Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Terrific! I’d love to see NC DOT work on a protected bike lane design. My understanding is that the DOT is reluctant to lower speed limits on busy roads (like Estes), so we need more tools to make bike/ped users safer.
Here’s an article on Carrboro; it hints at the long approval process for designing safer streets.
I have issues with "protected" bike lanes on roads with frequent street/driveway breaks. The proposal for Broad Street in Durham for example. Hide the bike lane behind parked cars so drivers in turning vehicles can't see the bikers in the lane. Classic "right hook" issue. Same issue that happened on Franklin Street going up the hill from Estes to the university area (was installed/removed in the '80s. Some of us have long memories.) The bike path was on the sidewalk on the north/west side (sidewalk's still there, just not marked as a bike path anymore), and there were plenty of right-hook issues, along with bikes on the path going the "wrong way" surprising drivers.
I look at this as some advocates seeing something work somewhere and saying "we need to do this everywhere" but haven't considered the negatives of the application in different situations. Us engineers are stubborn (I'm sure that's a shocker to everybody! ) and need "proof" that something makes sense before we'll support it.
Having fought that for years internally regarding innovations, I understand the frustration on delays. (And I HAD the proof on various innovations.) But we need to know if an "improvement" actually makes things better rather than worse before allowing wholesale implementation of concepts.
And, having dealt with CH/C (inside and outside), it isn't NCDOT making it a long approval process, it's the towns.
I have issues with "protected" bike lanes on roads with frequent street/driveway breaks. The proposal for Broad Street in Durham for example. Hide the bike lane behind parked cars so drivers in turning vehicles can't see the bikers in the lane. Classic "right hook" issue. Same issue that happened on Franklin Street going up the hill from Estes to the university area (was installed/removed in the '80s. Some of us have long memories.) The bike path was on the sidewalk on the north/west side (sidewalk's still there, just not marked as a bike path anymore), and there were plenty of right-hook issues, along with bikes on the path going the "wrong way" surprising drivers.
Yeah we had a similar situation in downtown Raleigh with the Harrington-West Street North-South bikeway - original concept was a 2-way cycletrack on West St until Paul Black counted all the number of driveways along that corridor and realized that would be an issue. We decided on a one-way pair instead on parallel streets.
We are seeing a ton of projects coming through Integrated Mobility where there's an approved long-range plan for a bicycle facility and then guidance from FHWA/NACTO calls for a shared use path based on the speeds/volumes on that road (we were in that training session that Toole Design did haha). It'll be interesting to see what happens with that.
Do you live in CH? I lived there for 3-4 months before buying a house in Durham. I literally walked everywhere. I think sidewalks and bike lanes are really good in CH. Sometime I regret buying in Durham cause I walk a lot, and I never imagined that sidewalks added that much to my QOL. Now that I live in a city with terrible amount of sidewalks I really appreciate CH. Good thing I live very close to Duke’s Al Buehler trail so I get my every day walking that way.
Chapel Hill's sidewalks are terrible and/or nonexistent when compared to cities and towns elsewhere in the U.S. There are still a number of major streets (W. University, for one) near downtown that don't have sidewalks, or just have sidewalks on one side. There's a sidewalk repair/construction list, but the town hasn't made it a priority.
I have issues with "protected" bike lanes on roads with frequent street/driveway breaks. The proposal for Broad Street in Durham for example. Hide the bike lane behind parked cars so drivers in turning vehicles can't see the bikers in the lane. Classic "right hook" issue. Same issue that happened on Franklin Street going up the hill from Estes to the university area (was installed/removed in the '80s. Some of us have long memories.) The bike path was on the sidewalk on the north/west side (sidewalk's still there, just not marked as a bike path anymore), and there were plenty of right-hook issues, along with bikes on the path going the "wrong way" surprising drivers.
I look at this as some advocates seeing something work somewhere and saying "we need to do this everywhere" but haven't considered the negatives of the application in different situations. Us engineers are stubborn (I'm sure that's a shocker to everybody! ) and need "proof" that something makes sense before we'll support it.
Having fought that for years internally regarding innovations, I understand the frustration on delays. (And I HAD the proof on various innovations.) But we need to know if an "improvement" actually makes things better rather than worse before allowing wholesale implementation of concepts.
And, having dealt with CH/C (inside and outside), it isn't NCDOT making it a long approval process, it's the towns.
European cities are in the process of banning cars from downtown areas, and limiting the speed and use of cars elsewhere. While I don't expect to see NC lead on that front, I'm surprised other U.S. cities, like New York, haven't made progress. There's no reason to have on-street residential parking in Manhattan, for example.
My understanding is that Carrboro has tried to lower the speed limit townwide to 20 miles per hour, but can't because of the DOT. Is this not the case?
Chapel Hill's sidewalks are terrible and/or nonexistent when compared to cities and towns elsewhere in the U.S. There are still a number of major streets (W. University, for one) near downtown that don't have sidewalks, or just have sidewalks on one side. There's a sidewalk repair/construction list, but the town hasn't made it a priority.
I don't understand. Why would you need a sidewalk on West University St? That would be a super low priority for me as it's entirely residential and doesn't have that much car traffic.
My neighborhood doesn't have sidewalks — low car traffic, all residential — and I would be PO'd if the town decided to put sidewalks in and rip up my pollinator garden.
Putting a sidewalk on West University would be a super dumb way to spend money, IMO.
I don't understand. Why would you need a sidewalk on West University St? That would be a super low priority for me as it's entirely residential and doesn't have that much car traffic.
My neighborhood doesn't have sidewalks — low car traffic, all residential — and I would be PO'd if the town decided to put sidewalks in and rip up my pollinator garden.
Putting a sidewalk on West University would be a super dumb way to spend money, IMO.
Agreed, if there's only a couple hundred cars a day on the road then you don't really need a sidewalk....there are better ways to prioritize that money.
European cities are in the process of banning cars from downtown areas, and limiting the speed and use of cars elsewhere. While I don't expect to see NC lead on that front, I'm surprised other U.S. cities, like New York, haven't made progress. There's no reason to have on-street residential parking in Manhattan, for example.
My understanding is that Carrboro has tried to lower the speed limit townwide to 20 miles per hour, but can't because of the DOT. Is this not the case?
I don’t think NYC has enough off-street parking for all the residents’ vehicles. At some point with AVs, I could see less vehicles owned by individuals, and more “called up” as needed for trips. Closing part of the squares there (Times, Union, etc.) is heading to that point, though.
Closing roads has side effects. Look at the impact to residential streets in SF ‘due to closing JFK Drive I’m Golden Gate Park. As I mentioned earlier, you need to consider all impacts/conditions to see if the benefit is worth the cost.
Regarding the 20 MPH, what is the goal, what are the “side effects”? Is there a problem that needs to be solved? (Not being specific to Carrboro’s request, which I haven’t been involved with, just mentioning all the things that needs to be reviewed, considered and weighed.)
My understanding is that Carrboro has tried to lower the speed limit townwide to 20 miles per hour, but can't because of the DOT. Is this not the case?
I don't understand. Why would you need a sidewalk on West University St? That would be a super low priority for me as it's entirely residential and doesn't have that much car traffic.
My neighborhood doesn't have sidewalks — low car traffic, all residential — and I would be PO'd if the town decided to put sidewalks in and rip up my pollinator garden.
Putting a sidewalk on West University would be a super dumb way to spend money, IMO.
First, West University is a high traffic street with a dangerous blind curve (it's a short cut to Franklin from S. Columbia). Many of the people who live in the neighborhood walk to school or work, and the lack of sidewalks makes it more dangerous than it should be. Would you allow your kids to walk on W. University to a friend's house?
Second, I think every street in Chapel Hill should have a sidewalk. If you go to towns and cities outside of the South, you'll find that residential streets have sidewalks, usually one on each side.
Third, we have plenty of money to do this, just not the will. Chapel Hill just committed $40 million (or more) to build a parking garage they don't need in the middle of town. I believe the money would be better spent on making the town better for people who actually live here, both current residents and people who move here, not car commuters.
In addition, the state has a $6.5 billion surplus, and the annual DOT budget is $5 billion. At present, the DOT spends less than 1 percent of its revenue on bike and pedestrian improvements, while it wastes money on traffic projects that will only increase traffic and harm our environment.
Obviously, there's a middle ground between a world in which the average person doesn't own a car (the same way that the average person doesn't own a pickup truck now), and our current two-car household (on average) status quo. I just think that Chapel Hill and Carrboro, of all places in NC, should move closer to a car-free environment, and putting in sidewalks downtown would be a good first step.
While the data differs on the magnitude, there's good evidence to suggest that a pedestrian hit by a car going 30 mph is several times more likely to die than someone hit by a car going 20 mph.
Carrboro would like to have a universal speed limit of 20 mph downtown in order to send a consistent message to drivers. Right now, having NC DOT roads with a 25 mph limit and town-controlled roads with a 20 mph results in many people driving well over the speed limit, particularly on S. Greensboro (which doesn't have sidewalks now, but will be getting some soon) heading into town. I don't know if the Google map is still right, but it shows S. Greensboro (off of 54) with a 35 mph speed limit, followed by a 20 mph speed limit once you get to town without any road cues. (Ideally, slower streets should be designed in a way that it's difficult to go fast.)
As you know, almost every year in Chapel Hill and Carrboro a pedestrian is killed or badly injured due, in part, to unsafe roads, many of them maintained by the NC DOT. While there are some plans in the works to fix that, it's obviously been a low priority for our communities and our state.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) and need "proof" that something makes sense before we'll support it. 
