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

Wed Jan 11 06:54:00 EST 2012

If we look more broadly at "preservation," there isn't any conflict between TOD and preservation, given that the alternatives to density are (1) no growth and (2) more people commuting from Alamance and the counties east of Raleigh, with all that means for destroyed farmland, greenhouse gases and stress on people spending too much time in their cars.  Obviously the TOD can be better or worse designed.  I'm not sure what long-term damage a crossing by a light rail system does -- quite a bit less than a road?
The I40, NC54 Corridor study is MUCH bigger than the light rail routing.  http://www.nc54-i40corridorstudy.com/  It includes land use for another TOD center, lots of highway construction for all the people who will be driving to the TOD, and immense pain to those of us who live north and south of the study area.
Regards, pat

From: rbford at aim.com
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 20:03:06 -0500
To: inc-list at durhaminc.org
Subject: Re: [Durham INC] Fw: FYI - reminder of transit hearing

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

_______________________________________________
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/20120111/27d0deb8/attachment-0001.html>