Jump to content

Cap over Belk Freeway (277)


dubone

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Scribe said:

Both here and elsewhere, they should start with how they will fund this particular project.  If it is a local property tax, the project is stillborn!

Funding for 277 removal seems straightforward, either use a tiff strategy or just finance costs by selling a portion of the land.

Capping on the other hand....

Link to comment
Share on other sites


7 minutes ago, kermit said:

Funding for 277 removal seems straightforward, either use a tiff strategy or just finance costs by selling a portion of the land.

Capping on the other hand....

This thread is for capping, I would love to know how one would fund it and still get the support of the majority of QC citizens.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, kermit said:

Funding for 277 removal seems straightforward, either use a tiff strategy or just finance costs by selling a portion of the land.

Capping on the other hand....

If you make are trying to fund it with TIF proceeds while making the entire Belk lightrail/park space, the improvement district would need to be pretty large since you wouldn't be creating any new taxable parcels.  Funneling off that large of a portion of tax revenue for bond payments might not be super popular (even if you argue that the increase in tax revenue is directly attributable to removal).  If a portion of the Belk is sold to developers (even if a small part), it would likely make coming up with the money a lot easier both because (1) any profits from the sale could be used directly to fund it and (2) you would be creating new taxable lots with 100% of the tax revenue going toward bond payments (since 100% would be above what they previously were assessed at -- $0).  That would allow you to make the improvement district just the immediately adjacent parcels, as opposed to having to make it a pretty large district.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, NYtoCLT said:

If you make are trying to fund it with TIF proceeds while making the entire Belk lightrail/park space, the improvement district would need to be pretty large since you wouldn't be creating any new taxable parcels.  Funneling off that large of a portion of tax revenue for bond payments might not be super popular (even if you argue that the increase in tax revenue is directly attributable to removal).  If a portion of the Belk is sold to developers (even if a small part), it would likely make coming up with the money a lot easier both because (1) any profits from the sale could be used directly to fund it and (2) you would be creating new taxable lots with 100% of the tax revenue going toward bond payments (since 100% would be above what they previously were assessed at -- $0).  That would allow you to make the improvement district just the immediately adjacent parcels, as opposed to having to make it a pretty large district.

You did a great job of actually spelling out what I was thinking (but didn’t type). While no one has done anything more than sketches of what could be done with the Belk, it is a huge area. Transit might consume two of the 12 lanes visible here, a linear park might be 3-4 more, which would leave well more than half of the space available for development.   

If you really want to maximize use of space then, in theory, you could create an easement for CATS transit and allow developers to purchase the land over the tracks. I doubt it would be a tough sell.

 

B4CF9F34-CB83-45A8-A5F5-FBA0C22341F0.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kermit said:

You did a great job of actually spelling out what I was thinking (but didn’t type). While no one has done anything more than sketches of what could be done with the Belk, it is a huge area. Transit might consume two of the 12 lanes visible here, a linear park might be 3-4 more, which would leave well more than half of the space available for development.   

If you really want to maximize use of space then, in theory, you could create an easement for CATS transit and allow developers to purchase the land over the tracks. I doubt it would be a tough sell.

 

B4CF9F34-CB83-45A8-A5F5-FBA0C22341F0.jpeg

Thinking more about it, the ramp parcels just off of College and South Blvd would be incredibly attractive to investors given they would be directly adjacent to park space and a short walk to Uptown.  That sale alone would go a long way to funding removal/park creation.  Not even considering that those parcels would generate significant tax revenue.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SF Examiner reports on two studies which analyzed the effects of closing Market Street to cars. No measurable impact on side streets was found. (Traffic did not get worse after Market was closed).

https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/study-banning-cars-on-market-had-minimal-effect-on-side-streets/

 

 

Edited by kermit
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kermit said:

 

B4CF9F34-CB83-45A8-A5F5-FBA0C22341F0.jpeg

This image shows how much more easily Silver Line would fit within the overly wide Belk Freeway, instead of building over and around the Brookshire Freeway. And of course, many more jobs and destinations (CPCC, Metropolitan, BOA Stadium) along the Belk than along the Brookshire. Just take out a couple of these visibly empty lanes.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, kermit said:

SF Examiner reports on two studies which analyzed the effects of closing Market Street to cars. No measurable impact on side streets was found. (Traffic did not get worse after Market was closed).

https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/study-banning-cars-on-market-had-minimal-effect-on-side-streets/

 

 

Isn't it crazy how sometimes the opposite of common sense happens when dealing with traffic? Less lanes for a road diet? Better commute times in the area. Remove a whole road? No change in traffic on parallel roads. Make the literal widest interstate in the country and it's a parking lot most of the time (downtown ATL).

Maybe turning the belk into a pedestrian/bike trail, silver line, and a well planned boulevard would actually improve traffic flow in the area for vehicles even though removing a highway seems like it'd hinder volume.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...
2 hours ago, kermit said:

I have never met Dan, but I am considering leaving my wife for him:

Edit: Honey, I am not really considering this.

I sent this to Dan.

Edit: No really, I sent this to Dan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2020 at 4:39 AM, mad_park said:

Another benefit to removing this is it would remove the deathtrap merge from 4th on to 277 where you are fighting against the speeding thru traffic that is trying to merge over to Independence.

I have terrible scars from a pretty heinous motorcycle accident at that exact spot. My best friend had almost the same exact motorcycle at that spot two years prior. It's so dangerous! 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
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.