[Durham INC] Fw: FYI - reminder of transit hearing

Tue Jan 10 20:03:06 EST 2012

If there is any surprise, it is to the owners of property south of 54 (I am one) who accepted the premise that Meadowmont was approved based on transit services.

The linchpin of light rail is TOD, not preservation, so it seems to me preservation needs to take a backseat to TOD.  Was that not how the tax/project was marketed to the voters?

If preservation can trump TOD, what is the rationale for transit?.  I recall that the Feds, when they rejected the transit plan previously, were concerned that the project did not provide enough opportunity for  TOD.

BTW, the op-ed in the DHS today expresses concern about possible traffic disruption in Meadowmont.  But it fails to note that the alternative just moves the same disruption to the communities south of 54, where it was never expected.

Dick
On Jan 10, 2012, at 6:53 PM, Pat Carstensen wrote:

> On the Meadowmont part of the alignment, there is a real issue with how the various facilities in Meadowmont were laid out, and those problems were created by the developer's design (it probably saved them a couple nickles) and the fact that those reviewing the design didn't catch the problem (which should have been pretty obvious because the alignment had been published then).  I'm not sure what the solution is here (the alignment through Meadowmont is better at adding riders, but it is a hardship on some people who are being surprised by it).  I said at the time of the development that it was pretty badly designed as TOD (perhaps in order to discourage cut-through traffic, they didn't put in what I thought would be natural paths to the train station).  So the lesson is that TOD is great, but we need to do a better job of understanding what is workable TOD.  As the guy says, the devil is in the details.
>  
> Regards,pat
>  
>  
>  
> From: ksdavis at gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:12:43 -0500
> To: willwilsn at gmail.com
> CC: inc-list at rtpnet.org; durhamenviro at yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Durham INC] Fw: FYI - reminder of transit hearing
> 
> Personally, I hardly consider a dozen comment cards on the DCHCMPO web site coming disproportionately from Meadowmont -- a transit-oriented development sold to Chapel Hill leadership in part on its future alignment with SW Durham Dr. and transit, which miraculously now wants neither -- to reflect "the public" opinion.  I rather think the public hasn't been paying much attention to the alternatives plans yet.
> 
> I've said my piece before on transit-oriented development as being critical for Durham/CH to gain a sustainable yet appropriate share of the 1m - 1.2m new residents of the Triangle expected to move here in the next 20 years.  Otherwise, our sprawled-out friends to our east will capture (in greenfield suburban fashion) an overweight of development, meaning that (a) jobs move away from the locus of RTP/Cary/South Durham/Brier Creek in ways that disadvantage Durhamites, (b) everyone's driving more vehicular miles to work sites, making our air quality worse, (c) more sprawl-consequence pollution in the Haw/Neuse downstream (ask Johnston Co. how they like being downstream from Raleigh?), (d) continued poor ratings on inter-MSA comparatives on sprawl, impacting our economic desirability.
> 
> I recognize the HOA and environmental concerns being raised, but I would much rather see TOD in the Patterson Place/New Hope Creek/Leigh Farms/NC 54 corridor than for Veridea (sic?) to be built in Apex, or for tens of thousands of new homes in Clayton, Angier and Fuquay-Varina, or more people commuting in from Mebane.
> 
> --
> Kevin Davis
> ksdavis at gmail.com
> www.bullcityrising.com
> (919) 323-8432
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Will Wilson <willwilsn at gmail.com> wrote:
> To clarify, there are TWO crossings of concern. One is a crossing of the New Hope/Sandy Creek corridor, and the other is a crossing nearer to Chapel Hill, the Little Creek corridor. Both crossings have alternatives that go through or near natural inventory sites. If you care about our streams and few remaining bottomlands in those areas, submit comments to the committee via
> 
> comments at dchcmpo.org
> 
> saying that you prefer an alignment with 15/501 across New Hope/Sandy Creek, and option C2 (alignment with 54) across Little Creek.
> 
> Thanks,
> Will
> 
> 
> On 1/9/2012 4:20 PM, Melissa Rooney wrote:
> See below.
> This seems like a no brainer (they should go with the public's preferred option, but you never know...
> Melissa (Rooney)
> 
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> From: "jkorest at durhamcountync.gov"<jkorest at durhamcountync.gov>
> Sent: Monday, 9 January 2012 2:44 PM
> Subject: FYI - reminder of transit hearing
> 
> 
> Hi all, most of you who have been following the New Hope- transit issue know that the MPO is having a public hearing on the locally preferred alternative this Wednesday 1-11 to receive public comments. The meeting starts at 9 a.m.  in the 2nd floor of Durham City Hall.
> 
> Here is the link to the agenda and attachments, including the comments received so far:
> 
> http://www.dchcmpo.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=41
> 
> 
> Jane Korest
> Division Manager
> Durham County Open Space&  Real Estate
> 
> 200 East Main Street, 4th Floor
> Durham NC 27701
> (919)560-7955 Fax (919)560-0057
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Durham INC Mailing List
> list at durham-inc.org
> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
> 
> -- 
> http://www.biology.duke.edu/wilson/
> New Book: http://www.constructedclimates.org/
> _______________________________________________
> Durham INC Mailing List
> list at durham-inc.org
> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ Durham INC Mailing List list at durham-inc.org http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
> _______________________________________________
> Durham INC Mailing List
> list at durham-inc.org
> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rtpnet.org/pipermail/inc-list/attachments/20120110/e29cfce8/attachment.html>