INC NEWS - Let's talk about SAFETY only

Tue Oct 9 11:47:33 EDT 2007

Pedestrian activities, including simply walking, are *not* permitted on controlled access highways such as NC 147 or I-85. 

the Durham Walks! plan can be found here:
http://www.durhamnc.gov/durhamwalks/index.cfm

a committee to expedite the implementation of the Durham Walks plan has been formed and has met once, with another meeting scheduled for next week. Members include several city employees, and other concerned citizens. I can't speak for everyone on the committee, but my interest in this issue comes from a desire to reduce the number of trips people make in their cars by increasing both the perceived and actual safety of walking throughout the city of Durham. Many streets in the city lack sidewalks, for example, and many of those that have sidewalks are poorly designed. The sidewalk on the Duke St. bridge across I-85, for example, violates many principles of design for pedestrian safety, which is a contributing factor as to why nobody uses it. Yet Northgate Mall is within walking distance of several neighborhoods on the other side of I-85. For anyone living say, south of Murray st., walking rather than driving to the mall should be a no-brainer.

Numerous examples abound all over the city. 

Certain roads are and should be restricted to high speed motor vehicles. But the vast majority of roads belong to, and should be used by, all members of the community. Designing for the safety of those on foot, bicycles, or wheelchairs , rather than restricting people using those modes of transportation, is a baseline from which the city and county need to start, rather than a goal to which we aspire.

Unless we think Atlanta and Los Angeles are good models of transportation for Durham.

Barry Ragin
---- Mike - Hotmail <mwshiflett at hotmail.com> wrote: 

=============
Educate me, Barry.

I know that you personally spent several months (more than a year?) working 
on Durhams Pedestrian Plan as the representative from INC.   Can you distill 
some of it's recommendations for us?   I tried to find it on the City's 
website www.ci.durham.nc.us but couldn't.

I guess I'm still confused about the highway connection part of this.  What 
pedestrian activities are permited on the Interstate Highway System (I-85) 
and local highways (like 147) that you mentioned?  Aren't most of these 
'highways' located outside of Durham's city limits?  What are the specific 
regulations regarding what can and what can not be allowed on them?   How 
far do these regulations relate to on and off ramps?

It just doesn't make sense to me that someone (even with a permit) could 
walk out into traffic (ie 70 at the Miami 5 points intersection) for any 
reason other than to get out of the way!

But I'm willing to learn.

I thought that only vehicles with a minimum engine capacity were allowed on 
them (thus banning people crossing highways, mopeds, bicycles etc) to ensure 
seperate traffic flow from obstacles to it.

mike s.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <bragin at nc.rr.com>
To: "Mike - Hotmail" <mwshiflett at hotmail.com>
Cc: <inc-list at durhaminc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: INC NEWS - Let's talk about SAFETY only

> ""Do you believe it is safe to permit pedestrian activities* on roads,
> streets and/or intersections?" "
>
> With all due respect, Mike, that is the wrong question. Pedestrian 
> activities are already permitted on all except controlled access roads 
> such as the Durham Freeway or I-85. And Durham already has a pedestrian 
> plan in place, approved by city Council last year, which outlines how to 
> make our roads safer for pedestrian activity, as well as how to create a 
> pedestrian travel infrastructure which uses, but is not limited to, 
> existing roadways. Pedestrian activity of any kind is a legitimate use of 
> municipal and state facilities, and the real question is what should the 
> various levels of government with responsibility in this area be doing to 
> enhance the safety of those who choose to walk from one destination to 
> another.
>
> Barry Ragin
> ---- Mike - Hotmail <mwshiflett at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> =============
> good suggestion Newman!
>
> Let's stick to one issue at a time.
>
> This listserve was established years ago to provide folks a venue to be
> heard (as are a number of other neighborhood and community listserves 
> have).
>
> So I'll post this question with the hope that those people that are 
> members
> of this listserve will 'voice' their opinion(s) regarding what they 
> believe
> is a safe thing to allow or not.
>
> "Do you believe it is safe to permit pedestrian activities* on roads,
> streets and/or intersections?"
>
> *Pedestrian activities include anything other than the simple crossing of 
> a
> street by a person on foot trying to get from one side of a street, road 
> or
> intersection to the other side.
>
> Listserves are also meant to educate.    So................please post 
> your
> observations,  anecdotal incidents, related studies, documents or 
> ordinances
> from other municipalities that relate to SAFETY and PEDESTRIANS to share
> with others.
>
> With this background discussion we may then be able to move on to more
> specific topics, but not until then.
>
> Mike Shiflett
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Newman Aguiar" <newman at nc.rr.com>
> To: "'RW Pickle'" <randy at 27beverly.com>; <inc-list at durhaminc.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 10:09 AM
> Subject: Re: INC NEWS - right-of-way solicitation
>
>
>> RW Pickle wrote:
>> "I don't want to hear the "cell phone issue" again because if it
>> were that big of an issue, I'm sure the laws would change to protect us
>> all (not just City or County laws, but at a much higher level)."
>>
>> Perhaps, the news links below will help.
>>
>> http://www.webmd.com/news/20060629/driving-cell-phones-big-road-risk
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8545779/
>> http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=889064&page=1
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051209113320.htm
>> http://www.livescience.com/technology/050201_cell_danger.html
>> http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/08/16/cell.phone.driving/index.html
>>
>>
>> http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/cellphones/
>>
>>
>> http://www.cellular-news.com/car_bans/
>>
>> It is not my intention to begin a discussion on this subject.  Once 
>> again,
>> I
>> would simply suggest that we take the time to evaluate the veracity of 
>> the
>> safety argument.
>>
>> Cheers.
>>
>> Newman
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> INC-list mailing list
>> INC-list at rtpnet.org
>> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> INC-list mailing list
> INC-list at rtpnet.org
> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>
> 