Traffic Congestion and Highway Construction

[alb1no panther]

On 12/29/2016 at 9:45 AM, tozmervo said:

I like to think that if Charlotte had a waterfront, we wouldn't have done this.

bad hoomans...bad!

[SgtCampsalot]

Has anyone ever framed an argument with a local/state DOT about why traffic predictions (where they gauge whether to diet or widen a road based on 20-30 year traffic congestion) are dubious and/or specious?

[kermit]

4 minutes ago, SgtCampsalot said:

Has anyone ever framed an argument with a local/state DOT about why traffic predictions (where they gauge whether to diet or widen a road based on 20-30 year traffic congestion) are dubious and/or specious?

Yes, this is becoming an accepted approach to fighting new road construction. There was a lawsuit in Wisconsin which successfully stopped a new road, partly based on the inaccuracy of traffic forecasts (some observers say the ruling was a result of a lack of transparency in the projection process). You can read a bit about it here: http://cityobservatory.org/show-your-work-getting-dot-traffic-forecasts-out-of-the-black-box/

There are other examples of this approach but my memory is failing me at the moment.

[SgtCampsalot]

3 minutes ago, kermit said:

Yes, this is becoming an accepted approach to fighting new road construction. There was a lawsuit in Wisconsin which successfully stopped a new road, partly based on the inaccuracy of traffic forecasts (some observers say the ruling was a result of a lack of transparency in the projection process). You can read a bit about it here: http://cityobservatory.org/show-your-work-getting-dot-traffic-forecasts-out-of-the-black-box/

There are other examples of this approach but my memory is failing me at the moment.

That's the only one I could find too, lol. 

I'm trying to word an argument on paper but am coming up short beyond saying "evidence shows that traditional methods of projecting future traffic numbers are unreliable/misleading", which would come off to a traffic person as a layman simply choosing to disagree with their methods because I don't like the result. This is combating an ideology, so it's very difficult to cut through.

Edited January 10, 2017 by SgtCampsalot

[kermit]

2 minutes ago, SgtCampsalot said:

That's the only one I could find too, lol. 

I'm trying to word an argument on paper but am coming up short beyond saying "evidence shows that traditional methods of projecting future traffic numbers are unreliable/misleading", which would come off to a traffic person as a layman simply choosing to disagree with their methods because I don't like the result. This is combating an ideology, so it's very difficult to cut through.

If you do a search for "peak car" and "vmt forecast errors" you should eventually come up with a graphic which shows actual VMT change over time combined with FHWA forecasts of VMT change, from that graphic you can easily argue that forecasting errors are consistently biased towards rapid growth. (I can't pretend to speak to the legal aspects of this).

EDIT: This graph: http://www.ssti.us/2015/01/fhwa-twice-revised-vmt-forecasts-downward-in-2014/

[Spartan]

23 hours ago, SgtCampsalot said:

Has anyone ever framed an argument with a local/state DOT about why traffic predictions (where they gauge whether to diet or widen a road based on 20-30 year traffic congestion) are dubious and/or specious?

22 hours ago, SgtCampsalot said:

That's the only one I could find too, lol. 

I'm trying to word an argument on paper but am coming up short beyond saying "evidence shows that traditional methods of projecting future traffic numbers are unreliable/misleading", which would come off to a traffic person as a layman simply choosing to disagree with their methods because I don't like the result. This is combating an ideology, so it's very difficult to cut through.

What is your actual objective in trying to attack traffic modeling predictions? Are you just against widening roads, or are you trying to lobby for more bike/ped/transit infrastructure? Depending on your goal, there might be other ways to frame your argument.

 

 

[kermit]

its not specifically Charlotte related but highway user fees (e.g. gas taxes and registration fees) now only cover 43% of highway costs.

http://www.frontiergroup.org/blogs/blog/fg/highway-spending-eating-budget

remember that the next time some idiot starts raving about transit not 'paying for itself'

[archiham04]

^^ on this topic of traffic counts... ( and this point may have already been made, so i apologize if  I'm being redundant) to me the most dubious thing that happens when the city  "analyzes" traffic to make a recommendation for development... is that they compare the current "zoned use' to the future zoned use.  So a vacant site zoned B-2 has a value of 60 trips per day that is then compared with a new residential development with 40 trips per day.  20 less trips per day so it's approved.... except that vacant site had 0 trips per day for the last 40 years!

I would like the city to model the total  "zoned" traffic counts for our streets and let us know if we have an adequate infrastructure for full build-out.  I would guess the answer is no, but that they could invest in more connectivity to solve it.

[kermit]

3 hours ago, archiham04 said:

^^ on this topic of traffic counts... ( and this point may have already been made, so i apologize if  I'm being redundant) to me the most dubious thing that happens when the city  "analyzes" traffic to make a recommendation for development... is that they compare the current "zoned use' to the future zoned use.  So a vacant site zoned B-2 has a value of 60 trips per day that is then compared with a new residential development with 40 trips per day.  20 less trips per day so it's approved.... except that vacant site had 0 trips per day for the last 40 years!

I would like the city to model the total  "zoned" traffic counts for our streets and let us know if we have an adequate infrastructure for full build-out.  I would guess the answer is no, but that they could invest in more connectivity to solve it.

Donald Shoup's book talks a great deal about this process in the context of parking, but his findings apply equally to traffic generation. The 'trips generated' numbers come from traffic engineers looking at worst case examples (they always tend to over estimate). So the '40 trips per day' number will be a _huge_ overestimate for a project in a walkable, transit accessible location and will even slightly overestimate trips generated by projects in non-walkable areas.

The vacant site scenario can also be tricky. If you (hypothetically) have a vacant site that sits between two residential areas and build a grocery store there you may actually reduce the number of trips from the adjacent residential spaces. This isn't as far fetched as it may sound, the Southend Publix is walkable to me so it has reduced my driving trips to the more distant HT by 3-4 per week.

Edited January 14, 2017 by kermit

[Spartan]

You also have to consider what a "trip" is in the traffic modeling world. Essentially, each from/to destination counts as a trip. In your scenario, you say that you take 3-4 fewer "driving trips" to the store each week. In the modeling world, that counts as 6-8 "driving trips" because you have to count one going and one coming back. So when you start scaling that over larger developments, the numbers are not THAT ridiculous.

While I think that the assumptions that are made for trip generation for developments tend to be designed for more suburban development patterns, I think its a harsh market reality that we are still very much a driving city even though we have pockets of walkable urbanism. The question we have to answer is how do you make the switch? How do you set up policies and practices that work for urban walkable places while realizing that geographically speaking, most of Charlotte will never be walkable or remotely urban?

[kermit]

8 hours ago, Spartan said:

While I think that the assumptions that are made for trip generation for developments tend to be designed for more suburban development patterns, I think its a harsh market reality that we are still very much a driving city even though we have pockets of walkable urbanism. The question we have to answer is how do you make the switch? How do you set up policies and practices that work for urban walkable places while realizing that geographically speaking, most of Charlotte will never be walkable or remotely urban?

I don't disagree, Charlotte is a car dominated city. But how to reduce this auto dependence is likely to be the toughest question in US planning over the next decade. If we don't begin that change now then when? Forcing suburban parking standards and levels of service into communities than have the potential to become walkable will simply kill off any prospects for pockets of real urbanism developing. In addition we are living in a political economy where driving is fiscally unsustainable at current tax rates and environmentally unsustainable given the dominant technology of internal combustion. If we are to have any hope for change away from the futility of car culture we will need to stop requiring (all of) our built-environment to cater to the unrealistic and highly-subsidized expectations of drivers. From my perspective this change may as well begin now.

There is nothing magical about US car culture. Most major cities of the world flourish with center cities that shun drivers with congestion charges, expensive parking and congested roads. Maintaining the car's privileged position does nothing other than dig a deeper fiscal, environmental and developmental hole.

Edited January 16, 2017 by kermit

[Eightane]

Now that the Oakdale exit from 485 is open barring cleanup and finishing work, I wonder how much of a difference it will make in traffic easement, less than it does for trip time for some local destinations. Whatever it absorbs from 16 and Mt. Holly-Huntersville will be built back somewhat with the huge project at the corner and whatever inevitably locates in the Teeter's old building. Sad to see how car culture can barely clean up its own mess, I'm not saying a mass transit network is viable that far out but these types of things should be all the anti-transit pie wedge needs to see the reason in investing in modern rail.

[alb1no panther]

On 1/10/2017 at 2:09 PM, SgtCampsalot said:

That's the only one I could find too, lol. 

I'm trying to word an argument on paper but am coming up short beyond saying "evidence shows that traditional methods of projecting future traffic numbers are unreliable/misleading", which would come off to a traffic person as a layman simply choosing to disagree with their methods because I don't like the result. This is combating an ideology, so it's very difficult to cut through.

Your pivot point is found here:

On 1/16/2017 at 10:01 AM, Spartan said:

You also have to consider what a "trip" is in the traffic modeling world. Essentially, each from/to destination counts as a trip. In your scenario, you say that you take 3-4 fewer "driving trips" to the store each week. In the modeling world, that counts as 6-8 "driving trips" because you have to count one going and one coming back. So when you start scaling that over larger developments, the numbers are not THAT ridiculous.

While I think that the assumptions that are made for trip generation for developments tend to be designed for more suburban development patterns, I think its a harsh market reality that we are still very much a driving city even though we have pockets of walkable urbanism. The question we have to answer is how do you make the switch? How do you set up policies and practices that work for urban walkable places while realizing that geographically speaking, most of Charlotte will never be walkable or remotely urban?

And further expanded on here:

On 1/16/2017 at 10:31 AM, kermit said:

I don't disagree, Charlotte is a car dominated city. But how to reduce this auto dependence is likely to be the toughest question in US planning over the next decade. If we don't begin that change now then when? Forcing suburban parking standards and levels of service into communities than have the potential to become walkable will simply kill off any prospects for pockets of real urbanism developing. In addition we are living in a political economy where driving is fiscally unsustainable at current tax rates and environmentally unsustainable given the dominant technology of internal combustion. If we are to have any hope for change away from the futility of car culture we will need to stop requiring (all of) our built-environment to cater to the unrealistic and highly-subsidized expectations of drivers. From my perspective this change may as well begin now.

There is nothing magical about US car culture. Most major cities of the world flourish with center cities that shun drivers with congestion charges, expensive parking and congested roads. Maintaining the car's privileged position does nothing other than dig a deeper fiscal, environmental and developmental hole.

Simply put:  the calculus or "car logic," if you will, assumes to large extent that trips are "driving" trips.  Is that such a bad assumption when an economic REGION's draw is quiet, safe suburban-ism?  Frankly:  it's not.  COMMA BUT . . . that draw is no longer a significant growth driver; now it's business judgment relocations and barriers to entry in other markets for blue collar workers/entrepreneurs (see Charlotte's "tech startup industry" as a more recent example).

[UPNoDa]

Seems Columbus, OH has the jump on everyone with regard to road infrastructure. I stumbled upon this looking for my upcoming hotel stay in Columbus and I am absolutely blown away by this concept. Having visited many large cities with a subway or commuter train that ran express trains and the like, I found this road design fascinating. They actually have both a "local" as well as an "express" lane to get you to your destination with the "express" lane going directly under the main roadway and then emerging some four or five intersections later. Absolutely brilliant. If the silver line wasn't already on paper, I would say that Independence Blvd would have benefited from this concept immensely.

I believe someone on here mentioned something similar to this for Trade & Tryon back in the 70's with Trade being the underground portion to keep auto (and foot) traffic moving along Tryon. This longer version however, would continue to run for miles and the only other main thoroughfare that I think would benefit from it would be I-77 from Uptown south to the state line, maybe they would consider this alternative for the folks in RH/Ft Mill ...I dunno?

[KJHburg]

Austin TX uses express lanes like this on the double decked I-35 through downtown area. We also need ramp meters ie traffic lights on the end of the ramps on 77 for peak times. These are everywhere in LA and southern California and they really work to slow down merging traffic. I think I heard NC DOT is looking into them in Raleigh and then maybe here in Charlotte. 

http://www.wral.com/ramp-meters-could-be-answer-to-triangle-traffic-woes-/12400700/

Edited February 28, 2017 by KJHburg

[CLTranspo]

1 hour ago, KJHburg said:

Austin TX uses express lanes like this on the double decked I-35 through downtown area. We also need ramp meters ie traffic lights on the end of the ramps on 77 for peak times. These are everywhere in LA and southern California and they really work to slow down merging traffic. I think I heard NC DOT is looking into them in Raleigh and then maybe here in Charlotte. 

http://www.wral.com/ramp-meters-could-be-answer-to-triangle-traffic-woes-/12400700/

Yep NCDOT is looking into them in Raleigh. In charlotte the possibilities have mostly been on 85 and Independence as far as I know, but agree that 77 could potentially use them too. 

[southslider]

On 77, ramp metering would cut into Spanish concessionaire profits. So no bueno.

Edited February 28, 2017 by southslider

[Spartan]

Something to ponder:

CATS announces that they need $6 billion to fund more rail, and everyone goes nuts with excitement.

The City adopts the Transportation Action Plan that recommends $5 billion for every other kind of transportation project, and not a peep. Not from this board, and not from the Observer, Agenda, C5, what have you. The last time Council adopted a transportation plan, they didn't come anywhere close to funding the whole thing.

As much as people in this city love to complain about congestion, which of those two is more likely to receive full funding? Which would have the greater impact?

Personally, I think the TAP would do more to right the wrongs of the 60s-90s and help fund needed road upgrades in the more suburban parts of the city. The rail plan would probably do more to shape the future of development around future station areas.

[SgtCampsalot]

1 hour ago, Spartan said:

Something to ponder:

CATS announces that they need $6 billion to fund more rail, and everyone goes nuts with excitement.

The City adopts the Transportation Action Plan that recommends $5 billion for every other kind of transportation project, and not a peep. Not from this board, and not from the Observer, Agenda, C5, what have you. The last time Council adopted a transportation plan, they didn't come anywhere close to funding the whole thing.

As much as people in this city love to complain about congestion, which of those two is more likely to receive full funding? Which would have the greater impact?

Personally, I think the TAP would do more to right the wrongs of the 60s-90s and help fund needed road upgrades in the more suburban parts of the city. The rail plan would probably do more to shape the future of development around future station areas.

This. I was thinking about these road projects they're considering for the TAP right now, and I realized that if we focus too heavily on the inner urban areas we will only be making the suburbs that much worse. We've got to identify the areas where the smallest amount of effort will make the most amount of good.

Edited March 3, 2017 by SgtCampsalot

[NcSc74]

/\/\/\

First up, 77/85 interchange.  What a boondoggle.  

[tozmervo]

15 minutes ago, NcSc74 said:

/\/\/\

First up, 77/85 interchange.  What a boondoggle.  

what's wrong with the 77/85 interchange?

[NcSc74]

60's design, massive waste of real estate for its purpose.  It needs an update.  Same can be said about 77 south to the SC border.  At some point the metro roadways have to get reworked.

[southslider]

Ah, but the Spanish have decided to fix 77/85.

[SgtCampsalot]

You mean you don't feel like you're gonna slide into that wall every time you take that curve from 85-S onto 77-S?

[Matthew.Brendan]

 I thought the 85/77 interchange was actively being reworked as we speak? I drive it every day and they are most certainly doing something…