I wonder if some sort of redesign should be considered as one enters downtown on both the north and south approaches? Signs alone aren’t going to slow the traffic.
At least the southbound approach has that S curve entrance, but is it enough?
3 Likes
Here’s a novel idea…ENFORCEMENT!
EDIT: I’m suggesting ANY enforcement. Periodic enforcement. Let people know it could happen. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone get pulled over on Dawson/McDowell.
1 Like
I agree that we should enforce speed limits. But I’ve always thought the best way to get people to do something you want them to do is to get them to also want to do that thing. In other words, don’t set a 45 mph speed limit and then design a road to accommodate 55 mph as NC DOT mandated on the last section of Tryon Rd to be widened. If a road is designed to accommodate 55 mph then people will routinely drive that speed and higher.
6 Likes
Totally agree, like the southern “exit” of downtown on Dawson > S. Saunders that’s 3 and 4 lanes wide, looks like a highway but 35 mph.
7 Likes
Exactly. There might as well be a giant green flag here waving 24/7.
7 Likes
Strong Towns is the bible on this topic.
Traffic enforcement is one of the most dangerous parts of being a police officer, and where most civilian - police confrontations originate from. Convert Dawson/McDowell from a road to a street, and the speed limit will enforce itself, and law enforcement can focus on larger problems.
5 Likes
With the new council members’ emphasis on environment and sustainability, is there any chance of pushing them to prioritize bicycle infrastructure for this term?
7 Likes
The best thing they could do is allocate more of the city’s budget to bike infrastructure projects with an emphasis on projects that fill gaps in potential bike infrastructure networks. The litmus test of whether or not they do so will be how they budget, not in new projects on the ground over the next two years.
Programming of bike infrastructure projects takes a good bit of time between approval, design, public input, bidding, and actual construction. Anything we see happen over the next two years will have likely already been in the pipeline prior to this election. A possible exception is roadway resurfacing projects where roads that are scheduled to be resurfaced and are also included in the City’s bike plan, may get bike lanes of some sort.
Keep an eye on the LWR project between Maywood and S. Saunders. This has the potential to be among the most transformative bike/ped infrastructure projects over the next few years. I believe council will have to approve the final design. Funding is supposed to come from the Parks & Greenways bond that passed.
10 Likes
Are there ways to accelerate the process for bike infrastructure? With a very brief amount of research I found https://finalmile.peopleforbikes.org/ which seemed to get a pretty significant amount of miles done. It just took a lot of money, and it was still a 2 year process. But 2 years for 115 miles in Austin’s case is pretty incredible. I’d be happy to volunteer, donate, whatever it takes to get that funding and speed of progress here.
5 Likes
Wow, kudos to Austin to commit $460 million to complete their bike plan by 2025.
I don’t have loads of time to respond right now, but here are some things you can do:
- Join Oaks & Spokes and donate as much as you can.
- Show up to city council meetings and express support for a bike network instead of just bike projects. This is huge. We have a city bike plan, but it is implemented based on which roads are scheduled to be resurfaced - it could be/needs to be implemented with an emphasis on completing networks, not just a random bike lane here and there. It also needs to be more of an all-ages and abilities plan - it currently is not.
- Express support for an e-bike incentive/rebate program.
- Show up to BPAC meetings and provide public comment. Tell us what you like, what you don’t like. Tell us your story of biking in Raleigh. How can it be better?
- Be supportive of city staff working on bike/ped improvements. These folks are dedicated, smart, and committed to improving biking and walking in Raleigh. They’re often working under constraints the general public doesn’t understand. As a result, they’re often in the crosshairs of criticism from both sides of biking issues. City Council is the seat of power and criticisms should be levied there - not so much at city staff.
13 Likes
I’ve been pulled over in both directions. Entering the south side of Raleigh on McDowell and entering from the north on Capital. Cops used to sit under that overpass (over McDowell and Dawson) but it was years ago. I remember I was doing 56 mph entering from the south because it’s extra bad to be both at least 15 mph over the limit AND over 55 mph… Oops. Lesson learned.
1 Like
My last speeding ticket was at the Western/MLK overpass leaving downtown on S. Saunders many years ago (the Street View I posted a few back) but I don’t see any of that IN downtown. They try to catch you at the transition, but not where the safety is needed (that I’ve seen).
Another idea is to bike. It doesn’t need to be a very far trip or be part of an event. Simply biking shows a demand for it. Bike when you can. I bike in part to show people that biking is something that can be done and is a legit way to get around. I biked to my voting place. The people asked about it and thought it was cool.
My coworkers know I bike to work. A few have asked about my ebike.
One of my usual hang outs with my close friend is biking. We bike to breweries, downtown, Clayton, Knightdale, and the NE Raleigh loop (Crabtree > Falls Lake > Neuse River > Crabtree).
11 Likes
Linking to @trueurbanist 's post/video about building better biking infrastructure. I watched the video (the main presentation is in English) and I think the points that are brought here are well discussed.
One of the points I like is that there is no need to build bike lanes everywhere. The discussion then goes on about having streets where bikes and cars can coexist. Part of this is achieved by lower speed limits (in the video they discuss 30kph or 18mph) and by limiting through access to cars in neighborhoods. This lowers the speed and car count.
In one of my other posts (link here), I show a map where I use neighborhood streets to get to downtown Raleigh via Five Points. The full route is not marked as a “preferred route” on the bike map (Raleigh Bike Map), but it is something I find to be very comfortable riding in both during the day and in the dark (since it gets dark at 5 now).
Part of the reason I’ve been thinking about this is that I do bike quite a bit and I am very mixed on bike lanes. In some instances I love them; In others, I hate them. Bike lanes are good in that they set aside a lane for people biking. The problem with the bike lanes is that it has given drivers this sense of privilege that the bike lane is for the bike and the road anything outside of it is for the car. I think a lot of people are aware that bike lanes are too close to parked cars and of course the door can swing right into a bike lane. If you leave the bike lane, then people complain because “people don’t use the bike lane”.
The other problem I have with a bike lane is that if you are meant to be in the bike lane, it is very difficult to do a leisure commute with a friend or spouse (8-10mph). Riding bikes is fun, but what fun is it if you aren’t able to carry a conversation? Bike lanes do not allow this.
Today I went on a ride with a friend. We rode along the greenway and on some neighborhood streets. Our goal was to meet up with friends for brunch downtown. I actually avoided streets that had bike lanes to get a feel of what it would be like to bike on a street without one. Instead of riding on Milburnie Rd, we rode on Glascock St. Throughout the entire time we were riding, we were able to ride side by side comfortably. Realistically I blame the low traffic volume as we were only passed by 3 cars. I do not think we’d be able to do this on Milburnie (without angering people) since one of us would have been outside the bike lane. We rode at a very leisure pace (8-10mph).
Part of the ride (Click to make it bigger).
Staying on topic, I like the video’s explanation of trying to lower car volumes and speeds instead of putting bike lanes everywhere. I love that this something that seems that it could be implemented quickly and less costly (although admittedly I don’t know). A single bike lane doesn’t provide enough space for riders. In an ideal world, we would have very nice separated bike lanes that allow 2 people to ride side by side either for passing or for a nice conversational ride.
I would be curious how other people feel about this. I’m not sure of a speed limit map of Raleigh but it would be interesting to see which streets have lower speed limits at 25MPH. I know there have been quite a few speed limit reductions.
Editing to add. Shifter had made a video a few years back discussing space between cars and bike lanes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fztvoxj_pds
4 Likes
Wider cycle infrastructure that allows for social riding is something we’re pushing for on BPAC as we review plans. You’re right, cycling is great fun and being able to have a conversation with a fellow rider adds a lot to the experience.
With regard to lowering car volumes and reducing speeds . . . I believe the speed limit on all downtown proper streets has officially been lowered to 25mph. New signage is not up yet due to a backlog in the city’s sign shop, but it’s on the way. Traffic signal timing has been adjusted accordingly on Dawson and McDowell. We’re also advocating for things like raised crosswalks and narrower travel lanes. We’re getting pushback from the city’s emergency services departments. They’re saying that raised crosswalks will reduce their response times. I find this frustrating because the whole point of raised crosswalks and similar treatments is to reduce speeds, which helps prevent crashes to begin with thereby reducing the need for emergency services.
The city is also looking at changing how traffic impact analyses are done for rezonings. We’ve traditionally used a level of service (LOS) assessment, which essentially assigns a letter grade (A-F) for how well car traffic will flow. “A” means lots of free flowing traffic, “F” means the opposite. The proposed new methodology is a vehicle miles traveled assessment (VMT). Essentially it looks at whether proposed new developments would increase/decrease vehicle miles traveled. Using LOS tends to result in streets and intersections that prioritize cars and end up being overbuilt.
6 Likes
Hi @Brian in keeping with my comments above your post, what’s the best way to submit comments to the BPAC team without going to the scheduled meetings? I don’t live downtown so it’s a little more difficult for me to get to the meetings.
I was doing some casual digging around and found that the text change TC-03-21 recently passed. I’m very sad and a annoyed this was passed as we actually lost bike lane size in the planning. According to the presentation (Click here), the following was changed and lost.
- Existing Avenue 2 Lane Undivided from 7 feet bike lane to 5 feet
- Existing Avenue 2 Lane Divided 7 Feet to 5 feet.
- Existing Avenue 3 Lane 6 feet to 5 feet
- Existing Avenue 4 Lane Parallel parking 6 feet to 5 feet
These next slides were a little confusing. I’m not sure if they were supposed to be showing Existing to Proposed.
- Proposed Avenue 4 Lane Divided 7.5 feet to 5 feet.
- Proposed Avenue 6 Lane Divided 7.5 feet to 5 feet
I also reviewed the document https://cityofraleigh0drupal.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/drupal-prod/COR22/TC-03-21-ORD.pdf
I don’t understand why we need to have bicycle and pedestrian facilities separated by a planting area. I’m not saying to remove the planting area, but I am saying to combine the two to be a full 11-15 feet. 5 feet is not big enough for people who would casually want to ride.
So far from what I’m expecting with this plan is we’ll probably get more bike lanes similar to what we see on blue ridge by NCMA where the bike lane is separated by the sidewalk. The sidewalk here is bigger than what is shown in the plan however. From my experience riding around, I see people using the sidewalk area when biking instead of the small bike lane. The same goes on Reedy Creek Rd. Instead of using the bike lane, I see group riders use the sidepath. Single riders use the bike lane.
I’m curious to know if this was considered/discussed. I want to bring this up with the BPAC group because with the current plan in place, once the new streets are completed, they probably won’t be changed for a long time.
I looked at other plans and to see what effect this text change has.
Blue Ridge Rd changes mention a multi-use path 
(Click here)
Atlantic Avenue mentions a multi-use path (Click here)
Six Forks Rd 
(Click here)
I do enjoy riding on Falls of Neuse sidepath as we can ride side by side.
4 Likes
Apologies for the delayed response. Had to do some digging on this myself.
Best way to submit comments to BPAC is to email the full group. There’s a link on BPAC site to email the entire commission, but be aware that you may not get a response. There are rules about us trading emails with the full commission - apparently it looks like we’re conducting commission business in a non-open way 
.
I don’t live downtown either so I know how inconvenient it can be to get to meetings. The BPAC Planning Committee is the group who looks at specifics of bikeway design, so if you have specific comments related to a specific project under review they are the best BPAC subset to contact.
I started on BPAC in March 2021. I don’t think TC-03-21 has come before BPAC since I’ve been on it. In fact, I looked back at all the old BPAC agendas and did not see TC-03-21 on any of them. The TC document itself indicates the document was reviewed by the Planning Commission, but doesn’t say anything about having been reviewed by BPAC. So I’m not sure what the history/background is on BPAC providing input on TC-3-21.
I can say with some certainty that the reason we lost bike lane size is because the bike lanes on the subject types of roads will now be placed behind the curb and not as part of the roadway. We’re trying to design for all ages and abilities, and unprotected, painted lanes do not meet those criteria. We still have to work within a given ROW size to accommodate all of the street elements noted. Reducing bike lane sizes so they can be built behind the curb is a tradeoff I’m willing to accept.
As far as separating bike and ped facilities - I’m not convinced that’s the best treatment for all situations. I’m a fan of multiuse paths (usually 10-12’ wide) - precisely because they allow for side by side riding. However, in some places - like along Lake Wheeler Road in front of Dix - I think keeping bike and ped facilities separate where possible makes more sense.
I strongly encourage you to share your thoughts on combined bike/ped facilities with BPAC. Infrastructure that facilitates side by side, or social riding, has gained a lot of momentum within BPAC just in the past year, but I don’t recall that we’ve heard any public comments demonstrating demand for such. We would love to hear that.
6 Likes
Thanks for the info. I agree that smaller – but physically separated – bike lanes are a worthy and needed tradeoff.
1 Like
Yes please - So many bike lanes around the city are used for street parking and leaf piles, making them useless. I would rather have a slightly narrower, but separated lane that people can not use as parking spaces.
7 Likes
So TC-3-21 came before BPAC before you came on but over the summer of 2021 the planning commission reviewed it and some of us ended up having some sort of “negotiations” with some of the developer members of the planning commission who felt the right of way necessary for some of the cross-sections was excessive so we worked with them to come up with a compromise to ensure support from the planning commission. You’re correct in your assumption that our take is that we wanted to keep the facilities behind the curb and were willing to accept a reduced width in exchange for a separated facility vs. an on-road facility.
The purpose of the planting strip is to hopefully encourage the city to provide street trees as they would be set farther back from the curb
5 Likes