Triangle road & traffic thread

[ChiefJoJo]

^ Interesting concept... US70 stays E-W and 147 is N-S... The good thing is that all that's req'd is a signing change so it could be done eventually with little effort.

NC147 could be re-labeled as I-585 (for example) once the current US-70 bypass is brought up to interstate standards.

US 70 Byp from I-85 to the future EEC WILL be built to interstate standard with the EEC project--a good portion of the EEC is spent upgrading existing US70 Byp and aligning it with the new segment that was completed as part of the I-85 MEGA project.

As far as the # lanes on 85, I think 8 thru lanes is a good number for a major SE interstate like 85 within a growing region ... and I think part of the reason it was 8 and not 6 is the situation with "Eno Drive," (morphed into the Northern Durham Parkway) the former freeway loop in northern Durham Co. Admittedly, it was probably a bad idea given the environmental concerns in the area, but I think it did at least represent a real need for an E-W connector north of I-85. Perhaps the lanes on 85 are an attempt to make up for the lack of a viable Eno Drive.

[ChiefJoJo]

Article on the widening of Tryon Rd. Last time I was down there, the section east of Gorman over to Lake Wheeler Rd ***APPEARED*** close to being finished.

[ncwebguy]

I use parts of Tryon from Gorman to Lake Wheeler several times a week. It has been a mess for years *after* the utilities were moved. Several months passed from the concrete gutters were pourt to the asphalt. Then they barreled off the left turn lane at eastbound Tryon and Trailwood Drive even though there was asphalt. This led to long back ups back to Gorman Street sometimes.

The area has little connectivity and is always busy due to the student apartment complexes along Trailwood, Linberry, and Thistledown and there is only one other connector to Gorman, Trailwood Heights. It goes through a neighborhood and there are cars often parked on both sides of the street, making it a slower, less popular route. The Tryon expansion has removed left turns from Trailwood Heights to eastbound Gorman, so it will be an even less appealing option. The topography of the area does not favor a grid pattern, but the layout funnels a lot of traffic through a few select intersections.

The "student ghetto" on Avent Ferry has slowly made its way into the area. Few residents own their property and care about the area.

[ChiefJoJo]

I thought folks might be interested in this presentation given to Wake County's Blue Ribbon Commission on growth in the county about 10 months ago. Take a moment to look at at it, but also realize that the estimated $6B shortfall in transportation funding by 2030 is probably more like $9B now due to recent cost increases.

[pack-man]

Going back to the 540/40 interchange in RTP: this is a textbook example of the NCDOT taking the easy way out. this interchange should be the biggest in the area to handle the most traffic, and it is subpar to the 540/US70 interchange. Even Aviation/540 has a more advanced interchange. I don't understand who decided to cheap out on this interchange, but it will severely impace west moving traffic on 40. As if it isn't bad enough, lets take the easy way out and create a new problem for the congestion that already exists and is getting worse. I don't understand this area at all.

Now they will have to come back in a few years and improve the interchange, which will cause rediculous traffic snarls when the construction is taking place, that I40 could become one of the worst interstates in the country. Just my theory of course.

[ChiefJoJo]

I have worked with folks who tried to revise the 40/540 interchange based on new growth data but were rebuffed by upper management, as the project to build 540 had progressed too far in that person's judgement and the cost of a much larger interchange would have been significantly higher. I agree that it is and will continue to be a problem. It can't be any worse than I-85/77 in Charlotte though.

I've also seen a projection for I-40 in 2030 between 540 & Page at almost 250k vehicles per day--and that's assuming everything that's planned is built out (TTA Phases 1-3, 540 complete, Davis Dr, etc). Kind of scary.

On a related note, there's an article in the N&O about new real-time traffic info system...

The state Board of Transportation is expected Thursday to approve a federally funded $2 million plan to generate real-time information about traffic speeds, congestion and travel times on 80 miles of local interstates and major highways.

Solar-powered microwave sensors will scan traffic continuously and transmit frequent updates over a wireless Internet link. The full system could be operating by summer 2008. It will add high-tech muscle to a fledgling state effort to help Triangle travelers keep up with road conditions.

[ncwebguy]

Sorry to hear that Chief, but why did the US 70 and Aviation exits get a better treatment? The watershed? Property owners unwilling to sell on/near Slater Raod? It is amazing how cheap and stupid go hand in hand *and* have the authority to make these kinds of decisions.

A lot of Charlotte decisions fall in that category too (two lanes each way for 485?) but that doesn't make them ok.

I don't know how the traffic information network will help, other than getting $2 million in federal gas taxes back to the area. Knowing 40 is a mess won't help anyone who needs to use it get home any quicker. Distributing that information will send people to NC 54 and US 70, spreading the gridlock wealth across an even wider area.

[ChiefJoJo]

Sorry to hear that Chief, but why did the US 70 and Aviation exits get a better treatment?

First, one must consider the road network as it would be built out in say 2020... 540 done, EEC, 40 widened, etc. If I recall correctly, the 540/40 project was built in the early 90s, which means the growth data was circa the late 80s. Obviously the major move is to/from N Ral & RTP, thus the EB40 to EB540 is a flyover ramp--to carry this heavy move. I think the other moves are not nearly as heavy. Likely the projections at the time did not warrant another flyover at 40/540, possibly due to the long planned Triangle Pkwy (I believe the RTF even preserved a corridor thru the park) which when built, will handle a lot of the Apex, W Cary RTP traffic, thus avoiding the 540/40 interchange.

The 540/70 interchange is a different animal when you consider it has to deal with EB70 to EB540 as a flyover like (540/40), but also has to handle WB70 to WB540 traffic out of Raleigh to RTP, which is why it probably has another flyover for that move. Assuming I-40 is the major "front door" to RTP, then 540 would not have a corresponding problem with WB40, as (WB70 does) since all those cars have to do is travel straight on WB40 to access most of RTP (minus Cisco and the Wake Co portion of RTP).

Actually, we are probably a lot better off than we could be, considering the tech bubble of '00-'02... prior to 2000, Cisco (staff up to 10k) and Nortel had massive expansion plans at RTP.

two lanes each way for 485?

Don't get me started on that one. Long story, and there's a lot of local resonsibility.

I don't know how the traffic information network will help

It may not help much with daily I-40 traffic, but the article says it will be applied to 80 miles of highways in the area (probably 85, 40, 540, 440, etc), but if there is an accident or ice ahead, the msg boards apparently now will give drivers real time travel data. Perhaps some drivers will re-direct their travel.

Announcement:

February 8, 2007

Western Wake Parkway

Citizens Informational Workshop (open to public)

5:00pm to 8:00pm*

Apex High School (Cafeteria)

Contact: Jennifer Harris, PE

(919) 571-3004

[email protected]

[ncwebguy]

After reading that, it seems another "gotcha" was the growth of the Wake County portion of RTP, especially in the 80s. There were probably no plans for the Cisco, Lenovo, and Fidelity campuses and the other nearby offices.

It looks like Aviation could have been extended to at least TW Alexander (if not Durham Freeway) for connectivity, but that likely won't happen. The WB70 to WB540 flyover was necessary when 540 ended at 70. But once 540 continued eastward, Edwards Mill was extended to Wade Avenue, and Alexander was widened west of Miami, the stop light/flyover seems like overkill. WB 540 to WB40 and the nearby Page Road exit continues to be a problem since the north arc of 540 will always use that route.

For the evening commute, it looks like the Page road/EB 40 at 540 intersection has gotten worse due to 540's opening to the 64 bypass. The flyover is paying off, but still may be a little bottleneck if development continues in northeast Raleigh (5401), Knightdale and points east. 40 east traffic seems a little lighter through the Wade Ave split. It will be interesting to see what happens when 540/54 and eventually 540/55 open up.

My dad lived a few blocks away from the Park Road extension bridge over 485. I remember when Park Road dead ended in the valley. I think the neighbors hated Park Road connecting to Carolina Place more than 485, though they may have been responsible for the smaller 485 as well. I wondered why they built cheap duplexes in the one area that eventually backed up to 485, then realized it when that bridge opened.

The network will make sense if it was active before the 40 reconstruction in South Durham to alert through travelers to the 85/147 option, but it sounds like it won't be ready in time. Will it stretch west to the 85/40 intersection? Some people might be smart enough to change their plans knowing a wreck is ahead on 440 or 540, but a large percentage of drivers will end up sticking it out through the slowdown.

[architect77]

i'm glad NCDOT built a somewhat impressive interchange (540/70) right by the airport. It's always noticable during takeoff/landing.

[pack-man]

I've been noticing this the last couple of days quite a bit. Traffic backing up on the flyover on EB40 onto 540. This is now backing traffic up past the Durham Freeway and opening up the area around Harrison/Aviation. I guess a lot more people are using 540 and it is bottlenecking at the interchange. What will happen when the new stretch of 540 opens up from NC55 and you have higher vehicle numbers for that traffic to try and merge into?

[orulz]

First, one must consider the road network as it would be built out in say 2020... 540 done, EEC, 40 widened, etc. If I recall correctly, the 540/40 project was built in the early 90s, which means the growth data was circa the late 80s. Obviously the major move is to/from N Ral & RTP, thus the EB40 to EB540 is a flyover ramp--to carry this heavy move. I think the other moves are not nearly as heavy.

While the EB40 to EB540 flyover has two lanes, the reverse move, WB540 to WB40 - chokes down to one lane, which then turns into a weave lane for the Page Road exit - and carries every bit as much traffic as the two-lane flyover mentioned above. I presume the reason for the single-lane ramp is that cars on WB40 could not get to Page Rd if they had to weave across two lanes of traffic.

The improvement that should have been done with the I-540 interchange is to lengthen the WB40 to Page offramp further east, and lengthen the WB540-WB40 onramp further west, and include some sort of a bridge so the weave is grade separated. That way, the WB540-WB40 onramp can be made to two lanes, while traffic on WB40 can still get to Page Rd. The WB540 - Page Rd connection could either be built as a separate ramp, or removed entirely.

[ChiefJoJo]

What will happen when the new stretch of 540 opens up from NC55 and you have higher vehicle numbers for that traffic to try and merge into?

Well, I'd assume the increase in traffic is due to the new stretch of 540 opening all the way to US64/264 in Kinghtdale. The problem is with the weaving area created by traffic getting on the EB40/EB540 flyover conflicting with the Page Rd to EB4o traffic. I'm afraid that probably won't be affected very much by 540 being extended to NC 54 & 55. If you look at a map of the area, it's hard to make the case that anyone who is currently heading NW on 540 towards N Ral would now go SW towards W Cary and Apex via 54 & 55. If anything, you'll see EVEN MORE drivers (that now use back roads to 54 & 55) using the inital portion of that same ramp to access the newly built 540 West towards NC 54&55. Yikes!

Unfortunately, when 540 was planned, the only place to "shoehorn" 540/40 was this spot between Page Rd and Airport Blvd. Go NW and you run into RTP--go SE and you run into RDU.

The improvement that should have been done with the I-540 interchange is to lengthen the WB40 to Page offramp further east, and lengthen the WB540-WB40 onramp further west, and include some sort of a bridge so the weave is grade separated. That way, the WB540-WB40 onramp can be made to two lanes, while traffic on WB40 can still get to Page Rd. The WB540 - Page Rd connection could either be built as a separate ramp, or removed entirely.

There is a good example of that--called ramp "braiding"-- at 540, US1 & Triangle Town Blvd, typically used to separate very closely spaced interchanges. Not sure why this was not done here... perhaps a miscalculation in planning (as I said, the growth projections for 540/40 were done probably in the 80s, whereas the 540/1 interchange was prob done in the 90s--maybe included better growth data), maybe it didn't meet the federal reuirements for this treatment (certain spacing), or lack of funding.

[ncwebguy]

The 540 leg south of 40 to 55 will make the EB 40 and Page weave even worse because as JoJo says it will have to handle *two* directions of 540 traffic. Also, currently traffic on the EB 40 -> WB 540 flyover only merges with a few WB 40 -> N-WB 540 vehicles. But when the new stretch opens later, there will be vehicles on 540 N-WB going into the flyover's intersection from 54 (and eventually 55).

Traffic projections probably had the "north" bound 540 traffic approaching the 40 interchange a *lot* lower than what it will handle when it opens. Hopefully that traffic count will be low enough to allow the merging 40 traffic to not slow down. Otherwise, the flyover will back up to EB 40 even more than it does now.

The WB40/Page ramp used to be east of page, but was moved to the west of page to give the WB540 weave some space, but it isn't enough... The signal from the ramp to Page road sometimes backs traffic along the ramp and onto that lane of WB 40 in the mornings. When NW 540->WB40, SE540->WB40 and WB 40 -> Page Road traffic all have to fight for the same lane, it is going to be interesting to say the least. The 540/54 intersection will help lighten traffic some for both directions on 540, but will it be enough?

[pack-man]

they should've built this interchange out for 30+ years. I don't understand the planning sometimes.

[Transplant]

I'm not sure how this would work, it will shift traffic loading other places, but...

How about they close down the page road exit ramp on west bound and entrance ramp on east bound I40. This would remove the weaving around I540.

As a test to see traffic patterns, DOT could do this as a 1 week experiment.

This could work even better when I540 to 54 and Davis Dr open up.

I would also add that the paint scheme on the 540-> 40 west bound does not help. There is (probably) 1000ft before the 'dotted' line starts. so those who don't want to cut across the solid white line are squeeded in with those trying to take the page rd exit.

[ChiefJoJo]

Triangle could have state's first toll road: 540 Western Wake Pkwy & Triangle Pkwy into RTP.

[pack-man]

need to hurry up and build the tolls

[ncwebguy]

I ignore the solid line from 540 to 40 WB. If there is no one in the righthand lane, I'll get over. When 540 ends at 54, it will be interesting to see how traffic patterns adjust. When the Slater Road "exit" off the 540 to 40 EB ramp was removed, it caught drivers off guard for a couple of days, but they eventually adjusted. It doesn't look like that exit is coming back. There is a service road from Slater that parallels the west side of 540, but there is no connection.

It is crazy that 540 could be open to 55 south of 64 in a little over *four years* with tolls. If that is the case, what would it take to get 540 to 401 or I-40 in Johston county? Widening 40 from US 1 to Wade Ave might not be necessary if 540 diverted a lot of the rush hour RTP to Johstson County traffic.

Also, why are the tolls not promoted as being a temporary measure to pay for the road's construction? The word temporary is never mentioned in the WRAL article. Neither is mass transit, but that is another issue.

It is funny that the WRAL discussion posters all claim they are being "forced" to pay the tolls. They can continue to use the existing roads if they don't want to pay the tax. 55 was widened to four lanes for free, yet not one of them says thank you. Instead, it is gimme gimmie gimme. No one made them move to Apex, Holly Springs, F-V, etc. They are not entitled to anything. One posting saying the F Street money should have gone to 540 is beyond crazy. But I'm sure there are people in other cities that think Raleigh tax payers should pay for their roads.

edit: Today's N&O has a love letter for 540. It mentions problems at the 540/40 interchange, but only briefly. Extentions to 54 and 55 are scheduled to open this "spring" and "summer".

[ChiefJoJo]

More 540 & Triangle Pkwy news...

WRAL video & N&O article:

The N.C. Turnpike Authority says that, with financial help from taxpayers, it can move quickly this year to start building the state's first modern toll road -- a $905 million expressway through Research Triangle Park and western Wake County.

The turnpike authority says that, if the legislature approves its request for $12 million in annual "gap" funds, it can award the contract by the end of this year and build the Triangle Turnpike by 2011.

Apex Mayor Keith Weatherly is withholding his blessing. He said he doesn't know whether he will endorse the toll project because he would like state leaders to agree that it is important to finish the loop with tax dollars.

"It's a good threat to make, to say you won't get it for 25 years if you don't accept tolls," Weatherly said Wednesday. "What if we call their bluff?"

You won't get your road Mayor Waetherly.

Reminder:

February 8, 2007

Western Wake Parkway

Citizens Informational Workshop (open to public)

5:00pm to 8:00pm*

Apex High School (Cafeteria)

Contact: Jennifer Harris, PE

(919) 571-3004

[email protected]

[sax184]

Also, why are the tolls not promoted as being a temporary measure to pay for the road's construction? The word temporary is never mentioned in the WRAL article. Neither is mass transit, but that is another issue.

It is funny that the WRAL discussion posters all claim they are being "forced" to pay the tolls. They can continue to use the existing roads if they don't want to pay the tax. 55 was widened to four lanes for free, yet not one of them says thank you. Instead, it is gimme gimmie gimme. No one made them move to Apex, Holly Springs, F-V, etc. They are not entitled to anything.

If the Turnpike Authority's tolls would ever pay for the road, then they wouldn't have to ask the government for $12 million to get started because Wall St would bankroll the road as an asset that would eventually produce profit. That's why the tolls are not temporary. There will never be enough tolls coming in fast enough to retire the debt service.

This is the most definitive proof ever that roads don't pay for themselves. As for the sense of entitlement to the WRAL posters, that's not surprising. America has worked diligently to hide the costs of road usage and construction from the public, and we have worked harder than most here in NC, so people are outraged when suddenly presented with the costs of their driving.

Of course, if gas prices continue to rise in the mid-to-upper $2 - $3 this summer, these same folks are going to be begging for gas tax reductions. At the same time, the viability of the exurbs as a reasonable long-term investment option continues to come into question.

We shouldn't be building more loops further out; we should be investing in efficiency closer to the region's core. That means transit, road pricing, bike/ped improvements, and an end to parking subsidies.

[ChiefJoJo]

We shouldn't be building more loops further out; we should be investing in efficiency closer to the region's core. That means transit, road pricing, bike/ped improvements, and an end to parking subsidies.

I agree with the parking issue. AT least Raleigh is studying parking reform for DT--it's a start.

I think finishing 540 is probably inevitable at this point--like 485 in Charlotte. If we could limit the roadway to serving it's actual purpose--moving traffic--and not creating more sprawl, then we'd be OK. (I'm not saying this is totally realistic, given our piss poor planning past) Similar to my point about TIFs on the transit thread, there are ways to capture the increased value that transportation facilites create. Values aroud new highway interchanges skyrocket even before they are completed (see Triangle Town Center).

I'm thinking as I type here... there could be a special tax overlay district created around the 540 interchanges to recapture some of the increased real estate values that the taxpayers have created, essentially for developer's benefit. It could be like an inverse TIF, such that the developer must pay the upfront tax (instead of a public TIF bond) prior to abtaining approvals and permits. This would be over and above the normal annual property tax for the county/city. Of course there is also the impact fee, which would charge a fee based on the amt of housing units, retail space, etc.

Oh, BTW, Dana: the new estimate for 540/Triangle Pkwy is $905M over 18.6mi = $49M/mile, but if you consider the 2.8mi 540 segment from NC 55 to 540 (now U/C) is already mostly paid for (minus toll plazas that will be retrofitted on the toll portion)... that eliminates the 2.8mi from the cost eqaution... the more realistic cost would be...

$905M/15.8mi = $57M per mile, which is a lot more than TTA on a per-mile basis BTW.

[ncwebguy]

What will happen if (when?) toll revenue is not enough to pay for the $905 million bond on this part of 540? Or will tolls only cover the interest until the DOT would have funded it 20 years from now?

Using "back of the envelope math", if 100,000 people paid $2 a day ($1 each way) * 250 work days a year [5 days/week * 50 (52 weeks - 2 weeks vacation)], it would raise 50 million dollars a year, not including the cost of collecting the tolls. That 50 million would pay the *interest* on $905 million if the rate was 5.5% and ignored the interest accumulated during construction. Will 100,000 people use this road on day one? No. The $12 million in "gap" funds might cover the construction interest and cost of collecting tolls.

The toll will have to be more than $1 per direction, or other funding sources will need to be tapped. I think I suggested an interchange TIF earlier in this thread and/or questioned why loop roads that only help local citizens aren't partially funded by the increased land values they create. The words "impact fee" is accurate. Living in soutwest Wake county is creating an unreasonable impact, and there should be a fee for building there. Why is that so hard to understand?

If 540 had to undergo the same formulas TTA had to go through, there is no way it would get funded. While mass transit provides the vehicles (bus or train), highways require users bring their own, which in turn has to be fueled and maintained. I would pay a toll on the existing stretch of 540. I use it when it is a better option than other routes, and the time/gas it saves me is worth it. A toll on all of 540 would raise more money to complete it, help pay for its own maintenance, and reduce the toll burden on future sections. Unfortunatly, people will continue to demand things they don't want to pay for. The current system is nothing more than transferring federal gas tax revenue to the land owners and developers along new highways.

[sax184]

If we could limit the roadway to serving it's actual purpose--moving traffic--and not creating more sprawl, then we'd be OK.

ChiefJoJo- always love your posts, but I think there's a contradiction in terms with I-540 in your statement, and it's that I don't think I-540 is about building an interstate highway to move traffic. Of course, 540 never leaves the state. The point of urban loops as we build them in America is to create sprawl.

In England, the equivalent of the interstate system is much different, and has much greater interchange spacing. If we were serious about moving traffic, we'd use their model. But we're not as serious about moving traffic as we are about expanding the city boundaries through suburban development.

[ChiefJoJo]

Maybe we're talking about semantics here, but if you ignore the name, the primary purpose of urban loops is to relieve traffic congestion on primary interstate highways (40, 85). The unstated or secondary purpose of urban loops may be related to creating opportunites for suburban development, but their primary purpose is definitely transportation related. As you said, Europe has many loop freeways... Edinburgh (which I've visted) has one, London (M25), etc. The difference is in the transportation accessibility (# interchanges) and land use policies of European nations vs the US. I get your point though. We're probably splitting hairs.