Category Archives: Walking

The Primary Election Question: Should Carrboro Infrastructure Decisions Be Governed by the Priorities of Those Who Live Nearby, or by The Broader Needs of the Town?

Posted on by
Reply

Now that we’re several weeks into election season, we’re getting a clearer picture of the priorities of each of the Carrboro Town Council candidates.

What’s also clear is that while there are five candidates running, there are functionally two groups of candidates aligned around two different sets of priorities.

The first group includes incumbent Town Councilor Elizar Posada, former Planning Board chair Catherine Fray, and the former owner of Back Alley Bikes, Jason Merrill. Merrill also previously served on the Transportation Board when he lived in Chapel Hill. They have named their slate “Carrboro Better Together.”

The second group includes legal firm Client Relationship Executive and Triangle Red Cross Board Member April Mills and former UNC-Chapel Hill Systems Analyst and Meals on Wheels volunteer Stephanie Wade. While they have not named their slate (to my knowledge) they are campaigning together with joint advertising and canvassing. For this article, I will refer to them as “The Newcomers” since this appears to be their first time running or seeking to join a Town Board.

All of the candidates running are personally and professionally accomplished, and demonstrate a high level of engagement in the campaign.

How to Evaluate Candidates In a Campaign

The longer I follow politics at any level, the less interested I am in someone’s experience, and the more interested I am in how a candidate defines and understands various issues and ultimately, how they will vote on key issues before the community.

Fortunately, all the campaigns have provided a lot of information in this regard through published platforms, social media, and questions answered in public forums. We’ll get to that shortly. But first, what are the priorities of Carrboro residents?

The 2021 Carrboro Community Survey: What People All Over Town Want

Carrboro surveys its residents every few years using a telephone and mail survey, with scientific demographic sampling and follow-up designed to ensure that those responding to the survey are representative of the town, which is:

  • 58% renters
  • 38% non-white
  • Mostly earning less than $75,000 per year

The 2021 Survey can be found here. Highlights that are direct quotes from the Executive Summary can be found below.

On transportation:

“Based on the sum of their top two choices, the transportation services that residents thought were most important were: 1) ease of walking in Carrboro, 2) availability of greenways/multi-use paths, and 3) ease of driving in Carrboro.”

and, in the supplement surveying Census tracts with more low-income and minority residents:

On housing:

“The most important aspect of housing to Carrboro residents was the availability of housing options by price.”

and, in the body of the full report:

“Today, community leaders have limited resources which need to be targeted to activities that are of the most benefit to their citizens. Two of the most important criteria for decision making are (1) to target resources toward services of the highest importance to citizens; and (2) to target resources toward those services where citizens are the least satisfied.”

Only 26% of Carrboro residents are satisfied with the price points of housing in Town. The survey recommends this be the #1 issue that the Town seeks to address.

The Candidates On Two Timely Topics In Town: Affordable Housing and the Bolin Creek Greenway

We’re in the middle of deep affordability crisis in Carrboro. As documented by Carolina Demography at the recent State of the Community briefing offered by the Carolina Chamber, the median home price in Carrboro has risen by over $200,000 in the last three years.

The Candidates ON HOUSING

On housing, as on many issues, Catherine Fray brings their planning board experience to offer precise policy actions they would support: (from frayforcarrboro.com/platform/)

And at the NEXT/IFC/CEF/EMPOWERment candidate forum, a question was asked if candidates would support the 34 affordable housing units proposed for town-owned land on Pathway Drive. The forum was recorded (links go to YouTube comments of the candidates) and here is the summary portion of Fray’s detailed answer:

“Carrboro needs to be building as many units as the review of the site [at Pathway Drive] will support.” – Catherine Fray

On the same question, Eliazar Posada responded: “First, we need to build more, period…one of the key issues is that we just don’t have enough places for folks to live…As for Pathway Drive, I want to build as much as we can wherever we can….on any town-owned land where it makes sense for us to build affordable housing, we need to build it.” – Eliazar Posada

Jason Merrill has spoken multiple times in the campaign about how he trusts Catherine’s instincts an analysis for policy direction, and did so here as well: “On this subject…I agree with Catherine completely…Please vote for Catherine, and then also vote for me and I’ll be a plus-one…the logistics are there for Pathway-can we only build 34? Can we build more than 34 on Pathway. I’m agreement with as much affordable housing as we can build.” – Jason Merrill

On the same question, April Mills responded: “So I agree-affordable housing is a huge concern for many people…I respect the land when it comes down to it, and I understand stormwater, and so if a site is telling you that you can only build or do so much, I think that you have to respect that…it’s not that I don’t want more houses, it’s that the water and how it impacts others is just as important, especially if it’s going to increase costs on those individuals living around or in that housing…It also needs to be on a public transportation line… it is about what is capable on the land…I do think it needs to match within the neighborhood and the community…“

Let’s unpack this a bit. To recap, Fray, Posada, and Merrill support building affordable housing on the Pathway Site. All three of them are focused on the broad affordability challenge in the community, and how it makes it hard for people across the income spectrum to remain in Carrboro.

Mills would not commit to nor outright oppose affordable housing on the site, and says that the [storm]”water and how it impacts others is just as important.” There is no development plan for the Pathway Site yet; it is early in a screening process to see what the site can accommodate in terms of housing while also meeting environmental rules. It’s entirely possible that a site plan can be created that adds no net new stormwater to the neighborhoods beyond the site. Building taller and more densely on some of the land may leave more of the land available for drainage. But Mills also raises the prospect of aesthetic criteria, putting a taller building on less land strategy that could help on stormwater in conflict with her “match the neighborhood” criterion. While not saying an outright “no,” Mills is making it clear that her priority is the perceived concerns of the neighbors (stormwater, aesthetics) and that housing for low-income residents is important, but perhaps a lower priority. (as another indicator, see Mills’ door hanger below, which mentions stormwater but not affordability)

Stephanie Wade did not attend the forum above, but has made it clear through instagram that she opposes affordable housing on Pathway Drive, and perhaps any housing anywhere else in town.

There are several policy implications of this post. Wade stated:

“One of the things I am very passionate about is tackling the affordable housing problems in Carrboro that come from being an area that has high demand.”

Then:

“Adding homes, apartments and other dwellings isn’t the answer.”

Interestingly, Wade later edited the post and the italicized sentence was removed. Here’s the current post:

Even if one ignores the deleted “no adding homes” comment, Wade’s remaining prescriptions face potentially insurmountable challenges for legal, functional and financial reasons. Those reasons are:

  1. Rent control is illegal in NC, and there is no legislative lever that the Town Council can pull on existing housing to prevent any landlord, corporate or local, from raising the rent by a certain amount.
  2. Apartment construction is THE primary method that created MOST of the affordable housing built in the area, particularly in the last ten years. That includes non-profit development projects like Greenfield Commons in Chapel Hill and Perry Place on the Chapel Hill/Carrboro town line. It also includes Shelton Station, built by for-profit developer Belmont Sayre, which includes 20 affordable and 74 market rate apartments. Another for-profit developer built The Landing at Winmore, where Wade had just visited prior to posting. It’s going to be hard to build affordable housing for individuals below the Area Median Income (AMI) without building apartments.

3. Our Transit funds are fully committed for some time. Chapel Hill Transit, GoTriangle and Orange Public Transportation have all made investments in recent years. The planned Hillsborough Train Station has funding reserved in our county transit plan. Between these investments and construction funds reserved for the crucial North-South Bus Rapid Transit project in Chapel Hill, nearly every transit dollar in the county is already committed for the next several years, perhaps as far out as 2030. When Wade says that we must add more transit before adding any more housing, she is inherently implying either:

a)the Town should support a multi-year-long development moratorium on all housing until new bus service arrives, which could be as late as 2030
b)the Town should raise taxes to pay for more public transportation

As a final piece of information to assess how Mills and Wade prioritize affordable housing, I’ve taken a picture of their door hanger literature below. Neither mentions affordable housing in their priorities, despite it being the #1 issue in the Town Survey. Public transportation is also not mentioned on either door hanger.

The Candidates ON TRANSPORTATION & THE BOLIN CREEK GREENWAY

The NEXT/IFC/CEF/EMPOWERment Forum asked if the Town Council should complete the Bolin Creek greenway sections 3 and 4. Here are key excerpts of the answers of the candidates who attended. We’ll start with The Newcomers this time.

April Mills: “For me, there are four options that are available. I really don’t think anybody knows the costs for all four options, or the maintenance costs after they are installed. I do have a lot of environmental questions about the creekside alignment…I know there is talk about OWASA right-of-way, but from my understanding, its that they would be 30 feet from the OWASA right of From my understanding [the greenway] would need to be 30 feet away from the OWASA right-of-way, and so I do have concerns over where the path would go...”

While Stephanie Wade did not attend this forum, she recently made the statement below on social media that mirrors Mills’ statement about greenways not being allowed in already-cleared-of-trees OWASA easements.

It’s possible that Mills and Wade have been given misinformation here, as MOST of the greenways in both Chapel Hill and Carrboro have been built in OWASA easements, which Ryan Byars has documented (with photos!) here.

Here’s what the Carrboro Better Together slate had to say on the issue.

Catherine Fray: “Yes, Carrboro should complete sections 3 and 4 of the Bolin Creek Greenway. It’s time to complete the greenway. My message to the town majority that supports the greenway is that we are going to complete the Bolin Creek greenway, and…we’re going to be talking about separated bike lanes, and about shading pavement in neighborhoods that have been under-invested in so that people can walk safely…this is a no-brainer, we’re Carrboro, we want to be that green,walkable, bikeable town…there little better we can do to support than completing the greenway.”

Eliazar Posada: “Do you want to finish the greenway? Yes. Period…The last time the town took an action before re-opening public comment was 14 years ago…that’s way too long to keep the community trying to figure out what is going to happen here…we as a town have been cowering to the most influential, and that’s not something that I’m here for.”

Jason Merrill: “Bolin Creek is 40 to 60 million years old. To think that a species that has been only here 10,000 years old is going cause irreparable damage…is kind of arrogant…what this issue is about is exclusive access…what people lobbying against it are about is maintaining THEIR access and not letting other people share it…making those two miles more accessible to probably ten times the number of people who are using it now would be a benefit to the entire community…”

The Crystallization of the Election in One Comment

While Merrill was only speaking about the greenway in the comment above, he touched upon the primary axis around which every other issue in the campaign revolves – should public policy decisions should be viewed primarily through the eyes of wealthy homeowners who live near proposed public investments, or should we take a broader view while also parsing those concerns?

Here’s a map showing the median income of the town, the proposed Bolin Creek Greenway Phases 3 and 4, and the proposed Pathway Drive affordable housing site. It’s impossible to miss how the greenway would connect lower-income parts of the community to the south to Chapel Hill High School, Smith Middle School, and Seawell Elementary at the north end of the greenway alignment.

On these two key issues, the Carrboro Better Together slate and the Newcomers slate have clearly different priorities.

  • The Carrboro Better Together candidates will support the completion of public investments in the Bolin Creek Greenway along the creekside alignment and affordable housing on town-owned land on Pathway Drive. Both will connect residents across the income spectrum to schools, parks, and each other.
  • The Newcomer candidates, while being less definitive on both projects, are more likely to oppose both the construction of affordable housing on Pathway Drive, and to oppose the creekside alignment while supporting other alignment plans that are promoted by anti-greenway groups such as the Friends of Bolin Creek. The Newcomers’ objection to both is couched in terms of stormwater and environmental management, even though there are plenty of local examples of technical best practies on both of these fronts. (Shelton Station apartments detains stormwater underground to prevent flooding; the Bolin Creek Greenway in Chapel Hill used multiple techniques that have stabilized the creekbed and prevented erosion.)

Does Where We Stand Ultimately Depend Upon Where We Sit?

As we consider these five candidates, it is also worth knowing that the Newcomer candidates both live in census tracts on the north side of town that both have median incomes over $100,000 per year, while the Carrboro Better Together candidates all live in the Census Tract that had a median income of $36,059 in the map above.

So it’s not surprising that the Carrboro Better Together candidates might hear more about housing cost challenges from their neighbors, and that the Newcomers might hear more from their neighbors about stormwater, since their financial basic needs are more likely to be met.

When any of these five candidates say “this is what I’m hearing,” we should taken them at their word.

What is most interesting about these two sets of platforms is that while it’s clear that the Newcomers’ platform is likely to block substantial priorities of the Carrboro Better Together slate, the reverse is not necessarily true. While the Newcomers are talking about stormwater as a problem, Catherine Fray from the Carrboro Better Together slate is as well, and has been identifying actionable strategies the Town can take to work on the stormwater issue, including using the stormwater utility that the Town established in 2017. Watch them break the issue down here in their closing statement from the forum:

The Town Survey, The Comprehensive Plan, The Candidates and The Future

In 2023, we have a very good idea of what is important to Carrboro residents at a large scale thanks to the 2021 Town Survey, and also the Carrboro Connects Comprehensive Plan process, which involved over 1,600 residents in Town and won an award for inclusive engagement.

The Carrboro Connects plan declares its two foundational pillars to be Racial Equity and Climate Action. Addressing these issues in 2023 largely requires TAKING actions and building things to change the course of an inequitable and climate-change-accelerating status quo.

The Carrboro Better Together slate largely supports the direction set by Carrboro Connects plan, and would TAKE action to build low-to-zero-carbon transportation choices like the Bolin Creek Greenway, and TAKE racial equity steps forward like developing affordable housing on Town-owned land, including Pathway Drive.

The Newcomers are less precise in their policy preferences, and express skepticism or outright opposition to the completing the Bolin Creek Greenway or building affordable housing on Pathway Drive. On these issues, the primary policy approach of the Newcomers would be the PREVENTION of actions, particularly construction (of greenways or homes) in the wealthiest part of Carrboro, and perhaps other parts of town as well.

Carrboro’s future will hinge on which of these two directions the electorate chooses in November.

Here’s How Much The Bolin Creek Greenway Will Really Cost

Posted on by
2

Yesterday evening, I attended the Carrboro Town Council meeting to ask Town Council to amend their list of projects submitted for state funding to DCHCMPO by June 27, 2023 in order to include the Bolin Creek Greenway (BCG) in the list.

A homeowner who is a member of the Friends of Bolin Creek criticized the Mayor for this recent tweet below, and recounted some of the criticisms directed at anti-BCG homeowners in a recent post at Triangle Blog Blog.

The speaker made several statements about the importance of getting facts right, and then engaged in the exact behavior that the Mayor warned about – making wildly misleading statements about the potential project cost of the BCG. The remainder of this blog post unpacks those statements and addresses what the BCG is likely to cost.

The speaker cited an article from Maryland about a greenway that cost $82.5 because it had an underground tunnel under downtown Bethesda (pic below – doesn’t look much like Bolin Creek), which is some of the most valuable real estate on the East Coast and a labor market with much higher construction costs than Carrboro. A tunnel under these buildings for anything will require life safety measures, evacuation points and be very expensive.

Aerial of Downtown Bethesda Maryland, a suburban edge city located north of Washington DC in Montgomery County, Maryland

The speaker then stated that the Bolin Creek Greenway may have a similar cost to the Bethesda project, even though none of the BCG would be in a tunnel or be in an environment like this. The speaker then asserted, without any evidence, that the BCG would cost as least much as the library being built in Downtown Carrboro. Even if we ignore the ridiculous Bethesda comparison, given the price of the library, the speaker is therefore suggesting the BCG will cost (at minimum) over $41 million dollars.

THIS IS NOT A REMOTELY REASONABLE NUMBER. So let’s take a considered look at what BCG Phases 3 and 4 might actually cost.

But first, a disclaimer – this is a simple exercise using online data sources. This is not in any way a substitute for real engineering design and cost estimating work. However, this is an attempt to model how real cost estimates are developed and managed to help the community understand how these methods can support the Town in making informed decisions.

How Infrastructure Professionals Create Cost Estimates

When a city or town engineer, or engineering consultant puts together a cost estimate for a project, the best information comes from having a preliminary design that is specific to where the proposed infrastructure will be on the earth.

Sometimes technical professionals get asked to put together a cost estimate for something without a preliminary design. This is inherently a more uncertain proposition. Responsible analysis of this type involves identifying projects that have a similar physical nature to the proposed project, examining their cost estimates, and using per linear foot costs for facilities like greenways and streets, and then reporting not one number, but a range of potential cost outcomes.

Applying These Two Approaches to the Bolin Creek Greenway

Let’s start with the Bolin Creek Greenway Master Plan from 2009. It has a preliminary conceptual design with significant detail. Its cost estimate is specific to the land along Bolin Creek, described as follows:

“For conceptual planning purposes, budget estimates prepared for this plan assumed a primary trail surface of concrete in creekside/flood prone areas and asphalt for hillslopes and upland areas.”

Let’s take a look at what the 2009 study estimated for Phase 3 of the creekside alignment for the BCG. (page 86 in the Master Plan) This is the Carolina North Forest Section.

This estimate uses detailed cost components and has a total cost of roughly $1.3 million for 1.77 miles of greenway in Phase 3.

Here’s the Phase 4 cost estimate – which extends from the southern end of Phase 3 to roughly Estes Drive.

This estimate also uses detailed cost components and has a total cost of roughly $1.1 million for 1.26 miles of greenway in Phase 4.

But These Costs Are Fourteen Years Old! Can We Still Use Them?

It’s not ideal to work with old numbers. We can consider these numbers if we add some extra contingency for caution and account for inflation. Here’s how.

The note at the bottom of both cost estimates says that land acquisition and several other costs are not included. It’s hard to say exactly how much we would want to raise the overall presumed cost for each of these “does not include” items. However, a conservative approach to adding a contingency budget would add 45% to the base cost. The original BCG budget adds 15%.

Let’s quickly calculate two higher contingency costs. Here’s the math:

The base cost for Phase 3 is $1.12 million before adding contingency. Instead of 15%, if we add 30% and 45% contingency we get:

  • With 30% Contingency: $1.12m + $336,000 (30% of $1.12m) = $1,456,000 for Phase 3.
  • With 45% Contingency: $1.12m + $504,000 (45% of $1.12m) = $1,624,000 for Phase 3.

Now let’s do the same for Phase 4. Phase 4’s base cost is about $948,000 before adding contingency. If we add 30% and 45% contingency we get:

  • With 30% Contingency: $948,000 + $284,400 = $1,232,400 for Phase 4.
  • With 45% Contingency: $948,000 + $426,600 = $1,374,600 for Phase 4.

Now we sum the costs by contingency level. At 30% contingency, the total 2009 cost for BCG Phases 3 and 4 would be $2,688,400. Let’s round up and call it $2.7 million for 3.03 miles.

At 45% contingency we get $2,988,600. Let’s round up and call it an even $3.0 million in 2009 dollars.

Next we account for inflation using a nifty tool like this.

Our 30% contingency estimate of $2.7 million in 2009 gets inflated to $3.8 million in 2023.

Our 45% contingency estimate of $3.0 million in 2009 gets inflated to $4.2 million in 2023.

We get a range of $3.8 million to $4.2 million in 2023 dollars for Phase 3 and Phase 4 of the BCG. If we wanted to work with rounder numbers, we might simply say $3.5 to $4.5 million for roughly 3 miles of trail. This is $1.2 to $1.5 million per mile.

Is $1.2 to $1.5 million per mile reasonable for the BCG in 2023? Let’s do Peer Review.

Instead of only working with this cost estimate, we can look at other greenway project cost estimates in the public domain that (this is really important) have similar phyiscal characteristics to the BCG.

The Capital Area Greenway Master Plan from Raleigh in 2022 has these costs per mile.

  • Barwell Road Greenway: $7.4 m over 1.86 miles = $4 million per mile in 2025 dollars
  • Brier Creek Loop: $12.2m over 3.57 miles = $3.4 million per mile in 2025 dollars

Both of the above include significant boardwalk segments, which are 7 times more expensive than asphalt on earth, the primary surface in those cost estimates. Neither of the cost estimates above for BCG Phases 3 and 4 identify boardwalk construction. Only one bridge of $75,000 is anticipated for BCG. The BCG corridor is in a relatively flat easement using pavement while up to 1/3 of a mile of the two facilities above are built on boardwalk. So these Raleigh cost estimates are probably high. If we converted the boardwalk sections of these two projects above to trail asphalt, Barwell Rd drops to $5.6 million over 1.86 miles for $3 million per mile, and the Brier Creek Loop drops to $10m over 3.57 miles, or $2.8 million per mile in 2025 dollars.

If we assume 3% inflation between 2023 and 2025, then these projects would be $5.3 million ($2.8m per mile) and $9.4 million ($2.6m per mile) in 2023 dollars.

A closer to home cost estimate is the estimate for Phase 2 of the Morgan Creek Greenway in Carrboro. It estimates the 1.2-mile segment had a construction cost of $912,000 million in late 2022. Inflation would raise this slightly to $932,000 in 2023 dollars. This is just under $800,000 dollars per mile. Pretty inexpensive!

Reasonable Estimates Use Ranges: BCG Phases 3 and 4 Could Cost Between $3 million and $9 million Dollars

If we take the per mile costs of these different sources in 2023 dollars we get a low of $800,000 per mile for Morgan Creek and a high of roughly $2.7 million per mile for two projects in Raleigh. For a 3.03-mile stretch of the BCG, that’s about $2.4 to $8.1 million dollars in total to build Phases 3 and 4 of the BCG.

What If Inflation Spikes Again?

It’s been a very unusual few years in financial markets. Will inflation increase, driving up material prices? Who knows? This is why you put contingencies on numbers. Want to try to add some extra contingency to account for this?

Let’s just bump both numbers up a little and finalize our numbers to say that the total cost to build Phases 3 and 4 of the BCG will most likely be between $3 million and $9 million.

This is a wide range – because there are many unknowns about the project even though we have a reasonably detailed preliminary design. As design of the BCG advances, factors other than inflation could also be a factor. The cost could fluctuate if different materials were used, or if there were requests to make more connections from additional neighborhoods to the greenway, those additional pieces could add cost. As design advances, more implementation issues will be identified and favorably resolved, the alignment will be confirmed, and the cost will stabilize in a much narrower range than above. This is the nature of all linear transportation projects.

Nice Things Like Greenways Cost Money

I’m sure that as different people read this post, some will find $3 million to $9 million to be a great value for the Town of Carrboro, and others will find it a waste of money. Those are value judgments, not fiscal ones. The Town of Carrboro’s Capital Budget was $68 million over 5 years in the last Capital Improvement Plan, up from $58 million for the prior 5-year period.

If the cost of BCG Phases 3 and 4 do fit within the $3 to $9 million range, this is a cost that is within the regular scale of expenditures of the Town’s 5-Year capital plans, and is not going to significantly impact the amount of debt the town manages. It is also worth noting that there are federal funds that can help pay for the BCG, and this is typically how Carrboro constructs such facilities in town.

Hopefully this analysis is reassuring to those who have a good faith curiosity about how much it costs to build a greenway.

What To Do About Misinformation: Don’t Get Distracted and Keep Moving Forward

The assertions by yesterday’s speaker that the BCG will cost somewhere between $41 and $82 million are fundamentally inaccurate. The suggestion that the BCG poses a significant risk to town debt finances is uninformed at best. It’s disappointing that anti-greenway homeowners have decided to engage a community conversation in this way. But based on how many conversations proceed in our community, we can expect these inaccurate figures to continue to circulate. We need to refer back to primary source and other relevant documents, ignore the noise, and keep moving.

As a resident who enthusiastically wishes to see the BCG built, I will continue to do my best to share accurate information, cite sources, show my work as done above and explain my methods.

My hope is that sometime this fall, the Town will restart the project and we can get a refreshed BCG conceptual design and new, up-to-date, fully vetted capital costs by early 2024.

Thanks to everyone who read to the end!

Closing disclaimer – this is a simple exercise using online data sources. This is not in any way a substitute for real engineering design and cost estimating work. However, this is an attempt to model how real cost estimates are developed and managed to help the community understand how these methods can support the Town in making informed decisions.

A Scope of Work for Bolin Creek Greenway Engagement That Moves Carrboro Forward

Posted on by
Reply

On Friday, March 24th, the Town of Carrboro released a Scope of Work (Town Scope) for the Bolin Creek Greenway (BCG) Public Input Process that several Carrboro residents, myself included, believe significantly ignores not only the will of the community, but also the direction and guidance of the majority of the Town Council at their February 14th work session.

As quick examples, on February 14th, several Carrboro Town Council members:

  • stressed the importance of reaching out to renters in this process. 
    • mentioned interest in using a lottery approach like Raleigh or other methods to get statistically valid data from diverse populations

There is no mention of renters in the Town Scope, nor is there mention of the  2021 Town Survey which has statistically significant response rates due to its rigorous sampling approach. For more coverage of what is NOT in the scope, please read this coverage at Triangle Blog Blog. While the Town Scope is disappointing for what it leaves out, several items in the Town Scope will not help the town reach its goals, and are more likely to produce delays.

The Town Scope states as its purpose: “The goal is to engage the community in determining its vision and expectations for consideration of Phases 3 and 4 of the Bolin Creek Greenway.”

That is not what the community nor, in our opinion, the Town Council wants to see out of this process.

The community is not looking to develop a vision, or “determine expectations to consider” something. We are looking for the Town Council to vote to select an alignment for the Bolin Creek Greenway, and to start the process of building it as expeditiously as possible.

Seeing this fundamental misunderstanding of what the public and Council majority is seeking based on the content of the February 14th work session, we do not have any suggested edits for the Town Scope. Instead, we have drafted an entirely new one. We recommend that this new Community Scope should be used as a replacement for the Town’s draft, or at least as a starting point for new edits before a Scope of Work is finalized.

The Town Scope was drafted over six weeks. This alternate Scope of Work (Community Scope) was drafted in approximately 8 hours on March 25th and 26th.

The Community Scope is built on the following principles:

  1. That a clear schedule, and a project management structure that reflects urgency and focus is respectful of the public’s time. Studies that have no defined schedule and do not identify decision points are wasteful of the public’s time, favor the time-privileged, and are by their nature inequitable. 
  2. That the opinions of town residents at large, and not the priorities of the most “plugged-in” citizens is what should guide Town Council decision making. The Community Scope is designed to reach out to residents instead of waiting for them to opt in, and aims to have participation match town demographics. Self-selective public participation in Carrboro has proven time and again to attract participation from wealthy residents, older residents, white residents and homeowners out of proportion with their presence in the Town population.
  3. That there is more than enough existing data, analysis and other technical information available about the BCG, greenways, creeks, and other facilities in Chapel Hill and Carrboro to make a decision about which alignment to select, and to make a decision to proceed with design.  

Many of the items raised in the Town Scope that involve additional analyses, engaging property owners, and other technical activities are unusual for a public involvement exercise. Checking on the current use of the rail corridor isn’t helping us evaluate the three alternatives in the 2009 plan; all that does is re-open the alternatives process to delay a decision by trying to add new choices to the mix.

As for reviewing regulations to see if rules may prohibit old designs from proceeding, this is inappropriate. The whole point of final design of any facility is to complete the design WITHIN various regulatory frameworks, with the National Environmental Policy Act as a tool to help the design of the facility ADAPT as it moves towards construction to be in harmony with local, state and federal regulations. Reviewing regulations and regulatory change without having a design team on hand to attempt to adjust the design of a facility to meet any new regulatory requirements is stacking the deck in favor of project cancellation and against thoughtful mitigation of any impacts that may arise

Below are links that Town Council, staff and community members can use to view the proposed scope and a recommended schedule associated with the scope of work. 

This Community Scope can surely be improved – it was written very quickly! That said, we believe it represents an accurate representation of the type of actions that residents are looking for the Town to undertake, and we offer it as a resource for discussion as the Town Council works to refine their scope of work and begin this process.

******

Proposed Community Scope of Work for the Bolin Creek Greenway Public Engagement and Decision Process – NARRATIVE

Proposed Community Scope SCHEDULE

******

The Equity Benefits of Completing the Bolin Creek Greenway

Posted on by
Reply

There are lots of great reasons to complete the Phase 3 and 4 segments of the Bolin Creek Greenway through Carrboro that include a wide variety of environmental benefits. But equally important are the equity benefits that the community will receive from completing the greenway.

Connecting Students to Public Schools

There are three Chapel Hill-Carrboro schools that are close to the proposed Phase 3 and 4 segments of the Bolin Creek Greenway: Seawell Elementary School, Smith Middle School, and Chapel Hill High School.

Really? Where?

The image below shows proximate the northern portion of the greenway would be to the three schools. Connecting the greenway to each of them would be easy to do as part of the Phase 3 and 4 project. The Chapel Hill High School-Homestead Rd path already connects neighborhoods north of Homestead Rd to Chapel Hill High School near the tennis courts.

Talking Equity: The Differences Between Household Income Along the Proposed Greenway and School Demographics at Seawell, Smith, and CHHS

The households living in the Census Block Groups immediately adjacent to the proposed phase 3 and phase 4 segments of the Bolin Creek Greenway have only 3% of residents living in poverty, and have median incomes over $123,000 per year. (well above the median income for Chapel Hill/Carrboro of roughly $77,000 per year) The map below shows the relative income of Census Block groups near Phase 3 and 4, labeled as “Bolin Creek Missing Greenway.”

However, data gathered by US News shows that the percentages of students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch (strongly correlated with household poverty) at the three schools are notably higher:

  • Seawell Elementary: 26% of students are eligible for free or reduced lunch
  • Smith Middle School: 23% of students are eligible for free or reduced lunch
  • Chapel Hill High School: 16% of students are eligible for free or reduced lunch

Here are individual median incomes identified for some of the Census Block Groups near the proposed Greenway. In each case, the median household income of the block group is identified in a green box.

South of Estes Drive and East of North Greensboro Street

The Census Block Group immediately south of Estes drive and East of North Greensboro Street has the lowest median household income near the proposed greenway. This area include the Estes Park apartments and the 605 Oak Avenue public housing community.

Immediately East of the University Railroad and West of Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd in Chapel Hill

This Census Block Group has a median income of roughly $72,000 per year, which is closer to (but still below) the median income in the area.

North of Estes Drive and Surrounding the Proposed Greenway Alignment

The Census Block that largely surrounds the proposed greenway on both sides has a median income of over $123,000 per year.

The Attendance Zones for These Schools Serve Low-Income Neighborhoods in both Carrboro and Chapel Hill

Here are the Smith Middle School attendance zones laid on top of the income map and the proposed greenway alignment. What becomes pretty obvious is that the SCHOOLS are at the north end of proposed Bolin Creek Greenway and many of the neighborhoods with lower and middle income residents are at the south end.

Completing this portion of the greenway (and connecting the southern end to Umstead Park in Chapel Hill!) would really provide a safe, healthy, environmentally friendly transportation choice for students at all three schools, though particularly middle school and high school students, who are more likely to take a longer trip by foot or bike.

Given that the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools are facing unprecedented challenges in hiring school bus drivers to bring children to school, and that low-income families are less likely to have a car available to drive a child to school if their bus doesn’t show up, completing the Bolin Creek Greenway is more than a way to create emission-free, environmentally-friendly trips between neighborhoods – it’s a way to help make access to education more equitable, resilient and reliable for everyone.

Ending Parking Requirements for Cars in Carrboro is a Zero-Cost Win for Climate: Let’s Do It Now

Posted on by
2

It’s an exciting time in Carrboro! There are new bike lanes on Main Street. The construction of the 203 Project, featuring a new branch of the Orange County library, is underway. Perhaps most importantly, we have a new Comprehensive Plan that is focused on addressing racial equity and taking action to fight climate change. Better still, the Implementation chapter of the Carrboro Connects Comprehensive Plan (see below) highlights numerous policy actions that can move us towards our goals.

The Fastest, Easiest Climate Win Available: Ending Parking Requirements for Cars

The great news on the climate action front is that there is one policy action that can be taken immediately with virtually zero negative (or even noticeable!) effects: ending parking requirements for cars.

How Does Ending Parking Requirements Fight Climate Change?

There aren’t enough jobs in town for the residents who live here. So many of them have to commute 20 to 40 miles to work, as I discussed in the Fundamentals of Carrboro post.

Eliminating parking requirements, as described in Implementation Strategy 4.1.c on page 48 of the chapter, can make it easier to build mixed-use and commercial buildings in town, and provide more jobs locally.

4.1 c) Update parking requirements to consider adjustments or removal of minimum requirements for affordable housing, accessible
dwelling units, and mixed-use development to reduce impervious surfaces and make more efficient use of land. – Carrboro Connects

If we can house more jobs in downtown Carrboro, we have the potential to convert climate-intensive car commutes from Carrboro to RTP, Durham, and Raleigh to walk, e-bike or local bus trips on the Chapel Hill Transit F, J, CM, or CW bus, and reduce emissions of Carrboro residents.

Eliminating parking requirements can also help build more small housing units on the same land, making it easier to live in a community that is prioritizing walking and biking, which have no emissions. Removing parking requirements is also addressed in strategy 4.2 a on page 29 of the Implementation Chapter.

4.2 a) Remove minimum vehicular parking requirements for residential development close to transit.* Lower vehicular parking requirements
for all residential uses, including ADUs.

On examination, creating a 1/2-mile buffer around the transit routes in town (a standard distance for a reasonable walk to a bus stop) actually puts MOST of the town in an area that would be eligible for removing parking requirements.

After creating the map, I realize it is also missing the F route, which did not run when this bus route layer was created, so the white boundary should encompass even more of North Carrboro. I’d say we’re talking 75% to 80% of the town is in the end-requirements-near-transit area.

The Easiest Path Is the Best Path: Eliminate All Car Parking Requirements in Carrboro

Given that most of the town falls under the criteria where parking requirements would be eliminated, the best course of action is to make it simple and remove all car parking requirements in Carrboro, period.

It’s also a best practice at this point! In March 2022, Raleigh removed all parking minimums citywide. Dunwoody, GA (population 49,000) did the same in 2019. Graham, North Carolina (population 15,000) has removed parking minimums and applied parking maximums to ALL nonresidential buildings citywide. Albemarle, NC has also eliminated virtually all parking requirements. There’s even a lovely map of all these places and what they’ve done!

What Will Happen When We Eliminate Parking Requirements?

Immediately and for awhile thereafter? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! Ending Parking Requirements in Carrboro doesn’t affect any properties as they are currently built in town, and doesn’t affect any currently existing parking spaces. It only ends the practice of requiring a certain number of parking spaces for new development. But over time, with the removal of these requirements, we are likely to see more viable building projects downtown and in our commercial areas become financially viable, allowing us to have more jobs with short commutes in town.

Does This Mean Developers Will Only Build Buildings With No Parking? No.

The 201 N Greensboro project is a great example of what will happen downtown without parking requirements. A developer will bring a project forward, and they will have a financial interest in having some amount of parking that meets the project need. Instead of having to match some arbitrary number in the ordinance, which is not tuned to how many people take the bus or bike in town, they will find a number that works for the project, and assumes (appropriately!) that many people will arrive by bus, bike, and walking.

Finally – How Have Parking Requirements Harmed Carrboro?

Parking requirements increase the cost of housing. From Todd Littman at the Victoria Transport Policy Institute:

“Based on typical affordable housing development costs, one parking space per unit typically increases moderate-priced housing costs approximately 12%, and two parking spaces increases lower-priced housing costs by 25%. Since parking costs increase as a percentage of rent for lower priced housing, and low income households tend to own fewer vehicles, parking minimums are unfair and regressive.” – Littman, Parking Impacts On Housing Affordability, May 2022

Parking requirements also inhibit economic development and job growth by limiting the financially viable buildings that can be constructed. Downtown Carrboro is a perfect case study on this point. The Triangle has been undergoing a roaring population and job expansion over two decades, and other than the 300 East Main project, which was entitled in the 2004 – 2007 timeline, and built between 2007 and 2013, we have not had a new given permission to build in our downtown core* until a few months ago, when the town gave 201 N Greensboro a green light – after letting the developer go below the required number of parking spaces, without which, the building was not likely to be financially feasible.

It’s also worth noting that the only other building approved downtown since that time is the 203 Project, which is being built with public money and does not have to meet a financial profit test to be built. Those expensive parking spaces at $48,000 per space would render any private development downtown financially impossible.

So when you ask yourself: “gee, a lot of other communities, even Graham out in Alamance County are seeing quality new development downtown, but Carrboro isn’t, why is that?”

The answer is that our parking requirements have basically told developers who look into a project that the math to pay for parking isn’t going to work out, so the jobs and tax base that would like to settle here goes elsewhere.

There are many other policy changes that need to happen to achieve the goals in the Carrboro Connects comprehensive plan. Eliminating parking requirements is a necessary first step and a good way to start moving towards those goals. I hope that we’ll see this item on a Carrboro Town Council agenda sometime in October.

*I’m considering Shelton Station to be outside the downtown core

Carr-Connects-11-ImplementationDownload

The Morgan Creek Greenway Will Be a Great Asset for Carrboro – Let’s Include Lighting to Maximize Its Benefits

Posted on by
Reply

On Saturday, August 27th, Carrboro Town staff hosted a tour of what will be Phase 1 of the Carrboro portion of the Morgan Creek Greenway.

Morgan Creek Greenway Overview

The Morgan Creek Greenway is a regional greenway connection across southern Chapel Hill and Carrboro with many years of planning behind it. Our family has ridden on the existing portion of the greenway for years and it is delightful. Here is a “sights and sounds” video I made in 2016. Notice what a safe and low-stress riding environment it is for children. (and people of all ages and cycling abilities)

The map below shows the existing sections of the Morgan Creek Greenway, which connects to Merritt’s Pasture, and the Fan Branch Trail, which connects the Morgan Creek Greenway to Southern Village. The red box near Smith Level Rd indicates where Phase 1 of the Carrboro portion of the greenway will be built.

Existing Morgan Creek Greenway in Purple, Carrboro Phase 1 in Red Box

The Carrboro Portion of the Morgan Creek Greenway

The Town put together a Morgan Creek Greenway Conceptual Master Plan Report(PDF) in 2010 to outline the possibilities of what full implementation could look like. The original master plan alignment is shown below. Again, the red box indicates Phase 1.

Morgan Creek Greenway Master Plan, Phase 1 in Red Box

Current Phase 1 Design Features

The greenway is currently at 30% design. This is a portion of the engineering process when many major things have been figured out, but there is still an opportunity for some adjustments to be made to the path of the greenway.

The current design proposes the following:

  • A sidewalk from Smith Level Road and public works drive leading from the street down to the greenway
  • A connection under the Smith Level Road bridge to the portion of the trail that the Town of Chapel Hill is working on
  • The greenway proceeding on town property outside of the Public Works facility fence along the north side of the creek
Greenway will run to the left of the fence outside of Carrboro Public Works
  • A sidewalk access into the cul-de-sac at the bottom of Abbey Lane by Canterbury townhomes and another access point further up on Abbey Lane directly across from Friar Lane
  • A bridge (in maroon, at right below) over the small creek that passes under Public Works Drive
  • A bridge (in maroon, at left below) crossing Morgan Creek to the south side of the creek and a turnaround where the future Phase 2 section of the greenway will begin
Carrboro Portion of Morgan Creek Greenway: Phase 1

Design Analysis and Recommendations for Improvement in the Next Design Milestone

Overall, there’s a lot to like about this design. A bridge under Smith Level Road to the Chapel Hill section ensures this will be a Level of Traffic Stress 1 facility, suitable for children and senior citizens. This is the gold standard of bicycling safety and comfort in terms of protection from motor vehicles. The two different access points to Abbey Lane ensure that nobody has to significantly backtrack out of the neighborhood to go east or west when the full trail is built out.

The most important opportunity for improvement in this design is to include lighting as part of the trail.

The Frances Shetley bikeway in Carrboro is heavily used and beloved by neighbors, and one of the key reasons is that it has excellent lighting that makes it useful after dark. (see left side of trail picture below) There are even new lighting types that reduce or completely eliminate upward light pollution by ensuring the light emitted only goes down. The International Dark Sky association maintains a list of compliant lights that can make the Morgan Creek Greenway as useful as possible while meeting dark sky goals.

For the 60% and final design of this greenway, the town should ask the engineering team to incorporate dark-sky compliant lighting for the trail into the design.

Shetley Greenway with Lights Near Carrboro Elementary School

Improving Public Process: Notify Everyone

Finally, one place where the Town continues to use an outdated practice is to notify near neighborhoods of a project meeting, but not the broader community. I only learned about this event because we own property within a certain number of feet of the project location. But this is supposed to be a REGIONAL bike-ped project that is part of a multi-town plan in Chapel Hill and Carrboro.

There’s no reason this project and commenting on how to improve it should be a privilege of nearby neighbors, and not the whole town, and even our neighbors in Chapel Hill who might use it as well. Numerous studies have shown how notifying homeowners in near neighborhoods around projects ultimately biases processes towards favoring participation among older, wealthier and whiter participants. And frankly, while the crowd of nearly 50 who attended were largely enthusiastic about the trail, and that was great to see – they also largely fit the narrow demographics of this outdated notification method. Given that 33% to 38% of the population of the Census tracts that would be served by the trail are home to non-white residents, we probably could have done better at reaching those residents.

Let’s work to broaden the conversation from here on out, shall we?

Lloyd Farm Is Only “Doing The Wrong Thing Better” And Should Be Voted Down

Posted on by
Reply

One of Canada’s leading urban planners, Brent Toderian, shares this slide with communities he consults in to spur discussion:

As the Carrboro Board of Aldermen contemplate the Lloyd Farm proposal Tuesday evening (10/23), they should know that they are clearly dealing with a case of Doing The Wrong Thing “Better.”

Despite years of discussion, the principal flaws of the Lloyd Farm proposal remain the same.

A Missed Economic Opportunity

We need to maximize our tax value per acre on parcels in Carrboro to better balance our commercial and residential tax base, and that means building up in a denser format. An urban grid with rectangular or square blocks makes redevelopment much easier in the long run.

Instead, Lloyd Farm gives us the limited value proposition of the Timberlyne Shopping Center and its strip mall-plus-outparcel format. Joe Minicozzi from Urban Three found that suburban Timberlyne produces a tax value of about $950,000 per acre while the taller, urban format Hampton Inn in downtown Carrboro produces over $33 million per acre.

A Missed Design Opportunity

The two most damaging design features of this proposal are the curvilinear road running through the site, and the poorly placed stormwater ponds that will make creating urban blocks on the site financially challenging or impossible for future redevelopers.

One needs only to view Durham’s Patterson Place in Google Maps to see how a suburban site can be laid out in a grid-like fashion to be infilled later. Twenty years after it was first developed, the Durham Planning department is doing exactly that, and a five-story Duke Medical office building and a Springhill Suites hotel are the first signs of a new, more vertical, higher tax-base per acre urban future at Patterson Place.

A Missed Housing Opportunity

Carrboro will not address its housing cost challenges without building significantly more new units, many of which could be built on such a large site. It’s also disappointing to see only senior housing being proposed. While there are housing needs for senior citizens in Carrboro, it is worth noting that older Americans are generally wealthier than everyone else.

Median Net Worth By Age

Furthermore, the Town’s economic analysis indicates that the vast majority of the jobs expected to locate at Lloyd Farm will earn less than $15/hour, and are professions that are generally held by younger people. This proposal could have contained a significant number of micro-units in the 400 to 600 square foot size range so that people who worked at Lloyd Farm could live there, too, and walk to work- helping us be more inclusive in our housing while also reducing traffic.

So Where’s The Better?

The developer has made some changes to the original proposal. Getting buildings on the north side of the grocery store parking field may help that part of the site transform one day, and the addition of more floors of office space is better than those remaining one story buildings.

But while there is also a public gathering space/amphitheater designated, it does not have a real connection to the uses that would help activate it- the restaurants and retail. Instead, it is closest to the parking lot of an office building, and separated from those potentially synergistic uses by the beating heart of this proposal- the massive parking field for the grocery store.

Years of discussions have not changed the fact that the developer is basically following the punch list of a chain grocery store for their preferred suburban layout, where they work from the assumption that everyone always drives to the store, and that there’s no need to push back against that norm to do something better. This is the wrong thing to do in the 21st century.

Carrboro cares about equity, works hard to make transportation choices possible, worries about how to grow the commercial tax base, and proclaims a desire to make a difference in a world where the IPCC just told us we have about 12 years to turn the tide on climate change.

Carrboro can do so much better, and it should. The Aldermen should reject this proposal and immediately get to work on a comprehensive plan to help guide developers toward those better outcomes. If you agree, shoot an email to boa@townofcarrboro.org and let the Aldermen know.

Meetings on The 203 Project – Library & ArtsCenter Space – TODAY!

Posted on by
Reply

The 203 Project

Just a quick note to everyone this morning- the Town of Carrboro has been pushing the word out that there are not one but TWO meetings being held TODAY, August 4th, to collect public input on The 203 Project – which will be the future home to the Orange County Southern Library branch, Town Parks & Rec offices, WCOM Radio, offices for The ArtsCenter and more.

If you’re a parent, I’d particularly encourage you to come and bring kids. The first meeting we went to (scheduled during bedtime for most families) was largely age 50 and up, and Carrboro is a much younger town demographically.

Here are the meeting times and locations:

August 4, 2018
Carrboro Town Hall
301 West Main St., Carrboro NC
12-2pm

August 4, 2018
Oasis of Love Tabernacle of Faith
8005 Rogers Rd, Chapel Hill, NC 27516
4-6pm

Here are some of the things I’ll be sharing if I can make it to one of the meetings today:

  1. The 203 Project needs to focus on the needs of the building program first, and how to get to the building by bike, bus, and foot second, and parking access third. Downtown Carrboro has over 2,000 empty parking spaces at any given time and this project cannot free up more of them; only town leadership at a downtown-wide level can do that.
  2. We have a small downtown with limited land available for economic development. While there is a terrific set of uses proposed for this building, we should also be seeking economic development at this site. Making the building taller, up to 5 stories- would allow for small company startup space on the upper floors. Some of the Alderfolks have talked about having “Affordable office space” for micro-businesses in town, and this building is a great place to do it. I’d like to see if we could get at least 5,000 – 10,000 square feet of such space into the building.
  3. The ground floor should have a strong orientation to the sidewalks on S Greensboro St and Roberson to embrace what we hope will be very lively pedestrian spaces.

 

Hopefully some of you can get to one of these!

Development at 203 S Greensboro Needs Less Parking, More Startup Space to Complement Library

Posted on by
Reply

On September 19, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen will be discussing a proposal to redevelop 203 S. Greensboro St into the Southern Orange County library and several other public uses for Town of Carrboro departments.The current plan significantly over-provides parking and under-supplies useful commercial space in a downtown whose own recent parking study found that there are over 1,280 unused parking spaces in downtown Carrboro (click here, see page 9 of PDF) at virtually all times of day, 365 days a year.

Before moving forward with this plan, the Board of Aldermen should modify the project as follows:

  1. Reduce the overall parking program to 150 spaces, using only the below ground and 1st levels for parking.
  2. Add a minimum of 8,400 square feet to the project on the upper floors that would be leased to private, taxpaying uses
  3. Explore if building more sq footage brings cost per square foot down, especially if building full, flat floors across floors three and four
  4. Pursue a partnership with American Underground to fill some of the space with startups, and/or use a commercial broker to lease the space
  5. Allocate the 150 parking spaces as follows:
    1. 20 spaces for use by Town (all departments combined)
    2. 130 public spaces (can be used by library patrons, artscenter, town workers, etc as long as they follow parking rules)
  6. Price the parking in the deck to keep 15% of public spaces free at all times, adjusting the price by time of day according to demand. If the deck can have 15% of spaces free without charging at some time of day, parking should be free in that time period.

Why The Aldermen Should Take These Steps

Let’s unpack these moves one by one.

1. Reduce parking to 150 spaces. Here’s the ground floor of the proposed building. South Greensboro Street is to the left, Open Eye Cafe is be directly above the building.  The ground floor of our new signature Town building would be a 14,000-odd square foot library and 19,000 or so square feet of parking. As you go up, the pattern remains this way- about 33,000 sq feet of development of which 58% is parking and 42% is everything else. The below ground floor is 80% parking. This is just too much. If you look at the total program proposed, it comes out to 5.4 spaces per 1000 gross square feet (GSF) of building. To put this in perspective, malls and big box stores generally provide 4 spaces per 1000 GSF.  After the administration in Washington signaled its intent to pull out of the Paris Climate accords, Carrboro put green lights up on Town Hall to signal its commitment to climate action. If we are going to build more parking for our public buildings than Southpoint Mall builds for its shoppers, then I would suggest we take those green lights down and stop pretending we’re committed to fighting climate change. A lot of communities don’t even have parking requirements downtown anymore (i.e. Durham) because they are working to help people use more sustainable travel modes by not subsidizing auto usage.

Library Parking Ground Floor

14,390 square ft of Library, 19,000 square feet of parking!

2. If we took out two levels of the parking deck, according to the cost per square foot and cost per space of parking for the Town in the June 20th presentation, we could add 8,400 square feet of space and pay the same amount to build the building as if we built 55,000 square feet and two more levels of parking. However, we would have more space to lease that would hopefully bring a return on investment to the Town over the years.

3. The cost of this building is projected at $250 per square foot. I am not sure if this is high, but the irregular shape of each floor to wrap around the parking deck may be driving the cost up. The Board should seek advice from Jim Spencer, the architect, on whether having more conventional floor plates on the third and fourth floor in lieu of parking would bring the overall cost per square foot down. If so, then the Town could consider even more square footage that could be rented to the private sector.

4. Pursue a partnership with American Underground. For those who don’t know, American Underground is the wildly successful startup incubator in the basement of the American Tobacco Campus in Durham which has since expanded to two more buildings in Durham and one location in Raleigh. Now that Carrboro has direct bus connections to Durham with stop one block from 203 S Greensboro and one block from American Underground(AU), it’s a great time to leverage a lot of the common cultural affinity between Carrboro and Durham and see if AU is interested in establishing a “Western Outpost” for their ecosystem in Carrboro. We may be able to offer less costly expansion than the increasingly expensive office space market in Downtown Durham, while still offering many of the amenities that both downtowns share.

5. Allocate the 150 spaces as follows: 10 for town employees, 140 public spaces. The current proposal has 30 spaces for Parks and Rec. If the Town wants to get businesses in downtown Carrboro to get their employees to stop using up public parking that visitors and customers could use, they should lead by example. Last year, a delegation from Chapel Hill and Carrboro visited a very successful mixed use project in Boulder, Colorado that had multiple users using one parking garage called Boulder Junction.

Boulder Junction in Boulder, CO has its parking Shared, Managed, Unbundled and Paid

Boulder Junction’s parking operates on four principles: it is shared, managed, unbundled, and paid. “Shared” means that any person can use any space; there’s no “parking for XYZ business only” signage. “Managed” means that there is a strategy for how the parking is to be used, and an entity providing policy and enforcement to ensure the strategy is carried out. (in this case, the city of Boulder) “Unbundled” means that if you rent space in the building, you are not automatically allocated a parking space- you must also rent spaces individually as well, whether you rent by the hour, day, week, or month.  Finally, “paid” is relatively obvious. While the Carrboro Parking Study’s chief failure is no mention of the word pricing, the Town actually went ahead and priced the Rosemary Street lot by Carrburritos and Bowbarr recently, so we’ve crossed the Rubicon and now charge for parking in Carrboro. So let’s do it right. Let’s start where we are as a Town, and implement a system that lets the first 2 hours (or 3! or 4! or whatever we decide!) be free, and only thereafter charges the user. This system is deployed in the North Deck at the American Tobacco Campus in Durham, and people can pay using the Parkmobile app. It’s convenient, promotes turnover, prevents park and ride in inappropriate places, and allows for parking to be free as long as it makes sense.

Taking these four principles, a purist approach would put all 150 spaces into this system. But the Town has storage for some departments in the basement, and there are probably some needs for moving equipment in and out of the building for key events that should have those spaces reserved for town staff. But ten spaces should be enough.

Beyond those ten spaces, the Town should be encouraging downtown employees to park on fringe lots and either walking, biking, or busing to the core sites downtown (203 S Greensboro and the Century Center).

On page 20 of the parking study, you can see that VHB documented 151 cars parking for over 7 hours in our “2-hour stay” public lots. VHB estimates that 50 to 60 of these are town employees, and another 90 to 95 belonged to other downtown employees or UNC students stealth park-and-riding to campus.

I’m sure town employees who currently enjoying parking downtown may be disappointed with this recommendation. But hopefully they recognize that if they can park a little further away, they can support vitality for downtown businesses, and get a few more steps in to finish their commutes, or snag a CHT bus from a lot a little further away.

6. Price the deck for 85% occupancy. This is considered a best practice in the parking industry. If you set the price so that 15% of spaces are empty, then you can pretty much guarantee that with people coming and going, you will ALWAYS find a space at your destination. No more circling and hunting for a space. If demand for spaces is such that 15% of spaces are empty even if the price is free, then that’s what you charge – $0. Based on the Carrboro Parking Survey, it appears weekday lunch hours represent the greatest crunch given our current conditions. In this case, the parking at 203 S Greensboro might have a charge at lunchtime, but not earlier or later in the day. We’d have to set up the system and see. That said, once the system is up and running, businesses could opt in, just as they did in Asheville.

If you take these steps together, and only add the 8,400 square feet while reducing to 150 spaces, you still get a parking ratio of 2.4 spaces per 1000 square feet, which is higher than many downtowns like Carrboro require today. That’s a reasonable outcome to transition downtown away from auto dependence and towards greater economic vitality, while also delivering needed Town office space and the library everyone wants to see happen.

It’s time to do parking pricing right, on the Town’s terms, in a strategic way that balances our goals and puts us on a path to unlock the 1,280 spaces that are tied up in 140+ individual lots, while raising money for alternative modes. This worthy project is the place to start that new effort.

If you agree, please let the board know by emailing boa@townofcarrboro.org.

Carrboro Needs a Comprehensive Plan, and The Aldermen Should Put Money in the Next Budget To Create One

Posted on by
1

Carrboro needs a new Comprehensive Plan, and an entirely new Unified Development Ordinance. The Carrboro Board of Aldermen should take the first step towards these goals by putting money in the town’s Fiscal Year 2018 budget to create such a plan.

Last year, my most widely read posts on CityBeautiful21 were about one subject- the proposed Lloyd Farm development, a crappy 20th century strip mall concept that greatly underused the site and missed the mark in many ways. I’m not going to rehash the problems with the proposal, but anyone who wants a rundown can read my final piece before the vote here.

Instead, I’m going to discuss the two things that Carrboro lacks that likely would have prevented the Town from taking FIVE YEARS to reject a bad idea.

Those two things are:

  • A lack of a Current Comprehensive Plan or Vision document with appropriate geographic specificity
  • An outdated and piecemeal-amended Unified Development Ordinance that draws its core values from the ideas of the late 1970s, that does not reflect the challenges and opportunities present in Carrboro today.

 

Quick Review: What’s A Comprehensive Plan? What’s a Unified Development Ordinance?

Simply put, a Comprehensive Plan is an overall policy document for a city or town that describes the type of community the city or town seeks to become in the future. A Comprehensive Plan usually has many subsections with goals for each including items such as Land Use, Transportation, Economic Development, Parks and Recreation, Social Equity, Environmental Quality, and so forth. Truly excellent plans try to address the places where goals for each of these topics may conflict and accurately frame the tradeoffs inherent in those conflicts.

A Unified Development Ordinance is the nitty-gritty, detailed set of rules and regulations that govern how buildings, streets, sidewalks, telephone poles, plantings, trash bins and just about any other physical element of the community you can think of gets laid out on the ground when it is built.

Lack of a Current Comprehensive Plan or Vision Document

It is worth nothing that while the town does not have a Comprehensive Plan, Carrboro does have a Vision document, called “Carrboro Vision 2020.” It was adopted quite a while back, in 2000, and it is a vision for the whole town. Some of the policies are quite good. Here are a few:

2.22 Where development is deemed acceptable, there should be well defined dense
development with areas of well preserved open space.

Another:

2.41 The town should support the evolution of a downtown district that embodies
Carrboro’s character. The downtown district should have medium-rise buildings
appropriately sited with adequate public access, and it should provide shopping
opportunities that meet our citizens’ everyday needs. The downtown should
remain a center for the community where people work, gather, shop, socialize and
recreate. The Century Center should serve as a focal point for the downtown.

And another:

4.41 As a general policy, established roads should be widened to accommodate bike
lanes and sidewalks, but not to provide additional lanes for automobiles.

It is terrific that Carrboro has a policy document like this, and the 300 East Main development in downtown is evidence that this policy is being applied in at least part of downtown. But while it is great that we have such straightforward, intentional statements for downtown, it is clear that “well defined dense development” is nearly the opposite of what we got at Lloyd Farm.

An Outdated Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)

Generally speaking, if you want to build something that positively adds to the town’s urbanity, amplifying the “life-on-foot” feel that makes downtown Carrboro such a great place, you need to jump through all sorts of hoops, extra public hearings and special use permits to get it built. When you want to build something that turns inward, away from the street, and doesn’t contribute much to the public realm in Carrboro, you can usually get a building permit pretty quickly under our 1970s suburban ordinances. Under these conditions, you’re counting on the quality of the vision of the developer to give you something other than a terrible outcome.

While once in a blue moon we get a solid outcome like Shelton Station, we usually get an urban failure like the Park Slope development. What’s wrong with Park Slope? Several things, but the worst thing about it is that the Town did code not require Park Slope to build a piece of sidewalk on South Greensboro St along the front of the Park Slope property.

No Sidewalks At Park Slope

No Sidewalks At Park Slope (right side, with little red signs on white posts) on S Greensboro St

What’s particularly sad about this outcome is that residents have been advocating for several years to get a sidewalk on South Greensboro Street. If the Town had required a sidewalk here, and the new South Green development had been required to build more sidewalk to connect to it, the Town would be much closer to having a sidewalk from downtown to the base of the South Greensboro, and the private sector would have been a partner in helping to make that connection.

Instead, the town is having to compete with Durham, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough for limited Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds at the DCHC-MPO to build a sidewalk for $400,000.  Carrboro should be getting developers to participate in building our sidewalks on major arterials, so that we can request CMAQ funds for things that are greatly needed but unlikely to be funded by developers, like future phases of the Morgan Creek and Bolin Creek Greenways.

So why exactly didn’t the code require sidewalks here? It’s not entirely clear to me, but the reason may be in Article XIV (the Streets and Sidewalks section) of Carrboro’s current UDO.

In subdivision developments that abut a public street, sidewalks shall be con-
structed adjacent to such street if a sidewalk in that location is required by the officially adopted town sidewalk master plan. Whenever possible, such sidewalk shall be constructed within the public right-of-way.

I put a few words in bold above. Carrboro does have an adopted Bike Plan on their website, but I did some Googling and Carrboro does not seem to have an officially adopted sidewalk master plan. That seems to be a big hole weakening the connection between what we want to happen and our requirements to deliver our desired future.

There’s also some text in other parts of Article XIV that states:

The permit-issuing authority may reduce the sidewalk requirement for subcollector streets
meeting the alternative street standard from both sides to one side of the road if:
a. The development contains a parallel system that is integrally designed and provides pedestrian access to the interior of the site;

This is great for the people who live in Park Slope, but not good for anyone who doesn’t live there but needs to walk by Park Slope. It’s also very consistent with the idea that paths are for walking within developments, and presumes you will never need to walk out of the development because you will drive to anywhere else- a very 1970s view of the world.

Our Regulations Aren’t Working For Us (Or For The Developers)

With five years to get to “No” on Lloyd Farm, and missing the chance to have developers build sidewalks on a street where we ARE approving development and are applying for public funds to build sidewalks, it’s clear that our directions to the development community aren’t clear enough about our desires and our ordinances aren’t organized to require the pieces of town infrastructure we need.

If Carrboro doesn’t change its approach to development proposals, what happened with Lloyd Farm will happen again, and what happened with Park Slope will happen again.

Our ordinance is full of band-aids with amendments in 1998 or 2003 still trying to address thoughts from the 1970s and the 1980s in 2017. The world has changed, our towns opportunities and challenges have changed, and so should our development regulations to be more specific about the future our town needs and desires. It’s time to throw the old stuff out and start fresh. Want to see what a modern UDO looks like? Check out Raleigh’s – complete with pictures to make it easy to understand for residents.

From the point of view of the development community, I’m sure they would like to propose projects that generate less fractious debate and have a better chance of being well-received by residents. A clearer code could be a win-win where Carrboro residents see more changes in town that complement their vision for the future, and developers can approach projects with more certainty about outcomes.

What The Aldermen Should Do

On January 24th at 7:30 pm, there is a public hearing on budget priorities for the upcoming year. I’m requesting that the Aldermen put in funding to hire a consultant to support the Town Planning staff in developing a new Comprehensive Plan for Carrboro and a completely brand-new UDO. Please join me in making this request. You can attend in person, or tell the Aldermen “We Need a Comprehensive Plan!” by emailing boa@townofcarrboro.org.