Words from a local planner

[Don]

I thought you all might like to read this. It was sent out by Jeff Ulma, planning director of the Town of Cary.



Thought you might be interested in this as you think about downtown
revitalization...

Jeff

Demolition and mega-projects get re-evaluated


By Dolores P. Palma


Since the first suburban shopping malls opened their doors,
communities all across the country have been concerned with
revitalizing their downtowns. Today, a large body of knowledge has
been developed-the "do's and dont's of the trade"-that can be used to
guide local downtown revitalization efforts.
This body of knowledge includes myths about downtown revitalization
as well as "secrets of success." The eight most common downtown
revitalization myths are discussed below


Myth # 1: If We Build It, They Will Come


This has become known as the "The Field of Dreams Approach" to
downtown enhancement. It centers on the belief that a community only
needs to undertake physical improvements for customers and investors
to flock to Downtown.


Over the last 20 to 30 years, many communities have proven this to be
a myth. They have done so by implementing massive physical
improvement projects that often include new sidewalks, landscaping,
street trees, planters, benches, facade improvements, etc. Thinking
that their work done, community leaders then sat back and waited for
customers and investors to return. Unfortunately, these communities
learned that physical improvements, made on a grand scale and made in
isolation, do not result in renewed vitality.


Myth # 2: If We Demolish It, They Will Come


This is the flip side of Myth #1 and is known as the "Urban Renewal
Approach" to downtown revitalization. This myth holds that, if old
buildings are torn down and land is cleared, developers will flock to
downtown. And, unfortunately, there are communities all across the
country that still have vacant land which was cleared in the 1960s
and 1970s as part of this revitalization approach.
Since then, it has been learned that clearance does not attract
developers to a downtown whose market is weak. Communities also have
learned that structurally sound old buildings-no matter how run-down
they might look at the time-can often become a tremendous draw if
they are renovated and their architectural character is preserved.
Older restored structures constitute some of the most valuable
commercial real estate today.


Myth # 3: If We Complete One Major Project, They Will Come


This is the "Silver Bullet Approach" to Downtown revitalization. It
holds that if a community implements one key, major project then
"everything else will take care of itself." Examples of the Silver
Bullet Approach are convention centers, festival marketplaces,
parking structures, or pedestrian malls-in isolation Unfortunately,
the communities building these have learned the hard way that there
is no silver bullet. Instead, successful downtown revitalization
requires a multi-faceted effort that addresses all key issues.


Myth # 4: If We Can't get a Department Store to Come Back Downtown,
Downtown Will Never Be Healthy Again


This is known as the "Traditional Anchor Approach" to downtown
revitalization. It is true that-except for tremendously healthy
downtowns-the chances of attracting a major, national department
store to downtown are very slim. However, this fact does not indicate
that a downtown is no longer healthy. Instead, the most successful
Downtowns are those that have redefined the concept of "downtown
anchors.".


All across the country, downtowns are embracing new anchors These
include cultural facilities, government complexes, entertainment
facilities, tourist draws, housing units, professional office
buildings, and specialty retail shops. By promoting and leveraging
these anchors, downtowns can experience renewed vitality, without a
traditional department store anchor.


Myth # 5: We Can't Get a Department Store to Locate Downtown, So
Downtown Can No Longer Support Any Kind of Retail Trade


This has become known as the "Big Retail or No Retail Approach."
Again, it is true that the chance of recruiting a major department
store to most downtowns is slim. It is also true that few downtowns
today can be considered to be primarily retail centers. However,
these truths alone do not prove that a downtown cannot support a
degree of retail trade.


Many downtown professionals would argue that, by definition, a
healthy downtown is one that contains some degree of retail activity.
This belief holds that it is retail trade that brings pedestrians to
downtown's sidewalks and, therefore, gives downtown a look of
activity and health. Therefore, no matter how healthy a downtown's
economy actually is, without some degree of retail trade a downtown
will look dead.


Myth # 6: Competition Is Bad for Business


This is the "Head-In-The-Sand Approach." The commercial districts-old
and new-that are most successful today are those in which similar and
compatible businesses are located side by side.

Rather than providing dangerous competition, the clustering of
businesses expands the market from which the cluster-and each of the
businesses in it-can hope to draw. This effect occurs because a
cluster is more appealing to a customer-in terms of convenience and
variety-than is a single, stand-alone business.


Myth # 7: Downtown Retail Businesses Must Keep Uniform Business Hours


This has become known as the "Let's Pretend We're a Mall Approach" to
downtown revitalization. Given the independent nature of business
owners, and the large number of business owners in any downtown, this
approach has failed dismally.


Recognizing that uniform business hours are difficult to achieve, and
possibly not advantageous to the district's retailers as a whole, the
most successful downtown enhancement programs are promoting
"market-driven business hours." Retail businesses keep hours that
best meet the needs of their targeted customers. By doing this, and
by coordinating their hours with each other, these businesses are
able to accommodate and share customers.


Myth # 8: If We Had More Parking, They Would Come


This is the "Let's Find a Scapegoat Approach." This myth holds that
all of downtown's ills stem from a lack of parking. The claim is that
customers have left downtown for malls because malls offer seas of
parking which is often (but not always) free. Therefore, the
reasoning goes, "we need more parking"-this change will make
customers return downtown.

Unfortunately, cities that have gone to great expense in creating
downtown parking,without making other needed improvements, have
learned the fallacy of this myth. Their new parking facilities remain
as empty as their downtown stores.


In fact, in the vast majority of downtowns where there is a parking
problem, it is one of parking management rather than one of parking
supply. This means that the number of parking spaces available is
adequate. However, customers are having difficulty finding a parking
spot because downtown employees and business owners are parking in
spaces nearest to businesses and public parking facilities are often
not clearly marked with signs.


This problem can be resolved through better management of the parking
supply - and often does not warrant creating additional parking
spaces.

[Don]

I believe these 8 myths to be spot on and it's refreshing to see that some at town hall do so as well. This was sent to the Heart of Cary Assn. email list - Maybe this needs to be sent to the Chamber of Commerce too?

[Spiros]

I believe these 8 myths to be spot on and it's refreshing to see that some at town hall do so as well. This was sent to the Heart of Cary Assn. email list - Maybe this needs to be sent to the Chamber of Commerce too?

Don, good information. I am sure the Chamber has this by now since it is dominated by the Heart of Cary association.

Spiros

[johnb]

Maybe the problem here is you assume that economic gain is the goal of the Chamber of Commerce. Have you considered that maybe they're just a bunch of snobs that don't like the look of the auto repair businesses on Chatham and beyond that aren't thinking to clearly or reasonably?

[Cathy]

Don,

Thanks for posting this. It is very heartening to see some evidence that at least one of Cary's planners is really thinking about what may really work, or not work, for the Heart of Cary, and not just following current fads in a knee-jerk manner.

Cathy

[StanN]

...in public or people will talk.

I have no argument with the Chamber. They are an important part of Cary..but lets face it...they are a special interest group. Like every other special interest group they speak for the majority (or for the elite) of their members. Their issues reflect their selfish interests. I don't mean to be critical - self interest is the human condition. But the Chamber is not and shouldn't be an arm of the government. Thats why an economic development commission should have the key role in advising the CTC as to eco. dev. strategy and why the CTC should be helping the EDC with staff and a budget. The EDC has to keep the Chamber's issues in mind - they have an important role - but it is only one input among many.

stan

[StanN]

Good posting from Jeff.

[Don]

...in public or people will talk.
But the Chamber is not and shouldn't be an arm of the government. Thats why an economic development commission should have the key role in advising the CTC as to eco. dev. strategy and why the CTC should be helping the EDC with staff and a budget. The EDC has to keep the Chamber's issues in mind - they have an important role - but it is only one input among many.

stan

Stan,
Thought you might find this interesting -

Page 22, Cary Business Magazine - 1st issue.
"The Chamber is the Town of Cary's official economic development arm."
Thought you might like to know.

[johnb]

Hey, at least they didn't annoint themselves religious figures and Cary's source of eternal salvation.

[Wuptdo]

Just because Dolores P. Palma writes an article and Jeff Ulma sends it back out for "info" purposes, does it become legitimate? Sorry, who is this person and what is their source creditability. What data is her article based on (i.e. sources or references). I am sure with the same data, any writer can "spin" the article to read just the opposite as well.

However, I am curious as to what actually does work to revitize a "downtown" area. In my opinion, at this point in time, "Downtown Cary" to me seem like it was laid out/planned by Salvador Dali and Charles Mason on bad acid trips. The Dali/Mason planning also holds true for the following: WCPSS assignment maps, Wake County/Cary voting districts (all) and basically anything organized by local/state/federal government. 8-O

Wuptdo B-)

[Brent]

In my opinion, at this point in time, "Downtown Cary" to me seem like it was laid out/planned by Salvador Dali and Charles Mason on bad acid trips. The Dali/Mason planning also holds true for the following: WCPSS assignment maps, Wake County/Cary voting districts (all) and basically anything organized by local/state/federal government. 8-O

Wuptdo B-)

I don't think that Cary's downtown, like many/most downtowns, was "planned" in the modern sense of the word. It's the oldest part of town, and it grew up from a railroad stop. But I don't think it's really all that bad myself.

The other examples you cite all result from politics, and I agree. I would like to see computer-generated voting districts.

[SteveG]

However, I am curious as to what actually does work to revitize a "downtown" area.

Are there compelling destinations to visit? How long does it take to find a parking space and walk to one's destination? How exposed is one to unpleasant elements, pollution, noise, and traffic while walking between destinations? Are there interesting people to watch? Can one meet more than one need (food, retail, entertainment) while there? Does one feel safe? How clean is it? Is there something there that cannot be found at the nearest strip mall or mega-mall? Are the businesses open at times convenient to their most likely patrons? Are potential customers aware of what is going on and what is available?

-Steve

[StanN]

SteveG's list sounds good to me. Here is some additional information I would like to have.

1. What are private enterpreneurs' plans to gain the elements of a successful downtown? (Do they have their own plan or is the TOC's plan one which they embrace and endorse?)

2. What is their definition of success? How will it be measured?

3. How will "success" impact other businesses in town? Will success mean taking business away from other retailers elsewhere in TOC? To what extent does success involve new sources of demand? What impact will success have on traffic and the adjoining neighborhoods?

4.. What is the total capital required? What portion of this capital is private enterprise willing to put at risk to achieve success?

5. To the extent investment in infrastructure is required by the TOC, how does the TOC recoup its investment and justify the investment of the public's dollars? e.g. added tax base and resultant added property taxes?

6. What continuing new operational expenses will be required? How will they
be financed? e.g. a special tax district for downtown businesses?

7. If substantial amounts of the TOC's capital is required, how will it it be financed? If new debt will the public get to vote (or is this like the new Raleigh Convention Center, i.e. $200M of debt, no public vote, debt financed by taxes incl. 20% from Cary).Does the TOC have the debt capacity without impacting its bond rating?

8. How does the business community advise handling special situations such as contentious rezonings or limitations on existing businesses?

Once that information is at hand the CTC (and the public) will be able to measure the desireabilty of financing the revitalization of downtown versus the alternatives.

Stan

[johnb]

Steve,

Interesting list, it begs the question though. In getting to a place where there is some reason for you or I to go to downtown Cary who is to control the process and what level of brute force/coercion is it legitimate to deploy?

A lot of you assume there is a problem downtown. Ashworth might think so since he probably wants to expand on his little shopping village concept, even at his neighbors expense if need be. But aside from that, there is private property used as the owners wish. Why government bureaucrats feel they have some right to strip people of their own property all because the gov't or it's allies instinctively know better uses for everyone's property is a mystery.

Keep in mind the same class of people on the Cary city payroll who claimed Regency would be self-funding are the one's behind this land grab scheme in downtown Cary.

If anyone thinks change needs to occur in downtown Cary, one way to make that more likely is to make it easier for people to get there. And I am not talking about that gawdawful waste of money train/mass transit. Widen Chatham to a four lane road all the way from Cary Parkway in the west over Maynard, through downtown and out to Maynard on the east side. Punch Kildaire Farm Road and Harrison out the same way. Until that is done forget it, why people think the bad road design in downtown should accomodate Cary Parkway levels of traffic is another mystery.

[SteveG]

Steve,

Interesting list, it begs the question though. In getting to a place where there is some reason for you or I to go to downtown Cary who is to control the process and what level of brute force/coercion is it legitimate to deploy?

A lot of you assume there is a problem downtown. Ashworth might think so since he probably wants to expand on his little shopping village concept, even at his neighbors expense if need be. But aside from that, there is private property used as the owners wish. Why government bureaucrats feel they have some right to strip people of their own property all because the gov't or it's allies instinctively know better uses for everyone's property is a mystery.

Keep in mind the same class of people on the Cary city payroll who claimed Regency would be self-funding are the one's behind this land grab scheme in downtown Cary.

If anyone thinks change needs to occur in downtown Cary, one way to make that more likely is to make it easier for people to get there. And I am not talking about that gawdawful waste of money train/mass transit. Widen Chatham to a four lane road all the way from Cary Parkway in the west over Maynard, through downtown and out to Maynard on the east side. Punch Kildaire Farm Road and Harrison out the same way. Until that is done forget it, why people think the bad road design in downtown should accomodate Cary Parkway levels of traffic is another mystery.

You'll note that the list of issues I provided say nothing about eliminating automotive uses. But there is a government role to play in such things as providing law enforcement and effective transportation.

The current road plan for downtown is for Chapel Hill Road to be the major east-west mobility corridor, at four lanes, while Chatham would be three lanes through downtown as more of a local access facility. Chatham would provide the more comfortable and safe pedestrian atmosphere and have more parking than it has now, which would be a good functional match for the businesses fronting it. Chapel Hill Road has fewer destinations fronting it and thus will better carry more traffic at higher speeds.

There are plans for better north-south connectivity including another route over the railroad tracks, I think at Walker. I cannot remember off hand what was proposed for the logical route connection of Kildaire to North Harrison.

[Don]

You'll note that the list of issues I provided say nothing about eliminating automotive uses. But there is a government role to play in such things as providing law enforcement and effective transportation.

The current road plan for downtown is for Chapel Hill Road to be the major east-west mobility corridor, at four lanes, while Chatham would be three lanes through downtown as more of a local access facility. Chatham would provide the more comfortable and safe pedestrian atmosphere and have more parking than it has now, which would be a good functional match for the businesses fronting it. Chapel Hill Road has fewer destinations fronting it and thus will better carry more traffic at higher speeds.

There are plans for better north-south connectivity including another route over the railroad tracks, I think at Walker. I cannot remember off hand what was proposed for the logical route connection of Kildaire to North Harrison.

According to TCAP, the Kildaire/Harrison connection will take out 4 front yards. One so bad the house would not be liveable. Roads however are a public use. I worry that taking away 2 lanes of Chatham street will create such gridlock that automobiles will start to avoid downtown and we lose even more customers - in essence working oposite of the intent.

I was under the impression they were going under the tracks at walker street? Are we going over now?

The town needs to focus on infrastructure such as roads, stormwater/flooding problems, water and sewer upgrades, and parking. When a new "nice to have" such as cultural arts facilities, aquatics centers, parks, etc.. is deemed necessary, downtown should receive equal treatment when deciding on the "nice to have"'s location. It's about time.

We shouldn't eliminate any uses. Can't we all just get along? :wink:

[Wuptdo]

Don wrote:


When a new "nice to have" such as cultural arts facilities, aquatics centers, parks, etc.. is deemed necessary, downtown should receive equal treatment when deciding on the "nice to have"'s location. It's about time.


Don, you know full well how much is in the budget for "downtown Cary." What about all those new pavers, lights, benches, and "art". How much longer do the residential taxpayers have to "pay for" what the commerical property owners and tenants won't do. I only use 3 business in "downtown" and all of them could move to any other location in Cary and be successfull. Other than that, all "downtown" is to me is a "pass-thru." Knock down some of those old houses, fix the roads, and add some parking then let the private sector do their part (without government help).

Steve & Stan - good posts and excellent points.


Can't we all just get along?
Sure we can, if you pay our bill! :wink:

Wuptdo B-)

[johnb]

Steve,

Then downtown will never change.

People don't go there because it is to inconvenient to get in and out of Downtown Cary. Period. Making Chapel Hill Road four lanes is a great idea but it does nothing to solve the problem that Chatham is rotten to drive on.

The same type of people that "solved" downtown Raleigh are at work trying to "solve" downtown Cary. Don F, you better make plans to get the heck out before the place is a ghost town. If it is possible to do something as fall down stupid as the Fayetteville Street Pedestrian Mall, Cary will probably do it.

[Don]

[

Don, you know full well how much is in the budget for "downtown Cary."

Yep, except for 125 grand for planning (again), nothing.


What about all those new pavers, lights, benches, and "art".

Taxpayers "so far" have yet to pay anything for the art downtown - privately funded. and Since when does the private sector pay for street lights?


How much longer do the residential taxpayers have to "pay for" what the commerical property owners and tenants won't do.

So list again what the town has done downtown you feel should have been privately funded? When the town is building/wants to build sports venues, parks, pools, libraries, etc.... you feel downtown should not get any of them? Just keep ignoring downtown exists right? Oh that's right, you live in a new neighborhood that already has all that.


Other than that, all "downtown" is to me is a "pass-thru." Knock down some of those old houses, fix the roads, and add some parking then let the private sector do their part (without government help).

wow, something we agree on.

[Don]

The same type of people that "solved" downtown Raleigh are at work trying to "solve" downtown Cary. Don F, you better make plans to get the heck out before the place is a ghost town. If it is possible to do something as fall down stupid as the Fayetteville Street Pedestrian Mall, Cary will probably do it.

Nope, IMHO, all us "service" businesses will be here long after the pharmacy, fru-fru shops, and nick-knack stores are long gone. Those types of businesses need a strong residential base to support them. In the service industry, such as auto repair, customers still have a way of finding us when they need us.

[SteveG]

Steve,

Then downtown will never change.

People don't go there because it is to inconvenient to get in and out of Downtown Cary. Period. Making Chapel Hill Road four lanes is a great idea but it does nothing to solve the problem that Chatham is rotten to drive on.

The same type of people that "solved" downtown Raleigh are at work trying to "solve" downtown Cary. Don F, you better make plans to get the heck out before the place is a ghost town. If it is possible to do something as fall down stupid as the Fayetteville Street Pedestrian Mall, Cary will probably do it.

Raleigh has learned two important lessons over the last couple of decades about the effects of planning on downtown commerce:

1. You need lots of residents downtown to support many types of first-tier merchants; downtown must seem reasonably safe and attractive to draw or keep residents of means.

2. There is a fine balance between serving the pedestrian and serving the automobile. Ignore the automobile, and you sever access from the larger community of customers who live beyond convenient walking distance. Ignore the pedestrian, and you create an unpleasant environment in which people don't want to find themselves.

Raleigh's pedestrian mall cut off merchants from convenient motor access and made them invisible to all but those who walk by. Less traffic resulted in fewer eyes on the street and less sense of security, which sealed its fate as a commercial loser after dark. Only with a huge residential base and major attractions with convenient parking nearby would a pedestrian mall work for business. Raleigh had neither.

Chapel Hill Road and Chatham complement one another because they are redundant while also serving different purposes. Anybody who wants to get somewhere in a hurry will stay on Chapel Hill Road as much as possible; those who want to park close to a destination on Chatham will divert to Chatham when they need to. An improved Chapel Hill Road will siphon traffic off of Chatham so Chatham doesn't get too congested to adequately serve its purpose of carrying mostly local and access traffic. If the destinations on Chatham attract so much access traffic that Chatham becomes badly congested, I think it unlikely that the owners of businesses fronting Chatham would want to lose on-street parking in favor of a higher-performance, less pedestrian-friendly streetscape to move traffic faster.

[johnb]

It'll be pretty difficult to run an auto repair shop on Chatham Street when the geniasses at city hall turn it into a pedestrian mall. LOL

Actually Don, there is one business that the city should buy out, that gas station where old apex and chatham street merge. The city could put a roundabout there and punch Chatham to four lanes from Cary Parkway to Harrison and old Apex to four lanes from Cary Parkway to the roundabout.

There are lots of residential neighborhoods that those two roads could better connect and integrate with downtown, like mine in Scottish Hills, *IF* we had decent roads in and out. It's easier for me to make a longer trip elsewhere than to go into downtown Cary. That's sad but that is what City Hall wants. They prove it by refusing to clean up the roads in and out of there.

[SteveG]

It'll be pretty difficult to run an auto repair shop on Chatham Street when the geniasses at city hall turn it into a pedestrian mall. LOL

Actually Don, there is one business that the city should buy out, that gas station where old apex and chatham street merge. The city could put a roundabout there and punch Chatham to four lanes from Cary Parkway to Harrison and old Apex to four lanes from Cary Parkway to the roundabout.

There are lots of residential neighborhoods that those two roads could better connect and integrate with downtown, like mine in Scottish Hills, *IF* we had decent roads in and out. It's easier for me to make a longer trip elsewhere than to go into downtown Cary. That's sad but that is what City Hall wants. They prove it by refusing to clean up the roads in and out of there.

John,

Where are the bottlenecks that you experience headed into downtown?

Coming from North/Northwest Cary by car, the only significant delays I experience are caused by trains. Even at only two lanes, Chapel Hill Road performs reasonably well between downtown and Evans Road near where I live. I don't have any problems on Harrison, either (except for the trains).

I don't find trip times into downtown to be significantly longer than anywhere else. Except for the RR crossings, I find the signal delays downtown to be a lot shorter than the signal delays on some of the wider, faster arterials. I can get to downtown by car faster than I can get to Harrison Pointe, which is actually closer, because the wait for the left turn signal at Evans onto Maynard takes a very, very long time.

I occasionally bike into downtown on weekends, pulling my 16 month old son in the trailer behind me. There are a lot of pleasant 25 mph residential streets that run in and out of downtown. He and I will sometimes buy ice cream at Ashworths; other times we'll bike down East Park Street and Ryan to the Dairy Queen. On the way home we stop by the Farmer's market at the train station and pick up some produce.

I think with some improved street connectivity, the redundancy of streets downtown will allow it to handle plenty of vehicle capacity without requiring a lot of 4-laning.

If I remember correctly, I think there actually is a roundabout shown at Old Apex and Chatham on one of the downtown transportation planning maps....

[Wuptdo]

DonF wrote:


Nope, IMHO, all us "service" businesses will be here long after the pharmacy, fru-fru shops, and nick-knack stores are long gone. Those types of businesses need a strong residential base to support them. In the service industry, such as auto repair, customers still have a way of finding us when they need us.


Don, you are correct and that is exactly why the TC has no problem with the service industry moving out of downtown - the customers need you and will find you when required. However, does the TC have the political will to carry out the wishes of the "Cary Elites?"

Wuptdo B-)

[SteveG]

DonF wrote:


Nope, IMHO, all us "service" businesses will be here long after the pharmacy, fru-fru shops, and nick-knack stores are long gone. Those types of businesses need a strong residential base to support them. In the service industry, such as auto repair, customers still have a way of finding us when they need us.


Don, you are correct and that is exactly why the TC has no problem with the service industry moving out of downtown - the customers need you and will find you when required. However, does the TC have the political will to carry out the wishes of the "Cary Elites?"

Wuptdo B-)

I've never really understood the complaint about having auto service shops in the downtown. Are they considered wasted space in the described vision of pedestrian-oriented destinations, or are they considered somehow functionally or aesthetically toxic to that vision?

On those occasions where I have dropped a car off for service at businesses on the outskirts of towns or cities, I typically find myself surrounded by roads and developments that are extremely inconvenient, unpleasant, or even dangerous for pedestrians...and there I am, without a car.

If I were to drop off my car in downtown Cary, I would have a multitude of places to go while waiting (a) for my car to be fixed, or (b) for my ride. I would also have access to transit services not as available on the urban fringe. So it seems that a downtown location has some advantages for the automotive service customer.

What are the functional disadvantages of the automotive service establishment to non-patrons? Are there noxious fumes or unacceptable noises coming out of such places? I haven't noticed such. Do mechanics and customers come peeling in and out of the property? I've seen this happen at urban-fringe locations, but I doubt the automotive service proprieters would tolerate such behavior downtown. The only real disadvantage, in my mind, is that the building setback and site layout can not afford the pedestrian on the sidewalk much protection from sun, wind and rain. This creates a gap in the streetscape that discourages strolling under some conditions. But there are so many causes of such shelter gaps downtown, for example the design of many other businesses and the town hall buildings, that it seems silly to point fingers at the automotive businesses.

I think it's important to keep in mind that when serving the real-world interests of pedestrians, an anti-car ideology is neither necessary nor productive.

-Steve Goodridge

[johnb]

Where are the bottlenecks that you experience headed into downtown?

The worst is between Harrison and Academy. Traffic is often backed up between the lights.

I don't find trip times into downtown to be significantly longer than anywhere else.

At lunch occasionally I will slip over to a downtown business or two and it's not convenient to navigate the narrow 2 lane road then throw in the lack of parking it makes it a pain in the rear. On road parking is not helping the place at all. I don't know the best solution for that but I do know that with Chatham being as narrow as it is there won't be much more traffic in that area.

I think with some improved street connectivity, the redundancy of streets downtown will allow it to handle plenty of vehicle capacity without requiring a lot of 4-laning.

How many more years of lackluster business development are you willing to bet on that belief?

If I remember correctly, I think there actually is a roundabout shown at Old Apex and Chatham on one of the downtown transportation planning maps....

A citizen must have drawn it in, government employees don't think (like that).

[SteveG]

Where are the bottlenecks that you experience headed into downtown?

The worst is between Harrison and Academy. Traffic is often backed up between the lights.

At lunch occasionally I will slip over to a downtown business or two and it's not convenient to navigate the narrow 2 lane road then throw in the lack of parking it makes it a pain in the rear. On road parking is not helping the place at all. I don't know the best solution for that but I do know that with Chatham being as narrow as it is there won't be much more traffic in that area.


I notice short traffic backups on Chatham street near Academy sometimes, such as during the PM rush hour. I am able to avoid them by using 54 to go east-west, which offers very little delay. When I am unable to avoid them, I can minimize my time in them by taking any of the side streets to another road.

I wonder how much of the Chatham Street downtown traffic involves business access versus through traffic. 54 does diverge away from Chatham on the west side of Cary; perhaps that area that is south of the tracks is where these drivers are headed. A lack of crossings over the railroad makes it harder to get there from 54. Since I live closer to 54, I usually cut over to 54 from Chatham street at one of a number of locations, such as the underpass (is that called Durham road?) that runs by the fire station.

I look forward to the railroad _underpass_ at Walker; I wish they could fit grade separation into the Harrison crossing.

Without taking a wrecking ball to existing buildings, I don't see how the on-street parking on Chatham could be replaced by equally convenient parking elsewhere. Those businesses that don't already have off-street parking lots will be hurt the most if the on-street is taken away. I think parking capacity and traffic throughput capacity are important to business, but I think the additional capacity will appear a short distance away from Chatham street rather than right on it.

Downtown merchants will have to figure out how to make downtown enticing enough for visitors to put up with the inconveniences. Some downtowns have figured out to do this, and others have failed. I don't have high expectations of greatly increased patronage downtown, but I think with some intelligent management of parking and traffic, it can support some compelling destinations and provide a pleasant alternative to strip mall town, USA.

-Steve

[johnb]

provide a pleasant alternative to strip mall town, USA.

What's wrong with strip malls? They're convenient and for the merchant they're a cost effective means of setting up a store front. They're ubiquitous because they work well. An engineer should appreciate the triumph of function Steve.

[Don]

What's wrong with strip malls?

strip malls bad - downtown good......you know that john :wink:

[johnb]

Hey Don,

Are downtown's "all natural" ?

john

[StanN]

My problems with traffic congestion are not downtown (except for trains coming through) but rather on N/S arterials. Coming out of Freshmarket the other day at rush hour. I was first on line at the light - ready to turn south onto Kildaire Farms. The traffic at Cary Pkwy on KF was so backed up I couldnt make the light. I eventually got disgusted and made a U-turn and went home via connector roads.

Ditto for that dammed light at the five corners just N of Crossroads. I tend to avoid Walnut because of that light. I suspect that is part of the reason for the heavy use of KF Road. Another problem area is getting in and out of Crossroads.

IMHO thse locations deserve more attention than Chatham which is no more than average regarding traffic congestion.

The case could be made that Walnut between Holly Springs Road and the shopping center at its northern terminus is the true downtown in Cary. Certainly there is more retail business there than along Chatham St.
Isn't the preponderence of retailing the key factor that defines "downtown". Why shouldn't traffic and improved roads near Crossroads be given grater priority than Chatham? And what could be done to build on the strengths of that area? e.g. a parking garage connected to shuttle service that would make one or more stops at the five major shopping plazas in the area.

I'll answer my own question - the emphasis on Chatham St. likely relates to individual leadership and the political voice and influence of the HOC lobby. They are doing exactly what any group of citizens should do to get their itch scratched. But it is up to staff and the CTC to see through that and address the highest priorities first.

And a bit off the subject. Have you seen the explosion of retailing along 55 on either side of the intersection of 64? Its remarkable. Easily another Walnut St. Question: to what extent has Cary funded improvements of 55 promoted this explosion of retailing? Also, part of the boom must be do the improvements to 64. Clearly expansion of roads leads to economic development. So why did Cary cut its roads budget 70%?
stan

[SteveG]

Build a fast road that goes somewhere, and it will become popular.

When the road becomes popular, retailers will want to be on it.

When the retail comes, so will more traffic.

When the traffic comes, the road will slow way down much of the time.

When the roads slow down, engineers will propose adding lanes to speed them up.

At some point, widening becomes cost-prohibitive or won't work, and alternate routes are the only way to carry the traffic.

When alternate routes are needed through commercial zoning, traffic engineers recommend a somewhat gridlike network of streets to disperse traffic.

But a gridlike network of streets doesn't support the highest speeds desired by the original designers of the fast road.

The moral of the story is that you really cannot expect to carry high speeds reliably on roads directly through a commercially zoned area in an urban setting. The only way to do it is with a freeway that is grade separated from the network of local access streets that serve the commercial destinations. That network will always carry traffic at more modest speeds, but if it is well connected, it will work, and customers will accept it.

If you want to keep a non-freeway road performing at speed, don't allow commercial zoning on it. But we know that this is politically impossible.

-Steve

[johnb]

Steve,

Quite to the contrary, yes you can. There is an excellent example of this in Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco, Mexico. What they have is a center road with limited access which runs at higher speeds. Parallel to that is a one way road on each side with access to the hotels, businesses, apartments, etc...

There are periodic lights to allow traffic to interchange. Now, on the center road you cannot make lefthand turns at the intersections, you have to make a right turn to get on the parallel side road then hit a light to properly cross traffic.

It kills several birds with one stone. However, it necessitates thinking BEFORE building or buying out some property owners to widen the road. One costs more thought the other costs more cash. Government employees aren't known for the first and the rest of us don't trust them with the second.

[SteveG]

Steve,

Quite to the contrary, yes you can. There is an excellent example of this in Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco, Mexico. What they have is a center road with limited access which runs at higher speeds. Parallel to that is a one way road on each side with access to the hotels, businesses, apartments, etc...

There are periodic lights to allow traffic to interchange. Now, on the center road you cannot make lefthand turns at the intersections, you have to make a right turn to get on the parallel side road then hit a light to properly cross traffic.

It kills several birds with one stone. However, it necessitates thinking BEFORE building or buying out some property owners to widen the road. One costs more thought the other costs more cash. Government employees aren't known for the first and the rest of us don't trust them with the second.

Here the increased speed and capacity is being provided with increased access control. Not as extreme as the freeway, but the same idea.

As you describe, this kind of access control requires a lot more land, since all the access requires adjacent frontage roads, and left turns require some sort of dogbone. If planners and engineers were to recommend that this much land be purchased by the government or otherwise made undevelopable before any frontage retail moves in, what a fuss would be made, especially by the small-government proponents. "What traffic?" they would say. "Darned gummint wants to take my land!"

The more realistic evolution is that traffic speeds will decline except in those places where people accept that their government will have to pay market value for prime retail property in order to make traffic move faster.

I think it's interesting to see you promoting long-range local government planning and control of land use, including preemptively buying up land, if it means the traffic will move years later!

[Brent]

Steve, you've noted the "traffic vicious circle" very well.

Austin, TX also has roads similar to what JohnB described...limited-access roads with turn restrictions down the middle and side roads with access to businesses. Yes, it's just a variation on a freeway.

[StanN]

Steve,

Great post.

As to 55, from Apex's point of view it does wonders for their tax base...which they can spend elsewhere. ....oh well Cary gets Houlihans on Lake Pine and 64.

The Champs Elysee in Paris is like the road in PV John describes.

So what do you do to relieve congestion on Walnut St. of KF? Widen them and add limited access sidee roads? And what if there is not enough in the till for that? Anything less costly? Like a trolley car down the middle of Walnut?

stan

stan

[Cathy]

Roosevelt Blvd in Philadelphia is built exactly like John describes.

It does require a lot of width, and it has it's good points and bad, but it is pretty successful at moving traffic through the area while still supporting a mix of retail and residential land use along the way. This road carries a lot of traffic going from Philly to NJ & NY right through a heavily urbanized area.

One does need good defensive driving skills to use this type of set up and you need to be familiar with where to get on and off the high speed center if you are trying to access an area along the way.

I would bet that the New Urbanist's aren't too fond of this type of roadway.

Cathy

[SteveG]

I would bet that the New Urbanist's aren't too fond of this type of roadway.

Cathy

I saw plenty of monster roads like this in New Jersey, birthplace of the Jersey barrier. The frontage roads support strip development; the center road has a jersey barrier for a median. Left turns are prohibited; dog bones are used every mile or so. A trip across the road takes at least a mile or more of driving.

Local drivers hate them, pedestrians hate them, cyclists hate them, and nobody wants to look at them. So no, such roads really won't facilitate or welcome people living near commercial development; people want to live as far from such corridors as possible.

[SteveG]

Steve,

Great post.

As to 55, from Apex's point of view it does wonders for their tax base...which they can spend elsewhere. ....oh well Cary gets Houlihans on Lake Pine and 64.

The Champs Elysee in Paris is like the road in PV John describes.

So what do you do to relieve congestion on Walnut St. of KF? Widen them and add limited access sidee roads? And what if there is not enough in the till for that? Anything less costly? Like a trolley car down the middle of Walnut?

stan

My office is moving to Regency soon, so my new bike commute will take me from Lake Pine to Regency on highway 64, through the US1 interchange. 64 is an ugly road to cycle because of all the right-turn-only lanes next to narrow through lanes, and the high-speed merge lanes. But my only alternative is Kildaire Farm. I've been cycling both KF and 64 for years, but I haven't decided which will be more pleasant at rush hour. I've heard that NCDOT wants to make 64 a controlled access freeway. If so, I wonder how they will provide local access to all these businesses, and if the frontage roads will cross US1. If not, local traffic is screwed.

I've walked both sides of the Champs in Paris; it is designed to be reasonably comfortable for pedestrians, but crossing is not very convenient. Each side of the road really performs like a different place. Still, there crossing opportunities are far more frequent - and the vehicle speeds far lower - than the monster thoroughfares of New Jersey. It isn't that much different from some roads in downtown DC where left turns are prohibited.

KF won't get widened any more than it is unless the town wants to condemn buildings. Signal synch and a few turn lane improvements are the most I expect to see.

Between US1 and downtown, Walnut might get six-laned, and this is proposed in long-range transportation plans. This will include ripping out all the existing street trees, which will be so unpopular it might prevent it from happening. But the real congestion is around US1 and the Crossroads mall. The road improvement plans described in the Southeast Area Plan look to me like they will make substantial improvements. They include lane additions to the bridge, more functional movements on and off of the freeway and into Crossroads, more and better access between Crossroads, Walnut Street, and Buck Jones, and connectivity improvements between adjacent commercial areas. There is also a long-term proposal for a new bridge between the Crossroads and South Hills areas. This would support more traffic in both South Hills and Crossroads. The roads won't be performing at 50 mph, but they will do well at around 25-35.

-Steve

[Brent]

So what do you do to relieve congestion on Walnut St. of KF?

Well, for starters, I wouldn't build the 133,000 square foot Crossroads Ford that is currently on the Consent Agenda for this Thursday's Council meeting (I know you were referring to what can we do to improve the traffic flow, but for starters, why make it worse until we figure that out?).

[SteveG]

So what do you do to relieve congestion on Walnut St. of KF?

Well, for starters, I wouldn't build the 133,000 square foot Crossroads Ford that is currently on the Consent Agenda for this Thursday's Council meeting (I know you were referring to what can we do to improve the traffic flow, but for starters, why make it worse until we figure that out?).

But don't car dealerships generate less traffic per acre than just about any other type of retail?

[StanN]

Brent,

So would you like them to move out of town and lose the ratable? Not me. Sounds like there is room for someone to broker a deal - Crossroads Ford approval for some of the improvements in the plan referred to by Steve.

Stan

[SteveG]

Brent,

So would you like them to move out of town and lose the ratable? Not me. Sounds like there is room for someone to broker a deal - Crossroads Ford approval for some of the improvements in the plan referred to by Steve.

Stan

One of the conditions for the rezoning is that Crossroads Ford must provide for a local through-street connection that is a small part of the network intended to take some load off of Walnut.

To make the connection, a permit must be obtained from the state to cross wetlands. A condition of the rezoning is that Crossroads must do the work and pay the fees to obtain this permit. If the permit is denied, however, the zoning change will stand, and a different, less useful road connection must be made.

-Steve

[Cathy]

Executive Summary:
The Costs of Sprawl Reconsidered:
What the Data Really Show

by Wendell Cox and Joshua Utt
Executive Summary #1770

June 25, 2004 | Full Text | |

The Costs of Sprawl?

The "anti-sprawl" movement has received much attention in recent years, and has been successful in implementing its "smart growth" policies in some areas. Much of the justification for the current campaign against the low-density (sprawling) urban development that Americans and Western Europeans prefer is based upon assumptions that it is more costly than the more dense development of central cities. A federally financed research project (Costs of Sprawl) concluded that we can no longer afford sprawling development and that failure to force more dense development in the next quarter-century would impose more than $225 billion in additional costs.

Current Urban Planning Assumptions

The urban planning profession generally contends that the following assumptions (called in this paper Current Urban Planning Assumptions) are compelling reasons why greater control should be exercised over land use to fight urban sprawl.

Lower spending will be associated with higher population densities.
Lower spending will be associated with lower rates of population growth.
Lower spending will be associated with older municipalities.

Research to Date

Most of the research on which these assumptions are based is theoretical, projecting standard costs into the future.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/SmartGrowth/bg1770es.cfm

[johnb]

But don't car dealerships generate less traffic per acre than just about any other type of retail?

No growth means NO GROWTH. D@mnit Steve, get with the program. Growth bad! Bad Growth! Bad!

[Brent]

But don't car dealerships generate less traffic per acre than just about any other type of retail?

Perhaps. The traffic study data that I've seen shows that the proposed use generates a few less peak trips than the O&I that could otherwise go there under current zoning (I think it's 1 less P.M. peak trip).

And I think "peak" times for an auto dealership are concentrated on weekends, unlike O&I, which might be more concentrated on weekdays.

I am just wondering why we want to dump 200+ A.M & P.M. peak trips onto the roads at Crossroads on weekends.

[Brent]

Brent,

So would you like them to move out of town and lose the ratable? Not me. Sounds like there is room for someone to broker a deal - Crossroads Ford approval for some of the improvements in the plan referred to by Steve.

Stan

Nope. But I don't see how it helps anyone to dump 200+ new A.M. & P.M. peak trips onto the roads at Crossroads, especially on weekends. The current "deal" is that they'll build some turn lanes and maybe a connector road.

Crossroads is a disaster that needs major fixes. Some of those are on the drawing board. Why would we want to dump more traffic onto already-gridlocked roads before some of these major improvements are underway? Having the business and tax base is great. But customers being able to get to the businesses is kind of important too.

[johnb]

As opposed to where?

That is a location that is hard to beat as far as generating traffic, I mean the traffic of people into businesses. It's a great location. Now, that said, the fact that the city and state won't get that clover leaf cleaned up, that Walnut isn't widened with better turning lanes, and the entrance to Crossroads aligned with the north bound off ramp from 64 to keep traffic flowing smoothly is primarily the fault of the city council.

When you're stuck in traffic there Brent, don't blame businesses, they're providing goods and services you and I and the rest of us demand. The blame goes to the City for not taking care of basic infrastructure needs while blowing millions annually on junk (Regency, art, Sk8 park, etc....)

[Brent]

One of the conditions for the rezoning is that Crossroads Ford must provide for a local through-street connection that is a small part of the network intended to take some load off of Walnut.

Is this an actual condition attached to the rezoning? I thought that P&Z said that as part of their approval they wanted to ensure that the road improvements were made before the development occurred, and I thought that there was some notice from Staff afterwards that said that P&Z can't attach "future road improvement" conditions to the activity center concept plan?

I think the traffic study anticipates that at site plan time, a couple of turn lanes and access alignment will be required, and maybe a traffic signal. Are you certain that the connector road and other improvements are a current binding condition?

[Brent]

When you're stuck in traffic there Brent, don't blame businesses, they're providing goods and services you and I and the rest of us demand. The blame goes to the City for not taking care of basic infrastructure needs while blowing millions annually on junk (Regency, art, Sk8 park, etc....)

Agreed. It's a horrible mess. Why add more water to the bucket that's already overflowing? Let's get a bigger bucket first before we crank up the water flow rate.

[Brent]

The blame goes to the City for not taking care of basic infrastructure needs while blowing millions annually on junk (Regency, art, Sk8 park, etc....)

Actually, that's half the equation...it's the Council's fault for approving growth that the infrastructure can't handle. And that's my point: the infrastructure needs to catch up in the Crossroads area before more growth is approved.

However, all indications are that we're on a path of increasing growth and decreasing infrastructure improvements. Apparently the lesson of Crossroads wasn't learned, meaning that there will be more Crossroads-like situations in the future.

[dhyatt]

As opposed to where?

That is a location that is hard to beat as far as generating traffic, I mean the traffic of people into businesses. It's a great location. Now, that said, the fact that the city and state won't get that clover leaf cleaned up, that Walnut isn't widened with better turning lanes, and the entrance to Crossroads aligned with the north bound off ramp from 64 to keep traffic flowing smoothly is primarily the fault of the city council.

When you're stuck in traffic there Brent, don't blame businesses, they're providing goods and services you and I and the rest of us demand. The blame goes to the City for not taking care of basic infrastructure needs while blowing millions annually on junk (Regency, art, Sk8 park, etc....)

The current city council had little to do with Crossroads per se since it opened in 1991 (Jack is the only remaining council member from that period). The council of the late 80's may have 'created' the problem, however more recent councils served to make the problem worse. The addition of Centrum, which didn't require a traffic study because it is conveniently 100' further from the US 1 & 64 interchange than the distance that would have predicated a traffic study, is what really blew the lid on that intersection and the entire Walnut St corridor.

The problem today is that it's mostly the state's responsibility to fix it and they've been dragging their feet, at least partially because wEasely keeps raiding the highway fund to cover pet social projects. Untill NC gets off their arse and actually fixes the intersection (there is a plan in place), there's only so much Cary can do.

The Crossroads Ford expansion seems outrageous but I'm not sure the net effect will be much, especially since traffic on Buck Jones road will be somewhat reduced as a result.

[Brent]

The current city council had little to do with Crossroads per se since it opened in 1991 (Jack is the only remaining council member from that period). The council of the late 80's may have 'created' the problem, however more recent councils served to make the problem worse. The addition of Centrum, which didn't require a traffic study because it is conveniently 100' further from the US 1 & 64 interchange than the distance that would have predicated a traffic study, is what really blew the lid on that intersection and the entire Walnut St corridor.

Quite right. Although gridlock started to occur before Centrum. And the proposed Crossroads Ford just continues/exacerbates the Centrum/Crossroads problem.

[snip]


The Crossroads Ford expansion seems outrageous but I'm not sure the net effect will be much, especially since traffic on Buck Jones road will be somewhat reduced as a result.

Well, perhaps. I suppose once you've crossed the gridlock threshold, the net effect of adding more traffic to a saturated area isn't much.

[Brent]

wEasely

VERY nice, Hyatt! I love it! :-D

[StanN]

Rather than putting money into frills, the TOC needs to focus on needs such as the traffic in the Centrum/Crossroads area. (This is more Cary's downtown than the Chatham St. business district - as an example of a lower priority project- a zero sum game to boot.)

As to Don's comments on the state's responsibility - he is technically correct, but if the TOC and other muni's had to wait until the state came through with money for local projects we would be in total gridlock. The TOC should have two plans - one based on state participation and the other, a more modest stepwise approach, on what can be done without the state's funding. And the town should make it crystal clear that Cary's taxpayers are footing the bill because the state will not step-up to its responsibility. In the meantime the jobs and the tax base from Crossroads Ford should not be put in jepordy.

This raises the question of what our representatives to the NCGA are doing to get equitable treatment for road $'s for the Triangle. I have heard not one word on the subject from any of them including Richard Stevens, Paul Stam, Russel Capps and Nelson Dollar. The only legislator whom I know of who was willing to tackle the nut of the problem was progressive Democrat Wib Gulley of Durham - and he has retired.

And to make the problem worse any number of right wing Republicans, including several of the above, have lined up to make it more difficult to get anyone in the UA to pay their fair share of local road improvements. One wonders where RONO or others in Dutchman Downs and the nearby UA residents do their shopping? Do they have their stuff parachuted in? And where do they have their jobs?

Don't ask why I am so grumpy...the world is going mad and I am the only sane one left...except for John.

Stan

[SteveG]

One of the conditions for the rezoning is that Crossroads Ford must provide for a local through-street connection that is a small part of the network intended to take some load off of Walnut.

Is this an actual condition attached to the rezoning? I thought that P&Z said that as part of their approval they wanted to ensure that the road improvements were made before the development occurred, and I thought that there was some notice from Staff afterwards that said that P&Z can't attach "future road improvement" conditions to the activity center concept plan?

I think the traffic study anticipates that at site plan time, a couple of turn lanes and access alignment will be required, and maybe a traffic signal. Are you certain that the connector road and other improvements are a current binding condition?

The zoning/plan condition was only for the one road connection and permitting. The developer and town staff were still hammering out the language on that, but it was proposed as a condition if I remember correctly. The only escape was if the state denied the permitting, in which case a different, less useful connection would be made. I believe the subject area was within the property limits and so under the control of the land owner.

[SteveG]

[ wEasely keeps raiding the highway fund to cover pet social projects.

Can you provide me with a reference/news story to Easely diverting Highway Fund dollars to non-transportation uses?

I am familiar with some diversion of Highway Trust Fund dollars to important highway repair projects (Highway Trust Fund dollars were not intended for repair, only for new lane-miles of freeway) but I don't remember seeing diversion of Highway Fund dollars to non-transportation uses.

[SteveG]

Rather than putting money into frills, the TOC needs to focus on needs such as the traffic in the Centrum/Crossroads area. (This is more Cary's downtown than the Chatham St. business district - as an example of a lower priority project- a zero sum game to boot.) Stan

Stan,

What do you think of the Southeast Area Plan road improvement recommendations for the Crossroads area?

http://www.townofcary.org/depts/dsdept/walnutcorridor/segp.htm

Steve

[johnb]

It's a good plan.

How much of it is going to get done though when McMayor, et al, are gutting road budgets to buy Chrome Mummys for their Inconsequential Art Show.

[Wuptdo]

Let me chime here with my 2 cents. A DOT planner I know told me the main reason why the work on Crossroads has not been happening is because the City of Raleigh also has to sign off on any improvements made in that area (Route 1/64 & I-440). Now why would Raleigh want to do something that will benefit Cary merchants?

Wuptdo B-)

[Don]

Rather than putting money into frills, the TOC needs to focus on needs such as the traffic in the Centrum/Crossroads area. (This is more Cary's downtown than the Chatham St. business district - as an example of a lower priority project- a zero sum game to boot.) Stan

Stan,

What do you think of the Southeast Area Plan road improvement recommendations for the Crossroads area?

http://www.townofcary.org/depts/dsdept/walnutcorridor/segp.htm

Steve

I would like to know how the town plans to acquire the land for the I-64 on ramp. Or have they already?

[dhyatt]

[ wEasely keeps raiding the highway fund to cover pet social projects.

Can you provide me with a reference/news story to Easely diverting Highway Fund dollars to non-transportation uses?

I am familiar with some diversion of Highway Trust Fund dollars to important highway repair projects (Highway Trust Fund dollars were not intended for repair, only for new lane-miles of freeway) but I don't remember seeing diversion of Highway Fund dollars to non-transportation uses.

Here you go. From a couple of sources you'll perhaps appreciate :-)
Granted, he technically took money slated to build new roads and instead put it towards road & bridge repair. However, those are maintenance issues which should have been funded as part of the general DOT budget. By fudging the money that way, he freed up general fund $$$ for other pet projects. The two references I included are the best spin possible. There are plenty of negative spin sources also...


http://www.nccta.org/news/news4.htm
http://www.mikeeasley.org/pages/pgs_impact/econ_plan/imp_econ_majorrds.htm

[StanN]

Steve,

You asked what I thought of subject plan.

I tend to trust the experrtise of the planners who prepared it. However, I would like to know how the plan could be phased; the relative effectiveness of each of the phases; the cost of each of the phases; the fall-back position if NCDOT does not come through woth the $'s; the timetable for that decision and what the town could do to influence it. eg. pick up part of the bill or loan the DOT funds to be repaid; the alternatives that were considered but not chosen and the reasons for same; CAMPO's role and the council of mayors (the TAC) role in prioritizing the use of state funds - assuming TAC has an important role what is our strategy in influencing that vote.

I DON'T SEE THIS PROJECT ON CAMPO'S PRIORITY LIST. wHY SHOULD I THINK NCDOT FUNDS WILL BE AVAILABLE IN THE FORSEEABLE FUTURE. wHAT AM I MISSING HERE????

After that kind of in-depth education I might have some opinions that were worthwhile.

STAN

[johnb]

Stan,

We may have, in a way, shot ourselves in the foot by using city money to do state road work. The state may now assume that wealthy cities can be coerced into doing that if the DOT doesn't move on their projects. From the DOTs perspective it's a great solution because they don't have to spend the money and the legislature can always block repayment to the munincipality later.

I don't mind Cary doing it, if the alternative is waiting till hell freezes over for the DOT to do something, but the DOT should just be honest and tell us up front they're gonna screw us and we're never gonna get the support/funding from the DOT the law requires.

Granted the process needs to be fixed, but I don't think Cary can wait on the incompetant solons in Raleigh to act.

[StanN]

Get educated as to priorities for NCDOT funds in Wake.

http://www.raleigh-nc.org/campo/TCC_Agenda/August_2004/Agenda-TCC-2004-08-05-Att-07-FY_2006-2012_MTIP_Project_Priority.pdf

Note that TAC makes final decisions on major regional priorities. TAC is comprised of Wakes muni mayors + a Wake commissioner representing the UA. Their vote is population weighted. But usually they form political coalitions to determine priorities. These priorities can overide priorities established by the TCC, a regional group of planners. On regional, high priority projects, Raleigh + Cary is a majority. So is Raleigh + UA. It is very difficult to have a majority without Raleigh's vote. (So whatever Lola wants Lola gets - to quote a line from an old song - and we all know what a good regional player Raleigh is.)

Funds available to NCDOT are so sparse versus needs that only top few projects are funded by state and it takes years and years for lower priority projects to rise to top of the list.

Read it and weep. As long as the NCGA allocates available $'s based on
Jones St. politics rather than objective needs involving population growth and traffic congestion - there is little reason to believe relief to Cary's and the Triangle's transportation problems is at hand. Ask your NCGA rep what they are doing about this mess and waste of your tax $'s.

Stan

stan

[johnb]

That priority list is a joke.

Our city council is worried about neon signs, Inconsequential Art, and SRO's when they should be gutting the budget to take care of the single most important responsibility they have.

Of course, there's nothing cool and sexy about roads and utilities.

[SteveG]

Of course, there's nothing cool and sexy about roads and utilities.

Unless you're an engineer. But who thinks engineers are cool and sexy?

....

Four engineers were sitting around one day trying to figure out who might have designed the human body. The first fellow said, "I think it might be a Mechanical Engineer, because of joints and muscle and sense of balance." The other three nodded their heads and said, "Yeah, could be."

The second fellow said, "I think it might be an Electrical Engineer, because of the nervous system and neural network." The other three nodded their heads and said, "Yeah, could be."

The third fellow said, "I think it might be a Chemical Engineer, because of hormonal balances and metabolism." The other three nodded their heads and said, "Yeah, could be."

The fourth fellow snaps his fingers and shouts out, "I know, it HAD to have been a Civil engineer!" The other three ask "Why?"

"Well," replied the fourth fellow, "who else would put a waste water drainage right through a recreational area?"

[Wuptdo]

Times are changing:

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/story/1524252p-7697177c.html

Other than Pure Gold are there any other venues for "Live Art or Music" that regular people can afford in Cary?

Is this Cary's future?

http://www.newsobserver.com/print/thursday/front/story/1520658p-7691954c.html

Thoughts & Comments?

Wuptdo B-)

[StanN]

Wuotdo:

Whats wrong with Regency or the community center? Or the low cost theater at NCSU? Or the free musical performances at Meredith? Or the free band concerts in Bond Park or near the old hotel near town hall? Or driving the short distance to Raleigh's BTI center? Is the fact of having a world class venue an additional 10 minutes away in Raleigh a turn-off? Is it the 10 minutes or the fact it is another town? e.g. suppose the venue was in Cary Park near RTP - does that qualify as Cary?

Or is the cost of Regency and Raleigh's BTI center the problem? Are you proposing that the town subsidize Regency further with your tax dollars (ditto for the state, the county and Raleigh at the BTI center) so that "regular people" can afford those venues?

Is the issue that you like theatrical arts (as I do - even donate beyond my three subscriptions) and want those who don't care a fig about them to support your tastes.

I simply do not understand your problem. This region is very rich in cultural and theatrical opportunities at all price levels. Pleasee help me understand.

Is it "penis envy" vis-a-vis Raleigh - do we need everything they have: a jail, a convention center, and move the state capital here while you are at it.

stan

[johnb]

Is it "penis envy" vis-a-vis Raleigh - do we need everything they have: a jail, a convention center, and move the state capital here while you are at it.

Well, Raleigh does have a larger Adult Entertainment Center than we do, but I don't think that'd quality as "penis envy".

Cary needs a "perfrorming arts center" the way we need a city ski resort, a city hunting/shooting range, and a city beach.

[StanN]

Wuptdo,

Just came back from the Stewart Theater at NCSU. Saw an excellent production of Sondheims's Follies. A cast of 35, excellent costumes. Comfortable, modern theater. All for a few $ more than the price of a movie, especially if you buy the series. Go see the reunion of the aging follies girls and their young "ghosts". Wonderful performances per this B'way veteran. It's Sondheim at his best. Runs thru next weekend. Only10-15 min. away.

The Centerstage serries there has as many as 20 events/month. Parking is free. Subsidized by the state and private sponsors including the Goodnights.

So what would a theatrical arts center on Chatham St. do for me that is unavailable at NCSU?

stan

[johnb]

Cost you an added burden on your property taxes.

[Brent]

So what would a theatrical arts center on Chatham St. do for me that is unavailable at NCSU?



Enable you to see the Cary Concert Singers, Cary Town Band, Cary Applause Youth theater, local visual and performance artists and other such local talent that isn't going to be financially viable at BTI or NCSU.

[johnb]

Wow. I hadn't realized those groups would cease to exist unless the city builds a "performing arts center" on Chatham Street.

They couldn't use facilities at Cary High, Green Hope High, any of the local churces, Regency Park, etc...etc...???

[Brent]

Wow. I hadn't realized those groups would cease to exist unless the city builds a "performing arts center" on Chatham Street.

They wouldn't cease to exist. And I am not lobbying for "the city" to build such a venue. I would expect the groups themselves to be incented to participate in such an effort.


They couldn't use facilities at Cary High, Green Hope High, any of the local churces, Regency Park, etc...etc...???

Of course they could, or could at least try to (have you tried to get a approval for a private group to use school facilities? It ain't easy; it often ain't possible). I think a lot of that goes on now. Realistically, though, think about several dozen such groups trying to schedule performances, rehearsals and exhibits in an ad hoc way versus having a "home". And if the point is to have a central venue that can serve as a "destination", that isn't achieved with your suggested method. The whole could be greater than the sum of the parts.

[Wuptdo]

Stan wrote:


I simply do not understand your problem. This region is very rich in cultural and theatrical opportunities at all price levels. Pleasee help me understand.



Sorry Stan, that last posting was supposed to be "sarcastic" in response to this posting and the noted N&O articles:

DonF wrote:


It will help a little John.

The Town of Cary WILL, I repeat, WILL have a cultural arts facility. It's gonna happen John. It may be totally public funded, maybe totally prvate or a little of both, but it WILL happen.

I am well aware of all the various venues in the area, except for Mededith (thanks!). I am also well aware how difficult it use to use facilities at the public schools. I also know how under used the facilities are at NCSU (Stewart & Thompson Theathers) (and for that matter the indoor pool as well). A few years ago I built the coffin for the Thompson's Production of "Dracula." We get tickets to "best of Broadway" for downtown venue's, but only go to Matinee shows. Yes, I am fearful of going to downtown Raleigh at night, so only evening shows in the Summer.

I would like to point out that your postings were excellent in that they showed the other venues for entertainment in the area. Want some real fun, go to the horse shows at the State Fair Grounds on weekends. :D

However, until the roads/parking issues are fixed in "downtown" Cary, a performance art center is the last thing we need. I still think my idea for the Madstone Complex is the best idea for a overall "performance art center."

Also, I am still mad at the Thompson/Stewart Theather people for denying my permit to produce and direct (and pay for) my own show. All I wanted to do was an old time "minsteral show" like back from the early 1900's :-D . However, they said given the times, it wouldn't be "PC." Funny, they can display Jesus in bottle of urine and that is call art, however, try doing something that was a major part of American theather for over 75 years and it's considered "racist." Oh well, times change!

Wuptdo B-)

[SteveG]

Granted, he technically took money slated to build new roads and instead put it towards road & bridge repair. However, those are maintenance issues which should have been funded as part of the general DOT budget. By fudging the money that way, he freed up general fund $$$ for other pet projects.

You imply that money that would have gone into road maintenance from the general fund (or the ordinary highway fund) instead went to pet projects unrelated to transportation.

What evidence do you have that funding for road maintenence and repair from sources other than the Highway Trust Fund was any less than it has been other years as a percentage of total spending?

It is my understanding that Easely boosted total spending on road maintenance and repair, period, without any impact on construction of new trust-fund roadways, since the trust-fund roadways are not ready to be built and had a funding surplus. I believe the total actual spending on implemented transportation improvements increased.

-Steve

[SteveG]

Speaking of local theater, I greatly enjoyed watching "Comic Potential" put on by Actor's Comedy Lab at Thompson Theater. I saw it on Saturday; it runs through next weekend. It has much of the same cast as "When Bees in Honey Drown" which was my first experience as a stagehand a few years back. I don't think my recommedation is biased by the fact that I know the cast, director, and production crew, though....

-Steve (whose actor friends say they try not to be seen in Cary...)

[Wuptdo]

Steve - a good post.

I too know some people in the Arts & Academic community. Most of which despise Cary and all it stands for, i.e., upscale suburban community. However, they also know who pays for their lifestyles :wink: .


Wuptdo B-)