INC NEWS - East End Connector

[bragin at nc.rr.com]

Mr. Mayor and City Council members,

I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak once again before you
to the issues of traffic calming and pedestrian safety in the Duke Park
neighborhood, and their relation to the construction of the East End
Connector, between US 70 and NC 147 in eastern Durham County.

I must state that I was both surprised and disappointed at the nature
and substance of the discussion on Monday night.

When I am privileged to speak for the Duke Park neighborhood, I am
speaking for an ethnically, culturally, and economically diverse
neighborhood of over 750 homes, through which pass three major gateways
to downtown Durham: Washington Street, Roxboro and Mangum Streets, and
Avondale Drive and Alston Avenue. 

In short, Duke Park is both a microcosm of Durham, and the front door to
the city for many people.

It appeared that I was the only person in the room who had a
recollection of the 2002 compromise which led to the rejection of the
Eno Loop, and the adoption of the East End Connector as the highest
priority roadway project in Durham County. My inbox is still full of
messages from the period between August 2002 and March 2003 during which
this compromise was worked out.

For example, this editorial in the Herald-Sun, from January 20, 2003.
states:

Last year, Durham Mayor Bill Bell worked out what we
have dubbed the compromise of 2002. Bell persuaded
different groups that are normally opposed on the Eno
Drive issue to agree on a schedule for building
several traffic projects in the eastern part of
Durham. At a recent meeting of the regional
Transportation Advisory Committee, several community
members expressed doubt that the state Department of
Transportation would honor the compromise. 

The DOT could make a lot of Durham residents happy,
and help move this process along, if it would send a
signal that it will honor the compromise. The final
Transportation Improvement Plan, which we hope will
include the compromise, still needs final federal and
local approval. Local officials also will negotiate
the final TIP with the state DOT. 

Under the terms of the Bell compromise, the East End
Connector, joining U.S. 70 with the Durham Freeway,
would come first. U.S. 70 then would be widened to the
Wake County line, and Interstate 85 would be widened
from U.S. 70 to Red Mill Road. 

After those projects were completed, the Northern
Durham Parkway (formerly Eno Drive) would be built.
The parkway when finally completed would run from U.S.
70 at the Wake County line to Glenn School Road north
of Interstate 85, then run along Old Oxford Highway
and Snow Hill Road, ending finally at Roxboro Road. 

Durham is long overdue for transportation links in
this part of the city and county to support industrial
and economic development and residential growth. This
compromise would get the process started at long last.
Durham needs to present a unified front on this
compromise, and the DOT needs to honor it. 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

This news report followed at the end of March:

The Senate bill enshrines in state law a new route, called the Northern
Durham Parkway, which was hammered out over months in a compromise
between Durham leaders and residents and state transportation planners.
The Northern Durham Parkway arcs eastward from Roxboro Road, which
bisects the county north to south, turns south to cross Interstate 85
and continues down to I-540.

"Boy, is that great news!" said Ellen Reckhow, chairwoman of the Durham
County Board of Commissioners, when she learned of the Senate vote.
Gulley's bill amounts to a list of improvements that will relieve
traffic congestion in northern and eastern Durham, she said.

It is to be built in seven segments, in a specific order. The first
segment to be built under the compromise is the East End Connector, a
one-mile segment connecting U.S. 70 to the Durham Freeway. It would
provide a quick route bypassing downtown on the way from northern Durham
County to Research Triangle Park and I-40, supporters say.

The bill erases the old, long-resisted route called Eno Drive, which
drew a semicircle around the top of the county, starting from U.S. 70 in
the east and ending in Orange County in the west. The northern part of
Eno Drive went close to the Eno River -- too close for the taste of the
Eno's defenders in the Eno River Association, who said the road would
harm the river, its tributaries, the park, wildlife and nearby
neighborhoods. 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As I said, I was completely surprised to hear from an entire community
that the East End Connector was news to them. I was further surprised
that not one member of City Council, several of whom were part of the
process by which the "compromise of 2002" was achieved, spoke to this
issue. Is it truly possible that this community was ignored during the
creation of "the compromise?" If so, how was that allowed to happen?
These meetings went on for literally months at a time. This issue was
discussed at City Council, County Commission, various TAC meetings, and
in civic and volunteer organizations throughout Durham for much of 2002.
It was front page news throughout that time frame. How is it possible
that a major stakeholder in the process was not invited to participate?

I was also disappointed to see this turned into a racial issue, and
extremely upset to find myself being cast into the role of personifying
"white privilege." When I represented the Inter-Neighborhood Council on
the Durham Walks oversight committee, my main priority was to ensure
that the process was structured in such a way as to enable all of our
neighborhoods to benefit from these upgrades, not just those who had the
time and resources to successfully petition the city to move up the
list. I am tired of and frustrated by a process that continually pits
one neighborhood against another instead of identifying our common
interests (in this case, making all of our roadways safer for all of our
citizens) and making those our highest priorities.

I am disappointed that not one member of City Council spoke to the issue
of the compromise of 2002. I know that in addition to the Mayor, several
Council members were involved in reaching this consensus. If a major
stakeholder group was not invited to participate, someone from Council
needed to step up and take responsibility. If the residents of the area
to be impacted by the East End Connector were in fact invited to the
table five years ago, that needed to be said as well.

Those of you who were on Council in 2002, and worked so hard with the
various members of the community to create "the compromise" need to
stand up for the work you did back then.

Barry Ragin
1706 Shawnee St.

(the views expressed above are my own, and do not necessarily reflect
the views of the Duke Park Neighborhood Association, nor any of its
members.)