ACTION ALERT: Help support a new direction for transportation in the Triangle

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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.  

4. The MPO Policy should also be extended to cover resurfacings of municipal- and state-maintained streets, where feasible.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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

1. 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.

2. We support the proposals to convert US 15-501 and NC-147 segments to boulevards 

3. 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.

4. 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).

5. 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.

6. Finally, this section should be renamed the Streets and Highways Section.  Both are addressed in this section.

Measures of Effectiveness Section

1. 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.

2. This section is lacking any safety analysis.  We’re left to make conclusions based on average speeds.

3. 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.

4. Differences in work trip distance, mode usage should be analyzed by race and income.

5. 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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. The assumptions of growth rates in the transit sales tax should be stated. 

4. 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.

5. 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.  

6. 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.

Bike Durham joins leaders from Bragtown and Merrick-Moore in calling for prioritizing bus service and bus stop improvements

On Thursday, November 18, 2021, the Durham Herald-Sun and News & Observer ran an op-ed co-written by Vannessa Mason Evans, chair of the Bragtown Community Association, Bonita Green, president of the Merrick-Moore Community Development Corporation, Stella Adams, CEO of S J Adams Consulting, a civil rights research and consulting firm in Durham, and Erik Landfried, Bike Durham board member. The op-ed calls on the officials that must approve an update to the Durham Transit Plan to listen to current transit riders and Black and Brown Durhamites and prioritize bus service and bus stop improvements.   

Bike Durham believes that racial equity must be at the heart of all transportation decision making in Durham. Most of the transportation investments over the past 100 years have benefited wealthier, white Durhamites at the expense of Black and brown communities. The best way to make our transportation outcomes more equitable is to listen to the communities who have suffered these harms and directly address their needs.

The final draft recommendations for the Durham Transit Plan are expected this winter.  We will all be given another opportunity to comment on the recommendations, but clear preferences have been expressed by current riders and residents of Black and brown neighborhoods in the Summer’s engagement around the transit plan options. Those preferences include more frequent bus service to more places in Durham and the region and benches and shelters at bus stops, but do not include a proposed commuter rail project to Raleigh.

Slide from presentation on Phase II outreach results by Durham Transit Team staff

We are urging the Durham County Commissioners, DCHC MPO Board members, and the GoTriangle Board of Trustees to listen to the voices of current transit riders and Black and brown residents as we move forward building a better transit system.

The op-ed is included below in its entirety:

Triangle infrastructure: For equity, put buses ahead of commuter rail in Durham

BY BONITA GREEN AND VANNESSA MASON EVANS

NOVEMBER 18, 2021

Civil rights consultant Stella Adams and Bike Durham board member Erik Landfried also signed on to this op-ed.

Residents of Braggtown and Merrick Moore, two historically Black communities northeast of downtown Durham, have requested many transportation improvements over the years, including sidewalks along major roads, bus shelters and more frequent bus service.

With the demise of the Durham-Orange light-rail project, half a billion dollars are available in the 2040 Durham Transit Plan. Any transit plan adopted must include 15-minute bus service via Route 9 in the heart of the Braggtown neighborhood and both bus service and sidewalks in the Merrick Moore neighborhood and in other communities of color throughout Durham.

Durham has a transportation system created through a history of decisions that have led to inequitable outcomes along racial lines. Nowhere is this more apparent than in our transit system.

Durham transit riders, most of whom are non-white and make less than $15,000 per year, face a daily gauntlet of streets with no sidewalks, bus stops with no shelters, and bus service that does not come frequently enough. It also takes a long time to get to their destination. And many parts of the county still lack bus service, despite rapid growth.

Before considering new large-scale projects, we must fix the broken infrastructure that exists in our under-served communities.

No one should have to walk in the street to get to a bus stop in a ditch. The good news is that there are many projects proposed that address these deficiencies and will make bus service more reliable, more frequent, and more abundant, which will increase economic and social opportunities for all Durhamites.

The most expensive project under consideration in the Durham Transit Plan is a commuter rail line between Durham and Wake counties. While the project would provide an alternative to driving, it would mostly do so during “peak” commute times, only running every 30 minutes during those times and every two hours in the middle of the day and at night. There is no weekend service proposed. Those service levels provide little utility for those with non-traditional work schedules.

Commuter rail is not a high priority for people of color in Durham. One of the survey questions for the Durham Transit Plan was “If passenger train is included, what else do we need to fund?” The number one response from people of color was “All of these transit improvements are more important than a passenger train.”

That same survey also confirmed what transit improvements people of color and daily transit riders prioritize: more hours of frequent and reliable bus service to more parts of Durham and the Triangle and better bus stops.

Commuter rail is not the most equitable use of resources. Setting aside local funding for commuter rail would delay new bus service and infrastructure by up to 10 years. According to data from GoTriangle, only 42% of the projected riders of the commuter rail would come from zero or one-car households. 91% of current GoDurham riders live in zero or one-car households.

To achieve equitable outcomes, the Durham County commissioners, Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization board, and the GoTriangle board must listen to the needs of current transit riders and communities of color and make sure projects are prioritized in the Durham Transit Plan that support those needs. Our communities have made it clear that we must improve our local and regional bus systems. These improvements cannot be delayed to provide local funding for commuter rail.

We have the opportunity in Durham to make transportation decisions that will lead to equitable outcomes. This is the time to seize it.

Will the Durham Transit Plan Prioritize Improvements for Current Riders?

Durham County, the regional transportation planning organization (DCHC MPO), and GoTriangle released three options for how to invest one billion dollars in transit tax revenues over the next twenty years. All options contained some common projects and service improvements using half the money. They differed in how to spend the remaining one-half billion dollars. One option prioritized improvements in local service and sidewalks, while including additional regional bus service. A second option prioritized investments in regional Bus Rapid Transit to Raleigh and to Chapel Hill. The third option prioritized investment in commuter rail to Raleigh. Both the Bus Rapid Transit option and the Commuter Rail option included local bus service and sidewalk improvements but there are fewer of them and they occur up to 7 to 10 years later. During the period when the Durham Transit Team was collecting public input, the Transit Equity Campaign was talking to riders about their priorities.

Erik Landfried, Bike Durham board member and manager of the Transit Equity Campaign, wrote a letter on September 9 to the staff and elected officials working on the plan to share what we heard from riders and to make recommendations for evaluating the options and developing a better final plan. The content of the letter is below:

---

The Transit Equity Campaign is a partnership between Bike Durham, the Coalition for Affordable Housing and Transit, Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People, Durham Congregations in Action, and People’s Alliance. The goal of the Transit Equity Campaign is to hold the public agencies in charge of updating the Durham Transit Plan accountable to make sure the needs of current transit riders, transit workers and low-wealth BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) communities are the first priorities in the Transit Plan.

The Campaign appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Durham Transit Plan update. We are encouraged to hear that over half of the comments received on the latest round of engagement came through the Engagement Ambassadors and in-person events at Durham Station and other locations. However, engagement is only the starting point. The Campaign will be watching closely to see how the final plan addresses the needs brought up by riders, transit workers, and communities of color.

When asking people to sign onto the Transit Equity Campaign, volunteers asked a single question in addition to contact information: “What’s the most important improvement to make to the transit system?” We have summarized the responses below:

Infographic summarizing priorities from riders

Many of the service and infrastructure needs should be familiar at this point - frequent, reliable service to more destinations supported by safe access to comfortable and accessible stops. These needs are addressed to varying degrees and timeframes by the three transit options that were presented to the public.

However, one-third of the responses to the question we asked were largely unrelated to service or infrastructure. Instead, they focused on driver courtesy and training, safety, cleanliness and comfort of the buses, and maintaining fare-free service. When asked how the Transit Plan would address these types of needs, the response we received from staff was:

We have communicated to GoDurham and GoTriangle the results of our stakeholder interviews and responses like this from both the Youth and Senior listening sessions.

Simply communicating these needs to the transit agencies without providing funds to address them is insufficient. If these needs supersede the need for better service or bus stops for many people in Durham, they need to be addressed with investments from the Durham Transit Plan.

The Transit Equity Campaign also has the following recommendations to better communicate the vision and projects in the final plan that is being developed:

• Be explicit about when people can expect improvements and show these improvements at a community level. The difference in implementation timelines was one of the most important tradeoffs between each of the three transit scenarios shown to the public, but this was not clearly communicated. Showing this information system-wide is important, but individual communities need to understand what improvements will directly impact their own community and when those improvements will occur. This will require more granularity to break the improvements down by geographical area, but will lead to better engagement with riders and low-wealth communities of color.

• Improve transparency by including ALL of the projects in the Durham Transit Plan public materials and the rationale for how those projects were chosen. There were assumed projects in each of the three transit options that were not shown to the public. This is unacceptable. These projects included service improvements such as increased frequency on crowded 15-minute bus routes and infrastructure improvements such as a new Bus Maintenance Facility. One of the core tenets of the Plan is transparency. Not including certain projects in the public materials does not meet that goal, especially ones that warrant public feedback. It is also important to communicate the rationale for why certain projects were or were not chosen. For example, the Braggtown Community Association is advocating for improved frequency on Route 9, which serves the heart of their neighborhood. No frequency improvements were shown for Route 9 in any of the three transit options and no rationale was provided for why other frequency improvements were prioritized above Route 9.

• Include a prioritization of projects that may require additional revenue. There are clearly more transit needs in Durham than what can be funded given the current revenue assumptions in the Durham Transit Plan. It is important to present a realistic set of projects and the Campaign supports conservative revenue forecasts. However, it is also important to continue to pursue additional funding and have a prioritized list of the projects that would be next in line so that there is not a delay between receipt of these funds and implementation.

• Measure equitable access to jobs in a more meaningful way. The Transit Equity Campaign was excited that staff followed through on our request to include measures for how job access would improve under the three transit options presented to the public. However, staff ran these measures without including any wait time and ran the analysis at 5pm on a weekday. This represents an unrealistic, best-case scenario and renders the frequency of each service moot. The results were also difficult to interpret:

The Transit Equity Campaign requests that transit staff measure access to jobs from multiple communities of color (not just Durham Housing Authority locations) using average wait time, which better reflects most riders’ experience using public transit. In addition, we recommend using the “Jane” tool to better display the access to employment improvements. Here is a before/after example using Jane:

Map of Transit Access from Oxford Manor with Existing Bus System

Transit Access from Oxford Manor with Existing Bus System

Map of Transit Access from Oxford Manor After Service Improvements

These maps are easier to understand and not only show the increase in job access, but also where people in select communities can get to by walking and using transit in increments of 15 minutes. In this example (which is not from any of the transit plan options), people living at Oxford Manor can see that not only has job access within a 30 minute commute - the medium blue color - increased significantly (from ~4,000 to ~19,000 jobs), but that these increases happen mostly along Roxboro Road, Horton Road, and downtown Durham.

Aligning Transportation Plans with Our Values

The future we want captured in an Image of youth walking and biking to school from transformca.org

I think I observed an important breakthrough on September 1, 2021, in Bike Durham’s work for a safe, affordable, and sustainable transportation system for everyone, regardless of who they are or where they live.  Elected officials from Durham, Orange, and Chatham counties had a long overdue conversation about developing a transportation plan that actually aligns with the values and policy direction that they agree upon around eliminating carbon emissions, eliminating traffic deaths and serious injuries, and eliminating racial and economic disparities in access to jobs and other destinations.  Further, they went beyond conversation and voted unanimously to direct staff to develop a plan alternative that is intended to reach these goals by 2050.  They broke through the mindset that they don’t have the power to set a new course, and took a step toward a safe, equitable, and sustainable transportation system. 

Here’s the story: 

The little-known regional transportation planning organization known as DCHC MPO met to discuss and take comments on the staff-developed Transportation Plan Alternatives for the next 30 years.  This governmental organization is required under federal law to adopt a long-range transportation plan every four years.  It’s called the Metropolitan Transportation Plan or MTP.  Despite how obscure the organization is, it plays a crucial role in determining what transportation projects get built.  Any transportation project that receives federal or state funding must be included in the MTP.  The final set of projects in any MTP must be agreed upon by the state department of transportation (NCDOT) AND the locally appointed DCHC MPO board. 

Last summer the planning process for the plan looking out to 2050 started by identifying goals and objectives.  Bike Durham reviewed that draft proposal and raised concerns that they were inadequate and would not lead to change.  In commenting on the Goals and Objectives, we called for a bold vision of Zero Carbon Emissions, Zero Deaths or Serious Injuries, and Zero Racial or Economic Disparity of Access.   The Board agreed with us and directed the staff to revise the Goals and Objectives to include this bold vision.

It’s hard to understate how much of a departure these goals are from the past, and the staff has the uncomfortable challenge of working with analytical tools that are designed to evaluate benefits and impacts for drivers, not equity or safety, and carbon and other emissions have typically been measured at the end of the process, not used as a driver of the plan.  As the staff proceeded with the planning steps, they acknowledged the need for performance measures for these goals, but pointed out that they don’t have good tools to measure them.  This led to the development of three alternative future transportation systems that have differences, but none would make an appreciable difference in reaching the bold goals (in fact, there was no analysis to even indicate how they would affect the goals).

At the September 1st DCHC Board meeting, staff member Andy Henry presented the Alternatives Analysis, and Board members and the public followed with comments.  I listened while waiting my turn at the Zoom mike, and heard very encouraging questioning from Carrboro Council member/Mayoral candidate Damon Seils and Chapel Hill council member/GoTriangle Board chair Michael Parker.  It was clear that neither thought that the alternatives were bold enough.  

There were only two of us there to provide comments at the public hearing and both of us are white men who used to work at GoTriangle - a serious indictment of the public engagement process!   A link to a recording of Bike Durham’s comments, delivered by me, is embedded below.  The written remarks are at the bottom of this post.  (If you’re really interested in this, start at the 31:35 minute mark with the points raised by Carrboro Council member Damon Seils.)

In our comments, I closed with a call for the Board to direct the staff to develop another alternative that would address all three goals and reduce the drive alone mode share by 25% by 2050.  In the discussion that followed, the Board members came to the conclusion that they could ask for an alternative that reflected their priorities, that would reveal many of the difficult changes that will have to be made to achieve our vision, and that would serve as an advocacy piece, making it clear what the benefits will be if those changes to projects, policy, laws, ordinances, and budgets are made.  I am optimistic about the opportunity that the Board’s action creates, and am proud that Bike Durham played a role in making this happen.

Best quotes of the day

“If we move forward with a preferred option based on those before us, I’m not sure what we’re doing here.” - Damon Seils, Carrboro Council member/mayoral candidate

“It’s not just about adding more transit projects, it’s also subtracting car-oriented projects.” - Michael Parker, Chapel Hill councilmember/GoTriangle Board Chair

“This is part of a system that is not functioning in a way it needs to get where we want it to go.” - Jenn Weaver, Hillsborough Mayor

“This may be the best MPO meeting that I’ve ever been to.  And these may be the best two public comments I’ve ever heard at an MPO meeting.” - Charlie Reece, Durham City Council member

Bike Durham comments delivered to the DCHC MPO Board on September 1, 2021 by John Tallmadge

“Thank you for the opportunity to comment.  I’m John Tallmadge, Executive Director of Bike Durham.

After the Board adopted goals that included zero deaths and serious injuries, zero disparity of access, and zero carbon emissions, we were optimistic that the 2050 Plan would chart a new course toward a safe, affordable, and sustainable transportation system for everyone, regardless of who they are or where they live.  That’s Bike Durham’s vision for the future.

We were hopeful that the bold vision that the MPO adopted would drive the development of bold alternatives that would illustrate the likely difficult choices needed to achieve these goals.  We grew concerned when the deficiency analysis largely addressed the issues of driver delay, driver commute time, and highway capacity - the same variables that are typically used - and measures of safety, carbon emissions, and disparity of access.  Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was presented, but not in the context of carbon emissions.

We were disappointed to see the alternative scenarios presented for comment.  The staff has not attempted to develop a scenario that could achieve the goals.  The All Together alternative is the best of the bunch, but it does not rise to the occasion required.

We understand why this is the case, but we do not accept it.  When urging you to adopt bold goals, we said that it takes a long time to turn a big ship onto a different course, and that’s why it’s important to turn the wheel hard now.  It appears that in attempting to turn the wheel hard through bold goals, other problems have been revealed.

First, the navigation tools that the staff uses don’t provide any visibility into impacts on safety, carbon emissions, or racial disparity of access.  All we can see are delay, travel time, capacity, and mode share.  What we don’t measure, we don’t manage.  The answer is not to rely on changes to the travel demand model.  The staff needs to develop new analytical approaches.

Second, the steering mechanisms are stuck.  The alternatives accept the next 10 years as fixed, and the staff has found the model to be largely unresponsive to changes in the projects.  The projects selected are all through technical staff, there is very little community engagement in the development of projects.   

Third, the engine of transportation funding keeps chugging away, driving us in the same disastrous direction.  When we limit our alternatives to what we can fund with existing laws and rules, then we cannot even see what it would take to achieve our goals.  The final recommended plan needs to be fiscally constrained, that’s required.  But if alternatives were developed that achieved our goals, or even approached them, then we could all see what changes are going to be needed from the local, state, and federal levels.

The All Together alternative is the best of the bunch, but we’d like to point out a few ways in which it falls short.

1) There is no indication that the alternative is increasing funding to make our streets safer.

2) There is no indication that there is an increased investment in transportation demand management.  We have just seen that the capacity for telework is much greater than we ever imagined.  

3) There is no indication of investments in the infrastructure or incentives for electrification of our transportation system.

4) There is no indication of whether neighborhoods that are currently the heaviest users of public transportation will be closing the gap with neighborhoods that don’t use public transportation in terms of access to jobs or other destinations within 45 minutes.

5) While the alternative includes the conversion of a portion of the Durham Freeway to a boulevard, which may be a good idea if we could make sure that the benefits accrue to the Black residents whose community was destroyed in the first place, but at the same time we assume that we’ll push ahead with converting US70 and US15-501 into freeways.

It’s time for the DCHC MPO Board to direct the staff to develop a bold scenario that gets us on the path to our goals.  You need to find levers that will result in the creation of new navigation tools, that will unstick the steering wheel, and cut the engines to create time to fix those other problems.  We ask that you start by directing the staff to develop another alternative that would address all three goals and reduce the drive alone mode share by 25% by 2050.  Thank you.”

Update: I have been informed that Carrboro officially changed the name of their governing board to a Town Council. I have updated references to Damon Seils’ position from alderman to Council member.

Bike Durham Hears Support for Protected Bike/Walk Lanes from Residents Around North Miami Boulevard

On June 24th, Bike Durham joined with staff from Durham’s Department of Transportation to talk with neighbors of North Miami Boulevard about a proposal to add protective posts to the bike/walk lanes planned for this stretch of street between Raynor Street and East Geer Street.  This is a stretch of street where three people have been hit by drivers while walking in the past two years.  

The first woman who stopped to speak with us was Ms. Brown.  She was using her powered wheelchair in the curb-side travel lane because there is no sidewalk on stretches of the street.  She liked the idea of adding the bike lanes with protective posts so that she has a designated space to operate her wheelchair.  Next we spoke with Mr. Davis who lived around the corner.  He told us that he had purchased a bicycle two years ago, but doesn’t ride it because the streets are too dangerous.  He also supported adding bike/walk lanes with protective posts so that he could bike or walk his dogs in them.

In all, we heard from twenty-one residents who were all concerned that too many drivers go too fast up and down North Miami Boulevard, and reported hearing or seeing crashes on a regular basis.  In addition to speeding concerns, we heard concerns about gun violence in the area.  This is an important reminder that we need to think beyond street design in our advocacy for safe and healthy streets for everyone.

The City had already planned to restripe this street to reduce the driving lanes to one in each direction, adding buffered bike/walk lanes to each side.  In 2019, the City held their own public input process for re-striping this street and eight other streets totaling just over eight miles of new buffered bike lanes.  These projects, all funded with federal grant funds, were all delayed last year by NCDOT when they decided to slow down spending due to their financial problems.  We received grant funds from the American Heart Association to work with the City to install protective posts on buffered bike lanes.  This project should be completed this Fall.

We are hoping to secure additional funding to continue this work with residents in the neighborhoods where all eight miles of planned buffered bike/walk lanes that the City will stripe this Fall.  If they are supportive, we’d like to see all of these bike/walk lanes protected with posts. 

Why We Need Safe Streets: A Perspective From Someone Who Is Blind

Donna Permar is a resident of Durham, NC and a long-time local advocate for safe places to walk and improved transit service. 

I recently joined the Bike Durham Advocacy Committee because I strongly support its mission of empowering all people to walk,  bike, and ride transit more often. Therefore, I wish to do whatever I can to help shape policies that promote safe pedestrian travel, enjoyable bike trails, and a public transportation system that meets the needs of current riders and attracts others who are not yet on board.

Due to my vision loss, my guide dog and I travel to work, appointments, shopping, et cetera via GoDurham, and we log hundreds of miles walking to many destinations. I have fought for sidewalks where there weren’t any and have promoted the installation of audible pedestrian signals (APS), which enable those of us who are blind and low-vision to cross streets more safely. My advocacy led to an APS installation at Hillandale Road and Croasdaile Commons where there are medical clinics, an urgent care center, Walgreens and several restaurants. Most recently, my efforts helped to get an APS installed at the very dangerous intersection of Fayetteville Road and Renaissance Parkway, which would make travel much safer for cyclists and pedestrians. 

I am also eager to provide input on improving transit service in Durham. I participated in the Transit Equity Campaign videos as a small way to advocate for improved transit in Durham. My ability to travel independently relies in large part on Durham’s transit system. Changes to transit routes present unique challenges for people with disabilities, and while changes can be inconvenient overall, the adjustment period to navigate a new routine and other changes can be longer and more frustrating for people with disabilities.

I do this work because I want to increase public awareness surrounding the idea that people with disabilities also bike and hike and would greatly benefit from improved trails, sidewalks and a transit system that is more reliable, efficient and serves more of the places where people need to go. I’ve been riding tandem bicycles with Bridge II Sports, and I enjoy it as a way to show others that people with disabilities are fully capable of athletic activities, such as biking. 

Back-seat biking provides impromptu opportunities to explain how I live my life, and it gives others a space where they can grow more comfortable when interacting with those of us who have disabilities. I enjoy riding tandem bikes with my guides as they describe the scenery to me along our route. We also discuss topics of mutual interest ranging from work, vacations and gardening, to sports and cooking. Most times, I find back seat pedaling on a tandem bike so pleasant that I wish my guide dog could be my captain. Alas, that skill was not included in his training. 

I firmly believe that achieving an excellent public transit system is crucial if the City of Durham truly wants to include all of its diverse populations in employment, education, recreation and health care opportunities. Transportation to such facilities is a huge barrier to participation for those who cannot afford to drive vehicles, have a disability which prohibits driving, or the senior-citizen population who once drove cars but are no longer able to do so. My hope is that some day Durham’s public transportation system will be second to none!

Bike Durham Bull Ride

We were on the hunt for the perfect city bike ride to represent Durham for over a year. We couldn't find it, so we had to go to Alaska and partner up with Aurora Hablett aka Stravzilla, who creates the rarest forms of GPS visualizations.

The goal was to find "Major the Bull," over the city's center mass, in a closed-loop ride that stays on relatively safe streets, highlights neighborhood diversity, and cruises past NCCU and Duke.

The ride needed to be long enough to be an experience but short enough to be accessible.

The big reveal is that Aurora worked with us to create a commemorative art piece that has the city inside of the shape of the bull. Now, we can show our Bull City Pride as we literally draw the bull with our bikes and then celebrate our city with this new street portrait of Major.

There are a lot of different drawings and sketches of Major the Bull, but this one is in the blueprint of our streets! And it's going to take over!

A special thanks to our Sponsors for helping us bring creative events to Durham!

Victims Fair Treatment Act

Think of all the times in your life you have pressed the walk button, waited for the lights to change to red, got the “all clear” signal, and then proceeded to cross the street. If a driver ran the red light and hit you while you were in the crosswalk while you had the right of way, they would be at fault and you would be compensated for your injuries, right? Not so fast.

Even if the sequence of events happened as mentioned above, you may not collect anything for damages in North Carolina due to “contributory negligence.” Under the obscure doctrine of “contributory negligence,” people who negligently harm others and are 99% at fault are legally not required to compensate their victims. In our thought experiment above, the driver who ran the red light could argue that you had headphones and couldn’t hear, or that you didn’t look both ways. If a jury agreed that you contributed just 1% to the blame for the crash, you would not be able to recover anything. Stated plainly, contributory negligence means that you cannot recover money for any injuries caused by a negligent person if you are deemed even 1% at fault. The person who hit you would not be accountable for their actions. Not at all.

For those of us who advocate for better walking, biking, rolling, and transit, contributory negligence can be especially unjust and harmful.

As we know all too well, many people consider walking and biking to be inherently risky activities and are all too ready to blame the person walking or riding. Most news coverage tends to subtly shift blame to the victim (“car hits cyclist”, or similar, is the usual passive construction). People are more used to navigating our streets by car than by bike, foot, or bus. This bias is found in police reports, courtrooms, and jury boxes. If most people on a jury think riding a bike is inherently risky, they will be more likely to find that 1% fault regardless of facts. That 1% is all it takes to lose all hopes of recovering even just a small amount of compensation for damages or injury. Check out BikeLawNC to learn more about how the current law negatively impacts people on bikes.

What about insurance? That’s why drivers are required to have it, right? No. With contributory negligence, it is just as difficult, if not more difficult, to recover money from insurance companies as it is in court because insurance companies know that the law plays in their favor. Our friends at BikeLawNC have stories of insurance claims rejected on the basis of contributory negligence. Contributory negligence makes it harder to recover damages in court and harder to receive compensation through insurance companies. This is true even if the person who hits you is negligent and 99% at fault. They can walk away with zero consequence. 

There is an opportunity to change this zero sum game for those of us who navigate our streets exposed to negligent drivers. A bill was recently introduced in the NC Senate—Senate Bill 477 The Victims’ Fair Treatment Act— to move away from contributory negligence and use comparative negligence like 45 other states. Comparative negligence essentially eliminates the “all-or-nothing” framework and increases the likelihood of compensation for victims. 

Our friends at BikeLawNC have written more extensively about putting an end to contributory negligence. Bike Durham has asked our state lawmakers to support the Victim’s Fair Treatment Act. To support The Victims’ Fair Treatment Act yourself, take a moment to join the movement and contact your lawmaker. 

Tyler J. Dewey (he/him) is a Bike Durham volunteer and full-time bike commuter. Prior to transitioning to Durham, he worked as the executive director of a bicycle non-profit organization in Athens, GA where he facilitated bicycle education programs, headed up bicycle advocacy, and co-ran a bike recycling program.