NRG - Carolina North: Don’t Get Stuck in Traffic

I appreciate all the work that went into putting this together.  I think everyone would have liked to have a little more time on the breakout sessions and then discussion of the summaries of those sessions.  Can't do everything at once I guess.The Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) is now posted on the Town's website under Carolina North/documents.  It's about 265 pages (the executive summary is shorter but still ~15 MB).  Interestingly, the numbers of parking spaces calculated for academic uses (employee/student/resident) for phase I (705) and Phase II (2035)  are ratios of 86% and 84% respectfully.  I believe the current parking ratio on the main campus is about 50%.These numbers don't include the non-academic uses.  For Phase II the total parking (for 7100 individuals) is listed at 5835 spaces (82%).  I haven't had time to read the summary or the complete report yet to see what impact these numbers are expected to have.

A reasonable number of them might be more willing to live in or near CN if they could afford to.  Fat chance of that happening however - I see and hear little of any real substance that would reduce (for the vast majority of the actual people who will be employed at CN) the necessity of commuting in from 15 or 20 miles away.

Thanks, Cat. I know you have the vision and foresight to appreciate the importance of this. Of course, I have never thought automobiles should be kept out of Carolina North; the idea is to have one or more “car-free” zones within it. This is defined by four features: (1) No roads, streets or automobile parking within the zone (except perhaps for one bus-only road), (2) A transit stop (for bus or rail) in the center of the zone, (3) Access to the zone for emergency vehicles, and perhaps small delivery trucks, (4) Automobile parking just beyond the periphery of the zone. I proposed this to Holden Thorp last July. In reply, he (or somebody) wrote, in part, the following about the plan for building on the Horace Williams grounds.“The plan promotes the use of transit for access to Carolina North by placing transit stops so that virtually every element of the site will be no more than 1,000 feet from a bus stop.  The plan also encompasses an east-west transit corridor, on which only transit traffic will be permitted.  Moreover, bike paths and pedestrian walkways, with connections to adjacent areas are being planned from the start.  "At the same time, some tenants at Carolina North will need and expect to access Carolina North by car.  For these people the plan for Carolina North includes a “regional” parking strategy that is intended to capture cars soon after they enter the site with the result of reducing automobile traffic on the site and promoting pedestrian movement to office or lab destinations. “I am confident that the plan will strike an excellent balance among the various issues that must be addressed.  I hope you agree that some of the features described above achieve much of the intent of your suggestion for a car-free zone without imposing that restriction in an arbitrary way.” Maybe the chancellor thinks a car-free zone would be "arbitrary." But that seems to me to be just the sort of reaction to genuine transit-oriented planning that shows a lack of vision for Carolina North. Also, I am skeptical about how many of the good ideas mentioned in the reply really are part of the current planning. James Coley

There was an excellent "Blueprint America" broadcast last night on PBS. The "Road to the Future" episode is a documentary on the problem of automobile dominance and efforts to find a better way to organize urban transportation in the US. Here is a link to the website, where you can click through to view the documentary online. Carolina North could be a showcase of the new urbanism if the decision-makers have the vision and courage it takes to become part of this national movement.             http://www.pbs.org/wnet/blueprintamerica James Coley

I noticed the quote from Evans, who has demonstrated time and time again that he lacks the needed vision and courage on the transportation issue. What does he think Carolina North will be? A big box store that has to worry about whether people will come by if they don't drive there? Does he think that law students will boycott their classes if they can't get to them by car? Does he think that researchers will turn down a job because they might have to use transit to get to work? Finally, does he not see that the main campus functions perfectly well with the so-called "parking shortage?"The noble fight for transit-oriented design at Carolina North may never be won, but it is better to fight the good fight anyway. The elected officials in Chapel Hill and Carrboro must continue to push back against the excessive parking the University administration wants. James Coley

Note the post that I was responding to - it's indented.  Note also in your second paragraph how many time you use the word "he."  My observation seems reasonable given what you wrote in that post.

Mark, you are one of the elected officials who do have the vision and courage we need. But I have a couple of questions about your post.First, in item one, what do you have in mind? A bus connection or a rail connection? MLK or the rail corridor? Both? Either? Neither? If you are leaving all this open, that might be wise. But we can take bus service on MLK as a given, and should fight for more, don't you think? I still carry the banner for some kind of fixed-guideway North-South connection, whether it is rail or a dedicated busway.Second, are your five items offered as an alternative to, or in addition to, the strategy of keeping on the pressure to limit parking, to drive the issue of providing better alternatives? I hope your answer is the latter. If we had a lot of people in the University administration with your vision on this, that would be one thing. But, as things stand, I think it is a political reality that this strategy is necessary to get anything good to come out of the process as far as transportation is concerned. James Coley

I don't think the Town Council has a notably different opinion about similar road issues in Chapel Hill. I wish we could be sure of that.  I remember the brouhaha over widening/straightening 86/then-Airport Rd., although perhaps if it has a state route designation, the governance is different (is it?).  Pressure to widen Estes "from Caswell to MLK," if not all the way down to Franklin, is already there; and although stiff neighborhood opposition can be expected, I have trouble imagining that Estes will ultimately escape being widened, with or without increased mass transit.  Indeed, if I remember correctly, one of the projections re: transportation suggested a dedicated bus lane on Estes.  And the entire question of where transit routes will lie, and how they will be serviced, does remind us that the buses, trolleys, or even light rail, have to go somewhere (failing installation of an overhead monorail).   

70% of the capital stock of the State University Railroad is owned by Norfolk Southern (NS) who operates the line as an NS subsidary. 10% of the stock is owned by UNC itself. NS owns it because its predecessor corporation supplied 70% of the capital back in the 1880s when it was built. The NC Railroad divested its stock to UNC about 10 years ago for various reasons. There are a few private shareholders, they are heirs of prominent Chapel Hillians from the 1880s. The flexibility of NS is far less han if the NCRR owned the line.

As you know, Joe, I have been working to promote the use of the rail corridor for Carolina North for many years. And, as you also know, the tracks extend North to University Station, from which a spur goes East to Durham and Raleigh. Although it is a somewhat indirect route, the train service to Carolina North could tie into a rail transit system for the whole of the Triangle. Over these years I have become convinced that the only real obstacles to the use of the corridor are political. Some of them may be state-wide, but some of them are local. If the University administration and the TTA would get behind it, the physical and technical challenges could be met, the relevant neighborhoods could be protected, and we could have rail transit service that would benefit Carolina North and provide a strong alternative to driving.The real obstacle is a lack of will. The old saying is that where there's a will there's a way. Unfortunately, this is a case where there is lack of will, and thus there is no way this will happen. I remain hopeful, if not optimistic, that this will change. James Coley

Just think of what a good deal this will be for craftsmen and porters, just like in the days when they built the Pyramids.  With no construction trucks and no deliveries by motorized vehicles, we will use lots of laborers and keep our air cleaner at the same time.  Of course, it will take just a little longer to do it the old way! 

All of the related documents are posted on last night's agenda page.  Parking provisions begin on page 22 of the development agreement.  There were a few very minor changes to the development agreement made at the meeting which are not reflected in the document: if I recall correctly, one was regarding the addition of language requiring greenways be built to town standards for transportation purposes, and another clarifying language regarding monitoring of stormwater protection efforts.