Jump to content

Traffic Congestion and Highway Construction


monsoon

Recommended Posts


There is also something fundamentally wrong with the way that [someone] is designing or installing these lighting systems. My concern is that we will have just spent a few million of our road building allocation to rebuild the lights on Brookshire just to have them be mostly out in 3-5 years. 85 was just widened between Sugar Creek and 485 a few years ago, yet if you drive through there now, there are already a significant number of the bulbs dark. It is not yet a majority, but it won't take much longer to become that.

The fact that Barry Moose has not yet come and seen the issue is absolutely insane! How long has this been a very vocal issue in the public square. Does Barry Moose even get the Observer way out there?

At least it doesn't appear that Albemarle has gotten more DOT funding from there, but it certainly prevents them from sharing in the pain of their incompetence!

This is not a funding issue, it is a management issue. There is surely a warrany on some of that work that the bulbs or systems should not go dark so quickly!

One question I have is whether Duke themselves installs those lights as they would for regular streetlights. Are they metered or are they paid per streetlight? My theory is that Duke does not have much incentive to put in a good system if they can still be paid for the theoretical electricity of a lamp that isn't actually pulling electricity. I'm pretty sure regular streetlights are paid by lamp and not from actual usage, which is why they must come fix them if called. Something is very screwy, and my theory is that some one must be making money somewhere for this to be so prevalent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a different subject, the draft 2009-2015 TIP is online and includes the funding for the Yadkin River Bridge project which had been delayed before. The funding for the $350m project comes in between 2009 and 2013.

http://ncdot.org/planning/development/TIP/...ns/pdf/div9.pdf

While most of you complain about Salisbury widenining their part of 85, what most of you don't realize is that before it was widened, it was a very dangerous stretch. The last of the really dangerous parts of 85 is the bridge over the Yadkin where most us hold our breath until we're through. But really, while they have the ability to upgrade it because they are a different DOT division than Charlotte, the majority of traffic on that stretch is headed to and from Charlotte or else is true interstate traffic. As a city, we benefit from having that stretch widened just as much as we benefit from having the stretch in Cabarrus widened.

Once the Yadkin bridge area is completed, joining with the stretch being widened north of Salisbury which is almost complete, 85 will have been widened all the way past Durham with the only exception of Cabarrus County. Cabarrus has been handicapped by being in our division, so that must compete with other projects within Charlotte. However, they are using bonds to speed up the funding of the stretch of 85 in Cabarrus between 485 and NC73 in Concord. The only part that now remains unfunded in the short term (next 5 years) will be the stretch around Kannapolis between NC 73 and China Grove (14 miles). Given that the section in 85 is pretty safe with a decent median and shoulder, I'd far rather have the Yadkin river project come first.

I almost was in a bad accident on the widened stretch in Salisbury when a goat ran in front of the car in front of us and the car behind was following too closely. (Yes, you read that a goat was attempting to cross 85 and darted out from the median to cross 85). Had it not been widened, all the cars related would not have had the space to avoid the crash. In the end, no cars touched and the goat fled to safety. An odd story for certain, but the point is that not only do the rebuilt interstates help us from a capacity standpoint when leaving the city, but the full shoulders, and the fact that they are not way over capacity helps significantly from a safety point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some more good news about NCDOT finally getting off its duff and doing something about Charlotte's dark interstates. Saturday's Observer detailed how the state plans to fix the burnt out lights along I-77 and I-85 throughout the county. This is in addition to the repairs that will be done to the I-277 loop, which were recently announced. The even better news is that the state isn't robbing Charlotte of road BUILDING money for these repairs the way it is for the I-277 lighting - the money will be coming from a maintenance fund, as it should. Apparently the first lights to be repaired are along I-77 at the Lasalle St. exit as early as next week. (As for myself, I'll believe it when I see the lights burning.) The article noted that, just as an example of the problem, there are at least 250 lights on I-77 between uptown and I-485. Only 63 of them are working, which means that 75% of them are not. Between Tyvola and Woodlawn Roads alone, only 9 of 53 lights are operable (83% burnt out)!

The article states that Barry Moose, the NCDOT division engineer that oversees Charlotte, got into a van with other DOT engineers back in November and drove on Mecklenburg's interstates at night. One of the engineers quoted Moose as saying he wanted to "see the problem for himself" and that he was "very surprised and very concerned" to see the number of lights that were out. WHAT??! This has been an ongoing problem since at least the 1990s and Charlotte has been very vocal about the issue, so just how in the world can ANY of this come as a surprise to Barry Moose or anyone else?

My jaw dropped even more when I read that the state doesn't even have a formal schedule for checking roadway lighting in Charlotte. Of course, they also mention that having our highway division's office way the heck out in Albemarle tends to mean we're out of sight, out of mind for DOT officials. (Who in the world decided that the middle of Stanly County was the best place to put the traffic division office for the state's largest metropolitan area?) In the Triangle, says the article, an annual inspection of highways is done that includes lighting. So, why isn't that the case here?? Furthermore, Triangle DOT traffic engineer Steve Johnson is quoted as saying that he doesn't remember a time when a large segment of a Raleigh-Durham area freeway was almost completely dark. For anyone who thinks that Charlotte isn't treated like the redheaded stepchild where roads and road maintenance are concerned, or that our sister cities in the Triangle don't get better service from the DOT, I think Mr. Johnson's quote pretty much blows a hole in their argument.

Here is the article. ^I live in Raleigh and I can tell you for a fact, there are no freeway lights anywhere, except maybe one or two at certain interchanges. The only major sections of freeway in the Triangle that have lights are the just built (2006-07) sections of US1/64 in Cary and I-85 in Durham. FWIW.

The division office should be more accountable and responsive. No way around that. The divisions were set up in the 30s and 40s at a time when NC was unmistakably rural... it's probably time to change the structure and decentralize.

One question I have is whether Duke themselves installs those lights as they would for regular streetlights.

I'm pretty sure Duke only installs lights on city streets. DOT installs the freeway lights because of the tremendous hazard involved. It requires special triaining I think... cars speeding by at 70+mph and all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I happened to be driving down 77 tonight, and the lights appear to be (mostly) on between LaSalle and Brookshire. There are a few random lights that are out, but it must be that circuit that they still have to fix. Seeing it with the lights on makes it a much more stark comparison to the section below Brookshire that has the lights still off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Windsor Mayor Bob Spivey said the bypass is needed to boost the economy in northeast North Carolina. Future plans include creating a major corridor from Winton in Hertford County to his Bertie County town.

"Jobs and opportunities of the future and for the generations to come are the ones that are really going to benefit from it," Spivey said. "You've got to have the vision now."

I wish Mayor Bob Spivey would spell out how its going to boost the economy. These kinds of bypasses are built all over the place, and I have yet to figure out how they benefit anyone.

Edited by tozmervo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish Mayor Bob Spivey would spell out how its going to boost the economy. These kinds of bypasses are built all over the place, and I have yet to figure out how they benefit anyone.

In particular, a bypass around a tiny town is like a bullet in the heart of the community. True, this might generate a new gas station and perhaps even a Burger King if they're lucky... but it will mean that visitors no longer pass through the core of the town. Mom and Pop can go ahead and close up shop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whats interesting to me is that if you look at a map of that town, the retail/strip centers are only 5 or 6 blocks away from what appears to be downtown. Even beyond that, I can't imagine there is much congestion there. Their rush hour might be longer than 10 minutes if there is a tractor on the commute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole Ahoskie bypass thing strikes me as a prime example of the Eastern NC-centered mentality we have to deal with when it comes to road building in this state. Here you have a tiny little town where local politicians want to build a completely unnecessary bypass for "economic" reasons (and manage to funnel in the money for it), while the booming urban areas of the Piedmont choke on traffic and can't get decent roads. Business as usual "Down East."

Edited by PlazaMidwoodGuy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole Ahoskie bypass thing strikes me as a prime example of the Eastern NC-centered mentality we have to deal with when it comes to road building in this state. Here you have a tiny little town where local politicians want to build a completely unnecessary bypass for "economic" reasons (and manage to funnel in the money for it), while the booming urban areas of the Piedmont choke on traffic and can't get decent roads. Business as usual "Down East."

I pointed out this story because I think it is symptomatic of two problems in NC: the rapid growth and increasing needs of the urban centers--mostly Charlotte, Triad, Triangle-- combined with the economic decline in many rural communities in the east and west. I completely understand the reaction of Charloteans and other city-dwellers who feel their tax dollars are being wasted, but I think the urban-rural transportation divide will never be solved without taking steps toward solving the economic problems in rural NC.

For example, I think McCrory will be making a huge mistake if, combined with his proposed urban transportation reforms, he does not come up with a plan to somehow begin to address the economic decline of rural NC. As much as we'd like to push it under the rug, and say to them 'just move to the city', that won't cut it. Certainly, building hundred-million dollar highway bypasses aren't the answer, but there has to be a plan to deal with it.

Again, the Governor, whoever that is, will still have to work with the mostly-rural legislature to get any major reform approved. Only after the 2010 census and redistricting, are we likely to see any major shifts in the political makeup of the body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was born and raised in southeastern NC. I know first hand the need for roads in eastern NC . Try driving in Wilmington today on College and Market streets. But we need to look at the areas that are going the fastest which vary across NC.

Charlotte does not get back near what it puts in the state road funds, but needs have grown over the years and if they are not address soon, we could lose Federal funds due to EPA standards. If you are going to kill Charlotte, Triad, and Trangle you will also kill othe projects in the state that do not complely fund their own road projects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone is suggesting that new roads in the eastern part of the state should not be built at all, but that there should be some more thought behind the processes that build them. I think that building bypasses around random towns is not the answer, but that certainly there are other worthy projects in eastern NC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone is suggesting that new roads in the eastern part of the state should not be built at all, but that there should be some more thought behind the processes that build them. I think that building bypasses around random towns is not the answer, but that certainly there are other worthy projects in eastern NC.

I think there is truly a lack of education in regards to the highway planning process. If there was more information available, the public (citizens and elected officials) would understand why certain decision are made, delays occur in planning and so forth. So, in a few lines I will attempt to enlighten folks.

Relevant Environmetal Laws

Section 404 Clean Water Act (CWA) - This specific section of the CWA applies to fill being placed in rivers, streams, and wetlands. The amounts of impacts (linear feet for steams and acres for wetlands) dictate the type of permit that is required. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the state Division of Water Quality (DWQ) are the issuing authorities. As they are responsible for issuing permits, they are very involved in the planning process....playing a major role in the selected alignment and the determination of whether a bridge or a culvert is constructed at at crossing.....thus affecting construction costs.

Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act - Seeks to protect historic properties that have been identified and seeks to ID potential properties. Does not require avoidance alternative (see Section 4f of USDOT Act) but does require a consultation process with the State Historic Preservation Office.

Clean Air Act - This is especially important for urban areas that are in meeting federally dictate air quality standards. As the legislation seeks to reduce air pollution, it's important that major highway projects will not result in an increase in air pollution. This applies more during the long-range planning but does have project specific implications MSATs (mobile source air toxins). The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the authority on this legislation.

Section 6(f) Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) - The LWCF is a funding source for recreation facilities. Section 6(f) requires that if a transportation project converts land from a site funded by LWCF, an replacement site will be necessary and the DOT is required to purchase the site. The National Park Service is the authority on this law.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Environmental Justice) - Historically, highways were built through the cheapest land possible. Which meant through minority and low income neighborhoods. Environmental Justice seeks to insure that EJ populations are not disproportionately impacted by federally funded projects. This does not mean that minorities or low income populations can not be impacted. The key word is disproportionately.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act - This law does exactly what it states, seeks to protect endangered species. NC has about 66 endangered and threatened species that range from bats and squirrels to mussels and turtles. This requires that any federal agency (FHWA typically funds NCDOT Projects) shall not carry out any action (highway construction) that will jeopardize the existence of any endangered species. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is the approval authority. This also requires special surveys to identify and locate endangered species within a prposed project area. Often times these surveys have small windows (timeframes) in which they can be conducted.

Section 4(f) of the DOT Act of 1966 - Section 4(f) seeks to protect cultural resources. These include historic sites and districts, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and pulic parks. Section 4(f) requires that if a highway project has an adverse impact on the subject facility, an avoidance alternative needs to be studied and only allows for usage of the subject park, facility, gameland etc if there is no prudent or feasible alternative. This often results in bypass around towns with historic districts in their downtown areas....especially when the highway being upgrade passes through the town and preferred cross-section can not be squeezed through town without impacting the historic properties or parks. The Federal Highway Authority is the approval authority and the State Historic Preservation Offic (SHPO) if there are historic properties.

Other Coordinating Agencies

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission(FERC) - If the project impacts a lake or portion of a watershed upstream of a power plant.

Division of Coastal Management - Administers Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permits....Controls will or dredgin in the 20 coastal counties of NC.

US Coast Guard - If a project involves bridging a waterway that is maintained for marine traffic (commercial or recreational).

Federal Aviation Administration - If a project is within the approach or takeoff path of an airport and includes any structures that may impact aircraft takeoffs and landings.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) - if the project is impacting a floodplain, coordination with FEMA regarding the hydraulic structures is necessary.

There are other laws and agencies. But I think you all get the picture. On top of all of the agency coordinaton dictated by law, there is the public input that is required. Any transportation facility is going to affect numerous people....whether through the acquisition of right of way, noise impacts, lighting, altering of travel patterns, and any development that may occur due to a potential highway project coming. There is always NIMBY.

Combine all of this and statewide and regional transportation plans and political pressures and you have the potential for numerous delays in planning and design, funding shortfalls, lawsuits, and alignments that don't make sense to the uninformed individual.

I hope this helped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is truly a lack of education in regards to the highway planning process. If there was more information available, the public (citizens and elected officials) would understand why certain decision are made, delays occur in planning and so forth. So, in a few lines I will attempt to enlighten folks.

Usually there is a "committee" that is supposed to look at things like this and report back to the General Assembly. I don't know if the NC legislature has one or not. Does anyone else know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usually there is a "committee" that is supposed to look at things like this and report back to the General Assembly. I don't know if the NC legislature has one or not. Does anyone else know?

Legislative Committee or not.....these are federal government policies and because a federal agency is the funding authority...i.e. the FHWA, they have to be followed. Now, what has been done is the "merging" of the National Policy Act (NEPA which mandated the whole Environmental Impact Study Process) and the Section 404 of the CWA into what is called the Merger Process. Included in the process are the USFWS and (responsible for Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act), EPA (responsible for various enivornmental policy oversight), NC Division of Water Quality (Clean Water Act), NC State Historic Preservation Officef (Section 4(f) and Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Office), NC Wildlife Resouces Commission, US Coast Guard (when applicable), Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indian, Tennessee Valley Authority, and some others as needed.

These agencies are involved in defining the Purpose and Need of the projects which determines the study area and they are also involved in the approval of alignments and alternatives that are developed and approved as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practical Alternative (LEDPA). This insures that the requirements of the various legislation are met as the projects move through the development process. However, issues to arise when trying meet all of the agencies expectations and goals while attempting to meet the goals of the proposed transportation improvement. There are constant attempts to streamline the process. However, the environmental fieldwork, data collection, and report writing is always time consuming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was in Davidson today. Had not been in awhile. I really like how they integrated Davidson Commons, their new commercial node just off 77. It really does not detract from the old town and the style and connectivity with the two roundabouts and walkability is just great. Single family and multi-family are grouped near each other with easy walkable access to the new HT and new sidewalk storefronts. Davidson is cutesy to point of :sick::lol: but it's all just so sensible and flows great. I wish we had such a mindset in Charlotte planning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.