Thinking ahead

is there anyone who is on this committee from carrboro

No one from Carrboro is on the Special Transit Advisory Commission.

See: http://www.transitblueprint.org/stac.shtml

As has been noted elsewhere on OP, George Cianciolo is the Commission co-chair. A few other Chapel Hill residents are members.

Ed,
Carrboro's Planning Board Chair James Carnahan is an ex-officio member of the STAC and has been an active participant in many of it's discussions.

Ruby,
I should point out that for convenience of the STAC's discussions the alignment for fixed-guideway service from CH to CN has been shown on the maps along the existing rail corridor. The STAC's mission is to develop a regional transit vision plan and to make recommendations for major regional transit investments to the two MPOs (Metropolitan Planning Organizations) serving Orange, Durham, Chatham (northern) and Wake counties. Given the limited amount of time available to this commission and the fact that this is a citizen's commission whose members have limited transit/transportation planning experience or expertise, the exact alignments of guideways and other such details will almost certainly be determined by the MPO staffs once projects begin to move forward in development. For the most part the STAC will be making recommendations for transportation corridors and the level of service to be provided by transit but many of the technical details (exact alignments, whether rail, light rail, bus rapid transit [brt], etc) will be provided by the MPO staffs should the MPOs decide to accept our recommendations.

The rail corridor from CH to CN and northward has several potential problems before a fixed guideway service could be initiated in it: (1) it currently has existing rail service on its tracks; (2) the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has established standards which would require heavy duty rail cars to run within close proximity to a "live" track and this would be very costly - BRT would not meet the FRA standards to run in a "live" rail corridor; and (3) to run a fixed guideway system within the existing right-of-way would necessitate expensive grade improvements.

All of this doesn't mean the rail corridor couldn't be used - it simply means it would take an intensive, committed effort to identify solutions to the issues I pointed out above, both by local and regional officials and by those who might best be served by having such an alignment serving CN.

I'm new to the area, but quite curious about opinions on light rail. I can see an argument for instituting some sort of rail system between Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill to reduce automobile commutes; however, I'm having a difficult time seeing the need for a rail system within Chapel Hill/Carrboro. Perhaps I'm not being far-sighted enough; but it seems to me that the bus system here works great. Having moved from a large city in New England, I've been thrilled with the public transit in Chapel Hill -- more or less, it comes on time, and is fast and efficient. Much more than I could say for the subway, fixed aboveground rail, and bus systems in Boston...

I'm curious to hear what others think, or where I can learn more about the background on the fixed rail discussions.

I was on the council when we made the decision to site the
new library. The big, no, OVERWHELMING, issue with the old
library at the corner of Franklin and Boundary was its lack
of parking. There where also space needs, both inside the
building and the impossibility to enlarge the building on its lot,
but we fielded complaint after complaint that there was no place
to park. The Pritchard site, though not centrally located and equipped with some other problems, did allow for adequate parking and for future expansion of the building.

A half-dozen years later, a bus experiment was tried. The F
route was changed so that inbound bus coming up Franklin, made
a detour via the library before continuing up the hill toward
downtown. A similar loop was installed in the outbound F route.
The results were clear; almost no one went to the library,
while the full bus of riders was delayed five minutes
by the library loop. Not surprisingly, the T-board recommended
and the council voted to discontinue the service. Ruby was
probably the T-board chair at that time and can correct any
errors in details that I have written here.

There have been several other attempts at augmenting
our bus system with routes other than the current
hub-and-spoke configuration. For example, a route
from University Mall via Estes to downtown Carrboro was
tried, but was cancelled due to pathetic ridership.
It is both bad environmentalism and bad economics for the town to run empty buses.

I don't know how a downtown-to-library shuttle
would perform, but judging from history, its success
is a long shot.

"the library's location and site plan are 'really very car-centric.'"

That's true, but it does fit in with that part of town which is car centric. In fact, almost all of the new residential construction up until very recently was car centric, leaving the city with most of its area taken up by low density housing. There is certainly a large percentage of residents who view the real Chapel Hill as being low density, and that style of neighborhood certainly can be bucolic, but both the lower density and street design makes it much harder to provide mass transit.

The historical planning decisions that favored low-density car centric construction and the current strong citizen opposition to rectifying those decisions stand in stark contrast to the city's reputation. I can only assume that Chapel Hill is car centric because the majority of its voters wanted it that way.

George C, thanks for that very informative post. Could you elaborate a little on your number 2 of the potential problems in using the existing rail track? I understand numbers 1 and 3, but I'm not transportation- (and train-) savvy enough to understand quite what 2 means.

Eric,

I think Gerry did a good job of explaining what I meant by #2; i.e., you could run light rail cars on a separate track in the right-of-way (ROW) for the existing railway but not on the same track. In addition, for the ROW for the existing N & S track it is my understanding that building a second track would be problematic because of existing terrain constraints and potential environmental issues. But this is secondhand information which would need to be confirmed by further evaluation.

It's hard to picture two tracks sets of tracks in the existing bed back there!

Eric,

I also want to re-emphasize my earlier point: while there may be serious constraints to any proposed alignment they are not usually insurmountable if there is enough commitment to do so. And if people really wanted light rail in that railway ROW I can think of one party whose commitment would be absolutely necessary to get it. And it's not N & S.

Ruby - I know what you mean about getting snitty over the library's site. I felt the same way when the new addition was being discussed and voices for putting the addition downtown were swept aside as unrealistic. Looks like the Old Post Office will also move out, making for one less reason to go downtown

With current plans for condos bringing more people downtown, we are working at cross purposes if we keep pushing out the everyday, nuts and bolts reasons for residents to ride a bus to town.

I don't really think people want it this way, as Michael C suspects, because we spend alot of money traveling to places that we love because they aren't car-centric. I think we just don't fully realize how our zoning practices have locked us into our cars.

It will take some determined leaders to push us into "rectifying those decisions". I wish we could start by rethinking the library addition.

The library would not be "car centric" to Estes Dr and Lakeshore area. Not certain that the any location will not be "car centric" to some areas in our rapidly growing community.

Where do we put the library addition? How much will such a facility only drag down the libary by taking away funds and staff?

The town down focus is no doubt a nod to the "density" argument. I for one would be a lot more excited if we could get a "downtown" gocery in the mix. This argument seems to me to be dealing with a minor issue in comparison to folks driving daily or weekly to the market for goceries. Of course they could be dining in all the great restaurants downtown every night. NOT...

If you own a car, is it OK to complain about the town being "car centric".

Just reflecting more on Michael Czeiszperger post where he noted "I can only assume that Chapel Hill is car centric because the majority of its voters wanted it that way."

Get off the blogs and walk. CREATE the supply of WALKERS.

Speaking of libraries, the Carrboro Branch Library's semi-annual book sale is this Saturday at McDougle School. Great deals for all ages and interests.

The McDougle School location doesn't serve the Carrboro community well. Century Center Cybrary does brisk business, but it isn't nearly big enough. This is why "freestanding downtown library" got mentioned so often during recent election campaigns.

Steve - "Where do we put the library addition? "

Perhaps it would just become the main library. A school like Emerson Waldorf might buy or lease the current building. Leaving a popular building would be a tough pill to swallow, but it might be better than doubling our investment at the current site for another 50 years.

Can you imagine a library instead of the McDonald's? Wouldn't McD do just as well where Pepper's pizza was?

All right, St. Charles Ave.! There are terrific books on the development of New Orleans, how it evolved, and how it is that even now the street cars on St. Charles, Canal Street, and the (relatively new) River Front lines are still carrying passengers into the city's core. (The streetcar system in New Orleans is, I think, one of the oldest street-level train systems in the world.)

OK, the books:

"New Orleans: The Making of an Urban Landscape, by Peirce F. Lewis"

and

"Time and Place in New Orleans: Past Geographies in the Present Day," by Richard Campanella. (Lots of photos, engravings, etc.)

Off the top of my head, the first explanation that comes to mind for New Orleans's more than 150 years of success with light rail is the fact that the city was first laid out by French engineers, and when their original grid layout was expanded, it naturally followed the typical French "spoke and wheel" design, which lends itself to convenient and efficient public transportation.

This would tend to support Ruby's point about land planning and transportation, I guess. Anyway, the books are worth reading for anyone interested in the development of a different kind of urban geography.

probably not. I think a very large portion of McD's business happens because it is one of the few businesses on the street that has it's own dedicated parking lot with more than a few spaces.

Eric,

Standard rail gauge is 4 ft, 8.5 inches, with a few feet of spacing in between. Forgetting the FRA regulations regarding the mixture of rail/bus vehicles for a moment, I don't believe corridor width is a barrier to double-tracking the spur up to its junction at University Station with the NCRR mainline. (or, for that matter, that corridor width would necessarily limit the ability to install a busway, either)

I say this because doing a quick Google Earth tour from the back of the Southern Rail restaurant in Carrboro to Blackwood Station north of I-40, I cannot find a place along the rail spur where there isn't at least 50 feet of right-of-way to work with.

The biggest topgraphical/environmental constraint within Chapel Hill/Carrboro is probably just north of Estes Drive Extension where a small trestle bridge crosses a creek. Regardless of whether you used rail or bus in this area, bridging would be necessary and you might grade-separate Estes Drive as well. Major transit projects regularly deal with environmental impacts and mitigations of this type. I don't know what other major terrain constraints may be out there that George is referring to.

Obviously, once you go south of Main St in Carrboro and you have the ArtsCenter and bike path to deal with, it's a whole other story with tighter spaces and greater complications.

As part of its study of commuter rail for the Triangle, the North Carolina Railroad will be doing an estimate of the infrastructure upgrades and cost needed to bring traditional commuter rail or DMU-based service down to the Carolina North area. This detailed information from NCRR should be available sometime next spring or early summer, I believe.

Patrick,

Regarding the use of the N & S rail right-of-way, I was referring to terrain constraints (again, second hand info) on areas northward from Estes. What I had been told was that there were significant drop-offs on the sides of the rail-bed that would need to be dealt with to use that ROW concurrently with rail. In looking at this with Google Earth I can't tell whether that's the case. You might be better at reading these images than I and might be able to tell if such drop-off do indeed exist.

In any case, I don't think we can "forget" the FRA regulations but as I said earlier, if enough people want it to happen (and can pay for it) it can happen.

I have hiked along the creek near the railbed there and as you approach the Seawell School Rd grade crossing, either a busway or rail would probably need some cut/fill to make it work, or more bridging. Maybe the NCRR cost estimating work will let us know more about that- they are at the very beginning of their analysis.

I also agree with George that if people want to make high-capacity transit work along the rail spur from Carrboro to Carolina North, it can certainly be done with the right community commitment and funding.

George C, who were you referring to in your earlier comment about getting light rail in that ROW: "one party whose commitment would be absolutely necessary to get it. And it's not N & S"?

David,

I believe that if UNC thinks that light rail in that rail corridor would benefit access to both the main campus and Carolina North they have the political clout that could help make it happen.

I hope the light rail issue will be a big part of the Carolina North negotiations, and that's coming soon enough.

But isn't the final vote on funds for the library addition coming up in January? Is there so much momentum to expand at the current site that a downtown location can no longer be considered? Seems such a shame to lock us in to the Pritchard site for so many decades.

How can we press UNC and other developers towards transit goals when the Town isn't willing to make sacrifices to correct bad decisions?

Regarding the downtown location, last I heard most folks who expressed a preference wanted the addition there in Prichard Park and not downtown. In spite of the negatives that might be associated with that location, should what citizens say they prefer count for anything?

Sure, citizens' preference counts. But there are always limits. If what we prefer results in ever-increasing carbon emissions, then should we continue to get our way? What will the grandkids think?

the current library and it's location are fine with me.
yes, i am one who enjoys the adequate parking.
when i ferried middle-schoolers around to the
library/practice/church/etc. during the weekday...
having a place to park my mini-van and unload the
"hoard" at the library within the time limits of
everyone's schedule, well, it "made" the library stop.
there were several events we did not attend due to
inadequate parking or access. in my experience,
buses are good. they are just not the best.

David, I guess that I'm not convinced that moving the library downtown or another location other than Pritchard Park will somehow reduce the ever-increasing carbon emissions. Until we can motivate people to get out of their cars by providing alternative transportation that they are willing to use, people will drive and find a place to park their cars.

Fred, I wouldn't expect any skeptic to just become convinced without crunching some numbers. I wish we would do some worthwhile analysis of how our land use decisions fit with a viable transit plan.

How can we provide alternative transportation in an affordable way if we keep scattering such facilities all over town?

Looks like the only thing that will push us to rethink our preferences is the price of gas.

Library accessibility is more than just whether it's situated by itself or near a cluster of other destinations well-served by parking and a bus-route transfer area.

As one who walks to the library when possible, I'd like to suggest that the location might have been much less car-centric without the hefty hill from Estes up to the front door -- daunting for those pushing strollers or of a certain age. To put it another way, if people willing to take the M bus from downtown didn't have to negotiate both crossing Franklin and climbing that hill, I suspect more might do it.

No, I'm not advocating a huge knock-down-the-hill and start-over project. I mention it, instead, because the various failed loops (on an Estes route or the F route) temporarily solved that problem, while failing for other reasons -- e.g., was there enough trial time, enough publicity? was it tested before free ridership? Also, there are few if any protected bus-stops on busy Estes Dr. for the G route (whose ridership is rising), which is not inviting in mud weather and heavy traffic.

Think planning for a less car-centric future may have to include looking with new eyes at some ideas once discarded because gas was cheap, traffic was lighter, etc. etc.

Agree, Ruby, but we also know a lot of our land use decisions are based on what we already own or what we can afford to buy. Given that, does anyone seriously think it makes for good policy to scrap the Council's library plan at this point?

Putting the library on the street would have done a lot more for non-car access to the site, and Ruby is right about the same mistake being made on Homestead. Urbanity is often discussed in terms of building heights, but it is mostly about relationship to the street.

Suburban buildings have little to no relationship with the street because the are designed to be accessed via cars, and nothing else, with a few occasional examples.

Urban buildings embrace the street and thus, the pedestrian and the bus rider by rewarding the sidewalk or bus user with a short walk to the front door of the building.

David Sucher at City Comforts has a great illustration in one animated GIF. Watch it three or four times to catch all the information.

Whoops- replace "examples" with "exceptions" above.

Ruby, why do we keep making these mistakes? Isn't part of the problem that decisions are not driven by transit concerns?

How can we look UNC in the eye and push them on transit at Carolina North if CH and Orange Co aren't taking it seriously on their own projects?

The same goes for Adequate Public Facilities (key word = schools) wherever new residential development comes under consideration. SAPFO (Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance) got bounced around for years and appears to have been dropped at the county level.

Public transportation could just as easily, or more easily, be ordained as a routine ingredient in Thinking Ahead.

If we want better public transit, particularly nights and weekends, there's a fairly simple solution: raise the transportation tax. A one cent ($0.01) increase in the tax rate would generate enough revenue to provide about 8,000 to 10,000 hours of additional bus service per year, particularly if this increased service were on nights and weekends. And this is assuming that only Chapel Hill would participate in this increased service. If the other two partners in Chapel Hill Transit (UNC and Carrboro) were to participate with the same percentage they are now participating at in the partnership, you could have about 30,000 hours of additional service. We could actually have a truly effective system that serves everyone (including those working night shifts).

And what would this additional service cost per homeowner? That additional one cent tax would cost the owner of a $500,000 home about $50. Perhaps instead of focusing only on the lack of parking downtown (and elsewhere) we might consider doing what it takes to get some decent service on nights and weekends. I'll gladly pay my extra one cent to see that happen.

If we want greater ridership on transit, we also need to think beyond the routes. As I said the other night at the Innovation Center meeting, the ease and safety of getting where you need to go once you get off the bus also matters. There are at least 5 routes that go up and down MLK daily, but crossing MLK is not safe. There are no crosswalks at MLK and Estes; none at Homestead either. On Franklin Street, there is no safe way to cross over at Elizabeth Street. The "transit experience" from start to finish needs to be part of the planning process.

Some great points have been made.
With the new Transit Oriented Development buzzword being bandied about support is needed to make it work.
An APFO should include public transportation as well as schools, water, police/fire protection etc. For TOD to be successful the TRANSIT part is essential. It is not really a chicken and egg thing-some have said that density has to occur first to support the transit. but I would argue that creating density BEFORE the transit is there will create a nightmare of traffic and congestion.
Additionally, as Terri said walkability and "crossability" are essential to TOD and transit corridors.
The foundation layer of density has to be solid for density to be successful. This means infrastructure first, development second.
This leads to George's point that a one cent increase in the tax rate would have a significant effect on our ability to provide real transportation options, which would have to added benefit of reducing auto emissions. We all have to really be willing to support the vision, in dollars and cents, for it to work. Talk is cheap, but transit isn't.

An increased transportation tax seems like an important part of the mix, but doesn't that blanket approach also let the big auto traffic generators off the hook?

I'm sure there are already strategies for targeting specific criteria with a tax in order to provide incentives to achieve a certain goal. What would work best here technically and politically?

Making development transit, pedestrian, and bike friendly will decrease auto use which is the desired end. Providing fewer parking spaces and/or reserving premium spots for hybrid or alternative fuel cars will help. Rewarding business for encouraging carpooling, use of park and rides, or telecommuting is a positive incentive.
A transit tax is not punitive at all-it is a realization that life cannot go on as we have known it and that we have to support change. It's not about punishing auto users-it's about making them be part of the change.

Also, how would a transportation or any other tax increase directly affect the way UNC, CH and the County site their facilities?

I guess I'm wondering how to use taxes or impact fees to put the squeeze on parking space allowances (or is it requirements?) and push public and commercial facilities right onto the sidewalks of major transit routes rather than spread out on campuses.