A decision by Chancellor James Moeser to back away from parking spaces at Carolina North has garnered positive community reaction as discourse continues about plans for its development.

In a June 9 letter to Chapel Hill Mayor Kevin Foy and Carrboro Mayor Mark Chilton, Moeser pledged that the University would not try to build 17,000 parking spaces at Carolina North. The number — listed in the University’s 2003 concept plan for Carolina North — has been a cause of consternation for town officials and a point of contention in town-grown relations over the project.

Some town officials worried about the additional traffic those spaces would produce on city streets and cited the number as possible evidence that the University is not as committed to seeking public transit alternatives as town officials want.

To ease those doubts, Moeser said the University concurs with town leaders that a master public transit plan should be the focus for meeting the transportation needs that Carolina North would eventually create. Moeser also committed the University to pay 60 percent of the cost of the study that is not paid by agencies such as the state Department of Transportation. Town leaders from Carrboro and Chapel Hill initially reacted favorably to the chancellor’s pledge to study transit issues.

Moeser’s letter and the actions contained within it are a direct response to the substantive discussion on transportation that Chilton helped ignite at the fourth meeting of the Carolina North Leadership Advisory Committee  (LAC) on June 1.

Moeser also reinforced in the letter what UNC representatives have said repeatedly — that the University is already committed to public transit and has a strong track record to show that commitment is real.

“The University has always viewed public transit as the most important component of any transportation plan for Carolina North,” Moeser wrote. “However, we know that almost
70 percent of University and UNC Hospitals employees live outside the Chapel Hill Transit service area, and the number living in the service area has dropped by 20 percent since 2001.

“Because we recognize that transit will not serve all of the needs for travel to Carolina North, we believe that a comprehensive transportation study that looks at transit as one piece of an overall transportation system is also needed.

“As was pointed out at the Leadership Advisory Committee on June 1, the University and the Town of Chapel Hill had agreed to work together on a mutually satisfactory revision of the town’s draft Request for Qualifications for a consultant to perform a transit study.”

During the group’s three previous meetings, the LAC seemed to be doing little more than spinning its wheels. Rather than talking about how to resolve differences over issues, the group seemed mired in the minutiae of process.

Early in the June 1 meeting, however, Chilton raised the issue of transportation and refused to let it go.

Ken Broun, the committee facilitator, commented afterward that the discussion veered off of the planned agenda but led to the first signs of progress since the committee began meeting in March. Broun said, “If Mark hijacked the meeting, I’m glad I went along for the ride.”

Chilton said he put public transit out ahead of other issues because he believes the commitment to public transit will, in large part, shape and inform all the other issues to be discussed, from fiscal equity questions related to the towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill to the actual layout of residential and business districts within Carolina North and the design of streets.

Tony Waldrop, the vice chancellor for research and economic development who serves on the leadership advisory committee, was one of the first to applaud Chilton for raising such an important issue.

In fact, Waldrop pointed out, he and other University officials had repeatedly asked for the towns to join with the University in developing a transportation plan three years ago when the vision for Carolina North was presented to various constituency groups throughout the community.

University Trustee Roger Perry, another leadership advisory committee member, praised Chilton for raising the issue, but also reminded him and others on the committee that the University has already done much more than talk about public transportation.

The University, Perry said, has put its money where its mouth is, both in developing a growing number of park-and-ride lots that have allowed commuting employees and students to get to campus while leaving private vehicles off city streets. Those employees, Perry added, ride in buses operated by Chapel Hill Transit and do so fare-free because of the University’s willingness to subsidize the transit system.

But while University and town officials alike embrace the principle of public transit, they continue to differ on what tactic should be employed to put that ideal into practice.

Chilton, along with Carrboro Alderman Dan Coleman and Chapel Hill Mayor Pro Tempore Bill Strom, insisted that the best way to ensure public transit becomes a reality is to conduct a public transit study.

Chilton said it would be a mistake to construct the first building without knowing how public transit would work. That is because the viability of public transit depends, in large part, on how Carolina North takes shape.

Strom agreed. Transit has to drive the design, Strom said, rather than trying to retrofit transit once it is already built. “I can’t overstate how important it is to do a transit master plan.”

Similarly, Strom said, it is impossible to conduct a fiscal equity study without having a transit plan in place that can project the impact of the development on existing roads.

Waldrop and Perry, on the other hand, argue that the best way to ensure viable transportation alternatives for Carolina North is to conduct a comprehensive transportation study that evaluates the feasibility of all the various alternatives.

Perry said there is no reason why the two could not be studied at the same time and in the context of each other.

The goal of a transportation plan is to mitigate the need for road improvements through alternatives such as park-and-ride loads and expanding busing routes, Perry said. Still, “we should not say roads are not a part of the solution.”

Moeser, in his letter to Foy and Chilton, further clarified the University’s position of support for public transit, touting past successes and future commitments, but with some provisos.

“Our financial investment in transit continues to increase. Since 2001, the University’s contribution to Chapel Hill Transit has risen by $2.8 million annually, half of which pays for new service. Our total annual contribution now stands at over $5 million, and is expected to exceed $6 million in 2006-07.”

Moeser urged all local employers to match the University’s commitment to transit by examining transportation strategies and current free parking for their workforces.