Traffic Congestion and Highway Construction

[tozmervo]

July 20: mark it on your calendars. It's when Charlotte finally becomes a world class city and earns it's big noose. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article19251810.html

[southslider]

^Quite possibly the date to also start avoiding 77N altogether. Nothing makes congestion worse than adding even more free-flow lanes to merge at a pre-existing chokepoint. Sort of like how the ramps to/from 85 at 77 only got worse with the widening of 85 in Concord.

[grodney]

Oh, by the way, the Community House bridge over 485 (in Ballantyne) is open to traffic.  Also, the eastbound exit at Johnston has been re-configured.  It is now a full stop light, with 2 left-turn lanes and 3-right turn lanes, with no turn on red.  In other words, no more free-flowing off-ramp.

[RiverwoodCLT]

If you look at WBTV webcam, there is a lot of traffic on Belk freeway. Where would it go. Local streets would be flooded with car.

[cltbwimob]

If you look at WBTV webcam, there is a lot of traffic on Belk freeway. Where would it go. Local streets would be flooded with car.

This is true.

I read that there are 80k cars per day that travel the Belk. That's an awful lot of additional cars to put on the surface road network. Plus even if the freeway was razed, they would have to fill the trench in which it lies with tens of thousands of cubic yards of dirt. It would be very costly to destroy the freeway and to fill in the trench to create developable space.

The freeway has not hurt South End's growth at all. The best solution is just to cap it when funds become available. But if the funds never materialize, then the next best thing is just to build better bike and pedestrian crossings. Either way, we should not advocate destroying the infrastructure we do have, while at the same time complaining that we don't have enough money to build more infrastructure.

Edited April 25, 2015 by cltbwimob

[dcharlotte]

The fallacy here is assuming that all 80K cars would use the same route to get to their final destination. There is another freeway that goes around on the other side, surface streets, and in many cases of urban freeway removal, people switch to other modes of transportation as a result of them being more attractive. Imagine being able to bike easily across an area that did not have a freeway, or walk. I think the Belk should be removed and the Brookshire retained and capped. 

[ah59396]

The fallacy here is assuming that all 80K cars would use the same route to get to their final destination. There is another freeway that goes around on the other side, surface streets, and in many cases of urban freeway removal, people switch to other modes of transportation as a result of them being more attractive. Imagine being able to bike easily across an area that did not have a freeway, or walk. I think the Belk should be removed and the Brookshire retained and capped.

The problem with your thought is that these "other modes of transportation" don't exist in a large enough capacity to handle that type of traffic. There may be a point in Charlotte's future where it is viable, but even with the full 2030 plan buildout, you'd be putting a massive strain on a limited transit network. Dumping even half of those 80k of cars onto Brookshire, Independence and 77 in their current form would also be a disaster.

Removing Belk is a nice idea, but part of what makes uptown relatively attractive to businesses is the fluidity in which people and products can get in and out with relative ease.

In my opinion, our priorities should be:

1. 2030 transit/bike/pedestrian infrastructural improvements.

2. 77/85 interchange improvements

3. Full 77 widening

4. Independence Freeway full buildout

5. Consider capping 277 at noted points

We want to continually improve upon current infrastructure. Not remove functioning arteries because it looks more urban. Just my opinion.

[cltbwimob]

The fallacy here is assuming that all 80K cars would use the same route to get to their final destination. There is another freeway that goes around on the other side, surface streets, and in many cases of urban freeway removal, people switch to other modes of transportation as a result of them being more attractive. Imagine being able to bike easily across an area that did not have a freeway, or walk. I think the Belk should be removed and the Brookshire retained and capped. 

 

The fallacy with that is that you assume the transition to other modes of travel would be a simple matter of substitution when a) there is no real public transit that serve commuters going east and west and the streetcar will not serve this function well since it is more for local trips, b) most people traveling this route are likely not making a trip for which biking would be a feasible alternative, c) Brookshire is actually the more out of date facility of the two freeways around downtown, and d) Charlotte does not have a robust grid of surface streets to absorb all these cars.

 

Once again, Belk has done nothing to hurt Southend's or Uptown's growth, so what is the point?  If it has not stunted growth, and it serves an important function in the transportation network, what is the impetus to remove it?  Besides, destroying it and filling it's trench to bring it to the surface would be a monumental waste of money.  Additionally, many other facilities would need mega upgrades to handle the problems that razing Belk would create.  Razing the freeway to create a marginally more aesthetically pleasing urban environment is tantamount to using a chainsaw to remove a benign mole (i.e.  the solution is much worse than the problem).

 

*Edit-Damn, AH59396 beat me to the punch.

Edited April 25, 2015 by cltbwimob

[ah59396]

Haha looks like we had the same thinking on this one!

[kermit]

 Once again, Belk has done nothing to hurt Southend's or Uptown's growth, so what is the point?.

I don't think we can be certain about that. While Southend has certainly grown rapidly, we have no way to determine how it would have evolved without the barrier.

I do respect yall's perspective but I just don't buy the Carmageddon argument. A growing number of cities have removed urban freeways, many of them carried more cars than 277 -- but traffic disasters -never- occurred. We are never going to change Charlotte into a more urban place without some efforts to reduce auto use.

Southsiders toll road point was a welcome one. It appears that the state is now contractually obligated to keep the road in place.

[AuLukey]

I don't think we can be certain about that. While Southend has certainly grown rapidly, we have no way to determine how it would have evolved without the barrier.

I do respect yall's perspective but I just don't buy the Carmageddon argument. A growing number of cities have removed urban freeways, many of them carried more cars than 277 -- but traffic disasters -never- occurred. We are never going to change Charlotte into a more urban place without some efforts to reduce auto use.

Southsiders toll road point was a welcome one. It appears that the state is now contractually obligated to keep the road in place.

 

Yes, however, most cities that removed freeways had sufficient capacity on other thoroughfares to handle the influx.  Some cities even increased capacity of other roads prior to removing freeways in order to avoid the problem.  That level of foresight would be expecting too much of Raleigh.

[southslider]

HOT lanes will feed into Brookshire. Demolishing Belk technically wouldn't mess with the HOT lanes contract.

[js4life]

^^Hot lanes will also feed into belk when I-77 south is redone sometime after 2025

[go_vertical]

But let's look at some of the major U.S. cities that removed urban freeways. San Francisco took their elevated highway out after the '89 quake and practically the entire thing was going to have to be rebuilt anyway. They were already considering this and the disaster just helped them make the decision. Boston had their big dig. While that was technically a surface road removal it was also a multi-billion dollar tunnel. Milwaukee axed theirs in recent memory and Seattle is working on doing the same.

The big difference here is that all of these cities are smaller in area (I'm talking city proper, not too familiar with their respective metro sizes) and much, much more dense in regards to population. And all of these cities have robust transit systems, with the exception of Milwaukee which does tout their highly regarded bus system that carries over 160,000 passengers daily. Like others have said here, maybe removal of 277 can be feasible but only after 30 years of planning and probably more than a billion dollars spent beefing up surrounding roads and expanding our public transit.

[HopHead]

^^Hot lanes will also feed into belk when I-77 south is redone sometime after 2025

 

I haven't really paid attention to this, but will nothing be done with I-77 until after 2025? I'm not an advocate for more roads but the stretch of I-77 from the NC/SC border past uptown is quite frankly the biggest cluster f*** of an Interstate I've seen in quite some time. You can barely avoid a backup there at 2:00 on a Tuesday afternoon. Let alone get anywhere in a timely fashion during rush hour. I'm sure it was a great highway in 1990, but it's one of many choke points in our metro that hasn't kept up with all the growth.

[tozmervo]

Probably. The problem is that rebuilding that stretch could be one of the biggest and most expensive projects in the state's history. ROW is too narrow, all the overpasses have to be rebuilt, and it carries so much traffic they have few options for lane closures which makes it logistically a challenge. 

 

We could otherwise spend the money extending blue line branches out to ballantyne, steele creek and rock hill

[cltbwimob]

Probably. The problem is that rebuilding that stretch could be one of the biggest and most expensive projects in the state's history. ROW is too narrow, all the overpasses have to be rebuilt, and it carries so much traffic they have few options for lane closures which makes it logistically a challenge.

We could otherwise spend the money extending blue line branches out to ballantyne, steele creek and rock hill

I agree the most sensible alternative in this case is expanding mass transit options. An extension of the blue line to Ballantyne, possibly another branch to Southpark and commuter rail to Rock Hill (although I doubt NS would be onboard) would probably get the job done for about the same cost and without all the negative externalities associated with laying ever increasing amounts of impervious pavement.

Also, one thing that may help would be signs directing through traffic to use I-485, especially if that signage was electronic and provided up-to-the-minute travel times for various routes. I have seen this type of thing in Virginia and it has been very useful.

Edited April 26, 2015 by cltbwimob

[go_vertical]

It seems like Charlotte is reaching the size to where projects have to be done to help alleviate the pain from when a larger project is underway. Problems of decades of steady, rapid growth.

In regards to south 77, maybe something could be done similar to what Tampa did with the Selmon Expressway. They constructed what I believe is a three lane elevated road with the pillars coming out from the median. In the AM all lanes travel inward and they reverse in the afternoon. Very little extra ROW was needed. If you want to talk about interstate expansion headaches all you have to do is look at Tampa. They have been widening their 75/275 stretch through the heart of the city for over a decade and they're still not done. If NCDOT waits until 2025 to start on I77 then it will be a much similar situation here.

[Nolan]

The state plans ROW acquisition in 2024 for I-77 South, and according to the Draft TIP, the widening will be broken up into two phases, from Brookshire to Woodlawn, and then Woodlawn to SC state line. Each phase was projected to to be around $500 million, and also no new free lanes, each direction will get two new HOT lanes. 

[archiham04]

I wonder if any projects could be done ahead of time to alleviate the impending pain of shutting down Central Ave to build the Streetcar?  That one is going to HURT!

 

It seems like Charlotte is reaching the size to where projects have to be done to help alleviate the pain from when a larger project is underway. Problems of decades of steady, rapid growth.
 

[kermit]

^ IMO its truly madness to drop a billion dollars on a road expansion these days.

Half that amount of money would buy very good commuter rail to Rock Hill (including stops at Charlotte Douglass, I-485 / Blue Line / Pineville, Ft Mill and Rock Hill / Winthrop). The other half billion would build the red line to Mt Morne including all the new track upgrades that NS is insisting on.

Edited April 28, 2015 by kermit

[birky]

I was under the impression that mass transit should be viewed as a means to alleviate potential traffic issues associated with future growth.  That is, extending the blue line to places like Ballentyne and SouthPark won't do anything to address the current traffic issues because of continued population and density growth.

[kermit]

^ Its pretty tough to directly connect transit to congestion relief since transit tends to get build in areas that are growing (so congestion is going to increase regardless of the existence of transit). But lets be clear, due to Charlotte's growth, expanding road capacity is simply a temporary fix for congestion. New lanes just encourage more people to move to the burbs, drive alone to work and demand space in surface lots uptown. At least transit provides a new option for commuters, improves rather than degrades the urban fabric, and is far more robust with respect to accommodating increases in demand (its _much_ cheaper to add more trains than to build another lane). 

 

In short, I-77 South really sucks. However throwing a billion dollars at it is unlikely to make it suck less. There are LOTS of more productive ways to spend that money (if it were fungible).

Edited April 28, 2015 by kermit

[dcharlotte]

It will also not suck less since the managed lanes will have variable toll pricing which will ensure not too many people get to use them during peak times. 

[Spartan]

I don't think we can be certain about that. While Southend has certainly grown rapidly, we have no way to determine how it would have evolved without the barrier.

I do respect yall's perspective but I just don't buy the Carmageddon argument. A growing number of cities have removed urban freeways, many of them carried more cars than 277 -- but traffic disasters -never- occurred. We are never going to change Charlotte into a more urban place without some efforts to reduce auto use.

Southsiders toll road point was a welcome one. It appears that the state is now contractually obligated to keep the road in place.

 

 

I think there is merit to the notion that we need to be able to connect cars from the southeast part of town to I-77 and I-85. Technically, we should only need the Brookshire OR the Belk to accomplish this. The question, IMO, is which one would we rather have? The removal of the other opens up a lot of land for development, connectivity, and park space adjacent to center city. I think someday one of them will have to come down due to the overall lack of developable land... but I also think that it will be many decades before the political will exists to make it happen.

 

 

It seems like Charlotte is reaching the size to where projects have to be done to help alleviate the pain from when a larger project is underway. Problems of decades of steady, rapid growth.

In regards to south 77, maybe something could be done similar to what Tampa did with the Selmon Expressway. They constructed what I believe is a three lane elevated road with the pillars coming out from the median. In the AM all lanes travel inward and they reverse in the afternoon. Very little extra ROW was needed. If you want to talk about interstate expansion headaches all you have to do is look at Tampa. They have been widening their 75/275 stretch through the heart of the city for over a decade and they're still not done. If NCDOT waits until 2025 to start on I77 then it will be a much similar situation here.

It's also a 'lag effect' of NCDOT not advancing projects due to the old 'equity formula' because they were essentially too expensive.