented fact
Existing structure	Built 1962; approximately 472 feet long.
Condition wording	The concept report uses both “structurally deficient” and “functionally obsolete.” Those classifications are related but not interchangeable; both phrases are reproduced here exactly as used by NCDOT.
2023 demand	15,000 AADT; forecast report converts this to about 1,050 vehicles/hour in the AM peak and 1,500 in the PM peak.
Forecast	At NCDOT’s assumed 2.0% annual growth, almost 18,000 AADT by 2032.
Selected concept	Alternative 3: shift about 60 feet south; approximately 1,623-foot bridge; existing bridge remains open during construction.
Future section	Two 12-foot travel lanes with 3-foot paved outside shoulders.
Programmed phases	Latest agency response, October 19, 2026: right-of-way $1.6M / June 2031; utilities $1.2M / June 2032; construction estimate $30.1M; letting January 2033. The earlier STIP construction period was 2033–2035.

Why the replacement is unusually difficult

The engineering problem is not simply replacing a short deck. Every concept lengthens the crossing substantially and affects wetlands, floodplain, farmland, high-quality waters, shoreline resources, or nearby properties. Alternative 1 would close the existing bridge and require an approximately 15-mile detour adding at least 20 minutes in normal conditions. NCDOT estimated that detour would add more than 1,000 peak-hour vehicles to routes already carrying far less traffic and could push two-lane facilities toward capacity. Alternatives 2 and 3 avoid that detour by building parallel to the existing bridge, but require much longer structures and work trestles. NCDOT selected Alternative 3.

Analysis: the longer schedule is consistent with a project that must resolve environmental impacts, right-of-way, utilities, traffic maintenance, hydraulic design, and a much larger replacement footprint. The records do not establish that newly approved Hubert development caused the delay. They do establish that NCDOT designed for population growth and future traffic demand, and that the schedule moved three years later between the draft and adopted STIPs.

Current condition and restrictions, reported October 19, 2026: NCDOT reports a rating of 5 for the deck, superstructure and substructure, and load limits of SV 25 tons and TTST 38 tons. FHWA classifies a rating of 5 as Fair. The concept report’s older “structurally deficient” and “functionally obsolete” wording is historical, rather than a substitute for these newer component ratings. NCDOT reports $11,448 in repairs this year to the concrete deck and superstructure. Detailed inspection reports, individual repair work orders and a failure date remain unavailable in the reviewed production. A Fair rating alone does not establish that the bridge is unsafe. FHWA condition definitions.

2. Adopted transportation program: what is funded

Project	Location / work	Status in adopted 2026–2035 STIP	Programmed amount
B-5944	Queens Creek Road, Bridge 660077; replacement	October 19 response: ROW June 2031; utilities June 2032; letting January 2033. Earlier STIP construction period: 2033–2035	$32.9M future phases; $33.4M including prior/unclassified funds
HS-2403I	NC 172 at Starling Road near Hubert; install signal	ROW, utilities and construction programmed 2026	$390,000
R-5885	NC 24, Belgrade-Swansboro Road to Front Street; reduced-conflict intersection	Not funded	$114.5M planning estimate
R-5885A	NC 24 east of West Shore Drive, Swansboro; culvert replacement	ROW in progress; construction programmed 2027	$3.14M
BR-0193	NC 24 over Northeast Creek; bridge replacement	Construction programmed 2028	$9.6M

BR-0193 and R-5885A provide county and corridor context but are not projects inside Hubert proper. The adopted STIP does not list a separate funded bridge or large-culvert replacement on Riggs Road, Sand Ridge Road, Belgrade-Swansboro Road, Hubert Boulevard, or NC 172 within Hubert beyond the projects identified above.

Funding terminology: “programmed” means NCDOT has placed an amount and phase in the adopted STIP. It does not prove that every dollar has been authorized, obligated under a contract, or spent. B-5944’s listed source is BFP, the federal Bridge Formula Program; HS-2403I uses HSIP safety funds.

3. Traffic demand in 28539

NCDOT’s historical AADT workbook reports estimated average daily traffic at fixed count locations. AADT is a planning estimate of vehicles per average day—not a continuous count, capacity rating, or peak-hour measurement. Count stations cannot be substituted for one another.

Count location	Earlier count	2024 AADT	Change
NC 24 east of Hubert Boulevard	17,000 (2002)	25,000	+47%
NC 24 east of Belgrade-Swansboro Road	21,000 (2009)	29,500	+40%
Queens Creek Road south of NC 24	14,000 (2019)	15,000	+7%
Queens Creek Road south of Henson Road	7,000 (2002)	9,400	+34%
Belgrade-Swansboro Road south of Freeman Avenue	2,400 (2002)	5,100	+113%
Riggs Road north of Hubert Boulevard	3,300 (2002)	4,400	+33%
Sand Ridge Road south of Queens Creek Road	5,900 (2019)	5,600	−5%

Analysis: growth is not uniform at every station, but the network shows substantial long-run pressure on NC 24 and several connecting collectors. The bridge forecast and corridor crash studies reinforce the same operational picture: traffic is concentrating on a small number of two-lane routes, and viable detours are limited.

4. Crash evidence and identified patterns

NC 24 at Queens Creek Road

An internal September 2023 NCDOT email described 126 crashes over five years on NC 24 from about 1,300 feet west of Queens Creek Road through the intersection. The spreadsheet supplied by NCDOT contains 126 numbered crash rows. A formal crash report states 125. The records identify 34 injury crashes and no fatal or disabling-injury crash in that study period. NCDOT highlighted a turning pattern: nearly half involved left turns into or out of the Food Lion/Burger King area and failure to yield to eastbound traffic.

Riggs Road at Hubert Boulevard

The five-year report covering April 2019 through March 2024 lists 18 crashes: one fatal, four additional injury crashes, and 13 property-damage-only crashes. It lists ten people injured. Nine crashes involved left turns and five were rear-end crashes. The record establishes a history and pattern; it does not by itself establish which single countermeasure would be warranted.

5. Engineering reviews already in NCDOT’s files

Queens Creek Road curve and bridge approaches

A July 24, 2025 Highway Safety Improvement Program recommendation at coordinates 34.683667, −77.172028 called for a 35 mph curve-advisory plaque, reflective panels on chevrons and signs, replacement of a missing object marker approaching Bridge 660077, replacement of missing or damaged chevrons, treatment of shoulder rutting at two curves and Shadow Creek Drive, and restriping centerlines and edge lines. The October 19, 2026 production includes a later completion chain: signing staff reported items 1–7 complete August 6, 2025, and striping staff reported item 9 complete September 2, 2025. Completion of item 8, shoulder rutting at the curves and Shadow Creek Drive, is not established. These are staff completion reports, not a new field inspection.

Queens Creek Road at Smallwood Road

The February 2023 review considered sign changes, a 35-mph zone, a median island and changes to the Smallwood connection. A February 28 email says the February 13 safety meeting decided not to pursue the 35-mph zone. A later March 31 email recommends a 35-mph ordinance from the bridge to Henson Road; its final disposition is not supplied. The March 15, 2023 completion email gives March 13 and 14, 2022 as the signing and marking dates. That year discrepancy needs clarification. The delivery does not establish completion of the median or alignment alternatives. A February 23 signal question also remains unanswered in the supplied chain, and several referenced diagrams are missing.

Riggs Road speed study

NCDOT’s March 2026 investigation describes a 20-foot pavement with 10-foot lanes, 13 sharp curves, no pavement reflectors, low shoulders, deteriorating asphalt edges, heavy truck activity, and new neighborhoods. Eight stations produced 85th-percentile speeds from 47 to 59 mph. At station B—posted 45 mph—the study counted 4,100 vehicles and found 77.22% above the posted limit during the measurement period. The worksheet does not show a completed recommended-speed entry, so Hubert United does not claim that a speed-limit change was approved.

6. Development review and cumulative impacts

The production contains NCDOT development-review material for Queens Ridge and other nearby work, including a transportation-impact-analysis screening form, vicinity and site plans, and trip-generation material. NCDOT also exchanged multiple plan revisions and redlines for Surfside Landing before issuing an encroachment approval dated February 27, 2024.

What this proves: NCDOT reviews access, encroachment, trip generation, and roadway-related plan details for individual developments. What it does not prove: that one development alone caused the B-5944 schedule change, or that NCDOT’s approval of an access detail is a county land-use approval.

System-level implication: county commissioners decide many rezonings and subdivision-policy questions, while NCDOT controls state-road engineering and programming. When growth approvals and transportation funding move on separate calendars, new trips can arrive years before major state projects. That is the institutional gap the record reveals.

7. Drainage, culverts, guardrail, and roadway maintenance

A resident reported a water hazard beside Sand Ridge Road near a creek crossing. In March 2024, NCDOT requested a guardrail estimate, warned that funding was not guaranteed, and proposed object markers as an interim measure. The available production does not establish that the guardrail was funded or installed or that every interim item was completed.

R-5885A is the major funded culvert project in the corridor record: two existing 30-inch culverts under NC 24 east of West Shore Drive are planned for replacement with two 60-inch culverts carrying Ward Creek. It is in Swansboro, not Hubert proper, but is relevant to the same NC 24 corridor.

8. What this means for Hubert—and Onslow County

1. Hubert’s transportation constraint is a network problem. NC 24, Queens Creek Road, Sand Ridge Road, Riggs Road, Belgrade-Swansboro Road, and NC 172 function together. A closure or bottleneck on one pushes traffic to routes with lower volumes and limited shoulders.
2. Documented need is not the same as delivered capacity. The records contain crash analyses, speed studies, safety recommendations, concept engineering, and development review. Only some have funded construction schedules.
3. The bridge is programmed, but the community carries the schedule risk. NCDOT’s latest response places letting in January 2033, more than six years after the October 2026 update, without giving an opening date. The 2025 draft had anticipated construction in 2030.
4. County growth decisions and state road programming must be considered together. Neither system alone provides a complete cumulative-impact answer. For eastern Onslow County, coordination must occur before—not years after—capacity becomes a crisis.
5. The strongest public case is specific and measurable. Ask for phase dates, obligations, traffic forecasts, completion status of safety recommendations, and cumulative trip assumptions—not vague assurances.

9. Known limitations and unresolved questions

• The 126-versus-125 crash-count discrepancy is unresolved; both original records are linked.
• NCDOT withheld detailed bridge inspection reports. The October 19 response supplies component ratings, stated load limits and a repair total, but not load calculations, a failure date, a complete repair history or the detailed inspection reports.
• The available records do not explain, in one definitive statement, why B-5944 moved from 2030 to 2033.
• Queens Creek signing and striping have staff completion reports; the shoulder-rutting recommendation, Smallwood geometric options, Sand Ridge object markers and requested guardrail still lack completion evidence in the reviewed material.
• Material-certification records document products delivered to a Jacksonville contractor; they do not identify the precise installation location.
• AADT values are estimates at discrete stations. They are not interchangeable with design-hour volumes or roadway capacity.

10. Source library

The folders below contain the records used for this report. Links open the source itself whenever a direct file link is available.

Core project and planning records

• B-5944 Concept Screening Report (March 2025)
• B-5944 Environmental Features Map
• Queens Creek Road HSIP recommendations
• Queens Creek Road / Smallwood Road recommendations
• Riggs Road speed-limit study
• Hubert Boulevard speed-limit study
• Smith Road near Riggs Road safety recommendations

Crash, correspondence, and request records

• NC 24 / Queens Creek crash spreadsheet
• NC 24 / Queens Creek formal crash analysis
• Riggs Road / Hubert Boulevard crash analysis
• Crash-data text extract
• NC 24 / Queens Creek NCDOT email
• Riggs / Hubert October 2020 records
• Riggs / Hubert all-way-stop correspondence
• Sand Ridge guardrail request
• NCDOT citizen-contact correspondence
• Complete produced ZIP archive

Public-record request trail and supporting records

• PRR 774024364178 correspondence
• PRR 773154374427 correspondence
• NCDOT file-transfer notice
• Queens Ridge vicinity and site plans
• Queens Ridge trip generation
• NCDOT TIA screening form
• White thermoplastic certification, yellow thermoplastic certification, and reflective-bead certification

Hubert does not need exaggerated claims. The documented facts are serious enough: demand is growing, safety problems are known, and the delivery calendar is years behind the pressure residents experience today.

Hubert United