Fayetteville St. streetscape: No private land takings; $33m cost; and did we mention no private property takings?

Consultants from EG&G Group and Chris Dickey from the City's Office of Economic and Workforce Development last night presented the proposal for the Fayetteville St. streetscape improvements to a crowd of over thirty Durhamites in the Hayti Heritage Center.

The plan will consist of work entirely in the public right of way and, at a proposed cost tag of just over $33 million, could take over ten years to implement in as many as four phases. The proposal would not require private takings of land, and would focus on "curb-to-curb" improvements.

The two-mile-long project would improve sidewalks and street lighting, add attractive parking and crosswalk features, and make the area more attractive to businesses to open up in the corridor. The proposal would, BCR learned, not require any private land takings.

Oh, and did we mention that the City wouldn't need to take (almost) any private land to make this project worth?

Yes, we're repeating ourselves. But it's the only way that you, gentle reader, can have an accurate understanding of how last night's meeting transpired.

Jim Wise's coverage of the last Fayetteville St. streetscape meeting alluded to the dust-up that occured over sidewalk cafe and other amenities shown on the plan -- amenities that were intended to show what private property owners might do in response to the more attractive thoroughfare, not what the City was proposing to do.

Yet in a community still stung by the bad memories of urban renewal and destruction in the 1960s and 1970s, and which is grappling today with historically-black NC Central University over a master plan that could take scores more homes, the fear of any more encroachment on private property holders raised heckles in the crowd.

This time around, every printed schematic, every plan, almost every slide bore a disclaimer: only the public right-of-way is impacted by this project.

And this time around, when the sidewalk cafe appeared in one rendering of possibilities on a corridor, the off-project elements appeared in shades of gray, not the full Technicolor rendering of the streetscape project itself.

It was like walking out of Oz and back into Kansas, all when you step off the red brick-looking sidewalk trim and its concrete companion and back into private property!

With that caveat added and disclaimed over, and over, and over again during the meeting, the project's discussion was largely and strongly positive throughout the first ninety minutes of the meeting.

EG&G's John Grossman warned attendees that they might need their heart pills when they heard the price tag, and he wasn't kidding: a projected $33 million in cost for Fayetteville St.'s almost-two mile targeted stretch alone.

That represents about half of the total streetscape length in linear feet, and more than half the project's cost -- adding in the four other proposed sites (Angier/Driver, E. Main, Little Five Points, and W. Chapel Hill St.), you come to a total of $55.3 million for 20,040 linear feet of distance.

Yet Grossman emphasized that this wasn't analysis in vain.

"We have a success rate of about 90% of our projects getting built," Grossman said. "This isn’t just a planning exercise."

Grossman suggested a ten-year timeframe for a realistic project effort, and recommended the City include in next year's capital improvements project budget -- a CIP planning effort kicks off next month -- funding to design and plan to build a first phase of the effort, which he recommended encompass a portion of the work in each of the four neighborhoods as a way to show progress.

A best case scenario would see design work encompassing much of 2009 and 2010, with construction starting later that year or in early 2011.

Not included in the cost estimates: buried utility lines. The cost of underground concrete duct banks for buried electrical would have increased the cost of the whole project citywide by an estimated one-third; a program advisory committee recommended nixing that element several weeks back.

Instead, utility lines would be carried on higher-than-normal poles and cleaned up with local connections to customers handled through conduit, improving the aesthetics, Grossman said.

One change from earlier discussions: some accomodation for a memorial site celebrating Lincoln Hospital and its nurses association. A county-owned site has some monuments to the historic health center for African-Americans, but the site is not easily accessible and has a "nasty-looking chain link fence" separating it from a parking lot.

EG&G, based on community feedback, proposed adding a bus turnout at the site, improving traffic while steering the sidewalks slightly towards the garden. They've proposed sidewalks, benches and other fixtures within the site, which could become a source of walking history within the neighborhood.

In fact, pressed by one resident over EG&G's Akron (not "Durham") homebase, community leader Larry Hester pointed out that he had served on the committee that reviewed the eight RFP responses, including EG&G's, and selected the Ohio firm "because they seemed to listen better" to community members than other firms, Hester said.

That listening was in full supply last night, from the keen and swift clarification of private property takings to the response to neighbors' ideas over memorializing Lincoln Hospital.

One resident asked about future widening of Fayetteville St., and whether it would undo this work. Grossman noted the "residential area feel" helps the "charm of the university," likening the road through NCCU's campus to a campus drive once the streetscape work is done.

Given the historic district the university finds itself in, any widening would face challenges given the close-in nature of housing to boot; meantime, the high-capacity Alston Ave. finds itself a logical alternative for NC Central traffic.

Several residents asked whether local young men without jobs could be given priority on the construction work, receiving job training if needed to be able to fill the roles.

And -- still -- no private takings. Well, maybe a half a foot of right-of-way to keep the sidewalk alignment straight.

But that's just an easement.

Comments

[Tar Heelz]

Dumb question. Why is the cost SO high? Around $6500 a linear foot for a road that requires no right-of-way acquisition and is *not* intended to be constructed as a high traffic thoroughfare?

[Todd]

$33 million, for just 2 miles? With no cost going for private property takings? Seriously?

The same $33 million would resurface 220 miles of city streets, at the $150,000 per mile cost listed in the 2007 bond.

The best case scenario would be for this project to get dropped. Otherwise, Durham won't be able to afford anything else.

[Rob]

TH- my calculator tells me $2,800/ft.... sure you're not in degree mode?

[Tar Heelz]

Whew! Thanks, Rob! (Still shockingly awful given Todd's post.)

[Michael Bacon]

I suppose the fact that it's over 10 years is supposed to make it easier to digest, but I'll venture to say we could do two miles of streetcar service for $33 mil.

[GreenLantern]

That kind of money for something that's clearly intended to improve private property values along the route just proves that this project is nothing but pork for developers and private interests. Yet again, I'm sure local neighborhood activists are all fawning over this beautifcation effort that does nothing to improve or expand the flow of traffic. We can't afford it just because people don't like overhead power lines or think they are entitled to a spruce-up. That's not infrastructure investment, it's just pork. They'll just have to wait a little longer until our fiscal situation improves.

Drop the project now, take the money and use it to benefit more of our growing population for real infrastructure like widening the Durham Freeway and its bridges before they deteriorate any further.

[Bull City Rising]

I'm not as ready as everyone else to complain about the cost. I'd want to know more information about comparable project costs first.

One useful comparison (and here's hoping Ray or Jim or one of the other pro-jo's reading have time to do this) would be the cost of downtown's streetscape for the amount of coverage there, vs. the amount involved here. In some ways I imagine that was both easier (concentrated geographical area with less auto traffic, and utilities already underground) and harder (more plazas, more underground vaults -- though some are expected here, etc.) than these five targeted areas. Having five areas that need work also plays a part in raising costs I would think.

But you know, I was a lot more skeptical on streetscape until I went to NC A&T in Greensboro. The area around that campus has had a similar effort take place, and the results -- in terms of drawing in businesses and neighborhood amenities that appear to serve the campus and local residents -- are pretty impressive.

Greensboro's Martin Luther King Jr. Pkwy (Rd.? Dr.?) is another good example of this kind of effort.

In areas like Angier/Driver and Fayetteville St., I think an investment in streetscape is critical to start neighborhood revitalization. And the spillover benefits of making these neighborhoods more livable, from reduced crime to more investment in real property.

Is the cost right? It'd be useful to see some comparables. OTOH, EG&G noted that their pricing is based on other projects they're costing out right now, so one has to wonder what other factors come into play here. A topic ripe for more follow-up.

[Khalid]

I have to second the opinion on the A&T/E Market St and MLK streetscapes...The results for both have been a night and day transformation. I don't understand why it would take $33M...I really think those are conservative numbers.

Why should Southpoint have all of the new roads (i.e. money)?

Widen Durham Freeway??? That was a joke right? I know traffic hasn't gotten that bad since I've been gone.

[Dan]

I think there are legitimate questions to ask in terms of whether spending that kind of $$$ on yuppie sidewalks and street lamps is the best use of funds. Could the $$$ be better spent on improvements to housing or commercial structures along the corridors, especially given the concerns noted in Tony Sease's critique in terms of whether these streetscape changes will have any substantive impact on pedestrian access? I have never been convinced that adding stamped concrete and retro lamps does much of anything. The best part of the downtown improvements was the plazas, benches, etc., not the little design details few notice. That's my 2 cents.

[Dan]

I think there are some serious concerns about whether this amount of money (or any amount really) is worthwhile. Could the cash be better spent on improving housing and commercial structures along these corridors? Will the changes proposed result in any new investment? Seems hard to believe putting in yuppie sidewalks & streetlamps will magically draw investment. In downtown Durham, the best part of the streetscape work was the improvement of plazas/public spaces that serve a purpose, rather than the fancy stamped concrete sidewalks. Just my 2 cents...

[Freddie]

Although I agree that 33M is high, it is a bright spot that the city is putting money into a predominantly black area that will hopefully make them feel like they're also in this "Durham Revitalization". I can think of 1,000 things this money can go for but I'd rather not...I think this is a beautiful historic area that should be allowed to flourish as well. Hopefully, with better streetscape, more and more will see the beautiful architecture and start investing in property in that area and make it their own strong neighborhood like the Duke Parks, Watts, Old West, Old North, etc etc. You have to start somewhere...No one is complaining now that the city spent millions and millions in the downtown streetscape project as you are slowly seeing the positive things happening right after the plan completed. Think about it, that's 2 miles of road! 2 miles of "inner city" road is considered huge and it's an area that badly needs it!

[Erik]

Kevin, at the meeting, was there any discussion of the rationale behind why this particular corridor is so much longer than the others? The other streetscape improvements are either intersections or 3-4 blocks in length. And all are mostly commercial areas, right? Streetscaping makes a lot of sense in commercial or downtown areas where you are trying to attract and retain businesses and where a lot of people will be walking around. But isn't a good chunk of Fayetteville St. residential that already has sidewalks, etc.? Is the same type of streetscaping going to occur in those areas as they will in the commercial areas?

What would be the first phase? And if they are going for a "campus drive" feel in the NCCU area, is NCCU expected to put up any money for this? Lot of questions, I guess.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea to do streetscaping in this corridor by any means. I believe that it does make a huge difference in terms of the economic viability and safety of an area (and there are plenty of studies to back that up). And lord knows, if any area deserves significant investment in Durham, it's the Fayetteville St. corridor. But $33M does sound a tad unrealistic especially in this economy...I just hope the cost and scope of this particular project doesn't become more of a negative than a positive.

[James AmmonsLuggage]

It is supremely ironic to contemplate spending this amount of money to help preserve the historic neighborhood adjacent to NCCU when NCCU is hell-bent on destroying significant chunks of the historic neighborhoods adjacent to campus.

[Rob]

I'm 100% in support of the streetscape plan. The broken window theory is well accepted--in fact, a case-control study published in Science a few months ago supports it. The roads and sidewalks in these targeted commercial districts are a major source of blight. Once we fix the roads, then we should be able to attract some new investment.

What about the cost? Seeing as we haven't had *any* road maintenance in some of these areas for many years (see W Chapel Hill St), we should be allowed to spend a little bit extra to get these projects finished. It's as if we saved up our money over the last 30 years.

[Bull City Rising]

Incidentally, here's some more discussion on streetscape costs from NCDOT:

http://www.ncdot.org/transit/bicycle/safety/programs_initiatives/Transportation_Plans/Albemarle/Appendix-E_Cost_Estimates.pdf

NCDOT cites examples from Charlotte that ran between about $350 and $1,150 per linear foot. On the flip side, NCDOT notes: "This cost estimates only the basic cost for sidewalk and crosswalk infrastructure and not any roadway repaving or conflicting utility or drainage costs. Every project is very different, and a complete study would be necessary before it would be possible to adequately estimate the complete cost for any streetscape project."

Repaving and some utility work are included in the scope of this project. Actually, looking at what went into the CLT costs, there seem to be a number of other items in the Durham streetscape that aren't in the CLT project.

Is that enough to bring the project costs up to $2,700 per linear foot, which is where the streetscape projects for these five areas is estimated? That's a good question, and one that would seem suitable for more follow-up.

Not that I doubt EG&G's estimates -- but it would be good to see a breakdown.

It's tough to float numbers like this when we're looking at road paving and transit needs simultaneously. On the flip side, the opportunity to renew and invest in neighborhoods that could be catalysts for growth and improvement makes this, to my mind, more than a purely aesthetic process.

In re NCCU / the state participating, and the irony vs. their master plan: no disagreement here.

[Todd]

Phases 1 & 2 of the downtown streetscape cost $13.2 million.

http://www.durhamnc.gov/cip/ProjectView.cfm?vAcctNo=251

Phases 3 & 4 (Downtown Loop and remaining streets) will be $20.3 million.

That's $33.5 million for the downtown loop and every street inside it.

@Rob

The lack of road maintenance applies city-wide. There are almost 400 hundred of miles of city streets in poor condition that need and deserve lots of attention in every corner of the city, not to mention the 24+ miles of unpaved dirt streets.

And then there is the $100 million in sidewalk needs, as identified in the DurhamWalks Pedestrian Plan.

http://www.durhamnc.gov/cip/pdf/bond2007_presentation.pdf

However, Durham has not been saving up our money for the past 30 years. There is no pot of money to draw on - just ask DATA. It takes a bond issue just to get ANY money spent on maintenance in Durham, whether you are talking about roads, parks, or schools.

The entire CIP for the City for 2009-2014 costs $91 million, or about $18 million per year. That's for everything - water, sewer, police, fire, streets, parks, etc.

http://www.durhamnc.gov/departments/bms/09-14cip/3.pdf

Barring a major tax increase or state/federal funding, Durham cannot afford to divert $5-6 million a year from existing projects (about a third of existing spending) to these 5 projects as proposed, no matter how deserving they are. Can anyone pick out the 30% of CIP project they would delay in order to fund these streetscapes?

[Rob]

Todd-
I'm well aware that we haven't actually been saving up money. In terms of street and sidewalk maintenance, Durham seems stuck in the mindset that these items should be bond-funded. This isn't going to fly in the future. We're going to need a tax increase.

I know everyone hates the idea of increased taxes, but compared to where I'm from (Florida), Durham's property tax seems like a joke. It comes as absolutely no surprise that we don't have enough police, our roads are crumbling, our schools are failing, and our streets are littered. I'm not saying that we should jump right up to New Jersey property tax rates, but I myself would not mind spending a little bit extra as long as there is a commensurate increase in services from the city/county.

[KeepDurhamDifferent!]

Rob, you're making two critical mistaken assumptions. One, that even if the money is raised it will be spent effectively (parks bond anyone?). Two, that Durham's tax rates are low. In fact they're the highest in the Triangle.

[Todd]

Rob-

I agree completely that it is a huge mistake for Durham to fund all this maintenance through bond issues, instead of paying up front with property tax revenue. That is bad public policy that has been happening for many years. Maintenance keeps falling victim to tax cuts, or artificial caps on tax increases.

As Frank has pointed out before, at least with the property tax, 40% of the revenue comes from businesses instead of individual homeowners, unlike the other significant revenue sources like the sales tax that businesses pay a much smaller portion of.

Even so, if a property tax increase was approved for infrastructure / maintenance, I don't think these very expensive streetscape projects, as proposed, need to jump ahead of other desperately needed projects all across the city.

Concentrating spending in a handful of areas is unfair to residents of the rest of the city, kind of like concentrating multiple rec centers in one small area of town.

[Joshua Allen]

I don't trust any of the estimates we get from the City or its contractors, and $33 millions seems awfully high. If memory serves, we did Downtown for about $12 million. Anyway, we should definitely do this project as long as the price is fair market. Fayetteville St. is a real Durham treasure and deserves to be beautified and maintained. I really think that area can thrive with some City investment. We should go ahead and underground the power lines though. If we gonna spend $33 million, might as well make it $50 or $60.

[Freddie]

Well, again, the downtown streetscape was very small compared to 2 miles of inner city road. I believe the $33M includes the undergrounding the power lines.

Durham does indeed have one of the highest if not the highest property tax rates in the state. But yet they can't pay their officers & teachers as much as other areas. There is alot to think about when it comes to money invested...One thing I think of is the fact that Durham was neglected for so long and now alot of money is being spent to revive it...Although with the higher property tax rate, RTP businesses, and increase of local/national businesses in the area, you would think Durham could financially support all these projects.

I think Durham needs to create or establish a program that promotes investment not only from businesses, but home buyers. Durham seems to give alot of freebies or tax incentives to businesses which I guess is good, but it can't be done to homebuyers obviously.

How about incentives with bungalow buying? There are plenty boarded up homes with tons of potential around downtown that need help. Here's an idea that I happen to stumble upon that Chicago has been using successfully: http://egov.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?contentOID=536899415&contenTypeName=COC_EDITORIAL&topChannelName=Dept&blockName=Housing%2FI+Want+To&context=dept&channelId=0&programId=0&entityName=Housing&deptMainCategoryOID=

[Michael Bacon]

Couple of things I have to take issue with:

Rob: "The broken window theory is well accepted--in fact, a case-control study published in Science a few months ago supports it."

I haven't seen the Science article on it, but the work of Sampson and Raudenbush out of Chicago is pretty compelling evidence that the theory at least needs to be segmented and tempered. As Wilson and Kelling first proposed it, it's been repeatedly proven faulty (improving order doesn't *directly* cause a drop in crime), but that many strategies promoted by the theory's proponents are sound in and of themselves. (Arresting farejumpers decreases crime, but that's because you catch more wanted suspects that way. Durham: STOP MORE SPEEDERS IN NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!)

KeepDurhamDifferent: "Two, that Durham's tax rates are low. In fact they're the highest in the Triangle." This is a false statement. Chapel Hill and Carrboro both have substantially higher property tax rates than Durham.

[Tar Heelz]

Even if Broken Windows Theory is a useful way to think about crime prevention, it is disingenuous to link the proposed Fayetteville Streetscape project to any real effort to embrace Broken Windows. This area is already well lighted. This project offers not a single dollar to address substandard buildings along its length (i.e. every broken window will be staying that way).

Certainly, this effort will cause the street and sidewalk to look nicer. But at day's end, this is not about an improved transportation network or a response to crime and litter. It's just another special interest pork project.

(Sure hope this $33M proposal gets it's proportionate share of attention from the Council as has been afforded the $45K proposal to honor Durham City workers.)

[Frank Hyman]

Regarding the comments about Durham's tax rate. When you compare tax rates between various cities and counties, you are not really comparing apples to apples, tho it seems as if you are.

The reason is that the "tax rate" is based on values of properties. And acre for acre, square foot for square foot, Durham's values (esp. for residential property) tend to be lower than some--not all--cities in NC and other states. I won't go into why--that's grist for another post.

The real apples to apples comparison would be to find out how much people are paying in taxes on a per capita basis (after subtracting Durham's--city and county's--much higher than average share of commmercial property tax payers). Using that analysis you'll find that Durham citizens are not paying more than other cities, in fact they are paying less sometimes (and not just less than Chappa Hill or Orange County).

I haven't seen the staff's numbers on this in a lot of years ( I tried to get them to include the per capita figure in budget documents on a regular basis...) but when you crunch the numbers, it's clear that the tax rates don't tell the whole story.

Maybe staff will generate those figures again for comparable cities, in which case folks who make a big deal about the tax rates can do one thing.

Shut up.

Frank Hyman

[Bull City Rising]

Folks: Interesting discussions. A couple of datapoints:

a) The $33m does not include fully undergrounding utilities. That would have added about one-third to the estimates on all the projects.

b) Frank is right on the tax burden question. I'm not exactly a fan of the John Locke Foundation, but they calculate the following (note that this includes all tax burden, not just property tax.) For 2008: "At $2,055 per person, Chapel Hill’s local government burden jumped from No. 5 in 2005 to its new No. 2 ranking. Durham ($1,991) fell two spots to No. 5. Cary ($1,976) maintained its No. 6 ranking, while Raleigh ($1,816) held on to No. 11. Apex ($1,754) dropped two spots to No. 15. ... Among North Carolina’s 91 medium-sized municipalities, most Triangle-area communities recorded rates of local revenues per person higher than the state median: Holly Springs ($2,424), Morrisville ($2,198), Hillsborough ($1,945), Carrboro ($1,935), Knightdale ($1,891), Wake Forest ($1,875), Fuquay-Varina ($1,866), and Clayton ($1,795)."

c) I'm inclined to believe EG&G's numbers aren't inflated, as they wouldn't be the contractor actually implementing the project. That said, I would be very interested to find out from their team or OEWD the factors that drive this cost.