Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves feasibility study for safety fixes on Duke and Gregson corridors
Summary
Durham transportation staff opened a feasibility study into safety fixes for the Duke and Gregson corridors, confirming two‑way conversion is one option among several to reduce speeds and prevent serious crashes.
Durham’s transportation director briefed the City Council on March 13 about a feasibility study to address safety problems on the Duke and Gregson corridors, which staff identified as part of the city’s high‑injury network.
Sean Egan, Director of Transportation, told the council the study will evaluate multiple alternatives—including two‑way conversions, lane reconfigurations with bicycle facilities, parking treatments, and bus‑priority lanes tied to an emerging bus rapid transit proposal. “We’re going into this with an open mind,” Egan said. “Two‑way conversion will be one option, but we’ll be looking at other configurations to reduce speeds and the number and severity of crashes.”
Egan cited network data showing a small share of roads accounts for the majority of serious injuries and fatalities: “Ten percent of our roads are responsible for 74 percent of fatalities and serious injuries,” he said, adding that Duke and Gregson are prominent on that list. He said the study will also evaluate cost, schedule, and tradeoffs between near‑term pilots and long‑term reconstruction.
Council members urged urgency and interim actions. Council member Caballero and others said residents have reported recent severe crashes and asked whether pilots or temporary safety measures could be implemented before design and construction are complete. Egan and other staff noted coordination needs with the North Carolina Department of Transportation—many segments in the corridor are state roads—and said the study would assess NCDOT coordination and potential constraints.
Council did not take a formal vote on final design recommendations but authorized staff to proceed with the feasibility analysis and directed staff to report back with timelines and pilot options. Egan noted the feasibility phase will include community engagement and that staff will return with recommendations and cost/schedule estimates.
Ending
The council emphasized speed of response and asked staff to include near‑term demonstration measures where feasible while pursuing a year‑long feasibility and design process.
