Several comments on this blog have correctly pointed out that an additional access point for the proposed Lowe’s development and future shopping center development behind Lowe’s that intersects with Market Street is, at best, a compromise. If all the traffic winds up on Market Street, how much does it matter whether it’s all at the Porters Neck Road traffic light or spread between that light and a new one ½ mile south? An additional access as just described would have some benefit in that it would shorten the cycling time for the Porters Neck Road traffic light. That would help traffic flow, given that traffic through this area will be increasing from additional residential development in addition to shopping center traffic. It would, as the comments suggest, be better if another access point could be found that would go somewhere other than Market Street. Is this feasible?
There are only two alternatives: first, what about access from the US 17 bypass? That won’t happen, according to NC DOT who designed this new road to Interstate standards and will not permit any access other those in DOT’s long term plans. The second alternative was mentioned by the developer in earlier presentations: connect with Plantation Road, already shown on some maps as running into Murreysville Road. This was on NC DOT’s long-term plans but we understand that wetlands issues have put this way down on their list. Before considering this road, DOT will build an extension to Military Cutoff that will intersect with the bypass – this is one of the few additional exits off the bypass currently contemplated. Once this is in place, perhaps then Plantation Road will make it onto their funding horizon. In other words, that’s probably a decade away.
We’re left with two conclusions. First, an additional Market Street access point is a compromise but better than nothing. Second, this property really does not have great development potential precisely because of the access problem.
The other question, is Lowe’s better than some other alternatives? Of course it is. The developer has already threatened us, in the July Commissioners’ meeting, with Wal Mart. Here’s why that’s an empty threat: In purchasing the “back acreage” from Scarafoni Associates, owner of the existing Porters Neck Shopping Center, the developers agreed not to include another supermarket in their shopping center. The developers told us this in face to face communication but of course we haven’t seen written documentation. Wal Mart abandoned its plans in Ogden some time back, and I’ve read that they have pulled back from numerous expansion plans around the country this year because of missing their earnings targets. None of this is ironclad, but Wal Mart appears to be a low probability.
Actually, we're left with a third conclusion. It seems to us that the infrastucture problem we're facing with this development is similar to many others around the county. The root cause appears to be a lack of coordination between land use planning and zoning -- a county function -- and traffic planning, primarily a state function for our major roads. Only when that coordination occurs will we see the benefits of infrastructure needs being considered in conjuction with development occuring.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Many of the comments herein have talked about the traffic involved with the new proposed Lowes and how it will impact those of us in the Porter’s Neck area. Has any consideration been given to an additional EAST-Bound road as an alternative to getting back into Porter’s Neck CC, Bald Eagle, Figure Eight Island, Avenel, etc? This proposed road would be somewhere south of Porter’s Neck Road and head EAST and intersect with Edgewater Club Road somewhere? This would then allow a good many residences heading north on Market turn off sooner and forgo the congestion created at Porter’s Neck Road. I am unclear as to all of the ramifications involved (aside from costs); I am just trying to think outside the box.
I poised the comment about Wal-Mart. It is interesting that there is an agreement to prevent that. Seems reasonable that the owners of the current shopping center would want that.
Perhaps Scarafoni would be an ally to ensure the traffic does not adversely affect his own center. (perhaps he already is, and I just don't know).
An additional non-signaled access will not significantly affect cycle times at porters neck. The only traffic it can handle in any significant volume is right turn only. This same right turn only traffic could just as easily pass though the porters neck intersection.
Some other posts have rightly pointed out that market becomes a funnel at the interchange with 17. I haven't studied that in much detail, but if NCDOT is making changes to the intersection, that needs to be part of it.
One good way to look at this whole project is to ensure that the changes to the intersection will handle the development of the entire tract. The lack of access is two-sided. Yes, it can cause all the traffic to flow through a tight area, but there is an absolute limit to the amount of development.
You know, I read these comments, and I think, you're all part of the problem. Here you are thinking up ways to help the developer. I'm sure he reads this and laughs because he's got you in his back pocket. To the comment about thinking outside the box - want to think outside the box? Stop framing everything in terms of the car! You're all part of the problem because you can't get your brains to think about anything but the car. It's kinda sad.
So enjoy your Lowe's (and Wal-Mart -- remember they come in pairs). And remember the traffic and blight and obesity and environmental degradation as you drive your 4500lb gas-guzzling polluting SUV two miles to the Lowe's to buy cheap Chinese goods at rock-bottom prices. And when peak oil finally sinks in, remember that you could have done something but this is what you chose to leave behind as your legacy.
Want to do something constructive about it? Write to our local government leaders telling them you're tired of seeing piss-poor planning and outdated zoning code, and demand consideration for alternative transportation and a task force to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel, call it the Peak Oil Task Force.
We are running out of time!
And please give cyclists more respect on the road. Bicycles are not just a plaything. Bicycles are the most energy-efficient form of travel ever devised --and makes you healthier to boot.
To learn more please visit:
http://www.energybulletin.net/33915.html
http://walkscore.com/walking-matters.shtml
http://www.sightline.org/research/sust_toolkit/solutions/bicycle
I have kids and I care about their future.
To the response on "walking", look around pal, cars in this country will NEVER, I repeat, NEVER disappear.
So my advise to you is.....Move to another country! Save your kids there.
C-Ya
"Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it.
Tell them something new and they will hate you for it."
Holy crap you people are clueless. America is in big trouble. When peak oil arrives we're in a heap o' trouble. You can't keep going like this forever. You will be forced to change. Well, maybe not you, because you'll be dead, so what do you care? It's obvious you don't, you created this mess in the first place.
True the cars will never disappear, but the people will.
Statements such as yours show just how arrogant, unprepared, and asleep this country is.
Happy Motoring!
WOW!
I think some of the comments have lost focus on the purpose here.
It is NOT a forum for discussing what should and should not be the primary mode of transportation in New Hanover County.
It IS a place where we can affect the reality before us.
There is a developer who is going to build something. Period. We cannot stop that. The law as written provides for a large list of uses that are permitted with the current zoning. The only reason we are in a position to affect anything is that the proposed use requires a zoning change, and thus, public hearings.
Further, we have a developer who is apparently willing to foot the bill for a lot of this work. Try getting the same improvements done by the county.
If we are serious about alternatives to cars (I have my own silent opinion), why not propose something here to help? Would a foot/bike bridge across Market St. be a step in the right direction? How may of the trips through the signal are from someone just changing sides of the street?
It is easy to stand on the outside and find fault. It is easier to ridicule that. It is even easier to tell people they are stupid.
Sorry for the ignorrant question, but, with as much vacant land around, why has THAT location been choosen? Why not move it a few blocks further north, where one would have a blank canvas?
I agree with a few thoughts...I never said that we should just abandon our cars and start biking everywhere. All I want is sustainable development which permits alternative transportation and builds a real sustainable community, not socially destructive developments such as this one. If someone chooses to walk or ride their bike to the store or whatever they can actually do it without getting themselves killed. But people automatically assumed the former.
Now someone thinks I am some hippie biker with no job and house and can't carry more than one bag from the grocery store. That's a pretty ignorant statement and reflects what most people think when they see someone around here on a bike - they're poor, uneducated, lost their license, DUI, etc.. It tells me how much resistance that must be overcome. I happen to be very successful. And I can carry more groceries on my bike trailer than you could fit in your car - maybe some day you'll see me at the Harris Teeter and you'll see what I mean. Why would anyone complain about a biker? That's one less car. That's less gas used and less pollution, makes me healthier and saves me money. You should be thanking me and have a little more respect for cyclists. Until you ride on the roads around here, you have no idea what's it's like.
40% of all trips are two miles or less. It will be fairly straightforward to accommodate bicycles in the Porter's Neck development. All you'd have to do is connect the nearby housing to the shopping through bike lanes or separate paths. You do this when the roads are resurfaced or roads are widened. So when the entrance to the Lowe's is widened you put a wide shoulder on it and that allows bikes to travel on it more safely. Also, the developments should be denser with separate connections to the shops so that people can walk or bike. Most places I've lived do this now. In fact I just stayed on Daniel Island in Charleston this weekend, one of the best developments I've ever seen.
But to not even consider alternative transportation in any new development is shortsighted because of the decline in crude oil production in the face of insatiable demand. Worldwide oil production peaked in 2005. And the US has no energy policy. You're going to start hearing a lot about peak oil in the next few years. Many cities have already started trying to find solutions to this issue. So I write our local leaders about it because it's their job to plan Wilmington's future in a sustainable and environmentally sound manner. They're the ones with the vision and ability to make it happen.
Oh and by the way, I think there needs to be multiple entrances to the Lowe's shopping center. The other entrance, as stated in an earlier post, should be behind the existing shopping center and behind Cypress Pond apartments, linking into Hays Rd. This would tie nearby neighborhoods to the commercial area and allow those residents to bypass Market.
And finally, we do need to revisit our arcane zoning codes, which were written way back just after WWII but are not relevant anymore because of increasing population and energy costs.
But don't just accept the way things are and act as if you can't do anything about it. I've already proven that you can. The next opportunity we have is just a little further up the road on the commercial zones on either side of 17. I predict a Wal-Mart or Target there.
I tremendously agree what the anonymous author directly above me has to say. And to the anonymous author a few higher than his who suggested he raise his kids in another country ... I bet your kids would get their fat asses mutilated by his kids.
Go back to your land-raping development, moron. People like you are on the way out, just like Ford and Chevy.
Johnathan, your just the perfect "Hillbilly" for making comments like that!
Post a Comment