NCDOT is looking at ways to upgrade and improve traffic flow on a 19 mile stretch of US 64 from Cary to Pittsboro, and they will be holding two community workshops in May for residential input.
The current study is looking at ways to improve US 64 into a freeway or an expressway or a combination of both over the next 30 years.
One of the key issues is the improved highway's environmental impact along with citizen's access to the popular Jordan Lake State Recreation Area. In addition, access to and from existing and future shopping centers and residential developments along US 64 will be a topic of discussion.
The US 64 corridor in upcoming years will also see the addition of an interchange with the Triangle Expressway (NC 540).
Currently, a small part of US 64 in Cary is already considered an expressway by the state.
In addition to the long term improvements, the DOT is looking at intersections where the 'superstreet' concept can be installed. The modified intersection that is designed to eliminate most left turns can be found in Chapel Hill, Brunswick County, and non-signalized versions can be found on US 1 near Vass.
The 19 mile US 64 corridor is part of North Carolina's Strategic Highway Corridor Program. The program consists of 55 highway corridors aiming to provide a network of high-speed, safe, reliable highways throughout the state. The section of US 64 is part of SHC Corridor 26 (Charlotte to Raleigh) which consists of NC 49 from Charlotte to Asheboro and US 64 from Asheboro to Raleigh.
The two meetings will be held at Apex High School on Monday, May 19 and Northwood High School in Pittsboro on Tuesday, May 20. Both meetings will be held from 5 to 8 pm.
NCDOT plans to have a second round of meetings and community input sometime in October.
"Adam Prince" <aprince...@nc.rr.com> wrote: >NCDOT is looking at ways to upgrade and improve traffic flow on a 19 mile >stretch of US 64 from Cary to Pittsboro, and they will be holding two >community workshops in May for residential input.
Actually they've been thinking of this for a long time.
>The current study is looking at ways to improve US 64 into a freeway or an >expressway or a combination of both over the next 30 years.
Yes, the "Strategic Highway Corridor Initiative", one of those ivory tower concepts that does nothing but come up with lines on a map that have no bearing in reality. A couple of my projects have been badly SNAFU'ed by this so-called improvement plan.
>One of the key issues is the improved highway's environmental impact along >with citizen's access to the popular Jordan Lake State Recreation Area. In >addition, access to and from existing and future shopping centers and >residential developments along US 64 will be a topic of discussion.
>The US 64 corridor in upcoming years will also see the addition of an >interchange with the Triangle Expressway (NC 540).
>Currently, a small part of US 64 in Cary is already considered an expressway >by the state.
Actually, once you get past the last traffic signal at the Cary High School, it's an expressway all the way to Siler City. There's a few signals between those two points, but it's a good drive and a vast improvement over the old two lane section.
>In addition to the long term improvements, the DOT is looking at >intersections where the 'superstreet' concept can be installed. The modified >intersection that is designed to eliminate most left turns can be found in >Chapel Hill, Brunswick County, and non-signalized versions can be found on >US 1 near Vass.
Yes, the "Superstreet" design is the latest craze NCDOT has latched onto. Several of the intersections are already limiting left turning movements from side streets along US 64, though.
>The 19 mile US 64 corridor is part of North Carolina's Strategic Highway >Corridor Program. The program consists of 55 highway corridors aiming to >provide a network of high-speed, safe, reliable highways throughout the >state. The section of US 64 is part of SHC Corridor 26 (Charlotte to >Raleigh) which consists of NC 49 from Charlotte to Asheboro and US 64 from >Asheboro to Raleigh.
US 64 was improved from Cary all the way to Asheboro back in the 90's and earlier this decade, and IMO it functions extremely well without needing any further improvements. The area from US 1 to NC 54 is probably the worst, but that's due to local politicians granting massive developments access to the road willy-nilly, making intersections more difficult to function. The ivory tower guys in Raleigh then come up with "hey, let's make US 64 a FREEWAY!" with the SHC program, without realizing just how expensive and difficult it will be to do that. I love how the Department can come up with more and more ways to spend money we don't have...
(NOTE: This rant is my own opinion and can in no way, shape, form or fashion be constituted as an official position or comment from NCDOT.)
John Lansford wrote: > "Adam Prince" <aprince...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>> NCDOT is looking at ways to upgrade and improve traffic flow on a 19 mile >> stretch of US 64 from Cary to Pittsboro, and they will be holding two >> community workshops in May for residential input.
> Actually they've been thinking of this for a long time.
>> The current study is looking at ways to improve US 64 into a freeway or an >> expressway or a combination of both over the next 30 years.
> Yes, the "Strategic Highway Corridor Initiative", one of those ivory > tower concepts that does nothing but come up with lines on a map that > have no bearing in reality. A couple of my projects have been badly > SNAFU'ed by this so-called improvement plan.
The SHC system are the most significant roads in the State. The designation has helped hold the line on access in a number of locations in the past few years.
>> One of the key issues is the improved highway's environmental impact along >> with citizen's access to the popular Jordan Lake State Recreation Area. In >> addition, access to and from existing and future shopping centers and >> residential developments along US 64 will be a topic of discussion.
>> The US 64 corridor in upcoming years will also see the addition of an >> interchange with the Triangle Expressway (NC 540).
>> Currently, a small part of US 64 in Cary is already considered an expressway >> by the state.
> Actually, once you get past the last traffic signal at the Cary High > School, it's an expressway all the way to Siler City. There's a few > signals between those two points, but it's a good drive and a vast > improvement over the old two lane section.
>> In addition to the long term improvements, the DOT is looking at >> intersections where the 'superstreet' concept can be installed. The modified >> intersection that is designed to eliminate most left turns can be found in >> Chapel Hill, Brunswick County, and non-signalized versions can be found on >> US 1 near Vass.
> Yes, the "Superstreet" design is the latest craze NCDOT has latched > onto. Several of the intersections are already limiting left turning > movements from side streets along US 64, though.
We've "latched onto" the superstreet because it can push a lot more traffic through on a main road without delaying the side street (further than what would have already happened.) Getting rid of 8-phase signals that reduce the capacity on the main street by 2/3rds is the key component.
>> The 19 mile US 64 corridor is part of North Carolina's Strategic Highway >> Corridor Program. The program consists of 55 highway corridors aiming to >> provide a network of high-speed, safe, reliable highways throughout the >> state. The section of US 64 is part of SHC Corridor 26 (Charlotte to >> Raleigh) which consists of NC 49 from Charlotte to Asheboro and US 64 from >> Asheboro to Raleigh.
> US 64 was improved from Cary all the way to Asheboro back in the 90's > and earlier this decade, and IMO it functions extremely well without > needing any further improvements. The area from US 1 to NC 54 is > probably the worst, but that's due to local politicians granting > massive developments access to the road willy-nilly, making > intersections more difficult to function. The ivory tower guys in > Raleigh then come up with "hey, let's make US 64 a FREEWAY!" with the > SHC program, without realizing just how expensive and difficult it > will be to do that. I love how the Department can come up with more > and more ways to spend money we don't have...
Speaking from the ivory tower, or at least a lower floor, we knew how much (in general) the designations would cost, in many areas it would be very difficult, and that it would be years/decades before the vision would be met. But it is a goal, and allows us to formally treat those roads different from other state roads. For the most part, we've been able to protect these roads from the local politicians. It's a start.
(I presume, BTW, that you meant NC 55 instead of 54 in Apex. That section of US 64 will be the toughest to convert long-term, and perhaps it will become US 64 Business instead of the main road at some point, if /when the eastern Wake Freeway is completed. It still needs help to function better.)
> (NOTE: This rant is my own opinion and can in no way, shape, form or > fashion be constituted as an official position or comment from NCDOT.)
>>> NCDOT is looking at ways to upgrade and improve traffic flow on a 19 mile >>> stretch of US 64 from Cary to Pittsboro, and they will be holding two >>> community workshops in May for residential input.
>> Actually they've been thinking of this for a long time.
>>> The current study is looking at ways to improve US 64 into a freeway or an >>> expressway or a combination of both over the next 30 years.
>> Yes, the "Strategic Highway Corridor Initiative", one of those ivory >> tower concepts that does nothing but come up with lines on a map that >> have no bearing in reality. A couple of my projects have been badly >> SNAFU'ed by this so-called improvement plan.
>The SHC system are the most significant roads in the State. The >designation has helped hold the line on access in a number of locations >in the past few years.
The SHC artificially assigns overdesigned goals on roads with little to no future chance of needing to be freeways, IMO. There are plenty of roads in NC that do not need to be freeways for the only reason given being "they are on the SHC".
>>> One of the key issues is the improved highway's environmental impact along >>> with citizen's access to the popular Jordan Lake State Recreation Area. In >>> addition, access to and from existing and future shopping centers and >>> residential developments along US 64 will be a topic of discussion.
>>> The US 64 corridor in upcoming years will also see the addition of an >>> interchange with the Triangle Expressway (NC 540).
>>> Currently, a small part of US 64 in Cary is already considered an expressway >>> by the state.
>> Actually, once you get past the last traffic signal at the Cary High >> School, it's an expressway all the way to Siler City. There's a few >> signals between those two points, but it's a good drive and a vast >> improvement over the old two lane section.
>>> In addition to the long term improvements, the DOT is looking at >>> intersections where the 'superstreet' concept can be installed. The modified >>> intersection that is designed to eliminate most left turns can be found in >>> Chapel Hill, Brunswick County, and non-signalized versions can be found on >>> US 1 near Vass.
>> Yes, the "Superstreet" design is the latest craze NCDOT has latched >> onto. Several of the intersections are already limiting left turning >> movements from side streets along US 64, though.
>We've "latched onto" the superstreet because it can push a lot more >traffic through on a main road without delaying the side street (further >than what would have already happened.) Getting rid of 8-phase signals >that reduce the capacity on the main street by 2/3rds is the key component.
How much does it help on low volume roads, though? I've got one with vpd less than 10k and am being asked to put SS on it. For higher volume roads where side streets have significant turning movements there may be a benefit, but most on US 64 aren't like that.
>>> The 19 mile US 64 corridor is part of North Carolina's Strategic Highway >>> Corridor Program. The program consists of 55 highway corridors aiming to >>> provide a network of high-speed, safe, reliable highways throughout the >>> state. The section of US 64 is part of SHC Corridor 26 (Charlotte to >>> Raleigh) which consists of NC 49 from Charlotte to Asheboro and US 64 from >>> Asheboro to Raleigh.
>> US 64 was improved from Cary all the way to Asheboro back in the 90's >> and earlier this decade, and IMO it functions extremely well without >> needing any further improvements. The area from US 1 to NC 54 is >> probably the worst, but that's due to local politicians granting >> massive developments access to the road willy-nilly, making >> intersections more difficult to function. The ivory tower guys in >> Raleigh then come up with "hey, let's make US 64 a FREEWAY!" with the >> SHC program, without realizing just how expensive and difficult it >> will be to do that. I love how the Department can come up with more >> and more ways to spend money we don't have...
>Speaking from the ivory tower, or at least a lower floor, we knew how >much (in general) the designations would cost, in many areas it would be >very difficult, and that it would be years/decades before the vision >would be met. But it is a goal, and allows us to formally treat those >roads different from other state roads. For the most part, we've been >able to protect these roads from the local politicians. It's a start.
US 64 already had limited control of access on it, with adjacent parcels getting one direct driveway only if there wasn't an adjacent access road nearby.
>(I presume, BTW, that you meant NC 55 instead of 54 in Apex. That >section of US 64 will be the toughest to convert long-term, and perhaps >it will become US 64 Business instead of the main road at some point, if >/when the eastern Wake Freeway is completed. It still needs help to >function better.)
Well yes, I meant NC 55. I've seen little benefit to the SHC so far, but a lot of PITA that adds more difficulty to designers. I realize it is an "ultimate goal" but when the planners insist on wanting a freeway design for a road with no chance for needing to be a freeway, or force a redesign on a project that's been in planning for over a decade because "the SHC says it's supposed to be a FREEWAY", I see nothing but wasted effort for little to no gain.
John Lansford wrote: > James Dunlop <jdunlopSPAMA...@FLESHWOUNDaol.com> wrote:
>>> Yes, the "Superstreet" design is the latest craze NCDOT has latched >>> onto. Several of the intersections are already limiting left turning >>> movements from side streets along US 64, though. >> We've "latched onto" the superstreet because it can push a lot more >> traffic through on a main road without delaying the side street (further >> than what would have already happened.) Getting rid of 8-phase signals >> that reduce the capacity on the main street by 2/3rds is the key component.
> How much does it help on low volume roads, though? I've got one with > vpd less than 10k and am being asked to put SS on it. For higher > volume roads where side streets have significant turning movements > there may be a benefit, but most on US 64 aren't like that.
Low volume roads? Safety. Eliminates the rural full-movement crossover where many severe crashes occur. The two stage crossing or turn is much safer.
The NCDOT standard for a four-lane median divided rural expressway is the superstreet (aka directional crossovers with median u-turns.)
James Dunlop <jdunlopSPAMA...@FLESHWOUNDaol.com> wrote: >John Lansford wrote: >> James Dunlop <jdunlopSPAMA...@FLESHWOUNDaol.com> wrote:
>>>> Yes, the "Superstreet" design is the latest craze NCDOT has latched >>>> onto. Several of the intersections are already limiting left turning >>>> movements from side streets along US 64, though. >>> We've "latched onto" the superstreet because it can push a lot more >>> traffic through on a main road without delaying the side street (further >>> than what would have already happened.) Getting rid of 8-phase signals >>> that reduce the capacity on the main street by 2/3rds is the key component.
>> How much does it help on low volume roads, though? I've got one with >> vpd less than 10k and am being asked to put SS on it. For higher >> volume roads where side streets have significant turning movements >> there may be a benefit, but most on US 64 aren't like that.
>Low volume roads? Safety. Eliminates the rural full-movement crossover >where many severe crashes occur. The two stage crossing or turn is much >safer.
>The NCDOT standard for a four-lane median divided rural expressway is >the superstreet (aka directional crossovers with median u-turns.)
I'm aware of that; I design them, remember? It just appears that the use of these intersections is spotty, since I've seen plenty of rural intersections on 4 lane roads that are still traditional, and others where the left turns have been eliminated. If safety is the prevailing reason I'd expect the divisions to be adding them everywhere since they cost little to implement.
> NCDOT is looking at ways to upgrade and improve traffic flow on a 19 mile > stretch of US 64 from Cary to Pittsboro, and they will be holding two > community workshops in May for residential input.
> The current study is looking at ways to improve US 64 into a freeway or an > expressway or a combination of both over the next 30 years.
> One of the key issues is the improved highway's environmental impact along > with citizen's access to the popular Jordan Lake State Recreation Area. In > addition, access to and from existing and future shopping centers and > residential developments along US 64 will be a topic of discussion.
> The US 64 corridor in upcoming years will also see the addition of an > interchange with the Triangle Expressway (NC 540).
> Currently, a small part of US 64 in Cary is already considered an expressway > by the state.
> In addition to the long term improvements, the DOT is looking at > intersections where the 'superstreet' concept can be installed. The modified > intersection that is designed to eliminate most left turns can be found in > Chapel Hill, Brunswick County, and non-signalized versions can be found on > US 1 near Vass.
> The 19 mile US 64 corridor is part of North Carolina's Strategic Highway > Corridor Program. The program consists of 55 highway corridors aiming to > provide a network of high-speed, safe, reliable highways throughout the > state. The section of US 64 is part of SHC Corridor 26 (Charlotte to > Raleigh) which consists of NC 49 from Charlotte to Asheboro and US 64 from > Asheboro to Raleigh.
> The two meetings will be held at Apex High School on Monday, May 19 and > Northwood High School in Pittsboro on Tuesday, May 20. Both meetings will be > held from 5 to 8 pm.
> NCDOT plans to have a second round of meetings and community input sometime > in October.
I think that virtually any road than can be drawn on a map can be "justified" by picking the factors that best support that particular road - which, in turn, are different from the factors used to support another road.
The problem is - if you have a 100 roads like this and you can only fund 25 of them - where is that uniform criteria that lets you RANK them in the order of their ratings...?
and this is one reason why - we have used every penny of transportation money and still have "urgent" funding issues involving safety and congestion relief.
so .. for one road.. we say it is needed for congestion relief. then for another road we say it is needed to "better serve" those who...commute... etc, etc...
People cite the need for more funds to prevent more bridge collapses but there are already multiple Billions of dollars of highway funding.. every year that does NOT get allocated for widely acknowledge "needs". both safety and congestion relief.
It's almost if we view funding for bridges as not only separate but that it ought to be separate and not compete directly for funding against new roads.
One way of evaluating new roads is to do a toll road study to determine IF it were to be a toll road .. how much of a toll could be charged and whether or not that toll would be enough to pay for that road or not - even if it is not intended or appropriate as a toll road necessarily.
So for those projects where someone is saying that they are "needed" - there would be an objective process for helping to determine what need really is rather than opinion.
Safety and congestion relief would also be part of the rating so that even if a road was not "tollable" that it could still rank high.
> NCDOT is looking at ways to upgrade and improve traffic flow on a 19 mile > stretch of US 64 from Cary to Pittsboro, and they will be holding two > community workshops in May for residential input.
> The current study is looking at ways to improve US 64 into a freeway or an > expressway or a combination of both over the next 30 years.
> One of the key issues is the improved highway's environmental impact along > with citizen's access to the popular Jordan Lake State Recreation Area. In > addition, access to and from existing and future shopping centers and > residential developments along US 64 will be a topic of discussion.
> The US 64 corridor in upcoming years will also see the addition of an > interchange with the Triangle Expressway (NC 540).
> Currently, a small part of US 64 in Cary is already considered an expressway > by the state.
> In addition to the long term improvements, the DOT is looking at > intersections where the 'superstreet' concept can be installed. The modified > intersection that is designed to eliminate most left turns can be found in > Chapel Hill, Brunswick County, and non-signalized versions can be found on > US 1 near Vass.
> The 19 mile US 64 corridor is part of North Carolina's Strategic Highway > Corridor Program. The program consists of 55 highway corridors aiming to > provide a network of high-speed, safe, reliable highways throughout the > state. The section of US 64 is part of SHC Corridor 26 (Charlotte to > Raleigh) which consists of NC 49 from Charlotte to Asheboro and US 64 from > Asheboro to Raleigh.
> The two meetings will be held at Apex High School on Monday, May 19 and > Northwood High School in Pittsboro on Tuesday, May 20. Both meetings will be > held from 5 to 8 pm.
> NCDOT plans to have a second round of meetings and community input sometime > in October.
I think that virtually any road than can be drawn on a map can be "justified" by picking the factors that best support that particular road - which, in turn, are different from the factors used to support another road.
The problem is - if you have a 100 roads like this and you can only fund 25 of them - where is that uniform criteria that lets you RANK them in the order of their ratings...?
and this is one reason why - we have used every penny of transportation money and still have "urgent" funding issues involving safety and congestion relief.
so .. for one road.. we say it is needed for congestion relief. then for another road we say it is needed to "better serve" those who...commute... etc, etc...
People cite the need for more funds to prevent more bridge collapses but there are already multiple Billions of dollars of highway funding.. every year that does NOT get allocated for widely acknowledge "needs". both safety and congestion relief.
It's almost if we view funding for bridges as not only separate but that it ought to be separate and not compete directly for funding against new roads.
One way of evaluating new roads is to do a toll road study to determine IF it were to be a toll road .. how much of a toll could be charged and whether or not that toll would be enough to pay for that road or not - even if it is not intended or appropriate as a toll road necessarily.
So for those projects where someone is saying that they are "needed" - there would be an objective process for helping to determine what need really is rather than opinion.
Safety and congestion relief would also be part of the rating so that even if a road was not "tollable" that it could still rank high.
Larry G <gross.la...@gmail.com> wrote: >I think that virtually any road than can be drawn on a map can be >"justified" by picking the factors that best support that particular >road - which, in turn, are different from the factors used to support >another road.
>The problem is - if you have a 100 roads like this and you can only >fund 25 of them - where is that uniform criteria that lets you RANK >them in the order of their ratings...?
>and this is one reason why - we have used every penny of >transportation money and still have "urgent" funding issues involving >safety and congestion relief.
>so .. for one road.. we say it is needed for congestion relief. then >for another road we say it is needed to "better serve" those >who...commute... etc, etc...
>People cite the need for more funds to prevent more bridge collapses >but there are already multiple Billions of dollars of highway >funding.. every year that does NOT get allocated for widely >acknowledge "needs". both safety and congestion relief.
>It's almost if we view funding for bridges as not only separate but >that it ought to be separate and not compete directly for funding >against new roads.
That's because it does, Larry. Bridge replacement (BRZ and BRS) funds are completely seperate from surface transportation (STP) or interstate (I, IR and IM) Federal funding. The state cannot use money from one group to pay for a project out of the other groups. Obviously a bridge could be replaced on either an STP or an I-type project, just as a road could be widened for a very short section on a BRZ type project. However, bridge replacement money is very focused; we're routinely asked to cut back the approach work on a bridge project so as to maximize the use of the money on replacing ONLY the bridge.
As to the SHC list, I agree with you; what's the point of designating a highway as a "future freeway" when it's only a paper exercise? I've got a project right this moment where the ivory tower guys (not you, Jim), wanted the preliminary designs to use freeway standards, because that was what they had decided it should be on the SHC list. There was no field review, no discussion with the division or the public using that road, it was just an arbitrary decision made by officials in Raleigh that had no bearing on what the road SHOULD be. We told the SHC representative that the environmental impacts for building this road to a freeway standards would be immense, and we would not be wasting our time providing any preliminary freeway alternatives.
Sure, they retreated and said "well, the SHC list is only a guideline", but when they show up at scoping meetings and request design alternatives without thinking of the impacts or costs, then IMO it's more than just a guideline or a potential future outcome.
