NCDOT begins thinking on upgrading US 64
Adam Prince
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.
NCDOT introduced a new website in March 2008 and can be accessed here:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/tpb/shc/studies/US64/
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.
Story: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1065042.html
John Lansford
>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, PE
--
John's Shop of Wood
http://wood.jlansford.net/
James Dunlop
> "Adam Prince" <aprin...@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.)
As Patrick Swayze would say, ditto.
John Lansford
>John Lansford wrote:
>> "Adam Prince" <aprin...@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.
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.
James Dunlop
> James Dunlop <jdunlop...@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.)
John Lansford
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.
Larry G
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
I think that virtually any road than can be drawn on a map can be
John Lansford
>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.
Craig Zeni
> "Adam Prince" <aprin...@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.
Vast improvement yes, but conditions are getting worse by the month as
new developments are built out towards the lake. I use the road at
least once a month as my route south or west out of the area. The state
continues to allow traffic light farms to be installed at 'dangerous'
intersections without any sort of synchronization - that alone is
seriously slowing down traffic. Steps should be taken now to stop the
growth of traffic light farms on US 64 or it will in short order become
the mess that US 64 east out of Raleigh had become.
Adam Prince
wrote:
> John Lansford wrote:
<snip>
> 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.
>
Isn't the two rural/unsignalized Superstreets on the US 1 Vass Bypass
in place until an interchange or an overpass is built at those
intersections?
> >> 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 have no issue with the concept of the SHC. It gives a game plan for
the future of a transportation corridor. Some are most likely pie in
the sky but it appears that it has allowed for a standardization of
types of highways in the state in the future.
It will be interesting to see what parts of it come together in the
years ahead.
James Dunlop
This is a public group, and sometimes things are added for the rest of
the people reading. This, and correcting what was obviously a typo (NC
54 for 55) were added for others' benefit.
Full movement crossovers are slowly being changed to leftovers, that's
the relatively easy part. It's the u-turn point (if there isn't another
crossover close by) that's the tougher thing to do with limited funds. I
believe the estimate right now is about $500,000 per intersection
converted (covering the leftovers and u-turns; it's about $1.2m for a
signalized location.) Spot Safety funds don't go very far, and have to
cover far too many things. (The spot safety funds are still only about
$9m to cover the entire state.) From what I've seen, the Divisions are
getting to many of the top safety problems. Obviously, it's easier for
a new location, with a small incremental cost over the traditional
intersection.
John Lansford
It's just to me, as a highway design engineer, that the "superstreet"
design is being touted as a panacea to improving intersection safety,
instead of being considered as just one more option to be employed
when needed. There's no need for every single intersection on a rural
expressway to use this design; I've driven on US 64 between Raleigh
and Asheboro many, many times since it was improved, and have never
seen any crashes at any of these intersections. I'm aware of the
issues on some other roads that resulted in superstreets being
incorporated into their intersections, but I'm concerned that these
designs are being pushed as a "cure" for a condition that isn't as
prevalent as estimated.
Not to mention I hear the public complain about the ones being
proposed every time we tell them about them at public meetings and
hearings. No one likes them even when told the design will make the
intersections safer.
John Lansford
>On May 10, 7:36 pm, James Dunlop <jdunlopSPAMA...@FLESHWOUNDaol.com>
>wrote:
>> John Lansford wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>Isn't the two rural/unsignalized Superstreets on the US 1 Vass Bypass
>in place until an interchange or an overpass is built at those
>intersections?
I'm not aware of them but if they're on the newly opened section they
would be a decent compromise design until the interchanges were added.
>> 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 have no issue with the concept of the SHC. It gives a game plan for
>the future of a transportation corridor. Some are most likely pie in
>the sky but it appears that it has allowed for a standardization of
>types of highways in the state in the future.
>
>It will be interesting to see what parts of it come together in the
>years ahead.
There was already some standardization taking place, though; other
than some aberrations such as US 158 near the Outer Banks, most rural
highways being improved were to expressway standard (4 lanes w/median,
some access control). When I'm told to design a rural highway to
freeway standards without any rationale or justification other than
"it's on the SHC list", though, it's obvious someone has just been
drawing lines on a map without doing any further research.
John Lansford
What kind of steps? Access is granted by local DOT officials, but
they are under enormous pressure from developers and politicians to
allow the businesses and subdivisions access to the US route. Many of
those businesses located to US 64 with the understanding that they
would have full access, and now some of that access is being changed
or modified. Short of requiring all further developments to be built
on service roads and no new driveway permits allowed to US 64, and
developers to build interchanges at existing intersections, I doubt
there's much that can be done.
James Dunlop
>>>> 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.
>> Vast improvement yes, but conditions are getting worse by the month as
>> new developments are built out towards the lake. I use the road at
>> least once a month as my route south or west out of the area. The state
>> continues to allow traffic light farms to be installed at 'dangerous'
>> intersections without any sort of synchronization - that alone is
>> seriously slowing down traffic. Steps should be taken now to stop the
>> growth of traffic light farms on US 64 or it will in short order become
>> the mess that US 64 east out of Raleigh had become.
>
> What kind of steps? Access is granted by local DOT officials, but
> they are under enormous pressure from developers and politicians to
> allow the businesses and subdivisions access to the US route. Many of
> those businesses located to US 64 with the understanding that they
> would have full access, and now some of that access is being changed
> or modified. Short of requiring all further developments to be built
> on service roads and no new driveway permits allowed to US 64, and
> developers to build interchanges at existing intersections, I doubt
> there's much that can be done.
>
Unless C/A is purchased, access is guaranteed to the State Highway
System, as you know. However, what most don't know is that access is
guaranteed, however there is nothing in the statutes that require that
the guaranteed access is from both directions. If NCDOT puts in a
median, no compensation is due to any adjacent land owners. (This is
what the legal side have ruled, however in condemnation cases, the
juries usually ignore this, unfortunately.)
On other points, I agree that the superstreet is not the answer to all
situations, and I am starting to see it suggested in places it's not a
good solution, just as we're seeing the SPUI suggested for many
interchange replacements, even when it's a bad idea.
Anybody suggesting that a freeway be built just because of the SHC is
taking the vision to an extreme, and ignoring reality, and that should
be corrected. A road like, say US 158, on new location, should be full
C/A, except at public streets, but a freeway at this point would be
overkill. An expressway gets the road further along to the ultimate
vision, and protects the corridor for that vision, but doesn't go
"overboard" if you would.