Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The western/southern section of NC 540 would not have been built until the 2030 timeframe without tolls. All the tolls are doing are accelerating the development timeframe.
If only the tolls were used to cover interest on the bonds (minus inflation, of course) until 2030 and then have the toll booths taken down, then I would agree with this argument. But I suspect the toll booths will become a permanent fixture on I-540 and other roads.
Not an easy sell. Businesses that locate in the city must pay substantially higher taxes. If they prefer to own their own buildings, they probably would have to pay substantially higher land values. Also, a business that locates in either city would find it more difficult to recruit employees from throughout the Triangle.
RTP made the Triangle what it is. If RTP had never been developed, Raleigh would closely resemble Columbia SC. Be careful about competing against RTP.
Who in your mind do you think would do this? Why would Raleigh and Durham encourage businesses to develop in places like Clayton and Angier? On the flip side, if these places are so attractive, why haven't Clayton and Angier been as successful as Raleigh in Durham in attracting business?
Make no mistake, while "The Traingle" is a brand, the local governments that make up that bran operate independently and sometime in direct competition with one another. Raleigh and Durham aren't going to help Clayton get more business anymore than NYC is going to help Hoboken NJ land a fat new corporate headquarters.
Local government and land use planning is very complicated and not nearly as easy as some of the posts here suggest.
You mean Jersey City and Newark , Hoboken doesn't have corporate offices , they focus on housing...
Setting aside the fact the roads can easily handle a lot more volume than they currently have, let me ask you this. Rather than spend tax payer money to build what would be an under utilized and continually tax payer dependent rail system, why not just encourage more business develop in the opposite direction of RTP, Raleigh and Durham. If new business opens up in Clayton, Angier, west of hwy 55, Chatham County, Wake Forest and Knightdale, we can reduce the amount of new traffic flowing into the existing business districts. Traffic would flow in the opposite direction, using mostly existing roads with no traffic at rush hour. This would be a lot more affordable and reasonable for this population's lifestyle.
Let's plan for the majority as cost efficiently as possible, instead of planning for the minority and the maximum cost to non-participating tax payers.
Knowledge worker-oriented don't go to the distal areas because they can't attract the workers they need there, and because such businesses do well to be in proximity of similar businesses. Richard Florida has written extensively on this in his works on the "creative class."
Cary, RTP, Raleigh, Durham have the disproportionate share of high-tech, knowledge-worker businesses. HTC; Cisco; EMC; Epic Games; Biogen Idec; Red Hat -- the list goes on.
And being in urban areas is attractive to those businesses and those workers. Open secret that Bandwidth has been looking for downtown locations for years. iContact would have ended up downtown if not for influence from a couple of board members, according to word on the street. Listen to what the COO of Red Hat said when choosing downtown Raleigh as their new HQ; the idea of workers being able to go out at lunch and walk to restaurants and services was seen as a competitive edge. They didn't have that at Centennial Campus. I work inside American Tobacco in downtown Durham, and can access dozens of places to eat in walking distance -- plus work out at the Y, get a drink after work, go see a ball game, etc.
Look at the big employers that end up in the exurbs and suburbs. Merck -- pharma manufacturing plant in quasi-rural North Durham. Same for Novartis, GSK, etc. A Caterpillar plant out in JoCo. There are knowledge jobs at those companies... but they are production, manufacturing, logistics, not knowledge-centric.
Similarly, start-ups promise to be the backbone of economic growth in the US, as companies are more efficient than they used to be and need less workers due to higher productivity, more off-shoring or both. Talented people are starting up new companies developing life science solutions, smartphone apps and web services, and the like. Those companies need to be in close proximity with other companies in their space, access to affordable and flexible space (easier in downtowns with small-plate footprints than suburban offices) and often younger, well-educated employees. Again -- you do not find those enlarge numbers outside urban areas.
And why are the big tech companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, etc. all in Silicon Valley rather than moving out to cheaper places like Wichita and Des Moines? Concentration of the right kind of workers.
Ironically, in calling for a regional design for the Triangle that would support what might be thought by some as being a more "conservative" approach to land use -- free-wheeling suburbs, car-centric trips, distrust of "special benefits" going to the cities -- you're asking for intervention in planning, somehow, to persuade free-market private companies to do things that they don't do in their own profit-seeking best interest.
TL;DR: Suburbs aren't where it's at for the kinds of jobs that provide the best differentiated economic benefits to a region. Unless manufacturing tractors or operating distribution centers is one's idea of economic bliss.
PS -- The idea upthread of building density in RTP is awesome and is exactly the right way for us to succeed as a region. Harder accomplished than said -- the RTF just lost a CEO who advocated for such change, and one wonders how open the board is to tweaking its mission, but that's only moderately informed speculation. Still, that was the vision for the Park's evolution before its director left for an econ development job in Orlando.
Knowledge worker-oriented don't go to the distal areas because they can't attract the workers they need there, and because such businesses do well to be in proximity of similar businesses. Richard Florida has written extensively on this in his works on the "creative class."
Setting up shop west of hwy 55 in Cary, Apex and Holly Springs is not exactly "out there". People living in these locations are driving to RTP now to work. So if we can work on getting some of the new companies to set up shop where they already live or just west of where they live, then we can limit the additional traffic flowing into RTP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bull City Rising
TL;DR: Suburbs aren't where it's at for the kinds of jobs that provide the best differentiated economic benefits to a region. Unless manufacturing tractors or operating distribution centers is one's idea of economic bliss.
The suburbs are where much of the brainpower reside now. A lot of the high tech RTP employees live in the suburbs. So setting up shop "in" the suburbs would shorten their commutes.
I have no problem with manufacturing tractors or operating distribution centers either. I don't look down on them. They are jobs and people need jobs. Not everyone is a scientist and I feel they deserve jobs too. Try seeing what your life would be like if these jobs weren't there or people felt it was beneath them to work such jobs.
PS -- The idea upthread of building density in RTP is awesome and is exactly the right way for us to succeed as a region. Harder accomplished than said -- the RTF just lost a CEO who advocated for such change, and one wonders how open the board is to tweaking its mission, but that's only moderately informed speculation. Still, that was the vision for the Park's evolution before its director left for an econ development job in Orlando.
I'm not sure how successful that would be. I'm not against it, but Davis at the Park did not do very well. They had to stop production for a while and then slash prices because people were not interested. The area right around RTP is not all that attractive to live, IMO. I think there is a limited pool of people who would be interested in that.
I'm not sure how successful that would be. I'm not against it, but Davis at the Park did not do very well. They had to stop production for a while and then slash prices because people were not interested. The area right around RTP is not all that attractive to live, IMO. I think there is a limited pool of people who would be interested in that.
Davis at the Park also came along exactly when the real estate bubble crashed. Plus, it's not the best design IMO. Townhouses facing four-lane, 55-mph, commuter-crazy Davis Drive?
Yeah there were things other than proximity to RTP that hurt that development. I have a feeling that well planned mixed-use communities within RTP would go over quite well. But we won't see anything like that until the economy improves further.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
