Thoroughfare Plan

The town of Chapel Hill and the town of Carbora in 1979 signed an agreement with the state that we would prepare a thoroughfare plan for the community and then normally this is, this thoroughfare plan preparation is done exclusively by the state and the state then brings their work before the towns for review. In our particular case, we wanted to be a little more independent on our thoroughfare planning procedures and so we asked the state if we could do our own thoroughfare planning and what that involves is producing our own travel model and doing our own data collection and all the tasks that need to be done to produce a thoroughfare plan. Danny Pleasant's Transportation Planner with the town of Chapel Hill. In his office, the Carbora Planning Office and the state Department of Transportation worked together on a thoroughfare plan for Chapel Hill Carbora. But the Chapel Hill Town Council rejected the plan they presented.

At the moment that means no agreement, no road construction. I'm Famelton Henderson, Carbora Mayor Jim Porto. Well even though the thoroughfare plan development has been gone for many years, I think we are close and I think because we put so much time into it, we don't need to act too hasty right now and we have submitted our plan that we thought would be on the March agenda but we've just been notified that the Chapel Hill had not submitted their plan in time for the March Board of Transportation agenda and so we will also be requesting that we withhold our application until April. So it looks like we have another month to work out a mutually acceptable plan. I look forward to the opportunity of doing that. Things on the biggest sticking points had to do with the Esther's drive extension and there were some feelings that perhaps Carbora was telling Chapel Hill what to do with its streets.

Is that the primary source of friction? Well I think the way we view the transportation system in Carbora and Chapel Hill is as unified as a whole and our view is that all three parties, DOT, Carbora and Chapel Hill have to find the plan adequate and acceptable and since so many of our citizens use Chapel Hill roads and so many citizens with Chapel Hill use Carbora roads, I for one would like to see all three parties in some accord on the adequacy of the plan. So we think it's in our long term interest from Carbora that we have an overall plan that's adequate and we don't like to think that we're dictating the Chapel Hill how they should act over there. Again we're open to cooperation and a good example that would be the land use plan for the flood zones or the flood plain plans that we worked up last year that we had a great deal of input from Chapel Hill on and that sense and spirit cooperation is what

way we address this transportation problem. Nothing in the plans we submit works out anything with Carbora although we have talked to them on a number of occasions and it doesn't appear that there's very much room for compromise. Chapel Hill Mayor Joe Nasses, since the thoroughfare plan won't be presented to the State Board of Transportation until April an opportunity to work out a joint presentation seems available. No you just to get on there agenda and we don't intend to be presenting together with Carbora. I'm sure Carbora can present their own plan. The rationale behind the rejection of that particular extension has to do with disruption of neighborhoods. Hasn't it been known for some time that that would be coming through there or that it was a likely area that it would go through? When you say for some time I'm not sure if you're speaking of two years, three years or ten years but back in 1965 when the thoroughfare plan was first brought into being in Chapel Hill we didn't have interstate 40 and interstate 40 changes the picture of all the traffic

so that what you would be getting now is a free way to the interstate system through residential community and we don't want that. The proposed Estes Street extension in Chapel Hill would go from the 15th-5th-1 bypass to somewhere on Highway 54. Transportation and Planner Danny Pleasant points out some developers have known about this extension in the thoroughfare plan for years. And one of the ways that we implement besides allocating public monies to doing the job is that we count on developers contributing somewhat to the implementation of the thoroughfare plan and the way they do that is if they have a piece of property that they're wanting to develop that we have a thoroughfare quarter shown going through, they in many cases can actually build the road as part of their development. They have to provide a street system usually for the development at any rate and if they can arrange their development around this thoroughfare then all the better it helps them and

it helps the community at large. In some cases where it's not feasible for them to do that, maybe they're just building a few units and they don't have the bigness of the project with which to underwrite building a piece of the thoroughfare then they can dedicate the right-of-way for it and the community now has right-of-way dedicated in quite a few places. Unfortunately, when that right-of-way is dedicated and the area builds up around it, folks that move into the area are unaware that there was ever a right-of-way dedicated so when you go to try to implement your plan then all of a sudden you have a whole neighborhood in an uproar because they didn't know that there was a thoroughfare that was planning to go through there when they made the decision to buy their home or to settle where they settled. The State Department of Transportation provided technical assistance and some computer time to Chapel Hill Carbure as they designed the thoroughfare plan. Chapel Hill Carbure were allowed to produce their own plan because DOD has run into complaints

regarding environmental concerns in the past when planning projects for the towns. That according to State Project Engineer Ed Johnson, Pleasant's explains how this plan was decided on. And we started that activity with pretty intense data collection campaign, the type of data that we collected involved population where people were living and what types of housing they were living in, how many automobiles that they had per household. We looked at employers where they were located and how many folks they employed. And then we used that kind of data to give us an idea of the types of travel patterns that we were experiencing now. Then we used that data in developing a travel model, computerized travel model. And that travel model was used to try to get an idea of how transportation movements occurred around the community.

We took our Bayshire model and the traffic that it generated on a model of the street system. And we compared the numbers that were generated by the computer to actual travel that we had counted on the streets on the road street counters and we adjusted the model until it showed us essentially what we were seeing with the traffic counters out on the streets. After we got what we call a calibrated travel model, in other words, the model was representing what we actually saw out, actually happening in the community. We began with the help of the planning and transportation boards of both communities. We began to project population in very small sub areas of the community and project the employment numbers in those same study areas. We call those study areas transportation analysis zones.

And we projected to the best of our knowledge is to what those zones would look like in 20 years. And then we applied those projections to our travel model once again and it assigned the futuristic travel projections on our Bayshire network. In other words, the street system is it looks right now. Then we identified those parts of the existing street network that were going to be the travel demand was higher than its capacity would be. And we used that analysis projected volume to capacity ratio. We took that analysis and determined what areas were going to be our most crucial or most troubled areas as far as travel capacity goes. Then we incrementally add additional links to our travel network or show where widening

would take place on a road and came up with 10 or 12 alternatives that just incrementally added on to the system. And then we got to a point where the system was balanced that all over the system we had adequate capacity to take care of the demand. That's when we essentially stopped adding on to the system. And when we got to the point where we stopped adding on, that was the proposed thoroughfare system that we presented to Council into the Carbure Board of Alderman and that we had a lot of public discussion on with our public information sessions and our public hearings. And that I guess encapsulates the thoroughfare planning process that we went through until we got to a point where we had a proposed plan. We try to be very sensitive to the fact or the wish that the community had expressed to

us that they wanted a minimal thoroughfare improvements that we would prefer to have alternative methods of traveling, such as using the bus system or bikeways or sidewalks. Now people walking or carpooling, one of the things that is important to remember in transportation planning is that you have a supply and you have a demand. And your supply is transit service and the size of your streets. And of course the transit vehicles have to travel on the streets as well. So that's important. The streets are in good shape for that purpose too. Pleasants points out thoroughfare planning addresses the supply side of the thoroughfare question while providing transit, bikeways and sidewalks manage demand. He reminds that thoroughfares can develop whether they're planned or not. That may happen to streets in the Old Park area nearest this drive.

And you have to think of streets and thoroughfares just like you have to think of any service like you think of water and sewer and electricity. If an area is going to grow you want to make sure that it's provided with water and sewer and you want to make sure that it's provided with the decent road network and you want to make sure it's provided with electrical power. That's just how developments build. And we saw an area that had a potentially, had a large growth potential with very inadequate thoroughfare network to serve it. And what we had proposed to do would just provide a way for the folks that will eventually live there to travel in that area without having to use some of the neighborhood streets that are existing, some of which are fine for neighborhood streets but are not good for thoroughfares. And we wanted to try to avoid having those turn into thoroughfares by default. And I think throughout Chapel Hill you can see examples of where residential streets

have turned into thoroughfares by default simply because we haven't aggressively tried to implement a thoroughfare plan that would serve these areas. What will happen if there is say another year or two and nothing's yet happened will growth come in at such a rate as to make it particularly uncomfortable or difficult to navigate around town? Well to give you an example we have, when you think of the service level of thoroughfares in the field of thoroughfare planning we categorize levels of service by A, B, C, D, E and F. A being the best which is a free flow condition as we see on many of our streets now. And then an F is the worst flow condition where things are at a standstill and completely congested. So based our thoroughfare plan on trying to maintain a service level D which is what we

find on the bypass now in the area of university mall. So we have developed our whole thoroughfare plan based on a service level of D like we find on the university mall and we've said that is our minimum level of what we can expect in a 20 year period. And of course the exception of that is if our projections are wrong we don't grow quite as fast or quite as much as we thought then we won't have the needs for the extra thoroughfares and we won't build them. But if we grow faster than we expected we possibly could be in some difficulty because we maybe didn't plan enough for enough facilities. But you know it best it's a crystal ball you know you're estimating population for 20 years down the road and that's a lot of time and a lot of things can happen in that 20 year period.

But we feel like with the help of the planning board and the transportation boards of both Chapel Hill and Carbora and with the best guesses that the staff can give it we feel like that our projections are probably pretty adequate. Of course our factors that are going to figure in like we were seeing a tremendous growth out of the research triangle park right now I think more than we expected when we did the plan. I think what we're seeing a lot of a lot of building at this point for example in the last year we have seen approvals for 5% of the dwelling units that we were projecting for a 20 year period. So and that's just been in a fairly short period of time that we've seen that tremendous amount of new dwelling units coming in. We've got as many that are pending approval as we have had approved in the last year. I expect we'll see a lot of land speculation in conjunction with I-40 coming through.

We'll see a lot of growth when it opens up in this area. What we find is that when I-40 opens we will finally suddenly find ourselves to be the most accessible community to the research triangle park. In the past 10 years Carrey has been the community that has really grown because of the park. But now we're going to be more convenient to the park than Carrey is with I-40 opening up and so you'll see a lot of those folks who work in the park will maybe make a decision to move from Carrey and come to Chapel Hill or as they move into the area from other areas they may make a decision to come into the Chapel Hill or Carrey area. We see that Chatham County is now trying to encourage industry and growth down there and we will have to deal with a lot of the traffic that is generated out of Chatham County. So I see where we're going to be doing a lot of growing and it's part of the thoroughfare plan.

We have to consider that and determine what kind of road system we will be needing in a 20-year period to accommodate that growth. Lesans explains that since there is a shortage of highway building funds and since Chapel Hill has not used available funding for road improvements in the past, funding road projects won't be easy. Even if a thoroughfare plan is approved, whether money will come from is unclear, maybe bonds or local capital improvement revenue. If built today it would cost $60 million, a third of that for the 15501 bypass alone. That's because 15 to 30,000 vehicles a day use that stretch of road. The bypass really isn't a bypass anymore, it's the way into town and campus. But why is it proposed as to drive extension, which is after all in Chapel Hill, so important to Carbora, Mayor Jim Porto? I think the S's drive extension as well as the bypass are two key links in the overall thoroughfare plan and until we are assured that the overall plan is adequate, including those two elements of the plan, then we are hesitant to act on a plan that we don't

have to live with for another 10 or 15 years. The bypassed drive extension is seen as an essential link in that overall plan by some people and we are not sure exactly how essential it is and instead of going ahead and improving an inadequate plan, we are opting to wait a little longer and see if we can get more facts on the table. So, it's in all of our interest to consider very carefully before you act on it. Well, I've spoken with one of the planners in Chapel Hill and he informs me that the plan as they drew it, which included the S's drive extension, would only provide a traffic flow about the level it is around University Mall. Can you imagine what it would be like without that extension? Well, the planning parameters that were used on this plan really were stretched to the limit because of the known feelings in both communities about having too many highways

and roads in the community so that it becomes even more critical when one link of that plan is left out. The transportation problem that figures and projections I haven't seen are staggering for 15 years from now and that's the reason why we are so concerned that all elements be considered very carefully before we take them out. Well, certainly another indicator for better roads would be more economic development and now there is an economic development officer who we will just assume is about the business of bringing in more people and more jobs and therefore more traffic. How soon do you think that's going to get off the ground and we begin to see the effects of those efforts? Well, we're seeing some effects over here now. We've got many developments and we will have four or five public hearings to consider these developments, they're all dumping right out onto the bypass and we're seeing a great deal more activity, more applications coming before us.

So I think we're in the middle of an economic boom right now, at least in Carbureau and so I think our transportation problem will be magnified in the next two or three years. You do have this extra month to negotiate and renegotiate. How far would Carbureau be willing to go and which is, in fact, would the Estes Drive Exception be dropped from Carbureau's plan if it came to that? Well, again, we are willing to go as far as we can to as long as we adopt an adequate plan. If we if we become convinced that the exclusion of Estes Drive still ensures that we've got an adequate plan to live with that allows Carbureau says to access to City Interstate that does not provide undue congestion on the bypass and we have the mobility we'd like to have, then we're not particularly way to Estes Drive if we can find other alternatives. But the fundamental question here is whether or not Estes Drive extension in or out will provide an adequate plan and what we want most of all is an adequate plan because we're

going a critical age here because we have in one sense under designed for the amount of traffic we got our thoroughfare plan. So it becomes very critical for us to look at all these elements and we're not way to any particular one. If somebody's got a better idea, we certainly would like to hear it. We're not taking a poll on who's forward, who's against, but I guess I would wade you to say that for the most part that community is in concurrence with the action taken by the board. But we also have a responsibility as a governing board to make sure that what we do is not only good for today, but that is good for the future development of the town as well. And we feel that that is not the area to put a road through that's going to be a road to take you to the interchange on the interstate system on North Carolina 54. Chapel Hill Mayor John Asif, residents of the area that would be affected by the Estes Drive extension encouraged insisted that the town council deleted from Chapel Hill's

thoroughfare plan. The council did. Mayor Asif is not convinced a traffic flow comparable to that around university mall would be so bad with or without Estes Drive extension. Well, anytime you talk about the traffic, we have to talk about what time of the day Mr. Pleasant is speaking of. If he's talking about the early morning rush hour that's using Estes Drive right now, he is not quite accurate because he's not that kind of traffic coming out of Estes Drive onto the bypass at this time. I'd live in that area so I'm there every morning and that's not taking place. What will happen is if they know this is open for them to flow through to the interstate system, then all the traffic will be drawn to this road to be used. And that's exactly what we don't want to do. Now, how long would we think it would be before DOT would take some kind of action? If there is this disagreement, will they be able to do anything?

Well, I don't know. I've never been over there with a disagreement before. I can tell you this, the state law requires that each municipality prepare a thoroughfare plan and present it to DOT and that DOT and the town may, and I'm using the same words that occurs in the general statute, adopt the same plan. It doesn't say that two towns that are adjacent to each other must have the same thoroughfare plan. We have always, in the beginning, presented it jointly because we feel that our roads ought to mesh up with one community. But we still feel the same way, however, there's a disagreement here, and the disagreement comes not where the two towns meet, but comes on our very eastern side, which is as far away from Carburet as you can possibly get, and not be out of city limits of Chapel Hill.

So I don't quite understand the rationale from the Carburet area, I guess. Which would suggest, rather than the estu-strive extension? You're assuming that estu-strive extension is a necessity. I'm saying that it was in the optimum plan, agreed upon by the planners from Chapel Hill Carburel and DOT, so it would seem to be the best concept they could come up with. And since the town council does not favor that one, what alternative would they suggest? Well, town council is not necessarily an agreement with what they think is the best plan and their best plan may indeed not be the best plan. It may be the best plan for moving automobiles. I wouldn't doubt that. As a matter of fact, if you could build lots more roads, it would be even better plan. But that's not what the town council has the responsibility to do. It not only has to move vehicular traffic, it has to move pedestrians, bicycles, and it has to, generally, design and develop a town that people can live in.

And we feel that that particular road is not necessary, that people will seek the other routes that are open to them to go to the interstate system, and we think that it will work that way. Do you have any feel for any kind of compromise or any possible solutions that could be reached between the two towns and DOT? Well, everybody puts a lot of stock in reaching the compromise. The truth of the matter is, this street is in Champold Hill. Even the DOT engineer indicates that Carbura will not be affected very much whether it's in or out, so the bulk of traffic would have to be generated in the Champold Hill area. Marinassie won't speculate on action by the State Department of Transportation if no agreement is reached between the two towns.

DOT project engineer Ed Johnson reports they like to see a plan everyone is happy with and will consider the plan until there is some agreement. He explains, the absent of a plan is grounds to refuse funding projects if the board chooses to do so, but does not automatically cut off funding. Meanwhile, the Champold Hill town council seems to believe it's less important to move cars and people than to alter the character of a community in the town. There's a little better than a month for further discussion between leaders of Champold Hill and Carbura to find out what may be best for both of them. I'm Famital Henderson for WUNC.