Surveys on surveys on surveys

1 Like

Blount & Person St Two-Way Conversion Survey

Check out the presentation first, then follow their link to the survey.

Found it interesting that favoring the use of modal priority in the downtown street network to make one street a transit street, another a bicycling street, another a commuter access street, and so forth, instead of balancing the needs of all users on all streets equally is on the table.

7 Likes


I haven’t read much about configurations like this, so I didn’t really know how to rank it. It sounds like it could be good, but I could also see it discouraging non-car trips. Especially if there aren’t enough interconnected bike / ped routes, and/or if some roads become more dangerous to bikes / pedestrians due to being optimized for car travel (more traffic, higher speeds, etc.)

2 Likes

I posted about this in the Dix Park thread, too, but there’s an application to be a part of the Dix Park Community Committee if you want to be a part of Dix-related developments.

The application is open until July 1, if you also want to make your development nerdiness useful for something:

3 Likes

Win $100!

The DRA has a survey about your perception of Downtown Raleigh.

If you have friends that own businesses downtown, pls share with them!

3 Likes

There’s a community-launched idea to (among other things) turn the inefficient, underused freight rail line cutting through Dix Park into a major greenway connection. It’s been gaining traction the past few weeks -but to keep that going, we need your help to give it a name!

If you haven’t already, please vote here by tomorrow (July 11) at 7pm!

2 Likes

The FAST network study released some preliminary ideas on how to make buses in the Triangle better!

…but they want comments by email, which I thought is stupid.

So I made a survey-ish thing, and y’all can be a part of it too:

https://pol.is/6khwz8rzen

“A part of it”, because you can add your own ideas for others to vote on, too. This platform was one of the tools that made Taiwan’s direct democracy initiative a success, so I figured it could help here as well.

Check back here often, and let me know what you think!! You don’t need to answer every single question on here, though you will make my life easier if you vote on more things.

I’ll run some statistics and make them into an open letter by the end of the Preliminary Results’ comment period at the end of August.

More about this survey!
4 Likes

Figured this should be over here as well.

EDAT survey, on how much areas around transit should be upzoned, and what other tools can be used to improve equity. http://planningforraleigh.com/10174/

4 Likes

This sounds exciting! …though I wish they were more specific about why they chose the thresholds they did (like why should only 1/3 of TOD residential bonuses be affordable?)

For those of y’all who like details but don’t want to watch an 8-minute YouTube video, they’re suggesting that the city seriously do two things:

  1. beef up transit overlay districts (TOD) around BRT stations with tax incentives + increased height/density allowances if a project uses the extra building space for additional jobs or affordable housing

  1. make it easier to build “missing middle” housing through residential TODs around BRT stations by lowering the regulatory bar to build them

6 Likes

I watched and commented!

2 Likes

Re: the inclusionary percentages, this came up in the July council meeting – staff memo, minutes:

“Planner Hardin referenced research completed during the equitable development study, pointing out targeting 30 percent AMI would be a significant barrier for projects, causing developers to move forward with market rate housing. He further explained that AMI depth and the duration of affordability should be balanced, pointing out consultants think 50 percent AMI would be aggressive, but utilized… Council Member Cox disagreed.”

Glad to know consultants were behind the number, and it’s not something they just pulled from thin air. Remember that the additional units have to pay for their own cost of construction, and then cross-subsidize their neighbors’ units. 50% AMI rent in Raleigh is <$1000/mo for a 2-bedroom, which doesn’t go far to pay down the $250K+ construction cost for that unit.

What they appear to be going for is a solution that both grants more transit-area density and reaches fewer but very-low-income households – deeper subsidies for fewer but needier families. That’s in contrast to most inclusionary ordinances, which offer a little extra density, but at low/moderate-income prices – shallower subsidies for more but better-off families.

I think it’s a reasonable intent, given that (1) existing densities are very low, (2) moderate-income households are fairly well provided for in Raleigh, down to (3) 60% AMI, where LIHTC production is, and (4) it’s not great to isolate extremely-low-income families in new luxury housing. As for Cox, he’s just looking for a “wokewashing” excuse for knee-jerk NIMBYing density.

IIRC, the HUD definitions:
<120% of area median income=moderate income
<80% AMI=low income/LI
<50% AMI=very low/VLI
<30% AMI=extremely low/ELI

6 Likes
2 Likes

(expand to see the link)

New survey I think? Just got emailed this from GoTriangle about the future commuter rail:

https://goforwardnc.org/commuterrail/ and click on the Survey link.

6 Likes

New survey! New Bern BRT Station Planning Area.

1 Like

Fu$$$$!ing surveys! Nothing gets me more stirred up than endless surveys

2 Likes

You could mute this thread if this is not a topic to your liking. #justsaying

6 Likes

I recommend doing surveys I feel some of my comments have effected policies and designs of projects. Especially the city’s views on bike infrastructure. Remember overall, people in Raleigh and Wake County don’t get too involved in city development or government so your views are amplified by your commitment to comment.

Plus I won $250 gift card from the city for filling out one of the surveys. So there’s that too.

11 Likes

I found something cool, but a bit more meta: City Council’s transit committee is looking into ways to become more efficient so they can make transit projects happen faster.

Click here to see what exactly is different about this proposal.
Click here to see what this new process could mean.

The committee is meeting next Thursday (the 29th) to discuss this newer process. It doesn’t get more “peak red tape” than this, but I’d argue this is one of the easiest ways you can make transit projects start construction in 2 years or less after its feasibility study starts. After all, you’re not building anything to make a change: you’re just making it faster for everyone to have their shit together.

What do you think? Do you think this new design-build process makes sense, and gives us interested citizens enough time to get involved?

4 Likes