Jump to content

monsoon

Traffic Congestion and Highway Construction

Recommended Posts

Seems to me that the Brookshire would be easy to remove between church and at least Brevard; maybe it could go as far east as Davidson or even E 10th.

 

Not sure how much traffic the Brookshire carries, but one way pairs are very effective at carrying a lot of traffic. 11th/12th could be modified to carry most of the load, and the rest would just get absorbed by the grid.

 

The ideal time for this would be whenever the Brookshire is up for complete reconstruction (It's an old road so it can't be that long...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Brookshire gets very busy in the morning and afternoon. It's not unusual for it to be crawling during rush hour. I'd be surprised if removing Brookshire would do anymore than hurt the situation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the state has any intention to remove the Brookshire, it's just something people here suggested. Charlotte wants or ideally thinking of turning NC 16 from I-485 into an expressway, having an expressway/freeway corridor from NW Charlotte to SE Charlotte via Independence. Besides the state's plan of HOV/HOT on I-77 requires a reconstruction of Brookshire interchange with I-77 up to the Graham Street vicinity, its goal is to disperse HOV/HOT traffic from I-77 onto I-277.

Edited by Shawn&Zae

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually think it's more likely we could loose John Belk,. My guess is that JB doesn't carry nearly as much through-traffic as Brookshire. Why cap it when you can just get rid of it entirely? :)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, it looks like some citizens in North Charlotte are protesting against the idea of using HOT lanes on I-77. It seems like NIMBYs are protesting almost all ideas improving transit, except for building more general purpose lanes. Red Line save us:

 

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/15/3728382/i-77-toll-lanes-questioned.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think NIMBY as a term is being over-used. 

 

But yes, I agree, the general population are usually woefully uninformed.    I remember when it first came out, even the opinion columnists and radio talkers were going crazy.  But what they don't realize is that they are actually opposing capitilism in favor of socialism when they want the government to give them unlimited FREEway capacity which results in an inefficient use of resources, but then do not like the idea of variable market pricing to allow rational consumers to decide when it is worth it for them to use a lane versus waiting in traffic for free.  

 

People always prefer government entitlements and handouts.  But when designing an efficient transportation system, the old sprawl-supporting freeway expansions will not be the right thing to do.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think NIMBY as a term is being over-used. 

 

But yes, I agree, the general population are usually woefully uninformed.    I remember when it first came out, even the opinion columnists and radio talkers were going crazy.  But what they don't realize is that they are actually opposing capitilism in favor of socialism when they want the government to give them unlimited FREEway capacity which results in an inefficient use of resources, but then do not like the idea of variable market pricing to allow rational consumers to decide when it is worth it for them to use a lane versus waiting in traffic for free.  

 

People always prefer government entitlements and handouts.  But when designing an efficient transportation system, the old sprawl-supporting freeway expansions will not be the right thing to do.  

Well said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that toll lanes are in everyone's future.  But it's a bit unfair to have twice as many free lanes on I-85 than on I-77.  The private company proposal is to build two toll lanes beside the two existing freeway lanes through the North Meck Towns.  Unless there is support to convert any of those brand new lanes on I-485 in NE Charlotte or I-85 in Cabarrus County to toll lanes as well, then Lake Norman interests have a right to complain.

Edited by southslider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfair?  85 is a major interstate arterial that connects all major cities of NC and heads toward the largest city in the southeast.  77 serves a modest amount of interstate travelers from the great lakes, but otherwise is predominantly a sprawl-centric commuter freeway.  It is the reason that the freeway has not had much luck finding its way onto state priority lists in the same way 85 has.  If it wants a wider road, it can get them through public private partnership in a couple toll lanes.

 

HOT lanes will serve far more people than HOV lanes because people would rather risk tickets than to coordinate with there culdesac neighbors.  So let them pay their 35c so we can stop hearing their complaining about the traffic.  Obviously the lake isn't going anywhere, so we might as well get to the standard 8-lane interstates sooner than later.  But given most of these lake commuters are wealthier class, it is certainly not going to break any hearts to get them to pay for the privilege.

 

I somewhat mentioned it before, but it is interesting how the *expectation* of the future widening of a road is now considered by most to be an entitlement (a legally binding promise of future government spending).   They get told by some realtor that their new house is 'minutes from Uptown', and oh 'we know once this area is developed they'll widen that freeway right up for you'.  Everyone forgets that these roads cost billions of dollars and are the worst way to move people from a residence to a job in an urban setting.  

 

(Can you tell I had food poisoning this weekend  :sick: ... grumps)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfair?  85 is a major interstate arterial that connects all major cities of NC and heads toward the largest city in the southeast.  77 serves a modest amount of interstate travelers from the great lakes, but otherwise is predominantly a sprawl-centric commuter freeway.  It is the reason that the freeway has not had much luck finding its way onto state priority lists in the same way 85 has.  If it wants a wider road, it can get them through public private partnership in a couple toll lanes.

 

HOT lanes will serve far more people than HOV lanes because people would rather risk tickets than to coordinate with there culdesac neighbors.  So let them pay their 35c so we can stop hearing their complaining about the traffic.  Obviously the lake isn't going anywhere, so we might as well get to the standard 8-lane interstates sooner than later.  But given most of these lake commuters are wealthier class, it is certainly not going to break any hearts to get them to pay for the privilege.

 

I somewhat mentioned it before, but it is interesting how the *expectation* of the future widening of a road is now considered by most to be an entitlement (a legally binding promise of future government spending).   They get told by some realtor that their new house is 'minutes from Uptown', and oh 'we know once this area is developed they'll widen that freeway right up for you'.  Everyone forgets that these roads cost billions of dollars and are the worst way to move people from a residence to a job in an urban setting.  

 

(Can you tell I had food poisoning this weekend  :sick: ... grumps)

I understand what you are saying about 85 being a major arterial highway through NC, but why is 485 being widened without toll lanes, but not 77? 485 defines a "predominately sprawl-centric commuter freeway." I think that's a bit unfair myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ that's not a bad point. Both projects are about the same length (well, in portion being widened, I-77 has a very substantial length that would be converted lane)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same length?  The 485 section is 6 miles, the 77 section is ~10ish, and can potentially include adding another HOT lane through to downtown, or at minimum feeds into the existing HOV lane that might be converted to HOT lane.  So it makes much more sense than one in an isolated spot that would end up exacerbating bottlenecks at the 485/77 interchange near Pineville.  People will not much want to pay a toll to bypass 6 miles of traffic while then sitting in worse traffic 5 mins away.   

 

Regardless, I'm pretty sure the lack of HOT lanes in the southern 485 expansion is due to the speed with which they wanted that project to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they proposing widening 77 south of 485? I was counting exit 19 to exit 28. 

 

edit: and NCDOT labels 485 as going from 77 to Rea Rd, which is about 9 miles. If it's just to South (which makes sense) it's 6 miles. Ah well, what's a little more asphalt. 

Edited by tozmervo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's correct.  The NC Vietnam Veteran's Memorial is at the rest stop located there.  It makes it easily accessible for both directions of traffic.  If you haven't seen it before, I recommend stopping by sometime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The need for Union County bypass is just a piece of the larger problem of US 74 not being up to interstate standards in the Piedmont.  I know funds are scarce, but it is THE west-east artery for the southern Piedmont. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The need for Union County bypass is just a piece of the larger problem of US 74 not being up to interstate standards in the Piedmont.  I know funds are scarce, but it is THE west-east artery for the southern Piedmont. 

 

The state is (slowly) working towards correcting this. Construction on the Shelby bypass is slated to start later this year, and hopefully the Monroe Bypass will work out its legal problem, and work can start on that as well. The eastern part of US-74 will eventually be updated to interstate standards, especially since it will be part of I-74/73/20. The one part left in limbo is the gap between Wingate and Rockingham, but that is also slated for upgrade in the unforeseeable future.

 

http://www.ncdot.gov/doh/preconstruct/tpb/SHC/PDF/SHC_Vision_Plan_Division8.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm placing on this thread for any numbers geeks but Texas A&M transportation Institute released their study/rankings of the 101 largest U.S. urban areas from traffic to gas.  Charlotte fairs decently in travel time (27/28 for travel delay and stress) with the lower the number the worse the delay and stress (Washington D.C. is #1).

 

What's really interesting is that you can go back as 1982 in recorded data and it includes everything from HOV lanes and car pollution to freeway planning time.

 

Charlotte Info:  http://d2dtl5nnlpfr0r.cloudfront.net/tti.tamu.edu/documents/ums/congestion-data/chlot.pdf

 

Site Home page: http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/congestion-data/

Edited by Urbanity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm placing on this thread for any numbers geeks but Texas A&M transportation Institute released their study/rankings of the 101 largest U.S. urban areas from traffic to gas.  Charlotte fairs decently in travel time (27/28 for travel delay and stress) with the lower the number the worse the delay and stress (Washington D.C. is #1).

 

DC metro's #1 rankings are so extreme: wealthiest, best educated, highest degree of segregation, highest rate of HIV infection, worst traffic congestion, etc. I guess you take the good with the bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like Charlotte does have conceptual plans to cap the Brookshire too...however these plans aren't concrete b/c if Charlotte wants to do anything, it'll have to wait for NCDOT's final plans for the new HOT/HOV access ramps on Brookshire from Graham Street to I-77. 

 

http://charmeck.org/city/charlotte/Transportation/PlansProjects/Documents/Overall%20Map%20I-277%20Loop-10-29-12%20reduced%20size.pdf

Edited by Sabaidee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The state is (slowly) working towards correcting this. Construction on the Shelby bypass is slated to start later this year, and hopefully the Monroe Bypass will work out its legal problem, and work can start on that as well. The eastern part of US-74 will eventually be updated to interstate standards, especially since it will be part of I-74/73/20. The one part left in limbo is the gap between Wingate and Rockingham, but that is also slated for upgrade in the unforeseeable future.

 

http://www.ncdot.gov/doh/preconstruct/tpb/SHC/PDF/SHC_Vision_Plan_Division8.pdf

I-74/73/20? I knew Hwy 74 would be part of the I-73/74 corridor but what's the deal with I-20 and what route will it follow beyond that one stretch?

Share this post


Link to post
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.


×
×
  • 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.