Back in the US and following up from our call. I think these were the points I mentioned (listed roughly in order of time sensitivity):
- Fayetteville Street bike lanes project blocked. Project website: https://www.durhamnc.gov/3681/Fayetteville-Street-Bicycle-Improvements. BPAC letter: https://www.durhamnc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/52581/Sept-2023---Removal-of-Fayetteville-Street-in-CMAQ-Bike-Lane-Project-by-NCDOT. Should have folks from the community that we can connect you to if you’d like. My latest info on this as of a few days ago is that NCDOT has in some meeting acknowledged that they didn’t communicate well about this, but also claim the BPAC letter has some facts wrong (we have yet to hear what is incorrect).
- US 70 east study. Two designs have been offered, both of which increase car speeds through the corridor. Our basic premise is that there isn’t enough justification for building out this corridor for car throughput over local accessibility and safety, especially since the east end connector was completed and we know many developments are going up in this area. BPAC’s initial letter on this topic: https://www.durhamnc.gov/DocumentCenter/View/49553/January-2023---US-70-East-Concerns-and-Recommendations (we’ll be considering writing a follow up, possibly in tandem with Bike Durham).
- Multiple public comments over the last few months about sidewalk gaps. 2 specific types of issues: (1) sidewalks that are outside of city limits but within county limits, nobody is responsible for construction. (2) it’s too easy for a development to use payment-in-lieu to avoid building a sidewalk (we’ll be trying to change this with the UDO update). We have folks from the community who’d be happy to talk to you about each of these).