How green is Carrboro's parking?

Carrboro touts its "walkability," and it is more walkable than, say, Cary. Yet one only need hangout downtown for a little while (e.g. on the lawn in front of Weaver Streer) to notice that most folks only walk as far as the parking lot holding their personal smogmobile. Carrboro, like the rest of suburban America, still obeys Kinsella's law of land use: "if you provide parking, they will drive." We seem to be caught in that old vicious circle: we provide parking, which reduces density (since parking actively competes with other uses) and discourages transit (by enabling driving, and most Americans will drive when given the option), which encourages driving, which "requires" more parking. So it was rather discouraging to see the discussion in Kirk Ross' piece in the Carrboro Citizen.

Carrboro is fortunate to have a downtown boom that looks able to provide the density needed to fuel transit, bike, and ped. Instead

Representatives of town advisory boards said that while the [Roberson Square] project seems to match the vision for downtown, it should include more parking.

Daniel Amoni, speaking for the town's Transportation Advisory Board, said he would like to see the developer add seven more on-street spaces that were originally considered for the project, but not on the final plan.

"We like the project and we think it would be an asset to the downtown. We didn't think seven spaces would be too onerous," he said.

Planning Board chair James Carnahan said there is still a need to make sure there is adequate parking available. He suggested that the developer find off-site parking for employees.

Speaking personally, Carnahan said that while the long-term goal is to reduce reliance on the automobile, the town was not there yet and should require the additional parking.

But how will we achieve "the long-term goal" by providing more parking? Why not instead Do the Right Thing Now: go dense, and use development revenue to build better bike, ped, and transit facilities?

Issues: 

Comments

Fundamentally, you are right, but I think indicting the majority of the population that drives is probably not going to win you many friends. I would rather show people the benefits of the alternatives to driving than insult their chosen mode of transportation.

Like it or not, people choose to do what is easy for them. Driving is easy. It doesn't require thinking and while everytime I see someone sitting in a car idling in front of building, I want to scream at them for wasting resources and personally destroying the environment by their own lack of awareness, I find it best to keep fighting the good fight and asking politely if they were aware their car was running and talking about how much gas is.

While it is correct to declare we go dense, we have a problem here. First, not every car is a "personal smogmobile" (Priuses are a cool first step).

Second,we have to undo the nightmare brought on us by the "Greatest Generation" of the subdivision. Someone should realize there is a problem when every neighborhood has to have speed control devices and simply allowing people to park on the street would slow cars down... but that is another fight.

Demonizing people for using cars, when the Federal Goverment won't update CAFE standards, encourage bio-diesel or even force Coal-Fired plants to have better filters is missing the point slightly.

Unfortunately, on a micro level this means that Carrboro cannot do as much as it would like to do, but it is fair to say that it is doing a lot compared to the rest of the US.

While I don't disagree with your premise, I think we have to strike a balance and start by rezoning some of the areas like the PUD (what a great name) that I live in. Fixing the Urban Core is only part of the solution, the broader solution would be to drop some infill small commercial into these Cary style housing areas.

People will howl, but when they can get up on a Sunday morning and walk to the local coffee shop, read a paper and not have to get in a car, find a parking space or fight traffic, I think they might like it.

Having lived in two PUDS - one in Maryland and now in Chapel Hill - I will never do it again. Life is too short spend this much time in a car, which is why we chose Chapel Hill over Cary in the first place.

It would be better to start the process of real reform and move away from 50's style zoning entirely, back to something more sensible and balanced that discourages car trips and encourages walking and that cannot be done as long as development is only confined to downtowns and strip malls.

Your point is correct. Failure is inevitable with this current arrangement, but limiting parking is not going to fix it. If only it were that easy.

Let's start by breaking the zoning habit and then we won't need the parking.

--Freedom is not just another word


theidiocrat on Sat, 01/26/2008 - 8:24pm.
While it is correct to declare we go dense, we have a problem here. First, not every car is a "personal smogmobile" (Priuses are a cool first step).

Actually, the vast majority of Priuses are exactly personal smogmobiles. First, look at the ones you see on the road: virtually all have only one occupant. Second, note what's coming out of their tailpipes. While Prius owners would like to believe they drive zero-emission vehicles, the fact is, they do not. They don't even get such great MPGs: just google "prius mileage OR mpg". "First step," yes, but it's still just a better personal smogmobile.

Second, we have to undo the nightmare brought on us by the "Greatest Generation" of the subdivision.

My post is about how to start doing that, right here @ home. Why not let the Roberson Square folks build out (instead of building parking), since presumably they accrue some economic gain by doing that (since they wanna do that), then tax/fee that gain, and use the money for bike/ped/transit improvements? Or require them to make such improvements in lieu of the parking spaces?

Demonizing people for using cars, when the Federal Goverment won't update CAFE standards, encourage bio-diesel or even force Coal-Fired plants to have better filters is missing the point slightly.

Making the perfect the enemy of the good is missing the point entirely. 150 years ago, folks here were encouraged to own slaves. The fact that their government did not force them not to did not make slavery right, or even acceptable, or delegitimate the attribution of moral evil to which they are now subject. People then were telling them it was wrong, and there were enough apologias for slavery to suggest that they knew it was wrong, yet they did it anyway.

Destruction of our environment is the moral challenge of our time, just as slavery was the moral challenge of the early 19th century. Moral challenges of such magnitude demand individual as well as collective responses.

Failure is inevitable with this current arrangement, but limiting parking is not going to fix it.

I see your claim, but see no evidence advanced to support it.

with a load of drycleaning and two laptops in my car, my wife has called me

from her work to ask about eating downtown (CH or C). ok. where?

she's driving in from RTP with one box of files from work. it's now 4:48 PM.

i have a conference call with SoCal at 7, which requires a land-line.

thank goodness the kids are grown and on their own.

bottom line: two individuals need two parking spaces or we eat

supper at Southpoint and don't support Orange County businesses.

in my opinion...it's not really about parking, it's about timing.

 

I don't buy that needing to park = eating at Southpoint. In addition to many fine non-downtown establishments (visited TImberlyne or Elliot Road or HIllsborough recently?) there are actually lots of spaces available in downtown Chapel Hill and Carrboro, many of them for free!

BrianR and I eat out more than I would like to admit, and we usually find parking in the first or second place we look. Granted I have had decades of living here to find some of the good spots, and I'm sure the signage can be vastly improved in downtown Chapel Hill.

Go to the mall if you want, but don't blame Chapel Hill.

It seems to me that anonymous up there sounds like one of those made up couples trying to sell us on the horrors of Single-Payer healthcare.

It is easier to find a parking space downtown than at Southpoint. Since the places are so good in Chapel Hill compared to the lousy chains in Southpoint, I can't imagine any reason to go to Southpoint other than Fossil.

If you need a restaurant with parking: try Sage - Vegetarian, Oishi - awesome Sushi and japanese, or if you are really looking for something boring and mall like, there is always the sub shop.

Chapel Hill and Carrboro downtowns have too many places to mention. I used to work in the RTP area and there are some great places to eat near there, but none are in the mall.

Forgive me, but even downtown Durham was easier to navigate than Southpoint on a busy night.

If they are real, I feel sorry for them and their lack of creativity and how they are victims of exactly the type of compartmentalized society that is destroying our communities and environment.

Ruby, I don't buy it either. It sounds like a commercial for Southpoint about fictional busy people who lack boundaries of work and family.

--Freedom is not just another word

 

I agree with the sentiment of the author but I think it is a much bigger problem.  I would love to not have to drive to WSM but my wife and I couldn't afford the available housing within walking distance of downtown Carrboro when we bought our home.  I would love to ride a bike downtown but I don't feel safe riding my bike on many of the roads in town (most of which don't have sidewalks).  The bus system works for my daily commute but isn't an option for evening runs to the store or on the weekend.  Like the above commenter, I feel we need to work on the other issues before simply removing the parking.  If we don’t then we are going to have more idling (people looking for parking spaces) and fewer customers for the small, local businesses.

On the other hand, if the issue is the usage of cars on the road, I think there needs to be a greater development of alternative transportation and incentives for commuters to not use their cars.  I think we could make a bigger dent in this issue in less time with less money.

 

Anonymous Sun, 01/27/2008 - 8:55am.
I feel we need to work on the other issues before simply removing the parking.

I hear this all the time, and, frankly, I have a hard time believing such statements are not merely excuses for inaction made by folks who are mostly comfortable with the status quo. It reminds me of establishment white discourse regarding civil rights during the 50s: "go slow! don't antagonize the majority! be satisfied with the bones we're tossing!"

If we don't then we are going to have more idling (people looking for parking spaces) and fewer customers for the small, local businesses.

Only if they choose to drive. Instead of catering to drivers from outside the community, why not build more downtown residential and mixed-use developments (like RS) that put people in bike/ped range, and use taxes and fees to build bike, ped, and transit amenities, instead of requiring the developer to build additional parking?

On the other hand, if the issue is the usage of cars on the road, I think there needs to be a greater development of alternative transportation and incentives for commuters to not use their cars.

You're ignoring the fact that free parking inhibits the development of alternative transportation precisely because free parking provides an incentive for smogmobiling.

Why not give developers the option of either putting in parking spaces, or paying to connect their new developents to existing bike lanes, sidewalks, bus routes, etc? I know it's an awfully vague suggestion, but I wonder if they would take the second option given the chance and cost of property downtown?

I live about a mile from downtown, but find myself driving more than I'd like because of the previously posted reasons - lack of bike lanes, sidewalks, etc. downtown, buses not running frequently/late enough, etc. I'd like to think "build it andd they will come" would apply to public transit as well, especially in Carrboro.

John May Sun, 01/27/2008 - 2:16pm.
Why not give developers the option of either putting in parking spaces, or paying to connect their new developents to existing bike lanes, sidewalks, bus routes, etc? I know it's an awfully vague suggestion, but I wonder if [the Roberson Square developers] would take the second option given the chance and cost of property downtown?

Actually, that sounds to me a lot like what they're asking for. (Anti-disclaimer: I don't know the RS folks in any way.) From Ross' article

Architect David Ripperton, the project's designer, has asked the town to consider a number of factors that could reduce the amount of parking required.

Ripperton said that one reason there is less parking is that the developers decided not to jam everything together and provide an open-air courtyard that would serve the space similar to the way the Weaver Street Market lawn serves Carr Mill Mall.

He asked that the board take that concept into consideration when looking at the parking issue. He also said that the rules for the restaurants could be crafted so that they could be more along the deli and sandwich shop variety, with fewer tables and less sit-down service.

Ripperton also said that in looking at traffic impacts, the board should consider that people living at Roberson Square are more likely to run errands on foot since drugstores, grocery stores and other destinations are nearby. It is also more likely that people living in the complex will use public transportation and bicycles, he said.

Seems reasonable to me though I wouldn't just "trust them." Why not let them build out, instead of building parking), since presumably they accrue some economic gain by doing that (since they wanna do that), then tax/fee that gain, and use the money for bike/ped/transit improvements? Or require them to provide BPT amenities in lieu of the parking spaces? Is this too reasonable? Am I missing something?

I'd like to think "build it and they will come" would apply to public transit as well, especially in Carrboro.

Why not try?

This is an example where some peer pressure from our friends and neighbors is a good thing. Polite reminders to improve our health by walkibg or biking. Many of us drive more than we want. Getting over the first few minutes of indecision can often make the difference. ("Is it too far to walk? should I bike? oh... I'll just drive...")

I'm pretty sick of reading editorials that scoff at the supposed hypocrisies of wanting a car free life then getting into our cars and driving. I think it is the cognitive dissonance of our modern lives. Its a real state of transition from addiction towards health. So lets not give up trying to improve our habits because naysayers have.

My car dropped its transmission one day. I had an appointment in Chapel Hill the following day. I was stressing out trying to figure out what to do, but with free bus service, I was able to get cross town pretty easily.

I even had a moment to find a neat card downtown for my wife. It was a pleasant experience and I just kept walking until I knew the bus was coming and jumped on.

Did it break my car addiction? No. However, it sure did open my eyes. It took me 3 years to fully quit smoking, so I think giving up a car could be harder.

I guess it is just one day at a time.

--Freedom is not just another word

From an academic perspective, there is a lot of evidence that what drives us to our cars isn't so much that we are uninformed, stupid, or too stubborn to give up the freedom of mobility and other perceived benefits of an automobile. In fact, from a day-to-day perspective, trying to decide how to life your life, choosing a car is a rational reaction to the incentives we are being provided with and the environment in which we were raised. If you grew up riding in a car; if the cost of driving is unreasonably subsidized by tax dollars and no effort is being made to control for externalities; if the network of roads are built for cars and not for people, then maybe driving is the "rational" decision.

I would love to drive less, or even not at all, but the system that is in place makes it hard to do. But there is no way that system is ever going to change if I don't break the cycle at some point. The huge number of people who walk, bike, or take transit by choice, even at a loss of their time, comfort, and safety, should serve as a reminder to our elected officials that with the right infrastructure in place, people will make the healthy, environmentally responsible decision for their personal mobility.

I would love to ride a bike downtown but I don't feel safe riding my bike on many of the roads in town (most of which don't have sidewalks).

I HOPE you're not saying you'd bike on the sidewalk. Sidewalks are for pedestrians, and are dangerous for biking.

Car parking should be available, and expensive--it is costly, but widely subsidized, hiding the expense from the user. When parking is more than 75% full, its time to raise the rate.

AHands on Mon, 01/28/2008 - 11:25am.
Sidewalks are for pedestrians, and are dangerous for biking.

Testify! Biking on the sidewalk is also inefficient, and dangerous to pedestrians (who are far less predictable than cars).
Car parking should be available, and expensive--it is costly, but widely subsidized, hiding the expense from the user. When parking is more than 75% full, its time to raise the rate.
The only difference is, I'd say, "Car parking should be expensive where available."
Should new parking spaces for existing businesses be prioritized over spaces for new construction? I'm not crazy about the idea of increasing the number of cars in Carrboro but maybe its time a public parking deck is constructed in Town. So much of our parking is private or public lots on private property. (Spaces can disappear quickly, like the spaces next to Glass Half Full where once public.) That way we can centralize parking and reduce congestion. (based on a set of public priorities. not landlord bottom line.)

I've heard parking decks mentioned at a Alderman meeting in the context of the Arts Center construction project. JUST thinking out loud here. I'm still for biking and walking. Cars and non-auto transportation aren't mutually exclusive at this time. IMHO I feel for local businesses that have lots of out of Town guests/customers.
I think a parking deck would be a great idea. Carrboro should follow Hillsborough's lead on such, downtown Raleigh's too. Parking decks seem so rediculously logical to me, I don't understand why there's open parking lots anywhere at all.
BrianR on Mon, 01/28/2008 - 12:48pm.
Cars and non-auto transportation aren't mutually exclusive at this time.

No, but
  • they absolutely do compete for scarce resources
  • large-scale smogmobiling and sustainable development are mutually exclusive at this time.
I am guilty of too much dependence on my car. But, as a Carr Mill small business owner (CHICLE), it is all too true that the lack of parking has affected our business. People come from around the Triangle to take our evening classes - after work - and don't finish until 8:30 or 9:00 pm. They have to drive. We have children's classes all day and harried parents with infants, toddlers, and school age children have to park conveniently while they wait for their in-class students.

We have Sunday events that attract people from all over the Triangle. 70+ last night to hear an excellent but depressing presentation (in Spanish) on abortion policy and the status of women in Mexico.

We love being in Carrboro and think that we are the kind of business that reflects the Carrboro community. But we are very concerned about future parking problems given that we are having problems now, before the closing of two major close by lots.

jstein on Mon, 01/28/2008 - 1:31pm.
We love being in Carrboro and think that we are the kind of business that reflects the Carrboro community. But we are very concerned about future parking problems given that we are having problems now, before the closing of two major close by lots.

Gonna give it to you straight up, Jane: you have two problems.

First, and fundamentally, you're not dependent on parking, you're dependent on smogmobiles, and therefore on the cheap energy and freedom to pollute on which American smogmobiling depends. If fuel gets expensive enough, or if we start seriously limiting carbon emissions, folks aren't gonna "come from around the Triangle" no matter how much parking the Town, Carr Mill, or God Herself might provide you. Sooo ... what's your plan for that? Are you planning on cheap energy and rising CO2 forever?

Secondly, just because you wanna be in Carrboro doesn't necessarily mean you belong here :-) Which goes for me, too! so hear me out:

Carrboro faces the same continuum of development options as the rest of the Triangle: a dimension with sprawl at one end (think Atlanta--which is closer than we realize, and not just spatially) and density at the other (think Manhattan). We can be just like the rest of the Triangle (except "funky," whatever that means), i.e. sprawled out ... or we can be denser, more energy-efficient, bike/ped/transit-friendly. Personally I want us to be denser, not just because I prefer that (and I'll admit, I do) but because that option is, IMHO, not only more moral (because it's more resource-efficient), but less economically risky (because energy is almost certainly gonna get more expensive over the long term, and will very likely get lots more expensive over the short term).

But density, like any other development option, precludes other options. E.g. we could not have dense settlement and have a large working farm in the center of Carrboro (without underground settlement, or redefining "density" to mean "not dense" :-) ... and neither could we have significant numbers/sizes of smogmobile-dependent businesses, because parking precludes density. (And, no, parking decks don't escape this opposition, because such structures could be devoted to housing people instead of smogmobiles.)

Fortunately that doesn't put CHICLE out of business, no matter how smogmobile-dependent you are, because there are plenty of other places in the Triangle (all-too-many, I'd say) that cater to, even welcome, smogmobile addiction. So, if you're gonna place your bets on the continuation of the status quo, i.e. cheap oil and free tailpipes, why not place your business somewhere more smogmobile-friendly? Let Carrboro be dense, and go to RTP, or Morrisville, or elsewhere sprawling and centrally located? Instead of trying to make Carrboro be more like that? Because even if Carrboro was "as sprawl as it wanna be," it ain't never gonna be centrally located any time soon, at least not relative to the Triangle. So if you really need to be easy for smogmobiles to get to, why not ... move someplace where you'll be easy for smogmobiles to get to?

Better yet, can you change your business model to be more sustainable? I.e. so that you don't depend on customers who "have to drive"? I'll admit, I dunno how you'd do it; but I strongly suspect that, in the not-too-long term, you won't have a choice. (Nor, given the effects of smogmobiling on the planet, should you.)

I love living in downtown Carrboro because I can walk to whatever I need ! You may have seen me pulling my red wagon to WSM or HT (why they don't give bag discounts I'll never know). People here are committed to walking or biking , compared to the last place I lived, Southern Village, where even one of the partners commutes in a Hummer in the village ! That being said, I think the town could do some things that would help us leave our cars at home, sidewalks, why is there no sidewalk coming up S. Greensboro St. ? Speed limits, does anyone do 20 mph coming up S. Greensboro ? Enforce the speed limit ! Traffic calming devices, how 'bout a couple on Weaver and Main St. before some child is mowed over chasing a ball off the WSM lawn. It's not really rocket science, just get out there and walk around the town and see what needs to be done !

As for the downtown parking situation, why doesn't the town do some sort of land swap with the South Orange Rescue Squad. Once all the approved buildings come in around them,  they're not going to be able to get out of there in any timely manner. Swap 'em some town land down by Morgan Creek and build a much needed parking structure on Roberson St.

Thanks for letting me vent !

Buddy Kelly       

Tom Roche, I wonder if you have ever discussed your idea with any downtown businesses.  I think if you did, you would hear what Jane Stein is saying (and many other things too).  You can't ignore the economic reality that downtown businesses depend on having parking available as one of several sources of customers.

Also, I think it is important to bear in mind that in downtown Carrboro's B1G zoning district, the practical limit to how much commercial space and how many residences a land owner can build is essentially only the parking issue.  If you have land enough to build a building and 85 parking spaces, then it's the parking spaces that effectively determine the limit of what you can build.  Let me state that one other way: in the B1G zone, there are no residential density requirements.  You can build as many condos as you can fit (in 5 stories or less).  What ends up being the upper bound of development is the parking.

Consequently, when a developer says "I want to build a big building but I dont want to provide parking" what they are really saying is "I wish owned a bigger lot than I do so that I could fit all this stuff on here.  Would you let me do it anyway?"

Mark Chilton on Mon, 01/28/2008 - 5:20pm.
You can't ignore the economic reality that downtown businesses depend on having parking available as one of several sources of customers.

Sure I can! because

  1. in this specific case (Roberson Square), the claim is made that this development does not require so much parking. Until Carrboro addresses that, the rest is non sequitur.
  2. that "economic reality" is already under attack by outside forces that make it unsustainable.
  3. there's no justification for massive subsidies for smogmobiling (which has uniquely large negative externalities) relative to other modes of transportation (many of which, especially the human-powered ones, have large positive externalities).

Firstly, Mark: could you specifically address RS' claims cited in Ross' article?

Architect David Ripperton, the project's designer, has asked the town to consider a number of factors that could reduce the amount of parking required.

Ripperton said that one reason there is less parking is that the developers decided not to jam everything together and provide an open-air courtyard that would serve the space similar to the way the Weaver Street Market lawn serves Carr Mill Mall.

He asked that the board take that concept into consideration when looking at the parking issue. He also said that the rules for the restaurants could be crafted so that they could be more along the deli and sandwich shop variety, with fewer tables and less sit-down service.

Ripperton also said that in looking at traffic impacts, the board should consider that people living at Roberson Square are more likely to run errands on foot since drugstores, grocery stores and other destinations are nearby. It is also more likely that people living in the complex will use public transportation and bicycles, he said.

You could reply that those claims are incoherent or incorrect, that they need to provide more data, etc, but instead the only reply I see in the article is the Town saying, "yeah, but you still need to build the parking." What's up with that?

Secondly, could we think long-term here? Consider the impact of increasing gas prices: as they keep going up, fewer folks are gonna be able to smogmobile into downtown from elsewhere anyway. Consider the possibility of an oil price shock similar to past ones (e.g. due to Gulf of Mexico hurricane(s) destroying refineries, or Persian Gulf instability, or Bush going out by bombing Iran). A business-as-usual model based on bringing in customers via smogmobile is gonna get hit by that step function a lot harder than a business model based on bike/ped/transit--plus we end up with a lot of ugly, impermeable, unused space. Finally, morally, weigh increasing environmental damage vs decreasing car traffic to downtown businesses: the planet must come first.

Mark Chilton on Mon, 01/28/2008 - 5:20pm.
What ends up being the upper bound of development [in downtown Carrboro's B1G zoning district] is the parking. Consequently, when a developer says "I want to build a big building but I dont want to provide parking" what they are really saying is "I wish owned a bigger lot than I do so that I could fit all this stuff on here. Would you let me do it anyway?"

And my point is, if Carrboro is really about creating a bike/ped/transit-friendly downtown, why are we tying development to smogmobile parking in the first place? And therefore subsidizing that mode of transportation rather than the bike/ped/transit mode that we claim to favor?

While we're on the subject, why aren't we charging for parking? As Donald Shoup of UCLA pointed out in an EMagazine article (where they got his name wrong--jeez)

Free curb parking may be the most costly subsidy American cities provide to their citizens.... parking "ought to be priced properly," and that means charging the lowest price that will result in a 15 percent vacancy rate, about equivalent to the market rate for a private lot space. If drivers aren't circling the block looking for free parking, there will be less congestion and cleaner air, and the increased revenues can go into city beautification.

Substitute "sustainable transportation" for "city beautification" (again, it's about priorities) and I'm there.

Shoup cites Pasadena as a model for good parking policy. Each parking meter in Old Pasadena generates $1,800 per year, with the money going to neighborhood improvement. San Diego returned 45 percent of its $2.2 million 2002 meter revenues to neighborhoods, and the money was used to clean and light streets, repair sidewalks, remove graffiti, plant trees and provide security.

So, Mark: how 'bout we not tie development to unsustainable smogmobiling, but instead focus on getting people into, out of, and around downtown sustainably. If businesses like CHICLE have a model that can't be sustained, they must go to the wall anyway. Don't subsidize environmental destruction trying to prop up a business model that must fall.

Hypothetical Questions
Should customers who live in Raleigh ride their bike, walk, or take the bus to buy lumber at Fitches in Carrboro? Should busy workers not use their car to come to events at CHICLE? How many businesses in any town could survive on patronage from people who live within walking distance?

My basic point is there are lots of people who live many miles away who want to come to Carrboro to shop. Since I CHOSE to live near Carrboro. I'll walk. We can't put a fence around our Towns and prevent cars from coming in. No matter how much we'd like too. [Lobby the NC DOT about that one. There are so many artery roads owned by the State.]

At the same time we can promote sustainable living and business by promoting walking, biking, and public transit. Within our own jurisdictions. (Both Towns ARE doing this!) It would be nice to have regional agreement/partnerships. Is there a Triangle sustainable counties/cities/towns org?

This is not an either or situation. I find it silly for people to be so binary here. Yes we all have different ideas about how to build a better planet. Our Towns must transition to our ultimate ideals. That will not happen overnight. I believe our local elected officials are actively working on this. (sometimes they do need prodding) We do not live in a vacuum. There are factors outside our Towns that effect us mightily. (note: I feel odd being put in the position of "defending" old business models. I want to see them change too. But at what cost? I think we can transition aggressively to eco-friendly biz models without believing our neighbors livelyhoods must "fall".)

BrianR on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 3:08pm.
Hypothetical Questions
Should customers who live in Raleigh ride their bike, walk, or take the bus to buy lumber at Fitches in Carrboro? Should busy workers not use their car to come to events at CHICLE? How many businesses in any town could survive on patronage from people who live within walking distance?
Back atcha, Brian: suppose gas goes to $10/gallon. (Or 5, or whatever--choose your number.)How many folks will be driving from Raleigh to buy lumber at Fitch's? (Not that there are very many now, but you chose that counterfactual.) How many folks will be driving to events at CHICLE? How many businesses that depend on cheap gas and smogmobiling will survive?

The fact is, we can provide free parking, but we can't provide cheap energy, and the first is no good without the second. However you may feel about what comes out of the tailpipes of smogmobiles and the effect of that pollution on our climate, you can't ignore the economic fundamentals that are driving up the cost of energy, esp liquid fuels. So what happens if we continue to provide enough free parking to give these businesses the warm fuzzies, and then we get an oil shock or just a sustained price rise? We get caught with our pants down: lower density, more useless paved space, fewer amenities for the truly sustainable transportation options that we'll need but won't have. What happens if we build more density and bike/ped/transit amenities instead of more parking, and energy prices rise? We will have invested wisely: it won't be painless, but it'll be a lot less painful than the alternative. And what if we do that and energy prices don't rise, not that that's likely? We'll have a sustainable urban alternative, which we'll still need, because even if energy prices allow us to continue our wasteful ways, the climate, i.e. our only planet, just goes to hell that much faster. "Duty now for the future" :-)
We can't put a fence around our Towns and prevent cars from coming in.
No, but we don't hafta provide free parking for them! (Or, worse yet, "us": what's truly appalling is how many ... Carrborites? Cabrans? Carrboritos? ... drive a few blocks to get groceries or whatever. With their nice PC bumper stickers.) Which, BTW, is what this thread is actually about, no matter how many straw men you and Chilton choose to hide behind.
This is not an either or situation. I find it silly for people to be so binary here.
Sillier to attempt to overlook three simple, empirical, and binary facts:
  • Space devoted to housing smogmobiles is space not devoted to other uses. Parking decreases density. Period.
  • Free parking is a smogmobile subsidy. The more free parking one provides, the more Americans will drive, ceteris paribus.
  • Money spent providing free parking is money not spent on sustainable transportation options like bike, ped, and transit.
Our Towns must transition to our ultimate ideals. That will not happen overnight. I believe our local elected officials are actively working on this. (sometimes they do need prodding)

Which is precisely what I'm doing. Remember, this is about a specific case, Roberson Square, in which the Town of Carrboro is demanding more free parking, i.e. a smogmobile subsidy. The Town could be demanding amenities for other modes of transportation, but it's not. The Town could be attracting increased density, but it's not.

Furthermore, this is not about revolutionary "overnight change," as you seem to suggest, this is about 7 free, on-street parking spaces (q.v. Daniel Amoni). That's not incremental enough for you?

I feel odd being put in the position of "defending" old business models.

Guilty conscience, maybe ?-)

i ride my elecric wheelchair around carrboro and can even get on the bus with it ive figured the bus system out but ez rider is hard to use. it is walkable but ive found it kinda hard sometimes to cross the streets at the asigned places

Mark Chilton wrote: You can't ignore the economic reality that downtown businesses depend on having parking available as one of several sources of customers.
Tom Roche wrote: Sure I can!

Okay, so you can.  But I can’t and won’t ignore the existing downtown businesses. 

Tom Roche: Consider the impact of increasing gas prices: as they keep going up, fewer folks are gonna be able to smogmobile into downtown from elsewhere anyway.

True.  I think Carrboro is very much oriented toward limited parking in the downtown.  No one on the Board of Aldermen is advocating for copious free parking. 

Tom Roche: Finally, morally, weigh increasing environmental damage vs. decreasing car traffic to downtown businesses: The planet must come first.

Well, the generally recognized principles of sustainability actually call for solutions that value people, the planet and profits together.  I think that those sorts of solutions do exist.  But such solutions are going to involve some amount of parking in downtown Carrboro as we transition from an automobile oriented society to a bike/ped/transit one. 

I'll have to decline your invitation to debate the particulars of the Roberson Square development.  We are in the process of reviewing that development application and I need to reserve my discussion of the permit application for the meetings of the Board of Aldermen.

Mark Chilton on Mon, 01/28/2008 - 5:20pm.
You can't ignore the economic reality that downtown businesses depend on having parking available as one of several sources of customers.
TomRoche on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 1:03pm.
Sure I can! because

1. in this specific case (Roberson Square), the claim is made that this development does not require so much parking. Until Carrboro addresses that, the rest is non sequitur.

2. that "economic reality" is already under attack by outside forces that make it unsustainable.

3. there's no justification for massive subsidies for smogmobiling (which has uniquely large negative externalities) relative to other modes of transportation (many of which, especially the human-powered ones, have large positive externalities).
Mark Chilton on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 6:34pm.
Okay, so you can. But I can't and won't ignore the existing downtown businesses.
Nice sidestep, Chilton! Ignore the substance and take a cheap shot, in one move !-) Just to be clear: this has never been about "ignoring the existing downtown businesses," just those who oppose increasing density. Because that's what this is about, Mark: parking decreases density, and density favors bike, ped, and transit over smogmobiles. The more parking you build, the more folks will drive.
TomRoche on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 1:03pm.
Consider the impact of increasing gas prices: as they keep going up, fewer folks are gonna be able to smogmobile into downtown from elsewhere anyway.
Mark Chilton on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 6:34pm
I think Carrboro is very much oriented toward limited parking in the downtown. No one on the Board of Aldermen is advocating for copious free parking.
Ducking behind another straw man, Mark? The fact is, in the Roberson Square case, you are insisting on more parking, which is a smogmobile subsidy, and are not insisting on amenities for other modes of transportation, no? And by increasing parking, you must inherently decrease density, since space devoted to housing smogmobiles is space not devoted to other uses.
TomRoche on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 1:03pm.
Finally, morally, weigh increasing environmental damage vs. decreasing car traffic to downtown businesses: The planet must come first.
Mark Chilton on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 6:34pm
Well, the generally recognized principles of sustainability actually call for solutions that value people, the planet and profits together.
No, they don't, Mark. The fact is that people (not to mention all the other species) depend on the planet, and profits depend on people. If we pollute the planet unsustainably, everything else falls. And business models that rely on cheap gas will fall too, inexorably, no matter how nice the business owners are.

Tom, as I say, I can't really discuss the specifics of the Roberson Square development.  By the way, I don't think you can really say what I am "insisting on" until after I vote on the project.  In any case, that is a quasi-judicial matter that I will be discussing at the next hearing in late February.

In the meantime, I am not sure why you are treating me (and Brian) with such hostility.  Why do you refer to me as "Chilton"?  My name is Mark and you are welcome to call me by that name. 

I understand that you are trying to advocate for your views (and I appreciate that), but I would ask you to be a bit more respectful of the viewpoints of others on this site.  Is it possible that there is something valid in my viewpoint?  I think there are lots of things that are valid in yours.

You seem to think that I am some sort of environmental demon.  Certainly you are treating me that way here.  If that is your thought, then I can tell you that you don't know me or my work.

You are dead on. Those of us who have a little more of an understanding of economics and people realize that parking spaces can't be rented, but extra space in a building can.

It is ironic that someone who is anti-car, is pro-developer. If we give developers a pass on parking, it is only going to increase pollution.

The hostility is because Tom doesn't have a leg to stand on. I wish him well, but he is doing exactly what the anti-public transportation people want by alienating folks.

In spite of what Tom and Jesse Helms think, the average folks in this area support sensible development and realize that the DC Metro wasn't built in a day...

Tom - Verbum sapiente satis est is key to this one

also

you may want to remember

En boca cerrada no entran moscas.

I mean, let's be real here. You are alienating everyone who might support you, which is sad.

There are some interesting points here, but by talking down to everyone people are pretty much going to either ignore you or think poorly of you.

I basically supported your argument, but I think the Messenger can kill the message.

I wish you well, but you can't throw around a Latin phrase and assume absolutes. The only absolute is people hate to be attacked or talked down to and you seem to be very good at both.

You remind me a petulant child who is only happy when provoking a response for the sake of getting someone's goat.

Well you have succeeded.

--Freedom is not just another word

Steve Wells on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 11:04pm.
Those of us who have a little more of an understanding of economics and people realize that parking spaces can't be rented, but extra space in a building can.

Umm ... you are full of something besides economic understanding, Steve. Space that is not built can't be rented.
It is ironic that someone who is anti-car, is pro-developer.
Development can be sustainable, and it's foolish to pretend otherwise. To paraphrase Chilton (oops, "Mark"), all developers are not "environmental demons" ipso facto (sorry if that's too much Latin, Steve--get a grip and google it), so when a developer takes an apparently correct stand, I give her/him props. And when you make a valid argument, I'll give you props. Unfortunately, I'm still waiting :-(
If we give developers a pass on parking, it is only going to increase pollution.
Bullshit. Parking causes pollution, both directly (through runoff as well as other means) and indirectly (when free, by encouraging smogmobiling).
The hostility is because Tom doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Speaking of "legs to stand on," care to actually cite evidence for your views? The editor makes it easy to link to sources, should you ever acquire any.
I wish him well, but he is doing exactly what the anti-public transportation people want by alienating folks.
Only folks who can be alienated by legitimate criticism. I.e. children and the morally immature.
I basically supported your argument, but I think the Messenger can kill the message.
Even children, petulant and otherwise, usually manage to discriminate between persons and statements. Thanks, but I'll live without the support of the idiocracy.
You remind me a petulant child who is only happy when provoking a response for the sake of getting someone's goat.
What you don't know about me appears to be only exceeded by what you don't know about economics, public policy, and science generally. Unfortunately your inability to discriminate between positional and personal attack is all-too-pervasive in the discourse.

Tom:

 

You have no answers, so you reduce the discourse to cursing?

You spend an entire message personally attacking me, but you never once answer my argument.

You have never cited real sources - fake laws don't count and ceteris paribus is Latin phrase of limited meaning.

You haven't proven your argument, so you have cursed me out. Wow.

There is no real answer to your questions, because they are simply rants of someone with too much time on their hands.

The only point of fact in your reply is wrong. You initially started by complaining about parking for a development.

The Development does not allow enough parking.

You say not to do that, because it is based on a flawed theory.

So this space is going to be built and you want it to be built without parking.

Finally, by your definition - parks, farms and concert halls should not exist because they are not "dense" developments.

You have succeeded in insulting me at least 3 times and cursed at me. Personally, I don't know this, but I think you might need to do a little more Yoga and go for a long ride to meditate on how you treat other people.

Only the immature or a child would result in a personal attack when their argument is lost.

You have reduced a valid discussion to a flame war.

Que lastima. -yes I know it is Spanish

:)

 

--Freedom is not just another word

Mark Chilton on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 9:46pm.
I am not sure why you are treating me (and Brian) with such hostility. Why do you refer to me as "Chilton"? My name is Mark and you are welcome to call me by that name.

First, why do you regard use of your last name as hostile? Nothing inherent about that. (Where I grew up, last-name use was universal outside of one's immediate family and closest friends. Which was good, because half my first-grade class would have answered to "Tony" :-) In any case note that I use both your names above.

Secondly, I'm treating your statements with hostility, where they deserve it, and not you. If I'm misevaluating your expressions, feel free to defend them! But if your expressions lack merit, there's no point in pretending otherwise.
I understand that you are trying to advocate for your views (and I appreciate that), but I would ask you to be a bit more respectful of the viewpoints of others on this site.
I'm plenty respectful of viewpoints that deserve it! But a poorly-reasoned argument, or one not empirically grounded, does not deserve respect. To pretend otherwise is to pollute the discourse.
Is it possible that there is something valid in my viewpoint?
Lots of things are possible that just aren't :-) When you present a valid (i.e. well-reasoned, empirically-grounded) argument, I'll give you props up the wazoo! (Though I must say that things have sunk pretty low gotten pretty when ya gotta give folks the shmear just for not behaving like George W Bush.) But you seem to want me to pretend to see something valid in your argument, rather than do the hard work of actually presenting a valid argument.
You seem to think that I am some sort of environmental demon.
No, I don't. You just don't seem to understand that to criticize someone's views is not to hate on them! Learn to separate criticism of your views from criticism of your character. OTOH, expressions like
Mark Chilton on Tue, 01/29/2008 - 6:34pm.
Mark Chilton wrote: You can't ignore the economic reality that downtown businesses depend on having parking available as one of several sources of customers.
Tom Roche wrote: Sure I can!
Okay, so you can. But I can't and won't ignore the existing downtown businesses.

do seem to me (ICBW) to reflect one or more character flaws. As previously noted, you not only avoided addressing my position, but truncated it, apparently to set up a rhetorical "cheap shot." What's up with that?

Thirdly, as a public, political official, you really should be able to deal with legitimate criticism of your views. Politically, I'm a friend, and the criticism I'm giving you is nothing compared to what the right-wingers can dish out. I have not distorted your views (as expressed--I am not responsible for knowing your private positions, nor you mine), your character, or your history. Save the angst for those who do.

Finally: is it too hard to use the "reply" button when you reply to a comment ?-)

I have been trying to think of a local elected official that is more personally and politically comitted to the environment and the future sustainability of this community than Mark Chilton. A few may tie him, but in my opinion none exceed his level of environmental advocacy.

I think you've stated your case quite thoroughly, Tom. Some people don't agree with you 100%, although we agree with a lot of what you have had to say. Your continued arguing with Mark is not adding anything productive or useful to the discussion. I recommend that folks not reply your comments unless there is some new information or insight to be contributed.

Mark has every right to bristle at the tone and substance of these rebuttals.

It's gotten to where I actually feel guilty living in Old Carrboro (downtown), where the issues of Walkability and Affordability seem utterly incompatible. The fact is, most Carrboro residents live too far to walk or bike to stores and restaurants and clubs from home. This lament is understandable. But they patronize Carrboro businesses anyway, whether out of loyalty or convenience, and parking is not a large hassle.

The Town of Carrboro must court new businesses whose employees and clients/customers must be able to work here and shop here and eat here... and park here.

Catherine DeVine

 

I've posted another take on this issue in my first blog post on the new OP.
 

Community Guidelines

By using this site, you agree to our community guidelines. Inappropriate or disruptive behavior will result in moderation or eviction.

 

Content license

By contributing to OrangePolitics, you agree to license your contributions under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.

Creative Commons License

 
Zircon - This is a contributing Drupal Theme
Design by WeebPal.