THE MASTER PLAN

The CORE charrette concluded with a full digital pre- sentation of the strategies and solutions generated by

the many participants. We presented the master plan in four main graphic components dealing with the main environmental, mobility and development patterns of the area – Green Infrastructure, Transit Infrastructure Street Infrastructure and Mixed-use Activity Centers – plus another two sections, Neighborhoods and Districts that featured urban design recommendations for proto- typical developments. These are discussed in the next section.

Green Infrastructure (see Plate 15)

As part of our development of the Corridor typology, we made two main recommendations regarding envi- ronmental issues.

Recommendation 1: Develop a detailed green space network that links and completes entire corridors and protected open spaces.

We stressed that a ‘green’ network must be estab- lished as a complement and alternative to the regional transportation network of roads and planned rail lines. This network should consist of a combination of the following green elements:

● Greenway trails: Conventional multi-use paths along creeks and floodplains.

● Multi-use paths: Pathways for pedestrians and bicy- clists that run parallel to main roads or rail lines at a safe distance.

● Green streets: Sidewalks and bicycle lanes along well- landscaped streets in Mixed-use Centers, Districts and Neighborhoods.

● Public parks: Areas with universal access for passive or active recreation that are owned and maintained by a public authority.

● Conservation areas: Open spaces that are protected by contracts, deeds or covenants that protect sensi- tive environmental features.

This network of linked green spaces would create a valuable local and regional amenity, and it should be designed to allow greenways to cross under major new or expanded highways and rail lines. These crossings should be wide and high enough to permit passage of pedestrians, bicyclists and wildlife, and should be included as the road or rail corridors are designed and built.

Recommendation 2: Coordinate stream buffer standards across jurisdictional boundaries. Buffer widths for undisturbed vegetation along the banks of streams vary widely among the participating jurisdictions in the CORE, from as little as 35 feet to 100 feet (10.6 to 130.5 meters). Coordinated standards should be established at the high end of the scale to ensure clear and consistent protection of the local ecosystem.

Transit Infrastructure (see Plate 16)

This section comprised the second element of our Corridor typology, for as the core area continues to urbanize, public transportation must play a more important role in providing mobility choices for residents as well as workers. The regional transit

6:30 p.m. Sponsor reception 7:00–9:00 p.m. Opening presentation

8:30 a.m. Developers’ and focus area owners’ plans and advice 10:00 a.m. All interested participants 1:00 p.m. All interested participants 5:30–6:00 p.m. Pin-up sesssion/update

7:00 – 9:00 p.m. Closing presentation

8:00 a.m. Closing presentation summary Monday, April 8 Charrette Schedule April 2002 Wednesday, April 10 Thursday, April 11 Friday, April 12 Tuesday, April 9

8:30 a.m. Water resources and environment focus 10:00 a.m. Transportation focus – roads 11:00 a.m. Transportation focus – transit 1:00 p.m. Open space, trails and parks focus

2:30 p.m. Community facilities focus 5:30–6.00 p.m. Pin-up session/update 7:00–9.00 p.m. Participatory design

Figure 7.1 CORE Charrette Schedule. Meetings are prearranged with key individuals and groups, but

design work begins on the first morning and continues all day, each day, with a public discussion of each day’s design ideas at 5.30 pm.

corridors currently comprise the planned TTA Phase I commuter rail project through the study area, a future connector branching off west to the university town of Chapel Hill, and a long-term future north–south corridor running along a freight rail line that parallels the western boundary of the study area. We proposed one major addition to this transit system, shown in purple in Plate 16. Other recom- mendations regarding types of development that are more supportive of transit are included in the sec- tions on Mixed-use Centers, Neighborhoods and Districts below.

Main Transit Recommendation

Create a transit loop for the CORE that connects the TTA Phase 1 corridor with the RTP and the airport.

To complement the first phase of the commuter rail line, we mapped a new high-frequency circulating service that would cover a large portion of the CORE study area, connecting many of our proposed mixed- use centers with RTP office campuses and the airport. The success this loop would depend on high-density development in the proposed mixed-use centers as well as convenient connections at the commuter train stations.

Many leaders in the Triangle expressed the belief that in order for the commuter rail system to be suc- cessful, it had to be connected to the airport, otherwise business customers wouldn’t use the train. Yet, transit studies of journeys to and from airports across the U.S. by bus and train have indicated that most trips were made not by people who were travelling somewhere else, but by people who worked at the airport. While the number of business travellers using transit might be expected to rise in the coming years, this mixed rid- ership reinforced our concern that the CORE loop must connect not only the airport, but all the new mixed-use activity centers and the RTP. To succeed, the transit service must serve as wide a spectrum of customers as possible to maximize its ridership.

Our CORE transit loop intersected the rail line at the already planned RTP North/IBM Station and at a new North Morrisville Station proposed in our plan. We also proposed an additional connection to the future transit line to Chapel Hill – located at the RTP Service Center just west of the Triangle Metro Center. In the long term, we envisioned this loop as a ‘fixed guideway system’ such as rapid bus, streetcar or light rail, but the service could begin as more con- ventional bus service and expand as future demand makes more advanced technologies financially

feasible. As real estate and infrastructure development projects move forward, a corridor for the CORE loop must be preserved.

Street Infrastructure

In this third subset of the Corridor typology, we considered all types of streets and roads, from free- ways to local neighborhood streets. This hierarchy is shown in red in Plate 16.

We recommended four actions:

1. Eliminate a portion of planned freeway that dumped traffic into the center of Morrisville for no apparent reason.

2. Improve east-west connections by extending three local main roads to form a more coherent network for the study area.

3. Create greater connectivity of neighborhood streets. 4. Establish design criteria for streets that include

pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Of most interest to the reader will be the connec- tivity index and the street designs. One of the funda- mental principles of New Urbanist design is that all neighborhood streets be multifunctional, that is, safe and attractive for pedestrians and cyclists as well as for cars, and that they connect to form a network with multiple choices of routes. This connectivity spreads out traffic more evenly and reduces conges- tion, but this pattern contrasts markedly with most new development in the CORE area, which has been designed with few points of access, often with only one way in or out. This is true of office and industrial parks as well as residential neighborhoods.

It’s hard to overstate the importance of connecting streets into a network. Mobility for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians increases and costs of civic services (public transit, school buses, police, fire and ambu- lance services) are decreased by having more conve- nient choices of routes around any neighborhood or district. This same flexibility increases the efficiency of these emergency services as they’re able to respond faster to emergencies. Street connectivity can even lead to improved water pressure and easier mainte- nance of the underground pipes by looping lines through a development rather than creating dead ends in cul-de-sacs.

In projects covering a smaller area, we normally plan out the entire street network, but here we amended the larger regional framework of arterials, established guidelines for the street pattern in the multiuse centers, and set our performance standards

for all future neighborhood street connectivity. In this way a connected network of streets will grow in step with new development.

We based our connectivity index on one already implemented in the study area by the town of Cary. This index measures the number of ‘links’ (defined as street intersections and cul-de-sac dead ends) and the number of ‘nodes’ (segments of streets between links, and street stubs that end at property lines for future connections) (see Figure 7.2). In this figure, links are represented by black circles and nodes by stars. In the diagram there are 11 links and 9 nodes. Dividing the number of links by the number of nodes results in a connectivity index of 1.22.

A perfect grid has a connectivity index of 2.5. Most conventional cul-de-sac subdivisions yield an average connectivity index of only 1.0. We recom- mended a connectivity index of at least 1.4–1.5, though variations could be granted in a few cases where severe topographic conditions make connec- tions very difficult and expensive. In these situations, cul-de-sacs may be used, but these dead-end streets

must be strictly limited to preserve the integrity and performance of the connected street system.

The connectivity of streets is not the only impor- tant issue in their design. The correct design details to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists are also very necessary for the network to be attractive and function well. Though the RTP and several of the municipalities in the area have installed sidewalks and bicycle paths, or have recently begun requiring them, such facilities are noticeably absent on many of the area’s local streets and thoroughfares. This omis- sion is compounded by the fact that even where sidewalks and bicycle facilities exist, there are often gaps between segments, significant barriers to their use (such as major thoroughfares, or wide intersec- tions on roads without islands for pedestrian refuge) or pedestrian-unfriendly developments that discour- age walking and cycling.

To help remedy these deficiencies, we recom- mended that new streets and improvements to exist- ing streets should, at a minimum, have five-foot wide sidewalks on both sides to permit two adults to walk comfortably next to one another. Collector streets and thoroughfares should also be retrofitted with wide outside lanes for cyclists. Alternatively, multiuse paths at least 10-feet wide that can be safely used by both pedestrians and bicyclists should be constructed alongside roadways. Figure 7.3 illustrates an appro- priate design for a multiuse path in cross section. In addition to pedestrian and bicycle facilities along

Figure 7.2 Connectivity Index Diagram. Street

connectivity is vital for efficient and sustainable neighborhood design, and is measured by the ration of ‘links’ to ‘nodes’. Links are represented by black circles and nodes by stars. This example gives a connectivity index of 1.22 (dividing 11 links by 9 nodes). This is barely sufficient. An index ratio of 1.4 or 1.5 is much preferred. For example, if the two cul-de-sacs were eliminated and the streets extended in a ‘north–east’ direction to connect to adjacent streets, the number of nodes (stars), would not increase, but there would be two extra links (circles) created between the new intersections. This would give a connectivity index of 1.44 (13 links divided by 9 nodes).

6
EP EP-Edge of Pavement 10
10
3

Figure 7.3 Cross-section of a Multi-use Path. Where

sidewalks adjacent to busy roads are not formed by buildings, multiuse paths can provide valuable connections for cyclists and pedestrians.

streets, we recommended that selected greenway cor- ridors could also provide bicycling commuter routes.

Mixed-use Activity Centers

(see Plate 17)

We made several detailed recommendations regard- ing the location and design of mixed-use activity centers throughout the study area, but we established one overall principle: The Center of the Region should be anchored by a series of neighborhoods and villages, each with a defineable, coherent mixed-use core at the appropriate scale.

This recommendation marked a significant shift from the current development pattern of single-use office parks, apartment complexes and large-lot single family subdivisions, and as such it was one of the most important components of the plan. It is inherently more sustainable to build the region around a series of neighborhood or village centers linked by a transporta- tion network that promotes walking, bicycling, and public transit as alternatives to driving everywhere. This new typology provides opportunities to live, work, play and shop without long commutes, and supports a wider range of lifestyles and different types of households.

These mixed-use centers comprise the most impor- tant urban building blocks of the whole plan, pro- viding focal points of activity and neighborhood structure throughout the study area. Plate 17 indicates the location of each of the 10 proposed centers, and we illustrate three of them – the Triangle Metro Center, the North Morrisville Neighborhood Center and the RTP Service Center – in more detail, each differing in scale and character. As stressed earlier in this chapter and elsewhere, each type of center typically includes some residential development and also has direct, pedestrian connections to surrounding neighbor- hoods. This residential element is essential. Good restaurants, for example, will never survive by depend- ing on lunchtime traffic alone; they must attract the dinner crowd as well. Therefore, wherever it’s practical, residential development needs to accompany new retail and office development to provide both a day- time and night-time market. The amount of office development in each center, and its residential mix, depend on its particular location and character.

Triangle Metro Center (see Plate 18 and Figure 7.4)

We made one major recommendation for this key site, positioned at a future commuter rail station

at the edge of the RTP: The Triangle Metro Center should be developed as a transit-oriented development (TOD).

This area around the transit station planned at the south end of the RTP has great potential for private development. The Triangle Transit Authority has envisaged this location as a main transfer point for passengers to change between trains and local buses, and we indicated how our amendments to the design of a previously proposed Triangle Metro Center pro- ject next to the station could build on this level of activity by creating the hub of a new high-density urban village (see Figure 7.4). The original project, which predated the charrette, proposed significant investment in offices, shops and housing, and we were able to complement this effort by creating an urban neighborhood on two large tracts of open property to the south (see Plate 18). The land immediately to the north of the Center is part of an existing large office campus, and unavailable for development, although at some future date connections between the research buildings and the Center could be provided.

On the land to the south, we were able to create an urban neighborhood that provided a variety of hous- ing types for employees in the RTP and surrounding office developments. Our design concept in Plate 18 shows development around the station area stretch- ing for approximately 3/4-mile, but the intensity of development tapers off beyond the five-minute walk (1/4-mile). Within 1/4-mile of the station we

Figure 7.4 Aerial perspective of Metro Center.

We were able to refine and develop a project that was already in the planning stages to maximize its potential as a catalyst for adjacent transit-friendly and sustainable development.

illustrated higher density residential development in the form of three- and four-story apartments. On the east side of the tracks we redesigned an existing retail center along an adjacent major north–south street as a three- and four-story mixed-use development of offices and shops, with the potential also for some live-work unit and adjacent high-density apartments. A new street beneath the tracks improves connectiv- ity and leads to a new civic building, possibly a YMCA fitness facility or a small school, indicated in purple in Plate 18.

Between 1/4-mile and 1/2-mile from the station area, we scaled down development to a mix of town- homes and narrow-lot, single-family homes. We laid out the remaining property beyond the 1/2-mile radius with similar development, backing it up to and screening it from revitalized small commercial buildings fronting adjacent streets. This develop- ment pattern provides the necessary variety of hous- ing options for a successful urban village, while respecting the topography and natural features on the site, in particular the creek that traverses the site. By enhancing the required environmental buffers along the creek, we created a small linear park for the neighborhood and the Center. It’s important to note that houses front onto this park, providing visual security. It is rarely a good idea to back houses up to public green space, unless it is a publicly maintained greenway or a large area. The lessons about buildings facing onto public space that were discussed in Chapter 4 apply here. This park would also make an excellent corridor for a greenway that could tie trails in the RTP to the train station area.

North Morrisville Neighborhood Center (see Plate 19)

Morrisville is the only town wholly within the study area. It has suffered from being under the flight path to and from the Raleigh-Durham International Airport as well as being sandwiched directly between the wealthy community of Cary to the south and the RTP to the north. As a consequence of airport noise, development has been limited, and the town has had to cope with a lot of commuting traffic. Overall, Morrisville has not been able to turn its location next to the major employment center of the RTP to its advantage, and we saw this new regional plan as providing the town with the vision and means to overcome these difficulties.

The area is complex. Morrisville’s jurisdiction includes the future extension of a regional interstate

highway, the TTA rail corridor and the 65 DNL (average day/night noise level) contour line from the airport. The town is home to the small but historic African-American community of Shiloh, which is left undeveloped just to the west of the five-minute walk radius from the train station shown in Plate 19.

This area’s proximity to major employment centers and new road and rail connections suggests that rede- velopment is very likely over the next 10–20 years. To structure this growth, we recommended that: A new Neighborhood Center should be created in the north Morrisville area that includes a new transit station for commuter rail and the CORE transit loop.

Where our new transit loop crosses the proposed rail line is an excellent location for another TOD that would create a focal point and hierarchy to the devel- opment in the southern part of the study area. The location of this new multimodal station would enable the southern portion of the RTP to be served effi- ciently with high-quality, secure transit service from the employers’ front doors or parking areas to the air- port and to other destinations on the commuter rail line, including downtown Raleigh and N.C. State