INC NEWS - [dukepark] East End Connector

[bragin at nc.rr.com]

Mr. Mayor and City Council members,

I'd like to add the following article from the June 27th, 2002 edition
of the Durham Herald-Sun to my original comments. It needs no further
explanation.

Support growing for East End Connector
City officials plan to push for the project, a bypass around Durham

  By C.D. KIRKPATRICK : The Herald-Sun
  Jun 27, 2002


----- Original Message -----
From: bragin at nc.rr.com
Date: Wednesday, February 7, 2007 10:59 am
Subject: [dukepark] East End Connector
To: council at ci.durham.nc.us
Cc: dukepark at yahoogroups.com, inc-list at DurhamINC.org

> 
> 
> 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 
> Parkneighborhood, 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 
> gatewaysto 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 
> whichthis 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 
> NorthernDurham Parkway, which was hammered out over months in a 
> compromisebetween 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 
> DurhamCounty 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 
> DurhamCounty 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 
> theEno's defenders in the Eno River Association, who said the road 
> wouldharm 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, 
> andin 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 
> issueof 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 
> areato 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.)
>