If you have thoughts - and I bet you do - about what the North Carolina Department of Transportation could do better to help bicyclists and pedestrians, here's a chance to give them your opinions.
Take a Bike-Ped survey for NCDOT. It's quick, and who knows, they may actually use it. Even if they don't, it might feel better to get stuff off your chest. Survey link sent courtesy of Dick Winters, the Safe Routes to Schools coordinator for Mecklenburg County Public Health.
Instead of posting this comment on the previous sidewalk piece, "Sidewalks: Fines? Red China? Remove fences?" I want to highlight it here, in hopes of killing some out-of-date misinformation that has a remarkable shelf life in local memory.
The fact that people continue to be confused about whether the city will repair a sidewalk or makes property owners pay for repairs is an indicator, I think, of how lame the city's overall sidewalk policies and advocacy have been. This shouldn't be read as an indictment of Charlotte Department of Transportation's pedestrian program manager, Vivian Coleman. [Note, 1:40 p.m. Jan. 5: Coleman has been promoted and is now Transportation Planner.] She has to swim upstream in a city of nonpedestrians and a city government that is only oh-so-slowly concluding pedestrians do, after all, deserve consideration. Indeed, CDOT may now be more enlightened on that matter than many other local agencies. (Can you say, "Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools"?)
Here's the comment, sent from "Bruce Keith" sent about 10 p.m. Monday (Jan. 3):
If a sidewalk fails or breaks and the homeowner doesn't pay to repair it, the city will pave it with Asphalt, even in Historic Districts. This fence most likely is in the right of way but the city should maintain ALL of its infrastructure and ENFORCE all of its ordinances. This fence should be moved or removed and the city should maintain the walk, as it is Public Property in a Public ROW [right-of-way].
Commenter Keith is about 10 years out of date on that repair issue. CDOT used to charge property owners part of repair costs and, if owners wouldn't pay, the patch was cheap asphalt. But it changed its sidewalk repair policy in 2001. "Just as CDOT repairs potholes for cars, broken sidewalks are repaired to maintain quality facilities for pedestrians," CDOT spokeswoman Linda Durrett wrote me in an e-mail.
Plenty of Charlotteans don't realize the repair policy changed, and many repeat that bit of lore, maybe because some of those old asphalt patches are still around? In any event, if you want to read more about sidewalk repair policies, here's a link.
You'll note I didn't address the issue of rights-of-way and whether the city can legally require people to clear off sidewalks in the city (or state) right-of-way. I'm still checking on the legal issues. The city also expects property owners to mow the grass in planting strips, an expectation that doesn't seem to bring out nearly the hostility as asking people to keep leaves, snow, ice, etc. off their sidewalks. Go figure.
And the comment about rollout trash bins? Yet another reason that those horrible back-of-curb sidewalks are and were an abomination. Thank goodness the city no longer allows them to be built that way. But if you're in an area that's stuck with them, you have little choice but to clog the sidewalks with them, and, if you're thoughtful, haul them back in as soon as you can.
A commenter to my previous post, who read the Sunday editorial "Urban streets will need urban sidewalks" correctly nailed it with his/her suspicion, based on the Runnymede Lane photo that ran with it, at left, that I was its author. (I'm among the four people at the Observer who write the unsigned editorials on behalf of the editorial board.) And he/she raises one of the trickiest issues that city transportation officials are going to have to confront: If you want to encourage people to walk, how can you ensure that sidewalks are kept clear? Read the comment in full, at the end of this.
Currently, property owners are expected to keep sidewalks clear. But the city's ordinances are murky about what the city can/can't order property owners to and it's generally silent on what punishment is allowed.
The commenter raises the specter of Red China and its cultural education camps. But rather than having an "education czar" (oops, those czars were in Russia, not China), he/she suggests the city should remove the fence shown in the photo. Er, wouldn't that be taking private property?
The commenter asks if I've ever called CDOT (Charlotte Department of Transportation) for enforcement. As a matter of fact I have called them about that messy stretch of sidewalk off and on for 10 years. After I wrote a June article about sidewalks ("Walk this way. If you can") with photos and called CDOT officials for information, the Runnymede sidewalk was finally cleared. I'm not sure whether CDOT contacted property owners or the publicity alerted them. But in the six months since then, the sidewalk has clogged again with leaves.
If you don't want an education czar, do you want to spend city taxpayer money on a fleet of clean-sidewalk enforcers? Hire people to monitor telephone or email complaints, dispatch inspectors and – if warranted – cite or otherwise notify property owners? And if you really want walkable sidewalks, should you wait for complaints or be pro-active in keeping them clear?
Currently, CDOT says it responds when people complain, but in my experience, my complaints haven't seemed to get much attention unless I put something in the newspaper with photos. I can't imagine they are hopping to it when people without access to printing presses or editorial pages complain.
But the underlying question is: Should the city beef up its attempts to keep sidewalks clear? And if the answer is "yes," (which is how I'd answer) what's the best way? Cite and fine property owners? Use city staff to clean sidewalks?
Here's the comment about sidewalks from the previous post :
I read the editorial in today’s (Jan. 2) Observer about urban sidewalks, to which Mary obviously contributed. (The photo of that leaf-cluttered Runnymede Lane sidewalk, which Mary has long bemoaned, gave it away). Frankly Mary, I agree with much of that editorial. I’m a retiree, live in a densely populated part of South Charlotte, and make good use of sidewalks as both pedestrian and bicyclist. My current sidewalk travel has been primarily for exercise, but given the ever-escalating cost of gasoline, I recently bought a small cart in which to haul groceries and other purchases behind my bike. I appreciate that our city provides an alternative that will keep me trim, save me some money, and help reduce traffic congestion and air pollution. But a sentence in that editorial has me puzzled. In mentioning that sidewalks outside of center city are often impassable, you or another editorialist ask “How can property owners be taught to keep them clean?” What!? Have the Red Chinese finally overrun this city? Will local government be expanded to add an education czar with the authority to haul affluent Runnymede residents off to a remote training camp in the mountains where they’ll be taught a lesson on how to rake leaves? I don’t think the Powell Bill, which helps fund sidewalk maintenance in Charlotte via taxed motor fuel, allows for that. In the case of Runnymede Lane, a better solution may be for the city to remove that tall, solid-wood fence shown in the editorial photo. It appears to be suspiciously close to the sidewalk, probably encroaching on city right-of-way. Have you ever called CDOT for enforcement? Fence removal will eliminate the “out-of-sight out-of-mind” strategy of the usually neat but sidewalk-hating Runnymedians. They – or their lawn service - will be out there with a leaf blower in a flash. Unfortunately, you can’t force folks to be thoughtful and responsible – unless you are part of the Red Chinese bureaucracy. In Charlotte, you have to hit them where they feel it – in their pocketbooks. Just call 311. And if the city doesn’t take care of the problem, the Observer should ask why we are paying bloated salaries and retirement benefits to government officials and not getting anything in return.
While I was eating Thanksgiving turkey and then fighting (and losing) a cold/cough, the interesting links have stacked up in my inbox as thick as shoppers at the Apple store last weekend.
1. Here's a piece about Walmart's plans to – hold onto your reindeer antler-hat – build an urban-style store in Washington. It'll have five floors, with small-format retail lining the H Street sidewalk, Walmart behind, parking underground, and 315 apartments on the upper floors. The behemoth retailer plans several other DC stores, none as urban as that one.
I'll pause here to let SouthEnders brag about the Lowe's on South Boulevard, which wraps the back end of the big-box in condos, has small-scale retail on the street, and has rooftop parking. But that project, though hailed nationally, still has some weirdness, such as that very odd, one-story building at Iverson Way and South Boulevard. It appears to be empty. Is it a store? If so, for whom? And the big ole surface parking lot is still a big-ole surface parking lot, though a bit smaller than it would be without the rooftop parking. But even with those quibbles it's about a zillion times more urban than anything Walmart has done here.
2. Here's a look, pegged to the climate talks now under way in Cancun, at the role mayors expect to play in the fight against global climate change: "But as nations dither, hundreds of cities are pledging to rein in emissions, slash energy usage, and turn to renewable energy sources. Mayors say they see greater urgency than national leaders do." Which only makes sense. Mayors are the ones who have to deal most directly with so many problems that have little to do with partisan politics: how to fill potholes, cope with traffic, build/maintain parklands, etc. (And if you're among the declining number of climate-change deniers, you might ask yourself why you're choosing to disbelieve the vast majority of the world's climate scientists and instead prefer to believe partisan politicians, right-wing pundits and think-tanks underwritten by fossil-fuel companies. I mean, you're free to believe those sources. But, um, why?)
3. While most eyes have been focusing on either road-building, high-speed rail plans or urban mass transit proposals, the N.C. Department of Transportation has quietly expanded intercity bus service. In October it began running daily two routes connecting Charlotte (the uptown Greyhound station on West Trade) with Boone and with Fayetteville. The Mountaineer North/South leaves Appalachian State University at 9:15 a.m. daily, arrives in Charlotte at 12:50 p.m., stopping in Lenoir, Hickory, Lincolnton and Gastonia. The return bus leaves Charlotte at 6 p.m. The Fayetteville route (Queen City Connector) stops in Laurinburg, Rockingham, Wadesboro and Monroe. The return leaves Charlotte at 6 p.m.
Coach America operates the buses with NCDOT funds. Tickets are $8 to $20, depending. And yes, the buses have WiFi, NCDOT tells us. For ticket information, click here.
Buses aren't as beloved as trains, but they serve an important role in transportation. Just ask a college kid who's counting pennies, or an elderly grandparent who wants to come to Charlotte but doesn't want to drive in the big-city traffic.
What do Tuesday's election results mean for passenger rail in North Carolina? The apparent Republican heir to the chairmanship of the House Transportation Committee, Rep. John Mica of Miami, says he wants to re-examine President Obama's almost $10 billion in high-speed rail grants. He doesn't oppose high-speed rail, he told the AP, but disagrees with some of the states that won grants. Hmmm. In January Florida snagged $1.25 billion for a Tampa-to-Orlando (and eventually to Miami) line. But Mica thinks the Northeast is the only corridor that can support high-speed rail.
North Carolina won a $545 million federal grant. It was part of the stimulus package for "high-speed rail" projects, although in North Carolina's case, don't be imagining bullet trains. The state plans to use most of its half billion to upgrade the Raleigh-to-Charlotte route. It projects top speeds of 90 mph, eventually reducing the average Raleigh-Charlotte trip nearly an hour from the current 3 hours 10 minutes.
I checked in with Patrick Simmons who heads the rail division of the N.C. Department of Transportation. What does he foresee for North Carolina's high-speed passenger rail project with Republicans in charge of the U.S. House, not to mention both houses of the N.C. legislature?
Simmons said he expects additional scrutiny and questions, but that the funding the state has received is secure. The state is very close to signing an agreement with the feds, he said. "Short-term, I feel good," he said. Long-term? He expects the whole U.S. passenger rail program to be questioned at a national level.
A savvy observer might find reason for concern. After all: The Wisconsin DOT on Thursday told contractors to stop work on that state's Milwaukee-to-Madison high-speed rail line, which had won $810 million in federal money. Republican Gov.-elect Scott Walker has promised to cancel the project, although shortly before the election the current governor's administration and federal administrators signed an agreement to commit the state to spending all $810 million of federal stimulus money.
And in Ohio, the Republican governor-to-be, John Kasich, who defeated incumbent Gov. Ted Strickland, opposes to plans for faster train passenger service there - the 3Cs line connecting Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. The Obama administration gave that project over $400 million this year.
What might it mean for North Carolina's passenger rail, I asked Simmons, that the legislature will be dominated by Republicans? He reminded me that the whole idea for the NCDOT's role in passenger rail came during the administration of Republican Gov. Jim Martin.
Yonah Freemark of The Transport Politic has a good national analysis. The map is cool, too.
The city of Charlotte's annual study of High Accident Locations found an overall drop of 26 percent in total number of collisions in the city for 2009, compared with 2008, with fatal collisions down 5 percent.
Are we safer drivers? Would that were so. The Charlotte Department of Transportation memo to the City Council says, "While the total numbers of collisions vary from year to year, CDOT attributes some reduction in collisions to reductions also seen in vehicle miles travelled. This is a trend occurring across the country."
The top two causes for accidents? Inattention (cited 22.4 percent of the time) and "Failure to Reduce Speed" (cited 18.9 percent of the time). Alcohol use is the cause of 1.67 percent of the accidents. So while I applaud the police efforts to keep people from drinking and driving, it would seem that a far more effective way to reduce accidents and their costs (in human deaths, injuries, lost productivity and costs to those involved) would be to crack down on speeding.
Of course, I suspect that, like many drivers, some police officers just don't think speeding is a very big deal. One example among many I've : The other night in the 35 mph section of Providence Road a patrol car blew past me. I sped up to see its speed: 55 mph. No siren, no blue lights, and a mile farther down the road (I had slowed back to the speed limit by then but a traffic light had slowed the cars ahead of me) the police car was just cruising along, not appearing to be heading to any crime scene.
Here's the most recent accident report. And here's a link to the previous year's report (on 2008 accidents).
Have a great Labor Day weekend, and drive safely.
Dear Gov. Perdue, House Speaker Hackney, Senate President Pro Tem (corrected, with apologies) Basnight:
Your state Board of Transportation is ridiculous. Got your attention? Good. Here's why I say that:
I just received an e-mailed press release from my friends at the N.C. Department of Transportation, about committee assignments for that august body, the N.C. Board of Transportation. I had lost track of who my local representatives on the board are, so I decided to check it out. I popped up the online roster for the state transportation board, a body that has major sway in allocating state transportation money. Guess what I see. Charlotte – by far the state's largest city and largest urban area – has only one member: Developer John Collett.
Of the 14 divisions, we in Division 10 (Mecklenburg, Anson, Stanly, Cabarrus and Union counties – population 1,374,357) have exactly the same number of NCDOT board members as Division 14 – Cherokee, Clay, Graham, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson, Macon, Polk, Swain and Transylvania counties – population 338,405. Notice how that's a little more than a third of the population of Mecklenburg alone (913,639).
Now obviously Division 14 needs representation, too. I'm not saying it doesn't. Rural areas shouldn't be overlooked just because they're small. But that doesn't make it right, or smart, to overlook urban areas just because they're big.
So let's take a look at the at-large members of the board, who are supposed to represent various interests. Let's see, there's an at-large member for State Ports and Aviation Issues. So it makes sense for that rep to be Leigh McNairy (again, corrected, with apologies) from Kinston, right? Sure, Kinston has no port, but at least it's on the Neuse River, isn't it? Only thing is, the state's ports are in City and Wilmington, neither of which has a rep on the DOT board.
Is it because of Kinston's vast airport – the state's busiest, and US Airways' largest hub and all that? Oops, I forgot! That would be Charlotte. There's even a Ports Authority Inland Terminal in Charlotte, ahem.
(If you give up on that Kinston mystery, here's a clue. The state-funded Global TransPark – a yet-to-bear-fruit effort that attempted to revive all of Eastern North Carolina by building a big airfield – is in Kinston. Well, now there's a parts factory there, too. Whew. I was starting to get worried that that Kinston appointment didn't make any sense.)
There's an at-large member for "rural issues." The position appears to be unfilled. Hmm, I wonder who's the at-large member for "urban issues." Guess what. There isn't one. But don't cities have urban-style issues in much the way rural areas have rural-style issues? Don't they deserve some attention too? Gov. Perdue, please hop on this.
There's an at-large member for environmental issues. Good! That's forward thinking. That member is from Raleigh, Nina Szlosberg-Landis. So the cities in the Triangle (Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill) get two board slots, because the District 5 member, Chuck Watts, is from Durham.
There's an at-large member for government-related finance and accounting issues (huh?). He's Ronnie Wall from Burlington.
Aha. Here's an at-large member for mass transit. Since Charlotte has the only light rail transit system in the state, and is the only city with funding to build the state's only streetcar system, and has the largest bus system and the only dedicated sales tax for transit in the state, it makes all kinds of sense that the at-large member for transit is – Andrew Perkins, from Greensboro?
And that gives the cities in the Triad (Greenboro, Winston-Salem and High Point) two board members as well, since the District 9 member is Ralph Womble from Winston-Salem.
Throwing aside the ridiculous way in which the DOT districts are configured (dating to where the state prisons were located, and I am not making that up), it's fair for all sections of the state to have voices on the board. But it isn't fair for people in cities to be disproportionately voiceless.
Charlotte and the state's other cities are the economic engines of North Carolina. When they sink, the state's economy sinks. That should be reflected in all state policies, not just transportation. It simply makes no sense that they get disproportionately tiny attention when it comes to transportation representation, or any other forms of representation.
I'm guessing the legislature can change those silly DOT districts. But when it comes time to make appointments, Gov. Perdue, Rep. Hackney and Sen. Basnight, could you please notice that your largest city – you know, the one with the busiest airport, the biggest traffic problems, the biggest mass transit system – might need a little more representation on your state transportation board?
City Council members today get to deal with some controversial stuff. At tonight's 6:30 p.m. meeting they're to vote on whether to accept the $25 million federal grant to start building a streetcar line. At their 5 p.m. dinner meeting they'll hear a briefing on the controversial tree ordinance revisions, five years in the making. And at a 3:30 p.m. committee meeting, the panel will hear about the controversial urban street design guidelines, which have been in the works for eight years. (Memo to government staff: If you have the temerity to propose something developers don't like, be prepared to spend many, many years on it.)
For all you local government aficionados, here's a link to what the council will be asked to vote on for the streetcar. And here's a link to two pro-con pieces that ran Saturday on the Observer's op-ed page, from council members Edwin Peacock III (he's voting no, he says) and David Howard (why he'll vote yes). And here's what the Observer's editorial board said about the streetcar on July 18, in "Streetcar is sound strategy, not silly frill."
Tree ordinance: At its 5 p.m. dinner meeting the council's to be briefed on the proposed strengthening of the city's tree ordinance – the part of the ordinance that applies to commercial development, including multifamily housing, but not the part for single-family subdivisions. Just to show you how things work, here's a list of the members of the stakeholder committee that has been hashing out the tree ordinance for FIVE YEARS.
I've put in red the members who represent developers or businesses whose major clients are developers. (Granted, just because you get paid by developers, or are one, it doesn't mean you're not sometimes environmentally minded. But I'm just saying.) I'm not sure how to categorize Henry Wallace from Duke Power, a utility company. It's a subsidiary of Duke Energy, which also co-owns Crescent Resources, which was a major developer around here until it had to file for bankruptcy.
I've put in blue the members who are government staff, and therefore are expected to be responsive to ALL members of the public, i.e. not say things that may tick off developers.
In green are the stakeholder members who aren't affiliated with the real estate and development industry and aren't local government staff.
Don McSween (City Arborist), Mary Stauble (Mecklenburg County Solid Waste), Lisa Hagood (ESP Associates, Designer), Lee McLaren (DPR Associates, Subdivision Steering Committee), Henry Wallace (Duke Power, Utilities), Tim Morgan/Andy Munn (REBIC, Home Builders Association), Bob Miller (Camas Associates, Architect), John Porter (Charter Properties, Developer/ Charlotte Apartment Association), Chris Buchanan (Moore & Van Allen, Tree Advisory Committee), Rick Roti (Sierra Club), Christa Rodgers (Parks and Recreation).
Even more revealing is to check out the cost-benefit analysis subgroup, whose mission was to apply the proposed changes to some development sites to see how much they might add to the cost of development. (It's amazing anyone was left at the Crosland or Childress Klein offices while this group was meeting):
Jon Morris (Beacon Partners), Clifton Coble(Bissell Development), Chris Kirby (Carlson Real Estate), Tom Lannin(Chestnut Consulting), Tricia Noble (Childress Klein), Sue Freyler(Cole Jenest & Stone), Bill Daleure (Crosland), Mike Wiggins(Crosland),Scott Henson (Crosland), Steve Mauldin(Crosland), Ju-Ian Shen (Design Resource Group), Al Harris (LSG), Debra Glennon (LSG), Jay Banks(Kimley-Horn), Ed Schweitzer (Land Design), Jeff Orsborn (OSG), Kavita Gupta (Perkins and Will) ,Brandon Plunkett(The John R. McAdams Co), Brian Crutchfield (Timmons Group), Terry Brennan (Trinity Partners), Paul Devine (Childress Klein), Landon Wyatt (Childress Klein), David Haggart (Childress Klein),Chris Daly (Childress Klein),
Trey Dempsey (Lincoln Harris).
Does it make sense to have plenty of site-plan, run-the-numbers expertise on a cost-benefit analysis group? Of course. But if you've ever wondered why run-of-the-mill Charlotteans think the city's government processes are dominated by developers, that's why.
Street designs: At 3:30 p.m. today the council's Transportation and Planning Committee (David Howard, Patsy Kinsey, Warren Cooksey and Michael Barnes) hears presentations on the Urban Street Design Guidelines, and the Centers Corridors & Wedges Growth Framework. The committee is being asked to make a recommendation to the full council on the CC&W Framework. If you haven't heard much about it, you're not alone. It's not been getting many headlines. Probably because it doesn't really change things very much. Or if it does, I haven't been able to find that section in it.
The street design guidelines have been controversial. Developers (who'll have to pay to put more streets and sidewalks into their developments, which takes away from developable land) contend the street requirement will raise costs. They've also acquired a sudden concern for storm water runoff (a concern they didn't seem to feel very powerfully when the city and county were trying to adopt watershed protections and floodplain regulations in the 1990s) and they're noting that all those sidewalks and extra streets will create more impervious surfaces. As if all the rooftops and driveways and surface parking lots they're building don't.
Short block lengths are a huge help to people trying to get around the city on foot. The city's attempt to shrink the allowable block lengths in its new development is admirable. Further, the USDG policy that was adopted in 2007 already compromised the transportation experts' earlier proposal, after developers complained. Here's hoping the City Council, as it deals with the staff's current project to codify the policy into the local ordinances, doesn't force yet another "compromise" of the already compromised guidelines.
Here's a link to the PowerPoint presentations that show the Centers Corridors & Wedges Growth Framework, and to the Urban Street Design Guidelines.
Cheers to our fellow N.C. cities, Wintson-Salem and Greensboro. Each won a six-figure grant from the Mayor's Institute on City Design.
The most exciting project is the one in Winston-Salem, which received $200,000. The Arts Council of Winston-Salem created a coalition among the N.C. Department of Transportation, the city, and the Chamber of Commerce to make sure urban designers and artists have a role in the NCDOT replacement of 11 bridges along Business I-40. The goal: Assemble artists and urban designers to create a master plan that provides guidelines for design, lighting, sound walls, and bridge abutments, as well as water features, public art, and festival space adjacent to the rights-of-way.
It would be great if Charlotte's Center City 2020 Vision Plan came up with a similar coalition, and went after similar money.
Greensboro's $100,000 grant to this project. The grant foes to Action Greensboro, a not-for-profit organization in the N.C. Piedmont that coordinates citizen initiatives on enhancing the Greensboro. Action Greensboro is funding public art for a renovation of an abandoned railroad. The art will include 12 decorative iron , through which will be seen two 60-foot graphic panels depicting parts of Greensboro's history.
The greenway encircling downtown Greensboro sounds like some Charlotte plans (remember the uptown loop greenway from the 2010 Uptown Plan, or the John Nolen greenway plan from early in the 20th century?) – as yet unfinished. Note the photo with the Greensboro plan, shows work by artist Jim Gallucci. Want to see some of his work in Charlotte? Visit the bridge over Briar Creek on Central Avenue.
What ARE those things on South Tryon Street? The two metallic structures erected just past the Big O building at the bridge over I-277, are not, as you might have thought, witches-hat-derived homage to the show "Wicked." They are a gift from the Queens Table, a group of anonymous – and apparently wealthy and influential – public art donors who have brought us the Socialist-realist monuments at The Square.
Update 3:30 PM - The artist is Friedrich St.Florian, an architect based in Providence, R.I. He designed the World War II Memorial in Washington. Here's a link to a series of photos of the works being installed. The current name appears to be "Tryon Bridge Towers."
Here's a link (courtesy of the folks at CLTblog) to a presentation to the City Council in April 2009. It explains the Queens Table: "A small group of anonymous donors established the Queen’s Table Fund in 1991 to celebrate Charlotte by quietly finding and filling needs that are not otherwise being met to enhance aesthetics and quality of life in the City." (May I suggest that art teachers for CMS could be an unfilled need for the next decade?)
Among their prior gifts, in addition to the four statues at The Square, are the Queen Charlotte at the airport (often described as "going into the lane for the layup") and "Aspire," the bronze on Kings Drive outside the Temple of Karnak-sized new Central Piedmont Community College building. I have come to love the airport statue, I confess. "Aspire" will have to grow on me. The things at The Square are an embarrassment, art as envisioned by aging CFOs, perhaps. (No I don't know who really selected them.)
I am checking in with Jean Greer, Vice President of Public Art at the Arts & Science Council to see what she knows. (Update: Jean tells me the project didn't go through the ASC Public Art Commission although she knew about it through Charlotte Center City Partners. It sits on N.C. DOT property, she says. The N.C. DOT is in the process of crafting an art policy for state rights-of-way.)
Jean is one of the lucky souls who gets to stand up at occasional City Council dinner meetings and give presentations on current public art projects and endure silly jokes from council member Andy Dulin and – for the 14 years he was mayor – Pat McCrory. McCrory buttonholed me last week at the James Jack statue unveiling to say he requires two things of public art for him to like it: You don't have to be high to "get it" and it shouldn't be something a 5th-grader could do. He approved of Chas Fagan's James Jack statue.
I don't know about this new work. At first, as I went past for several weeks I kept thinking it was some odd NCDOT construction equipment abandoned to the weeds. Then it became clear it was "art."
Pardon me for sounding like McCrory but this one reminds me of robotic equipment, as portrayed on "The Jetsons," or possibly a depiction of the trash compactors on Darth Vader's Death Star. It does not make my heart soar. If anything, it destroys any soaring my heart might have been inclined to do. (Not that a soaring heart is likely as you walk across the bleak, Sahara-like I-277 bridge.)
Annual cost to the city, for maintenance, such as mowing, planting, electricity: $ 8,450.
Here's a tidbit from the city council's Friday memo. A section of Selwyn Avenue is on the schedule to join some other in-town streets in a "road diet." As with East Boulevard and with several blocks of South Tryon Street, the city Transportation Department is going to shrink a chunk of Selwyn from four lanes to three.
The idea is that where you don't need the lane capacity, having fewer lanes can A) encourage bicyclists by adding bike lanes or extra pavement width, and pedestrians and B) work to subtly slow traffic. After all, the biggest contributor to traffic accidents in a city is – not trees, not telephone poles, not bicyclists – speed.
Here's the section from the memo. Warning, CDOT jargon ahead:
Selwyn Avenue Street Conversion
Staff Resource: Johanna Quinn, CDOT, 704-336-5606, jquinn@ci.charlotte.nc.us
Each year CDOT staff identifies streets scheduled for resurfacing that could be candidates for
conversions. Typically, these are streets where the curb to curb space can be reallocated from four travel lanes, to 3 travel lanes and bicycle lanes. CDOT staff evaluates operating conditions at intersections and street segments, analyzes connectivity and multi-modal travel factors, prepares a technical recommendation, and informs the public. CDOT moves forward with road conversions that provide benefits to bicyclists, pedestrians, and neighborhood residents, while continuing satisfactory traffic operations.
Selwyn Avenue is on the 2010 resurfacing list. Staff has determined that the four-lane segment between Queens Road West and Colony Road should be converted from four lanes to three lanes with a 3.5 ft. wide outside shoulder. The new three-lane configuration will have one through lane in each direction and a two-way center left turn lane with dedicated left-turn lanes at side streets. The installation of a dedicated left-turn lane at Colony Road will require removal of the peak two-hour turn restriction from southbound Selwyn onto Colony Road.
Area residents are aware of this conversion and have had the opportunity to provide feedback at a public meeting, online surveys, and through the Myers Park Homeowners Association. A postcard mailer was distributed May 14, 2010 to notify residents that the changes will be
implemented this summer.
Staff considered a street conversion for the last remaining four-lane segment of Selwyn Avenue between Queens Road West and Westfield Road, but decided against it. A conversion would have to be asymmetrical and would take away some lane width, which would affect cyclists who regularly use this road segment as part of the “booty loop”. Staff took this proposal to the Bicycle Advocacy Committee which decided that cyclists and motorists have settled into a travel pattern that functions well for all users in this area.
Resurfacing Selwyn Avenue is scheduled for June. This will allow resurfacing to take place during Queens University’s summer break and enough time for all resurfacing debris to be cleared before 24 Hours of Booty at the end of July.
I caught an intriguing "Urban Vs. Suburban" discussion on WFAE's Charlotte Talks this morning, interviewing Christopher Leinberger, author of the March 2008 article in The Atlantic magazine, "The Next Slum?"
His article opened with an anecdote from the Windy Ridge subdivision in northwest Charlotte. (A Charlotte Observer article later, in January 2009, reported that half the homes in Windy Ridge had been through foreclosure. And six months after, in July 2009, another Observer article said it's one of the neighborhoods hit so badly by foreclosures that Habitat for Humanity is buying the houses, now costing less than what Habitat would spend building a new one, and will rehab them and sell them to Habitat-worthy families.)
Also on the show was Jen Pilla Taylor, who wrote a piece for the January edition of Charlotte magazine, "Tale of Two Cities" in which she writes about the growing divide between urban and suburban parts of Charlotte.
"Much of the time, the two worlds are largely indifferent toward one another," she wrote. "Much of the suburban set is apathetic about the city, with many suburbanites rarely if ever visiting uptown unless they work there. Urban dwellers see the 'burbs as too far away, too rural, too cookie-cutter. But tensions bubble up in public spats fought primarily by activists and elected officials."
But Leinberger, a planning professor at the University of Michigan as well as a real estate developer, talked about the market forces and trends that, he has predicted, will bludgeon property values for suburban and ex-urban houses – due to oversupply and to a growing preference for "walkable" neighborhoods. He said on WFAE that the federal bailout of suburban housing has been much larger than the bank or auto industry bailouts. Interesting way to look at it. (This may buttress his point: A November 2008 Observer story reported, "Because it has such a high concentration of foreclosures and subprime mortgages, Charlotte is in line to get $5.4 million [in federal money] to help stabilize its neighborhoods.)
More recently, MSN Real Estate took on the same topic, "Is your suburb the next slum?" a sort of "Leinberger Lite" that quoted Leinberger and some of the same data.
All the articles make clear that not all suburban neighborhoods are the same and that many are thriving and will continue to. Nor do they present every urban neighborhood as nirvana.
But the data show that the more walkable areas with neighborhood centers of stores and workplaces are more likely to do better in the future real estate market than those made up only of auto-oriented single-family housing.
I guess we won't know whose predictions are coming to pass until the local real estate market revives.
TRYON, N.C. - During council discussion about transportation, Mayor Anthony Foxx mentioned a key issue: Among the many challenges to finding federal funding for Charlotte-area transportation projects - streets, roads and mass transit alike - is that the feds are looking closely at how well a region is supporting regional transportation planning.
And the Charlotte region plans its transportation regionally about as well as I can dunk a basketball. Is there any other large metro region with more different "metropolitan planning organizations" - aka, the state-established way to plan transportation? Charlotte region transportation is split among 4 or 5 MPOs and two Rural Planning Organizations. Just one small example of the ridiculousity: The Lake Norman area is considered a Rural Planning Organization and not part of the Charlotte metro transportaton planning.
I've ranted about this previously. Small hope in the offing? At least the mayor and other transportation officials are talking about it. And MPOs must be reconstituted after every census. And NCDOT chief Gene Conti is actually paying attention to Charlotte. NCDOT now has a staffer with an office on the 8th floor of the Char-Meck Govt Center.
If you'd like to know a bit more about the unbelievable insanity of transportation planning in the greater Charlotte region, read this piece from early January - you have to go to the very end to read about what "sounds like a bizarre camaraderie of dwarfs: MUMPO, GUAMPO, CRMPO, GHMPO and RFATS (in the Disney version he'd be the chubby, clumsy one). Let us not forget LNRPO and RRRPO (the small but snarling pirate dwarf?)."
TRYON, N.C. - After the lunch break at the City Council retreat (great blackberry cobbler! - and yes, the Observer journalists pay for their own lunch) talk has turned to transportation.
Hard to blog and take notes and listen simultaneously, but lotta talk about concern in North Meck and on the MTC about whether the North transit line should have been built ahead of the NE line and the streetcar. Of course, no MTC money is being used to build the city's streetcar project, but, as City Manager Curt Walton said, at the recent Metropolitan Transit Commission meeting, city officials showed CATS data to prove that no CATS/MTC money going to the streetcar, "But they didn't believe it." He also cited what he said was "a legitimate difference of opinion" about whether the Northeast line or the North line should be moving forward next.
What Walton didn't say, but that savvy transit officials would, is that the Bush administration's rules on how to rate transit projects' cost-efficiency meant the North corridor did not qualify for any federal money, and the NE corridor just squeaked in by the skin of its teeth. If someone is to be bludgeoned about why the North corridor is not being built, folks might want to be looking toward the Federal Transit Administration and the previous administration. ( Note: The Obama administration has announced that it's changing those rules on how to rate transit projects.)
And CDOT director Danny Pleasant just now made that point, as I was typing the above. Neither the North Corridor nor the streetcar qualified for fed transit funds under the old rules. But things are changing.
I checked in about 8:15 to the Charlotte City Council retreat in Tryon, N.C., where a "winter storm event" is scheduled to hit about midnight. So far, no word that the honorables plan anything other than to gut it out and then slide home on U.S. 74 and I-85 tomorrow afternoon.
This morning they're hashing out the "council/staff operating agreement" which, if you pay attention to issues as they move through the process, is actually rather significant. Maybe. Depends on whether they abide by what they come up with. It repeats the words "mutual respect" several times. As if, perhaps, staff has been feeling beat up on by some elected officials in the past? AND as if, perhaps, elected officials have felt as if staff was treating them like children in the past? (Those are my observations only. Nothing that direct has been said here.)
The issue of whether to include the word "risk" in the document vs. adding the word "creative" came up. CDOT head Danny Pleasant suggested that the document should pair creativity with "risk tolerance." I.e., creativity means you take some risks.
MORE to come, on the role of special interest groups.
New video posted on the EPA's Web site lauds the city's Urban Street Design Guidelines and the East Boulevard Road Diet, which illustrates the city's transportation design goals. Check it out. Mayor Anthony Foxx, ex-Mayor Pat McCrory, council member Susan Burgess, ex-council member and current city department head Patrick Mumford and others talk about how great the Urban Street Design Guidelines are.
It stems from the city's National Award for Smart Growth Achievement, announced in December, in the "Policies and Regulations" category for the USDG.
Yet the developers' lobby, the local Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition, as well as influential, long-time real estate magnate John Crosland Jr., are still urging the city to dial back – or un-adopt, or never actually codify into ordinances, or otherwise eviscerate – those same USDG. They don't like the requirements for modestly shorter blocks, or the width of the planting strips (wide enough so street trees will survive) or the general policy to build more streets and sidewalks in new developments. It'll add cost, they say. And yep, it will.
But what's the cost of congestion? What's the cost of not being able to ride a bicycle or walk anywhere? What's the cost of street trees that die? What's the cost of having to retrofit streets and build sidewalks into already built neighborhoods - at taxpayer expense. The costs exist. It's just a question of where you inject them into the growth process: at the start, or later on and spread among a wider group of payers, i.e. us taxpayers.
Although Charlotte's policy to design streets to better accommodate pedestrians and bicycles remains under assault by the local developers' lobby – who claim the extra pavement required for sidewalks and more streets isn't good for the environment – note that the Environmental Protection Agency has given the city an award for those very same Urban Street Design Guidelines.
The EPA announced today that Charlotte is one of four winners of its Smart Growth Awards.
Click on this link to the EPA web site, which should be updated after 3 p.m. Here's what the press release says:
• Policies and Regulations: City of Charlotte for Urban Street Design Guidelines. As the central city in a rapidly growing metropolitan area, Charlotte, N.C., is under intense development pressures. Rather than continue the automobile-dominated development patterns of the last 50 years, Charlotte adopted Urban Street Design Guidelines to make walking, bicycling, and transit more appealing and to make the city more attractive and sustainable.
Other winners:
Overall Excellence: Lancaster County (Pa.) Planning Commission for Envision Lancaster County. "Lancaster County, in south-central Pennsylvania, is known for its historic towns and villages, and its fertile farmland. To maintain the county’s character, its diverse economy, and its natural resources for future generations, the Lancaster County Planning Commission established a countywide comprehensive growth management plan, which protects valuable farmland and historic landscapes by directing development to established towns and cities in the county."
• Built Projects: Chicago Housing Authority, FitzGerald Associates Architects and Holsten Real Estate Development Corporation for Parkside of Old Town. "Parkside of Old Town sits on eight city blocks that were once home to a public housing complex notorious for criminal activity. The redevelopment has transformed the neighborhood by reconnecting it to downtown Chicago and tying together mixed-income housing, parks, and new shops and restaurants."
• Smart Growth and Green Building: City of Tempe, Ariz. for the Tempe Transportation Center. "The Tempe Transportation Center is a model for sustainable design, a vibrant, mixed-use regional transportation hub that incorporates innovative and green building elements tailored to the Southwest desert environment. The Tempe Transportation Center is a true multi-modal facility that integrates a light rail stop, the main city bus station, and paths for bicyclists and pedestrians."
I'm working on non-blog matters today (I'm writing my regular Saturday oped column, this week about the Soul of the Community survey, and what people really want in order to feel loyalty to where they live. Read it Saturday at www.charlotteobserver.com/marynewsom)
So I'll just share this interesting info, which rolled into my e-mail inbox a few minutes ago. Weekday morning traffic in downtown Charlotte is down. It's from the city's Department of Transportation. In their words:
CDOT has released results of a traffic count study conducted in September 2009. The area examined was uptown Charlotte. Counts were collected during workdays from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m.
Analysis of the data indicates:
1. Counts of vehicles declined from 2006 to 2009 by over 6,000 cars (approximately 15%) to the volume last seen in 2005.
2. The average number of people in vehicles has remained fairly constant since 1997 at about 1.1.
3. While certainly the downturn in the economy has played a part in the change, the increased use of mass transit (CATS buses-local and Xpress and LYNX light rail) has contributed to less rush hour congestion as well.
4. Another contributing factor is the increase in uptown dwellers walking to work and school.
5. Many companies allow workers to telecommute.
6. Traffic counts were not conducted in 2007 and 2008 due to numerous large road construction projects in uptown.
Commuter rail to ... I bet you're thinking, " ... to Davidson and North Mecklenburg." A rail line to the north is one of CATS' top priorities, to be built as soon as the feds cough up some money to build it.
In Gaston County, though, they're thinking commuter rail from Charlotte to Gastonia. The Gaston Gazette recently reported on the City of Gastonia's first estimates of what it would cost to build a commuter line on the old Piedmont & Northern railbed, which runs from Charlotte to Mount Holly and on to Gastonia: $265 million to $300 million.
Part of the route's right of way – between Mount Holly and Charlotte – is controlled by CSX and carries freight. The N.C. Rail Division of the N.C. DOT owns the 11.6 miles from Mount Holly to Gastonia, plus a 3-mile spur to Belmont. Here's a link to a map of the P&N line in Gaston County. And here's a link to the NCDOT's page showing the rail rights of way it owns. The P&N was built by tobacco and power company magnate James B. Duke, and carried passengers until 1951.
At the moment, of course, there's no state, federal or local funding for this rail project. And the Charlotte Area Transit System (aka CATS) doesn't have the P&N line as one of its five proposed transit corridors. It's just an idea – but one with support among some key Gaston County leaders, who see a stronger connection to Charlotte as a way to boost economic prospects in a county where unemployment last month was 13.3 percent.
Reminder of terminology: "Commuter rail" typically means a passenger train akin to the inter-city Amtrak service, although some commuter rail uses newer technology, and the cars are usually less comfy. Stations are relatively far apart compared with subway, streetcar, light rail service. But don't call it "heavy rail." That's a term for a system with a powerful electric rail down there with the tracks. It's the "third rail," the kind you should never, ever touch – hence the expression, "Social Security (or any other untouchable policy) is the third rail of American politics." Subways, not commuter trains, tend to be "heavy rail."
Posts
All Comments
