Raleigh council declines to reopen Brookside Drive bike-lane decision, opts to "stay the course"

Councilmembers Tuesday decided not to reopen a previously approved redesign of Brookside Drive, keeping the fall decision to install bike lanes on both sides of the street.

The decision follows a multi-hour discussion in which Transportation staff described safety concerns tied to an unused second northbound travel lane and presented an alternative cross section that would add on-street parking on the west side and a two-way cycle track on the east side between Glasscock Street and Frank Street.

Staffer Bradley Kimbrell, of the Transportation Department, told council the review was driven by safety observations after Conn Elementary's reconstruction reduced the school drop‑off queue that once used the extra lane. "The reason we're talking about Brookside Drive is a safety concern," Kimbrell said while describing aggressive driving and vehicles accelerating to use an extra lane that no longer extends north of the Frank Street intersection.

Councilmember Branch, who initiated the revisit to respond to constituents who wanted some parking retained, said he convened resident meetings and asked staff to look for a compromise. "Some don't want parking, some want parking, some want whole bike lanes, some don't want bike lanes," Branch said, summarizing local differences of opinion.

The staff alternative included space for about 22 parking spaces, two travel lanes and a two‑way cycle track with narrower-than‑preferred lane widths. Staff estimated the revised cross section would cost about $40,000 and recommended implementation in summer to minimize disruption to Conn Elementary operations.

Several councilmembers said they were sympathetic to the search for compromise but remained concerned about the short length of the proposed two‑way cycle track and how cyclists would transition at the Glasscock all‑way stop. Councilmember Harrison said the short two‑block facility would force cyclists to make awkward crossings and called it "not a best practice," while others said they preferred the original plan to enable a longer, continuous corridor for the city's future bike network.

After discussion, council took no new action to adopt the staff alternative. As Mayor Pro Tem Ford noted, an advisory board — the Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Commission — had also sent a note in the prior minutes supporting the earlier council decision. Without a motion to adopt the new layout, the council concluded the prior fall vote remains in effect. "So we're just staying the course," a council member said as the meeting moved on.

The matter will remain on staff's radar as part of longer-term active-mobility planning; staff said a citywide Active Mobility Plan due later this calendar year will guide whether a two‑way cycle track might be extended in future phases.

Clarifying details: staff estimated the revised cross section at about $40,000 and proposed summer implementation to avoid school-year disruption. The proposed two‑way cycle track would be approximately an 8‑foot total bike zone (two 4‑foot directional lanes) plus a 2‑foot scribe buffer; staff preference remains two 5‑foot lanes with a 3‑foot buffer where feasible.

Ending: Councilmembers who opposed reopening the decision said the earlier unanimous fall vote should be honored; those who supported the new option said it represented a workable compromise for nearby residents. No formal vote was taken to adopt the staff alternative, and the previously approved plan for bike lanes on both sides stands.