Mixed-use development is planned for Falls of Neuse Road and Raven Ridge Road, Raleigh, North Carolina (Cary: apartments, condo)
Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, CaryThe Triangle Area
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.
A mixed-use residential and retail development is proposed on 17.3 acres at the northeast corner of Falls of Neuse Road and Raven Ridge Road in the city of Raleigh in Wake County, North Carolina. One hundred sixty condomiums, a 50,000-square-foot grocery store, an additional 56,000 square feet of retail space, and 20 percent of the site preserved are planned.
My coworker got assigned the traffic study for this development - thousands of public meetings later with angry citizens, I bet he wishes he never got it haha.
I will say that the Harris Teeter at Falls & Durant is always packed so there is obviously demand for another grocery store in the area whether local residents want to admit it or not.
11,000 seems like a lot of new vehicles for that size development - the daily traffic volume on Falls of Neuse is 30,000 for comparison and I doubt that a grocery store and retail would generate that type of traffic. I'll ask about that......
Traffic wise though, the problem really isn't a new development, it's all the people that decided to live out there and work at RTP/downtown Raleigh with only one major road (Falls of Neuse) available for people's commute.
I will agree 11,000 additional vehicles for the proposed development is inflated.
If North Raleigh can allow a water treatment plant and a high density residential development at Falls of Neuse Road and Dunn Road, then a mixed-use residential and retail development should be allowed. There are many sour apples in the area that are reactive instead of proactive.
Studies have shown that being in walking distance to stores/parks/schools increases property values - when done right, it can be a good thing for a community to have such developments (I've read several times on here about people living in Cary who enjoy being able to live within walking distance of such developments)
We are moving in 2 weeks to a new apartment from which we can easily walk to both Walmart Supercenter and Super Target plus the entire Poyner Place shopping area.
Look forward to it. reminds me of when I could walk to work and shopping in Manhattan.
Sell the land to the city with a condition that it be turned into a city dump. The neighbors in that area won't be happy until whatever is proposed is trash anyways. I feel like I'm channeling saturnfan here.
So I looked at the report and indeed it says that 11,208 new trips would be generated by the development.
A little background about how traffic studies for developments are done, the Institute of Transportation Engineers publishes a manual called the Trip Generation Manual where they take studies done in the past about how many cars visited each development in a single day and during morning/afternoon rush hours. Using these past studies all over the US, they attempt to plot a best fit line to come up with a rate/equation for that type of development based on employees/students/square feet/units etc.... (some with a high R^2 value, others with iffy ones - for those who didn't take statistics, that's how well the best fit rate/equation line matches up with the data - the closer to 1 the more accurate). We take these rates/equations and for each section of the proposed mixed-use development calculate how many cars will visit the apartments (per units), supermarket (per square feet), restaurants (per square feet) etc.... and add them all up. There is some guidance for "pass-by" and "internal capture" trips - we are allowed to subtract some trips for people "passing by" the development and making a stop, assuming their destination is somewhere else (but only allowed to subtract for morning/afternoon rush hour, it is not factored in for daily trips which is probably why that 11,208 number seems so high ), and also for "internal capture", where we factor in people living at the mixed use development walking to the supermarket or restaurant.
From the total new trips generated, we create a roadway network for the surrounding area, distribute the trips as to where they are coming/going to/from the development (based on current volumes) and then fix any traffic issues that are seen with the intersections in our model for the build out year (when the development is supposed to open).
Now for my opinion, there are definitely some negatives in how this is done - to ensure that a development will happen, new turn lanes and extra lanes will almost always be needed to carry the extra demand of the trips generated by the development. This leads to increasingly wider roads (aka Capital Blvd) which is extremely unsafe for pedestrians/bicyclists - huge intersections also encourage high-speed travel and cause safety issues. Also, it's been noted through several studies that increased lanes on a road just leads to increased cars utilizing the road and doesn't fix any traffic issues in the end (saw a SCDOT report recently that mentioned an interchange that was improved to last 20 years, coming back to problems just 5-10 years after construction). Focusing on traffic for development studies, leads to unsafe roads for cars, pedestrians, cyclists, and increased traffic. I guess I wonder if traffic is as bad as it is, how many people will go out of their way to visit a development vs. improving traffic and allowing improved access (for a short while) to the development for many - leading to daily routines that increase permanent traffic to the site etc.... Just some thoughts.
Another negative IMO is that these traffic studies can lead to excessive sprawl - because developers have to mitigate traffic problems caused by their development, it is obviously easier to do that in rural areas rather than urban areas where it is much more difficult under the current requirements (Raleigh probably has exceptions in the downtown Raleigh area but still for North Raleigh etc...). As a result, you have developments sprouting up in areas where roads aren't at capacity yet. Pretty much, the importance placed on traffic reinforces the vehicular culture we live in and doesn't take into account other modes of transportation.
Last edited by pierretong1991; 08-18-2016 at 08:21 AM..
So I looked at the report and indeed it says that 11,208 new trips would be generated by the development.
A little background about how traffic studies for developments are done, the Institute of Transportation Engineers publishes a manual called the Trip Generation Manual where they take studies done in the past about how many cars visited each development in a single day and during morning/afternoon rush hours. Using these past studies all over the US, they attempt to plot a best fit line to come up with a rate/equation for that type of development based on employees/students/square feet/units etc.... (some with a high R^2 value, others with iffy ones - for those who didn't take statistics, that's how well the best fit rate/equation line matches up with the data - the closer to 1 the more accurate). We take these rates/equations and for each section of the proposed mixed-use development calculate how many cars will visit the apartments (per units), supermarket (per square feet), restaurants (per square feet) etc.... and add them all up. There is some guidance for "pass-by" and "internal capture" trips - we are allowed to subtract some trips for people "passing by" the development and making a stop, assuming their destination is somewhere else (but only allowed to subtract for morning/afternoon rush hour, it is not factored in for daily trips which is probably why that 11,208 number seems so high ), and also for "internal capture", where we factor in people living at the mixed use development walking to the supermarket or restaurant.
From the total new trips generated, we create a roadway network for the surrounding area, distribute the trips as to where they are coming/going to/from the development (based on current volumes) and then fix any traffic issues that are seen with the intersections in our model for the build out year (when the development is supposed to open).
Now for my opinion, there are definitely some negatives in how this is done - to ensure that a development will happen, new turn lanes and extra lanes will almost always be needed to carry the extra demand of the trips generated by the development. This leads to increasingly wider roads (aka Capital Blvd) which is extremely unsafe for pedestrians/bicyclists - huge intersections also encourage high-speed travel and cause safety issues. Also, it's been noted through several studies that increased lanes on a road just leads to increased cars utilizing the road and doesn't fix any traffic issues in the end (saw a SCDOT report recently that mentioned an interchange that was improved to last 20 years, coming back to problems just 5-10 years after construction). Focusing on traffic for development studies, leads to unsafe roads for cars, pedestrians, cyclists, and increased traffic. I guess I wonder if traffic is as bad as it is, how many people will go out of their way to visit a development vs. improving traffic and allowing improved access (for a short while) to the development for many - leading to daily routines that increase permanent traffic to the site etc.... Just some thoughts.
Good post, here. They won't let me rep you, so take this complement. lol
The ideal is that mixed-used developments like these will remain self-contained and not attract people that don't live there or near there. That never happens, especially when someone's favorite supermarket or big box opens in that development.
Quote:
Another negative IMO is that these traffic studies can lead to excessive sprawl - because developers have to mitigate traffic problems caused by their development, it is obviously easier to do that in rural areas rather than urban areas where it is much more difficult under the current requirements (Raleigh probably has exceptions in the downtown Raleigh area but still for North Raleigh etc...). As a result, you have developments sprouting up in areas where roads aren't at capacity yet. Pretty much, the importance placed on traffic reinforces the vehicular culture we live in and doesn't take into account other modes of transportation.
The Raleigh Planning Commission voted against a rezoning request for the proposed mixed use development at the northeast corner of Falls of Neuse Road and Raven Ridge Road in its Tuesday, 25 October 2016, meeting. Raleigh City Council must approve the rezoning for the development to continue.
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.
