Some try to revive Eno Drive

DURHAM -- State Board of Transportation member Ty Cox supports reinstating Eno Drive on the region’s proposed long-range transportation plan.

His statement, made at a public hearing Thursday, counters a vote he took as a Durham City Councilman several years ago when he opposed Eno Drive in any form. Cox served on the council for one term from 1994 to 1998.

"My position on the council was based on misinformation," he said to jeers from those in the audience who oppose all sections of the loop. About 50 people attended the hearing, and more than 20 spoke.

Last month, the Transportation Advisory Committee, which represents Durham, Orange and Chatham counties and their cities, voted to exclude Eno Drive from the proposed 2025 transportation plan. The committee also voted to make the popular, but expensive, East End Connector its highest priority for new road construction.

The East End Connector would link U.S. 70 and the Durham Freeway, providing loop-like relief for neighborhoods now cut through by commuters driving from north Durham to RTP and other points east, its supporters say. Some say it is a substitute for Eno Drive.

But Cox said after studying traffic issues as a Board of Transportation member he now realizes that the northeast section of Eno Drive, which would run from I-540 north to I-85 at Glenn School Road, is needed. He urged the committee to reconsider.

He also introduced a new proposal from the Greater Durham Chamber of Commerce for a continuing road north of I-85 to Roxboro Road near Snow Hill Road.

Cox was appointed to the board by Gov. Mike Easley. His term runs concurrent with the governor’s.

Eno Drive opponents said the vote to exclude Eno Drive should stand and urged support for the East End Connector, which could cost upward of $90 million. The connector enjoys wide support but has been put off since the 1960s because of its cost.

Most of the speakers, particularly those from the Duke Park neighborhood, which sits just south of I-85 at Roxboro Road, pushed for the connector. Those in support of Eno Drive also support the connector but say it is not a complete solution to north Durham traffic problems.

The Sept. 18 committee vote to exclude the loop brought Eno Drive supporters out to Thursday’s hearing.

John Dagenhart, who ran for City Council in 1997, said he moved from northern Durham to Trinity Park to escape traffic congestion.

"The no-build [of Eno Drive] makes no sense ... the East End Connector is not a panacea," he said. "It’s a safety issue."

Ambulances and other emergency vehicles have trouble navigating crowded northern Durham streets, he said.

Larry Holt, a longtime Eno Drive opponent, called Eno Drive a "pork-barrel project."

He pushed for U.S. 70 to become a limited-access road with fewer entrances and lights and perhaps a higher speed limit.

Durham County Commissioner Ellen Reckhow, after changing her position on the northeast section of Eno Drive and voting against it in September, suggested changing U.S. 70 as a partial remedy. The move would match Wake County’s plans, she said.

Cox added that the about $200 million set aside for the Durham loop in the state Highway Trust Fund might be lost if Eno Drive is excluded. The committee’s vote at the September meeting, which an out-of-town Cox listened to through a speakerphone, was hasty, he said.

Other regional planning organizations are depending on that section of the road to connect with Interstate 540 as part of a larger network, he said.

Copies of the 2025 proposal, which charts out transportation improvements for the next 20 years, is at public libraries and City Hall for public inspection.