Will Chapel Hill/Carrboro Ever Be Bike-Friendly?

As far as what kinds of roads it might be appropriate for people to bike on, I suppose this is open to debate. IMO if a road doesn't have a shoulder and if cars on that road go, say, 30 mph or more then bikes just aren't safe. I mean, yeah, a driver could see you and slow up and then pass, but there are already distractions for drivers and bikes are a lot harder to see than other cars and plus the speed differential between cars and bikes introduces an element of danger. And if you're a driver and you have to pass a biker and there is a car coming from the opposite direction then you may have to slow down quickly, which introduces other dangers.

In the OP (OP means original post…is that abbreviation used here?)…anyway, in the OP the poster said s/he was on a “virtually nonexistent shoulder” when the incident occurred and I countered with the assertion that that meant the biker was at fault and I was challenged. My idea was that for situations where drivers on the road are expected to go slow to begin with, such as a densely populated neighborhood or whatever, it's simply inherently unsafe for people to be biking where shoulders are virtually nonexistent. I feel that way from the perspective of a driver. But others may feel differently and I'd be interested in hearing other viewpoints.

Jose,
I'm not a biker (3 knee operations) but I firmly believe that bikers have as much right to the roads as automobiles and that car drivers need to be educated to that fact. It certainly would help if bikers could do as much as possible to make themselves more visible (reflective clothing) and obey the law and have lights at night. A biker may cause me some minor inconvenience when I slow down to pass them but given the fact that I'm contributing to global climate change and they are not, I think that minor inconvenience is a small price to pay.

George
That sounds OK until you picture a long line of cars behind a biker creeping uphill on S Columbia or Estes Ext during rush hour. All those minor inconveniences add up quickly.

George C has it right, bikes on the motorway are a minor inconvenience, not a problem. A problem is no water, cancer is a problem. If a motorists having to slow down for a bicycle is a problem for them they don't know how lucky they are. Ever hear the saying the hurrier I go the behinder I get? Might do some well to keep that in mind when they are racing to what? A fire, saving a dying patient? Not so much as just don't slow me down, I'm late, my time is valuable, bicycles are slow and in the way, get them and any other obstacle in the path of my very important life outta my way, do it now, I gotta go go go now! You're making me late and I got no time!
Slow down and Enjoy yourself, its later than you think.

That's all great to keep in mind, Pat. I'm just remembering that when I'm that biker with a line of cars behind me, I feel bad for holding them up and I start looking for other ways to get around without being just one more obstacle.

Are there many bikers out there who, in such situations, are content with saying to themselves... "It's OK, I'm only a minor inconvenience, ...only a minor inconvenience..."? I doubt it.

I also doubt there are many car drivers out there who would rather be commuting long distances, and rushing all over the place on errands. But that's the kind of town we've created for ourselves - spread out, car dependent, etc.

But that's the kind of town we've created for ourselves - spread out, car dependent, etc.

It is sad isn't it? I sat through the Chamber's Carrboro forum last night listening to the candidates talk about how important it is to make Carrboro a bike/ped friendly place. But through the 1990s it was bike/ped friendly--we instituted bikepaths in the late 1970s/early 1980s. University employees were able to live in town and walk/bike/or take the bus to work.

In the Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan wrote: "At either end of any food chain you find a biological system--a patch of soil, a human body--and the health of one is connected--literally--to the health of the other." I think we can apply that same ecological thinking to the health of our communities. Transportation choices, economic development, and public health are all literally connected to one another. If people can work where they live, they can eschew automobiles. If they can afford to live where they work, they can eschew automobiles. If they can get out of their cars and not worry about getting run over by irate motorists, they will be healthier and happier.

But where do we start to fix the problem? Building more and more expensive homes either in the downtown or out along the edges doesn't seem like the right place to start to me.

Seems like zoning and comprehensive plans are responsible for the problem and we certainly created these rules through our desires for homes with yards where kids can all grow strong and above average.

Plans for high density growth downtown (condos) have been met with some resistance for fear of losing the village character of CH/C. How else can we beat sprawl, though?

What would happen to a local or state candidate who proposed a system of impact fees so that homes greater than a certain square footage with large yards would have to pay a higher property tax? If such fees could be passed into law, would we start seeing infill as people in town started subdividing large lots? People generally don't like infill on their own streets. How could we get around that?

Even if this did reduce car traffic, would it get more of us out on bikes? I doubt it, with all these hills.

It's a fascinating problem, sprawl - there is such deep-seated resistance to a solution. It's so much fun to feel like we can just do whatever we want to do, and so far we've been able to ignore the consequences.

Bikes in town move about as fast as the traffic - minor inconvenience, no problem, I like everything about bicycling.

Out here in the country - coming over a rise to see an approaching curve and see three bike riders (in splendid colorful garb) riding side-by-side taking up the whole lane - it's a bit of an adrenaline rush, you pump the brakes, & you think, damn there's not really room for bikes on these roads, especially when the riders ride in such an oblivious manner (and I seem to detect a bit of a "critical mass" attitude) and then you think, it's too bad there is not a bike lane so bikes could fit on these roads out here (those groovy state bike trail signs don't really cut it in terms of making space available...), and then as an afterthought you think about the riders really not going anywhere but back to where they started so it's not a transportation issue, it's a fitness & recreation issue out here. And I always end up thinking, unfortunately it's actually dangerous to try and fit bikes and cars on these roads that were designed for cars.

While slightly dated, a great resource on how North Carolina spends transportation dollars as opposed to other states is the "Changing Direction: Federal Transportation Spending in the 1990's" report by the Surface Transportation Policy Project.

Click here for PDF report.

Look at Table 1, Table 2, and Table 4, which show NC's spending on alternative modes in the 1990s. Most telling is that the state receives "flexible" funds from the Federal Government that can be used for a variety of projects, be they bike,pedestrian, transit, ferry, rail, road, you name it, the state chooses- and yet from 1992 to 1999, NCDOT spent 99.5% of those flexible funds on roads.

In the report, you'll see that on a per capita basis in the 1990s, NC spent about as much money on bike/ped projects as Idaho did, an about 1/8th of what Wyoming spent. That said, NC is at least not far below the national average on ped/bike spending. We are far, far, below the per capita spending on transit.

To be fair, I'm sure that these numbers have probably improved a bit over the last few years, if only because it is so easy to get better.

But to get back to Eric's question, Chapel Hill and Carrboro are often unable to address bikeability on state-owned roads.

In many ways, NCDOT still reflects the structure and priorities it was set up to address: building roads for cars and trucks in a mostly agrarian state and maintaining them when the counties could not afford to do so, in the pursuit of bringing economic development to cities and towns.

NC is now a predominantly urban/suburban state, with many URBAN mobility challenges. Unfortunately, our primary transportation organization continues to have a rural roadbuilding orientation. About 3-5 years ago, I attended a public hearing on the Statewide Transportation Plan, which for the first time ever, was to be a multimodal transportation plan. Good! Right?

The DOT engineer presenting then put up a list of peer states that went something like this:
Virginia; Tennessee; Arkansas; South Carolina; Kentucky; Mississippi; Alabama.

Other than VA and maybe TN, the rest of this list reads like a list titled: “states that NC is becoming LESS like all the time.” An electoral college map is an interesting tool in this discussion. I'd rather see us compare ourselves to other states with similar levels of metropolitan development and population, which would lead us towards places like Missouri, Washington state, Virginia, and Georgia, as well as states who are already where we are headed such as Pennsylvania or Illinois.

So much of transportation development in NC comes through the filter of NCDOT. Without changing its direction or devolving its authority to localities, lots of good ped/bike initiatives will remain much harder to implement than they should be.

I seem to detect a bit of a “critical mass” attitude

I assure you that is your imagination. I've ridden with most of those people and none of them are trying to get in your way. I've never heard a cyclist say, "Hey, lets block this car." "Car back," is heard all the time.

too bad there is not a bike lane so bikes could fit on these roads

A bike lane stripe does not create extra lane width. A 14' lane creates room for cars to pass bikes without encroaching on the other lane. The stripe is not necessary and often creates a more dangerous environment.

riders really not going anywhere

It's wrong to make judgements about legitimacy of other road user's travels. These are public roads. I bike many of those same roads travelling to and from work, shopping, visiting friends.

to try and fit bikes and cars on these roads

A car travelling too fast to avoid a bicycle travelling in the same direction is travelling too fast, period. Deer, pedestrians, tractors, stalled vehicles, mail carriers, fallen tree limbs, dogs, geese, kids chasing a football, police, etc. all obstruct the roadway--usually to a greater extent than same-direction bicycles. Motorists must operate in a manner such that they are prepared to deal with all of these things, not bindly assume ideal conditions around every curve.

Welll, if I drive 20 mph on Old Greensboro Hwy just in case I happen to meet a bicylist on the other side of the rise then somebody going the speed limit is going to run up my tailpipe.

The thread refers to biking in Chapel Hill & Carrboro, but the near accident occurred out in the country. Little disconnect there.

I've been reading this thread with particular interest as my husband travels that very stretch of Dairyland on his bike on his way to UNC. He's had a couple of close calls but fortunately has only suffered from breathing smog so far. Yes, this incident occurred in the county but we all know how many "city folks" use country roads around here. On a beautiful fall day, strings of cyclists occupy the roads from Carrboro to Maple View Farms and beyond. If we want to encourage alternative forms of commuting from our rural buffer into town, then we should start thinking about making that commute safer. To me, that seems like a priority that we should making especially as the number of cycling commuters is likely to (hopefully?) increase significantly in the area of Homestead/Dairyland with the building of Carolina North.

> Welll, if I drive 20 mph on Old Greensboro Hwy just in case I happen to meet a bicylist on the other side of the rise then somebody going the speed limit is going to run up my tailpipe.

And if you drive responsibly,are aware of your surroundings, and maintain a willingness to use your breaks for a few moments, then everything will work out fine.

There is the assertion that roads were designed for cars. I disagree and would suggest that regardless of road design, the laws dictate otherwise. Remember cars were designed to be maneuverable, to accelerate, and to decelerate. Surely road design does not also mean that a car must maintain a constant, unwavering rate of speed.

Adrian,
I would like to take issue with your point
“I assure you that is your imagination. I've ridden with most of those people and none of them are trying to get in your way. I've never heard a cyclist say, “Hey, lets block this car.” “Car back,” is heard all the time.” "
I have driven on Dairyland road when there was a group of perhaps 40 (at least 20) bikes together, taking up the entire lane and so much space that it was impossible to pass safely. They did not get over to the right. I had to leave the road and find an alternative route. I have no idea what was going on. If it was a sanctioned event of some sort it was not posted. There was no detour sign on the road. I assume it was some group event that wasn't sanctioned and no one involved cared about me but I really don't know what was going on. I haven't seen riding in groups like this very frequently but that isn't the only time I've seen it. Also, I have seen smaller groups that took the center of a lane and did not give it up to allow automobiles to pass. I believe making roads bike friendly is important for many reasons and we all need to work at it.
Jim Rabinowitz

and then as an afterthought you think about the riders really not going anywhere but back to where they started so it's not a transportation issue, it's a fitness & recreation issue out here. And I always end up thinking, unfortunately it's actually dangerous to try and fit bikes and cars on these roads that were designed for cars.

Mark, what about all those people driving out Dairyland to go to the dairy store to eat ice cream? Is that "transportation"? What about old folks on a "Sunday Drive?" Is that transportation?

Roads are a public resource. Driving on them is a privilege, not a right.

Furthermore, those bikers who are "going nowhere" are saving us all money. How? By reducing health care expenses, for diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Quite the opposite of those visiting Maple View (unless they biked there!).

Yes, those bikers who are in your way could get in their cars, drive over to the American Tobacco Trail, and exercise there. Or go to the gym. But as someone who claims to be into "green building", you should be able to see the problem with those options - they waste lots of energy and produce more greenhouse gasses.

Or, instead, people like you could just have a bit of patience, and realize that sometimes people will be a bit boneheaded, regardless of what vehicle they use. At least those boneheaded cyclists who ride three abreast are only slowing you down, not threatening your life. The same can not be said of boneheaded car drivers. I know of several people who have been killed by those.

Morgan

Jim,

Are there parts of Dairyland where there is only one lane? Were they somehow preventing you from passing in the other lane (as you would do when passing a car or a tractor)? I'm sorry you felt uncared for, but that does not sound at all like a Critical Mass ride, and I really believe they were at least as anxious for you to (safely) pass as you were to get out from behind them. I have never heard anyone in any such group express a desire to interfere with other traffic.

It is generally agreed that with a group that large it is easier for faster traffic to pass a double-paceline than a single-paceline, as a single paceline would be at least twice as long. Especially if the lane width is insufficient to allow safe overtaking within the lane.

You mentioned taking an alternative route. Alternative, or redundant, routing is a big part of relieving congestion problems. Efforts by developers or neighborhoods to block connectivity, in a misguided attempt to reduce traffic, quickly result in a network with a lot of bottlenecks, especially if the few roads that do connect have insufficient lane width. Dairyland, thanfully, is largely paralleled by Orange Grove Ch and Arthur Minnis.

All roads are "bike facilities". Improving connectivity, line of sight and lane width of rural roads should all be recognized as engineering improvements that make it safer for cyclists and motorists to coexist. Too often "bike advocacy" is a cover for relegating cyclists to seperate, substandard, less safe facilities that do not serve needed destinations.

These are all growth issues. If Orange County remained as thinly populated as fifty years ago, there would be far fewer cars and bikes on the road. More people, more cars and bikes, more contention for space, more need to both engineer our infrastructure to accomodate all users and more need to accept that other people's activities will have an impact on the way we live. I think we would all do well to look at how people manage in other parts of the world that are much more densely populated, because that's undoubtedly where we are headed.

Ruby,

Just trying to broaden the participation in Orange Politics.org. and the the political dialogue in general in Chapel Hill -- at the risk of being reckless!

IMO anytime a bicyclist is on a road…and by “on a road” I mean on the same part that cars actually drive on…and it is a road where cars go at least 30-35 mph or more then it's going to be dangerous for bikers. Bikes are small and a lot harder to see than cars and there are always lots of other distractions for drivers. And plus when the speed differential between drivers and bikers is large there is much less time to react. Unless the innate reaction times of human beings change I don't see how the situation will suddenly become un-dangerous (okay, perhaps un-dangerous isn't a word but you know what I mean). And the consequences of a mistake on the part of driver or biker in such a situation are large considering the different size and speeds of cars and bikes.

Look at it this way. Suppose CH/C was an empty piece of land right now and you were the one to decide how it would be laid out. Pretend you had to have the same number of work buildings and businesses that are here now and then after that you got to decide where the housing would go and then you could put transportation routes wherever you wanted. Would you have car and bike transportation anything resembling like it is now? Probably not.

And in case you're tempted to you say that if it were up to you then there'd be fewer people and more green in town then stop to consider for a minute that one of the people evicted from living in town in such a scenario could be you.

Jose,

"Look at it this way. Suppose CH/C was an empty piece of land right now and you were the one to decide how it would be laid out. Pretend you had to have the same number of work buildings and businesses that are here now and then after that you got to decide where the housing would go and then you could put transportation routes wherever you wanted. Would you have car and bike transportation anything resembling like it is now? Probably not."

You're right that if we started from scratch we'd do a much better job of laying out CH/C for pedestrians, bikes, transit and finally, cars. And that is exactly what numerous citizens have been trying to tell UNC regarding Carolina North. They are starting from scratch with a nearly 1000 acre parcel of land. They have the opportunity to do it right. And the preference should be, as described in the HWCC report and the LAC report: pedestrians, bike, transit, and finally cars. Whether that preference is heeded will depend on how strongly citizens make their views heard and how willing the Chancellor and the new Chancellor are to listen to those views.

Adrian,
No, there aren't any parts of Dairyland road where there is only one lane. Dairyland road has one lane in each direction. What it had that morning, was enough bikes that they could not be passed safely. The bikes were across one lane of traffic. I don't remember if they were two or three abreast but their line was essentially unbroken for the length of a number of trucks. I didn't think I could pass them safely, like I could a single tractor or slow truck. Their number and position was not compatible with cars using the road at the same time. Don't get me wrong I have not had this happen many times but it sticks in my mind.

What is a “critical mass ride”?

I have a small, energy efficient car and can often pass bikes without crossing a middle line. Is that legal? Should I do that at all?

By the way I completely agree with you on the need for road connectivity and the importance of connectivity not just for convenience but also for minimizing energy use. Unfortunately many places in southern Orange County have been developed without any consideration of road connectivity. For example, try going from Homestead Road to Hillsborough Road or Greensboro Street (?) in Carrboro. It is interesting, I drive a hybrid car and because of the readouts on the car I am quite conscious of gasoline use. When I drive through southern Durham I get much better mileage than when I drive in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. I think it's because in southern Durham I drive on long connected streets, for example Woodcroft Parkway while in CH-C I drive on the jumble of roads that run through and occasionally attach developments while trying to discourage their use. The one counter example I can think of is Weaver Dairy Extension.

Jim R,

I drive a motorcycle on occasion and I still give a bike rider(s) a wide berth in case of the extremely rare possibility that the rider were to fall to the left, onto the middle of the roadway. Such an incident would be extremely rare but in order to survive on a motorcycle you learn to anticipate such extremely rare events.

The reason southern Durham is more connected is that the build out there has occurred fairly recently. The example you give for Chapel Hill, Weaver Dairy Ext., is the same. Unfortunately, it is difficult to connect well-established roads unless a major new development comes along and the governing municipality directs such connections. This doesn't happen very often so we are, for the most part, stuck with the network we have.

And the preference should be, as described in the HWCC report and the LAC report: pedestrians, bike, transit, and finally cars. Whether that preference is heeded will depend on how strongly citizens make their views heard and how willing the Chancellor and the new Chancellor are to listen to those views.

George--you drive from Chapel Hill to Durham to work at Duke every day. Why should people who want to work at UNC have to spend more of their day commuting via transit from the outer boundaries of the town than you do?

I am a huge supporter of public transit and non-vehicular mobility, but honestly, I am getting a bit tired of the constant harping on about CN when 1) it's the towns that have chosen to grow residential growth in patterns that make non-vehicular mobility easy and safe and 2) the university has made such a concerted effort, starting back in the early 1980s, to restrict parking on campus to those who simply drive in and park their cars for 10 hours a day.

I will stop criticizing statements such as the one you made above when the towns make a proactive move to 1) restrict parking for town employees and elected/appointed officials and 2) they admit that their failure to implement an economic development plan (so that people can afford to live and work in town) is just as responsible for the current traffic and resulting environmental problems as anything the university has done.

Terri,

Just because our towns were poorly-designed from the outset for large-scale travel is no reason to continue those errors, wouldn't you agree? When new projects come before the CH Council or the Carrboro BOA those governing bodies require that the developers minimize parking and that the projects are designed to be pedestrian, bike and transit friendly. So why do you think it inappropriate to ask the same of UNC for CN?

Regarding my own travel, I travel Erwin Rd to NC 751 which, when I began doing 18 years ago was not very heavily traveled. Now it is becoming more so, but at 7AM it is still tolerable. When we manage to build a regional transit system that allows me to get there without using my car I'll be happy to do so.

What planners need to accept is that by restricting parking, they don't force people to use public transportation or bike. They force people to go farther and farther away in their cars to a place that they can park.

If you want to encourage cycling, you need safe roads and bike lanes. Sure the people who love to ride enough that they don't mind the danger are already riding. If you want MORE people to ride, you need to encourage the next group- those for whom road safety is keeping them in their cars. This means bike lanes that are connected. I think the idea of connecting between subdivisions is brilliant. Especially since the entire area is mostly subdivisions. For not all that much money, far more areas could be connected.

And, of course, the obvious. SInce the buses are already going down Rogers Road, why not let them stop and pick up people? Obviously it isn't out of the way any more, so go ahead- add it in for a real route or two. Sorry for the diversion there- but it isn't all that far off topic as the thread has meandered.

Just because our towns were poorly-designed from the outset for large-scale travel is no reason to continue those errors, wouldn't you agree?

I would say that our towns were never intended for large scale travel and poor growth planning have made that very obvious. Reverse engineering is very difficult to achieve but very necessary.

When new projects come before the CH Council or the Carrboro BOA those governing bodies require that the developers minimize parking and that the projects are designed to be pedestrian, bike and transit friendly.

This is where we disagree. Putting new developments in areas that were poorly designed for high volume traffic and then requiring sidewalks or bike paths that don't go anywhere except in circles doesn't improve non-vehicular traffic, except for exercisers.

When I was on the Environmental Advisory Board in Carrboro we argued for planning around destinations. For example, since there is a high volume of traffic coming from UNC to Carrboro every afternoon when people get off work, we advocated for a straight through road between Merritt Mill and Roberson with a stop light at S. Greensboro which would be widened to make downtown more accessible and reduce driver frustration.

Also, we need our transportation planning and economic development planning to go forward hand-in-hand. Winmore, which was supposed to be the first mixed use development in Carrboro, was given permission to eliminate their commercial properties. I assume there was insufficient traffic flow to make it financially attractive for businesses to locate there. So despite the fact that Winmore and Claremont have sidewalks and bike paths, adding more residents who have to drive out to Homestead and over to MLK to get to Weaver Dairy to buy groceries just doesn't really cut it for improving non-vehicular traffic.

So why do you think it inappropriate to ask the same of UNC for CN?

You've misrepresented what I said. According to the 2000 census, more than 40% of Chapel Hill's population drive out of town every day to go to work. One of the CH planners I spoke to thinks that figure is probably significantly higher today. To me that means there are just as many non-UNC residents driving out of town daily as there are non-Chapel Hill/Carrboro residents driving in to work at UNC daily (maybe more). So why aren't we talking more about extending TTA service into Durham or adding routes to Raleigh? Continuing to harp on about CN without talking about these town-level challenges is just passing the buck IMHO.

I sat through the staff development reviews for Winmore when the new developer took it over Mark (you were on the Board at the time). Commercial development was part of every discussion. I don't remember whether the SUP/CUP made it optional or not, but it was clear to me that staff were pushing for it. I thought then, and continue to think, that requiring commercial development for a neighborhood that small was silly. It accomplished nothing more than extending the permitting process and raising the developer costs which increased the costs of the housing. Expecting any developer to include commercial in a residential development that will not have sufficient traffic from within the neighborhood or easy access and signage to attract those from outside is an exercise in futility. It seems to be working for Meadowmont, but I suspect that's due in large part to the strong UNC presence out there.

That's why I said I would like to see a macro-level planning exercise that links transportation with economic development. Where are the commercially LUCRATIVE spots in Carrboro, those that have sufficient traffic to attract businesses that will pay a living wage and generate revenue for the town and provide needed services for the residents? I hope that's part of the what the northern area study group is doing or recommending. The only site I've heard discussed is the one across from Carrboro Plaza. Are there sites out around Homestead that you know will be attractive to commercial developers? Has there been a study done to identify such sites?

Mark,

I am aware that you didn't live in Carrboro when the Winmore hearings/permitting process were going on, but it was sold to us as " our southern village". There were speeches given about how great it would be to be able to walk from Tally Ho to Winmore to sit at a cafe and have coffee. We have video tape if you'd like to review them. I believe the board had a real opportunity when the first Winmore CUP expired to ensure that the new developer would commit to the "villlage-mixed use" concept in a meaningful way, but that didn't happen, and now the only commercial in Winmore is 20 ground floor home offices with $800,000 town houses attached to them. The sad part is that if Winmore had been managed properly, with all of the growth happening within 1/2 mile, we would have had a Carrboro- sized Southern Village on the north end of town.

Mark, I am not trying to take issue with anything you did, just what you said. Winmore was pitched as a Meadowmont/Southern Village project with Carrboro soul. Here is how it ended up:

"Winmore will include 96 single family homes, 86 town homes, 20 of which are live/work homes built around Winmore's central town green. Prices range from under $400,000 through the $900,000's." - quote from Koven's website.

The original CUP expired and you WERE on the Board when they made application to extend the CUP on March 1, 2005. Wasn't there an opportunity before granting that new CUP to establish with the NEW developer what his intentions were ? A square with 20 little shops and a bus stop would be a huge benefit to the hundreds of homes that are within 1/2 mile of that village green.

Katrina,

As a CH resident I don't know all that much about Winmore. But I seem to remember that you mentioned that the reason you established Sugarland on Franklin Street was that it was right near a bus stop and a thousand (?) potential customers a day. I might be off on that last number. But as a small business proprietor/entrepreneur, would you set up Sugarland in Winmore? Can 200 homes provide enough traffic to support a business like Sugarland? I haven't a clue to the answer to my question - just asking?

George,

Winmore was attractive as a location for several reasons.
One..the high school is right across the street. That's 1200 potential coffee & lunch customers everyday with no competition.

Two..it's not just the 200 homes at Winmore that would feed the non-existent town center. It's also the 400 and change in Lake Hogan Farms, the 150 in Carolina Commons the 100 in the Highlands, the 100 in Tally Ho, the 45 in Colleton Crossing and the 86 in Claremont. That's all within 1/2 mile. You can add in Ballentine, Fox Meadow, Highlands North & Meadows & Wexford if you go to a one mile radius. That is a demographic that is pretty close in size and income to Southern Village, which supports a gelato/coffee shop just fine.

Three...we were looking to purchase our space. We rent the Franklin St. space from the University.

Four, I like taking my segway to work, and it's 3 minutes to Winmore and about 25 down to Franklin St. ( at 12 MPH maximum) Those extra 22 minutes of sleep at 5-ish in the morning are golden.

Anyway, Winmore turned out to be a big disappointment.

It was a piece of property that had an ecological profile very much like the Adams tract and I think anyone would be a bit disappointed to see that disappear.I don't like the highest density right on the creek, nor should anyone. I am disappointed that none of the specimen trees were retained. So I guess this is just my most recent disappointment with the Winmore project.

I have no issue with the village-mixed use model, per se. It's just in this case, there doesn't seem to be much "village" involved.

I think I am saying the same thing I said two years ago, only I added that I thought leaving the storm water management up to HOA was not an environmentally sound choice, either.

I've mellowed with age.

For the developers of a mixed use developer, locating tenants for the commercial property is a matter of deciding who will be good tenants and pay their rent on time. For the residents of the area, it's a matter of finding tenants that meet their basic needs. For that reason, I think the town and the developer need to work together to identify tenants.

In the particular design for Winmore, the commercial properties were scheduled to be located relatively deep inside the development making them less accessible to residents of surrounding developments. That was a design I felt was doomed to fail--a feeling that has been reinforced by my talks with other developers who don't think mixed use will succeed in Carrboro, at least from a developers perspective. Thus my earlier question to Mark about whether or not there has been any kind of study to identify sites that have sufficient traffic flow to make them attractive to commercial developers.

It is true that Winmore looks a lot more attractive as a VMU project today than it did in 2003 when it was finally permitted.

Terri,

Could you tell us which developers don't think mixed use development will succeed in Carrboro and what kinds of experiences they have that makes them say that? Have they done mixed use in other locals? Also why don't they think mixed use will work in Carrboro? Is it Carrboro or mixed use?

Jim Rabinowitz

It's been 2 years since I talked to them Jim so I don't remember their names. The first guy I spoke with was working on the Briar Chapel development in Chatham County, and was here in Carrboro for a development review with staff on a development out on Homestead. I asked him why they were building mixed use in Chatham but not here in Carrboro. What he told me, and others have confirmed since, is that for mixed use to work there has to be a critical mass of potential customers. I don't think any of us want Briar Chapel-scale development here in Carrboro.

He also said that their marketing studies showed that Homestead simply did not have sufficient flow of traffic to support mixed use. So I asked him what was needed to make mixed use viable. His advice, supported by others since, is that north Carrboro needs commercial development that will attract traffic other than those who live there. The developer at Southern Village used that same explanation for why they wanted a movie theater. I hope this is the kind of recommendation the northern study group comes up with.

But I have to wonder if north Carrboro--with no mass of development to its north or west is the best place to target Carrboro's commercial growth? As far as I know there haven't been any proposals to develop either commercial or mixed use out there recently. Still not enough traffic? How much more is needed to make it viable? How would that goal play out against the mayor's proposal that everything west of old 86 be taken out of consideration for any type of future development?

Have there been any recent studies that ask these kinds of questions? Such a study was not part of the economic development plan, and I don't recall hearing that level of strategic discussion coming out of last year's BOA retreat on economic development. But I may have missed it or the local media may not have covered it. That's why I've been asking Mark if such studies have been undertaken or at least scheduled.

[quote]In the particular design for Winmore, the commercial properties were scheduled to be located relatively deep inside the development making them less accessible to residents of surrounding developments. That was a design I felt was doomed to fail–a feeling that has been reinforced by my talks with other developers who don't think mixed use will succeed in Carrboro, at least from a developers perspective. Thus my earlier question to Mark about whether or not there has been any kind of study to identify sites that have sufficient traffic flow to make them attractive to commercial developers.[/quote] I find this fascinating how this thread has evolved over to mixed use development and its need for traffic flow. Car traffic flow I would think is in the minds of developers. What about bike traffic flow, as in destinations for a bike ride? If we were to indeed create the greenways and connecting paths through the various neighborhoods, and there are many as Katrina mentions, then we might well have the flow needed for businesses to make a go of it. The key to me lies not in car traffic, but in the very issue of bike paths and greenways, which will be getting their fair attention this year in Carrboro. We must also remember that, even though we do want economic development, we foremost want to reduce car traffic. The beauty of mixed use lies in combining those two and the bike angle is perhaps more key than we thought at first.

Im glad you are ok .

I live on Orange grove rd .. I have to deal with bicyclist all the time .. by saying "deal" . I mean I have to worry about my safety as well as theirs. I am often appaled at how they dont get over when traffic comes. .. and why would anyone ride thier bike on these roads during rush hour??? ..

I would support my tax dollars establishing a safe bike lane or extra shoulder should it ever be proposed but I think cyclist should use better judgement when using the part of the road that is traditionally for automobiles

respectfully

Mark

I thought traffic flow had to do with the flow of people through a business district, rather than just car traffic flow.

CH has allowed several important traffic-creating destinations to move out of the downtown area: the library, the post office, movie houses, Kidzu and some retail shops have left - so there are fewer reasons for residents to go downtown now.

Carrboro is so much better suited for bike/ped traffic tho, because the lay of the land is so flat compared to CH. I hope Carrboro can do more to increase everyday destinations close in to the town center rather than letting these things pop up in other centers.

How did we wind up being so subject to the demands of developers anyway, as Terri was describing? The commercial properties on Main between Robeson and Greensboro were developed one at a time by individual owners, right, just as our houses used to be. Why does this style of development seem to be unviable today?

I ask because its this style that seems so conducive to bike/ped traffic.

This thread shows that many people do not understand the laws as they pertain to bicycles, and who has the right to use the roads. From the NC DMV website: http://www.ncdot.org/dmv/driver%5Fservices/drivershandbook/chapter6/bicy...

Bicycles
Bicycle riding is an important means of transportation, particularly for traveling to and from work and school. Because bicycles are vehicles, bicyclists must obey the same traffic laws as other drivers. Bicyclists usually ride on the right side of the lane, but are entitled to the use of a full lane.

Pass With Care
A bicyclist staying to the right in their lane is accommodating the following drivers by making it easier to see when it is safe to pass, and easier to execute the pass. Drivers wishing to pass a bicyclist may do so only when there is abundant clearance and no oncoming traffic is in the opposing lane. When passing a bicyclist, always remember the bicyclist is entitled to the use of the full lane.

I was trying to think what had not been covered in this thread already, but I cannot. Perhaps a summary is in order.

Respect your fellow humans (be they on bike or in car, for "fun" or for "transportation").

The closer your house is to where you produce, consume, and recreate (is that production or consumption?), the easier it is to avoid the car.

The planning of our local governments impacts the ease with which we make the above decisions, but they are still our decisions.

RE. 2 posts ago:
If the law is that bicycles are always entitled to the full use of a road lane, as that post implies, then forgive me for speaking an obvious truth but the law is ridiculous. The law isn't a proclamation handed down from God that is automatically right and can't be challenged but rather is a rule passed by humans and as such it can be whatever humans say it is. And if humans pass a law that can result in chaos and death without people breaking it whereas a different law could avoid all that then the law should change.
Bicycles entitled to use a full lane on I-40? on 15-501? Please!

And the bit about "bikers must obey the same traffic laws" is silly too. If you spend the day sitting at the intersection of Columbia and Cameron you'd see that law broken literally a hundred times.

The point is, bikes are not like cars. It is much more dangerous for bikes to behave like cars in some circumstances and much less dangerous for bikes to behave like cars in other circumstances.

RE: 1 post ago:
The direct implication of "The closer your house is to where you produce, consume, and recreate (is that production or consumption?), the easier it is to avoid the car" is "there'd be a lot less car use if we built another Southern Village (or three of them) in downtown Carrboro." People around here produce at UNC (especially since UNC is growing rapidly even without regard to Carolina North), and yet it isn't possible for many of those people to live near UNC, which means they're forced into their cars.