Revived neckdown plan could make West Club Blvd a nightmare for cyclists

In 2001*, somebody had a plan. A plan to “calm” traffic on West Club Boulevard.

That plan called for neckdowns. Neckdowns (also known by many other names, my favorite of which is probably “elephant ears”) are curb extensions that intentionally narrow a road. These extensions are intended to cause motorists to slow down, and they also reduce the width of road which pedestrians must traverse when crossing to the other side of the street.

The plan was created in response to a request from the Watts Hospital-Hillandale Neighborhood Association (WHHNA) to make the street safer for pedestrians.

At no time were the needs of cyclists considered in the process, nor was making the road safer for cyclists ever an objective. To be fair, there were fewer cyclists on Durham streets 13 years ago, and cyclist needs weren’t very well considered back then in general, so if nothing else it’s unsurprising that they were excluded from the design.

For whatever reason, things got delayed, and eventually the funding for the project disappeared. The plan stalled out in the mid 00′s.

But that’s not where Durham’s neckdown story ends.

No, based on the observations of that initial study, neckdowns seemed like just the ticket in another part of town with traffic woes: Anderson St. Although there wasn’t any funding to do a proper study of the impact on Anderson, there was funding for construction (!), and the city figured the findings for Club were good enough.

So they necked that sucker down. They necked it down real good.

If you look at Anderson these days, the remnants of that decision are still visible, but the street has been entirely reworked since the original deployment.

See, as mentioned above, cyclists were never considered in the original design for Club. Anderson was, even 7 years ago, a very heavily used cycling route. It had street parking on both sides of the road, but the parking was seldom fully utilized, and the wide street was a relatively safe connector for cyclists. The plans for Anderson, the designers realized, had to include some kind of concession for cyclists.

The concession chosen was to leave gaps between the neckdowns and the curb, through which cyclists were expected to ride.

Well, the plan was implemented, and it was pretty much a disaster. The foliage in the islands promptly died, the gaps proved too narrow for cyclists to navigate (and quickly filled with debris besides), and average speeds dropped by less than 1 MPH. Cyclists had to swerve into and out of the travel lane to pass through the neckdowns, a maneuver which is fraught with peril and a cause for a great deal of concern for anybody wishing to ride the road.

Basically, the Anderson project was a complete failure, and many of the neckdowns were eventually removed (at great expense) in 2009. At the time, Kevin Davis broke down the situation on his blog, Bull City Rising.

Anderson in its current incarnation does take the needs of cyclists into consideration; the remaining neckdowns are no longer placed directly across from each other, and proper bike lanes have been added to most of the street. Due to the staggered design, there’s enough room for cyclists to avoid the neckdowns while remaining within the lines of the bike lane. It’s still unclear whether the neckdowns actually do anything to calm traffic, but at least they aren’t actively pushing cyclists into cars. The foliage is still dead too, but whatever.

In light of the Anderson experiment, imagine my surprise when the original Club plan rose from its slumber – unaltered from the original vision.

The man with that plan is Mark Ahrendsen, Director of the Durham Transportation Department. Ahrendsen is now blazing ahead with the decade-old scheme, and rumor has it that the WHHNA is all aboard. Here’s an image from the 2013 draft plans for the project (you can peruse the entire document if you have access to the BPAC yahoo! group):

 

 

This shows the intersection with Alabama, and the plan calls for similar structures at a total of four intersections. There will be no bike lanes, and street parking will be maintained on both sides.

It’s pretty obvious that there’s no room for cyclists in this plan to do anything but swerve out into the middle of the travel lane, right at the point where the street is at its narrowest on both sides. Unlike Anderson, there’s no pretense of allowing cyclists to ride to the right of the structures (look at the extra curbs on the corner), and even worse they’re on both sides of the intersection, squeezing cyclists down twice per cross street.

Now, do you know the greatest irony? In 2006 (five years after the initial study of Club) Durham adopted a comprehensive bicycle transportation plan which makes note of the fact that Club is a major cycling route and actually specifies that Club should have bike lanes. And yet, this zombie plan from the early 00′s (hey plan, have you heard that sweet new Postal Service album yet?) is back from the dead and overriding subsequent, more considered approaches to transit.

What, exactly, has come over the city here? Why do they want to do something to make Club, a road that they’re supposed to be improving, actively hostile for cyclists? Why has the plan not been modified in light of the similar implementation on Anderson, which failed to even achieve the desired calming results?

Way back in 2010, when this project bubbled back to the surface, the BPAC drafted a letter in opposition to the current plan which it sent to Ahrendsen. The BPAC letter provided some well considered constructive criticism, and it suggested several ways that neckdowns could be implemented without harming cyclists.

That advice was ignored.

So, this is the part where I defend the WHHNA, just a little bit, because although they’re apparently on board with this plan, they’ve not been given much choice. At this juncture the plan is being presented as the only option, and the WHHNA has been waiting over a decade for something to happen. Apparently, this is a “use it or lose it” scenario: the choice is to either take the plan that Ahrendsen has placed on the table, or take nothing at all. Having waited so long, I can understand why they’d just take what they can get.

To his great credit, a WHHNA representative reached out to the bike and ped mailing list, and has proven very receptive and sympathetic to the (many) concerns BPAC members have with the project. But reading the tea leaves, it seems unlikely to me that the WHHNA is going to change its mind on this one. They want something done, and by god, this is something.

What I’m kind of perplexed by here are the actions of Mark Ahrendsen and/or other city representatives who have decided to continue this project. Why has Ahrendsen chosen to revive this project without accepting any input? Why has he not considered the objectives of the comprehensive cycling infrastructure plan? Why did he not respond to the BPAC’s objection? Why has he presented this as the only possible plan? And, if this isn’t coming from him directly, where exactly is it coming from?

Erik Landfried, chair of the BPAC, has invited Ahrendsen to the August 19 meeting of the BPAC to discuss this issue.

As of now, it’s unclear as to whether Ahrendsen plans to attend.

 

* NB: Some of the exact chronology is uncertain to me. Most of these details come from my own memory and accounts on the BPAC mailing list, so there might be some inaccuracies.

The Open Durham Indiegogo campaign is almost over

I imagine most of you have encountered Open Durham at some point, but perhaps you aren’t aware that there’s presently an Indiegogo campaign in the works to help the project out. The site, which is the work of Gary Kueber, is used to document the history of structures and parcels throughout Durham county (and, at times, beyond). I’ve linked to it several times here, and it’s a really valuable resource which I call upon weekly (if not more).

Before he started Open Durham, Gary maintained the Endangered Durham blog (which is, at least at present, seemingly defunct), but found the blogging platform too limited for the scope of his work. The bottom line is that Gary does a lot of the content, but he pays people for their work on hosting and development, and there are several remaining features that need to get done. They won’t pay for themselves, apparently, and hence this campaign.

At the time of this writing, you’ve got about 40 hours left if you’d like to contribute. If you chip in $50 or more you can snag some physical rewards (starting with a keychain, with T-shirts at $100), but at any reward tier you get the satisfaction of knowing you contributed to a really crucial project to preserving Durham’s history.

Monuts is moving to the old Magnolia Grill building, Pizzeria Toro is re-opening this week

Well hey, I guess things are going well for Monuts, as they’re moving to a much larger building! The structure on Ninth St. that used to house Magnolia Grill (and which was damaged by fire earlier this year) will be their new home.

I’m personally a bit bummed to see Monuts leaving downtown, but it’s great to see that they’re expanding, and I’ll gladly ride the few extra blocks to get my bagel sandwich fix. It also sounds like they’re planning to keep something going downtown, at least for a while. According to the H-S:

Monuts still has three and a half years on the East Parrish Street lease, and Gillespie said they have a few ideas for how to use the location, but haven’t decided yet.

Also from the same article, the H-S confirms that Toro is reopening “by Saturday.” Not much to add at this point, beyond… well, welcome back, guys.

Durham News Odds and Ends SUMMER VACATION 2014 EDITION

Well, what can I say? DNO&E has been busy enjoying a well earned summer vacation. I hope you guys didn’t miss it too much!

Due to the time off, we’ve got a bit of a backlog to work through, so hold on tight…

Whiskey to close August 2

Well, I didn’t see that one coming. According to their twitter account, Whiskey’s shutting down operations. According to their Facebook page (apparently), they’re closing for good on Aug 2.

Whiskey seemed to always be doing well when I was in the area, but seeing as how I have a three year old child I didn’t actually have much of a chance to frequent the joint. Best of luck to the Whiskey folks in their future endeavors.

Here’s a song for the occasion:

Happy 4th!

I hope you guys have fun! As for me, I’ll be riding in the Firecracker 100K ride in Cary. Be sure to say hi if you’re there, OK? I’ll be the guy with the bike. Regular programming resumes Monday.

 

 

 

Riding a bike around I-85 in northwest Durham sucks

So I had an adventure yesterday: I had to go to a location on Hillandale Road (north of I-85).

I’m going to tell you right now, this part of Durham is an unmitigated disaster to ride in. It’s horrible. I don’t have much cause to go up there with frequency, which is good, because if I did I’d probably go insane.

Here’s the problem in a nutshell: I-85 makes a huge wall up there, which is pretty much impenetrable to cyclists. All of your options are bad.

drawn_on_screenshot

I was trying to get from around Brightleaf Square (not visible in that map – it’s further to the right and down) up to the blue circle. For the sake of convenience let’s just assume you’re starting around Elmo’s on 9th Street (which is easy to get to from Brightleaf).

So, pop quiz hotshot: how would you go about getting up to the blue circle? Note: the red circles labeled 1, 2, and 3, are the three closest ways to penetrate I-85.

The intuitive answer is that you could take Hillsborough Rd to Hillandale Rd. and cross 85 at the “2″. No problem, right? Well, here’s the problem: Hillandale Rd. absolutely sucks:

Screenshot from 2014-07-01 16:03:58Being situated where it is and being one of the few ways to breach I-85, Hillandale Rd. gets heavy usage, and traffic can get pretty gnarly. Look at how narrow that road is! In my experience, when presented with this kind of scenario a lot of people will try to pass cyclists in incredibly dangerous ways as quickly as they can, leaving little clearance.

I will not ride on that stretch of Hillandale Rd. again, regardless of how tempting those straight lines look on Google Maps. The road is a failure of planning and it does a huge disservice to NW Durham that it’s like this. It’s not just bad for cyclists, either – you’ll notice there isn’t even a sidewalk!

How do you avoid that stretch of Hillandale, then? I ended up doing this:

Screenshot from 2014-07-01 16:13:47

There’s a whole lot of WTF going on there to do it, but I managed to avoid Hillandale completely, so yay bonus points for that. The good news is that most of these side streets have low speed limits and are really easy to ride on. However, check out that section of Guess that gets you past I-85:

Screenshot from 2014-07-01 16:18:01Luckily you’re not on that mess long, but ugh.

Just for the sake of completeness, this is what 1) above looks like:Screenshot from 2014-07-01 16:25:26

… um, yeah, about the same.

This is roughly equivalent to the way Southpoint used to be. That particular SNAFU was addressed by adding a multi-million dollar bridge to get past the I-40 wall.

What’s the solution for this mess in NW Durham? I don’t know if anybody is even seriously talking about it. I lurk on the BPAC mailing list where such problems are perennial sources of discussion, but if there’s any real, solid, practical plan to tear down the I-85 wall for cyclists I sure haven’t heard about it.

UberX hits Durham

and several other NC towns too. Uber started service in Raleigh several weeks ago, and at the time they mentioned they’d be coming to Durham soon. Well, now is soon:

Today at noon, uberX is hitting the streets in Durham and Chapel Hill along with four additional NC cities: Greensboro, Winston-Salem, Fayetteville and Wilmington.

I’m not an Uber shill or anything, but I’m all for some disruption in transportation around here. It’s great to have some additional options while we wait (probably decades) for light rail to come to the area.

Take your guns to town, son

Quick bit of news for firearm owners out there in Durham county: you no longer need to register your handguns with the sheriff’s office. The measure passed both the House and Senate (and was backed by most everybody). The original law, as described by WRAL, was such that:

Durham County residents have 10 days from the purchase of a pistol, handgun or certain other types of weapons to register it with the clerk of Superior Court. The clerk does not digitize those records or make them available in any other format than paper files kept in filing cabinets.

Up until the repeal, persons who possessed unregistered guns could be charged with misdemeanors.

I’m having trouble finding confirmation from sources online, but the current conversation holds that the 1935 law was originally passed to restrict gun ownership among blacks. The idea was that there would be little awareness of the legislation, so a vast majority of gun owners would be unknowingly violating it; then, your local racist sheriff or deputy could go and apply the law selectively against people of color to prevent them from owning weapons.

The bill to repeal the law was sponsored by our own former councilman and present state Senator Mike Woodard during the 2013 session. Although it passed the Senate way back then, it got lost in the end of session shuffle, and the House never got around to it until now. The House’s action last week during the short session has sealed the deal, and the change doesn’t require McCrory’s signature, so it took effect immediately.

So, good riddance to this odd historical baggage, I reckon.