Traffic Congestion and Highway Construction

[KJHburg]

Toll lanes up to Sunset from uptown today (and it is cheaper than going to I-85) there is tunnel underneath the southbound lanes.   and the toll only exit south of Harris Blvd. 

[jednc]

On 1/7/2020 at 1:55 PM, KJHburg said:

Toll lanes up to Sunset from uptown today (and it is cheaper than going to I-85) there is tunnel underneath the southbound lanes.   and the toll only exit south of Harris Blvd. 

Glad to see most feel as I do...don't use the toll lanes. From your pics (which I'll put more stock in than any anecdotes), it was you and one other car in sight.

[jtmonk]

26 minutes ago, jednc said:

Glad to see most feel as I do...don't use the toll lanes. From your pics (which I'll put more stock in than any anecdotes), it was you and one other car in sight.

Well not a lot of people are going to use them when traffic is light as seen in the pictures.  However, I've used them a number of times around the lake to bypass traffic jams, I don't mind them at all. 

[CLTranspo]

Was going to say, obviously fewer people are going to pay for lanes when there is low traffic in the free lanes. Here are some photos I took in December. 

[KJHburg]

42 minutes ago, jednc said:

Glad to see most feel as I do...don't use the toll lanes. From your pics (which I'll put more stock in than any anecdotes), it was you and one other car in sight.

I am the opposite I take the toll roads when cheaper LOL,    I know many don;t like these toll lanes but they are here to stay whether CINTRA is here 5 yrs from now or what.  

[jednc]

4 hours ago, KJHburg said:

I am the opposite I take the toll roads when cheaper LOL,    I know many don;t like these toll lanes but they are here to stay whether CINTRA is here 5 yrs from now or what.  

The lanes are here to stay...the tolls don't have to be.

[kermit]

In the mood for a Friday afternoon grenade. My apologies:

 

 

[KJHburg]

despite all the lanes of I-85 north being open the highway and its exits are still not done however they are creeping closer.  This is exit 63 in Kannapolis and there are now 2 traffic circles on either end of the bridge and they are very wide as there are 2 truck stops here on either side of the bridge.  Exit 58 the Concord Kannapolis exit is still not done and it will be a divulging diamond. 

Yesterday photos.  

first photo what is this truck doing in Charlotte on I-85 north promoting the ATL? 

Charlotte ring cities are ground zero for these interchange designs look at the list 

https://www.ncdot.gov/initiatives-policies/Transportation/safety-mobility/diverging-diamond-interchanges/Pages/default.aspx

Edited January 12, 2020 by KJHburg

[NCMike1990]

Youtuber "Mileage Mike" has posted new videos of I-85 in Cabarrus and Rowan Counties.

Nice to see I-85 is now 8 lanes all the way to Salisbury.

Check out some of his other videos around Charlotte and other NC  cities and towns.

 

 

[Third Strike]

I’ve noticed that the newer overpasses on I-85 in Cabarrus and Rowan have room for another lane in each direction. It wouldn’t surprise me to see toll lanes on I-85 someday, especially since I-77, I-485, and US 74 will have them. 

[Scribe]

On 1/10/2020 at 10:09 PM, kermit said:

In the mood for a Friday afternoon grenade. My apologies:

 

 

Commies have done this.

I find it fascinating how narrow minded some folks can be.  The freedom to move freely is one of the biggest economic advantages the American people have!

Now, you can ban diesel and gas all you want, but to ban personal transport would be like being shot point blank for the US economy.

[kermit]

32 minutes ago, Scribe said:

Commies have done this.

I find it fascinating how narrow minded some folks can be.  The freedom to move freely is one of the biggest economic advantages the American people have!

Now, you can ban diesel and gas all you want, but to ban personal transport would be like being shot point blank for the US economy.

Who said anything about banning cars?

 

[thenewkage95]

Who said anything about banning cars?
 

The quote said “not a lot of places where it’s allowed.” That’s a ban.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kermit]

13 minutes ago, thenewkage95 said:

The quote said “not a lot of places where it’s allowed.” That’s a ban.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Meh, I disagree. We currently have restrictions on where cars can go in Charlotte (Mint st on game days, the rail trail, etc.) but we don't call that a ban. Did we ban smoking or just make it "not allowed in a bunch of places"?

I guess reasonable people can disagree on semantics.

Edited January 13, 2020 by kermit

[Scribe]

1 minute ago, kermit said:

Meh, I disagree. But semantics....

Yeah, semantics, that's what it is.

[thenewkage95]

Meh, I disagree. We currently have restrictions on where cars can go in Charlotte (Mint st on game days, the rail trail, etc.) but we don't call that a ban. Did we ban smoking or just make it "not allowed in a bunch of places"?
I guess reasonable people can disagree on semantics.

@kermit while I don’t completely agree with how you feel about cars, I wholeheartedly respect your opinion. I think we definitely need to make changes and look at accessibility options as a city much more closely. I remember when I didn’t have a car and had to walk to work. I can tell the city wasn’t designed with pedestrians in mind and that’s a serious issue. I believe that the solution isn’t to simply restrict personal transportation. Unfortunately, Charlotte is over 300 sq miles and not densely enough built to warrant public transportation on par with that of NYC or Chicago. Restricting drivers will only make commute times, cost-of-living, reasonable access to the city’s amenities even more insane. Not to mention how it would stunt the growth and appeal of the city as a whole.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ertley]

The Twitter message posted that advocated making driving personal cars "inconvenient"--on the level with taking an airplane, it would seem to me--which is tantamount to a ban, effectively, I would say.  I think those sentiments are more than counter-productive; even if you agree with them, you shouldn't put them in print. I'm totally and completely supportive of mass transit--I take it every day and only drive a car once or twice a week, and that's because mass transit isn't as frequent or reliable on the weekends--and want mass transit to be at least equivalent to road construction, both in funding levels and priority, in the very near future. But even *I* start to see a little pink (maybe not fully red) when I read something like that, expressed as it is. If nothing else, it's incredibly classist and elitist, because the vast majority of people live in the suburbs, far and near, do so because they can't afford to buy in the city center, where things are walkable or accessible to DECENT mass transit. You make houses in Myers Park or Eastover or Foxcroft the same price as those in farthest reaches or Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, and see how many people would opt to move into the city. So many people live where they live because of economic exigency and nothing else, and they're forced to drive to work because it's the best option--economically, time-wise, logistically. 

Instead, folks like Jean Walsh need to reframe their public statements (at least) so say driving needs to become a less attractive option. And that's, IMO, not just a political stance, it's the moral, ethical and just stance as well. Don't penalize the people who can neigh afford any more economic stress than they already experience to more expediently--at least in the near term--achieve your ends. Instead, do it the right way: Make those that can pay--and I'm not talking about merely individuals here--pay for transit that can make driving redundant. Yes, a lot of people do like to drive at will, and will continue to do so, but with further improvements and innovations in car fuels, especially electric, cars on the road won't be the critical issue it is now, in terms of emissions, only congestion.No one likes driving in rush hour, or in congestion, and a well functioning transit system that provides equitable access and service will find itself at capacity and beyond if it's only built (and run well).  

I don't think I should have to mention--it should be plainly obvious to any thinking person in 2020--that some people, maybe the majority of people, just instinctively react--negatively--to any perception of choices both being made for them, and denied them. You end up creating far more resistance and unnecessary conflict with the kind of ill-chose language she (and thousands like her) used in that post. IMHO. 

Less stick, more carrot. 

[Nathan2]

33 minutes ago, ertley said:

The Twitter message posted that advocated making driving personal cars "inconvenient"--on the level with taking an airplane, it would seem to me--which is tantamount to a ban, effectively, I would say.  I think those sentiments are more than counter-productive; even if you agree with them, you shouldn't put them in print. I'm totally and completely supportive of mass transit--I take it every day and only drive a car once or twice a week, and that's because mass transit isn't as frequent or reliable on the weekends--and want mass transit to be at least equivalent to road construction, both in funding levels and priority, in the very near future. But even *I* start to see a little pink (maybe not fully red) when I read something like that, expressed as it is. If nothing else, it's incredibly classist and elitist, because the vast majority of people live in the suburbs, far and near, do so because they can't afford to buy in the city center, where things are walkable or accessible to DECENT mass transit. You make houses in Myers Park or Eastover or Foxcroft the same price as those in farthest reaches or Charlotte and Mecklenburg County, and see how many people would opt to move into the city. So many people live where they live because of economic exigency and nothing else, and they're forced to drive to work because it's the best option--economically, time-wise, logistically. 

Instead, folks like Jean Walsh need to reframe their public statements (at least) so say driving needs to become a less attractive option. And that's, IMO, not just a political stance, it's the moral, ethical and just stance as well. Don't penalize the people who can neigh afford any more economic stress than they already experience to more expediently--at least in the near term--achieve your ends. Instead, do it the right way: Make those that can pay--and I'm not talking about merely individuals here--pay for transit that can make driving redundant. Yes, a lot of people do like to drive at will, and will continue to do so, but with further improvements and innovations in car fuels, especially electric, cars on the road won't be the critical issue it is now, in terms of emissions, only congestion.No one likes driving in rush hour, or in congestion, and a well functioning transit system that provides equitable access and service will find itself at capacity and beyond if it's only built (and run well).  

I don't think I should have to mention--it should be plainly obvious to any thinking person in 2020--that some people, maybe the majority of people, just instinctively react--negatively--to any perception of choices both being made for them, and denied them. You end up creating far more resistance and unnecessary conflict with the kind of ill-chose language she (and thousands like her) used in that post. IMHO. 

Less stick, more carrot. 

You could also see it that in America  the only choice is basically cars. The choice has already been made, car travel is highly subsidized. Yet, when people want options to get other places like light rail and buss's people flip out that it needs to be profitable completely.  Car culture has in part made living in the city too expensive for people because buildings have to have parking structures that drive up the cost of rents. If anything cars is what is bankrupting people. The average cost of car ownership in america is about $8,000 and that doesnt include the whole monthly payment (source AAA). So I think people need to start realizing that we need to start making transit more equitable, which means choices. We cant get rid of cars. Cars will always be a part of transit, but the slice of the pie needs to decrease. Car infrastructure spending should not be the largest slice of the pie. 

[Scribe]

Holy $#!t people twisting themselves into knots trying to sound urbanist.

WE would not have ~90% of mainland US development if freedom of moving (that is provided by a personal car/van/truck and horse before the age of auto's) was not a cornerstone of the US economy.
That freedom gives individuals the ability to provide goods and services that otherwise would not be there, to explore new places - that are not at a Rail Station - for potential business ventures. Or sometimes just the simple freedom to not be a slave to a timetable!

Want to tax the $#!t out of gas/diesel for polluting the air, do it!
But that is not at all what those twitter profiles are about.
There are plenty of alternatives to fossil fueled cars. Good EV's are available form many manufacturers.
But clean air is not their goal -  they just hide behind it as a cover.
They want you to accept their world view or shame you every which way if you do not abide (in this case compare every non-smoking American to a smoker).

[kermit]

While I don't entirely disagree with your perspective, there are a couple of areas where we diverge in opinion.

On 1/13/2020 at 11:10 AM, ertley said:

But even *I* start to see a little pink (maybe not fully red) when I read something like that, expressed as it is. If nothing else, it's incredibly classist and elitist, because the vast majority of people live in the suburbs, far and near, do so because they can't afford to buy in the city center, where things are walkable or accessible to DECENT mass transit.

Is it not also "classist and elitist" to assume that everyone has access to a personal vehicle to get around? Not everyone can afford to, not everyone is able to,  nor does everyone want to. Why is it OK to make this assumption?   

Its true that its currently too expensive for many of us to live in a walkable place in the US.  One of the biggest causes of this expense is the need to build new urban housing and business so they accommodate cars (and parking spaces and wide roads are incredibly expensive). We just are not going to see cheaper walkable living options until we start to see cars as unsustainable luxury items, rather than as an appendage. 

The pricing of intown real estate (and roads) has long puzzled me.  The price of housing in walkable areas is high, we normally interpret high prices as a sign of high demand. But, instead of increasing supply (as the market is demanding), we just shrug our shoulders and say "infill is hard for developers and anyway people prefer the burbs so we will just build more suburban houses."   The free market market is failing to respond to market signals that we want more walkable options -- how do we fix this inefficiency without changing how we treat drivers?

The same rules apply to congestion. Congestion is a clear signal that roads are underpriced. Instead of raising the price of driving (which is what Jean Walsh is suggesting), we continue to subsidize drivers and just build more roads (something we know has no long term benefits). This is just insanity, particularly since gas tax revenues don't come close to paying the full cost of road use. Why do we force non-drivers and people who drive little to subsidize those who drive a bunch?  A case can be made that drivers are the largest welfare class in the country due to these subsidies.

On 1/13/2020 at 11:10 AM, ertley said:

I don't think I should have to mention--it should be plainly obvious to any thinking person in 2020--that some people, maybe the majority of people, just instinctively react--negatively--to any perception of choices both being made for them, and denied them. You end up creating far more resistance and unnecessary conflict with the kind of ill-chose language she (and thousands like her) used in that post. IMHO.

This does a great job of summarizing my perspective. Society forces me to live in a car culture, I was not given the option to live in any other environment. When people choose to drive that negatively impacts me, my family, my neighbors, my community and everyone here on this board. Every car on the road (or in  a parking lot) makes it more difficult for me to walk, bike, or develop real estate (since I gotta devote a large amount of each parcel to parking). Finally, every car on the road is  exacerbating climate change (transport is now the largest contributor to CO2). I am PISSED OFF that that is happening around me and there is nothing I can do about it. So my only option is to risk my life on my bike and attempt to shift the Overton Window against car culture wherever I can. Please don't tell me I need to be more civil to drivers -- they appear to be quite happy to destroy my community and limit my choices, fudge them.

Carrots haven't worked to reduce driving  (the Blue Line and a couple of disconnected bike lanes in Charlotte), so (IMO) its time for more stick (e.g. gas taxes that pay the full cost of building and maintaining roads as well as climate externalities, eliminating parking minimums, establishing a parking tax, etc.).

Edited January 16, 2020 by kermit

[Scribe]

You know, I would love for all utopian urbanists to come together, "put their money where their mouth is" so to speak, and start their own Town/City.

Don't ride on the back of someone else's "dirty" work, but build from the ground up.

Attract talent, generate a tax revenue, deal with crime (oh wait you have no crime in a utopia) and make it a self sustained place.

Here's a primer on how to incorporate your own town: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2005/11/how-do-you-start-your-own-town.html

This past week, I was driving my Bolt down Park Rd (yes, I only own EV's and the Bolt is a fine EV), and stopped at a light behind a Volvo with the following bumper sticker

I did not know at that particular moment whether I wanted to laugh or cry. Reading your posts and some responses, I am taken back to that exact moment.

So, go on, make a self sustaining utopia, prove all the naysayers wrong.

[southslider]

On 1/13/2020 at 2:15 PM, Scribe said:

Attract talent, generate a tax revenue, deal with crime, and make it a self-sustained place.

Sounds like a hornet's nest of rebellion.

[pgsinger]

We can all discuss our own preferences of transit options, but thanks to the beautiful diversity of this country (and forum), we will never have consensus.  In my opinion, I would much rather see these conversations (particularly at the policy creation level as opposed to dinner conversations) focus on the subsidies provided to the various options.  Currently, there are numerous subsidies in zoning ordinances and tax expenditures that greatly benefit cars.  This disguises the true public cost of driving.  This makes obtaining public funding for other sources of transit (bike lanes, designated bus lanes, and light and commuter rail) seem relatively more expensive.  If we compared the cost of the Silver Line, or even the entire transit "Big Bang," to the actual cost of providing cheap roads and parking, then the differences would not be nearly as great.  Currently, the general public sees roads as free and mass transit as extremely expensive.  This is simply not an accurate comparison.

This argument is really applicable to many other urbanist concepts as well, such as urban vs. suburban living.  Using broad based taxpayer fund to widen roads serving suburbs is a redistribution of wealth from urban areas suburban areas.  It also misconstrues the costs of living in a less dense area.  Toll roads tax the use of the roads.  Therefore, they are a more fair tax and not a redistribution of wealth.   If suburban and rural residents paid the true costs of living in those areas, there may be less desire to live there.

Note, I am not saying urban is always better than suburban/rural.  I am sure there are other costs that urbanites do not feel that suburban residents do.  My point is that we should focus on the true costs of each policy when comparing them, and individual preferences should be secondary in the policy discussion.

[Scribe]

3 hours ago, pgsinger said:

If we compared the cost of the Silver Line, or even the entire transit "Big Bang," to the actual cost of providing cheap roads and parking, then the differences would not be nearly as great.  Currently, the general public sees roads as free and mass transit as extremely expensive.  This is simply not an accurate comparison.

First, these are simply inaccurate statements.

Looking from economic impact point of view, roads allow for the most diverse set of uses.

• Emergency services (would you like your EMT's relying on public transport)
• All goods based businesses.
• All time critical businesses.
• On location service based industries.
• Roads are the single method of transport that allows the gov't to spend only on half of the infrastructure (just the road - not the vehicle) everything else requires both.
  • they offload the capex, opex and insurance for all private cars on the user.

Can you provide the same services with just light rail and bus service?

In a growing metro like Charlotte, you need a good balance of different modes of transport.  There are some on this forum (not limited to @kermit ) that are anti-road to the point that they are blinded to all other economic factors that are in play.

For example, take the statement below:

On 1/13/2020 at 5:42 PM, kermit said:

Every car on the road (or in  a parking lot) makes it more difficult for me to walk, bike, or develop real estate (since I gotta devote a large amount of each parcel to parking)

With a blanket statement like that there is a lot to cover, but I will hit only 2 points:

1. completely lets off the hook all the previous City and CDOT planners that neglected sidewalks all together. (it wasn't until mid 2000's that there was even a funded plan to actually get sidewalks in 'all of Uptown', but that is somehow ROADS fault)
   • Taking everyone into consideration must start at the very beginning of any project - this includes taking into account private vehicles.
   • Good planning goes a long way...
2. about the extra cost of parking - has anyone here ever wondered how much more in property tax you would be paying to cover the huge capital and operating costs of a much larger system
   • CATS is 80% (according to the 2020 budget) dependent on taxpayer funds and the number seems to go up ~1% every year.
   • Also, if you "made cars legal only in few places" like the tweet that started this discussion, you are basically creating a class system in your city. Those that live near enough to benefit and all the rest that are left to take a 90 minute bus ride.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Scribe

[Scribe]

Now, if you change the subject whether gas/diesel should be banned as a fuel source, I'm all ears!

I will be first to sign that petition and I will show up for any debate that needs a show of support!
That is a public health, environmental and a geopolitical crisis all wrapped up in one nasty little liquid!