ckirkpatrick@heraldsun.com

Oct 23, 2002 : 9:14 pm ET

DURHAM -- Little more than a month after a regional transportation committee voted to kill Eno Drive, Durham’s transportation staff has revived the controversial road by placing it on the same committee’s long-range road plan for the area.

Durham, Orange and Chatham county officials serving on the regional Transportation Advisory Committee are developing a 2025 long-range transportation plan. The plan must meet federal air quality standards with the total cost of the projects closely matching transportation revenues expected to come in over the next 23 years.

Eno Drive opponents applauded a near-unanimous vote on Sept. 18 by the same committee to remove the loop, also called the Northeast/Northwest Connector, from the 2025 proposal. The TAC has the final say about what the long-range plan includes and will vote on a final proposal that will then undergo a 42-day public comment period.

The on-again, off-again status of the road has frustrated Eno Drive opponents, with the Durham staff’s latest proposal a victory for those who feel some version of the road is needed to solve northern Durham’s traffic congestion and to promote continued growth.

Mark Ahrendsen, Durham’s chief transportation planner, said future needs of northern Durham and the region require some version of Eno Drive to be built.

The proposal mirrors a Greater Durham Chamber of Commerce plan from several years ago that includes the traditional northeast section of the loop from I-540 north to I-85 at Glenn School Road. A new route runs to Roxboro Road north of Snow Hill Road along an improved Old Oxford Highway and on a new extension.

This plan is seen by some as friendlier than the original route preferred by the Department of Transportation, while still offering relief for northern Durham, including Treyburn Industrial Park with its 900 undeveloped acres.

The proposal removes any trace of the northwest section of the loop, which environmentalists worried would pollute the Eno River and Eno State Park. But those groups, including the Eno River Association, still oppose the Northeast section because they believe it would inevitably lead to the northwest section being built.

The 2025 proposal, which will be further refined and voted on by the TAC in two weeks, includes $6.4 billion in projects, including regional rail and bicycle paths, but with only $5.46 billion in estimated revenue expected from all sources. The difference is about $904 million.

Ahrendsen’s staff suggested making up most of that with a local $20 increase to the vehicle registration fee and increases to the gas and vehicle sales tax. But some TAC members said such tax increases must be approved by the General Assembly and are long shots. A plan can be approved with the shortfall, Ahrendsen said.

The 2025 plan is already three months behind schedule because of a consultant’s delay in developing a computer model. That delay means the region will be out of air quality compliance for about three months next spring, possibly causing some roads projects to be stalled.

Some TAC members were surprised by the insertion of Eno Drive back into the 2025 plan, and the move incensed Eno Drive opponents who were at the TAC meeting on Wednesday morning.

"This back room deal is outrageous," said John Schelp, an opponent and the president of the Old West Durham Neighborhood Association.

Members of the committee wondered if U.S. 70 were widened to a limited-access freeway, whether there still would be a need for the northeast section of the loop. That project is in the long-range plan proposal, but a traffic computer model has not been run with an improved U.S. 70 as a variable.

Eno Drive opponents hope that new computer modeling will show that the northeast section of the loop is not needed with an improved U.S. 70 and the popular East End Connector in the equation.

"I would like to see some additional modeling. I would like to see what taking U.S. 70 to a freeway would do," said Ellen Reckhow, who serves as the Triangle Transit Authority representative on the TAC. "We paid millions of dollars to have a model developed … it would be inappropriate [not to run a model]."

Part of the decades-old controversy over Eno Drive involves its funding source. The state Highway Trust Fund was set up by legislation to collect certain transportation taxes and reserve the money for future loops to be built around major cities in the state. According to the legislation, only Durham’s $200 million loop along a defined pathway could be funded with the money.

But this legislative session, the state Legislature passed a bill that loosens up the definition of projects that can be paid for with trust fund money.

TAC members intend to vote for a $600 million trust fund list to go into the long-range plan, with the option of changing that list in the future.

The proposed trust fund projects from Ahrendsen and his staff include the East End Connector, which is a $100 million, two-mile road that would connect U.S. 70 with the Durham Freeway. Eno Drive opponents see the connector as a loop substitute because it could divert cut-through traffic that now comes from the north and clogs Roxboro, Duke and Gregson streets around downtown Durham and to the east.

The newest proposal for Eno Drive is on the list, along with widening and upgrading of U.S. 70 to freeway status. Widening Red Mill Road in northern Durham to a four-lane divided highway running at 45 mph and some other projects are also on the list.

Representatives from Treyburn Industrial Park in northern Durham said the area of the county desperately needs help with traffic to continue to prosper.

"The main thing is that they agree on something," said Jim Hinkle, president of the park. "We have to have some sort of relief for northern Durham County. It’s a shame other cities have their loops and Durham does not."

© 2002 The Durham Herald Company