2030 Comprehensive Plan Update

The City of Raleigh is currently updating the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Periodic updates help to keep the plan current with emerging trends and community desires. The draft update integrates and coordinates the plans of many city departments. Community input is key. We thank you for taking the time to respond to a few question related to four focus areas: Sustainability, Development Transitions, Housing, and Transportation. For more information about the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the update process, please see the project page.

To answer questions you will need to login to participate. You can login using Facebook, Twitter, Google or create an account. 

Translate
City of Raleigh Poll:
2. Did you attend 1 or more of the 5 public meetings during June and July about the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update? Please choose all that apply.
Did not attend a meeting.
85%
Transportation on June 27 at Method Road Community Park.
7%
Resilience on June 7 at Carolina Pines Community Center.
5%
Sustainability on July 11 at Durant Nature Preserve.
5%
Housing on June 14 at Tarboro Road Community Center.
3%
Transitions on June 20 at Marsh Creek Community Center.
3%
Poll Closed | 100 Responses
Joanne Smith RohdeMore bike lanes and public education about driving with cyclists. It’s dangerous out there. Cars routinely come to close and get in bike lanes.
Reply Flag 14 Agree2 months ago
raleighdodgerDisagree that more, un-used, bike lanes are needed.
Reply Flag 1 Agreeone month ago
RogerThe issue with bike lanes is connectivity. There are greenways and some streets with safe bike lanes. Frequently, the safe pathway ends and cyclists are forced into a traffic lane where they don't feel safe. Progressive communities are increasingly developing transportation alternatives with great success. They become desirable communities with thriving economies. Raleigh and the greater triangle region should continue to do it as well. It's arrogant to assume that because most use cars, alternatives are unnecessary.
Reply Flag 6 Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for all these comments. A few things I'd add. The city recently updated its bicycle plan (http://bikeraleigh.org/home/index.php/planning-design), which includes a very robust network of bike lanes. Education (for both bicycling and driving) is a very important component of street safety for all users. While the city doesn't directly provide education, advocacy groups across the Triangle do regularly hold clinics and group rides.

The bicycle plan also addresses the issue of connectivity that Roger mentions. Right now, the bicycle network is somewhat fragmented, so even if facilities exist on one street, they may not be present along the entire trip. The plan envisions a much more extensive network, including a larger network of trails and other facilities where the space for people riding bicycles is separated/protected from motor vehicle traffic.
Replyone month ago
Joseph H.I was lucky enough to be able to attend one of the meetings, but it it should be known that the format was a real challenge for providing appropriate input to this process. The fact that I would need to take 5 nights to get all the information is pretty crazy. How are working families suppose to be able to attend these sessions in the middle of the week? There needs to be either a virtual way to attend or participate in this process. Perhaps providing the content covered or video of the session in these surveys would help in gathering input from a then properly informed public.
Reply Flag 4 Agree2 months ago
Candace H. HaiglerThe predominant context of any parcel under consideration for infill development is a key factor. For example, a parcel with narrow depth may be next to a transit corridor, while the predominant context is an adjoining large and stable neighborhood of mainly single family homes. In this case, the interests of the city are best served by protecting the neighborhood through appropriate and graded transitions, both in distance and building type and form. The transitions should be the same for residential projects over three stories as they are for commercial or mixed use projects because higher apartment projects are equally non-sympathetic to stable neighborhoods. The central neighborhoods with houses on relatively small lots are themselves contributors to urban density and walkability, and this point needs more recognition in city discussion and policies.
Reply Flag 3 Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for your comment. I'd note that city code does require the same transitions for residential projects over three stories as those required for commercial projects. Context certainly is important in decisions about development/transitions. Area planning processes, such as the current Cameron Village/Hillsborough plan, offer an opportunity to more closely examine context. More information about that process is available here: http://www.raleighnc.gov/planning/
Replyone month ago
Randy Barham Please be considerate of your Senior Adults on fixed incomes when it comes to spending our stolen tax money! Some of us had to work very hard to get the little we have!
Reply Flag 2 Agreeone month ago
BenLRaleigh is wasting too much money on initiatives that the taxpayers do not want. We are NOT begging for more buses. We are NOT begging for bike sharing systems. If bike sharing is such a good idea, why doesn't someone start that business? If buses are so much in demand, why are they running empty most of the time?
Reply Flag 2 Agree2 months ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Voters do support transit. In 2016, 53 percent of Wake County voters supported raising the sales tax by a half percent to fund the Wake County Transit Plan. The margin was significantly higher within the City of Raleigh itself. In 2017, City voters easily approved a transportation bond that funded transit, bicycle and pedestrian, and street projects. With respect to funding, no form of transportation is funded only by user fees. All rely on subsidies from other sources of funding. The rationale is that transportation improvements can facilitate economic activity that might not otherwise occur. Finally, the best economic model of bikeshare is still being settled. Most systems have been publicly funded (many with less of a subsidy than is used for projects that facilitate vehicle travel). The reasoning is that bicycles produce fewer of what an economist would call "negative externalities" - air pollution, traffic fatalities and property damage, health consequences due to inactivity, and so on. However, many cities, including Raleigh, have seen purely privately-financed bikeshare systems, presumably because demand does exist.
Replyone month ago
Shera HubeHave attended multiple presentations by City staff related to transportation, housing, neighborhoods, greenways, sidewalks, bike lanes, and safety. The information provided by City staff at open meetings and feedback sessions and at our Wade CAC meetings has been very helpful.
Reply Flag 1 Agreeone month ago
Tina Housing choice was a central theme in the conversations I heard from neighbors. There appear to be too many restrictions on housing options that ultimately limit density, drive up land prices which incentivize tear downs which drive up land prices which so on and so on. It appears the builders' hands are tied because the only thing they can build to pay for the expensive land prices which are a result of poor land use policy is to build the biggest possible house that could possibly sell or else they can't receive investment funds or bank financing to do a project.
Reply Flag 1 Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for your comment. This is certainly one of the fundamental questions facing Raleigh and many other cities where demand for housing is high. The Plan has policies that encourage more housing production and more types of housing. It also has polices that address neighborhood character. Ultimately, finding the right balance involves a serious and sustained community discussion.
Replyone month ago
Liz SaylorPlease remember throughout our improvements to our city to Always provide and support Affordable housing, encouraging All to live side-by-side, from All walks of Life, cultures, shapes & sizes, shades of skin, And income levels! Diversity and Respect for All Will make our city, planet And multi-verse a Better place for All! Thank you! <3
Reply Flag 1 Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thank you for your comment. The values you mention are deeply embedded in the Plan, including in the document's fundamental "Vision Themes." From the Plan:

Expanding Housing Choices: Raleigh will have an expanded supply of affordable and workforce housing options that provide housing opportunities for all segments of our population.

Economic Prosperity and Equity: Raleigh will embrace and value diversity, innovation, and equity so that there is a high level of opportunity and quality of life for all residents.
Replyone month ago
Eleanor PenleyIn regards to Action EP 6.3 I would like there to be regulation on pesticides that may harm pollinators like bees and butterflys. Can there be an Action EP 6.n pollinator Encouragement and Protection, to develop a program to increase awareness of and encourage pollinators, other beneficial insects, and the environment they need to thrive?
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Anne BakerPlease limit the height of buildings next to the established residential neighborhood next to Hillsborough St. Please consider the wishes of Raleigh residents , not just the wishes of developers.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Edward RubioCurrent Multi Family new housing "wood combustible structures of the last 5 years in urban areas is are a serious Public Fire Safety issue": To better protect Citizens and Firemen upgrade the Raleigh Building code to meet International Building Code Chapter 7 Fire resistant Criteria ASTM-E119-12, It is high risk to continue building a city out of combustible wood and plywood !
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Edward RubioCurrent Multi Family new housing "wood combustible structures of the last 5 years in urban areas is a serious Public Fire Safety issue": To better protect Citizens and Firemen upgrade the Raleigh Building code to meet International Building Code Chapter 7 Fire resistant Criteria ASTM-E119-12 It is high risk to continue building a city out of combustible wood and plywood !
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
sarahlowderxx
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
AndreaA.In the plan, Action EP 6.3, Invasive Species Control, asks the City to develop a program to increase awareness of, contain, and possibly eradicate the problem of invasive plants and insects. But there is no language to protect the health of people, pets, pollinators, wildlife, and the web of life.

I'd like to request that the city add Action EP 6.n, Pollinator Encouragement and Protection, to develop a program to increase awareness of and encourage pollinators, other beneficial insects, and the environment they need to thrive.



Perhaps these two programs should be combined and strengthened to reduce exposure to toxins and environmental degradation.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Tess SharpeNothing to add
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Tess SharpeI just moved to the North East Raleigh area and looking forward to being a part of my new neighborhood.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Dwight NipperI would like to see minor league baseball come back to Raleigh ! The Atlantic League plays at the AA/AAA level & is not governed by a mileage rule between teams because they are a independent 20 year old league . High Point will have a Atlantic League team in 2019 ! In the 20 seasons , over 38+ million fans have attended their games ! 52% of the league players have had playing time in MLB !
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
dwight otwellI try to keep up with city events, but meetings are really hard to get to. I also feel like the meetings are geared more towards answering questions that soliciting real feedback.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Michael Greensponpublic park bathrooms should be serviced throughout the day
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Michael Greensponpublic parks bathrooms should be kept clean throughout the day
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Jamie SherronMake Downtown Fun Again
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
George ParkerAttended Innovate Raleigh
Reply Flag Agree2 months ago
Josh McIntyreTried to change my display name. I am Josh McIntyre. I agree with BenL to a limited extent. Bike share is a boondoggle that will primarily benefit the leisure class. Improved public transit benefits those in our community who are least well-off and our community should prioritize those projects.
Reply Flag Agree2 months ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)The Plan envisions providing more transportation options, and it is possible to implement bikeshare and improve transit at the same time. While the pricing details aren't finalized, bikeshare is certainly one of the most affordable transportation options available.
Replyone month ago
Susan Sternbergermy thoughts on the subjects did not mean anything to any one but me
Reply Flag Agree2 months ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Hi, Susan. We definitely are incorporating input from this survey and other public input events in the plan document! Once the comment period has closed, look for revisions to be published later in December. Thanks for taking the time to participate!
Replyone month ago
Sandra EllisMy main concern with growth and development is that contractors are allowed to build too close to existing roads, i.e., Six Forks Road. Already at North Hills and at Colonnade, contractors have been allowed to build so close to Six Forks Road that there is no room for additional traffic lanes to be made. Both are already causing bottlenecks with traffic. This was very poor judgment on behalf of the commissioners and the mayor. I'm tired of contributing to contractor wants at a huge cost to tax payers.
Reply Flag Agree2 months ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Potential future widening is taken into account when developments occur. The city has a street plan (https://maps.raleighnc.gov/iMAPS/, turn on the "Raleigh Street Plan" layer) that determines whether and how much right of way is to be dedicated when developments take place along streets. If a road is to be expanded, then building setbacks are calculated from the expanded right of way. The section of Six Forks at North Hills already has six vehicle lanes (not including turning lanes) and is not likely to be widened any further. A plan that calls for widening the entirety of Six Forks to six lanes to Lynn Road is pending.
Replyone month ago
Sandra EllisMy main concern with growth and development is that contractors are allowed to build too close to existing roads, i.e., Six Forks Road. Already at North Hills and at Colonnade, contractors have been allowed to build so close to Six Forks Road that there is no room for additional traffic lanes to be made. Both are already causing bottlenecks with traffic. This was very poor judgment on behalf of the commissioners and the mayor.
Reply Flag Agree2 months ago
City of Raleigh Poll:
3. Did you participate in the public process that resulted in the 2009 adoption of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan? Please choose one.
No.
65%
Yes.
21%
I'm not sure or don't remember.
14%
Poll Closed | 115 Responses
Josh McIntyreI participated by reading items shared by neighbors and leaders in my Citizen's Advisory Council (CAC) and engaging in dialogue with neighbors.
Reply Flag 2 Agree2 months ago
City of Raleigh Poll:
4. How long have you lived in Raleigh? Please choose one.
More than 10 years.
66%
Between 5 and 10 years.
16%
Less than 5 years.
15%
Work or visit regularly, but do not live in Raleigh.
4%
Poll Closed | 114 Responses
Dwight NipperI have lived in Raleigh all of my life , 69 years , except for 4 years , Army/College , & remember when Raleigh's nickname was " sleepy capital of the south , 65,000 people , but it is not that way anymore !
Reply Flag 1 Agreeone month ago
City of Raleigh Poll:
5. How old are you? Please choose one.
Between 35 and 65.
55%
Between 18 and 35.
30%
Over 65.
15%
Under 18.
0%
Poll Closed | 114 Responses

Sustainability

City of Raleigh Poll:
6. Should a property owner’s access to sunlight for solar panels be protected? Please choose one.
Yes.
65%
No.
24%
No opinion.
10%
Poll Closed | 115 Responses
Charlotte ClevengerIf access to sunlight means that you can dictate building requirements to nearby neighbors, then it should not be protected.
Reply Flag 3 Agree2 months ago
Shera HubeAs building heights continue to expand, there should be a requirement/stipulation requiring review before adding new development adjacent to an existing home or business utilizing solar panels that could be negatively impacted. Finding an agreeable solution to satisfy both property owners prior to the new building is important for a positive relationship.
Reply Flag 2 Agreeone month ago
Curtis KasefangYes, but not as an absolute right. We need to balance community character with sunlight
Reply Flag 2 Agree2 months ago
Charles DrakeSustainable energy needs to be promoted and facilitated as much as possible.
Reply Flag 1 Agreeone month ago
Tina This is subjective and a slippery slope toward infringing on neighbors' property rights. I love solar but your panel is your problem.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Jeanne FrazerIt depends on a lot of factors
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Andrew StewartSolar panels are less important to sustainability than allowing significant density to support transit and less greenfield development. Especially in the downtown core, higher density than current UDO heights should be advanced.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
RogerIt's a zoning issue like many other things. It only becomes a problem in the Central Business District where tall buildings economical.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
raleighdodgerBut, these panels should not be visible from the street!
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Joseph H.Seems to me this is already addressed in our height zoning. The only time this should be an issue is if a property owner already has panels and someone is asking to change zoning to allow higher development that would then block the already existing panels from functioning.
Reply Flag Agree2 months ago
Josh McIntyreIt seems to me that existing zoning regulations already address this. If I own a property on a lot surrounded by lots allowed 3-story structures, I should be cautious about investing in solar panels.
Reply Flag Agree2 months ago
Sandra EllisHere, again, will be a cost to tax payers.
Reply Flag Agree2 months ago
sacredsalvageAccess to sunlight can fundamentally change land use (gardens, solar panels, etc.). I'd treat this similar to mineral rights or water rights.
Reply Flag Agree2 months ago
City of Raleigh Poll:
6a. If yes, would you be in favor of regulating the height or placement of homes in your neighborhood? Please choose one.
Yes.
65%
No.
35%
Poll Closed | 103 Responses
Shera HubeNew development that integrates well into existing neighborhoods is welcome as long as the scale is reasonable and there's a good mix of older and newer homes to keep the character and variety of homes at different, reasonable price points.
Reply Flag 2 Agreeone month ago
Frank HarmonTransitions between older neighborhoods and new development are critical to the health of existing neighborhoods. These transitions include building height, open space,scale , sunlight and breezes. The Living Building Challenge is the most responsible code of building for sustainable building and city design. The Living Building Challenge states that new development should not overshadow existing buildings nor block the prevailing breeze.
Reply Flag 2 Agreeone month ago
sacredsalvageRegulating the height of structures, particularly of those added after a neighborhood has been occupied seems reasonable. Regulation at construction seems more of a form-based code approach.
Reply Flag 2 Agree2 months ago
RogerHeight and size need to be in harmony with the neighborhood character. This is especially true in dense, older neighborhoods where "teardowns" happen.
Reply Flag 1 Agreeone month ago
gregTear downs are fine just not monster ones. should not be higher that adjacent homes or previous house.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Curtis KasefangThis is a character defining characteristic of neighbors.
Reply Flag Agree2 months ago
Charlotte ClevengerIf my neighborhood does not have an existing HOA, then there should be no regulation imposed after my purchase that would impact my property value. If a person wants access to other's property plans, then move to a neighborhood with an established HOA.
Reply Flag Agree2 months ago
BenLLeave the property owners alone.
Reply Flag Agree2 months ago

Transitions

City of Raleigh Poll:
7. Should buildings in General areas be taller than Edge areas but not as tall as Core/Transit areas?

Current policy provides height guidance based on three types of areas:

1. Edge areas are located within 150 feet of a residential area and would generally contain buildings of no more than 3- or 4-stories.

2. Core or Transit areas are located within the core of a mixed-use center or near high-frequency transit, for example downtown and along Capital Boulevard north of downtown, and could contain taller buildings between 5 to 20 stories.

3. General areas refer to all other locations.

Yes - this makes sense.
54%
No - this is too restrictive.
27%
No - this allows too much height.
19%
Poll Closed | 109 Responses
davidCore and transit areas often include Edge areas. When the two overlap, the Edge conditions should prevail
Reply Flag 3 Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)It is true that these areas coincide in some parts of the city. Thanks for your comment. This is certainly one of the many issues that involves balancing various goals, and input is always helpful.
Replyone month ago
Shera HubeTaller buildings are logical for general areas and true transit corridors (with multiple lanes and high traffic), however, some transit corridor designations are no longer practical or safe given narrow lanes that cannot be expanded, high pedestrian traffic, and immediate proximity to edge areas. The reasonable lower building height that edge areas provide can add variety and offer variable height along a car or bus corridor to keep it from feeling like a dark tunnel.
Reply Flag 2 Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for this comment. I agree that the edge/transit balance deserves thought. I would add that I don't think pedestrian traffic is in conflict with a transit corridor - I think those two things support each other.
Replyone month ago
Frank HarmonMaximum height adjacent to a residential areas should be no taller than two times the average height of the existing dwellings and should occur 150 feet or more away from existing dwellings
Reply Flag 2 Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thank you for your comment.
Replyone month ago
RichardBYou could anticipate that a "split the difference" approach would be taken, which could result in a very tall building within 150 of a residence.
Reply Flag 1 Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)The "General" area designation only envisions buildings of five stories or less except in downtown or areas designated for office parks (which the Plan envisions as being limited to seven stories). Most of the areas where these transition issues occur are outside of those two categories, so I don't think any very tall buildings would be enabled by this policy.
Replyone month ago
City of Raleigh Poll:
8. Do you agree with the following recommendation?

The draft Comprehensive Plan Update proposes to split the height allowance for properties that are part of multiple transition areas (Edge area 3-4 stories, Core/Transit 5-20 stories), allowing a building taller than in an Edge area, but shorter than in a Core/Transit area, as long as the height transitions down to the residential neighborhood.

For instance, a new building along South Saunders Street might be 5 stories along the transit route, as long as it is no more than 3 stories if it's adjacent to the neighborhood.

No - we should be encouraging additional height along these corridors to take advantage of transit investments, create more lively places, and provide more housing opportunities.
38%
Makes sense, split the difference.
34%
No - if it’s that close to a neighborhood, height should be kept to a minimum above existing homes.
28%
Poll Closed | 106 Responses
Shawn McKeeGreater density is necessary for successful transit options.
Reply Flag 3 Agree2 months ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for your comment. Accommodating more density in order to support the transit investment - while maintaining graceful transitions from higher-density to lower-scale areas - is a key goal of the plan.
Replyone month ago
Francesca ScottNo; would you want that new 3 story building beside your home?
Reply Flag 2 Agree2 months ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for your comment. I would note that existing zoning allows three-story homes in residential zoning districts. I would also note that the Plan envisions careful transitions between areas of differing intensity, That has also been incorporated into the development code, which requires additional transitions between buildings in mixed-use districts, including residential-only buildings, and adjacent residential areas.
Replyone month ago
JoshuaIf it meant that more people would have access to housing and to transit, then yes, yes I would.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for the comment. The direct effect of the change on density is probably roughly neutral. The intent is to provide clearer guidance in situations where the existing language could lead in one direction or another. A secondary effect, though, could be more acceptance of additional housing near transit. Getting these transitions right is essential to a broader agreement that additional density can provide benefits of additional homes and vitality for commercial areas while not negatively affecting existing areas.
Replyone month ago
Shera HubeGreater density along genuine transit corridor areas is logical, but the character and variety of housing and locations, including existing neighborhoods, are important to keep Raleigh appealing
Reply Flag 1 Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks. The Plan absolutely envisions a variety of neighborhoods with individual character, that's part of what makes a city interesting!
Replyone month ago
Frank HarmonThere are so many locations in Raleigh that are not adjacent to existing neighborhoods. Surely it makes the most sense to build in these areas and to preserve existing neighborhoods
Reply Flag 1 Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Maintaining and improving existing neighborhoods is an important goal. But there are many areas in Raleigh where transit investments, larger institutions, and streets with an existing retail/commercial orientation are adjacent to residential neighborhoods, and this policy is aimed at guiding how development takes place in these areas.
Replyone month ago
davidThree stories should be the height limitation when adjoining medium and low density housing
Reply Flag 1 Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for your comment. While in some cases the Plan envisions somewhat taller building heights in these situations, I would note that the Unified Development Ordinance requires that any properties zoned for more than three stories can be no taller than 40' on the side next to lower-density housing, with height allowed to increase at a 45-degree angle from there. In addition, the building in the taller district must be 50' from the property line adjacent to the lower-scale residential area.
Replyone month ago
RichardB"Splitting the difference" is a ploy to make a negative (overwhelming residences with too-tall buildings) seem positive (who could be against "compromise?")
Reply Flag 1 Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for your comment. Please note, as I mentioned in the comment above, that the code requires height transitions in these situations.
Replyone month ago
Joseph H.We need greater housing density along commuter lines period. The only way to address our housing affordability crisis is to increase the supply of housing in all segments of the market. Higher density is our best tool to do so.
Reply Flag 1 Agree2 months ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for your thoughts. Housing affordability is a growing issue in Raleigh, and adding supply, particularly where high-quality transit provides another option for travel, is indeed an important tool.
Replyone month ago
Jeff VojtaDensity of the population will require more height and transitioning existing areas with homes being higher and closer as well as taller buildings. This will help to increase density for public transport and reduce sprawl.
Reply Flag 1 Agree2 months ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for your comment. I'd note that as the transit plans become more specific (with exact alignments, station locations, etc.) we will be launching station- and corridor-specific planning processes in order to determine how best to accommodate density around transit.
Replyone month ago
Josh McIntyreHow about something really innovative? What about increased height for reduced parking:residential unit ratio? Let's not pretend that a 5-story building with 3 layers of underground parking does anything to encourage public transit patronage.
Reply Flag 1 Agree2 months ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)That's an interesting idea. We're certainly focused on getting parking requirements right. They've evolved over the years, as we're realized not all places have the same parking demand. We will continue to analyse them, particularly as the Wake Transit plan is implemented. That said, parking requirements are not the only thing that drive the provision of parking - often financing is not possible without the provision of a certain amount of parking per unit/square foot. Still, this is an area in which norms are rapidly evolving, so there likely is the possibility of alternative approaches in the future.
Replyone month ago
Josh McIntyreThanks, Jason. You have a valid point. However, i would argue that the link between financing and parking is based on the financial backers' forecast of the influence of availability and affordability of parking on demand for the dwellings within a given development. Zoning regulations have and continue to be a powerful force for social engineering -- including a sad history of profoundly negative consequences for marginalized and oppressed sectors. Rather than evaluate the current demand for parking and tailor our zoning regulations to meet those, perhaps our community should anticipate autonomous vehicles, improved mass transit, and the advent of diasporic workplaces and strive to leverage such a vision to
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Josh McIntyre... to bend the demand towards sustainability and social justice.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Andrew StewartWe need to encourage density in our transit areas. Greater density around transit is the most important issue for the future of our city. We have to allow our city to evolve past what it is today if we're going to accommodate all the growth.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for your comment. The Plan has several policies that support additional housing near transit, and there are numerous reasons to do so, including affordability, air and water quality, support for more active lifestyles, and more. That said, certainly there is also a need to thoughtfully handle density transitions to lower-scale areas, as the Plan also works to address.
Replyone month ago
RogerCompromise is always good policy.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
BenLget out of peoples business. less government is good government.
Reply Flag Agree2 months ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for your comment. The right amount of regulation is always a balancing act, and the intent of the Plan is to thoughtfully work through these issues.
Replyone month ago
sacredsalvageThis one is tough to answer as proximity to existing homes, and whether the existing neighborhood has significant usable life or will be rebuilt is key.
Reply Flag Agree2 months ago
City of Raleigh Poll:
9. Should taller buildings be required to gradually increase in height away from the residential property? Please choose one.

For example, a new 100-foot-tall building, must locate most of the building height 60 feet away from the residential property, with the shorter part of the building closest to the residential property. (See diagram below)

Yes - this sounds reasonable.
47%
No - this is too restrictive.
28%
No - this allows too much height.
25%
Poll Closed | 107 Responses
davidMixed use buildings adjoining single family and townhomes should be limited to 3 stories.
Reply Flag 3 Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for your comment. I would note that the Unified Development Ordinance requires that any properties zoned for more than three stories can be no taller than 40' on the side next to lower-density housing, with height allowed to increase at a 45-degree angle from there. In addition, the building in the taller district must be 50' from the property line adjacent to the lower-scale residential area. So the portion of the new building nearest to the lower-scale buildings would be a three-story building, while potentially stepping up in height farther away from the lower-density area.
Replyone month ago
Bob Lekerand some planning should consider solar access in these height transitions to maintain winter solar access from prime solar hours - about 9 - 3
Reply Flag 3 Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for your comment. That's definitely an issue to explore. Like so many of these questions, it requires a balancing of goals/interests, and that's part of the process of developing and maintaining the Plan.
Replyone month ago
Elliot NelsonThis angle creates a ridiculous height difference between the buildings even at the lower height of the new building. The two step heights for the new buildings isn't fooling anyone. This is wrong for any zoning, but insane for residential or transitional areas. Heights should be measured between the average grade and peak of the building. The difference in heights of adjoining buildings needs to be limited to a specific percentage of the total height of the original building, eg. 10% for residential areas. All adjacent buildings must be included in the limits.
Reply Flag 3 Agree2 months ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for your comment. The stepped-up height in the taller building in the diagram is meant to illustrate how such a transition is likely to play out - rather than leave a portion of the lot empty and build only to the taller portion, some degree of stepping up is likely. It also would have the effect of creating a less stark transition. That said, I understand your comment that a more gradual transition would be preferable.
Replyone month ago
Shera HubeThere needs to be another choice to respond to this example. Three stories max adjacent to single family homes and townhomes is the better option. In sketch, seems obvious light will be limited even with set-back which is a real detriment to the residences.
Reply Flag 2 Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for your comment. The Unified Development Ordinance does effectively mandate a maximum height of three stories immediately adjacent to areas zoned for lower density. The question is how quickly the height should rise from there. Certainly light is a consideration in this balancing effort.
Replyone month ago
Frank HarmonThis would effectively throw the existing family homes into shadow. Is this how we want to be?
Reply Flag 2 Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks - certainly solar access is a factor to consider (see question 6).
Replyone month ago
RichardBThe residences will still be overpowered by the adjacent tall buildings.
Reply Flag 2 Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for your comment. This is certainly a question on which we've received some input, and the Plan does seek to achieve a balance between accommodating density and the effects on existing neighborhoods.
Replyone month ago
Suzanne DavisonThis is a two part question. Yes I agree the new building height should graduate with the shortest side facing residential property. No, I do not think a ~25 foot home height should have a building 3 to 4 times it's size next to it. I agree with Elliot Nelson's post, who suggested a ratio approach, "heights should be measured between the average grade and peak of the building."
Reply Flag 2 Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thank you for your comment.
Replyone month ago
Sterling BowenSeems like concerns with changing view sheds and solar access are being conflated by this question
Reply Flag Agree2 months ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Both are issues to consider. Even apart from solar access, though, the Plan has the goal of ensuring graceful transitions from taller mixed-use areas to lower-scale residential areas.
Replyone month ago
City of Raleigh Poll:
10. Which statement below best captures your views regarding infill houses?

Many public meeting attendees requested that the Comprehensive Plan have stronger policies on the height and size of new houses in established neighborhoods.

New houses should more closely match the height and setbacks of nearby houses.
47%
New houses can be taller than adjacent houses, but this additional height should require greater setbacks from the property line.
28%
Standards for house height and setback should be the same for all lots in the zoning district, regardless of the height and setback of nearby houses.
25%
Poll Closed | 100 Responses
RichardBThe fill trend of splitting lots and building excessively tall houses is heading towards being an epidemic. This will be the ruination of the character of our historic neighborhoods.
Reply Flag 3 Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for your comment. This is another issue that has generated a lot of discussion, and it is one both the Plan and the UDO seek to address, while also considering the perspectives you see reflected in some of the other comments in this section.
Replyone month ago
RogerThis idea works if you do NOT allow combination of multiple lots in an established neighborhood. It's best to avoid "McMansions" in the bungalow district!
Reply Flag 3 Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for the comment. The UDO does have residential infill standards that address height and setbacks and that apply even in the event of a recombination of lots, although it's true that a larger lot would allow for more height if greater side setbacks are present.
Replyone month ago
George Parkerall of these options are overly restrictive; its a false choice. any statistical results from this question are suspect.
Reply Flag 3 Agree2 months ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for your comment. The first two options are intended to provide for additional restrictions based on the immediate context of the new building, but the third one does not involve any limitations beyond the underlying zoning.
Replyone month ago
Jeff VojtaInfill can be a welcome addition to help keep the cost of new homes lower and provide for more affordable housing for all residents.
Reply Flag 2 Agree2 months ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for your comment. Facilitating the additional supply of housing is absolutely one of the tools for addressing housing prices.
Replyone month ago
Charlotte ClevengerI do not want a non-owner of my property to impose restrictions on MY PROPERTY after I purchased MY PROPERTY. This is ridiculous for the city to impact my plans after I put my name on the mortgage. Move to a community with an HOA if you want your opinion counted as those homeowners bought into that concept.
Reply Flag 1 Agree2 months ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for your comment. As you can see in the comments above, there are a range of perspectives on this question, and the Plan attempts to balance these perspectives in its recommendations.
Replyone month ago
Jenna GeorgesPerspectives are "nice to know" information, but the bottom line is that you have property owners who did not agree to what is essentially a HOA type overlay. To force restrictions that could negatively impact my plans for my property after the fact is wrong and frankly, seems illegal.
Reply Flag 1 Agreeone month ago
JKnone of these statements best capture my views regarding infill houses.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for your comment. It is a complicated issue. There will be more opportunities for public input on the plan, and I hope you will participate if you would like to voice these thoughts. More information on next steps will be posted here: https://www.raleighnc.gov/business/content/PlanDev/Articles/LongRange/ComprehensivePlanUpdate.html
Replyone month ago
Tina It seems short sighted to limit the next 50 years of housing choice based on the last 50 years.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for your comment.
Replyone month ago
Tess SharpeI have seen old home neighbor hoods where one home is removed and a new home is built higher than its neighbors. Two years later more homes in the neighborhood added a second floor and built a new two story home. The value of the neighborhood homes doubled.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for your thoughts. The relationship of property values and infill development is part of the story, but I believe other considerations are being voiced as well.
Replyone month ago

Housing

City of Raleigh Poll:
11. Which of the three top priorities for investments in affordable housing do you think is the most critical for Raleigh? Please choose one.
Increasing the supply of affordable housing.
57%
Promoting neighborhood revitalization.
28%
Ending and preventing homelessness.
15%
Poll Closed | 106 Responses
Leo SuarezLet's get Accessory Dwelling Units approved across the city limits.
Reply Flag 6 Agree2 months ago
Matthew Klem (City of Raleigh)Hey Leo. The conversation of accessory dwelling units in the City is well underway. TC-3-17 is a proposed text change to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) that would permit accessory dwelling units. The text change is currently being discussed by the Growth and Natural Resources Committee, a committee of the City Council.
Reply28 days ago
Frank HarmonAccessory Dwelling Units, duplexes,triplexes,bungalow courts and townhouses can provide more dense neighborhoods, support public transit and also make our neighborhoods more lively
Reply Flag 1 Agreeone month ago
Elliot NelsonYou can end homelessness BY revitalizing neighborhoods, along with adding housing.
Reply Flag 1 Agree2 months ago
Craig McDuffieAccessory Dwelling Units would help in all 3 categories.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Andrew StewartWe need to find ways to increase overall housing supply, not just affordable, in order to increase the affordable supply. I think we need to approve Accessory Dwelling Units, and encourage other small multifamily dwelling types in single family neighborhoods. We also should encourage higher density in downtown throughout.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Tess SharpeI agree we need homes for lower income families, or for single parents.
I do not feel these homes should be built as a whole subdivision.
Affordable homes should be built or selected throughout Wake County, city and subdivision.
When a low income family is to live within a high income neighborhood they should meet the approval of that neighborhoods association, meeting strict guidelines of the said group. ( guidelines should be made for this idea)
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
dwight otwellthis should not mean city investment, it means loosening restrictions in single-family neighborhoods. Allow by-right development to the next density level for each property and strategically place mixed used in the neighborhoods - corner stores, coffee shops. Start giving suburban citizens somewhere to walk to.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Suzanne DavisonWhat is the city's definition of affordable housing?
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
City of Raleigh Poll:
12. When the city builds new multi-family affordable housing developments, what location objective do you think is most important? Please choose one.
Near existing and proposed transit services.
49%
Near employment and commercial centers.
28%
Away from areas with high concentrations of subsidized housing.
15%
Near downtown Raleigh and identified revitalization areas.
8%
Poll Closed | 104 Responses
BenLClose as possible to the homes of the city councilors and the mayor.
Reply Flag 2 Agree2 months ago
Roy RobertsPut it wherever you want to increase or share the higher crime rate - just not near my home.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Randy Barham Define Family! Father, Mother, Children. Repair the Real Family structure and you will repair many of the ills of society.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Tess SharpeI do not agree with multi-family affordable housing. I feel the owners should have more options, this will work if the homes are spread through out the city.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago

Transportation

City of Raleigh Poll:
13. What priorities are most important to implementing recommendations of the Wake County Transit Plan?

The plan calls for a network of frequent bus routes, a rail line from Raleigh to Durham and Garner, and a bus rapid transit network that would provide much faster bus service along key corridors.

Bus transit service should be increased, so that more places can be accessed by the network of frequent routes.
92%
Transit needs more dedicated infrastructure, so that transit vehicles are not delayed by congestion.
89%
Transit connections between suburban neighborhoods and employment centers should be increased.
86%
Commuter rail should be a priority, to connect Raleigh to the larger region.
84%
Transit capacity into downtown should be increased.
86%
| 332 Responses
Curtis KasefangAs part of Raleigh's goal of being a green city the city should prioritize its objects with the goal of reducing average miles traveled in cars by our residents - this requires a balancing of the listed priorities.
Reply Flag 4 Agree2 months ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Reducing vehicles miles traveled is an explicit goal of the Comprehensive Plan: "Raleigh’s citywide growth policies seek to guide development and redevelopment and promote more compact development, walkable neighborhoods, and transit-accessible corridors to use land efficiently, increase connectivity, lower vehicle miles traveled, and improve air quality."

The transit planning process for implementing the Wake County Transit Plan will be considering the questions above as it seeks to finalize and prioritize specific projects. More information here: http://www.waketransit.com/category/Updates/
Replyone month ago
Josh McIntyreI love riding the bus!
Reply Flag 3 Agree2 months ago
Frank HarmonIn addition to transit, traffic calming would make the most difference . Our city has been brutalized by the automobile. More civiil cities reduce the speed limit to 20 mph in built up areas. This gives greater safety to pedestrians and cyclists and increases the use of public transit.
Reply Flag 2 Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for this comment. The Plan does have policies that address traffic calming, and the city has a process for identifying and funding traffic calming projects. You are right that some cities have more aggressively limited speeds. Getting this right for Raleigh is important because, as you note, it provides a safety benefit to all street users and encourages people to do more walking and bicycling.
Replyone month ago
Suzanne DavisonIf there was a public transportation option running every 10 - 15 minutes to and from RTP during peak commuting hours, an affordable/safe place to park my car at transit stations during the day, and a protected path for the public transit thus avoiding traffic jams and lengthy commuting times, I would likely use this option.



Reply Flag 2 Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Providing faster service (that is not limited by vehicle traffic) more frequently is a key goal of the Wake County Transit Plan, which will be implemented in the coming years. I'd strongly advise you to check out updates here: http://www.waketransit.com/category/Updates/ and to attend meetings that will take place in the spring.
Replyone month ago
Shera HubeHaving a regional commuter rail is very appealing, however that appears to be a long-range project. For now, a network of frequent routes that would provide suburban and urban areas reasonable expanded transportation seems to be the best priority. Also, given the continued car traffic, efforts to slow and calm traffic is critical. With 440, Blue Ridge Road and other major areas expanding and repair work on major bridges and intersections underway in 2018 and 2019, routing and calming traffic will be a challenge. Many projects require re-routing traffic while construction's underway which then often channels cars through neighborhoods. Since many older neighborhoods have narrow streets, speeding drivers, buses and large trucks are a concern.
Reply Flag 1 Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)The rail portion of the Wake County Transit Plan likely will be the last major portion to be implemented. I think one of the first major steps will be the creation of a much larger network of frequent routes (where the wait is 15 minutes or less, so that you don't have to consult the schedule) across the city. Some of these will be along Bus Rapid Transit corridors, making the trip even more rapid.

You also note traffic calming, that's absolutely an issue both the Plan and city programs/funding are focused on addressing.
Replyone month ago
Ryan M. CooperThe bus system needs to be predictable and run regularly (max 15 minute headways) if it's going to be able to compete with driving a car. There need to be mechanisms that ensure buses have priority over other motorized vehicular traffic so that they run on time.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for your comment. The city is in the process of becoming much better served by transit. The Wake County Transit Plan, which is reflected in this Comprehensive Plan, calls for a much-expanded network of frequent routes (15 minute wait or less), as well as bus rapid transit and commuter rail from Durham to Raleigh. Extensive public input is being sought on focusing and prioritizing these goals. More information on upcoming meetings is available here: http://www.waketransit.com/
Replyone month ago
Blithe HoffmanWe need the commuter rail to connect transit centers to the airport.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Plans don't call for rail to connect to the airport, but plans do call for an express bus line to provide a direct connection to RDU from both Raleigh and Chapel Hill. I'd also mention that an existing GoTriangle bus route, the 100, currently runs from the airport to downtown Raleigh.
Replyone month ago
Jeanne FrazerWe have such a spread out area, it will be hard to provide the right answers. I do believe some form of transit that is not on the roads may be the answer.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)It's true that much of Raleigh was built in the automotive era, making it harder for transit to serve portions of the area. That said, much of the city's recent development has taken the form of denser development downtown and in other similar centers, rather than continuing to spread farther out at the same rate. That development makes transit more viable and usable than ever in many parts of the city.

I agree that part of the answer will be in providing transit in places where it doesn't have to share space with traffic. Whether in the form of rail or bus rapid transit (BRT) lanes, providing transit with its own right of way or lanes helps move more people more efficiently. That's a big part of what the Wake County Transit Plan envisions, both in the form of commuter rail and BRT corridors.
Replyone month ago
RogerAll of the above. Honestly, my impression is that folks will choose the flexibility of driving when they can afford to. So until parking costs too much, or there are other costs associated with driving, folks with means (most folks who work downtown) will continue to drive. As I said in an earlier comment, connectivity of busses and safe bike lanes will be well used if the routes are safe. Busses will need more easy to use bike racks.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)I'd say the goal is to provide more choice. The fragmented nature of the bicycle network and infrequent nature of the current transit network have made it harder and less convenient to use those modes. With more attention to and investment in transit, it will become a more attractive option for many people.
Replyone month ago
Roy RobertsNone of the above choices - With the self-driving electric pods (2, 4, 8, 12 passengers) that will be ubiquitous and summoned like Uber, they will deliver passengers door to door saving much wait time and walking to and from destinations.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)It's always hard to see the future, but I can agree that shared-ride transportation will be an ever-growing part of the transportation mix. That said, there is still a fundamental geometry problem of how best to use limited space, as we can see each day on I-40 or many other heavily-traveled corridors. Transit, whether buses or railcars, carries many more people in smaller spaces than individual vehicles, and it's hard to envision a future where transit is not a significant part of the transportation mix.
Replyone month ago
Karen MuellerMy biggest issue is the routes and frequency. The main bus I would like to use doesn't run at all during the day, only at commute times.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)The Wake County Transit Plan aims to expand the frequent network (where buses come at least ever 15 minutes) from 17 miles to several times that much. Planning for implementation is happening now, so I'd recommend checking out updates and upcoming meetings here: http://www.waketransit.com/category/Updates/
Replyone month ago
raleighdodgerCurrent buses are running nearly empty! ......demonstrates a lack of need or inappropriate routes.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Tess SharpeBy now everyone that lives in Raleigh knows where the traffic is the highest. Some of these areas have no other choice than by car. Using bus lines throughout the Triangle would reduce single car use. Take 540, there are NO buses in service from 540 to Durham, Chapel Hill, Airport, Apex, Cary,Speical events at the PNC, Durham Events, Chapel Hill Events, Collage sport games. If a bus can hold 50 people, that's 50 cars not clogging the highway.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Definitely take a look at the Wake County Transit Plan. While the details of implementation are being worked out, the basic plan envisions a much broader transit network (frequent and less-frequent), including a route along 540. You can view the plan here: http://www.waketransit.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/November-2016-Wake-Transit-Plan_small.pdf
Replyone month ago
dwight otwellRail is too expensive and static. Stick to buses and zoning reform.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)I'd say the Wake County Transit Plan leans heavily toward this perspective. The decision to shift from light rail to bus rapid transit corridors reflects this perspective. While commuter rail from Durham to Raleigh to Garner is part of the plan, most of the heavy lifting will be done by buses. While there are arguments that the permanence of rail can attract more investment, BRT can do the same if it has dedicated lanes, off-board payments, and other features typically associated with rail.
Replyone month ago
Elliot NelsonUnfortunately, housing near transit centers will likely become the "high rent district" no matter what you plan unless it is legally controlled. Although no one really loves riding the bus, it is our best and most practical option for increasing access and alleviating traffic snarls. Make them all electric, [;ease.
Reply Flag Agree2 months ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)It's certainly true that in the absence of any other factors, new construction, particularly near high-quality transit, is likely to be relatively expensive. That said, adding new supply helps ease upward price pressure in other locations and throughout the market, as there is less competition for existing houses. Moreover, finding ways of providing affordable options near transit is an important goal. City-owned property near stations could provide a means of addressing that goal, as could zoning incentives that involve the provision of affordable units. With respect to your last note, many of the transit improvements (high-frequency bus network, bus rapid transit) rely on buses for exactly the reason you mention.
Replyone month ago
Sandra EllisI think the present priority should be on increasing existing high traffic roads prior to bus transit or rail.
Reply Flag Agree2 months ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for your comment. Basically, both are happening. There are several state- and locally-funded projects aimed at moving more cars. The Plan's direction, supported by the positive vote in the 2016 public referendum on the transit plan, is to ensure that not so many of the large (and growing) number of trips take place in cars, and that residents who prefer or need alternatives to a car have additional options.
Replyone month ago
BenLPeople who pay taxes, for the most part, are commuting from North Raleigh to RTP to work. (I'm retired so this is not self serving.) Fit the roads so they can DRIVE their cars there faster. How about adding a northern approach to RTP via 98 or something. How about a high-speed lane direct to RTP. How about ending the tolls on 540. How about even a BUS that goes from the suburbs to RTP????
Reply Flag Agree2 months ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)RTP is a major commuting destination, but certainly not the only one in Raleigh. NCDOT is planning to widen N.C. 98. Several bus routes do run from Wake County suburbs to RTP, including GoTriangle 201, which runs across North Raleigh.
Replyone month ago
BenLGood roads to RTP where real people work.
Reply Flag Agree2 months ago
Joseph H.Cool story Bro... We live in a "free market"... If you don't like it... get out!
Reply Flag 1 Agree2 months ago
City of Raleigh Poll:
14. Please share any other thoughts you have about the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Update.
Closed for Comments
Mark ForestieriWe need more sidewalks installed on existing residential streets that were allowed to develop without them for years. This shouldn't just be something that is only added with funding by assessment. There are numerous streets in existing neighborhoods 1-4 miles from downtown that don't have sidewalks and are dangerous to navigate. Aside from safety advantages, sidewalks provide pleasant access for walking and running at a more personal scale. They can also provide better potential for social interaction.
Reply Flag 11 Agree2 months ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)The City does have a program and funding for installing sidewalks where gaps exist, with a focus on higher-volume streets. For neighborhood streets, the City has a petition program where residents can request a sidewalk be installed (without cost to property owners). For more information, see https://www.raleighnc.gov/projects/content/PlanDev/Articles/TransPlan/PedestrianProgram.html
Replyone month ago
Sterling Bowenhigh volume bus route stops should have covered seating
Reply Flag 7 Agree2 months ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Absolutely. The city has thresholds for when shelters or benches are warranted. For stops where more than 10 daily boardings take place, a bench should be installed. For more than 25 boardings, a shelter is envisioned. Installing these facilities is a matter of funding, but new shelters are being installed. Additionally, plans for bus rapid transit lines certainly will include more elaborate stations with sheltered seating.
Replyone month ago
Ellen BeidlerCurrently, my husband and I enjoy living in a modest condo in a lively, attractive neighborhood that allows us to get out of our cars and walk or take the bus for errands, entertainment, and business. We don't see many similar situations in Raleigh: affordable housing in a convenient central location. Please implement the good intentions of this plan--that there are more affordable housing options in economically and social diverse neighborhoods with pedestrian access to shopping and recreation.
Reply Flag 5 Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for your comment. That's definitely one of the fundamental goals of the plan - to, in designated centers and corridors, support the creation of walkable, mixed-use places and to allow more people to live there (and contribute to the vitality of the place).
Replyone month ago
Lisa Finaldisustainability should be incentivized in development and if it's not already - our economic development plan should priority sustainability as a key policy.
Reply Flag 5 Agree2 months ago
Donna BaileyTransitions to neighborhoods need to be clear with respect given to the existing residential.
Reply Flag 3 Agreeone month ago
RichardBRemember what makes Raleigh special, which includes being a "city in a park" and the "city of oaks." Clear-cutting lots and allowing massive tree removals in major developments need to be discouraged.
Reply Flag 3 Agreeone month ago
Joseph H.As Raleigh continues to grow, it is imperitive that we continue to focus on ways to be smart about handling out growth. I think it is safe to say that we are a city that values the continued building of a vibrant, sustainable, and liveable city. The key to doing so is to recognize our future now and implement policies that enable us to be our best selves. In pursuing this, it is incredibly important that we realize our comprehensive plan should be a tool not a henderance to achieveing these goals. We have to understand that transit-oriented development and increased permisive develeopment that drives denisity in both apparent way such as taller/larger buildings and in lesser ways such as ADUs and multi family units like Oakwood used to be are the keys to absorbing our growth and taking care of our citizens.

We need smart development that requires compromise and recognizes there are no sacred cows. We have to connect people to work, and there must continue to be a greater emphasis on realizing the city’s role in workforce and economic development. The CompPlan mentions these, but we forget that our land-use and transportation not only affect our neighborhoods, but also the jobs and economics of those who live there. We have at least five policies (LU 4.6, LU8.14, RC 1.5, RC 2.3, AP-WO 1) that focus on transit oriented development, yet we fail to make the connection that for these system to work they have to be connected to two things - high concentrations of people and employers.

Have we even engaged the major employers of our city in this process? Employers (Aka the reason people actually live, come, and stay in Raleigh) have a lot to offer to this conversation. I would like to see a greater emphasis on the intersectionality of land-use, transportation, affordable housing, homelessness, and economic & workforce development. Perhaps even directly identifying our community partners in this such as NC State, Wake Tech, Capital Area Workforce Development Board, etc. in the plan could be a start to direct our staff to work with these partner and engage with them as we all collectively try to move our city forward.
Reply Flag 3 Agree2 months ago
Joanne Smith RohdeMore sidewalks, please. This is key to a thriving municipality
Reply Flag 3 Agree2 months ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Ensuring Raleigh is safe and comfortable for pedestrians is an important goal of the city. The city has a pedestrian plan that identifies missing sidewalk segments and other issues that create barriers to walkability. More information about the city's pedestrian program is available here: https://www.raleighnc.gov/projects/content/PlanDev/Articles/TransPlan/PedestrianProgram.html
Replyone month ago
ronald ledfordI like having walkway and bike bridges at busy areas, especially Northills.
Reply Flag 3 Agree2 months ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Generally speaking, cost and other considerations lead to a preference for making at-grade crossings safer and more comfortable. This can include the creation of landscaped refuge islands, curb extensions, and other techniques. In some instances where very wide streets with high volumes exist, a pedestrian overpass or underpass may be an option. The City will soon begin a transportation-focused plan for the North Hills/Midtown area, so please look for information and updates on that process.
Replyone month ago
sacredsalvageRaleigh absolutely needs more tools/options for acquiring land (particularly prior to major investments) and holding land (land trusts, permanently affordable housing). Also, anything Raleigh can do to discourage outside investors acquiring property for rental (and artificially inflating sales prices) is critical. Asheville does not allow short-term rental (airbnb, they had out of country investors buying up their stock) and Chapel Hill restricts the number of cars per driveway (to discourage student rentals). Raleigh is a different market, but needs to do what it can to shift the housing market in favor of its residents.
Reply Flag 3 Agree2 months ago
Shera HubeWould like to see total separation of bike lanes from street. Those currently marked in streets sometimes simply disappear and lighting as the day darkens also makes it hard to avoid accidents. Also agree more sidewalks and bus shelters needed, particularly for the areas that currently have no sidewalks or shelter at all. Would like to see the Greenways better connected. Also want there to be a development focus on affordable housing for people who plan to remain in Raleigh vs. approving more and more student housing. The majority of students living in upscale student housing will be here only briefly; more housing for young professionals, retirees, and families seeking affordable housing will make Raleigh even more appealing.
Reply Flag 2 Agreeone month ago
Frank HarmonWe can choose not to become another Atlanta by respecting our existing neighborhoods and by increasing the “ missing middle “ in housing. The missing middle is a range of multi- unit or clustered housing in scale with single family homes that help meet the desire for walkable urban living
Reply Flag 2 Agreeone month ago
AndreaA.In the plan, Action EP 6.3, Invasive Species Control, asks the City to develop a program to increase awareness of, contain, and possibly eradicate the problem of invasive plants and insects. But there is no language to protect the health of people, pets, pollinators, wildlife, and the web of life.

I'd like to request that the city add Action EP 6.n, Pollinator Encouragement and Protection, to develop a program to increase awareness of and encourage pollinators, other beneficial insects, and the environment they need to thrive.

Perhaps these two programs should be combined and strengthened to reduce exposure to toxins and environmental degradation.
Reply Flag 2 Agreeone month ago
Sharmaine WalkerCreate neighborhood plans that include mixed housing, sidewalks to a lively environment, bus transportation with shelters to work, and a variety of affordable, local food sources.
Reply Flag 2 Agreeone month ago
Matthew KlemThanks for the comment, Sharmaine. The Area Plans element of the Comprehensive Plan provides area specific guidance for various neighborhoods throughout the city. While the Comprehensive Plan also provides universal policy guidance for the whole city, area plans focus on specific neighborhoods and corridors. The policy guidance in these plans are finer grained and are the product of a community based planning effort. More specifically to your comment, these plans often include recommendations on land use, pedestrian improvements, transportation.
Reply Flag Agree15 days ago
Aranazazu LascurainThe City should have a carbon goal and set benchmarks to meet Mayor's Climate Compact. City also needs to make solar infrastructure more streamlined and help provide subsidies. Help maximize small city parks and tree canopy to help offset urban heat island effect. Transportation in downtown must be improved by offering more public transit and more often--make it easy for people to use and get out of their cars.
Reply Flag 2 Agreeone month ago
dwight otwellpeople are what make a city vibrant and create economic life.
design the city for people. small developments. put people first, automobiles second. don't widen roads and induce more traffic, increase density. find ways to make increased density a positive for suburban voters. Spread mixed use and development opportunities across the whole city instead of concentrating it in just a few hot spots that benefit only a few wealthy developers. Lower speed limits and calm traffic.

Since North Hills is going to be a new Downtown, treat it as such. Don't run major highways through the middle, calm and reduce traffic on Six Forks. find a way to make pedestrian feel comfortable crossing Six Forks from North Hills East to North Hills proper.

For bikes, concentrate on barriers in Midtown, not building lanes. Getting across Six Forks, I440, Wake Forest is the biggest challenge. Getting around on our smaller roads is already comfortable and safe.
Reply Flag 2 Agreeone month ago
Mike DunnePlease be extremely careful with more than two story construction in or near neighborhoods.
Reply Flag 2 Agreeone month ago
Laura ClineTraffic calming on neighborhood streets should be a priority.
Reply Flag 2 Agreeone month ago
Suzanne Davison I would like to see local news carry a regular segment on the 2030 Comprehensive plan. WRAL may be interested in topics such as: mass transit, elder housing, affordable housing, how city planning coordinates across so many committees, city planning basics - zoning, terminology, the considerations the city balances when attempting to build density.

I also liked someone else's suggestion to offer more public meetings via web ex. It's hard to get off work and find parking to attend public meetings during the work day.

The citizen advisory groups have helped create a forum for education, a voice in the process and hopefully better outcomes through reasonable compromise. I am hopeful the city will continue to be open to working with these groups.
Reply Flag 2 Agreeone month ago
davidThe southern gateway, South Saunders St and Wilmington St areas, is a tremendous opportunity for the City to promote economic and residential re-vitalization and growth. I would like to see an aggressive plan for this area.
Reply Flag 1 Agreeone month ago
Jay DawkinsCoordinating our transit investments with land planning that invites transit-friendly urban form.
Moving away from parking requirements seems helpful - even looking to more closely limit new parking near strategic transit corridors would be great to see.
Reply Flag 1 Agreeone month ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for the comment. Raleigh's plans and regulation do link transit and land use, and we're working to cement that connection further. Several new policies in the Urban Design element address this directly (see pages 11-22 and 11-23; https://www.raleighnc.gov/business/content/PlanDev/Articles/LongRange/ComprehensivePlanUpdate.html). Parking requirements are indeed reduced downtown and in areas where a high level of walkability/transit use is desired and expected. As part of an upcoming process to further align land use with the planned implementation of the Wake County Transit Plan, we'll be taking a closer look at policies and regulations regarding parking and other issues that highly influence transit use, pedestrian comfort, and other related issues.
Replyone month ago
Sterling BowenThe City should explore options to control sprawl (having suburban communities fund a higher percentage of the new infrastructure required for people to live 45 minutes from where they work), as well as hyper-development (such as property tax "penalties" for "flippers" who live in houses for less than 12 months). Revitalization should also not mean driving out working class families from urban neighborhoods- the City should have and enforce standards for economic/housing diversity, rather than spending millions on public transportation and busing suburban children to inner city magnet schools (and vice versa).
Reply Flag 1 Agree2 months ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)These are interesting suggestions. There may be some legal issues would limit the city's ability to carry out some of those specific ideas. However, looking more broadly, maintaining and even improving housing choice and therefore economic diversity is one of the fundamental themes of the plan and is found in several specific policies. Whether that goal is fully translated into regulation is always a point of discussion and will continue to be moving forward.
Replyone month ago
Charlotte ClevengerRaleigh needs to understand that permitting large commercial and apartment/condo projects near Crabtree Creek has led to the increase in flooding events to homeowners down stream. The city has then wanted to put restrictions on home owners with riparian buffers and restrictions on home owners to build/expand their own properties to their highest and best use. The city should be finding ways to mitigate the continued building and impermeable surface problems and not punish home owners with restrictions.
Reply Flag 1 Agree2 months ago
Andrew BlackburnIn terms of building height, increased density, the need for affordable housing, and transit congestion, they are all related. By allowing taller and denser buildings along Transit lines and development corridors, even if near exiting neighborhoods, you reduce the cost of housing and encourage the use of public transit rather than private transit such as cars.
Reply Flag 1 Agree2 months ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)Thanks for your comment. It's certainly true that all these issues are connected. The Comprehensive Plan places significant weight on the interrelatedness of transportation and land use. More specifically, we will be initiating planning processes that respond to the investments envisioned in the Wake County transit plan. These will range from more general policy guidance related to issues such as density and parking requirements near transit stations and corridors to very specific station-area plans.
Replyone month ago
Elliot NelsonThe plan is not useless, but it falls short. Additionally, the principles it espouses, such as protecting neighborhoods and historic districts, are not evidenced in implementation or actions of the commissions, city council and staff. Nothing you put on paper makes a whit of difference as long as the attitudes exhibited in the last several years remain the same.
Reply Flag 1 Agree2 months ago
Jason Hardin (City of Raleigh)It's true that not every decision will precisely follow the Plan, and in fact there are times when there are good reasons for not doing so. That said, I'd argue that not only is the Plan an essential means of articulating a broad vision for the city, it is followed in decisions far more often than it is not. Lastly, if you have specific suggestions to improve the Plan, please let us know!
Replyone month ago
BenLA total waste of tax payer money. The people of North Raleigh should break off and form their own city. THAT would be a thriving and efficient city. And once that happened and all the money got sucked out of the Raleigh City budget maybe the city would rethink stupid wasteful spending.
Reply Flag 1 Agree2 months ago
Marcee SilverI am thrilled that Raleigh has a goal of becoming a green city. I believe it will greatly benefit the residents of Raleigh to have better access to transit; also, more sidewalks provide health benefits as well as making our living areas more enjoyable. I am pleased with the changes that will clean up our storm water. I am very pleased Raleigh will be addressing the problems created by invasive plant species; it would be helpful if these invasive species were labeled as such by nurseries so that the public becomes more educated in their choices of their purchases. I hope the methods used to address invasive plant species will protect our pollinators as well as our human health. I would like to see an increase in the use of native plants in public places all around the city, and also an increase in the incorporation of the needs of wildlife (food, water, places to hide, places to raise young) at the initial levels of planning.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
I can't wait to see this plan start to happen.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Lauren BlackburnWould like to see more on city services, such as street maintenance, stormwater, and long term sustainability. Short term fixes to pavement preservation and neglect of stormwater infrastructure will be more costly in the long run.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
charles nintzelPublic transit options!
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Andrew StewartDowntown needs a coordinated rezoning process to allow for higher heights throughout downtown. This will allow our city to concentrate growth where it is best and allow for sustainable development.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Roy RobertsWith the self-driving electric pods (2, 4, 8, 12 passengers) that will be ubiquitous and summoned like Uber, they will deliver passengers door to door saving much wait time and walking to and from destinations. The city refuses to take its biased head out of the sand and look at what is going on around them. Sidewalks? What are those? We pay the same city taxes but in the 27617 zip code we havn't seen many sidewalks, working street lights, police patrol, etc. We are in the city when its tax time only.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Randy Barham Please don’t waste my tax money! I’m not giving the money because I want to. Spend it with a conservative mindset!
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Tess SharpeNew here, no thoughts for now.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Dwight NipperI think that the downtown high rise projects should not have a height restriction ! Let the developer build as high as he wants to !
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Charles DrakeI am basically happy with the progress/development of the city in the last 15+ years, with the exception of better public transportation. This is beginning to get the greater attention that it needs; so, I would encourage continued acceleration in prioritizing this element. If we can't get around to the variously needed services and opportunities that becoming increasingly available as we age, these improved opportunities won't do us much good. We won't always be able to drive ourselves around, but many of us like to remain active and participate in the growth and opportunities provided in our city.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
JoshuaIncrease density and create a robust public transportation system! You can keep touting affordable housing, but the only way to truly combat runaway housing costs is to increase the supply! Areas along the BRT and commuter rail line should be zoned to house vast amounts of people in mixed use developments.
Reply Flag Agreeone month ago
Sandra EllisIt appears that present plans are not giving consideration to the workforce who actually use the roads and are taxed for all these increases. Like individuals and corporations, the city of Raleigh should remain within its budget and not add additional taxes to these individuals.
Reply Flag Agree2 months ago
Tom SimonPlease continue moving this forward.
Reply Flag Agree2 months ago
City of Raleigh Poll:
1.What is your zip code?