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.
It previously was a 6 lane option (still on the table) but City Council wanted the consultant to also present a 4 lane streetscape option to the public because they were wary of increasing more traffic than there already is now
So... Raleigh allows North Hills to be built up as the city's second most dense office area, provides little bus transit into the area east-west across north Raleigh (the new Wake County transit plan doesn't make much of a difference in that respect), and then wants to discourage people from driving to North Hills. Can't make this kind of thing up.
So... Raleigh allows North Hills to be built up as the city's second most dense office area, provides little bus transit into the area east-west across north Raleigh (the new Wake County transit plan doesn't make much of a difference in that respect), and then wants to discourage people from driving to North Hills. Can't make this kind of thing up.
I think the problem is really people driving past north hills to get to north Raleigh and they're trying to discourage more people from doing that on Six forks. I know you can't pave your way out of congestion, but I do think there is some equilibrium or minimal level of service you have to meet before you see diminishing returns. Not sure if 4 lanes meets that or not since, unless they are going to leave the current sections wider than that alone, it will actually reduce lanes.
So... Raleigh allows North Hills to be built up as the city's second most dense office area, provides little bus transit into the area east-west across north Raleigh (the new Wake County transit plan doesn't make much of a difference in that respect), and then wants to discourage people from driving to North Hills. Can't make this kind of thing up.
I went to the meeting and it sounds like the engineers/planners want the 6 lane option and sold it that way in how they presented the pros/cons
I think there's a good point by the people in support of the 4 lane option that the 6 lane option will encourage more people to live in North Raleigh and drive down Six Forks Road to 440 or downtown. At least creating some congestion with the 4 lane option (pretty much leaving it intact), will discourage people from living in sprawling areas of North Raleigh and maybe encourage people to consider denser options or options closer to work. The 4 lane option will at the least provide better safety through that corridor.
I agree 100% that the transit options in the North Hills area is completely lacking for what it is now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherifftruman
II know you can't pave your way out of congestion, but I do think there is some equilibrium or minimal level of service you have to meet before you see diminishing returns.
Agreed. There's a balance - I don't think improving it so everyone can drive down Six Forks without stopping should be the goal but the Six Forks & Millbrook does need some work as of right now.
... will discourage people from living in sprawling areas of North Raleigh
Well, the free market can settle that. Actually there is little buildable land remaining between 540 and 440, and the areas north of 540 are restricted to large lots because of the Falls Lake watershed. There are new developments near Brier Creek, but those people are as likely to work in RTP or downtown Durham as North Hills.
Fears that north Raleigh population will burgeon are misplaced. Yes, north Raleigh continues to grow in population but that's mainly attributable to new apartment complexes, not new single-family neighborhoods. Aren't we in favor of apartment complexes to increase density, or is the assumption that they all should be built inside 440?
Will they do construction to widen Six Forks or just repaint the road to turn 2 lanes into three like they do on Falls of Neuse / Wake Forest Road? Those lanes are so narrow you could reach out and touch the next car.
I also drive through Six Forks and Millbrook. Going north it isn't so bad, but going south looks pretty painful.
Will they do construction to widen Six Forks or just repaint the road to turn 2 lanes into three like they do on Falls of Neuse / Wake Forest Road? Those lanes are so narrow you could reach out and touch the next car.
I also drive through Six Forks and Millbrook. Going north it isn't so bad, but going south looks pretty painful.
They'll do construction to widen Six Forks. There will be a planted median dividing the two directions of travel.
Fears that north Raleigh population will burgeon are misplaced. Yes, north Raleigh continues to grow in population but that's mainly attributable to new apartment complexes, not new single-family neighborhoods. Aren't we in favor of apartment complexes to increase density, or is the assumption that they all should be built inside 440?
Density in housing is only one piece of the puzzle - without multi-modal transportation (transit, bike/ped etc...) as well as employment centers that are close to these dense housing centers, it's just putting lipstick on a pig. The goal isn't to cram everybody into tight quarters so we can have more population growth, the goal is so the average person will be using the roads less - whether by driving shorter distances, being able to take transit or even being able to walk/bike to work (the more miles you travel, the more traffic you are contributing to).
I don't think the City of Raleigh has been successful in putting all the parts of the puzzle together for this to happen though so far......especially in getting people to abandon their cars for certain trips
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard-xyzzy
Well, the free market can settle that. Actually there is little buildable land remaining between 540 and 440, and the areas north of 540 are restricted to large lots because of the Falls Lake watershed. There are new developments near Brier Creek, but those people are as likely to work in RTP or downtown Durham as North Hills.
Maybe - but we also have people living in Johnston County and driving to Durham/RTP for work..........so I'm not as optimistic. People will find ways to live in Creedmoor and drive to North Hills for work.
Last edited by pierretong1991; 03-23-2017 at 09:42 AM..
I just had a lunchtime conversation about something similar to this topic with a friend and we agreed if we somehow became dictators of Raleigh or another US city, we'd do the follow with regards to transportation.
1. Stop any future annexation and force people to infill if they want to live in Raleigh with city services (to increase density)
2. More mixed-use zoning (already done actually under the new UDO)
3. End minimum parking requirements for developments - maybe set maximum parking requirements or allow the free market to decide
4. Require neighborhoods to interconnect streets so that you have multiple ways to get out of the neighborhood (north/south/east/west) and not just one way onto one arterial road. Probably will be concerns about cut-through traffic but that can be addressed with traffic calming measures
5. Probably the most painful idea (and one that would get me fired if we weren't dictators), do nothing to the roads improvement wise so that alternative transportation modes become faster and more appealing. Once it becomes just as easy to take transit or walk/bike as it is to drive, then we can look at ways to improve roads for drivers - keeping all transportation modes on an equal scale.
Pierre, good thing you are not dictator. You just want to make things more and more painful for Raleigh residents. Is beating someone with a stick a way to get a response you want?
Pierre, good thing you are not dictator. You just want to make things more and more painful for Raleigh residents. Is beating someone with a stick a way to get a response you want?
Removing a tumor with surgery is painful. However, in the end you have a more healthy body than you did before. IMO - single occupancy vehicular travel, mixed with continued population growth is that tumor. It's 100% unsustainable for the future. Lifestyle changes don't happen unless people are forced to consider them. Not to mention that we'll have to keep throwing money at the transportation problem to build/maintain roads while we're at a point where we can't even maintain or replace what we already have built.
And yes, I know it's completely unrealistic based on your response to what I said - it'll never happen since it would never sell politically (and might end some careers haha).
Last edited by pierretong1991; 03-23-2017 at 11:04 AM..
Removing a tumor isn't painful with anesthesia. What's the equivalence in your example? Subsidized buses? You can build bus lanes, but no good if no riders.
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.
