Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And here's the other side of the story. A response from Jim Humphrey, Charlotte's Director of Transportation:
Over the past few days, local media have been covering a report released by Dr. David Hartgen criticizing local and regional transportation planning. I thought it appropriate that I comment.
The Charlotte Department of Transportation is responsible for transportation planning for the City of Charlotte and serves as the lead planning staff for the Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization. We use a multifaceted, integrated approach to planning for land use and transportation decisions. We carefully consider where growth should occur so that we can invest transportation dollars effectively while protecting neighborhoods and employment centers. The region’s investment in rapid transit, in addition to a vital road system, will add a much needed travel choice. This will become increasingly important as we grow into a major urban region. This balanced approach is the right one for dealing with the complex demands of growth.
The report makes some good points. It fairly describes the transportation challenges of the Charlotte region caused by population growth, an expanding regional economy and funding limitations. It mentions that addressing these challenges will require a variety of initiatives. We agree with the need to spend more on roads…both City and State. We agree that State funding formulas should include a congestion component and focus more on urban areas. We also agree that we need good local and regional planning. Beyond that, the report has major shortcomings.
The report is fundamentally flawed based on its premise that we can simply build our way out of congestion – if we just reprioritize dollars to widen congested roads. The study, by its own admission, utilizes a simplistic methodology for calculating delay today and in the future, and deduces that congestion will get worse (we agree!). Its sole focus on congestion, paired with its criticism for funding transit or considering other project selection criteria, leads to strange conclusions. It proposes that we redirect $4B planned for transit to unspecified highway projects in the Charlotte MPO area (Table II.B.2.8 attached). Then it calculates the resulting reductions in delay. It fails to acknowledge the serious consequences that wholesale road construction has on neighborhoods, businesses, the environment and citizens. This may move traffic but at what cost? Is it good for local businesses and neighborhoods? In reality, we have little ability to widen many thoroughfares within Route 51 and already are spending millions to improve signalization and intersections.
While we have many road needs, and are investing millions of dollars to address them (as portrayed in the MUMPO Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and Charlotte’s Transportation Action Plan (TAP)), it is unrealistic to widen every road as the sole means of keeping pace with growth. Cities such as Los Angeles, Houston and Atlanta tried it and failed.
Modern planning recognizes that transportation serves to support the land use vision, not the other way around. The report gives no consideration to land use and regional growth strategies. Charlotte’s investment in the 5 strategic growth corridors includes both roads and transit in a way that supports growth where we can accommodate it best. The transit investment is an integral part of the regional land use vision approved in 1994. It gives citizens a travel choice that is more reliable and time consistent when compared to increasingly congested roads. We have never touted rapid transit as a way to eliminate roadway congestion, but it most certainly will add significant capacity to congested corridors. Those that use it will enjoy bypassing congestion for years to come.
While the initial costs of building rapid transit will be high, its capacity per dollar spent will far exceed that of adding freeway lanes. To say that we should invest almost exclusively in today’s dominant travel mode, while failing to recognize the fundamental shift in the region’s economy, would be like investing only in horse paths during the industrial revolution.
The report appropriately recommends investments to fix bottlenecks, utilize innovative highway designs, encourage regional commuting programs and demand management programs (such as work-at-home and flex time), invest in signalization and plan regionally. We are engaged in all of these areas. The report wrongly implies that we are doing otherwise.
The report also wrongly implies that local staff and elected officials do not consider congestion. Local staffs have produced reams of materials indicating how congestion will grow. Instead of studying the full spectrum of our work, the report focuses on one map from the TAP appendix that shows roads not planned for widening by 2030. The criticism failed to point out what the map legend states: that while we do not plan to add through lanes on those roads, we do anticipate adding turn lanes and improving intersections along these corridors. Oddly, the report omitted the fact that the TAP calls for the City to fund over 100 road widenings, 100 intersection improvements, upgrade 65 miles of farm to market roads, build 130 miles of connector streets and 375 street connections and improve signal progression. It overlooked similar information provided in the LRTP. Corridors and projects identified in the report as congested are the same ones identified by City staff and evaluated for improvement in the TAP and LRTP.
In summary, the report demonstrates little understanding of complex urban growth dynamics. It takes a simplistic, one dimensional view that promotes congestion relief as the highest civic value. The report shows no appreciation for the constant challenges of balancing economic, environmental, neighborhood and livability qualities that make for a great American city.
While I appreciate the attention focused on growing congestion problems of the State and our area, the report badly distorts the approach we are using in the Charlotte area to plan for the future. We are putting into place, through the TAP and the LRTP, the right investment strategies that will allow the region to continue to prosper and grow. We believe the right investment strategy includes a balanced portfolio of roads, transit, and wise land use planning.
When I was working/living in Charlotte in 1989 traffic was a nightmare then. The city was growing to fast for the roads to keep up. It looks like I will be returning next month and the traffic and roads are still the same-if not worse. The one thing I remembered back then was how courteous(sp) the drivers were. Without that you could never cross over lanes to get to another lane.
Plus, what are people listening to, as they sit in traffic? Hours and hours of extremist radio windbags? Talk about a mental health crisis on top of a soul-killing commute.
screw that.. SIRIUS Radio... its great. my wife has it.
also, another reason we chose to pay more and live in the city. Id rather spend my time at home, than in traffic. The closer you are to the center of town, the easier traffic is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by megassel
One word for you - podcasts. They save me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
