115 replies to this topic

[thewhister]

orulz, on May 19 2006, 08:42 PM, said:

There was an interesting article in Thursday's N&O (plus a PDF map) about the completed Middle Crabtree Trail. This gives a 11+ mile long trail along Crabtree Creek. They also talk about future extension to Umstead, and the connection to the Reedy Creek greenway.

What a great map of that segment of the Greenway!  I hope the new Greenway map from the City will be that discriptive when it comes out near the end of the year.

[ncwebguy]

I was looking through the N&O's Wake County for something else, and found this story:

Link to greenway will avoid Meredith

A connector is being built from the Ridge Road / Wade Ave. intersection to the east end of the 440 bridge.  This is a win-win situation because
- the residents north and east of Merideth can get to the trail without having to go all the way up to Hillsborough Street.
- Merideth College will be able to keep the north gate closed and keep unwanted traffic out.

I didn't realize how important the second issue was until my girlfriend who teaches part time reminded me that it is an all-female school which lets students let their guard down with a perceived sense of security, and how this is tempting to some unsavory types.

A sidewalk along Wade from Blue Ridge to Faircloth will probably never happen, but walking through the shopping center is somewhat acceptable.  I have no idea why the greenway didn't go this way, and then up faircloth to continue east.

[carynative]

I can tell you that the right of way that the greenway uses to travel through Meredeth College was donated by the school to the state with the understanding that the state build the greenway using federal bike/pedestrian $$ and the city of Raleigh maintains it.

[danclever]

The Triangle Rails to Trails Conservancy has set up an online petition asking Durham City Staff and Officials to complete the American Tobacco Trail in Durham.  As stated in the petition, there are delays in getting the project moving.  As we all know, time is money…

Here is the link to the petition: http://www.petitiono...2/petition.html

You don’t need to be a resident of Durham to sign, but it would probably be good to describe how important it is to you to complete the trail.


As you may know, Wake should be finishing its portion of the trail this year or next.  NCDOT is overseeing completion of the trail in Chatham county.  The final gap may be in Durham.  In addition to the I-40 pedestrian bridge, about 1.5 miles of trail need to be built between 54 and Massey Chapel.  The remaining 2+ miles to Chatham county need to be improved.

[nadcock]

I heard on the news last night that all of the greenways will be connected so that you can ride a bike from DT Raleigh to DT Durham if you wanted. Sorry to upset any bikers but is this really necessary? Along with that huge pedestrian bridge over 440 does this seem like a waste of money that could be put to better use in public transportation?

I mean just the other day I wanted to try and take a bus from Edwards Mill Rd. to the airport and the estimated transit time was 1.5 hours! With the new greenways maybe I could ride a bike there faster! No wonder more people arent using the TTA buses.

[RaleighRob]

Well, keep in mind, no single entity is actually building a greenway from downtown Raleigh to downtown Durham.  No one would propose that.    

But...Raleigh has a greenway.  Cary has a greenway.  Umstead State Park has greenway/trails.  And Durham has a greenway.  All of them transverse pretty much the entire city/town/park/whatever.  (Or they will when they're finished.)
So...they figured, if I'm building a greenway from one end of my city to another, why not when it hits the border of my city with the next city over, we have them connect to keep things free-flowing?  
Just like when a state builds an interstate freeway up to the border, it joins with a freeway in the next state.  NC didnt' build I-95 from Maine to Florida, we built our part of it and had it join on the Virginia and SC sides.
Makes more sense when you think of it that way, doesn't it??    

Waste of money?  Not really...these aren't just transportation projects, but park/conservation too.  Not only will you be able to "bike from downtown Raleigh to downtown Durham", but you'll have a conserved green corridor that transects pretty much the whole Triangle.  That's an added plus!  

Edited by RaleighRob, 10 October 2006 - 01:17 PM.

[carynative]

keep in mind that the 440 bridge was build with mostly (80-90 percent)federal funds that could only be used for a bike/ped project as part of one of the federal transportation bills.  I think we got a very nice project for that kind of dough. If they hadn't build it, it would have gone to another state.

Also, while very few ppl will actually bike the entire length, think about how many will use short sections for recreation purposes or perhaps an alternative way to get from here to there.  Ever been on the Black Creeek Greenway (part of the interconnecting system) in Cary in the evenings, heavily used by both bikers and walkers.

[dmccall]

carynative, on Oct 10 2006, 04:09 PM, said:

keep in mind that the 440 bridge was build with mostly (80-90 percent)federal funds that could only be used for a bike/ped project as part of one of the federal transportation bills.  I think we got a very nice project for that kind of dough. If they hadn't build it, it would have gone to another state.

I'm not arguing or anything, but that's absurd that the Federal Government is in this business. This is the kind of work states ought to be doing for themselves.

[carynative]

i agree, but that's the way it is.  maybe that money could have been given to us for another road need, such as toward widening the beltline or I-40 btw. Wade and Crossroads. gotta love the politics.

Whether or not it should have been built, the bridge does look nice, especially with the lights the city installed (and maintains) on it at night.

[ncwebguy]

Federal money for greenways and trails comes from the gasoline tax.

18.4 cents is collected on every gallon of gas sold and sent to the federal government.   They then redistrubte the money collected for various projects.  The idea is that some states would sometimes need more in some years and less in others.  Also some states would not be able to build and maintain the highway system based solely on the fuel taxes collected in their state.

North Carolina has been a "donor" state -- put more in the pot than they draw back -- for years, because NC politicians in congress have not made their case for money.   And bridges need to be built in Alaska!

The "art bridge" was built with the "other projects" money collected by the federal fuel tax.  Similar bridges are planned for Cary across the new 1/64 corridor, and across I-40 in Durham to continue the American Tobacco Trail south through Southpoint -- between the Sears Automotive outpost and the HomeGoods big box area.  Why should the states be doing this when there is money collected and earmarked for this specific purpose?

[dmccall]

ncwebguy, on Oct 11 2006, 02:58 PM, said:

Why should the states be doing this when there is money collected and earmarked for this specific purpose?

Because this (building trails through the woods that either expressly serve locals or promote local tourism dollars) is not the purpose of the Federal Government.

Maybe we should take this argument back up to Philadelphia and duke it all out again.  

Edited by dmccall, 11 October 2006 - 01:05 PM.

[carynative]

I agree.  Let local municipalities or either the state do it.  I think our politiicans need to do a better job of arguing our funding needs in NC and help move us from the donor status to the recipient status.  Don't get me wrong.  I believe strongly that bike and ped transportation (greenways, etc.) is very important, however, I think that we have more pressing road needs (and by default, severe public transit needs).

[danclever]

carynative, on Oct 11 2006, 03:36 PM, said:

I agree.  Let local municipalities or either the state do it.  I think our politiicans need to do a better job of arguing our funding needs in NC and help move us from the donor status to the recipient status.  Don't get me wrong.  I believe strongly that bike and ped transportation (greenways, etc.) is very important, however, I think that we have more pressing road needs (and by default, severe public transit needs).

Why should federal transportation dollars only go toward highways, airports, mass transit?  The future ATT bridge over I-40 will serve an important transportation need (in my mind, pedestrians and bikes are a form of transit).  Eventually it will help bike riders from south Durham, Chatham Co and even West Cary ride safely toward RTP.   I'm not as familiar with the bridge in Cary, but it may also serve this alt transit need.

As for the bridge over I-440, I don't know that so much federal money had to go toward something so fancy.  I'm also not sure if it fits a big transportation need (yet).  But one could argue that bridges that are more recreational in nature do serve as mitigation to the effects of highways (i.e. make it possible to walk from one part of town to another without having to get into a car).  

Also, in the big scheme of federal earmarks, funding for bike/ped projects like these are a drop in the bucket.

[carynative]

I see your point and I think I wasn't clear.  I agree that bike/ped is a very important form of transportation, when it applies to getting a person from a to b without using their car.  However, in the case of the I-440 bridge, it serves primarily a recreation purpose.  In that case, the money should have gone to something more pressing OR it should have gone to installing bike lanes along a major commuter route, etc.

[Subway Scoundrel]

carynative, on Oct 11 2006, 04:55 PM, said:

I see your point and I think I wasn't clear.  I agree that bike/ped is a very important form of transportation, when it applies to getting a person from a to b without using their car.  However, in the case of the I-440 bridge, it serves primarily a recreation purpose.  In that case, the money should have gone to something more pressing OR it should have gone to installing bike lanes along a major commuter route, etc.

I see the bridge as the opening to the west side of Raleigh for many people who live inside the beltline.  From inside the beltline, it is hard to get to the museum, Shank Forrest and Umstead Park from Glenwood Ave over to Hillsbourgh St on bike.   With no bridge, people are basically closed out (or closed in) to either/or without the bridge, especially to Umstead.  

Your access points are closed in from Glenwood and Crabtree mall on one end which no one should be near a bike unless you are taking the greenway from CC Hills or North Hills Drive, then the next is Glen Eden which is a traffic nightmare, especially at Blue Ridge/Duraleigh.  No one would take Wade Ave on bike to get to Blue Ridge and if you go to Hillsbourgh and take the service road (Beryl Rd I think), you have to cross over somewhere by the arena or Blue ridge which is dangerous.   All ways are a deathtrap.  I lived near this area inside the beltline for most of my life and use to ride all the time and I never heading out due to no access.  If I went to Umstead, it was by car.

I agree, it is for the most part recreational, but I think that is the point as it is an opening to Umstead and the parks before there.   Not to mention, it is a nice bridge.

Yes, they could build a bike lane for work commuters but to be honest, it gets more use for recreational paths to the museum, Shank Forrest and especially the big one--Umstead Park.

Edited by Subway Scoundrel, 16 October 2006 - 03:33 PM.

[ncwebguy]

440 is a "wall" that is hard to get across in most of Raleigh, not just West Raleigh.  The bridge is a bit overdone with appearances, and is not too useful as is.  But when the trail to Ridge Road connector goes in, it will be a good alternative to non-Merideth College students who now have to go around to Hillsborough/Gorman which is a mess of an intersection itself.

When I went to NC State, I often biked to Crabtree via Dixie/Lake Boone/Ridge Rd/Glen Eden/Glen Eden Pilot Park/Blue Ridge/Homewood Banks.  The worst was crossing Wade with the "hump" and Blue Ridge without a bike lane or sidewalk, and CVM's parking lot.

Method Road is nice, but it doesn't really go anywhere.  Hillsborough Street and Lake Boone's 440 intersections are anything-but-automobile unfriendly, and the Glen Eden bridge is at the bottom of a valley that is hard to get out of on either side.  Western Blvd is better now with the trail, but the 440 ramps are still dicey.

[orulz]

ncwebguy, on Oct 17 2006, 02:37 PM, said:

Method Road is nice, but it doesn't really go anywhere.

Getting to / from method on a bike is a problem, because of the sharp angle crossing of the railroad tracks at Beryl. Rather than do this, before the Reedy Creek greenway, I would always ride down Method and use the Ligon Street tunnel.

Long-term, I think that the Beryl Road railroad crossing should be closed, and a new crossing opened at Method, directly across from the on/offramps to the inner (eastbound) beltline. While they're at it, they could close the (nearly unused) Royal Street crossing and extend Beryl along the tracks to intersect with Royal. It would be nice if the Method Road crossing could be grade-separated, but it would be a perpendicular crossing with good visibility so it's not 100% necessary. Perhaps this could be ancillary to the (scheduled but unfunded) I-440 widening between US-1/64 and Wade.

[carynative]

thanks for the insight. i guess never living "ITB" i didn't think of what a wall the beltline could be to bicyclists.  I guess the bridge is a good thing to remedy that.

[carynative]

Great article in the Lifestyles section of the N and O today regarding the future greenway connections in the area.  After reading it though, I don't know if it's really wise to have a greenway end at the intersection of S. Saunders and the beltline.

[RaleighRob]

^Why not?  Folks in South Raleigh deserve access to greenways as much as the rest of us.