Cap over Belk Freeway (277)

[thenewkage95]

Eventually, we are going to have to cap John Belk at least partially IMO.  South End is just going to be so dense and the connectivity to Uptown will have to be improved for biking/walking/scooters.  Particularly if the stadium moves nextdoor and more is built there.

I’m all for capping if provided it’s cost-effective. I just don’t see much benefit in completely removing it. If we do, we lose at least some connectedness with South End which might kill future growth and expansion plans there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Desert Power]

2 minutes ago, thenewkage95 said:

I’m all for capping if provided it’s cost-effective. I just don’t see much benefit in completely removing it. If we do, we lose at least some connectedness with South End which might kill future growth and expansion plans there.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Capping Tryon to Church is starting to feel like a no brainier to me.  Maybe extend to College too.  John Belk is low enough and no exchanges would need to be re-configured.  Rail Trail extension will help too, but I think more connectivity into 3rd Ward is going to be important.

[kermit]

2 hours ago, thenewkage95 said:

I still feel like the majority of individuals in the city do drive though.

You are right about that, the vast majority drive. But as long as driving is heavily subsidized we are incentivizing people to drive more rather than switch to sustainable forms of transportation. Unfortunately, the World is on fire, pedestrian deaths are epidemic, obesity...  

For some reason we have decided to make a form of transportation which is quite literally killing us cheaper for everyone.  Wouldn't it be better to put that money into transportation modes which have a positive economic impact? (e.g. transit increases productivity by increasing density)

The first step in this process is removing roads, we may as well start with the removals which will generate the largest economic returns -- manufacturing more uptown land by removing the Belk will certainly yield $$$$ for the city (property taxes), for its workers (income), its businesses (higher density = higher productivity) and its residents (more tax revenue / square mile = lower rates).

 

Edited November 4, 2019 by kermit

[wilmore]

On 11/1/2019 at 6:55 PM, 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. 

Brookshire especially has several *terribly* designed exits, which cause a lot of the traffic issues in the area. A regular grid surface road could go a long way to fixing some of the issues in the area. 

[CM2424]

1 hour ago, kermit said:

You are right about that, the vast majority drive. But as long as driving is heavily subsidized we are incentivizing people to drive more rather than switch to sustainable forms of transportation. Unfortunately, the World is on fire, pedestrian deaths are epidemic, obesity...  

For some reason we have decided to make a form of transportation which is quite literally killing us cheaper for everyone.  Wouldn't it be better to put that money into transportation modes which have a positive economic impact? (e.g. transit increases productivity by increasing density)

The first step in this process is removing roads, we may as well start with the removals which will generate the largest economic returns -- manufacturing more uptown land by removing the Belk will certainly yield $$$$ for the city (property taxes), for its workers (income), its businesses (higher density = higher productivity) and its residents (more tax revenue / square mile = lower rates).

 

I love this idea.  Imagine a ring of parks and walking/biking/scooter paths alongside the new development that would circle the city.  It could be our version of Atlanta's Beltline and connect the existing greenways to Pearl Street park, Thompson Park, Marshall Park, Alexander Street Park, Frazier Park, etc.  A truly connected loop of parks and greenways all around the city.  Drivers would adjust and quality of like would increase for everyone.  

[DMann]

1 hour ago, kermit said:

For some reason we have decided to make a form of transportation which is quite literally killing us cheaper for everyone

All you need to do is see who is profiting from that, and how much money gets funneled from them to our politicians who make the decisions.

[Desert Power]

1 hour ago, wilmore said:

Brookshire especially has several *terribly* designed exits, which cause a lot of the traffic issues in the area. A regular grid surface road could go a long way to fixing some of the issues in the area. 

 Spoken like someone who uses 277.  The exits to and from Davidson/Caldwell are special.  The other thing is that the current 11th and a wider 12th could deal with a lot of this already.  Thru traffic to Independence wouldn't be happy though.

[davidclt]

On 11/4/2019 at 4:19 PM, Desert Power said:

The exits to and from Davidson/Caldwell are special.  The other thing is that the current 11th and a wider 12th could deal with a lot of this already.  Thru traffic to Independence wouldn't be happy though.

I have a love/hate relationship with the Davidson/Caldwell exit. It could work well if people were more thoughtful navigating it. So much moving through that space can be both beautiful and messy.

[kermit]

The bastion of radical urbanism, the Wall Street Journal, is now writing about the merits of urban freeway removal. Removal is becoming mainstream. (No Charlotte mention)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/highways-give-way-to-homes-as-cities-rebuild-11575208801

 

[t_money]

Can someone  help me explain the benefit of capping 277?  I don't understand how a park between two roads helps people get across the highway better.

 You still have to cross all the sames roads to get to it and after it right?  I'm not saying its a dumb idea or anything like that, I am really curious in what benefits it provides.

[kermit]

58 minutes ago, t_money said:

Can someone  help me explain the benefit of capping 277?  I don't understand how a park between two roads helps people get across the highway better.

 You still have to cross all the sames roads to get to it and after it right?  I'm not saying its a dumb idea or anything like that, I am really curious in what benefits it provides.

1) Greenspace
2) Noise reduction
2) Improved mobility (277 would feel like less of a barrier)
3) More developable land which is worth $$$$ [depending on how the cap is built]

Monthly reminder: Total removal of the Belk would be much cheaper and have a higher ROI!

Edited December 4, 2019 by kermit

[thenewkage95]

Can someone  help me explain the benefit of capping 277?  I don't understand how a park between two roads helps people get across the highway better.
 You still have to cross all the sames roads to get to it and after it right?  I'm not saying its a dumb idea or anything like that, I am really curious in what benefits it provides.

It’s just that some people view the highway as an eyesore and a waste of money. Being that Charlotte is ranked one of the lowest cities for parks, it would be nice to be able to build an urban park in a location that provides scenic beauty over an otherwise busy highway. It’s also beneficial given the scarcity of land uptown. We could essentially build this park without sacrificing any additional lucrative land. It’s not so much about helping people get across the highway since they’ll likely use the new pedestrian bridge, but it will help to make a more seamless transition between Uptown and Southend which is necessary if it is to ever truly be an extension of the urban style of uptown.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CarolinaDaydreamin]

On 12/4/2019 at 11:07 AM, thenewkage95 said:

It’s just that some people view the highway as an eyesore and a waste of money. Being that Charlotte is ranked one of the lowest cities for parks, it would be nice to be able to build an urban park in a location that provides scenic beauty over an otherwise busy highway. It’s also beneficial given the scarcity of land uptown. We could essentially build this park without sacrificing any additional lucrative land. It’s not so much about helping people get across the highway since they’ll likely use the new pedestrian bridge, but it will help to make a more seamless transition between Uptown and Southend which is necessary if it is to ever truly be an extension of the urban style of uptown.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Additional benefit.. have the Silver line use the 277  land as the route and built stations around and with the park in mind. 

[kermit]

I love that there are other people out there who are thinking about how great it would be to make this thing go away!

 

 

Edited December 13, 2019 by kermit

[tozmervo]

10 hours ago, kermit said:

I love that there are other people out there who are thinking about how great it would be to make this thing go away!

from a conservative politician, no less

[kermit]

Time for my semi-monthly reminder of how much we would gain from removing the Belk (instead of spending the $$$ to cap it). The Belk would be super-sexy as a Silver Line track and greenway and park connecting Southend to Midtown.

Yesterday San Francisco closed Market Street to auto traffic. No traffic disaster has befallen the city.

 

 

Edited January 30, 2020 by kermit

[NY+SC=NC]

Capping it, removing it, what happens then to Hwy 74? 

[kermit]

3 hours ago, NY+SC=NC said:

Capping it, removing it, what happens then to Hwy 74? 

Brookshire to I-85.

Or just multiplex it on 485.

Lots fewer lights would speed the trip for everyone.

Edited January 31, 2020 by kermit

[NcSc74]

I say remove it.  I mentioned in the pic thread it looks outdated and small-townish.  Not saying CLT is small town just the intersatae infrastructure is lacking.  Get rid of it, use the space for rail as mentioned above and funnel the money to a proper expressway out of uptwn to 85 and 74.  

[JacksonH]

I believe there are some small streams that flow underground beneath Belk, and certainly Sugar Creek is nearby and could be siphoned off of.  How about building some earthen banks on the east and west side and creating a lake between Uptown and South End?  So that new pedestrian bridge would be crossing over water instead of a freeway.

[stiluvclt]

Why don't they just sell the air rights above I-277 between Lynx and Mint Street and let the developers include park land in their amazing overhead projects?

[kermit]

this twitter dude reminds me of someone, but I can't quite put my finger on it...

but it is a very evocative graphic. Even moreso if the shading went further down E Morehead and wrapped over to Midtown.

 

 

Edited February 8, 2020 by kermit

[Norm2]

I wonder how long it will be before the low rise office buildings on Morehead will be replaced with higher density buildings.

Edited February 8, 2020 by norm21499

[KJHburg]

it will be a while before mid rises are replaced right outside the 277 loop especially along south Tryon as there are still single story building and vacant parking lots.    But who knows someone might put up a 400 foot high tower on one of those vacant lots.  You just never know. 

[Guest]

I wonder how long it will be before the low rise office buildings on Morehead will be replaced with higher density buildings.

Not long at all


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk