Traffic Congestion and Highway Construction

[Andyc545]

I've seen a "Clean Air" CATS bus that runs on natural gas but not a Wachovia bus. It looks kinda funny cause it has a weird top that seems twice the size of a normal bus.

That pretty much describes these Wachovia busses. I wonder if Wachovia is leasing them out from CAT's for promotional opportunities or I wonder if maybe CAT's is trying out advertisements on a select few of their busses to increase revenue in caution of the 1/2 cent tax being turned down.

[dubone]

Wachovia might either sponsor the bus (note that Pat Mumford, on city council, is the head of green initiatives for Wachovia), or it could be that Wachovia uses the hybrid or natural gas bus vehicle for the shuttle between their S Tryon campus and CIC. That route is funded entirely by Wachovia, so a fancy bus on that route would be paid for Wachovia. They might have wanted to get their name on it to show that their money is going toward the green bus. It adds customer goodwill, and also maybe is helped in funding by their new green initiatives to paint them as an environmentally friendly company.

[Andyc545]

Wachovia might either sponsor the bus (note that Pat Mumford, on city council, is the head of green initiatives for Wachovia), or it could be that Wachovia uses the hybrid or natural gas bus vehicle for the shuttle between their S Tryon campus and CIC. That route is funded entirely by Wachovia, so a fancy bus on that route would be paid for Wachovia. They might have wanted to get their name on it to show that their money is going toward the green bus. It adds customer goodwill, and also maybe is helped in funding by their new green initiatives to paint them as an environmentally friendly company.

I haven't ever seen that bus at CIC (I work there), not to say that it isn't and I've just failed to see it. It didn't have one of those electric message boards on the front that says "CIC / Uptown" or whatever, leading me to believe it's not oriented with CAT's, unless if it is something new and they are just testing it uptown.

[Raintree21]

Charlotte Observer article

So apparently the City of Charlotte is trying to plan how neighborhoods are being developed. The city planners say they tried to change the rules for new developments 2 years ago but were voted down by the City Council after land developers raised too many objections. They are going to try again now and make blocks shorter and more connective, wider sidewalks, more bike lanes and stop lights that will change for bicyclists, and wide planting strips in the middle of the road.

The proposed guideline changes and CDOT is asking for people to fill out a survey here. For the survey, click the blue-green box on the right side of the screen.

The City Council will hear public comments on the Urban Street Design Guidelines during their July 23rd Council Meeting. To register to speak, you must call 704-336-2248 no later than 4:00 p.m. the day of the meeting.

Edited July 23, 2007 by Raintree21

[orulz]

Even if CDOT does manage to pass these changes, they can't make 'em retroactive - which is a shame.

[dubone]

They can't make them retroactive, but they can do some work to reconnect streets. If there is some money that is budgeted to go along with this, they can help to remedy it somewhat. The key is to provide second, third, fourth or more connection points to other neighborhoods and other thoroughfares. I know when I have stayed at houses in culdesac neighborhoods, I've figured out how to wind my way to the exit to the thoroughfare I've wanted to get to. Of course, it relied on those connections to be there.

In the older core of Charlotte, there is probaby both a higher need to add connectivity retroactively and a higher ability to do that, through older rights of way.

Mainly, it is unfortunately that even highly connected siteplans, like Crescent's IKEA/Belgate project, use curvilinear street designs, and large block sizes. If only we could get Dilworth style urban design, with denser blocks that have the highest connectivity factor.

Mainly, people need to understand that the culdesac neighborhood design creates higher government costs that result in taxes, and more traffic. The problem is that in the suburban mindset, there is often a belief that you should get to have it without consequences.

[Raintree21]

Seems like people in general don't want connectivity in the neighborhoods because it increases the traffic cutting through "their" streets. Properties on cul-de-sacs are more highly prized because you know that not many people are going to come down your road.

[dubone]

But all of society pays for upkeep on that asphalt. Really, aphalt is for cars, not for children. It seems to me that if they want their kids to play on the street, then we should approve all the culdesacs possible, but then limit all the housing lots to 1/10th of an acre. If you have a dedicated 1/3 of an acre for a yard and a big house, then keep you kids there, or take them to one of the dumps, I mean, county parks. But don't expect an expensive asphalt street to be a playground.

If the issue is just car noise or something, then there is no answer other than to get over their personal problem of selfishness. The fact is, this city can not function with the selfish model put in place in the area of suburban sprawl. It is not a sustainable model.

The overarching problems of traffic and taxes trump the individual desire to have no one else from their neighborhood on the street near them.

[monsoon]

..... If only we could get Dilworth style urban design, with denser blocks that have the highest connectivity factor....

I find it ironic that several streets in Dilworth have been blocked off to create cul-de-sacs for the people living there. Maybe the city could set an example and remove these barriors. I think there are also some in Myers Park.

[Justadude]

For that matter, even in newer developments bordering uptown, such as Wesley Heights, cul-de-sacs are still being used as the basis for neighborhood design. It's hard to believe that nobody called a halt to that kind of planning before it was allowed to be built.

[Mobuchu]

I find it ironic that several streets in Dilworth have been blocked off to create cul-de-sacs for the people living there. Maybe the city could set an example and remove these barriors. I think there are also some in Myers Park.

I've been told the original reason for this was to prevent crime and numerous ways to escape. Of course we all know that just backfires because a man on foot can get away just as easily. I agree though, they need to start taking these bariers out. Kingston at Euclid comes to mind. They are all over the intown neighborhoods though, major connections could easily be made.

Iverson from Ideal to Poindexter.

Iverson accross the S. LRT line to Dunavant

Lexington to E. Carson

Belrose from Scaleybark to Heather Ln. Would provide an alternative to congested Park/Woodlawn. Instead they made a walking path.

I could name dozens of these.....

[Spartan]

If you read the USDG, you will find that many of the questions and comments that have been posted are addressed in some form.

They can't make them retroactive, but they can do some work to reconnect streets. If there is some money that is budgeted to go along with this, they can help to remedy it somewhat. The key is to provide second, third, fourth or more connection points to other neighborhoods and other thoroughfares. I know when I have stayed at houses in culdesac neighborhoods, I've figured out how to wind my way to the exit to the thoroughfare I've wanted to get to. Of course, it relied on those connections to be there.

In the older core of Charlotte, there is probaby both a higher need to add connectivity retroactively and a higher ability to do that, through older rights of way.

Mainly, it is unfortunately that even highly connected siteplans, like Crescent's IKEA/Belgate project, use curvilinear street designs, and large block sizes. If only we could get Dilworth style urban design, with denser blocks that have the highest connectivity factor.

Mainly, people need to understand that the culdesac neighborhood design creates higher government costs that result in taxes, and more traffic. The problem is that in the suburban mindset, there is often a belief that you should get to have it without consequences.

They would be retroactive in that new developments in old neighborhoods would have to comply with the new regs. I have it on good authority that some of the mistakes of the past in older neighborhoods like Dilworth will be corrected. New connecting streets and whatnot. Obviously you can't fix everything overnight. Change in these neighborhoods and especially the ones outside of route 4 that really need it will be a long term process. I think that we are fortunate in Charlotte to have leaders are more foreward thinking than most other cities in the South. I just hope that the developers don't get their way this time.

For that matter, even in newer developments bordering uptown, such as Wesley Heights, cul-de-sacs are still being used as the basis for neighborhood design. It's hard to believe that nobody called a halt to that kind of planning before it was allowed to be built.

Thats because the current regs allow it. You cant stop a development that meets all current requirements. If the USDG is passed, that would change.

[Justadude]

^ I was thinking more in terms of neighborhood associations, Center City Partners, or other interested private parties. Personally I would be PISSED if I invested in Wesley Heights property only to have a suburban-style subdivision sprout up across the street.

[Pathmaker]

USDG Survey

Let the city know what you think of the proposed Urban Street Design Guidelines by following this link:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=Tdrz...ljejzdXXQ_3d_3d

Edited July 26, 2007 by Pathmaker

[uptownliving]

If the North Carolina Division of Air Quality (NCDAQ) has its way then it is projected that ALL Federal money for Roads and Transit in Mecklenburg, Cabarrus, Gaston, Iredell, Lincoln, Union, and Rowan counties will be cut off in about 1 year due to Air Quality non-attainment.

The interesting thing is that it will be Iredell and Union counties that could cause us to reach Air Quality non-attainment.

This could be avoided if NCDAQ and the EPA allow a multi-county approach instead of budgeting for each county individually. The problem with the individual county approach is that if just one county fails the non-attainment then the whole region fails and therefore gets its funding cut. CDOT is pleading with NCDAQ to take a regional approach and look at all the counties collectivelly instead of individually. If the counties are looked at collectively then it is projected that we will meet air quality standards and therefore will keep federal transit and road funding.

Here is a letter that CDOT has sent to the EPA regarding this VERY important decision for our region.

[monsoon]

It's probably a good thing if road funding is cut off from the area for a while. The real reason for all the pollution is the continued approval of such poor quality developments such as Northlake mall and IKEA, that end up causing thousands of additional car trips being added each year and this is where the real problem exists. Charlotte has known about this problem for more than a decade yet the city council gives lip service to a comprehensive plan that addresses air pollution.

It should be noted that Charlotte has had day after day of code orange air pollution days and its expected that we will see this for most of August. A cut off of funding will make the city finally do something about it.

It should also be noted that S. Iredell has an issue with air pollution because of Duke Energy's Marshall Steam Station located west of Mooresville in the middle of Lake Norman. This is a coal fired electrical generation plant that currently is ranked as the 3rd dirtiest in NC and the 25th dirtiest in the entire nation. Charlotte based Duke Energy has consistently fought rules in the courts that would require it to clean up this plant as well as several others in the area that affect Charlotte's air pollution. Fortunately the EPA has chosen this plant to test some new technology for cleaning air but realistically Duke needs to be forced to invest some money in these places to make them cleaner.

(The 4th most polluting plant in the state is the Allen Steam Plan located due west of Charlotte on the Gaston county side of the Catawba river but it emits 3x less pollution as Marshal)

[Spartan]

It's probably a good thing if road funding is cut off from the area for a while. The real reason for all the pollution is the continued approval of such poor quality developments such as Northlake mall and IKEA, that end up causing thousands of additional car trips being added each year and this is where the real problem exists. Charlotte has known about this problem for more than a decade yet the city council gives lip service to a comprehensive plan that addresses air pollution.

It should be noted that Charlotte has had day after day of code orange air pollution days and its expected that we will see this for most of August. A cut off of funding will make the city finally do something about it.

Do you mean do something about the crappy developments or about transportation (be it roads or transit)?

[ChiefJoJo]

The AQ issue is a VERY complex one. I won't go into the details, but it will likely be worked out. As I said on the transit topic, if the citizens vote down the tax and the 2030 plan goes away, I guarantee that won't help the region's poor AQ.

On a slightly brighter note, WRAL reports that state GA may decide to hold a special fall session on transportation needs. Most lawmakers say they didn't get to the issue, but that it needs to be dealt with. Certainly the terrible Minneapolis tragedy may help put a bit more pressure on the politicians to get something done in terms of funding. The major issue will likely be statewide toll gap funding, that will help build various projects around the state. Given what happened this week in MN, I hope they can get moving on the Yadkin River Bridge, as it always rates among the worst in the state. I would argue that among all the state turnpike projects if you strip away local politics and look at strategic statewide need, the Yadkin River I-85 Bridge is the most critical (and it's not even officially on the list).

EDIT: Here is an N&O article that mentions the GA might even look at the existing "equity formula" that everyone hates, although I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Raintree21]

The new "Dr. Traffic" from the Observer is reporting that the NC DOT is FINALLY going to be installing new lights on 277. They hope to have it done by the summer of 2008. They will be implementing the new solar lights that were tested out, but with one exception. They will be using a brighter bulb just developed in order to meet minimum brightness standards. The new lights are projected to cost $1.8 million compared to the $6-8 million needed to repair the old conventional lights.

[PlazaMidwoodGuy]

The new "Dr. Traffic" from the Observer is reporting that the NC DOT is FINALLY going to be installing new lights on 277. They hope to have it done by the summer of 2008. They will be implementing the new solar lights that were tested out, but with one exception. They will be using a brighter bulb just developed in order to meet minimum brightness standards. The new lights are projected to cost $1.8 million compared to the $6-8 million needed to repair the old conventional lights.

I read that and agree that it's (basically) good news. The fact that the state is even bothering to address the issue is a positive sign and I'm all for lighting that is both functional and "green." However, Dr. Traffic states that the lights on I-277 have been burned out for months. Not true -- they've been burned out for many years....most of the last 10 years, at least. Same goes for the lights on the section of I-77 that runs by uptown. Frankly, I can't even remember the last time there were functioning streetlights at the Brookshire/I-77 interchange. And the lights for overhead freeway signs? Forget it.

While NCDOT sat around watching the lights burn out on Charlotte interstates for the last decade without bothering to maintain or repair them, we've now gone dark along most of I-77 south of uptown and the majority of I-85...even on the recently widened section from University City to the Cabarrus County line, and those lights are brand-spanking new, comparatively speaking. NCDOT seems to have the attitude that freeway lighting in congested urban areas is some sort of luxury, as opposed to basic safety concern. Of course, as I've stated before, you won't see many burned out freeway lights in the Triangle or Triad.

It still amazes me that it is taking YEARS to address this problem. I know I know....money is tight. Well what was the state's excuse way back in the 90s when this problem started....BEFORE there was a budget crunch?

Edited August 5, 2007 by PlazaMidwoodGuy

[JerseyBoy]

Of course, as I've stated before, you won't see many burned out freeway lights in the Triangle or Triad.

Not true at all, in fact you are lucky enough to even have street lamp poles. Most roads around the Triad or Triangle don't even have those.

[RiverwoodCLT]

Guess what? Our law makers in Raleigh took more money out of the Highway Trust Fund this year to fund their pet projects.

[Creasy336]

Of course, as I've stated before, you won't see many burned out freeway lights in the Triangle or Triad.

I guess you've never driven on I-40 through Durham and Raleigh where there are NO lights at all and it seems like you're driving through the forest.

[PlazaMidwoodGuy]

I guess you've never driven on I-40 through Durham and Raleigh where there are NO lights at all and it seems like you're driving through the forest.

I stand corrected...well partially anyway. It's true that many of the freeways in those areas have no lights at all, but the same can be said for parts of Charlotte's interstates. Not all sections have lights. The point is that the lights we DO have don't work and haven't for years and the state doesn't maintain them.

Edited August 6, 2007 by PlazaMidwoodGuy

[monsoon]

Is there any point to arguing which city has it worse, Charlotte or Raleigh? I don't think so.