First Look at Chapel Hill Candidates

Ughh ... now we can talk about adequate school facilities... another gorilla... the way I understand it, elementay school # 10 (Eubanks and Old 86) is scheduled to open 2009 or 2010. Where are all the new children moving into the neighborhoods Helena is talking about going to go to school--- Seawell? There won't be any room. And what if Koven's slated developments start producing children in the next couple of years--- where will these children go?

Kovens'

My guess is that the Kovens's develeopment kids would go to either FPG or Scroggs--if I'm remembering where that development is proposed for. Scroggs would be closer--but it's full to the gills. Don't know what FPG is like these days. I hear Rashkis is still relatively empty.

But hey, just squish the kids in there. That's what they've been doing at the high schools for YEARS. (Yes, I am a broken record. No, I won't stop. You wouldn't either, if you had a HS kid...)

Connectivity works--when a neighborhood is DESIGNED for it. Retroactive connectivity? I don't know about THAT...

melanie

Mel,
I was talking about Winmore... and I thought Kovens had more stuff going up this way...
He's a busy man!

Regarding the school buses: I have asked the school board to formally study this issue and give an opinion. No word yet if they will. I did talk to a school board member who does not want to be named and here are some ideas I gleaned from that conversation. The key question to ask is, "Do I have a safe pick up spot for the children?" There is nothing safer than a dead end street. Two things to note about rental properties: 1)Many times rental properties do not want school buses coming through their development for a number of reasons and 2) rental properties typically do not generate high densities of school age children. (The neighborhood with the highest density of children in Chapel Hill is Parkside which is adjacent to Larkspur.) One good solution to consider would be to have the Chapel Watch Village children walk on the pedestrian/bicycle path to the bottom of Maywood Way for pick up. Since Larkspur and Chapel Watch Village are separated by 128' clearing for the Duke power line easement, the path will be straight and easy for children to see the bus stop at the other end. It does not cross over a bridge, go through a forest or require children to cross a busy street.

The school bus could enter Larkspur at Old Larkspur Way off Weaver Dairy, make one stop near Butterfield, continue down Old Larkspur Way and make another stop where it meets Maywood Way. Since Larkspur is a natural loop, the bus could continue (without having to back up) up Maywood and out Butterfield Ct to Weaver Dairy. This plan accomodates children from both neighborhoods and keeps the bus off MLK and Eubanks.

Other information: There are no (or few) other residential neighborhoods on Eubanks to serve, so having the bus go "through" Larkspur doesn't really save the school bus system much time or money. There are only sidewalks on one side of the lower half of Old Larkspur Way and all of Maywood. So, lots of children in Larkspur will have to cross the street once just to get to the bus stop at the bottom of Maywood. If the connector is open to full vehicular access, they will be dodging cars & trucks during the morning commute hour.

Someone asked the question earlier about the plans for Weaver Dairy Extension. I happened to have a conversation this afternoon with Mike Taylor in Chapel Hill's engineering department about this very subject. He told me that Weaver Dairy Ext. was designed to meet standards for a 45mph road. Even though the road narrows as it approaches Homestead, there is enough right of way to expand it easily to 2 lanes in both directions if needed. Based on what he said, it was designed to be the primary road to access Carolina North at the Weaver Dairy/Homestead access point. (George C. may point out that I am not an expert on this subject, and he is right. I am just conveying what I think I have heard.)

I have had another conversation with a senior planner in the Planning Dept and he told me that there have been planning sessions to try to divert some of the traffic coming South on 15-501 (heading for Carolina North) from travelling THROUGH downtown Chapel Hill (Franklin Street). (Seems reasonable.) The idea they have worked on would be to send people North on Erwin and then West on Weaver Dairy all the way to Homestead. This would require widening Weaver Dairy to 2 lanes in both directions from Erwin to Homestead. None of this is funded or firmly planned. I am just telling you what I've heard as early planning ideas. They all seem reasonable to me.

The reason I was asking questions about this is because I was trying to figure out if Butterfield Court would be a safe access point to Larkspur. It is the second stub out that was required of the Larkspur developer in the Final Approved Plan. Yesterday, I measured a line of sight of roughly 600 ft in both directions from Butterfield looking onto Weaver Dairy Ext. According to the Town Design Guidelines, the minimum line of sight for a 25mph road is 257 feet; for 35mph =360 and for 45mph = 462.

I realize that I am just a housewife and have no business taking measurements around my neighborhood, but it seems to me that this may be a safe, second, full access point for Larkspur.

The discussions of water supplies, Larkspur connector Rds. to relieve main road congestion and crowded schools stem from the same source---they are classic symptoms of an area edging towards population saturation.

And it always goes back to sustainable growth vs “smart growth”— Sustainable growth says responsible town leaders should utilize and enforce zoning laws to rein in development once population density begins reaching saturation point. Developers, real estate investors and political insiders who cater to developers, obviously do not like sustainable growth advocates.

“Smart growth” advocates say you don't have to stop development and population growth you just have to cram people into high density urban living, push them onto public transit (and have connector roads for those transit buses and to relieve congestion on main roads) build schools without athletic fields to save space and cram the kiddies into larger classes. Developers, real estate investors and politicians who cater to developers love “smart growth.”

The National Association of Home Builders strongly supports “smart growth” and in 2003 the Home Builders Association attacked then New Jersey Gov. McGreevey (a liberal and strong environmental advocate) for reining in further development and growth in order to protect the environment and curb overpopulation (NAHB “NAHB President Challenges New Jersey Governor” April 2, 2003).

The problem is that people living in a Town because they chose not to live in a dense urban city don't like it when their town is “retrofit” to become an urban metropolis. And you can call it “smart growth”, new urbanism, or utopia and the average guy on the street still knows it's developers who smell profits in more development. And they also know it will lead to a decline of quality of life and the very problems that have discussed on this thread.

But don't we have to grow? The best response to this was a sustainable growth advocate who pointed out that, in humans, continued growth after maturity generally means cancer and decline. But it also applies in businesses—some businesses expand and grow past their market capacity or resources and go bankrupt.

And in Chapel Hill we are expanding past our geographic population capacity.

Former U.S. Sen. Gaylord Nelson, founder of Earth Day and now counselor to the Wilderness Society, noted, "There is no way in the world we can forge a sustainable society without stabilizing the population. ... SANTA BARBARA, Calif., April 5 2005 /U.S. Newswire. And what's true on a large scale is generally true on a small scale.

Smart growth says if you are running out of land, just build up. Too much traffic—just add more public transit. And it's all good because you're “saving the environment” and promoting connectivity and “community”---you know, the warm, fuzzy sense of community we see when public transit advocates and car users are at each other's throats--- when neighborhoods fighting against connector roads and infilling are called selfish isolationists by those who want more development—when those who want natural parks are fighting against those who want more space for athletics fields and community centers such as what happened over Southern Community Park..

But the real Achilles tendon of “smart growth” is water and garbage.

No more land for garbage disposal ? Smart growth's answer is to ship the garbage out— maybe to that rural area that was so in need of protection—no room for garbage in tomorrow's shining urban utopia (make it someone else's problem). What the heck—we secretly know people who live in rural areas are conservatives (and many of them poor). . .why not give them our garbage? And they don't have district representation so we don't have to worry about them having much clout at the polls. . .
And, yes, we would fill up our landfill eventually anyway—and yes, Chapel Hill, due to waterways, resource conservation districts and so on---doesn't really have anywhere else to put its garbage. But we can either be shipping out a little garbage or a lot of garbage---if we keep adding more high density residential development we will be shipping out more and more garbage to our rural neighbors. And yes, recycling will help but there will always be some garbage. . .

And what about the water? Yes, I can weigh, way in on this issue. . .but out of time so for the next few days so check out my post on water and possible rolling water outages in the future on squeezethepulp.com (it's under uncensored news and media watch).. .

P.S.Robert Peterson says, "Robin seems like an advocate you would want on your side, precisely because she is so over the top." Yes, I will fight with zeal and lots of research and facts for protecting the enviroment and for protecting neighborhoods and quality of life.

And yes I know I need short versions and sound bites but I thought the more research and info I could provide to the public the better---I have now learned the error of this and will be revising my website (yes, late at night with no sleep because time is short).

Cheers, Robin

Amy Chute,
My comment(s) to you about being trained as a professional were not meant as a personal attack on you and I apologize if they were taken that way. I'm glad to see that you're so involved and taking so much time to talk to the town and school board officials to get as much information as possible. Regardless of how this issue resolves I hope you will continue to channel some of that energy into staying involved to help shape our community as we continue to grow. CH is a special place and worthy of all the time we put in to keep it so.

Yes, I will fight with zeal and lots of research and facts for protecting the enviroment and for protecting neighborhoods and quality of life.

Robin, if you consider research and facts so important to your campaign, could you link to the study or studies you mentioned earlier that suggest children on cul-de-sacs play outside more often? Some of us are very interested to read about this.

Amy,
Thanks for getting the information about Weaver Dairy Ext. out. In general, do you feel that your neighbors are aware of and accepting of the likely future plans of this road?

Point of clarification: the Town last year, in its work on the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan, changed the provision of Weaver Dairy Extension becoming a four lane divided road to remaining a two lane (with a left turn and right turn lane in spots). The Town also stated that it did not assume that Weaver Dairy Extension would necessarily connect with a proposed North/South Road from Carolina North. These facts are in the minutes last year when the 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan was being discussed.

Does anyone have a phone number or email address for
Kevin Wolff that he will respond to? I have been unable
to contact him with regard to the upcoming Sierra Club
forum.

Joe, here are some email addresses for him (older ones), maybe he is still checking them:
kevin.wolff@wolffking.com
Wolfflawoffices@aol.com

Robin,

I agree with you that sustainability is important. The Institute for Sustainable Communities defines a sustainable community as follows:

"Sustainable communities are defined as towns and cities that have taken steps to remain healthy over the long term. Sustainable communities have a strong sense of place. They have a vision that is embraced and actively promoted by all of the key sectors of society, including businesses, disadvantaged groups, environmentalists, civic associations, government agencies, and religious organizations. They are places that build on their assets and dare to be innovative. These communities value healthy ecosystems, use resources efficiently, and actively seek to retain and enhance a locally based economy. There is a pervasive volunteer spirit that is rewarded by concrete results. Partnerships between and among government, the business sector, and nonprofit organizations are common. Public debate in these communities is engaging, inclusive, and constructive. Unlike traditional community development approaches, sustainability strategies emphasize: the whole community (instead of just disadvantaged neighborhoods); ecosystem protection; meaningful and broad-based citizen participation; and economic self-reliance."

From my council-watching perspective (Chapel Hill and Carrboro), I believe most, if not all, of our elected officials have sustainability as a goal even though you disagree with their implementation strategies.

Can one of the techies..e.g. WillR or Ruby put up a quicktime or other clip of candidate Cutson thrashing the carbon reduction program?

I imagine most people didn't watch the last council meeting but I was shocked by the delivery not to mention the content.

the VOLUNTARY carbon reduction program passed by a 9-0 vote.

I'd imagine the carbon reduction (with a clip of Cutson going off on it) are worth of a thread...

I have successfully corresponded with Kevin Wolff at kawolffno1@aol.com

There is a study titled, “Comprehensive Engineering Approach to Achieving Safe Neighborhoods.” It was conducted by the Southwest Region University Transportation Center, Texas Transportation Institute and The Texas A&M University System in September 2000. Here are some highlights from the study.

Page 1, “Steady increases in travel demand coupled with minimal increases in arterial street capacity have led to an increase in traffic-related safety problems in residential neighborhoods. These problems stem from the significant number of motorists that divert from the arterial to the residential street system in an effort to avoid arterial-related delays. Diverted motorists add to neighborhood traffic volumes and increase crash exposure for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other vehicles. In addition, diverted motorists often drive at excessive speed which increases both the potential for a crash and its severity."

“Some indication of the extent of the safety problem in residential neighborhoods is provided in Table 1. The data shown in this table indicate that most fatal crashes occur on minor arterials. However, an analysis of crash rate (i.e., crash frequency "normalized" by the amount of travel) indicates that local streets have the poorest safety record. These data indicate that the probability of a fatal crash on a local street is almost three times greater than that for an interstate highway. This trend is likely due to the high probability that one of the participants in a local street crash is a pedestrian or bicyclist."

“Excessive speed is a major contributing factor in crashes of all types. Excessive speed has serious consequences for pedestrians. The likelihood of a pedestrian being hit by a vehicle increases with speed. Motorists traveling at high speeds are less likely to see a pedestrian and if they see the pedestrian, are less likely to be able to stop in time to avoid hitting the pedestrian.”

Page 2, “Many of the pedestrians in neighborhoods are children….Eighty percent of pedestrian-involved crashes with children under the age of 10 occurred within a half mile of their home.”

Page 15, “Many motorists simply regard any street in any location as, first and foremost, a place to drive. Further, they have certain expectations as to how a street system should operate, and if the street becomes congested beyond their tolerance, they will seek other paths.” “Unfortunately, the criteria used by a driver when selecting the “other path” has no bearing on the roadway's functional classification. The result is that drivers use local streets for high-speed through trips instead of low-speed property access.

Page ii, Abstract, “A model was developed for this research that can predict the percent of arterial drivers that cut-through the adjacent neighborhood streets. Percent cut-through traffic was found to range from 0.0 up to 30% of the arterial volume, with the higher percentage associated with oversaturated signalized intersections.”

Eubanks eastbound drivers at MLK Blvd fall into this category. According to the 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, this intersection will exceed it's capacity by more than 20%. This would create a huge incentive to cut-through Larkspur and Chapel Watch Village neighborhoods.

If we conservatively apply 20% cut-through rate to the 11,000 trips forecast for this intersection in the 2003 Town Operations Center Traffic Impact Study, the cut-through traffic on Maywood would be 2,200 daily trips plus the 800 Larkspur trips, plus any Chapel Watch Village trips. This would put us over 3,000 daily trips which would put Maywood Way into the collector Road classification.

Based on the Final Plans for Larkspur, we know that Maywood and the lower half of Old Larkspur Way were designed to “local road” standards which means they should handle fewer than 1000-1500 daily trips.

David Bonk confirmed at the August 9 Transportation Board meeting that no road improvements are planned for Eubanks or MLK near this intersection. David Bonk also admits in his Aug. 9 memo to the Transportation Board that one of the benefits of the Maywood connector is to “decrease traffic on arterial roads…and substantively expand the connectivity of the Town's street network or provide alternative routes between arterials.” How can a the Town, in good conscience, expose a neighborhood, with a high density of children on a local street, to this high level of planned traffic?

Mary,
Regarding your question of whether my neighbors are aware of and accepting of the future traffic on Weaver Dairy Extension (WDE), I can't speak for the whole neighborhood, but yes, I do think in general, we know that more is coming. I have to admit, I only learned of the Carolina North access point within the last few weeks. There were 60-70 of my neighbors who saw the presentation to the Transportation Board on Aug 9 which talked about this access point. So, I think people are becoming aware of it.

Speaking for myself, when I drive on WDE, it seems logical to me that it was designed to handle more cars at higher speeds with more lanes than exist today. Why else do so many people get speeding tickets here in a 25mph zone? Further, there are only 7-8 houses whose backyards face WDE. There is a rock wall about 10 feet high between these yards and WDE, so there is no neighborhood safety issue with our homes sitting right on WDE.

The only safety issue I see that Larkspur has now with WDE is easy to fix. We need a large, bright, visible crosswalk to connect Old Larkspur Way to Rowe Rd so that we can more safely walk to Homestead Park via Northwoods and Parkside neighborhoods. It is pretty scary to push a baby in a stroller across WDE since it is so wide. I sometimes only get halfway and have to stop in the middle to let cars pass in front of me.

George C,
Thank you for clarifying your intentions in your earlier email. I have barely lived in Chapel Hill for 12 months now and hope to stay involved and contribute to this great city. This connector issue has brought me closer to my neighbors and community in a way that makes me really care about the town in which I live. Hopefully, I can contribute to Chapel Hill in more ways in the future.

Amy - to bring you up to speed..
George C. can correct me if I'm wrong..

The council including Foy, Strom and others has fought NC DOT for years over plans to expand Weaver Dairy Proper (between MLK and Erwin) to 4-5 lanes for the whole stretch.

Most residents are under the impression that the Council finally won and Weaver Dairy Proper will actually be SHRUNK in many places from how it is today. Did you know that Amy?

Therefore, I would imagine that residents near Weaver dairy proper including groups like CARR would be somewhat against widening ANY part of Weaver Dairy to 4 lanes...

It would in practice counteract not widening Weaver Dairy Proper...

Also, I've heard there are strange plans to bring in traffic from south of chapel hill via Erwin to Weaver Dairy to Caronorth.

I think it is probably most straightforward and most desirable by the residents along all parts of Weaver Dairy to keep traffic on I-40 and MLK as much as possible.

Also Amy,

the plan to have a huge automobile traffic funnel at Homestead into Weaver Dairy was thought of in 1980 when literally no one lived there so no one cared.

I'm sure Centex (and vineyard square/northwood), Parkside and the Home Team haven't been telling people buy a house here to live next to a future traffic funnel.

What is the best thinking right now about a road coming out of Carolina North and connecting to WDE?
Clearly, WDE was planned as a throughway; all one has to do is look at how the neighborhoods have been built: no driveway entrances on WDE, no homes facing the road. But, the fact remains that this is a residential not a commercial neighborhood, and I would thus have to agree that two car lanes with bike lanes and sidewalks and a 35 mph speed limit seems more appropriate for WDE than four lanes and a 45 mph speed limit. If planners wanted WDE to be a 45 mph 4 lane throughway to Carolina North, then they should have created a much larger buffer between houses and the road. It's too bad an adequate buffer wasn't planned. How serious were planners about this connecting to Carolina North?

Amy,
You sound like one housewife ready for a seat on the transportation board!

Last Thing Amy -

while Larkspur has a "stone wall"

original northwood doesn't have a fence.

parkside, northwoods has a meager wood fence not meant as a sound barrier.

and I believe Vineyard square has no sound barriers either..

and....

The right of way at Vineyard square is owned by The Town Of Chapel Hill not NC DOT...

It is my understanding that the town owning the right of way at vineyard square gives the residents a bigger voice in what happens..

Mary,
the speed limit on WDE between MLK and Homestead is only 25.

Helena,
I agree with you, there are no other sound barriers for (old) Northwood, (new) Northwoods or Vineyard Square along WDE. No doubt, the neighbors would certainly bring this up at the appropriate time if there is pressure to expand WDE.

Maybe someone on the Horace Williams Committee can tell us what the current thinking is on Carolina North relating to WDE. Maybe it is too early to tell??

Hey Amy Chute --

read the Horace WCC report

http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/planning/HWCC/HWCC_new.htm

the report has guidelines like:

roads should not divide large sensitive tracts and
caro north should not increase air pollution...

read the report when you have time..

bad link..

http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/planning/HWCC/HWCC_new.html

that should work the "l" dropped off.

Amy,
I've been taking WDE since before it ever officially opened. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the speed limit was slated to be 35 mph, but was lowered due to a citizen petition??? In my post, I only meant that I think 35 mph is a reasonable speed limit for WDE.
I've always found all of the hubbub surrounding WDE distubing in light of the fact that the next connector road over to the west has a) a 40 mph speed limit, b) essentially no sidewalks, c) is used as a throughway by heavy vehicles, d) has many, many driveways entering the road, e) has children walking, biking, and playing in the streets, f) has residents walking in the road to the bus stop and the schools, and g) is home to a well- established African American community.
I am quite happy that Carrboro will be in a position soon to help remedy some of these GLARING social inequities that exist between these two connector roads!

Helena,
You are correct. The CH Town Council fought very hard to get NCDOT to "downsize their plans for Weaver Dairy Rd between Erwin and MLK from a 4-lane divided highway to the 3-lanes the Town preferred.

I think the plans to route traffic to Carolina North via Erwin/Weaver Dairy refers to the fact that the DOT had Weaver Dairy on their plans as essentially a "connector" from 15-501 in Durham to MLK, more or less part of an "outer loop". That's why they wanted a 4-lane divided highway. Of course, this made no sense given that Weaver Dairy essentially parallels I-40 along this route and that is what an interstate is designed for.

Mary, I agree that Amy would be a good candidate for the Transportation Board. I know that there are several openings at the moment.

Mary -

I don't know of a single road in chapel hill with a stated speed limit above 35mph...even mlk...

Amy- the chapel hill town limits are generally 35 mph

Helena-- I assumed you knew the next connector road over is Rogers and is in the NTA. Sorry to confuse you...

Mary,

I would assume that you know that in 2006 , Carrboro has not budgeted one dollar for sidewalks, a bus stop, street lights, or any of the other requests the Rogers Rd residents have made.

Apologies for setting a backward tone here.

A few comments about GeorgeC's thoughts and suggestions...

There are principles for building roads in a town (just like anything else), but there can always be conflicing principles and one has to understand the specific situation before deciding what to do. For example, Town's design guidelines encourage connectivity (for bike and pedestrians, to be exact), but discourages road designs that will encourage cut through.

The benefits of making a vehicular connector vs. risk of having it should be considered in each individual case, and I think the balance tips clearly in this case. Given the small number of neighbors involved and the layout of both neighborhoods (Larkspur and Chapel Watch Village, CWV), there is minimal benefit in running city transit buses through this connector (every house in these two neighborhoods can get to either Eubanks or WDE via a short walk). This is a very different situation as compared to other larger developments designed with collector roads within the community to allow traffic flow. As for school buses, we can think of having future CWV children to gather at Larkspur-CWV pathway (remember, the Larkspur residents are supporting a walk/bike/emergency road instead of full vehicular access) rather than their Eubanks entrance, and have a safer loading point and fully utilize the shorter path to Seawell school. As far as emergency vehicles are concerned, there are technologies (like flexible ballards that could be simply run over): GeorgeC's proposed traffic calming devices will slow down the emergency vehicles too.

If one opens up the road and puts traffic calming devices only on CWV, the result could be the worst imaginable: we have a few hundred yards through CWV neighborhood where there are traffic calming devices, then there is a 0.5 mile stretch in Larkspur where you have a clear shot to the other side (there are no traffic calming devices currently installed in Larkspur). That will not discourage as many cut-through traffic as one might think: it will actually encourage speeding through Larkspur neighborhood to make up for the time lost at the traffic calming devices in CWV. His proposal opens up a huge risk to Larkspur neighbors: unless someone (Chapel Hill Taxpayers) pays for installing traffic calming devices through the entire 0.5 miles of Larkspur roads, I don't see how this would be an effective solution (and, yes, this will cause significant delay in emergency vehicle response times too!!).

As for diverting local traffic through local roads to reduce burden on arteries, etc.: Given the specific layout of the two neighborhoods involved, one cannot get anywhere (grocery stores, renting movies, etc.) without getting onto Eubanks, MLK or Homestead anyways. Therefore, the value of containing local vehicular traffic on local roads (a good design principle for traffic management in general) does not play out with this specific connector.

That said, the only people that seem to benefit are the cut-through traffic between the two major roads in this specific instance (and the risk is high). In fact, the Larkspur residents are giving up the opportunity to a quick access to Eubanks and thus I-40.

People may be inclined to live in cul-de-sacs (I have not in my life: I am not sure about GeorgeC), but I don't think that is the main motivation behind Larkspur residents' concerns at all in this specific case. In case it is not clear at this point, I am a resident of Larkspur and a proud resident of Chapel Hill. Therefore I could be biased, but I probably have a better local understanding of the situation than GeorgeC. Although the principle of expanding public benefit is a principle we should all embrace, the public benefit must be real and not just speculations or guesses. The public benefit that the Town and other fellow residents of Chapel Hill might enjoy is minimal in this specific case, as compared to the risk that will be imposed upon the Larkspur neighbors due to possible cut through.

One might argue that the perceived risk of the road has a small probability of actually happening. For the same sake, I could argue that the perceived future benefit of the road (we do not anticipate buses, etc. to start using this connector right away) has a small probability of need as well. For example, the flexibility of traffic management lost by closing off some roads in town might not have been that significant in the first place: no one ever worries about opening up the roads again, because town's traffic is managed perfectly well without that flexibility. (I guess one hears more about people complaining cut-throughs...) We need to consider the details of the benefits and risks in specific cases (rather than rely simply on general principles and perceptions), and make an informed decision. In this specific case, it looks like the risk is much larger than the benefit and cost (for both immediate and long-term).

Jungsang,
I hope the TC votes against the connector. No neighborhood should be this unhappy!

Ruby,

From Larkspur, you can zip right up to MLK on the Weaver dairy extension and right to downtown. Onthe other hand, I can't imagine neighborhoods clamouring for faster access to the dump, the primary "amenity" of Eubanks Rd.

George C, thanks for the history of WDE. It is helpful. Here is some more recent history to add. A couple of citizens petitioned the Council to raise the speed limit on WDE to 35mph earlier this year. Northwoods (the new one) made a presentation at the May 9, 2005 Council meeting showing the short line of sight distance at the Palafox/WDE intersection. Palafox is on the inside of the large curve in WDE on a downhill slope which limits the line of sight and gives drivers pulling out to WDE a short amount of time to safely enter WDE. Vinod Prasad made a short, but powerful presentation and the Coucil voted to keep the speed limit at 25mph.

Thanks for the info on the TBoard openings. I'll think about it.

Katrina,

Re: your comment on 9/15 about sidewalks etc in Rogers Rd. Those items are scheduled out of DOT's TIP funds and possibly out of Carrboro's capital improvement funds rather than in the budget. Bus stops are handled through the transit authority.

Terri,

I checked the capital imporvement plan, and there is no mention of Rogers Rd. Try the search feature in the town documents. I did not find one instance of any member of the BOA concerned with extending services to the neighborhood, so if they have plans, they must be double super secret.

Terri,
Regarding bus stops - they are the responsibility of CHT but first you have to have service. And any new service has to be proposed by one of the partners (UNC, CH, or Carrboro) and, even if approved, the partner proposing the new service picks up the tab for the first year. So Carrboro probably won't request any new service if it isn't already in their budget.
BTW, I believe I mentioned this several months ago but the CH T-Board asked Orange Transportation if they could run some kind of limited shuttle between the Rogers Rd area and the park & ride on Eubanks. If we could get people to the park & ride they would have access to the whole CHT system as well as access to TTA's routes. Never got very far with Orange Transportation - I wonder where all those increased county taxes are going?

As I recall George, when I spoke with Al Terry of OPT regarding Rogers Road, he stated that they would be running a "pilot project" for a route up Rogers Road. In other words, they were to start running OPT up that road to provide service, assess ridership, and determine whether or not to make it a permanent route. That was several months ago.

Does anyone know if Rogers Road residents have requested transit service? It sounds like the answer is yes from the notes posted above, but I wanted to know if anyone knows the history on this topic. Thanks.

According to my conversations with the leaders of the Rogers Rd. church, they have requested a bus stop, sidewalks, and a reduction in the speed limit on Rogers Rd.

The situation in the neighborhood is further complicated by the annexation, which divides the neighborhood into two different jurisdictions, making it even more difficult for residents to access services, as it requires the petitioning and approval of two different gov't entities.

As an appalling side note, the African American vote in the neighborhood has been diluted by splitting the neighborhood not only into two towns/planning areas, but two different house districts as well (the east side is in Verla Insko's district and the west in Bill Faison's.)

Amy, I spoke Mr. Fred Battle after reading a letter he sent to the Town highlighting these Roger Rds. issues: older residents not able to get promised (a consequence of the Landfill buildout) OWASA hook up grants because of qualification issues, lack of bus service (and lack of communication on what happens post-annexation), no recreational facilities (and no path to existing ones) and, finally, the broken sewer pipe at the Habitat for Humanities homes.

While I was aware of the bus issue, remember hearing about the OWASA hookups, the broken sewer pipe took me by surprise. I called Mr. Battle because I recall sitting through a couple Council meetings several years ago where the issue came up and it seemed like something was going to be done.

More recently, funds for refurbishing those units, with a chunk allocated to sewer improvements, were requested and recommended
in the Town's budget. You'll see that priority was given for hookup assistance to Apple and Rogers road residents.

I couldn't find an affirmative response to Rev. Campbell's sewer concerns.

Also, I'd be interested in Joe C.'s recollections of the '98 discussions on the sewer/water lines issue out to Rogers Rd. Maybe he'll weigh in.

I'd also note that Chapel Hill has secured federal funds in the form of a community block grant to help residents on the east side of Rogers hook up to sewer. The Carrboro side is ineligible.

I personally believe that we need a joint governmental task force to WORK TOGETHER to sort out the many problems on Roger's Rd. Playing the blame, shame, criticism game will only serve to stall progress. The worse thing we can do is make a political game out of the Roger's Rd. area.

Yes, it would be nice if they'd put that task force in place before Carrboro drafted their annexation plan. Then they would have been able to address neighborhood needs as part of the annexation, but nobody from Carrboro ever talked to the neighborhood leaders,or to Chapel Hill or so I'm told.

Just saw Fred's letter, and called to give him the following skinny, but he's out: Here's what's up on the 'super-duper-secret':
A few weeks ago, town staff and I met with Rev. Campbell to discuss just the issues that have been 'discussed' here: Feeder('demand responsive') transit service on Rogers is scheduled to start in January (pending Board approval---Was s'posed to be this week, but got bumped). A potentially sticky question was about how to get around the silly artifact of the fact that CHT can only serve incorporated areas, thus, potentially allowing only residents on the Carrboro side to use the service. The work-around solution that we've come up with, is to place stops on the Carrboro side, and establish that anyone requesting service at those stops will be served. Dale McKeel, Transportation Planner is working to effect this solution, and will coordinate w/ Rev. Campbell on the number and location of stops.

Community and Economic Development Director James Harris is investigating potential solutions to the water access non-qualification issues.

On the sewer question, Carrboro has a reserve fund to provide $2,000 of assistance to folks wishing to access sewer. As well, we (Carrboro) have requested that Chapel Hill configure the sewer access to the new ops. center on Eubanks to take advantage of gravity feed, with a resulting route that would place the line in such a way as to provide access to homes not now served.

The broken pipe is news to me.

That's it for now, see y'all shortly.
-Alex

I bring this up purely as a point of clarification, not to diminish anyone's efforts, as I am grateful the Rogers Rd neighborhood is FINALLY getting some attention.

Alex did speak to Deacon Campbell, at a Board of Aldermen meeting last month, that I brought him to. We were intending to request deannexation so the neighborhood could be in a single planning district, but the board was not taking comments that evening. The deacon is quite a character, and I saw him bending Alex's ear pretty hard.

The $2000 toward OWASA hook ups is a nice gesture, but none of those residents have the additional $5000 to $10000 ( depending on distance) to hook up, which was promised to them in conjunction with slapping the landfill in their back yard.

When do we get to talk about the small area plan? Alex lauds it on his website. It says on page 15 that the Rogers Rd neighborhood should not be split. Alex voted for the small area plan, introduced a self congratulatory proclamation to the board for coming up with the small area plan, and then voted for the annexation of area B, which violates the small area plan.

Alex if you're out there working for the neigborhood, I commend you. It just seems like you're a little late.