Oops, they did it again

Robert,

The LAC is not a decision-making body: it's purpose is to bring various parties together to generate a report which provides recommendations or points of view to the Chancellor for his use (in its entirety, in part, or not at all) in developing the University's plans for CN. Thus it is not the function of the LAC to suggest to the various municipalities or the University that they take any specific action(s). Nonetheless, I think that there was strong sentiment at yesterday's meeting that a long-range transit study needed to be done and that it should be done sooner rather than later.

The CH Transit partners (CH, Carrboro and UNC) are already in discussions about issuing a RFP for a long-range transit study but the University, as it stated at yesterday's LAC meeting, feels that the first study done should be a long-range transportation study (i.e., a study including roads as well as public transit). As was pointed out several times yesterday by Mark Chilton, Dan Coleman, Bill Strom and Cal Horton, a long range-transportation plan, which covers roadways (and includes projections for CN) already currently exists. It was created by our regional MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) and the long-range plan is the 2030 plan (covering the next 25 years or so). The plan is already in the process of being updated as the 2035 plan. You can see this plan at
http://www.dchcmpo.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=14&...

Thus the position of the municipalities (at least CH and Carrboro) is that we already have a long-range transportation plan (which is current and includes CN) but, if we are truly committed to making public transit the main mode of access to CN we need to immediately get on with generating a long-range transit plan.

George Cianciolo

George,
Thanks for the update. As I (meant to say) said earlier, I had hoped the discussion would spur the various leaders (CH, CB, UNC, OC) to meet and put the spurs to a long-range transit plan.

I think Etta Pisano's question becomes more relevant given your clarification of transportation and transit. Was there any decision made on whether or not there would be a presentation at the beginning of the next meeting?

Robert,

I think it was left that there would be an update on where the plans for issuing an RFP for a transit plan are since expectations are that a decision might occur by then.

I don't understand the towns' insistence on a transit study instead of a transportation study. Why not pursue (fund) the larger study instead of the more narrow focus on transit? Transit only assumes everyone who works at CN is going to live in town when we know from looking at the current university profile that isn't a realistic assumption. Don't we already have a problem with commuters coming from Durham and the lack of viable/affordable park and ride space?

Terri

Terri,

I think you may be missing the point. We already have a current, up-to-date transportation study. It's the 2030 plan which was prepared by the MPO and is being updated continually. So why should we fund another transportation study if if's already there?

The idea of the transit study is simple (IMHO at least): you commit to the principle that you want to make public transit the primary modality for accessing CN. You then commission a transit study to determine what accomplishing that principle will require and whether that principle can ultimately support the University's goals. If not, you then make a decision to either scale back those goals or to investigate alternative modalities for accessing CN.

As I see it, the big difference between what the municipalities are proposing and what the University is proposing is that the municipalities begin with the premise that public transit should be the primary modality for accessing CN. You then design a system to make that premise work. If you begin with a multi-modality premise you will almost certainly commit to widening roads, etc. until you can go no further and then add in public transit -you are very likely doomed to fail. Almost inevitably, given the choice between driving and parking near their place of employment and taking a bus, people will choose driving. So if you begin with widening the roads, etc. and then try to bring in public transit we all will lose. I think a good example of this is the lukewarm support for the rail system out in RTP. Twenty years from now people will be bemoaning the fact that there was insufficient foresight to develop public transit before things got out of hand. Another example is the University's park-and-ride system. They have embraced it and it is successful because, and this is a big because, people have no choice. Do you think that the people parking in the park-and-ride lot in Chatham and taking the shuttle wouldn't drive all the way into CH if they have a parking space right outside their office at a reasonable price? It's simply human nature.

We really need a vision for the next 25-50 years. The current 2030 plan addresses that for the road system. Now it's time to see what we might do for a transit system. Remember, all we're asking to do is to draw up a plan to see what we might do - we're not asking anyone to commit to anything other than that at this point.

Is the MPO's transportation plan publicly available? How does that plan differ from the 20 year list each municipality has with DOT?

Seems to me George that the university has already committed to public transportation in their own 2003 Design Guidelines for CN: (http://research.unc.edu/cn/InfraHighlights.pdf)

--A well-integrated, multi-modal transportation system should be developed to provide a range of transportation options and reduce reliance on the single-occupant vehicle.

--The use of alternative modes should be encouraged to minimize traffic congestion, emissions, energy consumption, and safety hazards.

--The transportation system should be designed to minimize environmental pollution and noise impacts.

--A mix of land uses should be included to reduce the need to travel off the campus, thereby minimizing automobile travel.

In fact, after reading this document, I just don't see much difference between these guidelines, the Horace Williams report, and what I read here about citizen expectations. Is it possible that the animosity is getting in the way of good communications?

Terri,

The plan can be viewed or downloaded at

www.dchcmpo.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=14&Itemid=34

The municipalities are not arguing against a multi-modal transportation system and the University has indeed said it supports public transit for CN. The difference between the two positions appears (at least to me) to be that the municipalities believe that public transit should be clearly stated to be the primary mode of access to CN with a strong de-emphasis on the use of single occupant vehicles while the University is not yet willing to commit to public transit as the primary mode of access.

Thanks for the link George. Looking at the recommendation's page it seems that the only 'transportation' improvement that affects Chapel Hill/Carrboro between now and 2050 is the light rail/fixed guideway project, which I thought had been turned down for funding at both the federal and state levels.

Please point out the holes in my logic:

--The MMPO report does not identify any access improvements into Chapel Hill/Carrboro other than fixed guideway which has no funding support.

--CN will depend on many people coming to the campus for many reasons

--The university has been seeking improved access into town/campus for many years via South Columia and now on Mason Farm.

My conclusion: By insisting on a transit (movement within town) study, the towns are basically indicating their lack of support for the outside access the university deems necessary to meet its mission.

As one who isn't convinced that Carolina North is a good thing, I really don't know how I feel about this. Looking at the current situation, I understand the concerns for both transportation (access from outside of town) and transit. Traffic is becoming more and more congested coming into town on 54 from I-40 and 15-501. Employees and regular visitors coming from outside of town should be expected to utilize perimeter parking and public transit (sidewalks, bike trails, buses). But first-time or irregular visitors should be given easier access to campus. They may or may not need transit options once they are here.

Speaking as someone who likes good planning, I fear that a concentration on interior movement only, narrows options and exacerbates an existing access problem. But the side of me that values small town life, doesn't want all those people coming here. But I also value the goals of the university to serve the rest of the state, especially in education and public health. No simple answers.

Terri,

I'll probably be simplifying this far too much and I certainly don't speak for any of the municipalities but I think County Commissioner Barry Jacobs tried to put it this way at the recent LAC meeting: (paraphrasing) "Make public transit the default hypothesis [principle] for access to CN until a study indicates that it can't do the job. Then begin looking at the other modalities". I hope I haven't misrepresented Barry but I think that's what I heard and I think that's what the towns are suggesting: assume that public transit will be your primary mode and if, and only if, a transit study suggests that this approach won't work do you begin to look at the other, less-attractive modalities (new roads, road widenings, etc.).

George C,

While your points regarding the town's point of view are well taken, I'm still dismayed that both the Town officials and the University officials are not viewing the transportation/transit study, nor any other facet of Carolina North, as a partnership. Which it has to be if it will be successful. They have spent over two years arguing which type of study should be started, and have yet to agree on a plan. The Horace Williams Citizens Committee, along with lots of other bodies, determined that a transporation/transit foundation study (however it is defined) was a critical element, along with a fiscal equity plan and a environmental study, and had to be completed before any development should occur.

Unfortunately that most likely will not occur, as it now appears the University will begin the process, and the likelyhood that those foundation studies will be completed prior is remote. It's been over two years, and I just don't understand why both parties can't find some middle ground and get these critical studies started.

Gene P

Gene,

The Town's position (and I believe this is Carrboro's as well) is that a transportation study already exists as the 2030 Plan and thus they see no reason to pay for an additional study. The 2030 Plan, prepared by the MPO, emphasizes roadways more so than transit so the municipal partners (CH & Carrboro) would like to have a transit study to go along with the 2030 Plan. The University (as one of the 3 transit partners) has refused to participate (at least financially) in such a transit study but, given the importance of such a study for our future growth I wouldn't be surprised if the towns decide to go forward, even if the University refuses to participate (mind you, the major impact if the University refuses to participate is the financial burden imposed on the towns although I think it will be University's loss by not participating). Cal Horton stated at the last LAC meeting that he expected there would be a decision on such a study by the end of the month. I think Cal is a very reliable source.

George,

I understand the both Towns positions, and have for several years, but my point isn't who is right or wrong, but rather one of "partnership." The University has a different point of view on the transit/transportation study, so instead of ALL parties finding some solution that works for the parties for the studies, they have chosen to draw lines in the sand. So after more than two years, we are no further along in this critical area.

If all parties trusted each other and negotiated in good faith, they would have found a solution for the study(s) a long time ago and they would have been completed by now and available for public review and comment.

The blame lines on both sides, not one, for not finding a solution as partners. Perhaps we should put both towns elected officials, the chancellor, his administration and a few trustees in a locked room, and they would not have food or water until a solution is found........

Gene,

The towns are already in a partnership with UNC - the transit partnership. And in the context of that partnership two of the three partners want to do a transit study but the third (UNC) isn't interested - they want a transportation study which, I repeat, has already been done and includes projections for CN. What would you have CH and Carrboro do? Acquiesce to the university and spend precious tax dollars on a study that has already been done (and paid for)? You're right - it's time to move on and I wouldn't be surprised if the towns decide to do just that and to commission a study without UNC's participation. It will be disappointing if UNC doesn't participate but it certainly can't be any more disappointing than the footdragging that has been going on.

Gene has pointed out that we have a frayed "partnership" with UNC - something the LAC, to date, hasn't helped reweave.

Yes, the LAC is moving forward but, on the downside, we have several of the LAC principals a bit at odds, part of the BOT introducing a negative element into the discussions, some of Chapel Hill's reps (as I've said before) undercutting the town's position by treating the HWCC report of principles not as a living, extensible document but as some kind of static "engraved in stone" all-encompassing fiat and the dissolution of the HWCC.

I appreciate the "firmness" the town's reps showed on open, transparent, public process - we should recognize UNC's attempts to do better (not quite there yet) - and move on.

George, the transportation study, I believe, is sensitive to varying "initial conditions". Reliance on it now, with CN plans in a flux, is somewhat questionable.

The assumptions about CN are speculative at best (I-40 interchange, $4/gal. gasoline?) - a good thing as we're hoping for a dramatic recasting of transit modalities vis-a-vis the new LAC process.

It's interesting the number of 'plans' and 'studies' the town relies on (comprehensive, small area, transportation) that aren't "evergreen" - that they lack a timely, built-in process to re-evaluate base assumptions, remeasure key metrics and reformulate propositions in light of new data.

We need that baseline transit study and we need to inject a more timely, flexible and "evergreen" process into the discussion of local transportation.

WillR,

"...undercutting the town's position by treating the HWCC report of principles not as a living, extensible document but as some kind of static “engraved in stone” all-encompassing fiat..."

While the CH representatives on the LAC cannot agree to any principle or recommendation that is contrary to the HWCC report (which the Town Council has adopted as official policy) I don't believe that any of the CH representatives have ever said that the final report of the LAC (which will include consensus recommendations and, absent a consensus, differing opinions) will not be provided to the full Town Council for consideration of any modifications to its officially-adopted policies. I don't believe any Town official has ever said that the Town would not consider modifying its policies if a better idea comes along. Indeed, governments and universities do that routinely (or at least we hope so).

Likewise, the University has never said that they would accept any of the recommendations of the LAC. The Chancellor will take them under advisement but he has never obligated himself to accept any recommendation made.

The towns want public transit to be the MAJOR mode of access at CN while the University is unwilling to commit to this principle. A transit study should determine whether that principle is feasible and what the costs might be. I don't see what the University opposes regarding this approach other than the results might indeed indicate that public transit could indeed work as the major mode of access.

George,

You are missing my point again. PARTNERSHIP.

"What would you have CH and Carrboro do? Acquiesce to the university"

Why don't the "partners" in the transit partnership find out the reason for their positions, and commit to finding some common ground for a study(s). They have had over two years and are still at the same place, no where.

Gene,

I'm very sorry you aren't one of the town representatives. Your problem solving, collaborative approach is exactly what is needed.

Terri

George - the Mayor has been quite "firm" on the what role the principles play in the process.

Beyond that, he, and others, have incorrectly asserted the principles are complete. Some have claimed the HWCC's report is comprehensive - and maybe so if you're only interested in limited coverage or a 10,000 foot perspective - but, as the HWCC itself pointed out Jan. 6th - there's more work to be done to fill in the gaps in the principles, to establish fundamental baselines and to flesh out relevant detail.

Terri, there's kind of an interesting question on citizen reps on the LAC. Julie is on the LAC because she chaired the HWCC (Gene, BTW, is her alternative). She's still on it even though the HWCC has been dissolved. At least there's continuing justification for GeorgeC - as the transportation board hasn't been vaporized.

Terri,

Thanks for the kind words. I am a CH representative to the LAC but if you were referring to our elected representatives I think they are all doing a great job. Unfortunately the towns were cornered into participating on a committee that has no legal authority over the affected towns and no authority of any kind with or over the University. But if the municipalities chose not to participate they would have been labeled as close-minded and unwilling to work with the University. On the other hand, by making it clear from the outset that they could not be bound by anything the committee chose to recommend they have also been labeled as close-minded and unwilling to work with the University. Why hasn't someone questioned the Chancellor as to why he is unwillingly to abide by recommendations of a committee he himself commisssioned? Unfortunately I believe the local media tends to play up the areas of disagreement between the parties because they make better headlines. In fact, I tend to agree with Ken Broun that there is probably agreement on 85% of the issues.

At the last meeting of the LAC Mark Chilton and Dan Coleman got the discussion going on one of the principles that accounts for a major portion of the areas of the 15% disagreement - the role of public transit. I expect that the LAC will quickly , in the next 1-2 meetings, identify the 85% or so of the principles that everyone can agree to and most of the remaining 6-7 meetings will be trying to find some common ground on the remaining 15%. It would be easy to be pessimistic and say that nothing positive will come from this process since no one is bound by any of the recommendations but I think the dialog that will emerge should be healthy and perhaps will help to make for a better-informed citizenry.

George Cianciolo

Terri,

Oops. I misread your compliment to Gene as directed toward me. In any case, I hope everyone appreciates the difficult situation the LAC is trying to deal with.