The following was sent to Ed Driggs' group of Homeowner Association members formed to discuss the Rea Road Gillespie Property rezoning petition. Driggs' "Secret Squirrel Society" members have met several times over the past few months in an effort to reach a "compromise" at the direction of Ed Driggs.
Members of the "Society" saw a February 2, 2024 letter from RK Investments that described numerous "traffic improvements". While a few continue to support a "compromise" at the urging of Ed Driggs many saw the "offer" from RK as a meritless airball.
Councilmember Driggs’ email of February 8, 2024 states:
“As I have noted previously, the final decision about this petition may come down to a difficult choice between whatever final proposal may be offered by RK Investments and a possible by-right development that could include only half as many trees and minimal traffic improvements”.
The letter was simply an effort to review from a practical stand point some of the traffic "improvements" that really amounted to fluff. In other words the "improvements" are not gifts from the developer rather requirements that would be required even if the property was developed by right.
So here is the letter to members of the SSS that upset some.
To All:
At first glance and as I understand it the traffic improvements offered are already minimal, many are required under a “by-right” development and others are either poorly designed or ill-conceived.
Elm Lane Improvements
Elm Lane Access B
The secondary entrance is required by the UDO under the concept of connectivity. It really offers nothing in the way of traffic relief with regard to Bevington Place.
Because of line-of-sight issues, traffic volume and the fact that Elm Lane is only a two-lane road the right turn and left turn lanes should be required if not already.
It seems this entrance is by requirement mandatory and should not be construed as a traffic improvement since it would be required under a “by-right” development.
Guardrail
This also would seem, given the area and grade, a requirement and not an improvement.
Elm Lane and Highway 51
With regards to the February 2, 2024 letter which states “there will be two northbound left turn lanes on Elm Lane at Highway 51”.
There is currently one dedicated left turn lane at Highway 51 and one left, thru and right combination lane. The addition of a right turn only lane would be considered an improvement.
.png)
Rea Road Access A
Adding a Traffic Signal at Rea Road and entrance into the site would only benefit the developer. An additional traffic signal would only add to the traffic concerns unless fully coordinated and included inductive loop traffic sensors.
Traffic signals would need to be constructed in the same style as Bevington and Piper Glen Drive signals. Which would constitute an improvement.
The construction of a southbound right turn lane with 100 feet of storage, while possibly beneficial to traffic, is not in keeping with the neighborhood as there are no other right turn lanes between Highway 51 Pineville Matthews Road and I-485. This includes the signalized intersections at Bevington Place and Rea Road as well as Piper Glen Drive and Rea Road. Further, neither the Fairways at Piper Glen or Calvary Church and the South County Library utilize right turn lanes.
Doing so would also require the removal of at least five mature Willow Oak Trees that neighbors are fighting to preserve.
Furthermore, the only right turn lanes along the entire Colony Road/Rea Road length from Carmel Road to I-485 are at Highway 51. Additionally, the lack of right turn lanes serves to traffic calming and, right turn lanes reduce pedestrian safety dramatically.
While traffic experts have weighed in with support for and against right turn lanes it is our belief that adding right turn lanes encourages aggressive driving and conversely the lack of right turn lanes serve, (perhaps with limited effect) as a traffic calming mechanism.
CMS Bus Stop
While certainly considerate of drivers and students. CMS is notoriously difficult to work with and given the ever-changing demographics it is highly doubtful CMS would agree to a bus stop on the internal connector road.
From CMS regarding a student bus stop off of Rea Road:
There are some exceptions for special needs students, but as a general rule, our buses must stay on the main roads for bus stops.
Adam Johnson, CDPT
Executive Director of Transportation
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
Therefore this item should not be considered an improvement.
Rea Road at Highway 51
One of the “traffic improvements" offered by RK Investments are changes to the Rea Road Highway 51 Pineville-Matthews Road intersection.
Adding additional length to the left turn lane is unnecessary as the lane is seldom used. The petitioner’s letter of February 2, 2024 states: “Petitioner will commit to extend the existing left turn lane on northbound Rea Road at the intersection of Read (sp) Road and Highway 51 an additional 200 feet”.
The left turn lane should not be altered.
The above is from Friday February 23, 2024, at 6:00 PM.
Seldom are there more than two cars in the queue and often none.
It is understood from Tom Brasse with RK Investments that Ed Driggs himself asked for more stacking.
It is important to understand that the inability to enter the left turn lane due to the abundance of through traffic (going straight) if not a left turn "backup" and doesn't equate to a need of longer stacking. Yes it is unfortunate if you are the only person wanting to turn left and you are prevented from doing so because of all the "idiots" going through the intersection.
Adding an additional right turn lane is also counter intuitive. This would add zero benefit as few cars have trouble turning right even during peak driving times. Doing so would require the removal of several large trees and perhaps the monument.
The problem is with traffic wanting to go north on Rea Road beyond the Highway 51 Pineville-Matthews road intersection. Prior to the Hwy 51 intersection two (2) north bound Rea Road lanes are “funneled down” to one (1) lane going north. This is because once you cross Hwy 51 there is only one lane going north (straight) toward SouthPark Mall and Uptown.
Many AM drivers turn right only to make a U-turn on Highway 51 Pineville-Matthews Road and then turn right back on to Rea road to continue going northbound.They are trying to beat the backup on Rea Road waiting to cross Hwy 51. The reason they can do this is the right lane is open and not backed up.
Additionally, 2 right turn lanes are always problematic for drivers and are dangerous for pedestrians.
Even adding an additional traffic island aka "porkchop" won't prevent many of the drivers "gaming the system".
Below the right turn lane for Rea at Highway 51 again from Friday February 23, 2024, at 6 PM.
.png)
January 2022 – The light is red for northbound Rea Road no left turn cars except all the way down at the start of the left turn lane there is one car that seems to be heading to the left. Two cars in the right lane and maybe two others in the right turn lane moving up.
.png)
Above January 2021 – Again, the only “grid lock” is northbound Rea Road. The left turn lane has one car and the right lane has 2 or 3 moving up to the intersection.
.png)
Above January 2023 – One maybe two cars turning right, zero cars turning left.
While not a true traffic study this conclusion is reasonable that any improvements to this intersection regarding the left or right turn lanes would be meaningless.
Bevington Place
The proposed Bevington Place "improvements" are also poorly conceived.
According to RK Investment the “area multimodal improvements” to Bevington Place were at the request of CDOT staff that included restriping Bevington Place between Birkdale Valley Drive and The Shops at Piper Glen driveway to shift the on-street parking to the south side of Bevington Place and to install a pair of rectangular rapid-flashing beacons (RRFBs) at the pedestrian crossing on the west side of The Shops at Piper Glen driveway.
.png)
The north side of Bevington street side parking (20 spaces) is purposeful as it serves westbound traffic only. The south side parking lot (40 spaces) is designed to serve Bevington eastbound traffic only. Moving the parallel street side parking from the north to the south side would make matters worse as west bound traffic would either need to make a U-turn to access the parking lot or make a U-turn further down Bevington to access the south side of the road for parking.
Additionally, I can clearly imagine drivers parking on the south side yet doing so headed westbound.
Update: During a phone call and follow-up email city staff with Charlotte DOT agreed that the idea of moving the Bevington street side parking was a non-starter and would be removed.
Thank you again for the phone conversation. I’ve instructed the CDOT review engineer to modify that note from relocation of parking to removal of on-street parking immediately adjacent to the Trader Joe’s driveway where it conflicts with sight distance.
Have a great day!
Brandon Brezeale, PE
Development Services Division Manager
704.432.5561
brandon.brezeale@charlottenc.gov
Internal Connector
The internal connector offered by RK Investments will do nothing to reduce current traffic on Bevington Place. Additional this aspect of "connectivity" is required under by the UDO and any "By Right" development.
Given the details of the development plan and those “improvements” listed in the February 2, 2024, letter it seems clear that RK Investments are offering nothing but a total “air ball”.
The bottom line is regardless of what Ed Driggs say the RK Investments "offers" are not really improvements but rather just a statement listing actually required items under the UDO for any development either as proposed or by right.
Note: Based on the comment below I've added the last "unedited" email from Brandon Brezeale (above) and will also add the same from Jake Carpenter.
The bottom line is none of the traffic "improvements" are voluntary most if not all would be required under a "by-right" development.
7 comments:
Please post the unedited letter you refer to.
How about hiring our own traffic engineer to debate what CDOT, NCDOT and their two traffic engineers have all said? We have a couple of engineers that live in the neighborhood who may know a reputable traffic engineer we could hire. Without real facts and data, this is just traffic observations and not something with teeth. We need teeth to upend what 4 other traffic engineers are saying.
That explains why we hear nothing! Hope they are enjoying their free dinners from Gillespie.
Chip, I don't understand. Who is coming to improve our traffic problem? Sounds like turn lanes and new roads would go a long way toward making traffic better.
Looks like the only good news would be a right turn lane added at Elm and Pineville-Matthews. The rest is either site specific and they have to build it anyway or just a stupid idea. Totally get the Rea and Pineville-Matthews situation.
I do not believe they'd be doing all of these things without justification. That has to be very expensive. There is more to this than what is here. I do wait a long time to go straight and some of it is the people going right on 51. Where are they all going? Matthews? Stay there if so please.
Finally someone with some common sense has put this mess in perspective. I guess we are stuck with gridlock at Elm and 51 as well as Rea and 51. Yes the idiots who use the right lane to cross 51 are jerks and there are many. A "pork chop" island might stop those who actually drive into the intersection and barge into the thru lane. But it won't stop those in the short clip posted.
As for the left lane yep adding another 200 feet "storage" is nonsense.
I agree a dedicated right turn lane at Elm and 51 is needed. NC DOT needs to do that now and not wait on a gift from a developer.
Developers won't do half of what they promise.
Post a Comment