I live in NH and don’t “pretend” I’m downtown. I wouldn’t want to live downtown for reasons I’ve stated before but great for those that do! The original comment is tinged with disdain for those of us who live here, like we’re too stupid to understand where we are. It’s absurd and not the first time it’s been posted.
4 Likes
Not sure if this is the right thread for this, but frequently I see people criticize Raleigh’s lack of street connectivity. But the proposed solution seems to be new roads knitting the grid together, rather than new pedestrian/bike connections. Personally, I feel like making cars go the less efficient route and letting pedestrians and bikes take the fast way is better, and if you market it as “greenways” or “walking paths”, people would be a lot less opposed to letting them be built in their neighborhood. Is there a reason why grid connectivity needs to be actual streets rather than paths that I’m overlooking?
15 Likes
Theoretically you make a good point and I wish it was that easy.
In practice though, it’s a multifaceted thing.
When I’m envisioning or making new connections, my first thought is: how much traffic can we get off the main road to 1- make it safer for all users 2- make it less “intense” to promote the type of development that’s appropriate or desired for the stretch. 3- stitch together cohesive neighborhoods 4- reducing traffic / emissions / VMT
Taking a look at a specific example from my Midtown Grid Plan
The new connections shown would essentially create a grid system similar to ones seen in downtowns. Ok what’s the big deal? You’d essentially reduce traffic around the 2 interchanges by 33%. Thus making Six Forks and Wake Forest safer to cross, safer to walk and bike on, and more attractive to Denser development. Also, you basically bring several neighborhoods together without needing to use Six Forks or Wake Forest.
Now yes you could do this with just the greenways, but you’d be shocked at how many people in real world implementation are against them. You also don’t get the benefits along your corridors.
I know at first glance it seems like, more roads = devil but there’s much more that goes in to it and when new connections are done strategically they can be game changing for neighborhoods and driving development! Also, just thinking “make cars go out their way” isn’t our way to better cities. It’ll just create traffic clogged, inefficiency and we’ll all lose. Connected, cohesiveness, and accessibility for all users is how we’ll get this right.
20 Likes
I think the Barrett-Quail Hollow and Computer-Wake Towne, and Navaho-Church (at N Hills) connections are already planned as vehicular routes. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a feasibility study move forward relatively soon for the bridge over the beltline.
The Navaho and Front Street eastward extensions to Atlantic are unlikely due to the railroad. DOT and the city hope to move heaven and earth to somehow achieve a Tarheel-Highwoods grade separation at the railroad. It’s going to be awkward and expensive, and the only reason they’re willing to entertain it is because it will allow for closure of the Tarheel Drive grade crossing. They certainly won’t be building new grade crossings here, and I can’t imagine they’d look into new grade separations on either side of 440 at any time in our lifetimes.
The Bush-Industrial connection is planned as a pedestrian connection, but I agree, that would be beneficial as a vehicular connection instead.
Now, the new connection from Computer Drive direct to NHE is chef’s kiss excellent, however I think a pedestrian-only connection is fine for that location. It’s a great idea though because of how the diagonally slanted Six Forks Road dramatically increases the distance required to cross from the Computer Drive area to North Hills (which matters a lot more for peds than cars.) My dream would be to put BRT on the Beltline, and do a treatment here like they’ve done at many of the interchanges on the Denver-Boulder Turnpike. Like this:
Really a bunch of places on the beltline would be solid BRT stops, but this is probably the best/most important.
11 Likes
Center running BRT with in line stations from Crabtree (maybe even the stadium / arena) to New Bern would make a killing!
I’d consider an argument that a route like this would be our best performing BRT route.
Connects to our West Branch, East Branch, North Branch and connects all 3 of our medical districts, our arena / stadium, Crabtree and North Hills.
12 Likes
I was thinking about the details of how this would be implemented, and even for just a bus project it would end up being some massive infrastructure work. Having a station in the middle of 440, where you get off a bus, then transfer to a bus going up and down Capital (for example) would be some real engineering design work.
3 Likes
So they were trying to do this is GA last year actually. Well, express lanes with BRT and stations and GDOT got the cost estimate and basically said “to hell with that” 
They’re back to the drawing boards and are trying to make it a public-private partnership.
Edit: they actually voted to approve that plan yesterday.
6 Likes
I think center running BRT would take a massive reconstruction of the whole beltline.
Short of that, buses in mixed traffic, with BOSS to bypass congestion, coupled with side bus stops like Denver, could be an incremental improvement to the beltline without having to rebuild the entire highway.
5 Likes
Looking at some of the bridges, we maybe have 20 years before 440 is facing a rebuild. It’d probably take that long to get this project running.
5 Likes
The western beltline bridges lasted about 60 years, 1960-2020. And they weren’t necessarily crumbling, just obsolete. The northern beltline was rebuilt around 1992, so figuring a similar lifespan we have about 30 years left.
2 Likes
Sheesh. Six forks bridge has not aged well then! Haha
Could always go the Atlanta I-75 way and just build a busway on the side too if they opted for dedicated route.
3 Likes
Oh the Urbanity! has a video highlighting neighborhoods which feature Montreal style plexes. This is one of my most favorite styles of housing.
15 Likes
Fun policy ideas to deter car use and promote other ways to get around from this Bloomberg CityLab article:
Also, this is a thing I didn’t know existed 'til now:
…and then:
5 Likes
As someone who walked to school as an elementary student in dense suburban California, I think that there are several things at play here.
- in order for more kids to walk to school, there has to be a substantial density of school aged children within the walkshed of the school.
- There must be sidewalks and other walking infrastructure in place including crossing guards at dangerous intersections.
- Location of schools should be prioritized in high density residential areas.
- Parents must be confident that their children’s safety is assured (not just from cars).
If we had not moved to Raleigh, I would have walked to middle and high school as well since both of them were also walkable. Even then, what I experienced then isn’t the same today. There are fewer children in that neighborhood today and my public elementary school building is now a private academy.
5 Likes
Yes, this correctly places the burden of paying for parking (the highest cost of car ownership) on the car owner, rather than onto the developer who builds a house that might eventually be occupied by a car owner (the logic of zoning parking requirements) or onto the public (the logic of on-street parking permits).
Relief from the “garage certificate” is one policy incentive that Japanese local governments use to encourage tiny “kei” cars.
There is one town in America which imported Japan’s parking rules: Avalon, CA, the town on Catalina Island. Note that this registration sticker is for an “Autoette” (i.e., kei car) and states “Overnight Off Street Parking REQUIRED”
5 Likes
i got tired of tv last night and decided to watch the city council youtube meeting. i was just wondering if there were opinions here on the city council’s take on what might happen with the roylene neighborhood site. some oposition of it seemed inconsistent…its unbuildable or would have to be greatly built up adding cost due to potential flooding, there might have be a wall to hold the creek back, too many cars would be entering on to buck jones…but then they say if you are gonna build make it affordable and not 600k. two houses nearby on realtor were at 495k and near 525k, is this a proper site for 30 units? my thought was that if i lived adjacent there might be 30 heat pumps running at the same time in summer where before i used to only hear 3 or 4.
This was a sticky one where ‘gentle density’ and the new zoning rules are bumping into people’s fear of change around their previously quietly ‘affordable’ neighborhood. Again, it’s complex.
On one side, you have a developer who is going to make a significant investment and build homes (to turn a profit) - not apartments, which the neighborhood doesn’t really want but townhomes on a challenging site, mind you - on a lot that is surrounded by mostly SFH in a rapidly rising market area due to both the overall market and some proximity to ‘future’ transit. The neighborhood has issues, some of them legit around stormwater runoff and light pollution / noise from more intense development than currently exists, but not many solutions they’d accept other than ‘make it into a park’ or ‘keep it green space for lower environmental impact’…
To me, it boils down to the neighborhood not trusting the developer to do the right things on a challenging site and lack of trust in the city’s ability to enforce the same - which stems from their unrealistic wish that NO development would happen coupled with fear around spiking property tax / cost of housing which is why the BIG push for affordable housing because they do want want to face the spike to their taxation that would come with market priced NEW homes at $625K.
Truth is those increasing prices you’re quoting and this proposed site resetting benchmark comps for the area are truly what they’re most concerned about when acknowledging concerns around loss of neighborhood way of life.
2 Likes
WRAL indicating City looking to annex area the “size of Chapel Hill” but didn’t provide any more specifics
2 Likes
Odd that there isn’t more info on this. All I could find was a short video clip that’s just a teaser for the new bit which is probably what you saw on WRAL? I can’t find the actual news bit online nor an article from anywhere else talking about it. Seems like BIG news!
3 Likes