We have a critical opportunity to move toward a safe, equitable, and sustainable system with a shift from road expansion to transit, sidewalks, and bikes
Last year, Bike Durham's advocacy successfully pushed the executive board of the regional transportation planning agency, Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) Metropolitan Planning Organization, to adopt necessary objectives for their 2050 plan, including Zero Deaths or Serious Injuries, Zero Racial Disparity of Access, and Zero Carbon Emissions.
Now, at this point in the process, the DCHC MPO is seeking comments through December 7th on their Preferred Option for investments in their 2050 plan. In response to our advocacy when the draft alternatives were released, the DCHC MPO Executive Board directed the staff to draft a preferred option to show investments that will move us strongly toward the adopted objectives of Zero Deaths or Serious Injuries, Zero Disparity of Access, and Zero Carbon Emissions. While there is still a long way to go, the Preferred Option marks a departure from past planning by removing most road expansion projects and planning for massive investments in sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and transit.
We are broadly supportive of Preferred Option and encourage you to send in comments to that effect. The staff and Executive Board are already getting some push back on the proposal to remove highway widening projects from the plan. We need to encourage the Executive Board of DCHC to move forward and adopt the Preferred Option.
Please add your voice to our email campaign.
Our full comments on the Preferred Option are included below:
Bike Durham Comments on 2050 MTP Preferred Option
Bike Durham is supportive of the proposed 2050 MTP Preferred Option. We appreciate the courageous action taken by the Executive Board to direct staff to develop a new preferred option that moves closer to the adopted objectives of Zero Deaths and Serious Injuries, Zero Disparity of Access, and Zero Carbon Emissions. That was real leadership.
We also appreciate the extra effort put in by MPO staff and members of the Technical Committee to develop the new Preferred Option that we’re commenting on. Making a change this significant mid-process without all the tools needed is not easy.
While we support this Preferred Option, the mix of proposed investments and removed projects does not reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled, and there are no evaluations of the impacts on safety, nor on racial disparity of access. The plan should identify the need for new tools, strategies, and processes that must be developed in order to better design and evaluate programs or projects intended to address the objectives of Zero Deaths and Serious Injuries, Zero Disparity of Access, and Zero Carbon Emissions. This will take additional staff time and likely procurement of consulting assistance.
In addition, we have a number of specific comments in each plan section that we urge the Board and staff to incorporate in the final adopted plan so that we continue to accelerate our progress toward those objectives.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Section
We support the level of investment in infrastructure to keep people who are walking, biking, or rolling safe from traffic. We also support the methodology of building up the costs from projects identified in municipal plans as opposed to the past practice of just assigning “leftover” revenue to these projects.
We ask that the adopted plan include a listing and map of the projects programmed to be delivered in the first 10-year period. We believe that the benefits of transparency and accountability outweigh the potential staff time required if there are project changes that would require updates to the MTP. Seeing the prioritized projects would also engage the public in the MPO’s planning and build trust that the priorities are aligned with the objective to eliminate racial disparity of access.
The MPO Policy described in this section should be revised to call for incorporation of protected bike lanes with concrete separators on any streets with a speed limit of 35 miles per hour or faster.
The MPO Policy should also be extended to cover resurfacings of municipal- and state-maintained streets, where feasible.
We also urge the adoption of any other policies to ensure that all funded projects in DCHC area get the full benefits of the NCDOT Complete Streets Policy. This would include establishing a priority of safety for all users, including those walking or biking, over traffic delays when there is a conflict. Further, that street design changes intended to improve safety for drivers must not increase the risks to people walking or biking.
The financial plan information in this section includes an assumed unit cost for protected bike lanes equivalent to $6.34 million per mile. A Protected Bike Lane Design Guide published by the Portland Bureau of Transportation in May 2021 (available at this link - https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/36167) assumes a cost of $1.1 million per mile for concrete island-separated bike lanes on two-way roads. This figure is “fully loaded,” including a 2.5 multiplier over construction costs to account for design, project management, etc. Even if this estimate is doubled, the staff estimate is nearly three times as high. We urge the final document to show a per unit cost for protected bike lanes that is more in-line with actual experience around the country.
Finally, we urge inclusion of a line item for “quick-build” protected lanes that could be installed on an interim basis on streets where there are missing sidewalks or a protected bike lane is needed due to traffic speeds above 35 miles per hour. “Quick-build” projects would be installed with striping changes and vertical delineators (posts, planters, or parking protection), rather than more permanent concrete curbs.
Public Transit Section
We support the higher level of investment afforded by a full penny sales tax (½-cent more than current) suggested by the Executive Board at their November meeting. The addition of these revenues should enable the inclusion of specific services and projects that are not in the current, outdated transit plans, but have not yet been adopted in the new plans.
While we understand that, for the sake of clarity, it does not make sense to show all transit lines, we urge the final plan to include mapping of the proposed frequent transit network (services running every 15-minutes or better all day long), in addition to fixed guideway projects. We also suggest that assumptions be explained about the changes in level of investment in local bus service, regional bus service, BRT service, and rail service. A form of this data is shown by agency in the Measurement of Effectiveness section. We suggest it be explained here so that there is no confusion about what type of services will see changes in investment.
We recommend inclusion of a transit capital investment and high-level of service in the US 70 corridor connecting Durham and Raleigh. We support the highway modernization or boulevard project on US 70, in lieu of a freeway, but it should be supported with additional high-quality transit capacity in the corridor, as is proposed for the US 15-501 corridor and the NC-147 corridor.
We recommend inclusion of multi-modal hubs where parking may be located. These would be facilities where transit lines, micro-mobility, and other community resources would be co-located (some with parking for park-and-ride). These have been identified in various locations in past studies, and should be included in the adopted plan.
We urge the inclusion of a statement that the MPO will support and encourage all transit agencies to transition to all electric fleets by 2030. This statement should call for development of an MPO strategy for accomplishing this.
Highways Section
We support the replacement of widening projects with modernization projects, and the acknowledgement that this will require working with partners across the state and at the North Carolina Department of Transportation to more fairly score projects based on how well they will function for all users. We also support the removal of the managed lane projects on I-40 and NC-147. We encourage the DCHC MPO and CAMPO to initiate study of congestion pricing on the existing lanes I-40 and NC-147 in order to cost-effectively manage traffic demand.
We support the proposals to convert US 15-501 and NC-147 segments to boulevards
We support the proposal to modernize the segments of US-70 rather than converting them to freeway sections. The proposed freeway conversion would have required bulldozing as many as 60 homes and businesses. We can make this corridor work for all users and look forward to a new study with that as the goal.
Moderniziation projects should be added for streets in predominantly Black and Latino neighborhoods (e.g., Dearborn Drive, Cheek Road, S. Alston Avenue south of Cecil Street, Junction Road).
We do not support the inclusion of the widening of I-85 west of the Durham County/Orange County line. Adding highway capacity induces additional vehicle travel and this will affect volume on Durham streets connected to I-85. We oppose the addition of all four projects in Orange County where it is indicated that they were added to the Vision Plan by Orange County staff AFTER directed by the Executive Board to bring forward a Preferred Option that moved us to lower vehicle miles traveled. Rather than modernizations of the three arterial segments that add sidewalks and protected bicycle lanes, staff inserted new road widenings. We urge the replacement of the three widenings on NC 86 and South Churton Street with modernization projects and the removal of the I-85 widening.
Finally, this section should be renamed the Streets and Highways Section. Both are addressed in this section.
Measures of Effectiveness Section
This section reveals that much more needs to be done to develop transit, walking, and biking infrastructure so that per capita vehicle miles traveled will fall.
This section is lacking any safety analysis. We’re left to make conclusions based on average speeds.
This section is lacking any analysis of differences in access to jobs or other destinations between drivers and transit users. There is also no analysis of differences in access to jobs or other destinations between areas that are predominantly occupied by minority residents and those predominantly occupied by white residents.
Differences in work trip distance, mode usage should be analyzed by race and income.
The tables on pages four through six are difficult to understand for some items because units of measure are not labeled, and abbreviations are used for some descriptors.
Financial Plan Section
The narrative of the Roadways and Alternative Transportation Revenues should make clear that current law prohibits spending of State revenues and also flexing federal highway revenues to stand-alone projects providing safe infrastructure for people walking or biking. The assumption that this prohibition wil be lifted should be clearly stated.
The local/private funding of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure should reflect the City of Durham’s recent increase in their CIP funding for projects of this type.
The assumptions of growth rates in the transit sales tax should be stated.
The differences in the level of detail between the roadway section and the public transportation section communicates that either less work has been done to understand the public transportation costs and revenues, or there is no desire to share the information.
Neither table seems to reflect the federal infrastructure bill that has been signed into law. While we understand that is a recent occurrence, it seems that it should be reflected in some way.
The public transportation table should reflect other federal formula funds received as revenues, other federal discretionary grant assumptions, and state revenue assumptions. The abbreviation CIG should be explained.