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

Letter to the Editor: An open Carrboro

Posted on March 5, 2009 by Staff

Dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs can be idyllic neighborhoods. Kids play freely and neighbors visit each other with little threat from cars. In the Carrboro Transportation Advisory Board, we’ve been asked to preserve this environment by blocking connections to new developments. Residents have asked why we recommend to do otherwise – isn’t that exactly what Carrboro wants to promote?

The interests of the larger community sometimes conflict with what residents from a small area might desire. A good example is the Wexford neighborhood’s response to the proposed Claremont development (located south of Homestead Road, west of Bolin Creek). The new residents would travel north onto Homestead and south into Wexford via Colfax Drive. Colfax and adjoining Tramore Drive are new public roads with sidewalks and a clearly marked “stub-out” to the new Claremont development, but the residents currently enjoy a “private cul-de-sac,” as described in realty ads.

Many of the Colfax/Tramore residents oppose any connection to the new development – who wants more traffic? But nobody is suggesting that the current residents will stop driving themselves. Each trip from Colfax passes by about 33 houses going north and about 45 houses going south, impacting daily their neighbors and schoolchildren with more traffic. Furthermore, the closed connection only pushes the new traffic on to somebody else. Some of the traffic will likely go south via Strafford; the result: one small area retains a privileged publicly maintained cul-de-sac, while their neighbors shoulder more traffic.

We’ve been asked to block the connection but let bikes and walkers pass through. Seems reasonable, but what about electric bikes? Mopeds? Motorcycles? Electric or hybrid cars? Will a teenager on a moped be forced to risk traveling on Homestead? Do we block certain classes of vehicles but force others to take a longer route?

Energy consumption is also a concern. With the connection closed, each trip north from Colfax will be about half a mile longer. One residence is responsible for about 10 trips a day, so the impact adds up quickly. Overall, we know that connected neighborhoods are better for the air and environment.

We’ve been asked to block connections many times in Carrboro. Do we spend our tax dollars to maintain closed neighborhoods and cul-de-sacs where traffic impacts all but a privileged vocal minority? It’s often a hard political decision to keep the connections open and we are surrounded by communities that have decided not to. Each situation deserves special consideration; but if we envision an open and accessible Carrboro, connectivity will be an essential part of that goal.

Charlie Hileman
Carrboro
Charlie Hileman is chair of the Carrboro Transportation Advisory Board

17 thoughts on “Letter to the Editor: An open Carrboro”

  1. Sophie King-Lowe says:
    March 5, 2009 at 6:26 pm

    Again, I must ask: have you actually been to this neighborhood and spent some time there?

    Why is it that folks who are used to having a nice quiet place to walk need to give this up because someone wants to make a new development?

    Shouldn’t Carrboro require that the developer bear the costs of connecting to a main road?

    What about side roads connecting to the stub road that you want to make a thru street? Do they also need to suffer increased traffic for the benefit of the new development?

    This whole discussion is really out of whack and out of touch with the areas that are being discussed in a very abstract way.

    How does it cost tax dollars to “maintain closed neighborhoods”? Where is the financial study to support that claim?

    It is clear that the Carrboro Transportation Advisory Board has no idea of the nature of the area they are talking about. They need to spend some time in Fox Meadows and Highlands before they spout out a bunch of connectivity comments in an uneducated manner.

  2. Charlie Hileman says:
    March 9, 2009 at 9:34 am

    Sophie – I agree that we should spend time in the neighborhood. I have visited Colfax twice during its initial construction, and at least three times after it was built. I usually visit on bicycle or foot, so I can actually feel the environment, and at different times of the day. I recommend that all TAB members visit themselves, and of course we listen to the residents that come to the joint reviews.

    Please note that I am referring to the Colfax/Claremont connection. Colfax and Tramore have wide streets with bike lanes and side walks. The residents drive through similar neighborhoods. Additional speed tables may be added to Colfax or Tramore. None of that is true for the Highlands and Fox Meadows (which I have also visited many times).

    There is a misconception that TAB supports the development itself. We look at the transportation issues, but we cannot recommend that a development be rejected. Likewise, the Aldermen cannot stop a proposed development that is following the rules (without risking a legal challenge). TAB supported the last building moratorium, and we have recommended more mixed development in the northern areas.

    I appreciate very much that you are trying to protect your neighborhood, and that any additional traffic will alter your lives. I don’t think there is any perfect solution to the Colleton Crossing/Carolina Commons developments.

  3. Steve Peck says:
    March 9, 2009 at 5:26 pm

    Mr. Hileman:

    The Carrboro “rules” about density and connectivity are exactly the point in regard to Fox Meadows and the Highlands. Carrboro needs to risk a law suit by rejecting the Colleton developers application as it now stands. The town of Carrboro must put the safety of its citizens ahead of density rules and connectivity rules which do not take into account the inferior roads of the annexed areas. To approve Colleton with only a Reynard/Tallyho access is not a safe solution. With or without a stub out to the proposed Carolina Commons development this appication for 39 houses should be voted down. There is no guarantee of Carolina Commons will be built or that there will be a Claymore access to that property that gives access to Colleton.
    Colleton property.

  4. Sophie King-Lowe says:
    March 10, 2009 at 5:28 pm

    I think it is time for a very large change in the makeup of those running this little town. The Carrboro BOA is so focused on downtown that their rules do not apply to half of their constituents.

    I won’t have a personal inconvenience with either connection, but I know both roads well, having lived on Tallyho for a number of years and frequenting the homes in Highlands.

    Running any more cars through either area is just.plain.stupid.

    Sorry but there is no way to say this nicely.

    The developers need to figure out a way to get out to Homestead. If it costs more per new house, let the buyers pay it.

  5. Gina Reynolds says:
    March 12, 2009 at 5:00 am

    Mr. Hileman-
    I think that if the connectivity issue is really going to be pursued, that we should apply the concept consistently throughout Carrboro. This is not the case. Why does Autumn Drive not connect to the Barrington Hills neighborhood? (Rumor has it that a present or former Alderman lives in that neighborhood and didn’t want the connection) Why is there no connection from the eastern boundary of the Cobblestone neighborhood to the Chapel Hill High and Smith Middle schools? THAT would surely reduce automobile traffic, and possibly eliminate one or two bus routes. How ridiculous is it that high school students in Cobblestone, Williams Woods, Cates Farm and Wexford must ride a bus or drive to school when the distance is a mile or less to the school? That would surely save more gas and emissions than shortening the cut through from Homestead Rd. by .5 mile. I would be much happier to see my taxes go toward building a pedestrian connection to the schools. THAT is sensible planning.

    Moreover, safety on Wyndham Drive is REALLY an issue. Through traffic goes MUCH too fast down that street, and there is a blind spot in the street right where the Williams Woods playground is. The street is not wide enough to allow parking on the street (which DOES happen) AND two lanes of traffic. I have witnessed numerous near-accidents as I drive, walk, or bicycle down Wyndham drive. We’re not anti-community because we want to protect our safety.

    In summary, let me say that I would much prefer to live in a neighborhood where shops, libraries, schools and restaurants are within walking distance. However, I can’t afford to live in Meadowmont, Southern Village or the Franklin Historic District.

    If we’re going to cry “Connectivity”, “Walk-ability”, and “Sustainability”, then let’s walk the walk, not just talk the talk and call the concerned citizens who are against this connection “protectionist” or “hypocrite”.

    Gina Reynolds

  6. Michael Krasnov says:
    March 15, 2009 at 6:04 pm

    Mr. Hileman; There are some factual errors in your letter that compel me to correct them as well as positions you take, with which myself and hundreds of my neighbors, must disagree. First, in your second paragraph you state that this is the Wexford neighborhood’s response when in fact it is the response of ALL the affected neighborhoods, including also Cates Farm, Williams Wood, and Cobblestone. In Wexford we surveyed our membership and they were 87% against the connection and this included residents on Stratford who according to your letter would possibly see increased traffic without the connection. The presidents of all the neighborhood HOA’s signed a letter opposing the connection. Had you been at the BOA meeting you would have known this.
    Second, I am not sure what you mean by a “clearly marked stub-out” as the sign stating “road may continue in the future” was not there when I bought my lot on Colfax and was not installed until after my house was built built.
    You state I currently pass 33 houses going north but if you had bothered to look at the plans for Claremont 5 you would see that going through Claremont I would pass 41 houses!
    Opening up Claremont 5 to Wexford for southbound traffic only increases the traffic through the other 3 neighborhood because there is still no other way out! The stated purpose of the connectivity plan is to disperse traffic but this connection funnels traffic. True dispersal can only occur if there is a true grid of traffic. If there were multiple connections south to several of the cul-de-sacs off of Pathway; Connections east to Sewell School Rd; connections south from Homestead to Circadian Way, Farm house Dr., and connections south from Wyndham to Buck Taylor, and Buck Taylor through to Hillsborough…….THEN there would be dispersal of traffic and very little impact on the 4 neighborhoods. Now if you say well, we can’t put those roads through because of this reason or that reason, then you haven’t really any plan to disperse traffic and you are just connecting this road because you can.
    If you studied New Urbanism then you know that to really reduce traffic you need 2 things; a grid of interconnecting streets giving you true connectivity and mixed use developments where commercial and residential are close enough so people have a very short drive or don’t need to drive at all. Obviously in this situation we have NEITHER!
    The milage savings in this situation will be minimal and partially offset by the enviornmental impact of increased petrochemical based asphalt, increased impervious surface, and superheated pavement in the summer.
    You state the closed connection only pushes the new traffic on to somebody else. Who?? Have you even bothered to notice that Claremont 4 has NO vehicular connection to any other development not even to the rest of Claremont? It, as well as the hundreds of homes in Claremont 1-3, Winmore, Carolina Commons, will have to go onto Homestead!However, that is not the same as putting it through a neighborhood. Futhermore I think most of those people will take Stratford instead of Colfax as it is much more direct, or they will just continue down to Calvander. All the more reason for a true grid of streets.
    Had you attended the BOA meeting you would have heard 20 members of the public from all the neighborhoods speak against the connection and only 4 speak in favor. Of those four, 3 were members of the planning board! The fourth was a resident of Arcadia living on Circadian Way which has no connectivity! Why are there no plans for Circadian Way be connected north to Homestead, west to Farm house,etc. I know I am not the only one who finds this interesting, and also finds it somewhat hypocritical and disingenuous that this person never asked for a connection to Circadian, but stated as you do, that others should sacrifice for the greater good.
    I spent have communicated in person or by phone or email to at least a dozen Cates Farm residents and only one was in favor of the connection. This was someone living on Buck Taylor, again a dead end street. Once again this person stated that the rest of us (not this person of course) should sacrifice for the greater good.
    For the record I am NOT against connectivity. But this connection should not be made UNTIL there is a true grid of streets planned and developed. Without a grid this connection will violate Land Use Ord. 15-214 which states that “connections shall be created in such a way that they do not encourage the use of such streets by substantial through traffic.”
    Additionally, I have no idea how “we spend tax dollars to maintain closed neighborhoods” but making this connection will cost the taxpayers money for traffic studies & traffic calming devices. If Colfax or any of the other roads, end up meeting the definition of a sub-collector as defined in LUO 15-210 it will cost even more to upgrade these roads.
    Lastly, if find it very disturbing that with such a strong feeling for the need for connectivity, you have not called for connecting Circadian Way, or all of the cul-de-sacs off of Pathway. I do notice that you repeatedly used the word “privileged” and described the Colfax cul-de-sac as “privileged”. Furthermore you described the hundreds of voters represented by these neighborhoods as a “privileged vocal minority”. So it appears that the REAL reason you and others are pushing for THIS connection, (but not others), is because of your resentment of the “privileged”. It is a sad irony that racism and sexism might be shunned in Carrboro but you and others seem to see nothing wrong with classism. Sincerely, Michael Krasnov.

  7. Scott Christie says:
    March 16, 2009 at 4:37 am

    “Do we spend our tax dollars to maintain closed neighborhoods and cul-de-sacs where traffic impacts all but a privileged vocal minority?”

    500 registered voters in a town our size is not a “minority.”

    Wow, First what tax dollars are you spending to maintain something you have nothing to do with? What a meaningless brain dead comment?!

    I didn’t know that I was “privileged” when I bought a home in a neighborhood and expected it to stay that way without a bureaucrat telling me how I should live and what is “good for me.”

    The fact is your letter is nothing more than a desperate attempt to justify a stupid decision on your part.

  8. Michael Fenton says:
    March 16, 2009 at 5:39 am

    1. I live in Wexford

    2. I do not consider myself a member of a privileged class, other than the privilege of living in the wonderful town of Carrboro.

    3. By reducing the discussion to the level of ‘classism’ you have insulted many, many members of the (your) community. Such statements are thus contemptuous and not worthy of the position you hold.

    4. We seek only that our children be safe from increased vehicular threat. Your position would increase that threat. We therefore oppose you.

    5. The issue IS development along Homestead Road and the additive/multiplicative effect such developments have on many aspects of our lives. Increased traffic is one of those effects.

    6. A holistic approach is needed (once development is ‘the plan’). The connector road policy does not constitute a holistic approach in our view. It is like a basketball team with one play in its playbook.

    7. Please consider the safety of our children as your highest priority.

  9. Mark Morton says:
    March 16, 2009 at 6:33 am

    Open up Autumn Drive and the other areas that were already in place first. Then see what the results are. No more selective application of the vision of connectivity. Either connect or do not. Choose and apply consistently.

  10. Chris Ng Cashin says:
    March 17, 2009 at 6:18 am

    Connectivity should contribute to a desired purpose. There is none in this case other than your made up metric of .5 miles in travel savings per trip for people in Claremont.

    Look at the negative externalities on the other side of the equation. You are going to direct a new subdivision with several hundred residences down streets not built for this purpose. This will cleary increase the danger to residents especially children in those neighborhoods both walking to schools and playgrounds. (The neighborhood is a walk zone for McDougle).

    It only serves to further infuriate us that your battle cry is an urban planning policy that is only selectively applied. Are you really arguing that these neighborhoods reflect a gridded traffic pattern?

    The developer does not want this. The neighborhoods AFFECTED do not want this. What does it say about a government that pursues this course anyway?

  11. Mark Chilton says:
    March 17, 2009 at 2:23 pm

    Is there really a person named Sophie King-Lowe? OR is that (yet another) false name that Todd Melet posts under?

  12. Mark Chilton says:
    March 17, 2009 at 2:32 pm

    Michael Fenton, you are right on about the “class warfare” tone. Making this a divisive issue doesn’t make any of this easier – nor does it help indicate what the best policy decision would be.

  13. Greg Liebe says:
    March 17, 2009 at 6:36 pm

    This process, regardless of the outcome, seems ineffective. It feels like a series of pair-wise negotiations between any two of a never-ending list of parties: the developer, the surrounding neighborhoods, the Boa, the DOT, and Friends of Bolin Creek. Each of those parties has valid interests they wish to pursue. However, the process doesn’t seem to afford the parties the opportunity to have a collective negotiation process that brings the strengths of each party to the table, where the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. While the public hearing process is democracy in action, it feels a bit like too little too late. By the time this CUP hearing came, the developer was set on their plans, the planning board was on their plans and the surrounding neighborhoods were set on their plans. No surprise they weren’t all the same plans.

    So, what happens? We all start to dig our, well, heels in and become firmly entrenched in a position, losing sight of our collective interests. Connectivity here takes the form of rebuilding burnt bridges over the River “Hey, No Hard Feelings, Right?”

    Suppose we move this hub (BoA) and spoke (any other party) oriented hearing process towards a peer-to-peer collaboration at an earlier stage gate, how might it change the result? Maybe, just maybe, we’d recognize all the strengths that each party can bring to the table towards an outcome built on joined-up thinking. Will there be bumps, bruises and give-n-take along the way? Most certainly. That’s human nature. But, I propose, such a process would yield a better outcome and establish a greater level of trust across all parties.

    To me, that’s how we can blaze a trail to the real spirit of connectivity.

  14. Charlie Hileman says:
    March 18, 2009 at 5:11 am

    Michael Krasnov: I appreciate your support of your neighborhood – you are trying to preserve your healthy environment, and directly working with the town. In my opinion piece, I was referring to transportation and the impact of traffic. Looking at the overall picture, in your cul-de-sac you are not impacted by cars, while your own car travel impacts other neighborhoods. Your children can play in your closed street, but others cannot. The burden of traffic falls unevenly on others, so in those terms you are part of a privileged minority. Could you argue otherwise?

    Of course, some roads are designed to be major arteries, others small connectors, and others closed altogether. So by design, traffic is often not evenly distributed.
    And while I hope that we strive for connectivity, that certainly does not mean all roads should be opened or become major connectors; as I mentioned above, we need to consider each project individually with connectivity as one of our goals. Unfortunately, as noted by others, we have not been consistent in our connectivity policy.

    I’m sure we could try to judge transportation issues through a socioeconomic lens, but we’ve never attempted to do this in TAB. I have seen that less vocal neighborhoods have been less influential, in particular streets with many rentals, and undoubtedly there is a history of class and influence in Carrboro. But I’ll leave that to others. It’s hard enough trying to predict where the cars might go, regardless who is driving.

  15. Charlie Hileman says:
    March 26, 2009 at 1:40 pm

    Virginia is dealing with same issues:

    In Va., Vision of Suburbia at a Crossroads
    Targeting Cul-de-Sacs, Rules Now Require Through Streets in New Subdivisions

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/21/AR2009032102248.html?hpid=topnews

  16. Mark Chilton says:
    April 28, 2009 at 5:53 am

    I sincerely appologize to Todd Melet for saying that he had posted here under a false name. I remain confident that the post is inauthentic, but it was inappropriate to jump to conclusions about who wrote it.
    Sincerely,
    -Mark Chilton

  17. Editor says:
    April 28, 2009 at 6:24 am

    Mark,
    You may have noticed that we have gone to signed comments only with the hope that we can avoid some of this type of confusion.
    Thanks,

    Kirk Ross

Comments are closed.

Web Archive

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