Traffic Congestion and Highway Construction

[28202]

I like to knock on the car and touch it a lot as I trail around it... and make sure they can only watch me until I get clear. I do think it is a violation to stop beyond the stop line but your dealing with people who have never used the signal so be careful.

[Raintree21]

General Statute 20‑142.5. Stop when traffic obstructed.

No driver shall enter an intersection or a marked crosswalk or drive onto any railroad grade crossing unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection, crosswalk, or railroad grade crossing to accommodate the vehicle he is operating without obstructing the passage of other vehicles, pedestrians, or railroad trains, notwithstanding the indication of any traffic control signal to proceed. Any person who violates any provision of this section shall be guilty of an infraction and punished in accordance with G.S. 20‑176. Violation of this section shall not constitute negligence per se.

An employer who knowingly allows, requires, permits, or otherwise authorizes a driver of a commercial motor vehicle to violate this section shall be guilty of an infraction. Such employer will also be subject to a civil penalty under G.S. 20‑37.21. (1991, c. 368, s. 1; 2005‑349, s. 16.)

[Justadude]

Does anyone know if it is illegal or a traffic violation to stop in the middle of a cross walk instead of at the white line?

I very, very strongly feel that Charlotte needs horizontally-striped crosswalks. They are the only safe way to demarcate a crosswalk, especially in locations with lots of visual distractions. I don't know why we're so far behind the curve on this -- they're standard in other cities. Until this is corrected, it won't really hit home with Charlotteans what the concept of a "crosswalk" really means.

[dubone]

The problem is that it is next to impossible to enforce this. It is really up to the people driving to somehow shake the stupor of invincibility that driving seems to give them and remember that pedestrians are human beings. I think it is easy to forget when you are driving that you can really hurt a pedestrian by one dumb move at a relatively low speed. So many people, even downtown, forget to think about pedestrians when they are rushing through the street network. People rush around corners, speed considerably, don't even think about slowing down for crossings that don't have a red light shining at them. Stopping in the middle of the crosswalk is maybe the least dangerous of it all, but it still reflects a lack of consideration that could potentially bring harm to the people that have to walk all around to get past.

I admit that when driving, I often forget about pedestrians and bicyclists. There is something about driving that makes it easier to lose touch with objects other than cars or trucks and curbs. I think the Drachten roundabout experiment proves that, and it takes a fairly drastic design change for people to snap of it. Auto-dependant cities like Charlotte seem to be particularly afflicted by this. The mindset also shifts to political values when people start opposing spending on bike lanes or sidewalks or streetscapes.

[monsoon]

Unfortunately the roundabout, as implemented in NC & Charlotte, is an accommodation for the automobile and not the pedestrian as it requires the pedestrian to walk much further to get through it than the normal intersection. Many people don't know they are not supposed to walk into the inner circle.

[dubone]

Please note that I wrote the "Drachten roundabout experiment".

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/11/traffic_lights.php

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/09/german_town_scr.php

I was referencing is the experiment of creating chaos (no signs, no curbs, few lane markings, open territory for pedestrians, etc) in order to breed courtesy and efficiency and safety. It is working, at least in the small European town context. But still, I'm not proposing we even do this, but I'm suggesting that this helps to prove that people often tend to forget humanity around them when in their car following standardly designed roads.

(I must say, though, it is a weak argument to say roundabouts are worse for pedestrians by needing to walk 30 feet to the side to go around them, which is about 7 seconds in average walking speed -- I did the math. Roundabouts slow traffic and thus improve safety, and cost the pedestrian only 7 seconds of healthy exercise for this reduced danger.)

[Spartan]

That is not true at all. In the winter months when dark comes much earlier, there is traffic well past sunset. Charlotte is the only major city that I have EVER been to, period, that has this type of problem in its CENTER. Arguments regarding light pollution are ridiculous. It is the center of a metropolitan area with 2 million people. If you want to see the stars at night, don't live in the middle of the city. It is absolutely reprehensible that the freeways near and in uptown are lacking lights. Trying to get from 77 to 277 at night is pretty dangerous. Not to mention you can't see ANY of the overhead signs because they aren't lit up either.

PlazaMidwood, I put my high beams on on that ramp from 77 S to 277/Brookshire too. You can barely see the road otherwise, and it is a very sharp turn. You shouldn't have to use your high beams in the downtown of any major city, period.

You'll note that I did account for the winter months in my earlier posts. Light pollution aside, its just a flat out waste of energy to leave lights on all night long.

In other states, they use highly reflective signs rather than lighted signs. They work pretty well too.

Another big reason for necessary lighting on interstates, interchanges, ramps, etc, is the safety of someone should they breakdown and have to pull over to the side of the road. It isn't just about cars that are actively travelling. I've been brokendown on the side of I-40 at night between Asheville and Hickory -- SCARY stuff -- cars and trucks flying by and likely no one will see you until they are right on you if there isn't some type of lighting other than headlights.

Interesting. I hadn't thought of that. So should NCDOT provide lighting on the entire length of I-40?

Unfortunately the roundabout, as implemented in NC & Charlotte, is an accommodation for the automobile...

This is generally true. Although they can slow down traffic, they don't stop it. I would LOVE to see that type of roundabout like the Drachten roundabout experiment is using somewhere in Charlotte. Just to see what happens. The problem is that tort laws in this country are ridiculous. The lawyers would have a field day.

[monsoon]

It is working, at least in the small European town context. But still, I'm not proposing we even do this, but I'm suggesting that this helps to prove that people often tend to forget humanity around them when in their car following standardly designed roads. ......

(I must say, though, it is a weak argument to say roundabouts are worse for pedestrians by needing to walk 30 feet to the side to go around them, which is about 7 seconds in average walking speed -- I did the math. Roundabouts slow traffic and thus improve safety, and cost the pedestrian only 7 seconds of healthy exercise for this reduced danger.)

Well, I guess we disagree on that as anything IMO, that makes it more difficult for pedestrians in lieu of the automobile is not good. However there is a vast experiment going on with the new roundabout going up right in the middle of Davidson's new urban village at exit 30 off I-77. It includes Harris Teeter's latest incarnation of grocery store, a bunch of multistory condos surrounding the round a bout, and other housing shops, etc. Two schools are within walking distance of this area as well as Davidson's park. It will be quite interesting to see how this turns out because they are in the process of converting an automobile centric area to one that is completely pedestrian friendly. There really isn't anything that I know of in the county that is being transformed in this manner. I recommend a visit to see it.

[1979Heel]

It is absolutely reprehensible that the freeways near and in uptown are lacking lights.

I couldn't agree more. They have lacked them for as long as I can remember. If someone really wanted to unseat McCrory, I think they could campaign on this issue alone and win. It may not be his direct responsibility, but he'd be an easy target. And the "interchanges" (a courtesy to call them that) from 77 to 277 are just a nightmare.

In fact, I77 from the South Carolina line to the center city is a woeful disgrace, day and especially at night. Even Knoxville, Tennessee has better freeways. So does Raleigh. So do most places. Disgraceful.

Charlotte and North Carolina are not poverty cases. Why is I-77 virtually as it was 30 years ago? And unlit, to boot.

[dubone]

I think if there is one thing I have been most consistent on in all my thousands of posts, is that I am very much for making pedestrian life much more difficult in favor of automobiles. Now that we've established that roundabouts are bad thing for pedestrians in favor of cars, it is great to see that Davidson is doing the car-friendly thing of building an urban district around the roundabout. Anyway, the whole subject of roundabouts came up because I said the Drachten experiment proved people pay more attention to other cars than to other humans in normal roadway designs. But glad to see that even a curve on a sidewalk can be controversial here.

As for the lights, it is just another impact of the poor road funding aparatus in NC. The Charlotte region does not get back enough from the gas tax revenues to fund anywhere close to the roadway needs in the region, especially not if you consider the state should also be spending the money on local streets, too. It shows up in potholes, strange value engineering that omits sidewalks and any streetscape to speak of, multiple-decade delays in needed projects, and very heated local politics where all spending seems to be thought of as a slight on road funding.

The fact is, NC's policy of central planning is woefully inefficient and unfair, except for inter-regional roadways (freeways and highways). I am not proposing they move to county-based road systems, but I do believe that cities or urban regions should be given authority to collect supplemental road taxes in order to supplement the road construction. If the Charlotte region had a revenue stream to fund the expansion of our own system, we could solve some of the longstanding design issues with our roadway system. We could also have success measurements include more than just car 1 from point A to point B at highest speed, and include aesthetics, neighborhood support, pedestrian and bike support, air quality, and other factors. A good example is the northern section of South Blvd, where the city took it over and applied higher quality design standards to the road to provide more support for the urbanization in SouthEnd. It isn't perfect, but it meets more of the city's needs that what the state is willing to provide.

If we were able to supplement our roadway budgets with a revenue stream that can't be diverted to random needs across the state, we could make significant headway in making targetted improvements that help mitigate congestion. Taking cars off the road (such as through transit, reduction in vehicle miles traveled, increase pedestrianism, etc.) helps to slow growth of congestion, as congestion is fundamentally the number of cars divided by the roadway capacity. But as long as there are mini bottlenecks or other inefficiencies, then there is still a congestion problem for individuals. Increasing the spending on intersection improvements (turn lanes, timed lights, etc.) would reduce these bottlenecks and improve congestion.

[Miesian Corners]

You'll note that I did account for the winter months in my earlier posts. Light pollution aside, its just a flat out waste of energy to leave lights on all night long...Interesting. I hadn't thought of that. So should NCDOT provide lighting on the entire length of I-40?

Likewise, since my street (and most any street in Charlotte) is basically void of traffic in the middle of the night, should we just turn them all off?

I don't follow your logic. Right now there are thousands of vehicles traveling at 70+mph down I-77 on a compeltely dark roadway while my little suburban street is bright enough to read by and no car has been down it in the past two hours.

And I don't think Charlotte Native was implying that the length of I-40 should be lighted, but most certainly every interchange should be.

[PlazaMidwoodGuy]

A reporter from News14 Carolina did a piece this evening on the burned out lights along I-77. In the story he says that they contacted the NCDOT and they promised that they would send out technicians next week to check out the problem. Give me a friggin' break! First of all, the reporter presents this story as though our dark freeways are a recent development, as opposed to an ongoing issue dating back WELL into the 1990s. Second, the fact that anyone at NCDOT would respond as though this was news to them is beyond belief!!

[Spartan]

Likewise, since my street (and most any street in Charlotte) is basically void of traffic in the middle of the night, should we just turn them all off?

I don't follow your logic. Right now there are thousands of vehicles traveling at 70+mph down I-77 on a compeltely dark roadway while my little suburban street is bright enough to read by and no car has been down it in the past two hours.

And I don't think Charlotte Native was implying that the length of I-40 should be lighted, but most certainly every interchange should be.

Thats different though. I am distinguishing between high capacity, high speed expressways from other arterial, collector, and local streets. The reasons for lighting in neighborhood streets, and others around the city are much more straight forward as there are: cross traffic, pedestrians, bikers, as well as general security issues that have to be factored in. None of that applies to interstates.

Like I said, if there is a legitimate need (and apparently there is) then by all means install the lights (or get the fixed). I concede that merging traffic and poor roadway design are good reasons to have lights. I've seen this type of thread in the SC forum before, and it basically seems like people just want lighted interstates, period. I think that there is a perceived safety benefit rather than an actual one in most cases.

A reporter from News14 Carolina did a piece this evening on the burned out lights along I-77. In the story he says that they contacted the NCDOT and they promised that they would send out technicians next week to check out the problem. Give me a friggin' break! First of all, the reporter presents this story as though our dark freeways are a recent development, as opposed to an ongoing issue dating back WELL into the 1990s. Second, the fact that anyone at NCDOT would respond as though this was news to them is beyond belief!!

The UP effect? hmm.....

[Spartan]

I was thinking about this one some more, and I feel like I should also add that if NCDOT already has the infrastructure in place, then there really is no excuse for not having it functional.

[monsoon]

I was thinking about this one some more, and I feel like I should also add that if NCDOT already has the infrastructure in place, then there really is no excuse for not having it functional.

Well it comes down to this. In NC, with few exceptions, all of the highways in the state are owned by the NCDOT. Counties are not allowed to fund and build roads, and cities are pretty much limited to neighborhood streets. There are a few notable specific exceptions in Charlotte but generally all road maintenance is handled by the NCDOT.

Now the NCDOT is just the dog that does the work, the owner of the leash is the NC Legislature which funds the NCDOT so they have a huge influence on how the agency prioritizes projects. Furthermore the agency has an excessive number of political appointiees that owe their allegiance to those who put them there. (Note the governor is from Eastern NC who barely remembers there is a state west of Raleigh) There are 100 counties in NC, many of which who have representatives with a lot of seniority in the legislature and all who feel their needs for road building are the most important in the state.

So with that said, the question comes down to putting new light bulbs in street lamps in what is viewed by the rest of the state as very prosperous Charlotte vs paving a road in backwoods Bugtussle, guess who is going to get the money first.

[ChiefJoJo]

It is absolutely reprehensible that the freeways near and in uptown are lacking lights.

I couldn't agree more. They have lacked them for as long as I can remember. If someone really wanted to unseat McCrory, I think they could campaign on this issue alone and win. It may not be his direct responsibility, but he'd be an easy target. And the "interchanges" (a courtesy to call them that) from 77 to 277 are just a nightmare.

In fact, I77 from the South Carolina line to the center city is a woeful disgrace, day and especially at night. Even Knoxville, Tennessee has better freeways. So does Raleigh. So do most places. Disgraceful.

Charlotte and North Carolina are not poverty cases. Why is I-77 virtually as it was 30 years ago? And unlit, to boot.

I understand the complaining about the lighting situation, and it is totally 100% justified, as are many of the design issues spoken of here... but you going to have a hard time convincing anyone that any city in NC has better, or more freeways than Charlotte does. Two primary interstates, one completely 8-laned through the county, the other 6-8 laned most of the way. I-277 and Independence as well, the latter project coming up being $170M+... not chump change. Then there's 485. Some "urbanists" today may say they never wanted it, but rightly or wrongly, 485 led to much of the growth that fueled Charlotte's rise in stature for the last 15-20 years or so, and it almost certainly will be the first freeway loop in NC to be built with no tolls, to the tune of well over $1.5B once it's complete.

Let's also not pretend that there along the way to getting to this point, that there hasn't been local govt responibility in the current traffic situation as well. The I-485 S situation comes to mind, where city and county govts declared they wanted the loop to pass inside NC 51, because no growth would take place past that route. As a result of the lure of more property tax dollars and suburban expansion to the SE, 20 years later, we have a 4-laned 485 overwhelmed by Carolina Place Mall/Medical Center, Ballantyne, etc.

On a positive note, I will also remind folks that in NC is one of very few states to pledge state full-funding grant agreements for 25% of major transit capital projects in the state, the first of which was $99M for the South LRT... I believe the state will even support a grant for the North Line, which will not have federal funding. I spoke recently with an FTA planner from Atlanta, and he said that it is far more commonplace for states to leave it to the cities/regions to fund transit projects, and that it was a huge plus for NC transit agencies.

Are there more transportation needs in Charlotte than anywhere else in NC? Sure there are, and DOT (with purse strings and oversight from the legislature) is well-behind meeting it's responsibilities, and is not currently structured well to deal with the vast variety of issues in the state, especially urban design issues, etc. DOT is working on the structure issue now, and I hold out some hope for more funding for transportation next spring/summer.

I will also say that on most transportation issues, the devil is in the details. The media is good at trying to simplify issues to their most elemental and divisive nature, but more often then not, they get a lot of the real story wrong.

Some things to think about FWIW.

[Spartan]

This hasn't been mentioned, but one of the most important documents for Charlotte's future, the Urban Street Design Guidelines, was passed on Monday by Council. This sets the policy to create a denser street grid and encourage the support of all modes of transportation.

[Andyc545]

This hasn't been mentioned, but one of the most important documents for Charlotte's future, the Urban Street Design Guidelines, was passed on Monday by Council. This sets the policy to create a denser street grid and encourage the support of all modes of transportation.

Is this just a generalized guideline, or is it actually back by specifics? If so, what can we expect to see change with current streetscape, if any, and what will the future hold?

[buds]

Is this just a generalized guideline, or is it actually back by specifics? If so, what can we expect to see change with current streetscape, if any, and what will the future hold?

From the info page on charmeck.org:

"The USDG include information about why this new approach to planning and designing streets is necessary, how the guidelines should be applied, and how specific design features should be used for different types of streets."

PDFs of the actual document can be downloaded there, as well.

[monsoon]

The city has endless documents such as this on file. And almost every time a developer wants to build a project that doesn't follow the guidelines, they simply get the city council to do a conditional re-zoning or approval that allows them to forgo the guidelines. Until we have a council that is willing to actually say no to bad development this will most likely get filed away with the rest.

[Spartan]

The guidelines basically set the stage to change all of those documents, codes, ordinances, and what have you. They show what the City supports, and ultimately the type of development that we should expect to see in the coming years.

[uptownliving]

Looks like we are back to square one with lighting 277. NCDOT has nixed the idea of using Solar Lights and will instead repair the lights we already have at a cost of $7.5M. The problem is of course the money is not there to fix them. If we are lucky they could be repaired sometime in 2008.

[ChiefJoJo]

The city has endless documents such as this on file. And almost every time a developer wants to build a project that doesn't follow the guidelines, they simply get the city council to do a conditional re-zoning or approval that allows them to forgo the guidelines. Until we have a council that is willing to actually say no to bad development this will most likely get filed away with the rest.

Actually, it not just some random document on file. The USDGs show in very specific detail (lane-widths, block lengths, etc) how the city expects it's new streets to be designed by developers and on city projects. The fact that it took 2-3 years to develop and adopt the guidelines--with significant resistance from developers--reveals it's importance.

[monsoon]

Actually, it not just some random document on file. The USDGs show in very specific detail (lane-widths, block lengths, etc) how the city expects it's new streets to be designed by developers and on city projects. The fact that it took 2-3 years to develop and adopt the guidelines--with significant resistance from developers--reveals it's importance.

Chief we have these guidelines all over Charlotte and nobody ever followings them. Our city council has a bad habit of overriding the planning department. I've seen it happen from the days when they came up with the first new urbanist development University City in 1984 and look at that mess now.

[Spartan]

I'm not so sure that is accurate metro. The USDG are already being applied to city-built streets, and many developers are already working cooperatively with the City. This is just one element of the TAP that is actively being dealt with.