One-way to higher traffic accidents?

I don't want this bit of city-traffic-related news to get lost in the recent deluge of news about Charlotte's airport. The numbers raise a question, in my mind at least, about the safety of one-way streets uptown.

Earlier this month Charlotte's Department of Transportation released its annual list of High Accident Locations. To see it, download it here. (Be sure to notice what it does and doesn't measure; for instance it doesn't measure traffic accidents on interstate highways.) The report drew a news article in  The Charlotte Observer, "Report: Charlotte traffic collisions down; fatalities up."

Here's what I noticed: Among the Top 10 high accident locations, seven were either uptown or nearby. Of those seven, all but one involved one-way streets. The only one of those seven that did not was East Seventh Street and Hawthorne Lane, in the Elizabeth neighborhood.

The city's top high accident location was Cambridge Commons Drive and Harrisburg Road (average daily traffic of 15,000), in east Charlotte near I-485, with a three-year total of 49 accidents and a crash rate (a formula taking into account the traffic volume - to know more download the report) of 2.98.

Other in-town streets:
2. North College Street and East Eighth Street.
3. North College Street and East Ninth Street.
5. Third-fourth Connector Street and East Fourth Street at Kings Drive.
7. East Seventh Street and Hawthorne Lane.
8. South Church Street and West Hill Street and the ramp to West Belk Freeway.
9. East Seventh and North College Street.

Protest petitions going the way of buggy whips

If you've paid attention to Charlotte planning and zoning matters you know the powerful role that protest petitions have played in stopping rezonings that neighbors oppose. The N.C. legislature is moving rapidly toward eliminating protest petitions.

It's part of a larger bill that would remove a number of local environmental regulations that are stronger than state regulations. The bill passed the N.C. House on Thursday. ("Bill eliminates protest-petition rights in zoning cases") It now goes back to the N.C. Senate, which passed it without the protest petition section.

Here's a synopsis of the action, from the blog of Charlotte's Real Estate and Building Industry Coalition. It notes how many local legislators in both parties voted for the bill, which would, among other things, scrap a key local storm-water pollution ordinance. "House passes landmark regulatory reform package."

The protest petition is a 90-year-old section of state law that has let adjoining property owners file official protests against proposed rezonings. If enough of these protests are deemed valid, then that rezoning can't pass without a three-quarters vote from the elected body which in Charlotte is the City Council. In development-happy Charlotte, the provision occasionally means the defeat of rezonings that would otherwise pass, although the council OKs the overwhelming majority of proposed rezonings.


Here's an editorial from the Greensboro News & Record about the bill: http://www.news-record.com/opinion/n_and_r_editorials/article_41619342-ea81-11e2-b870-0019bb30f31a.html

The editorial says: "... There was no chance for compromise, just a wholesale repeal with little warning.

"In principle, the action contradicts what the Republican legislature has done in regard to involuntary annexations. It has empowered affected residents to call for a referendum. This measure takes power from residents.

"But some developers don’t like protest petitions because it’s harder for them to advance projects that neighbors don’t want. They’re “costly and hinder development,” Rep. Rob Bryan, R-Mecklenburg, said Thursday."

It's part of a bill that state planners are calling the "Billboards Forever" bill. Read this report from The Charlotte Observer's Jim Morrill: http://campaigntracker.blogspot.com/2013/07/surprises-not-surpising-near-sessions.html

By Jove, I think they've got it!

There, that wasn't so hard to figure out, was it?

Back in the winter, when the reverse-angle parking was installed in the Plaza-Central business district, which requires you to back in, and people weren't doing it right, I wondered if they'd ever figure it out. Here's a link to a WCNC-TV piece on motorists' inability to grasp the concept.

As this hilarious article from Charlotte magazine recounts, so many people were just not getting it that the city held a press conference and hired a guy to do a rap song, to demonstrate:

"This was a news conference, an honest-to-God news conference, in which Charlotte city officials demonstrated how to back into a parking spot. And they brought a rapper."

Last Saturday, my spouse and I decided we should visit the amazing new Harris Teeter grocery store at Central and The Plaza (It's two stories, y'all!) because we do lead rather boring lives. After we conquered the problem of how to find the second floor, and ascended and realized there's nothing there but tables where you can eat your Teeter Deli purchases, we bought a few necessaries and left.

On the way home, we drove past the formerly infamous reverse-angle parking. If Saturday is anything typical, I'm here to report that by cracky, people have figured it out.  Not a single car was parked front-end-in.

Way to go, PM-ers.   

Waxhaw: Once a small town, now it wonders what's next

Historic downtown Waxhaw. Photo: Nancy Pierce

WAXHAW – The question came from the back row of the small audience, during a presentation from planning consultants about the future for N.C. 16 as it bisects the fast-growing Union County town.

“If we do all this, will we still be considered a small town?”

Consultant Monica Holmes of Lawrence Group paused briefly before answering: “A very important part of this discussion is, ‘What does Waxhaw want to be?’ ”

Good question. Waxhaw – a railroad hamlet chartered in 1889 and named for the Indians who before the Europeans arrived gave their name to the region called “the Waxhaws” – is growing like kudzu. In 2000 it was the 42nd largest municipality in the Charlotte region, and by 2010 it was No. 25. Growth since then has already likely notched it up to No. 17 or 18.  And now it is studying how it could shape the growth along its main highway, growth that is all but promised to arrive in the next 20 years.

Read my article on Waxhaw looks to future for N.C. 16.

The 'powerful' (?) bike lobby

Below are more fun reads from my week (now ended) of doing the daily news headline roundups from around the Charlotte region for PlanCharlotte.org and the UNC Charlotte Urban Institute homepage. 

Note, also, that as of today Chesser's Choices now has Chesser back at the helm, offering intriguing material from around the U.S. and globally.

The "all-powerful" bike lobby"? Politoco.com casts a dubious eye at the comments by Dorothy Rabinowitz, in her now-famous-across-the-Web rant against New York's fledgling bike share program, that there's an "all-powerful"  bike lobby.  There is a bike lobby, the article notes, but it's anything but all-powerful.

The same must be said of Charlotte. There is a bike lobby, or at least, some people who care a lot about bicycling, and their voices have been heard in the past decade. It's known as the Charlotte Area Bicycle Alliance. But if you've tried to ride your bike through the city you know this group is anything but all-powerful. Yes, there are more bike lanes and routes than previously. But Charlotte is nowhere near the state of, say, the Netherlands. Check out last week's New York Times article: The Dutch Prize Their Pedal Power, but a Sea of Bikes Swamps Their Capital.

That's the way the modern concrete crumbles

Here's yet another interesting piece I found last week while doing the daily news headline roundups from around the Charlotte region for PlanCharlotte.org and the UNC Charlotte Urban Institute homepage. (Yes, we read the region's news and link to what's of note in terms of public policy and urban growth topics, so you won't have to. Wonky? Sure, and proud of it!)

The long-lost secret of Roman concrete's endurance: If you have ever seen crumbling concrete and said – as I have trudging across the parts of the UNC Charlotte campus dating to the 1960s-1980s (see photo below) – "Good grief, I've seen ancient Roman concrete in better shape than this!" the next article will open your eyes. I spotted it on the excellent Planetizen.com website, which links to the original article on Bloomberg Businessweek: Ancient Roman concrete is about to revolutionize modern architecture.  The Romans used lime and volcanic rock, and their process produces less carbon dioxide than today's process. 

Steps I walk on daily at UNC Charlotte. Photo: Mary Newsom

Urban wildlife: friend or foe? Plus, TOD sans T?

This week colleague John Chesser is vacationing so I’m doing the daily news feed for our two online publications, PlanCharlotte.org and the UNC Charlotte Urban Institute's homepage. It’s a fun part of the job – although somewhat relentless, like owning a dairy farm with cows that have to be milked every day, regardless.

Barred owl, urban wildlife. Photo: Liz Odum

But when you do the news feed you find dozens of interesting articles. John kept finding them and sending links around for us, in-house. So we created a special feed from him on the PlanCharlotte.org homepage, called Chesser's Choices:

Today, though, you get my picks at interesting articles: 

Valuing Urban Wildlife: Critical Partners in the Urban System or Scary, Disgusting Nuisances? A Columbia University scientist discusses the differing attitudes the public has toward nature in the city. Cute mammals elicit one reaction. Yucky insects? Not so much. As one of the article’s headlines  puts it: “Who would want to make a corridor for bees?” 

Dead malls turned into data center? This article from TheAtlanticCities.com tells how a dying downtown shopping mall in downtown Buffalo (one described as a “superblock eyesore”) and one that appears to be not completely dead but “mostly dead” is bringing in rent by offering vacant retail spaces for a data storage center. (I would not recommend this for Charlotte’s completely dead Eastland Mall.) 

Some wildlife (cicada) elicits "yuck." Photo: Crystal Cockman

Do people who live in transit-oriented development drive less? Yes, but not for the reasons you think.  People living in TOD neighborhoods do, in fact, drive less. The mass transit is not the reason. A study “Does TOD Need the T?”  from Daniel G. Chatman of the University of California-Berkeley looked concludes that even without mass transit, people in TOD neighborhoods drive less. An article in the MinnPost reported: 

What he concluded from all this was that it wasn’t so much the availability of transit that made people use cars less, but density itself. Higher density means “lower on- and off-street parking availability, better bus service and more jobs, stores and people within walking distance.” 

OK, putting on my pundit hat for a minute: A question for Charlotte, where traffic congestion continues to be a huge public concern, might be: Why not start requiring more in-town development to follow TOD principles? Today, the city’s conventional, suburban-form development standards permeate its zoning ordinance. Developers who want to build TOD must pay, in time and money, for a rezoning. Otherwise, in many cases the standards that apply reflect planning values circa 1970. The city planning department has been engaged in an almost-year-long process to see whether its 20-year-old zoning ordinance needs an update.  I could have saved the city some money. Yes, it needs an update!