Six Forks Road Corridor Study – Design Options

The Six Forks Road corridor in a way defines a unique sense of place with enhanced fluidity of movement, environmental sensitivity, and connectivity for residents, workers, students, and visitors using transportation modes of all types, including cars, bikes, pedestrian, and public transit. Six Forks Road is also a major transportation corridor that connects to the 1-440 beltline and is planned for future widening. Could the corridor relate better to the surrounding uses? Gives us your thoughts on the design options of the corridor study.


City of Raleigh Poll:
What is your address? (responses are private)
Poll Closed
City of Raleigh Poll:
My goals for the Six Fork Corridor are (pick your top 3):
A unique sense of place the builds on the area’s assets
18%
Improved traffic flow for cars and transit
69%
A healthy natural environment
17%
A place for everyone – pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders and motorists
48%
Active pedestrian lifestyle where I can walk to as many places as possible
43%
Improved safety and accessibility for everyone
44%
Attractive and inviting urban street
33%
Poll Closed | 379 Votes
Melissa EssaryAlready, the top vote-getter is "IMPROVED TRAFFIC FOR FOR CARS AND TRANSIT." Please listen to those of us who commute to work on Six Forks. By your own studies, it is dangerously congested and worsening every day. Adding bicycle lanes and sidewalks, costing millions upon millions, will not touch this crisis. It simply kicks the can down the road. Plus, with every new development approved along Six Forks, the City itself is pouring in more traffic. I don't mind development, but the transportation infrastructure should be put in first, and it hasn't been. Now is the time to catch-up, as painful as that is. Two new lanes of traffic are needed.
Reply Flag 17 Agree3 months ago
You may commute to work on Six Forks but many of us live on or near Six Forks and don't want it to turn into Capital Blvd. Highway 70 from downtown to Brier Creek is rarely larger than four lanes plus a median so why do we need six lanes on Six Forks? We don't.
Reply Flag 2 Agree2 months ago
Susan DonnI agree. People on or very near to Six Forks want to maintain some semblance of community, and we "don't want it to turn into Capital Blvd!" I understand from what I have read, "if you build it, they will come." Where now 4 lanes are congested, if there would be 6 lanes, those too would be congested in a short period of time.
Reply Flag 1 Agree2 months ago
We need a pedestrian bridge over Six Forks Road from the main North HIlls Building (movie theatre/Target) section and another one north of Carroll Middle School/retirement high rise.
Reply Flag 13 Agree3 months ago
I agree on the need for pedestrian bridges over Six Forks Rd. at North Hills and at Carrol Middle School. Surface pedestrian traffic across a six lane corridor is too dangerous.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
I prefer 6 traffic lanes.
Reply Flag 12 Agree3 months ago
Six lanes is an absolute minimum for even todays traffic. With population growing at todays pace traffic will soon strain six lanes. Raleigh's only strategy for coping with traffic growth has been belt lines ringed by larger and larger belt lines. In addition to making them too small and having to constantly upgrade them, is the e no thought was given to providing spokes to the belt line wheels that only circled the city. The Six Forks corridor is an example of a spoke that has been stressed to overload already. More strategic spokes should have been provided to balance the in and out of town traffic years ago. It is almost too late to dress it up like a beautiful French Boulevard now.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Pedestrian bridge to link both sides of north hills.
Reply Flag 7 Agree3 months ago
Separate bike paths will be amazing!

I'm just happy the way-too-narrow lanes are going to be eliminated.
Reply Flag 5 Agree3 months ago
Let Kane build his own pedestrian bridge.
Reply Flag 5 Agree3 months ago
A pedestrian overpass is very important at North Hills.
Reply Flag 5 Agree3 months ago
We need a pedestrian bridge over Six Forks Road north of the beltline and south of Carroll Middle School.
Reply Flag 5 Agree3 months ago
Developer Impact fees should be substantial as it those developers and their projects that care:

1) causing the majority of increased traffic

2) that will most benefit from the widening of 6-forks

Reply Flag 4 Agree3 months ago
The City is not doing its job by continuing to allow rampant building without putting the transportation infrastructure in place first. The more buildings and houses you allow to go up, the harder it will become for the city to lay on top of it any useful transit process. There MUST be more public transportation built in or the North Hills general area is going to very quickly become wholly impassable any day between 8-10 and 4-7. That can't be allowed to happen.
Reply Flag 4 Agree3 months ago
I live in a neighboorhood that is right next to Six Forks and have to commute on the road every day. The propsal to widen and add more lanes is very badly needed in the SF corridor area being discussed considering the amount of people who are living in North Hills now since the expansion of multiple new apartment buildings. The lanes are very narrow as well which cause people to unnecessarily press the brake possibly causing accidents along the corridor. I've witness this many times. Also as a runner who runs on Six Forks as well, there are areas where safety could be improved with more strategic placement of stoplights or crosswalks or even a median.
Reply Flag 4 Agree3 months ago
Just to be clear, I chose "improved traffic flow" for the transit, not for the cars. More pedestrian friendly, more bike friendly, and (eventually) more public transit friendly would be preferable. More lanes is only going to lead to more cars.
Reply Flag 3 Agree3 months ago
Need 6 lanes!
Reply Flag 3 Agree3 months ago
I prefer 6 lanes. We already have 4 lanes and I don't want my tax dollars spent to just make it "look better". I'd rather pay more taxes and even give up some of my property to get better roadways and safer intersections for all. Please think about the future. We are a growing community and growing communities need bigger and better improved roadways. My house backs up to six forks near the north lift intersection and there was a new accident last night. we need improved traffic flows. Please consider spending a fraction more for the 6 lane plan. It doesn't make sense to redo the current 4 lanes to just get new 4 lanes. Just saying
Reply Flag 3 Agree3 months ago
Incorporating cyclists on Six Forks will only increase the risk to motorists and pedestrians. You might as well allow horse and buggy, too.
Reply Flag 3 Agree3 months ago
The bike path and sidewalk is separate from the roadway - the bikes won't be "on" Six Forks.
Reply Flag 5 Agree3 months ago
I've never seen a cyclist on her cell phone on Six Forks.
Reply Flag 3 Agree3 months ago
She is probably to busy trying to stay alive.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Th street is too narrow from millbrook to north hills. Rush hour traffic is getting worse causing more congestion between Lynn and north hills. I cut through neighborhoods many times when I am coming home so that I can avoid the backed up traffic.
Reply Flag 3 Agree3 months ago
Having a turnout at bus stops would allow the right lane traffic to keep flowing, especially at high volume times. I'd also like to see a right hand turn lane onto Millbrook from southbound Six Forks. North Hills area is impossible to navigate as a pedestrian from the mall to the shops and restaurants on the other side of the street,
Reply Flag 3 Agree3 months ago
The problem with having bus turnouts is that with heavy traffic, it is difficult for the buses to then get back into traffic.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
The proposed improvements will actually decrease the level of service of this corridor! (Looking at Page 20) This means that the proposed improvements will make the road less efficient that it is right now, making it even harder to get up and down Six Forks road. Why spend millions of dollars on something that makes the road LESS efficient! However, there needs to be a walkway, bridge, tunnel to get from one side of North Hills Shopping Center to the other.
Reply Flag 2 Agree2 months ago
Six Forks Road bisects a thriving area containing shopping, restaurants and residential areas. It is essential that pedestrians are able to cross Six Forks safely, so, as more vehicular traffic flows through the area, a pedestrian bridge is necessary since it will not slow traffic while providing safety to foot traffic.
Reply Flag 2 Agree3 months ago
Braden RamageI understand that Six Forks is getting worse and worse everyday but the answer is not more traffic lanes. Has anyone ever been on Capital? 6 lanes and its always a mess. The only way to solve the traffic problem is investing in mass transit. A light rail would solve a lot of the problems that are facing Raleigh and North Hills.
Reply Flag 2 Agree3 months ago
Too much space on either side of roadway is being set aside. Bike path is nice, but do we need to dedicate 30 feet on both sides of the roadway for sidewalk, bike path and landscaping? And turning it into a boulevard? Nice looking, but does the median need to be so wide? This is a major thoroughfare for commuters to get from home to work. 6 lanes are needed. But you really don't have to take all that land from homeowners to accomplish it. (from our experience with Sandy Forks..... Lots of land eaten up.)
Reply Flag 2 Agree3 months ago
I agree! Would rather re-direct bike traffic to secondary roads in the neighborhoods adjoining Six Forks.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
This is not only a major thoroughfare but it also has established neighborhoods (like mine at Crestview) adjacent. We need a buffer between homes and the street surface. I am not interested in turning this into a highway.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
This area has many attractions and it would be fantastic to offer more access via biking, walking, and public transit. The events there are always well attended and can make parking difficult. Increasing mobility options would really help make it a more attractive destination for more folks.
Reply Flag 2 Agree3 months ago
I would bike to work instead of driving if it were safer. I know a lot of my friends would as well. If biking were a safer option, this would cut down on car traffic.
Reply Flag 1 Agree2 months ago
Walkover needed across six forks at north hills
Reply Flag 1 Agree2 months ago
there should either be a traffic bridge or a tunnel to allow for pedestrian traffic to cross from the mall to the new Harris Teeter side either over or under Six Forks. tunnel may sound unusual, but if you look at the actual topography, there is a natural indentation in the land where that new metal sculpture is located near CowFish and on the mall side behind that bank. The tunnel would probably be easier to build and ADA compliant.
Reply Flag 1 Agree2 months ago
I prefer 6 traffic lanes. The traffic study, I believe, did not take into account North Hills East, the new Kane proposed rezoning. The study for that project shows a massive increase in traffic congestion, leading to 21.5% increased delays (an earlier estimate was 46%). I believe the Kane proposal will pass. So moving the traffic has to be the priority.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
The 4-lane section, with further improvements especially a Millbrook, and landscaped median will maintain sense of community character and neighborhood integrity. The landscaped median will greatly improve safety, and improve through-put and level of service. Millbrook intersection, however, merits additional turn-lanes. That may be avoided if the Loft Lane and Snelling connections actually serve to capture some of right-turning traffic from Millbrook to SF (Snelling), and from SF to Millbrook (Loft). A true multi-use path that would serve both peds and bikes may reduce ROW needed, but separate bike lanes on both sides would likely be heavily used.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
high demand and density south of beltline that would like to walk to N Hills but not desirable options. dirty and narrow walks with exit ramps that seem unsafe for pedestrians or bikes. more access to pedestrian and transit crossing over beltline would keep less cars from having to drive to N Hills if better choices were available. also car congestion is difficult and forcing many to cut through the neighborhood streets.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
I think you've missed the mark with this latest proposal. Improved traffic flow needs to be your top goal here, otherwise you'll eventually constrain the economic opportunity of the area because potential midtown consumers just won't want to deal with the hassle. I can't believe for the small relative difference in cost, you wouldn't revert back to the six lane proposal. Also, how can pedestrian bridges not be a part of the final plan? Solves for traffic flow and pedestrian safety.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
kristydactylI see bicycling as a viable option to get through this area to downtown and also to access destinations in the Six Forks and North Hills business districts. I would use bicycle facilities on Six Forks to access grocery stores, my dentist, and businesses in the North Hills shopping center. Please give bicyclists safe facilities that are separated from traffic.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
Bicycling to work is a viable option for many, provided there is a safe route. I fully support bicycle accommodations on Six Forks Rd and would use it to access grocery stores, my dentist and other businesses in North Hills.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
A four lane option is an incredibly costly option that accomplishes nothing of value. The previously proposed 6 lane option accomplishes numerous objectives, including better car AND bus flow improvements. Those who both live and work in North Hills strongly encourage the Council to choose a strategic perspective in this decision - traffic will continue to increase from natural growth in North Raleigh and beyond - the thought that making less lanes will somehow fend off such a traffic increase is naive. We need to expand the infrastructure to accommodate this unavoidable traffic growth and improve the safety and quality of life for all those who either live, work and play - or all three - in the area.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
Meghan KofodThere seem to be 3 major groups concerned with this area: people who live here, people who visit/work here, and people who just drive through. Of course we are all concerned with traffic flow. As a resident, I have more than just that concern. It can take so long just to get OUT of the area, let alone through it and of course want it to be a safe place to walk and ride. Better offsets for pedestrians are essential, and who are we kidding with these painted bike lanes? There is a bigger picture than just this corridor though - Where are all the drivers coming from? Traffic flow needs to be addressed from the outside as well. It won't matter how wide you make the street if more and more people will be using it as a thoroughfare.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
The current new plan with 4 lanes will never handle the volume with the excess development already approved and
yet the cost is almost as much as the 6 lane plan. I believe restructuring only 4 lanes would be a waste of time and money.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
I have selected "place for everyone" because it's closest to my ideal choice. I would prefer, however, something that favors non-motorized tranportation while still accommodating vehicles for moving large things, and transporting many people at once. Cyclists should feel safe for once, something that really is NOT the case anywhere on Six Forks today.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
Please, please, please give us more and better bicycling options for getting around town. Thank you!
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
KevinW87I live right behind Harris Teeter at North Hills, and while yes, it would be attractive to have this beautiful setup that has been submitted, we need to think about improving traffic flow wayyy more than that. Let's focus on North Hills to be the attraction, not Six Forks. It is a road, let it be used for its purpose and increase to 6 lanes.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
I think there needs to be a balance between helping the commuters and helping alternative travel within the corridor. I would love to be able to ride my bike down the corridor, but currently the conditions are unsafe. As North Hills becomes more and more of a accessible community, steps will need to be made to ensure easy access for pedestrians/bikers who live in the area.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
Luther SnyderTraffic needs are paramount. The lanes are too narrow. Get rid of the red light camera(s) they are too dangerous. Between Lynn and Milbrook is a nightmare.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
As someone who works in Midtown and drives on Six forks daily, I think we must plan for the traffic that we already have and traffic that will be coming. SF is a major thoroughfare, and we should increase the road capacity to accommodate traffic. We are already over capacity and it is highly unlikely that people are going to get out of their cars and bike to work unless they live and work in the same area. Most commuters on Six forks come from the north of Midtown and are either going to 440 or downtown. The bicycle and pedestrian amenities are great, but we could save pavement by providing those amenities on one side of the street rather than taking up right of way to have them on BOTH sides of the streets. Standardizing the traffic signals and the transit stops will be a huge help as well.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
Eve (Frances) Vitaglione4 lane option
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Deborah SpencerSeriously - stop allowing more development. The Planning Department has allowed a serious and dangerous mess of traffic by continuing to approve new development when the roads are not equipped to handle the existing traffic volume. And the Planning Department continues to approve new development every day. It seems like safe traffic flow is the last thing anyone thinks about until it's too late. Dealing on a reactive basis costs everyone substantially more than the lure of additional tax dollars generated by new housing.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Although beautiful, both 4 and 6 lane options do nothing to improve traffic flow therefore do not spend 30+ to 40+ million dollars just for a face lift. Remember the wasted resources and effort spent on the DOWNTOWN MALL. Where is it now? Do not build Vast Projects based on Half Vast ideas.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Test comment
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Safety should be the most important element of design here. Six Forks is quickly become for a Raleigh a sort of second downtown and the people who live and work in North Hills need to be able to safely walk to and from places in their neighborhood as do the many shoppers, diners and visitors to the area. It's also a fact that Six Forks Road will continue to be a main corridor for people traveling east to west in Raleigh and the area needs to be able to handle a heavy flow of traffic. All of these concerns can be accommodated with thoughtful design and a strategic plan. What is most important as that all voices are heard in regards to what this important area of our city will be in the future.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Bill BarlowNorth Hills has been a huge regional attraction for several years but is quickly becoming a Satelitte City. The Kane development is growing based on the original North Hills East master plan, which is only now (Feb 2017) being reviewed with the update to the master plan and the proposed expansion. Beyond that there are other developable properties in this area that are outside the footprint of the master plan, so it’s a challenge accounting for that future potential impact with the North Hills application. It is fairly unreasonable to clip off an area immediately surrounding Six Forks and attempt to solve future traffic problems associated with this new Satellite City (e.g. bigger than Kane development). An origin/destination study is actually needed. The current proposed six (6) lane Urban Boulevard solution from Rowan to I-440 feels like a quick fix to accessing North Hills, which is reminicent of Crab Tree Mall debacle. FYI claiming the inside and outside lane will eventually become a Light Rail Transit service is wishful thinking without at least a conceptual design in hand.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
provide some safer crossings for pedestrians. Bike riders ride with the traffic and obey rules of road. dont remove traffic capacity that is already somewhat strained
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Those that want improved traffic flow need to reconsider why they choose to sit in their car in traffic. Building bigger roads with more lanes is not going to solve the traffic issue along this corridor. The ONLY way traffic will ever improve in this area is if more people choose alternatives modes of transit.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
North Hills was a major regional attraction but is quickly becoming a satelitte city - with no masterplan (Kane has a old masterplan but other site development is not associated with that plan). Clipping a ribbon around Six Forks and trying to solve traffic problems in the corridor is inadequate and misguided. A plan needs to be established for multiple ways to approach North Hills that reaches out to investigate origins to the destination. North Hills is on course to become another Crabtree Mall 6 lane traffic nightmare.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Seems like a lot of money to spend for a lack of improvement of congestion. Some areas already have six lanes (3 per side). Why not jsy fix the problem areas, such as Rowan to Millbrook, and make it a consistent six lanes to Millbrook, with cut out turn lanes on popular intersections, like Rowan, North Hills Drive, Cranberry and Sandy Forks. Budget for a pedestrian bridge to connect the two North Hills sections. Please remember that Wake Forest Road is as big a problem (F grade) if not worse than Six Forks and no money is budgeted for improvements north of 440.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Improved traffic flow for motor vehicles and even bicycles is at odds with pedestrian access and safety. No six-lane roadway is practical for pedestrians to cross at grade level. Only dedicated pedestrian facilities such as bridges or tunnels have any chance to prevent Six Forks Road from being the dividing line between two, basically separate, pedestrian zones. If we are to have it all; six travel lanes for vehicles and reasonable access for pedestrians, isolated pedestrian crossings will be required. Also, as a long-time bicycle rider/commuter I am not at all optimistic that bicycles will ever be more than a tiny fraction of Raleigh's transportation system. Furthermore, anyone even contemplating using Six Forks Road for bicycle commuting is a danger to him/herself and and a nuisance to others.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
would really like a rapid transit option to midtown and downtown from north area (i540 and beyond) - better timing on traffic signals - need left turn signal at southbound six forks on to Mourning Dove
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Any plans to widen Six forks further north (past 540)?
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
I think the opinions of those living within this corridor should greatly outweigh those who simply commute through. Their property value is not being impacted like ours. This is not a highway between North Raleigh and downtown. Question: why is there no neighborhood access improvement for Crestview? At present it is a much more substantial entryway than Windel. Also, I too think it would be neat to have pedestrian bridges for the North Hills area but I have never seen an accident and there is a crosswalk that works quite well. If Mr. Kane would like them, Mr. Kane should be allowed to build them. Not the city unless an advantage to citizens can be proven. I would also like to see native NC/Wake Co. trees and plants used if there are not additional costs associated.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
I am too embarrassed to ask what will the I-440 to Falls of the Neuse Corridor extension look like?
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
I like Raleigh, I have moved here TWICE. I came for a quiet SUBURBAN life style. Not an Urban one. Atlanta is a bad example of what happens when government and developers team up to create Urban environments. The residential areas suffer and suburban sprawl is accelerated. The City of Raleigh has promised but not delivered traffic impact studies and comprehensive traffic designs for months. Six Forks Corridor seems an easy and high visibility target to focus on to the detriment of designing a traffic strategy that enhances neighborhood living.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Six Forks Rd has been seriously congested and overcrowded for a while. It can take 20 minutes just to get down the street. There is traffic at all times of the day and if you value your life, it's not very wise to try to walk to shopping centers! We need changes that will allow people to feel safe in traveling and help those working here to get to and from work in a timely manner
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Tim Hess6-lanes with reduced center Island and reduced bicycle and pedestrian corridor is needed. See attached PDF Document.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
HendersonWe need an improved way to walk across Six Forks. A bridge perhaps.
Road expansion and infrastructure has to be considered as more high rise construction is planned for this area.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
We need ways for pedestrians to walk across Six Forks in a safe manner.
We need to expand the corridor to allow for the influx of the traffic that is only planning to increase as more construction ensues.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Zack MayI work in the new Bank of America tower and crossing six forks for shopping, dining or drinking has to be one of the scariest things on my list. Cars fly out of the shopping center with little regard to the pedestrians crossing, and people driving through north hills heading either north or south are typically focused on the lane changes and mergers more than they are people on the side of the street. It is an intimidating experience for pedestrians. A bridge or tunnel alternative to divert pedestrians off the main road would benefit both traffic and businesses in the neighborhood. People are more likely to venture around if they feel safe.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
There needs to be six lanes of traffic to handle the number of cars on Six Forks. Do not turn it into four lanes. Cars and bikes on Six Forks are not a good match. How many more bikers need to be injured or kill on Raleigh's roads. Between 3:00 and 3:30 pm you can count on hearing the emergency vehicles responding to first crashes of the PM commute. If you do anything, cut out the trees under the power lines, create a bike path off the road and fix uneven sidewalks. North Hills area traffic is a mess but that is what you get when the high density building is approved. The roads should have been planned first. Driving in other areas of Raleigh when I have seen similar plans happen, traffic is worst, bike paths are dangerous, trees and curbing that take up space that used to be for cars has created traffic back up. Just because it look nice does not mean it works well for traffic flow. This should not be a feel good project which it looks like is especially from the goals.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
I use Six Forks Road every day to commute to my job in downtown Raleigh. It is a transit artery, not only for those of us who live inside 540, but for thousands of people who live north of 540. Yes, I would like it to be "attractive & inviting", but maximizing the capacity of the space has to be your primary criteria. Otherwise, we are going to wind up with an very pretty parking lot for most of each day. PLEASE consider adding two more traffic lanes as your top priority.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
RocioWould love to see an improvement in traffic flow but not at the cost of more congestion. I agree we need more lanes for cars, not less. Commuting all over Raleigh has become a nightmare. Falls of Neuse, Six Forks, and Capital Blvd are parallel streets used by commuters travelling north of the city. Any improvements to these streets need to prioritize this commitment while beautifying their respective areas for the people that live there. If we're going to spend all this money today, we might as well do it right the first time. Why would you want to live in an area that will hold so much pollution from standing, commuter cars?
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
what ever reduces traffic congestion
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
The highest priority should be the six lane option to improve flow for the commuters. An integral part of that should be the timing of the traffic lights. The current pinch points are Sawmill and Newton, Lynn and Sandy Forks, and Rowan, Lassiter Mill, Dartmouth.) Shelly does not seem to have a high flow and North Brook has the crossing guard during certain times with lower flow at others, therefore excluded. There are days when one gets to stop at most if not all of these on the commute. There is a better timing design out there to help this problem. That area of Raleigh, except for some small infill, is built out. There should not be much of an increase in ADT unless the C.O.R. approves infill with high rise apartments and the like.
To encourage the biking and walking there should an 8'-10' multi-purpose trail on one side of the street with regular sidewalk on the other. It would at least give people the option. Although expensive, a tunnel or bridge in the mall area would be ideal to tie both sides North Hills together. That is where I see the main concentration of pedestrian activity.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
I think the separated bike lanes will encourage bikers and remove cars from the road.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
How many cars do you think it will remove? Do you have any kids? Do you bike them to the mall? Hardly any mother is going to bike their kids anywhere. Unless they live across the street or within a few hundred feet, they are going to load up the van and drive them.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Because of the high amount of traffic on Six Forks Road as it is, it seems that the plan with the most lanes for automobiles would make the most sense. The concern is that traffic accidents occur more frequently on Six Forks than the state average. Reducing to four lanes would cause longer commute times and increase accidents. It is important to have pedestrian crosswalks and safe bike lanes. I do not think the amount of lanes for car traffic should be reduced to accommodate a bicycle lane, however.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Choosing a four-lane plan over a six-lane plan is shortsighted. The traffic and congestion is only going to worsen as the area grows, which will eventually require another change. We can avoid revisiting this problem in another ten years by creating a well-designed, six-lane corridor now. Bicycle lanes and sidewalks are great, but frankly do nothing to address the current problem of congestion.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
6 traffic lanes is the only viable option. 4 lanes would cost nearly as much and a huge waste of money. Its so congested mornings and evenings already, and most of the the new huge office buildings aren't even complete yet. Traffic will be a nightmare once they are filled to capacity, especially without more lanes.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Gail WiesnerFour lanes would be lovely but will not work. That area has heavy traffic that would bottleneck horribly wothoit the six lanes..
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Impossible to enter/leave parking lots in morning and evening rush hours safely. People tend to ride in the center turn lane for too long a distance to be appropriate and end of up playing chicken head to head just to get across lanes to get in an out of the lots. Perhaps add cement barriers to force folks not to cruise in the middle lanes?
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
This area already encourages pedestrian traffic, now let's just make it safer. Also, this area is so accessible from Raleigh's greenway infrastructure, let's make it more so and safer for bicycles. Of course, in addition to safety, making the area aesthetically pleasing will go a long way to further encouraging pedestrian and cycle traffic.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
440 at North Hills should be a diverging diamond traffic pattern.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Stef MendellWhile nice in theory, it's simply not realistic to think that significant numbers of people can live near their work and/or bike/walk to everything. We do need better mass transit but we also need to accommodate the growing car traffic.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Prof. John PucherFrom Prof. John Pucher: I completely endorse the separate, protected bike paths proposed or both sides of Six Forks Road, separated both from the sidewalk and motor vehicle traffic. I also strongly endorse the planting of trees and shrubs on both sides of the road, as there is a desperate need for such greenery on Six Forks. I think it makes the entire Midtown area more attractive, and it certainly improves safety, convenience and comfort for pedestrians and cyclists. As I noted in my Dec. 17, 2016 op-ed piece in the N&O, this kind of separate, protected bike path is exactly what Raleigh needs to get more people on bikes, especially those who are concerned about safety, and especially for children, seniors, and most women, who strongly prefer such separate bicycling facilities, as shown by dozens of scientific surveys in both the USA and Canada. Here is the URL link to that N&O piece on how to improve cycling safety in the Triangle:
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article121456432.html

I am concerned, however, about the lack of appropriate intersection modifications to make it safer for cyclists. The current plan requires cyclists to cross intersections at the same time with pedestrians, and with no advance green light or walk light for either pedestrians or cyclists.

My own preference is indeed to have more intersection modifications, including median crossing islands, raised crossings (at the entrance to the shopping centers on both sides of Six Forks), advance green or walk/bike lights for pedestrians and cyclists (even if just for two or three seconds). There are many alternative infrastructure changes at intersections to improve the safety of bike paths and bike lanes.

In short, I very strongly support the design of the right-of-way (with separate bike and walking facilities on each side) of Six Forks, but my concern is with the intersection crossings, and how pedestrians and cyclists will be protected from right- or left-turning cars, which are by far the most dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists crossing intersections.
Prof. John Pucher
http://bloustein.rutgers.edu/pucher/
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
The original plans were very welcome, but it has gotten out of hand. We pass small houses with huge apartment buildings right behind them. The buildings are built and then sold, so local contact might be nonexistent. Time to reign it in.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Adding new lanes will not improve anyone's commute, please do not spend any money to widen this road. Induced demand will draw more traffic to the area, level of service will be the same as if the road was unwidened, and more traffic will spill over into the surrounding neighborhoods. Commutes will not get any better, in fact, the induced demand will make traffic outside of the study area worse, too.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Unfortunately, I was out of town when the public meeting on the revised Six Forks Corridor study was presented to the North Hills/Midtown Advisory Board two weeks ago. But I would like to provide my comments on the plan, especially since I wrote an op-ed piece for the N&O on Dec. 17, 2016 which commented on the proposed Six Forks Corridor Plan. As a professor of urban transportation for four decades at Rutgers University, indeed specializing in cyclist and pedestrian facilities, and being a resident of North Raleigh, I would like to offer these comments on the revised plan:

First, I completely endorse the separate, protected bike paths on both sides of the street, separated both from the sidewalk and motor vehicle traffic. I also strongly endorse the planting of trees and shrubs on both sides of the road, as there is a desperate need for such greenery on Six Forks. I think it makes the entire Midtown area more attractive, and it certainly improves safety, convenience and comfort for pedestrians and cyclists. So I am in support of it. I do hope that work on it can start soon.

Several folks on the CAB for North Hills/Midtown wrote me emails in response to my Dec. 17, 2016 op-ed piece in the N&O. One or two expressed concern that the intersection treatments were not sufficiently designed to make it safer for cyclists, but instead just requires cyclists to cross intersections at the same time with pedestrians, and with no advance green light or walk light for either pedestrians or cyclists. I really could not tell from the posted plan (both the old one and the revised one), what sort of intersection treatments are designed.

My own preference is indeed to have more intersection modifications, including median crossing islands, raised crossings (at the entrance to the shopping centers on both sides of Six Forks), advance green or walk/bike lights for pedestrians and cyclists (even if just for two or three seconds). As you know, the NACTO guide, and even more so, the Dutch cycling facility design guide (CROW), have many options for infrastructure changes at intersections to improve the safety of bikeways (esp. cycle tracks, but also bike lanes).

Most of the CAB members and city council are not at all aware of these technical considerations in intersection design. And I am wondering if you presented the CAB with the various options on intersection design at the public meeting two weeks ago.

In short, I very strongly support the design of the right-of-way (with separate bike and walking facilities on each side) of Six Forks, but my concern is with the intersection crossings, and how pedestrians and cyclists will be protected from right- or left-turning cars, which are by far the most dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists crossing intersections. There are SO many possibilities, and I'd love to know how they will be handled in your revised Six Forks Plan.

I also think that much more traffic calming, real traffic calming, reinforced with roadway infrastructure modifications (speed humps, chicanes, diverters, raised intersections, raised crosswalks, etc.) need to be introduced on the many residential streets leading into Six Forks. I discussed with via email with several CAB members from North Hills, and they responded that it was an extremely contentious issue, and that residents preferred driving at fast speeds on their own residential streets, no matter what problems that caused, instead of slowing things down via traffic calming and saving lives, reducing noise, reducing through traffic, reducing air pollution, etc. SHAME on every single resident who prioritizes car speed over the safety of their own and their neighbor's children, who are shown by all studies to be the main beneficiaries of traffic calming. It's truly disgraceful that neighborhood residents would rather risk the lives of their own children than drive more slowly. Shameful.

Again, I very much regret not having been able to make the CAB public meeting in the First Citizens Bank building two weeks ago, but I was at the beach all week.

I would appreciate it if you would please consider these comments in your further revisions to the plan. I wish so much I could have made that meeting to present my views in person. I probably would have gotten shouted down by all the car maniacs, but I think the city transportation department's plan is a good plan, exactly as I stated in my N&O op-ed piece on Dec 17, 2016, and my main concern is with intersection treatments, and how to protect pedestrians and cyclists from right- and left-turning cars.

Here is the URL link to my op-ed piece on cycling safety in the Triangle, including my comments on Six Forks:

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article121456432.html
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
stands a good chance of being a transit nightmare if not enough attention is paid to vehicular flow
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
I don't think the "highest & best use" of Six Forks Road is turning it into a mini highway with 5 foot sidewalks on each side. We need to build on the idea of North Hills - a walkable, inviting, higher density living area. As it is now, the sidewalks along six forks are downright dangerous to walk on and biking is also difficult. Do we really want to turn it into another Capital Blvd?
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Remarkably BAD idea to reduce lanes from six to four or to create further bottlenecks in one of the four major spokes from downtown; when the new traffic light system was installed several years ago, travel time from Strickland to Lassiter improved by more than 30% at rush hour both ways; this would send it backwards; Falls has gotten twice as bad during this time, and if you make Six a bottleneck, Falls will only get much worse; our residence is off Falls, but Falls has become so bad that we go over from Falls to Six to go downtown.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Remarkably BAD idea to reduce lanes from six to four or to create further bottlenecks in one of the four major spokes from downtown; when the new traffic light system was installed several years ago, travel time from Strickland to Lassiter improved by more than 30% at rush hour both ways; this would send it backwards; Falls has gotten twice as bad during this time, and if you make Six a bottleneck, Falls will only get much worse; our residence is off Falls, but Falls has become so bad that we go over from Falls to Six to go downtown.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Plans for roads, sidewalks, etc look great. My biggest concern relates to development on corner of Six Forks/ Millbrook up to Windel. And the proposed new road. I'm concerned about possible cut through traffic that would result on Windel (currently a quiet, residential street). I don't mind the urban design in the North Hills area but would prefer that not happen further north. Something like where Bonefish/ Panera/ etc is ok. But don't want multi story or high rise. Thanks!
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
I think it is unwise to add median landscaping and sacrifice lanes. The area is over -congested and is a traffic nightmare. If you don't increase the number of lanes and add trees and landscaping, you are missing the point. Trees have limbs that will break or scratch someone's car and will be a visual distraction, probably leading to increased accident volume. Please just widen the street, and leave well enough alone.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Adding landscaped median will improve appearance, improve safety, and improve throughput and Level of Service. Four-lane section will maintain character of the neighborhoods along SF between North Hills and Lynn. Multi-purpose path on both sides may reduce needs for as much right-of-way, but the separate bike lanes would likely see a lot of use. Additional turn-lanes, though, at Millbrook seems essential. Six-lane section turns Six Forks into Wake Forest and Falls of Neuse. It will then worsen over time, not improve.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
I'm concerned about the number of stoplights, the timing of them and the width of driving lanes (which the worst is falls of neuse) making it safe for drivers.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
I prefer 6 lanes on Six Forks for cars & future transit.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
If I could select as many goals as I have, they would all be important, except for the first one "A unique sense of place..." , because we already have that. All the others listed are important, with efficiency of flow, improved transit no matter how you're moving, and take care of natural surroundings.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
I support the original plan - Option B. I think it is important to have a beautifully landscaped corridor that provides a place for everyone (pedestrians, bicyclists, cars, and mass transit. If we have less lanes, than we need bus pull-offs to make mass transit work. I agree that we need bridge overpasses or tunnels to cross this corridor safely. I also feel that we have been over-developed, particularly in terms of the high rise buildings that just dump traffic onto our roadways. The failure to provide infrastructure before such sites are developed is a MAJOR concern.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Why on earth is there not a foot bridge over Six Forks?
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Concern for safety and backup of church traffic, daily and Sunday, exiting Terry on to Northbrook due to limited sight distance to see westbound traffic on Northbrook coming from Six Forks. Traffic will increase due to median on Six Forks preventing left turns from driveway.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Make the speed limit 40 MPH north of Rowan not 35 MPH.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Increase “smartness” of traffic light controllers in combination with lane sensors on Six Forks and side streets to detect lulls in traffic and provide short green lights for side streets without long waits.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Bikes and pedestrians share the path on greenways so they can share the path on Six Forks Corridor and save right-of-way.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Construct an underpass for Millbrook with up and down ramps leading to traffic lights on Millbrook similar to Interstate 440 over Wake Forest. This makes Level of Service delays all A(0.0) for Six Forks Road. This can also be done for Lynn Road when justified.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Measures are needed to ensure the safety of pedestrians crossing Six Forks at Dartmouth Rd.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Additional traffic lanes in both direction with more intuitive traffic flow/lane shifts will help those of us that travel Six Forks every day, multiple times a day (me!) co-exist with those that are less familiar with the area in a safe way. We need better pedestrian facilities and would strongly advocate a pedestrian bridge crossing Six Forks. My car has been hit and the current traffic flow is unsafe for vehicles and especially pedestrians. My family is unable to take full advantage of the many benefits of living close to North Hills due to safety concerns. Any solution should also provide a unique and welcoming streetscape to more fully define the North Hills area.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
The only thing that needs to be improved on Six Forks Road is improving the flow of vehicular traffic. Widening the road from four to six lanes would be the most appropriate solution.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
First and foremost I think we need to address the traffic concerns which will only continue to get worse. Reviewing the suggested proposals I am inclined to support the 6 lane option, but even that leaves certain intersections at quite long waits namely Millbrook Rd. and Six Forks. I love the idea of keeping the area attractive especially the North Hills area where there will be constant pedestrian activity, but not at the expense of making Six Forks less driveable during busy times of day.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Any money spent here should have commuters in mind. Adding bike lanes and more pedestrian traffic will just make the congested area more dangerous in my opinion. Instead of spending millions for bike lanes we could make these areas safe for automobiles first. Is there any reason why falls of the neuse isn't being considered too? I wonder how many side mirrors are lost where Falls turns into Wake Forest Road everyday.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Please put as many travel lanes as possible no bike/bus lanes are needed. Please!!!
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
That's a regressive way at looking at transportation. Assuming the black plague or a major recession doesn't hit Raleigh, the population is projected to keep on growing. Eventually you can't put any more lanes out there and will need to consider alternative transportation modes. Now is the time to do it rather than wait for total gridlock.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
Six lanes is the way to go! The landscaping/median idea is brilliant!
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
I currently avoid this road because of traffic flow and very poor maintenance. There are entirely too many potholes and pitted vents unlabeled with the road affecting my car alignment.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Wide lanes for good traffic flow is key...currently lanes ate too narrow for oversize vehicles and numerous distracted drivers. I would not favor any additional taxpayer funding for biking on thos stretch of road
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Need better pedestrian access to North Hills across the 440 bridge. There are a lot of new developments right over the bridge but walking to North Hills is dangerous with the current traffic/sidewalk configuration.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
A wide, attractive boulevard with trees in its median would be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood and help define it.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Charles C JonesStreets are for cars, trucks and buses. Any detriment to the traffic flow is a step backwards,i.e. 6 lanes to four lanes, longer waits at stop lights, etc.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
I do think we need enhancements, however people do not obey traffic lights or consideration for others in vehicles, will not go on thru lanes, tend to block intersections and are on the phone too much. Pedestrians continue to cross unsafely and with red on crosswalk lights and step into path of moving vehicles. I am all for better traffic flow, even if lanes are required, time stoplights better or put in a pedestrian bridge.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Where on Six Forks?
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Stop building high rises off of Six Forks that only increases traffic to this area. They are running out of room and squeezing buildings into spaces that can't handle the volume. Build elsewhere!
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Please do not widen this road...enforce the traffic laws more than once a month...
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
I like the idea of a bike path meandering through a landscaped area, possibly sharing space with pedestrians as on the current greenway system. Six driving lanes already are needed, but the real key to the future is less reliance on automobile traffic. The concentration of homes and businesses south of Rowan St is a prime spot for mass transit service. Connections to downtown, Duke Raleigh Hospital and the Wade/I40 West corridor would take cars off the road.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
I like the idea of a pedestrian bridge or underground tunnel, similar to the one going from the Duke parking garage to Duke Hospital. Why do bicyclists need their own lanes? Maybe they should be built into the sidewalk and not right beside traffic. I would never ride my bike on Six Forks even if there was a bike lane. As you can see, the bike lanes along N Hills Dr are rarely used and at some points are wider than the car lanes; it's ridiculous. I have seen more joggers in those bike lanes than bikes.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
The bike lanes are separate from the road on the side (see figure below)
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
Those bike lanes were poorly done, and they were ruined when the city decided to keep an on-street parking lane.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
A traffic signal is needed at Six Forks and Windel Drive because there are no traffic signals available for use by those living on the east side of Six Forks between Millbrook Road and Rowan.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Charles HamlinI do agree that there needs to be a light to assist southbound residents from the east side of Six Forks, but not there. A light on Windel will only encourage more "cut thru" traffic attempting to avoid Six Forks/Millbrook traffic signal which is only one block away. (IDK why someone would rather turn left across Millbrook and then turn left onto Six Forks rather than wait for one, or even two, light cycles at SF/MB) North Glen Drive is more centrally located between Millbrook and Rowan and already has terrible visibility for traffic attempting to exit the neighborhood there.
Reply Flag 2 Agree3 months ago
I live on Windel. Cut through traffic is bad now and only going to get worse, light or no light.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
#1) Adding an Exit between Fall and SixForks will greatly reduce the traffic on both street, plus direct access to North Hills East from 440.
#2) Build a tunnel under Six Forks to connect both sides of North Hills East and West...a basic tunnel or you can line the tunnel with shops.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
There is no need for raleigh to spend $55million dollars on this road.. look at where the accidents are ( they are near honeybacked ham), they traffic slows down for about 3hrs a day or less.. if you build a six lane road all you will do is increase the traffic to area.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago

My preference for the Six Forks Corridor is:

Option A - New Streetscape includes:

  • Consistent four-lane section through corridor

  • Narrower median with small trees and shrubs

  • Separated bicycle lanes

  • Wide sidewalks

  • Consolidated and enhanced bus stop amenities

  • Does not provide additional car traffic capacity

  • Requires 5.85 acres of right-of-way acquisition

Option B - Original Recommendation includes:

  • Consistent six-lane section through corridor

  • Wide median with large trees

  • Separated bicycle lanes

  • Wide sidewalks

  • Consolidated and enhanced bus stop amenities

  • Provides additional car traffic capacity

  • Requires 11.06 acres of right-of-way acquisition

City of Raleigh Poll:
Select One
Option A - New four-lane streetscape option
27%
Option B - Original six-lane recommendation
72%
Neither. I do not think anything needs to change on the Six Forks Road Corridor.
1%
Poll Closed | 342 Votes
Melissa EssaryI'm copying one of the previous comments, because it says it all:

The 4 lane option appears to spend $37,000,000 to beautify, improve access for pedestrians and bikes, and improve safety. It makes car travel considerably worse in the short term. Why would we spend 20% less than the original 6 lane option to make the problem of traffic worse in the area? With new developments already approved at North Hills and the impending growth on St Albans, there is going to be increased amounts of vehicles. Without a comprehensive and fast-acting new mass transit plan, we'll be back at the drawing board in 5 years wondering why we didn't go with 6 lanes. At that point, adding the lanes will cost more than the $8M saved in this plan. So we'll do the work twice, spend more money, create more traffic. The 4 lane option should not be an option. We need a 6 lane boulevard combined with an effective mass transit plan to create a gradual leveling off through the corridor.
Reply Flag 15 Agree3 months ago
Melissa EssaryOption B is absolutely the right choice. Option A should be sounded rejected, as it "DOES NOT PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CAR TRAFFIC CAPACITY."

Option B is simply catching up with where we already are--in a dangerously congested traffic corridor. While I recognize it's the more expensive option, it will provide for a better quality of living for all citizens.
Reply Flag 13 Agree3 months ago
More capacity= more traffic and lower quality of life. Option A and transit options please.
Reply Flag 10 Agree3 months ago
Braden RamageOption A and B are essentially the same in terms of bicycle lanes, wide sidewalks and bus stop amenities. I like the idea of a wide median with large trees rather than small trees and shrubs. Until Raleigh invests in light rail traffic is always going to be a problem. By creating 6 lanes, one lane on either side can be used for a light rail track. Come on Raleigh, get with the program!
Reply Flag 2 Agree3 months ago
Agree on the LRT point - but if I give 2 lanes over to cars now - we will NEVER get it back. If you reserve ROW for LRT I'm in, otherwise you are just fooling yourself.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Melissa, what do you mean, "dangerously congested"? Look at the traffic study - rush hour delays for the corridor add up to about 5 minutes. We're pretty low in the rankings nationwide for congestion, and our commute distances are longer than national average. We can do much more good encouraging people to reduce commute lengths, change patterns of driving than in spending 50 million dollars (of debt) for a project that will not come close to paying itself off.
Reply Flag 1 Agree2 months ago
The 4 lane option appears to spend $37,000,000 to beautify, improve access for pedestrians and bikes, and improve safety. It makes car travel considerably worse in the short term. Why would we spend 20% less than the original 6 lane option to make the problem of traffic worse in the area? With new developments already approved at North Hills and the impending growth on St Albans, there is going to be increased amounts of vehicles. Without a comprehensive and fast-acting new mass transit plan, we'll be back at the drawing board in 5 years wondering why we didn't go with 6 lanes. At that point, adding the lanes will cost more than the $8M saved in this plan. So we'll do the work twice, spend more money, create more traffic. The 4 lane option should not be an option. We need a 6 lane boulevard combined with an effective mass transit plan to create a gradual leveling off through the corridor.
Reply Flag 9 Agree3 months ago
Nate HumphreyOption B seems to provide us with a response to nearly every concern. Additional traffic/road capacity, integrated public transit in the outside lane, appropriately placed turn lanes, and separated bike and pedestrian facilities all work together to address the concerns raised throughout the planning process. I strongly support Option B and would maintain that its components work together to provide for greater corridor capacity, encouraging alternative methods of travel, and increasing safety for all in the corridor.
Reply Flag 7 Agree3 months ago
Luther SnyderOption B. Better transportation = better living.
Reply Flag 7 Agree3 months ago
6 lanes will make 6 forks feel like Capital blvd. More traffic will quickly fill the lanes. No thanks. 4 wider lanes with turn lanes would improve flow without making it a 6 lane speedway.
Reply Flag 7 Agree3 months ago
Exactly - there are 3 lanes in each direction on the 440 belt line right now. Do we need Six Forks to become the same thing?
Reply Flag 2 Agree3 months ago
the wide median, wide sidewalk, and greenery will help a lot
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Road widening cannot be the only idea to handle ever-increasing congestion. We cannot keep up. Some additional mass transit options must be added to move people around in the densest occupied parts of the city.
Reply Flag 7 Agree3 months ago
I'd support the six lane option if that third lane were dedicated to transit vehicles. People don't like to ride buses that get stuck in the same traffic as single occupant vehicles. The buses need to provide a time and frustration savings over driving alone.
Reply Flag 6 Agree3 months ago
the meeting on 3/21 was a scam.. it was completely directed at showing how bad the 4 lane plan was not showing the options and letting the public make the decision. this meeting was just a plan to get the 6 lane option approved.. with the small delays in traffic each morning and afternoon there is no reason to spend $55 million on this project. if you widen this road all you will do is invite more cars into this area which will in turn just make it as bad as wake forest rd and other 6 lanes road..
Reply Flag 5 Agree3 months ago
This is spot on. Keep at 4 lanes, or put down a BRT. Too much traffic. We need options other than sprawl and stop lights.
Reply Flag 3 Agree3 months ago
That's a ridiculous accusation. City Council wants the 4 lane option (why the original 6 lane concept was not approved) - if the city engineering/planning department and the consultant wanted to make this an easy process, they would have figured out ways to push the 4 lane concept so that it would be over easier. I think they did a good job of showing both options, the pros/cons with factual information, and letting the public give their input.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
There is absolutely no way a six lane road will be conducive to walking and biking.
Reply Flag 5 Agree3 months ago
Agreed. Six lanes would turn this corridor into a lousier version of Capitol Blvd without the adult bookstores.
Reply Flag 2 Agree3 months ago
Hear hear
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
Hear as well.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Both options will involve better facilities for pedestrians and cyclists (thumbs up!) but only one option will also increase vehicular capacity for residents of North Raleigh/North Hills. Option B, the Six Lane option is the one to go.
Reply Flag 5 Agree3 months ago
kristydactylHow many hours a day are six lanes needed? There are better ways to manage congestion during peak periods - including providing options for walking, bicycling, and taking transit. A six lane road with 100 feet of crossing distance would further separate the community that already has segmentation issues between the east and west sides of the road. More lanes may mean more people driving through, but it doesn't foster a thriving community node that better supports mixed use developments and the people who reside there. The four-lane section with the addition of new transportation options compliments the hard work by the city that has gone into the creation of this area as a real place, balancing people traveling by foot, bike, and throughput of motor vehicles.
Reply Flag 4 Agree3 months ago
I live on the west side of Six Forks within walking distance to Harris Teeter but I currently drive over there because it's to dangerous to cross Six Forks. If you want to reduce traffic put in a pedestrian bridge over Six Forks and people like myself won't drive on Six Forks nearly as often. Adding more lanes is not the only way to reduce congestion. Americans need to get with the program and stop adding sprawl to accommodate their unhealthy life styles.
Reply Flag 1 Agree2 months ago
I chose option B, but none of them introduce sustainable plans for mass transit that would address the fact that even six lanes might not be enough in 20 years. For people to really want to ride the bus, they need to have some kind of rapid lane option reserved for them or the benefit of getting out of their car is lost. I do think that it's really important to have separate bike lanes with a physical buffer, not just a line on the road, between bikers and the cars, so I appreciate that part of the plan.
Reply Flag 3 Agree3 months ago
If car loads are an issue (most folks would agree that they are in this area) then offering bicycle lanes and increased public transit could help alleviate car congestion. Designated bike lanes and increased public transit amenities if done intentionally could really help alleviate car pressure here. Also the wider the street gets the less attractive the "place" becomes and the harder and farther it is to cross the street on bicylces or by foot. I really appreciate the mixed-use development going on at North Hills but it feels like we've reached car critical mass already up there. Please don't defer to all the motorists by giving more car lanes and destroying the ability for this to be a dense development that is capable of being alternative transit friendly.
Reply Flag 3 Agree3 months ago
Anybody who thinks the 6-lane option will fix traffic is fooling themselves. At most it'll be a 10-20 year short term relief from the traffic in Option A, and then the traffic problems will return due to population growth and development along the corridor. I would like to see the City and the consultant present a presentation of how long it would take the 6-lane option to degrade to traffic levels that the 4-lane option has and figure out whether it is worth spending money for short term traffic relief. Eventually 6 lanes will have to become 8 lanes and 8 lanes will become 10 lanes if traffic capacity is the driving factor etc.....
Reply Flag 2 Agree3 months ago
This "improvement" to Six Forks needs to extend much further North than just the Northhills area. At a minimum it should go up to Lynn Road as during rush hours... that is where traffic starts backing up...!
Reply Flag 2 Agree3 months ago
The plan goes up to Lynn Road I believe......
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
The original reason for the corridor study was to improve traffic flow, as well as make it safer for pedestrians, the handicapped, bus-riders, and bikers. While I can appreciate the city council wanting to save money and possibly aggravation with buying out homeowners, it would be irresponsible to just "improve" the current configuration of street without accommodating more traffic. I already drive through the Lakemont neighborhood to avoid the worst of Six Forks, and to find a safe place to turn left onto Six Forks. The 6 lane plan will actually allow me to find a much closer place to turn left than I currently have, which would reduce neighborhood traffic. It will also reduce the amount of time I have to crawl up Six Forks in rush hours just to go one mile. Considering the growth of the area, with 68 people moving to the Triangle every day, and Kane making Six Forks/North Hills even more attractive, we will only have an increase in people, not a decrease or stabilization. If the road is kept to 4 lanes, within 10 years, we will have to come back, and waste more money to widen the road, if it's not done now. The difference in cost is minimal compared to the increased value, safety, and better traffic management that the extra $8M will achieve. Please go ahead and widen and improve Six Forks, instead of insisting on keeping it (and in some cases, reducing it) to 4 lanes. Thanks.
Reply Flag 2 Agree3 months ago
Wait, so you cut through residential neighborhoods to find a convenient turn?

Try not to run over any children please.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
I second that. How much time do you really save by being a hazard in Lakemont, which has curvy streets rather than being laid out in a grid pattern?
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Six Forks was designed to carry a high volume of vehicular traffic, and although no one particularly likes the idea of widening the roadway, if we let the overcapacity exacerbate and cripple and corridor, then drivers will get off six forks and be speeding thru all the neighborhoods. Those streets are NOT designed for capacity so lets keep the cars on Six Forks, make pedestrian an bicycle options appealing like they are in both plans, standardize the transit stops, and create a median with pedestrian refuges. This will do a lot to create a safer and more pleasant driving, walking and cycling experience on the corridor.
Reply Flag 2 Agree3 months ago
I hate skinny lanes!!
Reply Flag 1 Agree2 months ago
do it once, do it right and then do it on Fall of the neuse Rd too.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
I support the original plan - Option B. I think it is important to have a beautifully landscaped corridor that provides a place for everyone (pedestrians, bicyclists, cars, and mass transit. If we have less lanes, than we need bus pull-offs to make mass transit work. I agree that we need bridge overpasses or tunnels to cross this corridor safely. I also feel that we have been over-developed, particularly in terms of the high rise buildings that just dump traffic onto our roadways. The failure to provide infrastructure before such sites are developed is a MAJOR concern.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
Mr Kane has profited by over developing the area, so let him pay for improvements to the infrastructure.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
Option A is short sighted and does not provide the infrastructure for a growing area like North Hills!
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
More lanes is how to resolve the traffic issue BUT not at the expense of lane width. Please don't make the lanes narrow like Wake Forest Rd.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
I don't like any option or choice. A is too narrow and not a solution, B does not need to have a wide median and large trees, it waste lane space and the trees will be a problem to see how to drive and maintenance of them and doing nothing or making improvements in C is not the answer.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
Favor the six lane option. Minimum lane width should be 11 feet.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
11 feet is incredibly wide for a surface street, especially in a corridor like this (encourages speeding, etc).
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
This area is growing rapidly and the 10' lanes (9' in some locations) is not nearly adequate for the current traffic nor expected volumes. I do not understand the logic behind spending $37 million to make traffic worse.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
Traffic in the corridor is already bad and will get much worse given the new construction already underway. It's a poor expenditure of public money on right of way, design and construction that only achieves bike lanes for the few elite that will use them and that does not relieve the already existing dangerous vehicular traffic. I have to drive Six Forks Road to get to and from my home to work and am to old to ride a bicycle.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
Our family prefers to bike/walk/take transit for as many things as possible - right now this corridor makes that impossible. Anything that can be done to improve safety for bikers and pedestrians is my preference. I like Option A and think it will lead to more traffic calming. I like how both renderings include a bike path. Anything that can be done to increase the barrier between the bikeway and the road is desirable (trees, buffer, etc)
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
I lean towards the 6 lane option because I do not live in close distance to the area, but I enjoy driving to visit. The North Hills area is great to visit, but the traffic in the area sometimes keeps me home or visiting elsewhere. Improving traffic flow makes the area more attractive to people like me who have no choice but to drive.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
North Hills already is crowded with too many cars, but traffic to get there is not terribly bad. I don't think we need to add additional car capacity.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
Deborah SpencerOption B.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Deborah SpencerPlease stop the Planning Department from approving new development. It seems the traffic in Raleigh/Wake County is always in a reactive mode. The Planning Department continues approving new development when the road infrastructure does not exist. Please stop approving new development. We need to deal with the huge mess of dangerous traffic that we deal with currently.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Deborah SpencerMake it a safer area to move through in traffic. The Planning Department has allowed a mess to evolve and now we, the taxpayers must pay to fix it. STOP approving new development. Six Forks is dangerous yet it's the taxpayers dealing with the after effects of poor planning. Fix this mess and stop allowing future messes in traffic volume.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
six lanes with less median, no separated bike lane . do it with 5 acres of extra right of way. Where in Raleigh do we have a separated bike lane that is used much?
Bikes are vehicles that need to obey rules of the road.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Timothy TresohlavyDrivers will find their own way. Travel time will increase. These are insignificant problems.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
More lanes means it would take longer for pedestrians to cross the street. Additional capacity does not translate into less congestion
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
You need to go back to drawing board in the North Hills area of the corridor south from Rowan to Beltline. The genesis of the plan was to reduce traffic congestion and increase driving safety because Six Forks is already above capacity and has an accident rate nearly triple the state average. The 6 and 4 lane plans fail to address those objectives for Rowan to Beltline section. The status quo is not acceptable when history shows personal injury is at stake. The status quo is not acceptable when North Hills is one of the fastest growing commercial and retail centers sure to attract more traffic and longer sitting at lights. Instead, be bold. Rethink traffic engineering for the Six Forks intersections with Rowan, especially Lassiter Mill and Dartmouth going south. Existing land uses should not be sacrosanct.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Option B seems the lessor of the evils proposed. But remember Manhattan (which is the density level to which the City Council wants to take us) ultimately had to resort to public transportation and even after that it is still an unlivable mess. Why do you think all those Northerners want to move to Raleigh? It is probably not our Southern charrm! it is a more livable, affordable place for a family to be. I'll take Mayberry over Manhattan any day.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
What did the genius who came up with the Uniform Development Ordinance plan to do about traffic?
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
The current lanes on Six Forks are very narrow, which makes for hazardous driving, especially since we live in an age where drivers are distracted and easily drift because they're on their phone. Additionally, Six Forks is always congested in the mornings and evenings so it makes access to 440 or 540 time consuming for business commuters. Lastly, it is quite risky for pedestrians to cross Six Forks, especially at North Hills. Despite the presence of cross walks, there isn't enough time given to cross the street, and drivers turning onto Six Forks do not always yield to pedestrians. They either don't care because they're in a hurry, they are distracted while driving, or they are looking one way to make sure they are not turning into oncoming traffic, but aren't looking the other way (i.e. in front of them) where pedestrians are crossing. As a frequent pedestrian in the North Hills area, I often don't even feel safe standing near Six Forks waiting for the pedestrian walk sign because there is so much traffic. Pedestrians could easily be hit with debris or by a car if there was even a fender bender at an intersection so I try to stand pretty far off the road when waiting for the walk sign.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
There needs to be six lanes to handle the cars.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Need six lanes due to traffic congestion
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
More lanes generally means more traffic. Additional turn lanes and some kind of diverging diamond traffic pattern at 440 entrances and exits at North Hills, seems like it would solve a lot of the hold up near there. Most people are always trying to get to their far lanes after getting off 440, which slows the traffic.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
I want the 6 lanes, but recommend modifications to the Plan B. Keep the median width to the more narrow one in Plan A. Why so much space for trees? Give the added space to an area that is active like sidewalk, bike lanes or car lanes.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
La Toya HardinI like the six lanes of option B, however I do not the wide median and wide sidewalks are necessary. Narrower sidewalks and medians should be an option especially if the wider options require 11.06 acres of right-of-way acquisition.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
please do not even consider a light at Windel. It will make it a cut through. And that is NOT SAFE for residents.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Six-laning SF turns SF into Wake Forest Road and Falls of Neuse; and will only worsen over time.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Concerned about the infrastructure disturbance/costs to relocate existing development that runs alongside Six Forks rd.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
leave out the bicycle lanes.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
We should not pretend that demands for capacity will not increase. This is a growing city. Make sure we accommodate the new people coming every year. But ensure cycling is encouraged and pedestrians are safe.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Unfair number of selections. None are practical. 6 lanes are needed, but not all the land is needed to accomplish this.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Greater use should be made of nearby streets in order to reduce the vehicle count on Six Forks Road.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
I see many comments about utilizing public transit. However, I have never seen a city bus even a quarter full. Increasing funding for improved public transportation sounds like a waste to me. Interesting idea brought up by someone else to get rid of the big buses and use smaller passenger vans. As a homeowner along this corrider, traffic is a disaster already with cars blocking the intersections outside my neighborhood, and will only get worse if the lanes are decreased. Not to mention what a mess it will be during the whole transition! The middle median seems like a waste of space.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Daily DRX rider here. Always at or near capacity.

Trying to reconcile the first half of your statement with the second. Traffic will only get worse OTB without transit options.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
City of Raleigh Poll:
Please provide any additional comments or feedback.
Closed for Comments
Three things: public transportation, public transportation, public transportation. If you don't do it now, it will never happen. Do not allow us to become Atlanta or Charlotte.
Reply Flag 19 Agree3 months ago
This. Enough with the sprawl and gifts to developers. Let our taxes benefit the people, not the ones trying to race through our community.
Reply Flag 5 Agree3 months ago
Yes! I'm from Atlanta and I'm seriously considering leaving Raleigh because they're going down the same dangerous path of letting developers dictate everything.
Reply Flag 4 Agree2 months ago
Nate HumphreyOption B seems to provide us with a response to nearly every concern. Additional traffic/road capacity, integrated public transit in the outside lane, appropriately placed turn lanes, and separated bike and pedestrian facilities all work together to address the concerns raised throughout the planning process. I strongly support Option B and would maintain that its components work together to provide for greater corridor capacity, encouraging alternative methods of travel, and increasing safety for all in the corridor.
Reply Flag 9 Agree3 months ago
The original six lane option makes the most sense and is consistent with improving bus transit as well.
Reply Flag 7 Agree3 months ago
Thanks so much for your work on this! I'm extremely excited to see this implemented and absolutely cannot wait to bring our bikes down and avoid using our cars for weekend shopping trips! This will be a massive improvement to the incredibly car centric infrastructure currently in place. It's vital we design our roads for all users and critical that Raleigh steps up to offer these transportation options for residents. Thank you!!
Reply Flag 5 Agree3 months ago
A subway (or equivalent) is what makes good cities great. New York City is a dream to move around in. Los Angeles is a nightmare. Don't let Raleigh become another LA, this is the wrong era for that poluting, sprawling mistake. And I really think it's now or never. Act on this need, get it down. It has never been a bad decision for any growing city that has done it!
Reply Flag 3 Agree3 months ago
BRT on Six Forks! Strickland to at least North Hills!
Reply Flag 3 Agree3 months ago
In contrast to more pedestrian friendly places like Chapel Hill and Carrboro, attention needs to be drawn to pedestrians. Walkways should be clear, with pedestrian diamond signs pointing. Particular importance for right turn lanes and signs indicating drivers should yield to pedestrians.

Secondly, there are many parts of north Raleigh without sidewalks. Sidewalks would vastly improve the walkability especially between/beyond bus stops and reduce the danger of pedestrians who still traverse these roadways.
Reply Flag 3 Agree3 months ago
Option B is most optimal
Reply Flag 2 Agree3 months ago
Please use a bus shelter design like the ones you showed in the original Six Forks Corridor Plan photos. I think the new red bus shelters recently shown in the N&O are an eye sore. I really loved the look of this corridor as presented in the original plan. I also wish the Urban Blvd section was more like the Parkway Blvd section in terms of landscaping. It provides more of a calming effect.
Reply Flag 2 Agree3 months ago
It is extremely difficult to provide useful public transportation in a city designed like Raleigh. Unless we are willing to impose taxes raising the price of gas to about $10 per gallon, we should not sacrifice automobile lanes for transit-only lanes.
Reply Flag 2 Agree3 months ago
Nice job.
Reply Flag 2 Agree3 months ago
I think we have reached capacity at the development that is happening. I'm all for change but not for congestion. Enough!
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
Where is the plan for Rail along this corridor. If you aren't planning for Rail, then we aren't doing City planning. Its like 540 and 440, why would you put that much money into it without a long term plan for public transprotation along what is clearly a main corridor from downtown to wake forest and beyond
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
Really need good ways to get across Six Forks from the Lakemont/Carroll Middle/North Hills East side to the North Hills/Lassiter side -- options that are safe for pedestrians, students and cyclists.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
Moving forward make sure that everyone is aware (especially council members) that the 4-lane option will actually reduce lanes that we are using now. I think there is a lot of confusion out there, that the 4 lane plan will not impact traffic negatively.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
It's interesting that people want to build a bigger road so they can sit in MORE traffic. How idiotic. Do ya'll really think a 6 lane road is the answer? It isn't. By the time 6 lanes open to traffic, it'll be too small and overcrowded. People will think, "OOOO MORE LANES == LESS TRAFFIC." That's not how it works, especially not here. The most important thing that Raleigh can do to alleviate traffic in this area is to force people OUT of their cars! We need other modes of transit in this area, not just more lanes for more cars.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Growing up, I rode my bicycle or city buses to public schools in Norfolk. There were no school buses and students bought discounted tickets which helped support the municipal bus system. People lived closer to their jobs. Rather than cul-de-sacs, we had through streets which were closer to one another so there were usually alternative routes. The city did not sprawl as it does now. Mothers did not have to work, put kids in day-care, and pick up dinner on their way home. We have really created an enormous mess. Option A addresses none of these issues, solves no congestion problems, would induce few, if any, people to ride buses or bikes to work, would worsen quality of life for most people and would cost a lot of tax dollars which could be better spent.
We do need better mass transit and better streets. We do not need to degrade our streets to force desperate people to move or just give up. We need to provide people positive options and not have elitists dictate that they ride buses or bikes. Our bus service is really poor for most people, but simply putting more buses on the roads in a poorly thought out manner makes congestion worse.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
developers get major payoffs while we get bonds/taxes to solve the problems they create - make them pay
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
RocioI feel for all the neighbors being affected by the widening of Six Forks but we need to awaken to the fact that Raleigh has been put on the 'Great City Destination' map and we've become a city of choice for working and living. What this means is plain to see every time you try to commute anywhere AND anytime, a trip that would normally take 10 minutes is now taking double that because of congestion. We cannot stop people moving here from other states, just like we can't tell all the developers you can't built here, so we do WHAT we can and expand our streets WHILE we can in order not to be another NYC or Boston.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Whether you like it or not, North Raleigh is a sprawling single family subdivision filled with commuters. We have to make that the SIX LANE OPTION the priority with provisions for walking, biking, and buses included.

The answer is as follows;
SIX LANES.
SYNCHRONIZED TRAFFIC LIGHTS.
MULTI-PURPOSE TRAIL ON ONE SIDE.
SIDEWALK ON THE OTHER.
BUS STOPS.
TUNNEL AT THE MALL.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Looks like a balance with traffic being a top priority, and pedestrian/bike traffic worked in is what everyone wants to see.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Having bike lanes that are apart from the road will greatly increase the number of people who cycle to work/shop and will decrease car traffic. Thank you for making this happen and listening to the people. We will be healthier, more active and productive Raleigh because of these efforts.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
La Toya HardinI think we should use a place that incorporates the vision of the city of Raleigh, in that it is all welcoming and a place for everyone to include pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders and motorists. I also believe most of the cost of these type of project should be the responsibility of the developers building in the area bringing in more traffic.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
need a pedestrian bridge or tunnel from mall side to Harris Teeter side. tunnel would work where the metal sculpture is under six forks to the back side of that bank. could even get rid of the right turn lane that has no light on six forks.
Reply Flag 0 Agree2 months ago
Braden Ramageption A and B are essentially the same in terms of bicycle lanes, wide sidewalks and bus stop amenities. I like the idea of a wide median with large trees rather than small trees and shrubs. Until Raleigh invests in light rail, traffic is always going to be a problem. By creating 6 lanes, one lane on either side can be used for a light rail track. Come on Raleigh, get with the program!
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Close off some of the right hand turns into areas that already have six forks access. For example, Northclift neighborhood has 2 right hand turns (going south on 6 forks), Killington Dr and northclift Dr - which has a stoplight. Close off Killington Dr to reduce right hand turns, reduce cars cutting through the neighborhood and force neighborhood traffic into making safer turns onto Six Forks from the Northclift Dr stoplight. The Food Lion shopping center is another good example.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Public Transportation??? There is already adequate mass transport on Six Forks. (How many riders do you see in taxpayer subsidized busses during rush hour?) Besides, busses in North Raleigh do not go where they need to go. Example: How about an express out to RTP. Current bus time is twice car commute, even on a bad day. Why would we use it?... and this route does not use Six Forks, so no impact, no need to accommodate more busses.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Taxpayer subsidized transit? Try to find the price tag "fortify" is costing us; all for to pleasure of replacing the taffy the DOT's crony construction agency laid down last decade.

Speaking of 40, take a look at the green buses passing you on to breakdown lane during rush hour. That's why you should use it.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Luther SnyderPublic transportation will not solve this problem. Cars are here, people will not just ride the bus, they will drive. We do not have the compacted density (neither does Charlotte) to support.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
Charles C JonesStreets are for cars, trucks and buses; anything to impede the traffic flow is harmful,i.e. 6 lanes to four lanes, longer waits at stop lights, etc.s
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
streets are for people - children, old folks, bikers and motorists, anything that kills 40,000 people a year should be severely curtailed - i.e. 4 to 6 lanes, faster travel lanes, ect.

40,000 people per year dead.
Reply Flag 1 Agree2 months ago
Control and make better use of the space already provided instead of adding lanes...how many residents will have to move because this will cut into their homes?
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
There is a lot of talk about mass transit, for those discussing this please take a look at the bus next time you ride/pass it on the road. They should sell the busses and use 12 passenger van, that way only 10 seats would be empty. Traffic will increase, I am not opposed to 6 lanes but what is going to happen to all of the folks along the creeks that will have to carry the additional runoff? Raleigh has a big issue with this and roadways do not retina very much water. Oh well, there is always Granville County to move to.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago
If more than 2 people are riding the bus, they are already doing their part in removing cars from the road. The #8 bus from Strickland Road to downtown has a decent ridership during rush hour.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
The DRX is always filled to the brim.
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
Buses being empty isn't necessarily a sign that people don't want to use transit; it's that we've created a transit system that is inefficient and doesn't go where people want, and we currently don't have the density to fill every single bus. We also give no priority to buses in traffic, so taking the bus becomes much slower than just driving (and we all know how expensive it is to own and maintain a car)
Reply Flag 1 Agree3 months ago
For people asking for public transportation, the 6 lane option would be great if at some point bus rapid transit were to be implemented along the corridor as the right of way/pavement would already be there.
Reply Flag 0 Agree3 months ago