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.
The NCDOT is moving forward with plans to widen Glenwood Ave. (US 70) between I-540 and Hilburn Dr. in NW Raleigh. There was some previous discussion in another thread on here regarding the surveying that took place earlier this year.
A public meeting is being held Monday, July 22, 2019 from 4-7 PM at the Embassy Suites Raleigh-Durham Airport/Brier Creek.
Two alternatives are being considered:
Upgrade U.S. 70 / Glenwood Avenue to a 6-lane median-divided roadway with "Reduced Conflict Intersection elements" (my quotes)
Upgrade U.S. 70 / Glenwood Avenue to an 8-lane median-divided roadway with traditional, full movement intersections
"reduced conflict intersection" = turn right and make a u-turn to turn left
With the first concept, there will be four traffic lights between Ebenezer Church Rd. and Triangle Dr. compared to two now, so I'm not sure how well that will work out.
The proposed improvements do little to address the existing congestion at the Westgate/Lumley/540 interchange.
As mentioned in the surveying thread, right-of-way acquisition is scheduled for 2021 and construction in 2023. However, the draft STIP showed the project delayed three to five years. The new STIP should be adopted this summer, so we'll see what happens.
Right-of-way acquisition will cost more than the construction ($62.7 M and $42.3 M, respectively).
I'm curious about the fact it doesn't take into account the announced land swap between Fred Anderson and Umstead that would have created an access to both the park and the Toyota dealership from a new loop road aligning with Triangle Dr. at the existing signal and connecting to Toyota Dr.
Alternative 1 is instead proposing two additional signals, one at Toyota Dr. and one at the current Umstead entrance. Presumably all three signals would be coordinated given they're all reduced conflict intersections, but I don't know...still feels like funneling everything through a single signal at Triangle Dr. might be more efficient. I'll defer to the traffic experts here on that.
Unless I'm missing something, Alternative 2 seems to provide no real way to access Fred Anderson from westbound Glenwood unless that new loop road from Triangle Dr. to Toyota Dr. gets built. Without that loop road, you'd have to go all the way out to Lumley/Westgate and come back around eastbound...adding like 5 minutes and 1.5 miles as you drive right by Toyota Dr. without being able to access it.
Wondering if the land swap is dead, or still in progress. Seems odd to be workshopping designs that don't seem to account for it if it's still in the works.
I did the traffic analysis for Alternative 1 back in December and I was asked to assume the land swap was happening. I recommended the new primary entrance for Umstead to be off Triangle Drive (but keeping a left into the current driveway for any horse trailers so they wouldn’t have to U-turn to get to Triangle Drive). Not sure what happened between then and the designs we are seeing now (maybe those changes will be made in a separate project?)
"I'm curious about the fact it doesn't take into account the announced land swap between Fred Anderson and Umstead that would have created an access to both the park and the Toyota dealership from a new loop road aligning with Triangle Dr. at the existing signal and connecting to Toyota Dr."
spiderman, you've hit on one of my questions. It appears that both of the alternatives take care of the ingress/egress into Umstead Park. So why then is the State Property Office proposing the land swap with Fred Anderson? It appears that two parallel projects are underway, independent of the other. Which one will finish first?
We read about the outcry to save the RDU Forest and stop the quarry while the same people that oppose the quarry do nothing to save 25 or so acres of Park forest on Glenwood. This is frustrating to me because the quarry site would not impact the park and be out of view while another car dealership across Glenwood in front of the park would be an eyesore and add to traffic problems there.
Raleigh has worked for years to improve the appearance of the main corridors into the city, based on the number of public meetings and proposals in previous years. Many people enjoy the green space around and within the city. The loss of more green space along Glenwood would be just chipping away at what we have and are trying to do.
Umstead Coalition has been in favor of the land swap. The Umstead land across Glenwood was designated surplus by the state decades ago and isn't much use as a disconnected piece. As part of the deal, they'd get better access and a couple million dollars to expand Umstead in a contiguous manner.
But both of these Glenwood alternatives seem at odds with what the land swap was trying to achieve, so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Umstead Coalition has been in favor of the land swap. The Umstead land across Glenwood was designated surplus by the state decades ago and isn't much use as a disconnected piece. As part of the deal, they'd get better access and a couple million dollars to expand Umstead in a contiguous manner.
But both of these Glenwood alternatives seem at odds with what the land swap was trying to achieve, so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I don't give a rip about what the Umstead Coalition favors. I have personally observed the coalition propose/oppose moves which are not in the Park's best interest. They want what's best for them (a few people), not necessarily what's good for everyone else. I'm not going to get personal and name names; I'd be sued for libel. But I know.
The Park has been selling off pieces of land for years and the sale of more doesn't make it right. So where is the land contiguous to the park that would be acquired? Where are they going to get 25 acres next to the park with two million bucks? You correctly point out that both Glenwood Ave. proposals would take care of traffic at the park. So what's the need for the land swap?
My point is that the beloved park is green space and we shouldn't lose any of it because we'll never get it back. I'd personally like to see the quarry site included in the park, but the State has no control over that land.
Was anything ever considered for the interchange between 540, Lumley and Westgate? It seems like separating those would be a no-brainer, but I don't know how much can be done with the current design (without wiping out a bunch of stuff). The single-lane ramp is backed up every afternoon going from 540 to Glenwood. Lumley is backed up every afternoon from the interchange to the airport. This does nothing to improve that.
Was anything ever considered for the interchange between 540, Lumley and Westgate? It seems like separating those would be a no-brainer, but I don't know how much can be done with the current design (without wiping out a bunch of stuff). The single-lane ramp is backed up every afternoon going from 540 to Glenwood. Lumley is backed up every afternoon from the interchange to the airport. This does nothing to improve that.
We were only instructed to study Glenwood Ave between Millbrook/Duraleigh and Triangle Drive. That area was outside the scope of the project.
The meeting handout shows construction in 2028, so it's going to be awhile....
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.
