Transportation and Community Values

ABSTRACT: Transportation planning has often emphasized functional efficiency at the expense of community values. This paradigm is changing as contemporary plans address the need for transportation to support broader community objectives defined through collaborative planning processes. Of particular importance is the need to address land use/transportation interrelationships and to develop transportation improvements that are sensitive to local contexts. Lancaster County, PA and Chapel Hill, NC are two unique communities that are engaged in citizen-based planning initiatives to identify transportation solutions that support civic and cultural values.

INTRODUCTION

Planning for transportation improvements in the United States has often emphasized functional efficiency – in particular, accommodating vehicular traffic – at the expense of other community values. The results of this single-minded focus are apparent in the landscape: traditional neighborhoods split apart by arterial roadways; cities divided from their waterfronts by interstates; and sprawling development facilitated by easy highway access in formerly rural areas. As the road network expands outward from core cities and towns and dependency on the automobile increases, Americans are driving more frequently and making longer trips to work, stores, and other destinations. The resulting traffic congestion and impacts of automobile-oriented development on the visual character of the landscape are identified by citizens in community after community as primary deterrents to quality of life. However, experience has shown that engineering solutions designed to increase capacity ultimately attract more drivers, resulting in even more congestion.

In recent years the established paradigm has been changing as communities and agencies across the country adopt a more holistic approach to transportation planning. This new approach looks beyond "moving traffic" to consideration of the effects of transportation improvements on the surrounding context and on broader community objectives defined through collaborative planning processes involving local residents and other stakeholders. At the federal level, the ISTEA and TEA-21 legislative initiatives signify a broadening in thinking about transportation planning to include protection and enhancement of natural, historic, cultural, and scenic resources, and also to consider access for transportation modes other than the automobile. Traditionally a bastion of top-down engineering approaches, many state Departments of Transportation are incorporating consideration of local community goals and values in the planning and design of transportation projects. The New Jersey Department of Transportation, for example, formally incorporated the concept of "Context Sensitive Design" (CSD) into its procedures in 1999. New Jersey’s Congestion Relief and Transportation Trust Fund Renewal Act, signed into law in July 2000, requires the Department of Transportation to have a CSD program. According to New Jersey Transportation Commissioner James Weinstein,

"We now have an enhanced vision of transportation design – one that seeks to address core environmental, historic, cultural, aesthetic, scenic and socio-economic concerns through a collaborative, open and interdisciplinary planning process. Known nationally by transportation professionals as Context Sensitive Design, this new approach entails asking questions first about the need and purpose of a project and then equally addressing – with the affected community – safety, mobility and local values."

Much of the impetus for the emerging, values-based approach to transportation planning stems from grassroots reactions at the local level to the unintended consequences of past transportation decisions. Current community planning initiatives feature broad citizen participation in defining a vision for the future based upon local values and aspirations, accompanied by an agenda for action designed to make the vision a reality. In this context, transportation is one of a number of elements that must be considered, albeit one that has perhaps the most potent effect in determining the future form and character of a community. Examples of transportation-related issues addressed in contemporary plans include:

The interrelationships between transportation, land use, and other plan components, in order to define the role that transportation investments will play in shaping the kind of community desired by citizens
Planning and design of transportation projects to balance mobility, safety, and community character concerns (e.g., roadway improvements that preserve environmental resources and are built with minimal disruption to affected neighborhoods)
Greater emphasis on alternative transportation modes, including transit service, bicycle/pedestrian networks, and pedestrian-oriented development patterns

Lancaster County, PA and Chapel Hill, NC are two communities that have undertaken citizen-based planning initiatives in recent years to address the effects of transportation improvements on core civic and cultural values. Lancaster County is renowned for its pastoral landscapes and the cultural heritage of its Old Order Amish and Mennonite communities. Pennsylvania Route 23 runs east from the City of Lancaster through the heart of the Old Order communities in the eastern part of the County. Improvements to address traffic conditions along this two-lane arterial roadway – in the form of an "off-line" bypass or "on-line" measures such as road widening, access management, and transit – have been under consideration for decades. A central focus of the debate has been the need to improve accessibility versus the potential impacts of the improvements on the area’s land use and development patterns.

Chapel Hill is a community of 50,000 people and home to the flagship campus of the University of North Carolina. Chapel Hill is described by many as the country’s quintessential university town. For residents of Chapel Hill, the effects of rapid growth in North Carolina’s Research Triangle Region and associated traffic congestion are major issues that threaten to damage the community’s unique and historic character. A Comprehensive Plan, adopted in May 2000, identifies strategies to achieve a balanced transportation system by shifting the emphasis away from widening streets and accommodating automobiles in favor of other means of travel.

EASTERN LANCASTER COUNTY

Unlike other States, there is no unincorporated land in Pennsylvania. Every square inch of Pennsylvania is divided into municipalities, which are called cities, boroughs and townships. Land use control is vested with the municipalities. Each of the 60 municipalities in Lancaster County has its own comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, and regulatory controls.

In order to successfully manage growth, then, the County of Lancaster must partner with and coordinate the planning activities of the various municipalities. To accomplish this the County has adopted a comprehensive plan, which includes a growth management strategy. In cooperation with the municipalities the County has delineated urban growth boundaries. Outside of the boundaries the County has facilitated agricultural zoning of farmlands and has instituted an ambitious conservation easement acquisition program. To date, the County has purchased the development rights for more than 40,000 acres of prime farmland. An additional 12,000 acres have been acquired by purchase or donation by a non-profit land trust, bringing the total number of permanently preserved acres of farmland to 52,000.

Lancaster County is the most productive non-irrigated agricultural county in the United States, with total annual farm production exceeding $950,000,000. Much of this agriculture is in the form of technologically advanced animal husbandry. At the same time the County is the location for extensive subsistence agricultural by Old Order families, such as the Amish or Old Order Mennonite. The average size of a farm in Lancaster County is only 85 acres.

The scenic beauty of the County’s farmland is complemented by a rich industrial heritage. In fact, with a population of more than 475,000 persons, the County is both rural and distinctly urban. Most County residents live in cities, boroughs, or suburban townships. Wages paid in the manufacturing sector account for more than $2.5 billion each year. Major manufacturers include Fortune 500 Companies, and production includes floor and ceiling products, metal fabrication, farm and construction equipment, food processing, and printing. Most magazines and journals printed in the United States are printed in Lancaster County, including TV Guide, Readers Digest, the National Inquirer, Sports Illustrated, and most professional journals (including the Journal of the American Planning Association.) The Lancaster, PA post office has the fourth highest volume of mail of all post offices in the United States.

The rapid job growth of the County in the past three decades has led to increased demand for housing development. During the 1980s the rate of farmland loss to suburban sprawl was almost 8,000 acres a year. As a result of the County’s growth management efforts the loss of farmland has been reduced in the last ten years to approximately 2,000 acres per year. What’s more, most of the farmland loss today is being caused by a relatively small number of housing units—less than 10% of the total—which consume more than 60% of all converted farmland.

Route 23 Corridor

Within the Route 23 Corridor all of the pressures of farmland preservation, economic expansion, cultural and historical resource preservation, and mobility needs come together. The Corridor is at once one of the most distinctive cultural landscapes in the United States, one of the best agricultural areas in the world, and one of the most heavily industrialized areas of the County. Today 53-foot long tractor-trailers must negotiate narrow roads in company with horse and buggies. Traffic includes thousands of vehicles carrying commuters to industrial jobs, thousands of vehicles (both cars and tour busses) carrying tourists intent on visiting the bucolic Amish countryside, and thousands of vehicles carrying residents intent on delivering junior to the soccer game and daughter to her ballet class. Each year, more and more of the traffic is displaced off the old two-lane cartway of Route 23 onto back roads, most suitable for low speed buggy travel.

Addressing these conflicts creates major threats. A new limited access highway would not only destroy prime agricultural land located in the right-of-way, but could induce more sprawl development and the accelerated conversion of fields of corn to fields of houses. On the other hand, protecting the landscape at all costs could aggravate the difficulty of moving goods and services to and from industries in the Corridor, which could affect their viability and threaten thousands of jobs.

The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Route 23 was initiated in the fall of 2001. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) retained a consultant team to prepare a detailed analysis of six alternatives (no-build, transit/transportation system management (TSM), widening, and three "off-line" alternatives involving bypasses to portions of Route 23). Several citizen and technical advisory committees were formed to assist in the process. A public hearing is expected in about two years with a Record of Decision one to two years later. This sounds rather typical for a highway development project almost anywhere, but there is more. First, the stage for the EIS was set by an immediately preceding planning effort – the PA 23 Corridor Study – that included extensive public involvement in defining objectives for the improvements that go well beyond simply addressing traffic problems. This broader perspective will be continued in the EIS effort, as PennDOT has dedicated substantial funds for land use planning. The consultants, working with local planners and elected officials, will develop and evaluate land development measures for the PA 23 corridor that support the "Selected Alternative" consistent with the County’s overall growth management program. Managing access to the existing Route 23 is one of the key elements of this effort.

Second, Lancaster County is leading a study of the larger area surrounding the PA 23 corridor called the Eastern Lancaster County Land Use Study (ELCLUS). The ELCLUS study area is over 162 square miles and encompasses all or part of 14 municipalities located in the eastern part of the County. This effort seeks to coordinate local and county plans and policies and to implement land use strategies that will minimize the need for future capital improvements in this predominantly farming community. The ELCLUS will run concurrently and be coordinated with the EIS. Its basic premise is that the transportation improvements selected through the EIS process must be compatible with farmland preservation and support Urban and Village Growth Boundaries and other objectives contained in the County’s Growth Management Plan.

Plans to build a relocated Route 23 started in 1960. The right-of-way for a four-lane bypass was purchased and the subsurface and structural work on overpasses for a five-mile portion of a new road was completed in 1974. Later, the Governor halted completion of this five-mile section of roadway due to a lack of funds and because the community was divided over the project’s impacts. Currently, the "Goat Path" (as it is called by residents) is a five-mile swath of roadbed covered with grass, occupied by pasturing horses, cows, and goats, and traversed with interstate-like overpasses. Symbolically it stands as a monument to an incomplete project and a divided community.

In 1997, the Lancaster County Commissioners designated the Route 23 corridor as its number one transportation need. Looking at the project’s history, the Commissioners decided that a different approach was needed to successfully address the area’s current and projected transportation needs. The County identified three problems:

Current congestion on Route 23 during the peak periods
Traffic diversions from Route 23 to other roads not designed to handle more than farming related traffic
The need to preserve the nearly 9,000 good paying manufacturing jobs located in the New Holland area, a borough in the middle of a thriving farm community

The County and PennDOT agreed to work together to identify the needs and identify alternatives for more detailed study by PennDOT. With an extensive public involvement process and a year’s effort, the community, for the first time, identified seven needs. The first three relate to transportation:

Improve safety conditions
Improve the existing transportation system’s efficiency
Accommodate future mobility needs (through the year 2020)

However, the public also identified four non-transportation needs reflective of broader community values:

Support the study area’s economy
Preserve farmland and protect forested lands, water resources, and scenic vistas
Facilitate the County’s growth management strategy
Preserve the viability of social sub-groups with unique transportation needs (the Amish and Old Order Mennonite communities)

In other words, the public wanted to solve the transportation problems and retain the social, economic, and natural resources of the community. The question was: how this could be done?

The project study team concluded that the critical step to develop transportation solutions acceptable to the community was, first and foremost, to create a vision of the community’s future which embodied the public’s values and life style. In other words, a regional comprehensive plan for eastern Lancaster County’s 14 municipalities is needed to protect the area’s important natural and human resources. The transportation system would then be designed to support the community’s vision.

During 1999 and 2000, the PA 23 Corridor Study developed and evaluated alternatives that were reviewed with and by the community. Each alternative, from no-build to roadway relocation, was comprised of two elements, a transportation element and a land use element. The transportation element consisted of the traditional type of transportation activities, including TSM, transit, widening, and relocation strategies. The land use element was comprised of planning strategies to reflect the vision of the community with respect to identified values such as farmland preservation. Included were steps to preserve the ability of arterials leading to PA 23 to continue to function as arterials in the future (i.e., the coordination of land use and transportation through access management). In December of 1999, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) recommended six alternatives to PennDOT for further, more detailed study in the EIS. The recommendation also included a requirement that the 14 municipalities in the broader study area resolve to work with PennDOT and the County to evaluate and implement land use measures that support the community’s vision. The MPO further would fund final design and construction of the "Selected Alternative" only if an implementable land use plan is presented that encompasses the community’s future development plans and meets the four non-transportation needs identified in the PA 23 Corridor Study. The purpose of the Eastern Lancaster County Land Use Study is to prepare this plan through a process that:

Reflects community values
Addresses the planning challenges inherent in current development patterns and trends in Eastern Lancaster County
Provides the County and local municipalities with tools to implement the final Eastern Lancaster County Land Use Plan
Informs the process of developing a Preferred Alternative for the PA23 Corridor that is most compatible with County policies and community values

The scope of this work is divided into three primary phases:

Identify issues that need to be addressed in the study and characterize development patterns and pressures for change
Confirm the values of the County’s Comprehensive Plan through public input and develop a "toolbox" of implementation strategies to address the values
Prepare a Land Use Plan and implementation strategies that address the relationships between the Land Use Plan, PA 23 Corridor EIS, and other regional and local planning initiatives

The outcome of the study will be adoption of the Land Use Plan by the Lancaster County Planning Commission and the 14 municipalities within the study area.

Lessons Learned

Both the EIS and ELCLUS are in the early stages of development and thus it is too early to tell what the ultimate result will mean in terms of programmed improvements to the Route 23 Corridor. While the process continues to involve the public, divergent opinions have been the rule and no clear consensus is as yet apparent. Representatives of municipalities directly traversed by the corridor are most interested in addressing traffic congestion along PA 23, with considerable support for construction of a bypass along the route of the "Goat Path." Representatives of municipalities in the periphery of the study area are less interested in the Route 23 improvements and more concerned with traffic conditions on the arterial and secondary roadways traversing their communities. There is a general concern about the potential for a bypass alternative to impact agricultural land (directly through the taking of farmland and indirectly by promoting sprawl), with corresponding effects on the Old Order communities. The Old Order communities themselves do not have a single viewpoint, instead reflecting the varied positions of the larger public.

An underlying lesson and key to the ultimate solution is that land use and transportation are intimately interrelated. Any competent engineer can design most highway or roadway improvements. The issue in the Route 23 Corridor has never been the design, but rather the effect of design choices on land use. Throughout the nation we spend millions and millions of dollars on "engineering" for hugely controversial and often highly delayed projects, when the real issue is land use. Not only that, but transportation investments are often rendered obsolete before the bonds are paid off by sprawling growth resulting from the attractiveness of the properties bordering the new roadway for development. Land use planning and transportation planning, should, therefore go hand-in-hand.

Unfortunately, this model does not always fit our organizational and institutional structures. State departments of transportation are not land planning agencies. Traffic engineering can often be quantified by levels of service or other systematic measures. Future land use, however, does not lend itself to such quantification. It is often driven by the desires of the landowner or by objectives such as increasing the speculative value of land investments or increasing the tax base. Zoning, alone, is an impermanent control.

In reviewing environmental documents under the National Environmental Policy Act, federal agencies may resist viewing land use goals as equally important as transportation goals, particularly when they are difficult to quantify and have traditionally been seen as a mitigation measure. Moreover, local governments may be jealous of their prerogatives to control land use, and resent state or federal agencies using traffic concerns to influence how land is used.

The planning process in the Route 23 Corridor is an experiment in governmental partnership. Municipal or county government cannot meet the transportation needs, and transportation agencies cannot solve the land use quandaries. It will take all levels of government to fashion a truly effective solution.

CHAPEL HILL

It is not an idle claim of Chapel Hillians that their town is "The Southern Part of Heaven." Chapel Hill is a community with charm, character, history, vigorous academic and cultural traditions, and an inspiring (but fragile) natural environment. It is a community with citizen involvement as one of its core values.

No wonder, then, that Chapel Hill’s recently adopted Comprehensive Plan is a good read. The plan is of the type described in planning literature as a "values-driven" plan. It is that and more. The topic of this article is transportation and community values, and Chapel Hill’s Comprehensive Plan provides a good illustration of how values-driven planning works.

The starting point is a clear articulation of what is important to a community’s present and future. Chapel Hill’s core values are community character, active neighborhoods, a strong downtown, good schools, a strong town-gown relationship, and diversity. Nowhere in this list of core values will the reader find "ease of movement by automobile." The Town’s approach to transportation is guided by the following fundamental criteria:

Community character often takes priority over functional efficiency.
Multi-modal is desirable, with an emphasis on transit, biking, walking, park-and-ride.
Neighborhood protection is paramount, so transportation improvements should not be allowed to damage existing neighborhoods.
The supply of parking should be "squeezed" to minimize impervious surfaces and help make non-auto modes attractive.
Land use patterns should be arranged to support walking, biking, and transit.
Densities should be kept low in keeping with the Town’s established scale and character.

That’s a tall order, especially with regard to the final bullet (density is generally considered essential to support alternatives to the private automobile, particularly transit). Yet those are the objectives, and the community support behind them is clear and unwavering. With this context in mind, we present two case studies of road projects that illustrate the good and the bad that can result from pursuing these types of policies, followed by an examination of a policy change under consideration that will help support achievement of the Comprehensive Plan objectives.

Case Studies

By way of introduction it may be useful to observe that the North Carolina Department of Transportation is in the middle of a "sea change" in its relationships with local governments. A survey of planning literature indicates that, happily, the Tar Heel State is not alone in this regard. Numerous DOT’s throughout the country are beginning to open up to non-engineering perspectives. (The reference above to the State of New Jersey’s work with Context Sensitive Design is a good example.) Change is slow, however, and many in North Carolina still take pride in a reputation as "The Good Roads State." Moving on to the case studies, the first is the "good one": South Columbia Street. This discussion is followed by a more troublesome example: Weaver Dairy Road. Finally, a possible overall solution is identified: adjusting expectations for Level of Service on in-town streets.

South Columbia Street. This street is a two-mile stretch of road that starts at the southern end of Chapel Hill and heads due north, right into the heart of downtown. (The landmark downtown intersection in Chapel Hill is Franklin and Columbia.) On its way to the downtown, South Columbia Street runs adjacent to the area of the University of North Carolina (UNC) Hospital and Health Affairs facilities and right past the main and oldest part of the UNC campus. South Columbia Street is also a dividing line: to the east lie the University and its Health Affairs area; to the west are traditional, historic (and active) neighborhoods.

South Columbia Street is a two-lane road for much of its length. It is inadequate to handle current traffic demand, especially at peak hours. Fifteen years ago, the Chapel Hill Town Council and the NC Department of Transportation decided to address the most critical bottleneck by turning a portion of South Columbia into a one-way street, paired with the very close and parallel Pittsboro Street. This set of one-way pairs eliminated the bottleneck, allowing traffic to move easily (and more swiftly). With no widening, the physical character of the area remained intact. The fabric of the adjacent neighborhood was altered by faster moving cars, and some objected. But overall the change was very positive, and most came to accept it as a good compromise.

Over the course of the past 15 years, a new bottleneck began to appear south of the one-way paired segment. By Los Angeles or New York standards, this problem would be a minor inconvenience. But taking 10 minutes to get through a corridor at peak hour that once took three minutes is an annoyance and a harbinger of things to come. Projections indicate that peak hour Level of Service is likely to continue to deteriorate, from D to E and possibly F without some improvements to the street.

In anticipation of the problem, the Department of Transportation’s solution was to plan for widening the road from two to five lanes (four travel lanes plus a continuous center turn lane). Such a widening would solve the congestion problem. It would also destroy part of a neighborhood, greatly increase impervious surface in a water supply watershed area, and dramatically change the southern entrance to Chapel Hill. The Department of Transportation designed the new road, estimated the cost, and put money in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program to fund it. Acquisition of right-of-way was to begin soon.

But the Chapel Hill Town Council’s position was: "No, thanks. That’s not what we want in our community." In response, the Department of Transportation was totally agreeable to taking the programmed funds and sending them to a different community. But demonstrating a significant new willingness to consider objectives other than efficient movement of vehicles, the Department also agreed to discuss alternative improvements that would fall well short of normal, typical "roadway design" standards. After an extended period of discussions and hearings, all parties agreed on a cross section that would improve the street but keep it in its two-lane configuration. The selected improvements involved widening the vehicular travel lanes a bit and adding bike lanes, sidewalks, and the occasional turn lane at the most critical intersections. Most called the agreement a victory: a good example of balancing the need for roadway improvements with the need to maintain community character.

However, there have been subsequent challenges to the decision, the most recent coming in March 2002 from University of North Carolina officials seeking to enhance opportunities for vehicular access to the campus and Health Affairs area. This is the second attempt by University officials to revisit the decision to limit the South Columbia Street improvements to a two-lane configuration. In response, the Town Council and State Department of Transportation have continued to support the original agreement. The project is now in the State’s Transportation Improvement Program with right-of-way acquisition about to begin. With a solid policy base, defensible design, and broad consensus, the agreement is holding firm to date.

Weaver Dairy Road. This roadway is on the other side of Town from South Columbia Street and on the other side of the spectrum in terms of proactive, values-based planning for transportation improvements.

Once a rural road literally serving a dairy farm to the north of Chapel Hill, Weaver Dairy Road is a prime example of a roadway overtaken by urban development. Outside of Chapel Hill’s planning jurisdiction, rural land in this corridor began in the 1970s to be converted into urban subdivisions - but without requirements for urban standards for streets. The State Department of Transportation recognized what was happening and, with the Town’s concurrence, placed the road on a Thoroughfare Plan for widening. The Town and State agreed that a five-lane cross-section would be needed (four travel lanes and a continuous center turn lane). Chapel Hill gained planning jurisdiction over the corridor in 1986 and began requiring road improvements to Weaver Dairy Road as a condition of development approvals.

The result, predictably, was an increasingly awkward, "saw tooth" pattern of widening. This is not uncommon in North Carolina, where municipalities commonly require developers to dedicate right-of-way and widen main roads along their frontage as conditions of approval for new development. Typically, once a significant amount of road has been so widened, the road becomes a project on the State Transportation Improvement Program. In 1999, discussions began in earnest about how to finish the job on Weaver Dairy Road, where close to 75 percent of the length of the corridor had been improved.

By now, the corridor was lined with subdivisions, a new high school, and a retirement community. Traffic is often congested, and there have been numerous accidents (mostly along the unimproved segments). Automobile conflicts with bicycles and pedestrians are increasing. And neighbors have begun to organize against the project as concerns mounted that completing the widening would mean higher traffic volumes and higher speeds. After a contentious and extended debate, the Town Council voted 5 to 4 on a compromise plan that eliminated the continuous center turn lane, provided bike lanes and sidewalks, and narrowed the cross-section overall (but maintained four travel lanes). By contrast to the South Columbia Street example, this time there was no policy base, no consensus, and high controversy. The final agreement was reached in June 2001, with a municipal election coming in November. In the meantime, work began on construction drawings.

Following a change in the composition of the Town Council as a result of the November election, another 5 to 4 vote directed the Mayor to ask the State Department of Transportation to halt work on the design while the road cross-section can be revisited. Safety advocates are split: some point to accident statistics (including one fatality) along the unimproved sections and are angry about the vote to call a halt to design of the improvements; others laud the decision to delay as moving away from making it easier for cars to speed. Local residents are also divided. Some characterize Weaver Dairy Road as a neighborhood street traversing several existing neighborhoods that could be damaged by widening to a four-lane section. Others claim that Weaver Dairy Road is a major arterial street of community-wide importance and is not and never has been a neighborhood street. Controversy and contentiousness abound, with no clear resolution in sight.

Variable Levels of Service. Variable Levels of Service represent a relatively new concept that may offer a mechanism for approaching these issues in a more systematic way. Chapel Hill, as is typical among communities, has adopted Level of Service "D" as the town-wide acceptable level of service for the functioning of intersections. This clear policy statement means that if an intersection is operating at Level of Service D or better, nothing needs to be done. If an intersection or road segment operates at worse than Level of Service D, capacity improvements are called for. If a new development is proposed that would send any intersection from acceptable to unacceptable Level of Service, it is likely to be denied. Note the key word above: "town-wide."

Chapel Hill’s Comprehensive Plan includes a recommendation that the Town reconsider having a single acceptable Level of Service for the entire Town. There are many areas, the downtown and South Columbia Street being the prime examples, where the improvements necessary to assure Level of Service D would do such damage to the visual and social fabric of the community as to make the improvements unacceptable. The trade-off, of course, is to formally acknowledge that more congestion is acceptable. Based upon the direction set by the Comprehensive Plan, the Town will consider designating different Levels of Service as acceptable in different parts of Town. For example, if Level of Service E were the acceptable standard for South Columbia Street, it would be even clearer what the best choice is for transportation improvements. A reasonable debate could ensue, for example, about the differences between South Columbia Street and Weaver Dairy Road. Such debate would focus on the key physical and social characteristics that distinguish different parts of the Town, such as the nature and character of immediate surroundings, pedestrian counts, relation of adjacent buildings (especially residences) to the street, and similar important and measurable criteria.

Will this approach work? It has not yet been put into place in Chapel Hill, so there is no answer yet. But the idea appears to hold considerable promise.

Lessons Learned

Consideration of the South Columbia Street and Weaver Dairy Road examples in Chapel Hill leads to several observations.

Decisions growing directly from adopted policy are more likely to enjoy wide support and withstand challenge than those that do not. This is no surprise, but simply the reinforcement of the value of good planning.
Pursuing road improvements through incremental and piecemeal widening over time is a recipe for conflict, controversy, and angst. It has the advantage of keeping public costs down, if all goes well: developers each build their share of the road and the public dollars come in at some threshold point to fill in the gaps. But it is very likely that all will not go well. Incremental improvements by developers assuredly means an incremental addition of nearby residents, an incremental growth in traffic, and a steadily growing body of stakeholders in a position to object to the original decision to improve the road, while suffering for years with a piecemeal pattern of improvements. It is likely more expensive but far better overall to plan and build a set of improvements with public resources, possibly supplemented with contributions from new developments (voluntary or mandated).
Accepting higher levels of congestion in certain situations may be exactly the correct public policy. But it would be far better to approach that issue thoughtfully and comprehensively across an entire community rather than on an ad hoc basis in response to immediate controversy.

Author and Copyright Information

David Rouse, AICP is a Senior Associate with the consulting firm of Wallace Roberts & Todd, LLC (WRT). He was WRT’s project director for the Chapel Hill Comprehensive Plan and is serving in that capacity for the Eastern Lancaster County Land Use Study. David can be reached at drouse@ph.wrtdesign.com.

Ronald Bailey, AICP is Executive Director of the Lancaster County Planning Commission. Ronald can be reached at bailey@co.lancaster.pa.us.

Glenn Taggart is Principal of the consulting firm Taggart Associates. He is the Lancaster County Planning Commission’s Program Manager for the Eastern Lancaster County Land Use Study. Glenn can be reached at gmtagg@aol.com.

Roger Waldon, AICP is Director of the Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department. Roger can be reached at rwaldon@town.ci.chapel-hill.nc.us.