The transportation study on which Mr. Birenbach bases much of his opposition to the Greenway (“On Environment and Competing Interests,†7/1/10) was based on multilane, high-capacity, high-speed major highways. The proposed greenway will be a single lane limited to bike, wheelchair and foot traffic.
Applying this study to the proposed greenway is like applying a study on the ill effects of coal-fired power electric plants to your backyard grill! Let me rebut some of his points.
• 10-100m from a paved surface: road construction & roadside management, [increased] weeds, local pollution
The effects of local pollution and noise are generated by vehicles, emissions, brake dust and petrochemical runoff. These will not be issues with a pedestrian, non-motorized greenway. The alternative Mr. Birenbach supports, putting bikeways along existing roads, actually exposes users to these hazards.
• 100-1,000m from a paved surface: downstream pollution, erosion, stream habitat alteration, noise aversion
There would be no motorized traffic to create noise. The proposed greenway would actually improve stream quality by providing a firm, stable, well-defined surface for OWASA vehicles to perform required maintenance.
Paving will prevent the rutting which provides the loose soil that washes into the creek – the major cause of stream degradation. Users will stay on the pavement, minimizing collateral damage to tree roots, shrubs and herbaceous plants.
• >1,000m from a paved surface: landscape fragmentation, local & regional extinction, weed invasions, large mammal movement … and climate change
How is landscape fragmentation an issue? There would not be barriers such as multiple lanes of speeding cars or guard rails to hinder large mammal movement. The currently un-vegetated pathway is as wide as 25 feet in many places; a 10-foot path with restoration of indigenous vegetation on either side will reduce the heat island effect and discourage weeds.
This is not the only plan for a paved greenway on the Bolin Creek Corridor. The 2009 Comprehensive Bicycle Plan, the 2006 Recreation & Parks Master Plans and the 1998 Facilitated Small Area Plan for the Northern Study Area all recommend a trail along Bolin Creek to meet the need for safe, off-road transportation away from major traffic patterns.
I recommend that anyone interested in the issues read the proposal (which does consider natural science) and the town staff analysis, to be found on the links page of advocatesforcarrborogreenways.org. Consider ALL of the advantages that a greenway can provide for the most citizens. Imagine a Walk for Education going from Morris Grove Elementary to University Mall without ever touching or crossing a street!!
Bruce Sinclair
Carrboro
Bruce:
You’ve taken one very small part of my OP-ED and torn apart what I wanted to convey. You neglected to include my introduction to that study: “some of its findings are relevant and can be applied to the smaller scale of the [potential] Bolin Forest trail system” You conveniently ignored the parts of the argument that do apply. I myself struggled with how much to quote from this study and how much to leave out.
I will repeat my vision for this area, which was also in my letter and is the vision of Save Bolin Creek.
* For creek erosion. Members of the Friends of Bolin Creek are working on a restoration and conservation plan. The Town of Carrboro, meanwhile, is involved in restoration efforts. Water-bars on side trails will help immensely, given that these trails create most sedimentation problems.
* For alternative transportation routes. Carrboro, Chapel Hill and UNC all have existing or planned bike lanes surrounding this entire stretch of forest.
* For access for all to this natural beauty. Groups are working to make this a nature preserve, open to everyone. Yet accessibility does not mean a paved transportation route through the most sensitive part of a forest, in the heart of a riparian zone next to the creek. If we pave over the Bolin Creek trail, the creek’s natural beauty will be lost, and no one will have access to what now is so special about this area.
-mike
One more thing: Bolin Forest is different than say Chapel Hill’s Bolin Creek Greenway and these differences are worth preserving. Here are some thoughts on this.
http://savebolincreek.wordpress.com/2010/07/10/whats-different-about-bolin-forest/
The opposition to a paved greenway continues to ignore the fact that the path alongside the creek is a sewer easement and has been for over 20 years. The path will always be compacted and disturbed due to the need for regular maintenance of those sewer lines. Nothing is going to change that fact. We are not talking about a pristine natural area. It will never again be a pristine natural area thanks to all the development surrounding it. Should we protect it? Yes, but we can protect it better by making it accessible.
Paving because it is “just a sewer easement ” is a problem when the easement is located immediately next to a stream we are seeking to protect. In order to install a 10 foot wide road, it will be necessary to dig up the tree roots presently in the easement and near the creek. These tree roots hold together the stream banks and limit erosion. The small ruts made by OWASA maintenance trucks does not compare to the damage to Bolin Creek caused by 30 feet of clearing and excavation.
Another thing worth pointing out: Save Bolin Creek is not against all the planned paving. Just phases 3 and 4.
http://savebolincreek.wordpress.com/2010/07/13/good-stewardship-of-bolin-forest-includes-greenway-access/
Where is the science to support your claim that the stream will be destroyed by the pavement?