Skip to content
The Archive of The Carrboro Citizen
Menu
  • Home
  • News
  • Community
  • Schools
  • Business
  • Opinion
  • Obituaries
  • Sports
  • Mill
  • Flora
  • Print Archive
  • About
Menu

Considering connector roads

Posted on February 19, 2009 by Staff

By James Carnahan

I disagree with Alderman Dan Coleman’s statement (Citizen, 2/5/09) that Carrboro’s Connector Roads Policy “fails in its stated goal ‘to disperse newly generated traffic and to give a sense of connectivity and unity to the town as it grew.’”

I believe the policy will help us realize the stated goals incrementally over time, as more connections get made. In addition, I think it also achieves a critical unstated goal (according to an Environmental Advisory Board member who helped craft the policy): reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and the fuel conservation and CO2 reduction associated with VMT reduction.

While I agree a re-assessment of the Connector Roads Policy will benefit Carrboro, I would strongly oppose any effort to water it down. As it is, the ultimate build-out of the current policy will produce a limited grid, and compromises recently implemented in the cases of the Autumn Drive and Sweet Bay Place connectors undermine the goals that have evolved over decades of work on the policy.

I see revisiting the connector policy as an opportunity to strengthen it and ensure the desired outcomes. The Statement of Purpose Coleman cites from the 1986 policy document needs to be amended to include the objective of reducing trip lengths in order to save fuel and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The safety issue that postponed the Autumn Drive connection needs to be addressed.

If safety can only be achieved by inclusion of sidewalks, then the town needs to consider ways to get these sidewalks built in a more timely fashion. Comments from neighbors of a possible connection on Claymore Road clearly indicate the need sometimes to upgrade roads when they become thru streets. Claymore is a N.C. Department of Transportation maintained road; by what mechanism would we get pedestrian and safety improvements in such a case?

I think it is important in this conversation to have a clear definition of the term “commons.” For me, “commons” comprises a broad spectrum of public realm facilities – infrastructure such as water, sewer, schools, transportation and a variety of open space including unimproved natural areas, large regional parks and small neighborhood and pocket parks; and paved public gathering places, large and small. Roads are certainly part of our commons, but they are purposefully planned, built and maintained primarily for the use of wheeled vehicles – bikes, cars and trucks.

Some have proposed at recent hearings that bike and pedestrian paths should replace the proposed connections for motorized vehicles, but that would frustrate very important goals of the connector policy. Clearly, everyone would like to become less dependent on single-occupant car use – and paved vehicular roads support that goal by providing efficient routes for small transit vehicles: car pools, van pools and mini-buses.

Comments heard from Claymore residents in the Colleton Crossing public hearing tell us something about our policy on required recreation amenities. Claymore’s narrow cul-de-sac streets serve public gathering functions that will be lost if it becomes connected. Our ordinance needs to foster the creation of truly functional “commons” facilities. Here we see a need for paved public gathering space: small piazzas where folks can set their chairs to chat and younger children can bounce a ball.

Alderman Coleman’s discussion about Robert Moses’ and Durham’s freeways seems a bit like comparing peas with pachyderms. Carrboro is nowhere as big as those towns, and we’re talking about simple two-lane streets, not multi-lane high-speed thruways. But in the case of Paris, the grand boulevards (which predate the automobile by decades) have emerged as a central feature of their commons. Not only do they enhance the movement of vehicles, including various forms of public transit, they also contribute immensely to the public realm Paris is famous for – the cafe society and street life created by expansive sidewalks generously lined with trees. On-street parking everywhere adds to a pedestrian sense of safety. Multi-story mixed-use buildings put a multitude of employment, cultural and institutional activities within walking distance of a multitude of residents. The Paris of the Piedmont has much to learn from our distant “namesake.”

Coleman mentioned New Urbanist “tenets.” I know folks in our community want planning policy guided by more than doctrines, and there are references available that attest to the importance of making these connections.

Consider, in closing, this from the executive summary of “Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change,” by Reid Ewing, et al:
“One of the most comprehensive studies, conducted in King County, Washington, by Larry Frank of the University of British Columbia, found that residents of the most walkable neighborhoods drive 26 percent fewer miles per day than those living in the most sprawling areas. A meta-analysis of many of these types of studies finds that households living in developments with twice the density, diversity of uses, accessible destinations, and interconnected streets [my emphasis] when compared to low-density sprawl drive about 33 percent less.”

Carnahan is a member of the Carrboro Planning Board and a founder of The Village Project.

8 thoughts on “Considering connector roads”

  1. Sophie King-Lowe says:
    February 19, 2009 at 2:41 pm

    This article shows an utter lack of understanding by the author of the nature of the area in question.

    What a shame.

  2. Steve Peck says:
    February 20, 2009 at 9:49 am

    Agree that it is fine to re-examine connectivity policy. Would question why Mr. Carnahan chooses to only mention only Claymore in relation to proposed Colleton development. Without Claymore connection to Carolina Commons and then to Colleton, Reynard/Tallyho becomes the only exit. We have no sidewalks like Claymore and Reynard/Tallyho will be 1.25 miles of winding, narrow road as opposed to Claymore’s .5 miles of relatively straight road. Citizens of Carrboro need to look at the DOT, no sidewalk, narrow roads issue very carefully when we allow density standards and connectivity regs which are created with Carrboro “city” standards in mind.

  3. William Carpenter says:
    February 20, 2009 at 12:09 pm

    I appreciate Mr. Carnahan’s dedication to his role on the Planning Board, but this contribution to the Carrboro Citizen is disappointing, it demonstrates internally conflicting logic and a set of values and priorities that are strikingly different from my own, and is set against a backdrop of a substantial and complex planning problem for Carrboro in which the connector road policy – an attempt at a solution – is running directly into unintended consequences that only serve to compound the problem. A few thoughts:

    First, Mr. Carnahan seems to lament how we can learn from Paris and its wide boulevards while simultaneously advocating for a policy that effectively prevents the establishment of anything but tertiary streets in Carrboro. I’m not sure if Mr. Carnahan has ever been to Paris, but my experience in my three trips there is that, beyond the non-vehicular markets and (minority of) pedestrian neighborhoods which are lovely and nearly devoid of cars, walking through Paris can be dangerous. Despite there being sidewalks and crosswalks with signals, it is mandatory that one be absolutely attentive at all times or else run the risk of getting clipped by people in cars and mopeds zigging and zagging hurriedly through their day. The configuration of Paris is really a moot point when one considers that the neighborhoods of Paris support socially accepted norms and lifestyles that are functionally quite different from Carrboro andd as most other towns in the United States. In Paris, the neighborhoods – walkable integrated areas – are functionally self sufficient, in which there are as many if not many more pedestrians than cars, and people can and do walk to work, walk to the store, walk to dinner, etc. You just can’t do that here. You simply must enter a vehicle or a bus to do these things. It would seem fitting then that we not develop systems that put vehicles and people so close together (such as the connector road policy does) and instead turn our attention to more thoughtful promotion of getting cars away from residences and pedestrians and quickly to primary roads. An argument can certainly be made with regard to the chicken and the egg, and where does one start to try to resolve the problem? I would suggest it is not with a policy that promotes additional vehicular traffic through residential neighborhoods.

    Second, Mr. Carnahan reminds us of one piece of justification for the policy – that there is substantial merit in prioritizing a policy for street systems that promote the use of the shortest possible distance from origin to destination (minimizing “vehicle miles traveled”) with a prioritized goal of minimizing our environmental impact. Translated into practical terms, this logic functionally advocates the use of residential streets as short cuts, with no encouragement of accessing to or utilizing of primary streets; the short road is the best road, with no consideration whatsoever to downside risks such as increased traffic/decreased safety/increased noise. Unfortunately, this perspective ignores the other environmentalist argument that residential area driving with substantial braking and accelerating for stopsigns, speedhumps, and turning onto different streets – in lieu of taking the shortest distance to the primary road and maintaining a consistent 35 miles per hour with much less braking and stopping – actually (a) can use substantially more gasoline, (b) necessitates more frequent oil changes since the stop-and-go driving is more stressful on the car, and (c) is more costly in terms of car ownership in that it introduces more wear and tear on the cars brakes, exhaust system, etc. I am an environmentalist – I recycle everything I can, I have CFLs in the majority of the light fixtures in my home, I have a programmable thermostat, and have taken several other steps to be environmentally responsible. The environmentalist logic that Mr. Carnahan recites is at best unclear and is likely incorrect as it applies to this application for Carrboro. More importantly, I can not comprehend let alone value a logic system in which the unmeasured, unknown potential benefits to the environment in Carrboro can outweigh the known, measurable, and clear downsides that continuing to support this policy would result in for Carrboro.

    The only way the existing policy will, as Mr. Carnahan states, “realize the stated goals incrementally over time,” is (a) when Carrboro grows to be substantially larger than it is (which will likely be over a period of time in which many planning policies will become obsolete or will need to evolve), and (b) if citizens of Carrboro (and the rest of the U.S.) make major lifestyle changes and grow to adopt a pedestrian lifestyle. This can be encouraged by planning policies, but for these policies to be successful, they must include not only roads policies that more thoughtfully and comprehensively encourage realistic needs and circumstances in conjunction with idealistic aspirations, but also policies that establish or encourage multiple, smaller loci of neighborhood activities, including local parks, stores and restaurants, all of which must be applied in consideration of individual circumstances rather than through unilateral enforcement. In the mean-time, the monolithic application of the existing connector roads policy will penalize the early adopters of the pedestrian lifestyle by forcing them into closer proximity with more and more cars; it will functionally eliminate current areas of safer pedestrian activity (neighborhoods with no through-traffic); and it will encourage the use of residential neighborhoods for short-cuts and throughways, increasing the risks and decreasing the quality of life for everybody who lives there. This is not an abstract case study, it is not “an exercise” in policy application, and it is not a town in a foreign county. I put my safety and the safety and security of my two young daughters far higher on my list of priorities than a few people potentially saving a teaspoon per day of gasoline. This is my home, in my neighborhood. And it is your home in your neighborhood, too, Mr. Carnahan.

  4. Sophie King-Lowe says:
    February 21, 2009 at 4:45 pm

    Dear Peck:
    Since when did they install sidewalks on Claymore??

    Have you been there? Or is it easier for you just to guess?

    Take a ride and check it out buddy boy! Then retract or modify your statement.

    Tallyho!

  5. steve peck says:
    February 23, 2009 at 4:59 am

    Dear King-Peck

    What I was drawing attention to was that just like the your road Tallyho has no sidewalks and have a far longer and more dangerous road. Please put down your “Claymore”,we share many of the same concerns.

  6. James carnahan says:
    March 17, 2009 at 8:54 pm

    Ms King-Lowe: I have been on Claymore road several times and also have seen the images Claymore neighbors presented to both the Planning Board and the Board of Aldermen.

    The street I live on, Oak St (not to be confused with Oak Avenue in the Mill Village) looks a lot like Claymore. It is barely two lanes wide, with narrow shoulders and deep ditches on either side.

    And it also looks different, in that there are possibly twice as many houses. And we are connected. Oak Street is a thru street spanning from Hillsborough St to North Greensboro.

    Lots of people walk on this street, frequently, daily, and even more on balmy weekends: joggers, folks with dogs, parents with strollers, parents walking their kids to Carrboro Elementary School. We’re a pedestrian & bicyclist thoroughfare.

    A few years ago the town set out a machine out that counted 350 vehicles passing over Oak Street every day. I’ve been here since 2002. Caroline & I sit out front and sometimes curse the infrequent speeders – but in 7 years no one has been hurt by traffic that I’m aware of. Knock on wood.

    As a member of the Planning Board I supported the recommendation that, if Colleton was connected to Claymore via UNC’s “Carrboro Commons” project, both UNC and the Colleton developers should pay for improvements to Claymore, such as widening and sidewalks.

    Living on a street that looks so much like Claymore – only my street is already a “connected” road – I’m not experiencing any of the things connector road opponents say they’re so afraid of. So, forgive me if I seem unsympathetic, and I know my experience is no comfort – but you all have not made a persuasive case, IMHO, for contravedning a well-considered, decades-old town policy.

    -James Carnahan

  7. Concerned Citizen says:
    March 19, 2009 at 2:31 pm

    I think Mr. Carnahan is comparing apples and oranges.

    There is not a large subdivision at one end of his street, as is proposed in this case.

    And his street is not dead end now and probably was not when he bought his home, if I were to guess. In fact it probably never was.

    This sort of comment is disappointing and disturbing considering he is a member of the planning board.

    These are indeed two very different circumstances.

  8. Steve Peck says:
    March 20, 2009 at 8:32 am

    The discussion of connecting road Claymore and Colleton needs to be focused on the facts as they exist today. The only proposed access for Colleton is Reynard/Tallyho. If and only if Carolina Commons is built AND the connector road stubs out at the Colleton property will there be a possibility of connection to Claymore. Colleton is being decided upon April 28 and the developer says they will sell houses in 2010. Carolina Commons is at least a year away from coming up for approval. When houses will be sold is anyone’s guess.
    The point is that for the purposes of considering the current Colleton application, that is before the Carrboro Aldermen, Reynard/Tallyho is the ONLY access. Since Mr. Carnahan is a past chair of the planning board my question to him is should Colleton be approved now with the HOPE that Carolina Commons will be built and there will be a second access to Colleton?
    More significantly does Mr. Carnahan believe that density and connectivity regulations should be uniformly applied to all of Carrboro even is the road network does not support such density and connectivity is lacking? Does one size fit all? When does public safety and common sense trump regulations?

Comments are closed.

Web Archive

© 2025 The Archive of The Carrboro Citizen | Powered by Minimalist Blog WordPress Theme