Residents to take third look at neighborhood streetscape plans this week

We've had a couple of passes in the last few months looking at the neighborhood streetscape design plans for the five areas in the Bull City targeted for sidewalk, lighting, and roadway renovations.

Consultants from EG&G Group unveiled working drafts in the fall for the five districts -- plan that drew generally positive reaction from neighborhoods, though the follow-up meeting for the Fayetteville St. streetscape project brought some dust-up from local residents concerned, in the words of the N&O's Jim Wise, that '"improvement" -- or even "sidewalk cafe" -- sounds a whole lot like "urban renewal."'

Of course, these streetscape efforts are funded only for the planning portion; no construction funds have yet been found, though millions of dollars for the project are in the City's wishlist for Federal infrastructure spending as nearly ready-to-build projects.

Still, there's no time like the present to figure out what work should be done on these sites. Learn the latest on the project at one of these five information sessions:

• Fayetteville Street Project (Hayti Heritage Center, 804 Old Fayetteville Street), Monday, January 26, 2009, at 6 p.m.
• North Mangum Street and Corporation Street Intersection Project (UDI Community Resource Center, 800 North Mangum Street), Tuesday, January 27, 2009, at 6 p.m.
• East Main Street Project (Refiner's Fire Community Church, 1003 East Main St.), Monday, February 2, 2009, at 6 p.m.
• West Chapel Hill Street Project (Community Family Life & Recreation Center at Lyon Park, 1309 Halley Street), Tuesday, February 3, 2009, at 6 p.m.
• Angier Avenue and Driver Street Intersection Project (Angier Avenue Baptist Church, 2101 Angier Avenue), Wednesday, February 4, 2009, at 6 p.m.

Incidentally, if you're going to attend one of these meetings, you could do a lot worse for prepwork than reading local real estate development pro Tony Sease's critique of the plans -- for their failure to narrow the "curb-to-curb" space, leaving the roads themselves excessively-wide and likely encouraging high speeds discouraging to pedestrians, while also failing to provide room for plantings significant enough to offer cover to walkers and retail browsers.

Also, see our coverage of the Fayetteville St. and Angier/Driver plans from earlier this fall at BCR.

Comments

[Erik]

I didn't see a link to the City's homepage for the Streetscapes projects, so here it is in case anyone is interested:

http://www.durhamnc.gov/departments/eed/streetscape.cfm

[GreenLantern]

The thing to remember is that Fayetteville Street is a major connector from downtown to SouthPoint, it is not a neighborhood street. Scarce transportation dollars should be used for transportation, which means projects designed for improved traffic flow of cars. All the narrowing of roads in Durham aren't going to somehow create thousands of new pedestrian trips and cause most people to leave their cars behind. People are just too lazy to walk any more than they are doing right now, so no magic is going to happen by just having wider sidewalks. There are also side streets parallel to Fayetteville Street than can be used if people fear cars going more than 30mph. And BTW, where did we get this information? Where are the polls and data to support this position? What we are seeing is continued restriction of the flow of traffic in Durham by neighborhood interest groups that seek to force everyone off of cross streets onto sidewalks, bicycles, and buses which makes life more and more difficult for motorists. It's not going to happen. As far as the retail walkers are concerned, most of the retail establishments are located in small strip malls away from the street anyway.

As Durham grows, we continue to need wider, higher quality roads that are designed to handle increased traffic. One of the major elements is having more left hand turn lanes so traffic in the rear don't have to wait forever for oncoming traffic to pass through. The streetscape plans offer improved appearance, walkability, and improved traffic flow, within the limitations of frontage available. If you want more sidewalk space then you have to take more property through eminent domain--and that gets expensive. Fayetteville is a narrow street.

[KeepDurhamDifferent!]

Bulloney. People who use Fayetteville to get south simply haven't figured out how to use the Durham Freeway or Alston Ave.

[Retro Grouch]

Green Lantern seems to think they are not only an expert but can also foretell the future..

"All the narrowing of roads in Durham aren't going to somehow create thousands of new pedestrian trips and cause most people to leave their cars behind. People are just too lazy to walk any more than they are doing right now, so no magic is going to happen by just having wider sidewalks."

Nobody is talking about magic. The issue at hand is about creating urban infrastructure that takes into account all modes of transportation instead of only considering moving x units of car at y miles per hour which clearly leads to areas having severe problems.

Additionally, there are other issues to be considered than transportation, such as usage issues. Sometimes a place is a place, and not just an obstacle to get through.

I would propose that more businesses will be take a chance to open businesses if they aren't on a street that is more of an expressway than it is a street. For example, if Mangum was reverted to two-way traffic it significantly changes the streetscape and businesses will have a much easier time drawing people in–- either from cars, buses, bicycle, or foot.

Keep Mangum one way with ridiculous speeds and we'll continue to see vacant buildings, vacant lots, and under-utilized acreage.

GL said...

"What we are seeing is continued restriction of the flow of traffic in Durham by neighborhood interest groups that seek to force everyone off of cross streets onto sidewalks, bicycles, and buses which makes life more and more difficult for motorists."

uh, not quite. Nobody is being forced off roads or out of their cars. What is happening is the realization that it doesn't make sense to only consider moving automobiles at a 45mph or faster clip come hell or highwater. Moving automobiles efficiently is important yes but is only part of the picture.

This re-thinking will cause a slight delay for drivers yes... but we are talking about a delay measure in tens of seconds per mile traveled and in exchange all kinds of benefits come into play.

[Erik]

I'm assuming Green Lantern is just messing with us...