Jump to content

Cap over Belk Freeway (277)


dubone

Recommended Posts

Jalopnik (a respected car blogger) weighs in on freeway teardowns (they support it). While they mostly just regurgitate a piece on the subject from last week they did close with this quote of their own:

Quote

Cities were never meant to be driven through, they were meant to be driven around. Let the great highway teardown begin.

https://jalopnik.com/tear-down-these-highways-1833882906

Edited by kermit
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites


On 4/3/2019 at 2:05 PM, tozmervo said:

As much time as I've spent working on the east side of Atlanta, I literally never use Freedom Pkwy. It seems laughably useless to getting around that area, I guess unless you want to skip a couple of traffic lights getting to the Carter Center.

I mean how else do you get to Inman park or Krog street? It makes sense to use off the downtown connector. It was a huge effort to have Freedom parkway stopped mid planning to save a large portion of the residential areas such as virginia highland. It was originally going to be built to connect to 400 and be a parallel interstate to downtown connector. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 2 months later...

No word on how much the Atlanta cap will cost yet but they are already doing some cost savings measures according to this article.

https://atlanta.curbed.com/2019/10/31/20940718/hub404-buckhead-atlanta-highway-park-marta-georgia400

Here's an idea to pay for a freeway cap is tax the building owners closest to it a slightly higher tax rate an improvement district so to speak since their values of their buildings stand most to benefit.  

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cost of the cap down in the ATL talked about above is $250 M makes the Klyde Warren freeway cap in Dallas a bargain at $110 M

https://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news/2019/10/31/250-million-highway-capping-park-hub404-eyes-2025.html

in terms of a cost for a cap in Charlotte I would guess $200M or so which is why I would not support it until that much is spent on land based parks and greenways around the queen city. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ here is my quarterly reminder that the city would make money by removing the Belk entirely.
no freeway removal project in the US has been met with regret.

Can you explain why/how? Apologies if you’ve explained before, but you’re not the first person I’ve heard mention removing John Belk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The City already got back the cost of re-doing the Caldwell and Belk interchange.

Personally, I wouldn't entirely remove the Belk.  All of the crossing bridges would allow Silver Line a faster but cheaper corridor than tunneling under Trade or elevating along Brookshire.  Plus, there's enough room for both rails and trails, linking XCLT at Metropolitan with the Rail Trail.  West of Caldwell, the outer lanes of Belk could be kept as extended exits off 77 to Wilkinson Blvd.  Similarly, east of 3rd/4th, outer lanes could be retained as extended exits to Independence Blvd.  Only the middle or one side of Belk would be enough room for Silver Line.  And only between 3rd and Caldwell would all freeway lanes be completely removed for the added trail connector between Blue Line and Metropolitan.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have any engineering knowledge so those on here that do can let me know if this idea is feasible. I've always liked the idea of a cap between College and Church. Would it make financial sense to build the north and south walls of the cap to include pylons (or whatever would be necessary) for a building foundation? Where the ground slopes down now becomes developable lots (on both sides) with space for a relatively easily dug subterranean parking deck. The now unusable land between Hill and 277 on both sides of Tryon could hold Deloitte sized towers. Same on the southern side. Directly above 277 could be plaza space and the new towers abutting it could have cafés, coffee shops etc. The sale of these lots could bring in millions to help recoup the cap cost. 

Down the spine of the plaza, which would be the median of 277 there could be sail-like canopys for shade with an artistic touch (I know it isn't the most original idea but when done right it looks good) and bistro tables, benches, and a children's play spot underneath the shade.

With the vertical walls bearing the weight of the adjacent towers the strength requirements of the actual cap could be less right? This could keep the cost down right? Again, no structural engineering knowledge here so I could totally be in lala land. 

What does everyone think? 

Edited by go_vertical
Spell check
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2019 at 4:25 PM, kermit said:

^ here is my quarterly reminder that the city would make money by removing the Belk entirely.

no freeway removal project in the US has been met with regret.

What's your opinion on the Brookshire freeway? I think it's more practical than the John Belk, even though I occasionally use the John Belk coming back from work, I don't need to, and it wouldn't kill me to use an alternative route. However my to work commute, I feel like removing the Brookshire would actually cause some traffic issues in and around Plaza for those who work down south of the airport like myself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, nakers2 said:

What's your opinion on the Brookshire freeway? I think it's more practical than the John Belk, even though I occasionally use the John Belk coming back from work, I don't need to, and it wouldn't kill me to use an alternative route. However my to work commute, I feel like removing the Brookshire would actually cause some traffic issues in and around Plaza for those who work down south of the airport like myself. 

Keep the Brookshire, but modernize the road and bury it between North Davidson and North Church. Rename it I-177, from the Briar Creek interchange on US 74 to the part of Brookshire that ends being a freeway right before connecting with I-85. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Third Strike said:

Keep the Brookshire, but modernize the road and bury it between North Davidson and North Church. Rename it I-177, from the Briar Creek interchange on US 74 to the part of Brookshire that ends being a freeway right before connecting with I-85. 

Make Independence I-177 as well to Briar Creek or someday farther out, if ever eliminating driveways and upgrading shoulders to expressway standards. 

Back to removing parts of Belk (or the less direct portion of 277), a Silver Line replacement would also gain stations closer to CPCC and Metropolitan.  Plus, the new Stonewall station would be closer to many more jobs as a single-seat ride and even better for LYNX transfers to than the planned 11th station by Brookshire blocks off 9th St.  The adopted alignment via Gateway just poorly serves Uptown-bound riders, as well as Uptown-connecting riders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2019 at 11:34 AM, southslider said:

Make Independence I-177 as well to Briar Creek or someday farther out, if ever eliminating driveways and upgrading shoulders to expressway standards. 

Back to removing parts of Belk (or the less direct portion of 277), a Silver Line replacement would also gain stations closer to CPCC and Metropolitan.  Plus, the new Stonewall station would be closer to many more jobs as a single-seat ride and even better for LYNX transfers to than the planned 11th station by Brookshire blocks off 9th St.  The adopted alignment via Gateway just poorly serves Uptown-bound riders, as well as Uptown-connecting riders.

or just cap independence while we are at it! Connect Elizabeth and plaza again with a giant park leading to uptown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2019 at 10:03 AM, Third Strike said:

Keep the Brookshire, but modernize the road and bury it between North Davidson and North Church. Rename it I-177, from the Briar Creek interchange on US 74 to the part of Brookshire that ends being a freeway right before connecting with I-85. 

Off topic, but wouldn't an auxiliary highway that extends in both directions off the main 77 interstate without returning not qualify for the X77 naming convention? It would be neither a spur nor circumferential route. If it took the route described it would have to be I-185 or similar no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t understand. I find John Belk farrrr more useful than Brookshire. So much better access to uptown, Southend, and Midtown. Call me crazy, but I see benefit to keeping both legs of the interstate. I would maybe get rid of the I-77 interchange on the John Belk end though...it truly is redundant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

property tax payers, sales tax payers, income tax payers (regardless of how much they drive)

I understand where you’re coming from. I still feel like the majority of individuals in the city do drive though. I can see how it’s not exactly fair, but I feel like there are far less-traveled and worse-for-wear roads that could be removed for the benefit of the taxpayer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.