Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-19-2010 - 8a ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 19, 2010 Action Agenda Item No. a. SUBJECT: NC 5411-40 Corridor Study Presentation DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Draft Report Executive Summary Karen Lincoln, 245--2580 2. Powerpoint Handout Craig Benedict, 245-2592 3. Peripheral Issues of Hwy 54 and 1-40 Interchange and the Regional Transit Light Rail Alternative PURPOSE: To receive a presentation on the draft NC 541 1-40 Corridor Study from Durham- Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning organization staff. BACKGROUND: The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Transportation Advisory Committee JAC) has released the draft NC 541 1- 40 corridor Study report for local government and public review. The DCHC MPO initiated the study to identify transportation and land use strategies for accommodating current and future transportation needs in the corridor. The NC 54 corridor serves as one of the major gateways between Chapel Hill and southwest Durham and western Wake County. Its interchange with 1-40 has consistently ranked as the top congested location in the region. Development pressures within the corridor coupled with mobility and capacity issues have highlighted the concern that the existing and planned transportation infrastructure in this area is insufficient to accommodate growth and to address land use and transportation problems. Short and long-range solutions are needed to preserve this important corridor. Multi-modal transportation systems are an integral part of the overall strategy recommended by the study. Complementing a `super street' design suggestion, a planned light rail system, a network of premium Bus Rapid Transit lines, expanded local bus service, and additional park- and-ride lots are recommended for the corridor. See Attachment 3 for the Peripheral Issues of Hwy 54 and 1-40 Interchange and the Regional Transit Light Rail Alternative. The Board may want to consider directing staff to submit comments regarding the NC 541 1-40 Corridor Study to the DCHC M PO. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact to the County. Recommendations from the study may be incorporated in the Regional Transit Plan and ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 19, 2010 Action Agenda Item No. a. SUBJECT: NC 5411-40 Corridor Study Presentation DEPARTMENT: Planning & Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Draft Report Executive Summary Karen Lincoln, 245--2580 2. Powerpoint Handout Craig Benedict, 245-2592 3. Peripheral Issues of Hwy 54 and 1-40 Interchange and the Regional Transit Light Rail Alternative PURPOSE: To receive a presentation on the draft NC 541 1-40 Corridor Study from Durham- Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning organization staff. BACKGROUND: The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Transportation Advisory Committee JAC) has released the draft NC 541 1- 40 corridor Study report for local government and public review. The DCHC MPO initiated the study to identify transportation and land use strategies for accommodating current and future transportation needs in the corridor. The NC 54 corridor serves as one of the major gateways between Chapel Hill and southwest Durham and western Wake County. Its interchange with 1-40 has consistently ranked as the top congested location in the region. Development pressures within the corridor coupled with mobility and capacity issues have highlighted the concern that the existing and planned transportation infrastructure in this area is insufficient to accommodate growth and to address land use and transportation problems. Short and long-range solutions are needed to preserve this important corridor. Multi-modal transportation systems are an integral part of the overall strategy recommended by the study. Complementing a `super street' design suggestion, a planned light rail system, a network of premium Bus Rapid Transit lines, expanded local bus service, and additional park- and-ride lots are recommended for the corridor. See Attachment 3 for the Peripheral Issues of Hwy 54 and 1-40 Interchange and the Regional Transit Light Rail Alternative. The Board may want to consider directing staff to submit comments regarding the NC 541 1-40 Corridor Study to the DCHC M PO. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact to the County. Recommendations from the study may be incorporated in the Regional Transit Plan and 2 Orange County Transit Plan to be funded by a future 'h percent County sales tax for transit, subject to referendum. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board receive the report and consider directing staff to submit comments regarding the NC 54/ 1-40 Corridor Study. Attach, DQR s r�DY n � TRANSPOR,"rA-r USE MAS TER PLAN lec uIrl V t UG Us2 NARY � Durham.Cha 'V^�"`►A /We tropolitan Plann 1 'ing p °r° ' ization 4 NC 54/1-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary Overview A primary route connecting much of southern Orange, Durham and Wake Counties, as well as new growth occurring in Chatham County, with the academic and medical destinations at the University of North i Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) and the Research Triangle Park,the NC 54/1-40 corridor is facing pressures unlike many others in the region. In addition to the regional access that NC 54 provides for UNC and its medical facilities for commuters, patients and visitors from across the state and region, the corridor is facing rising traffic levels that relate both to regional growth and substantial development activity within i the corridor. NC 54 is in transition as both institutional and private development activity lead to long-term changes in the corridor's character. These potential land use changes require careful planning with needed transportation improvements to serve the long-term vitality of the corridor and its surrounding neighborhoods. With environmental, physical and policy constraints limiting expansion of portions of the roadway and the development of parallel roadway connections, the corridor requires a multimodal solution to meet future demand while improving safety for all users and traffic operations. The corridor is also extremely important to the communities in both Durham and Chapel Hill,where it serves residential and commercial land uses, creating an eclectic mix of local and regional traffic competing for limited space. The corridor is fast becoming the most congested in the region, and has begun a transition from low-density suburban development with a semi-rural feel to a more urban pattern, with approved and pending development proposals expected to accelerate that transition as the economy rebounds. With more than 600 acres of vacant developable land surrounding it and likely development of UNC- owned properties along the corridor in the next several years to expand its health care-related facilities, NC 54 is poised for dramatic changes. As a result, the corridor is rising in statewide importance and regional prominence. However, rising congestion levels threaten property values and economic growth for both jurisdictions, as well as the ability for UNC to compete for jobs and patients.There are policies in place in Chapel Hill and on the University of North Carolina campus that restrict the amount of available parking, and encourage the use of transit in reaching destinations served by this corridor. Yet the heavy traffic, high speeds and lack of multimodal facilities along the corridor create barriers that limit the usefulness and safety of walking and bicycling for transportation.This also influences transit usage,where heavy demand exists due to the parking constraints, but better pedestrian access is needed to make transit more effective as a travel option. As a result of those existing and anticipated future demands, NC 54 is an extremely complex corridor, serving multiple travel markets and a diverse array of stakeholder and community interests focused on the success of different transportation modes, protection of neighborhoods and the economic viability of their land. Study objectives In that context, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) initiated the NC 54/1-40 Corridor Study to develop a land use -- transportation blueprint for this regionally significant corridor. With its development potential and the plan to construct a regional light rail system that would serve this corridor, the goal of the study is to define complementary land use and transportation strategies that will guide public and private actions, investments and capital project priorities to improve mobility, safety and access for all.modes. The dynamic nature of this critical corridor AUGUST 2010— DRAFT FINAL REPORT 1 NC 54 / 1-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY requires a bold vision supported by practical, achievable strategies in the near term and set the right foundation for longer term improvements through the 2035 horizon year. Through a planning process that examined future land use-transportation scenarios, the NC 54/1-40 Corridor Study seeks to build upon various transportation and land use plans and engage corridor stakeholders and the public in finding solutions that are effective and find the right balance between mobility and accessibility for all users. Study recommendations in the draft final report offer a multimodal approach to meeting existing and future transportation needs. They address the functional design for specific geometric improvements at intersections along NC 54 and at the interchange with 1-40, the expansion and integration of various types of transit services to help more people reach their destinations as an alternative.to driving, an interconnected network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities to provide a more comfortable environment with safe access along the corridor for walking and cycling, and a phased implementation plan for capital projects and service improvements. These transportation recommendations support a land use strategy designed to create more opportunities for location-efficient housing and transportation in the corridor to improve livability and regional mobility. The corridor is becoming increasingly employment-oriented, and more proximate housing choices — particularly for a range of income levels —will create shorter trip distances and help make the use of non- auto travel options more viable. The report includes design guidelines to provide further support for implementing the recommended land use and transportation strategies. Study Partners and Process The DCHC MPG led the study, serving as the project manager in partnership with the consultant team hired for the project, Renaissance Planning Group, in association with ICF International and Michael Baker Corporation. The MPG coordinated the active involvement of a broad group of study partners that include the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDGT), Triangle Transit Authority (TTA), the City of Durham, Durham County, the Town of Chapel Hill, the University of North Carolina (UNC), Chapel Hill Transit and the Durham Area Transit Authority (DATA). The MPG, the City of Durham, Durham County, and the Town of Chapel Hill funded the study. The study partners formed a steering committee that met monthly to guide the process, provide input at key milestones, and review study work products. While the NC 54 corridor study limits are from 1-40 to US 15-501,the study did not just focus on the linear right-of-way along NC 54. It captured a regional context, including growth patterns, transportation plans and the planned regional light rail system anticipated to connect this corridor to other points in the Triangle Region. The study area boundaries encompass surrounding neighborhoods and the existing and planned street networks, including Ephesus Church Road, Barbee Chapel Road, Farrington Road, NC 751 and others providing parallel routes or interconnecting with NC 54. Public engagement is critically important to the study.A part of the corridor's complexity is the multitude of interested stakeholders with diverse expectations about the future of the NC 54 corridor. These include landowners, institutions, businesses, neighborhood residents, students and, of course, the commuting public. A vigorous public participation process was employed to guide the development of study recommendations. This entailed a series of in-depth focus group discussions with each of the key stakeholder groups (residents and non-residents alike) early in the project and again once initial recommendations were nearing completion. In addition, a series of three public workshops at key milestones defined priority issues and opportunities, provided the basis for creation and evaluation of scenarios, and enabled participants to react and suggest refinements to draft land use and transportation master plan recommendations. AUGUST 2010-- DRAFT FINAL REPORT 2 6 NC 54 / 1-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY These outreach activities were augmented through use of a project web site (http:Z/www.nc54- i4ocorridyrstudy.c 1) to share information and provide additional opportunities for the community to review materials and weigh in with ideas or issues of concern. The DCHC MPO staff and consultant team also met informally with various individuals and groups throughout the study. The recommendations contained in this report are a direct reflection of the input provided over the year-long public engagement i process. Vision for the Corridor Through the study process, analysis and broad-based. feedback, a vision emerged for a regionally significant multimodal corridor that serves both regional and local travel through an expanded and more efficient network of streets, bus routes, bicycle facilities and pedestrian enhancements. The integrated land use and transportation vision is to promote community livability by guiding future development into targeted mixed-use areas to reduce trip lengths, enable greater use of non-auto travel options and provide location-efficient choices for housing and transportation. These areas are within 3/4 to 1/2 mile of the four planned light rail stations in the corridor. This will effectively support the investment in rail passenger service that will strengthen regional and local travel options between the UNC campus, Orange County, Durham County and elsewhere in the Triangle Region. Over time, the centers help transform the corridor from a drive-by strip into highly accessible, well-connected places that function as vibrant focal points serving local and regional needs. Land Use Strategy Figure ES-1 presents the recommended nodal development vision for the corridor. This land use- transportation blueprint embraces livability principles that provide more transportation choices, promote equitable, affordable housing through location and energy-efficiency, enhance economic competitiveness through reliable and timely access to employment, educational opportunities and services, and by supporting existing communities through transit-oriented, mixed-use development that will help safeguard existing neighborhoods and preserve rural landscapes. Table ES-1 shows the recommended height and density targets for the nodal development plan, which provides the compact, mixed-use framework necessary to create a series of vibrant walking districts that enables reliance primarily on non-auto travel modes as they approach build-out of the development program. The density minimum and maximum thresholds identified in the table provide a targeted range that allows some flexibility and variation along the corridor, and the upper limit does not have to be achieved to make the transit-oriented development work effectively. There is no one-size-fits-a,11 approach, but having good jobs-housing balance and sufficient numbers of households in the '/4 mile core radius from the station have proven to be essential to strong transit ridership elsewhere in the country, particularly from those who can access the station by walking and bicycling. The creation of highly developed mixed-use centers can help mitigate automobile travel demand by creating an environment where walking and access to transit is the priority. It also provides a mechanism to advance transportation funding opportunities that are unlikely to be available with the status quo or trend development pattern. For instance, allowing more dense development in the core and immediately adjacent areas of planned light rail stations to create mixed-use "nodes" along the corridor provides the incentive to obtain mitigation funding from future development to advance funding for the roadway improvements that eventually will be needed in the corridor even without the development. This is because AUGUST 2010 —DRAFT FINAL REPORT 3 NC 54 / 1-40 C0RRIDGR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 higher density development typically increases the return on investment and the development community depends on good access to support their projects. If development is overly constrained in the corridor despite market demand, growth will continue to occur elsewhere at lower densities in the nearby parts of the region and people will still need to reach the corridor, primarily by automobile. The traffic projections for the MPO's adopted 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan -- without the nodal development plan in the NC 54 corridor—show that major capacity improvements to NC 54 and 1-40 will be needed. Higher densities also enable developers to incorporate a greater percentage of workforce housing into the development program, helping to shorten trip lengths and creating more purchasing power for those residents who can effectively lower both housing and transportation costs. Figure ES-7: Recommended Corridor Land Use Concepf Proposed light rail line &stations Recommended C Land Use Concept Ephesus Ch urch Road A� r f s LEGEND r l .. r Mixed-Use 1 ....,.F .►.w ►+i Lei h Mixed-Use 2 Residential] "* Residential 2 r As Employment Unchanged from Existing OWrrig31 A ° • Ca, a Circle- E nnbri n Proposed .`�� 4F Light RaR r Fa�"Ecor►bri�; 4 r' AUGUST 2010 DRAFT FINAL REPORT 4 NC 54/ 1-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table ES-1: Concept Laney Uses No.of stories 3--8 2-4 2-4 1 —3 4- 12 Floor-to-area ratios 1.25-2.25 1.0- 1.5 - - 0.5- 1.0 (non-residential Dwelling Units per Acre 35-75 25-35 15-35 6- 10 - Employees per Acre 45-90 25-50 9- 15 b- 12 35- 175 Transportation has a profound influence to shape growth in a region and along a corridor. The parking constraints on the UNC campus and elsewhere in the Town of Chapel Hill have certainly influenced the use of transit, and, at least to a certain extent, where people choose to live. Developers and their clients (businesses, residents) respond to transportation conditions when they decide where to build, live, or locate their business. A new or improved roadway or transit project can make access to a location easier — making it more attractive to develop. A transportation improvement can also improve visibility — an important consideration for commercial developers. Many businesses rely on being seen by "pass-by" traffic and want to locate where there is a lot of vehicle and/or pedestrian traffic. This has been the case at the NC 54/Farrington Road intersection, where development depends on highway visibility. Conversely, rail transit is likely to result in more compact development clustered within walking distance of the station, and opens up new opportunities for how people choose to live and travel. The response is also strongly influenced by the land use policy and planning context-- for example, when the predominant mode of travel is the automobile, rail transit needs to be accompanied by strong land use policies in order to concentrate development in station areas. This type of strategy in the NC 54 corridor is necessary to avoid a future scenario where rising levels of congestion will occur due to regional growth forecasts, which will still increase the demands placed on the NC 54 corridor and its 1-40 interchange for major improvements. A well-designed, but intense nodal development program will enhance the potential for higher levels of financial support from planned development within the corridor. The timing of the nodal development plan is dependent on the schedule for light rail in the corridor, as well as interim higher-capacity transit strategies like Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and expansion of fixed route bus service throughout the corridor. If the funding mechanism is approved and the light rail plan moves forward, detailed station area plans would guide the development for the areas around each station in the corridor. Build-out of the nodal development plan depends on the rail network or comparable BRT service that can effectively support the planned development program and mitigate the demand for automobile traffic driving to the development. In the interim, it is imperative that the corridor stakeholders work to advance premium transit in the form of BRT (such as through bus signal priority, queue jump lanes or other BRT strategies) to properly complement the phasing of proposed development plans. Due to the significant roadway capacity challenges of this corridor, increases in development intensity must be timed to occur with expansion of fixed route bus service, introduction of the higher capacity BRT service, and, ultimately, when the light rail system becomes operational. Timing development with the interim BRT and planned light rail network will help ensure that adequate transportation options exist as more intensive development occurs. AUGUST 2010 --DRAFT FINAL REPORT 5 NC 54 /1-40 GGRRIDGR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9 Transportation Strategy Table ES-2 presents the phased multimodal transportation recommendations associated with the eco; ;x;e;;cled nr lc!l deyelop.m.ent plan: The recommendations are divided into short-term, mid-term and long-term strategies. These are described in detail in the full report, with supporting data in a series of appendices. In general, the short-term roadway strategies consist of a series of geometric modifications at selected intersections to improve traffic flow and operational efficiency. These phased improvements serve as interim components of the ultimate intersection design to make the most efficient use of the roadway. Commonly referred to as a "superstreet," this strategy reduces delay and supports anticipated traffic growth in the corridor through at least 2025. The critical intersection along this corridor is the Farrington Road intersection, which causes significant congestion due to its proximity to the 1-40 interchange. Beyond the short-term modifications that provide additional capacity for a time, in the mid-term, a direct access flyover ramp from eastbound NC 54 on the west side of Farrington Road to eastbound 1-40 is needed to maintain functionality of the Farrington Road/NC 54 intersection. Other modifications to the interchange are also identified in the intermediate term. Longer term, with the recommended nodal development, a more complete redesign of the 1-40 interchange at NC 54 will be needed, involving construction of additional ramps providing direct access from the interstate into the proposed Leigh Village light rail station area. Transit is an integral part of this overall strategy. In addition to the planned light rail system, a network of premium Bus Rapid Transit lines, expanded local bus service, and additional park-and-ride lots are recommended for the corridor. The key park-and-ride strategy is the relocation of the existing commuter lot at the Friday Center to a parking structure near the I-40/NC 54 interchange in the vicinity of the proposed Leigh Village development. This location would capture commuting trips entering the corridor at that location, and the parking garage would eventually support additional development capacity at the planned light rail station area in Leigh Village. This facility would become an intermodal hub, with transit, bicycle and pedestrian access in addition-to-park and ride. While it will not eliminate trips from the corridor, it shifts their location to a point where impacts on intersections will be reduced and a street network is planned to help better disperse traffic than at the current park-and-ride location. From a bicycle and pedestrian network standpoint, the recommended plan fills in gaps and improves safety and access along NC 54 through geometric modifications and the creation of a 10' to 15' shared use path adjacent to the roadway along the northern side. This is a critical gap in the corridor, and high speed traffic precludes an on-road solution for the section east of the Friday Center. A 15' path would allow more comfortable use in both directions for pedestrians and cyclists, but 10' is the minimum width for safety. Additional non-motorized transportation recommendations are identified throughout the corridor, including along Barbee Chapel Road and at US 15-501. AUGUST 2010---DRAFT FINAL REPORT 6 10 NC 54/ 1-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Table FS-2: List of Transportation Recommendations PARK-AND-RIDE Description Location Jurisdiction Phase O&M Cost Capital Cost Increase visibility and Southpoint Mall park-and- Durham Short Term $670,000 $1,170,000(3 capacity at the Southpoint ride facility on the (2012-2017) buses at Mall park-and-ride facility. southwest quadrant of the $390,000 Increase transit frequency to 1-40/Fayetteville Rd each)I 15-minute headways or less. interchange Construct NC 751 park-and- Along Southpoint Auto Park Durham Short Term $50,0002 $625,0003 ride facility. Blvd off of NC 751 just (2012-2017) north of 1-40 Construct highly visible At the 1-401 US 15-501 Chapel Hill Mid Term $50,0002 $30,000,0004 structured park-and-ride interchange with easy (2017-2022) facility with easy access from access to light rail station 1-40 and US 15-501 near proposed light rail station. Implement a structured park- Leigh Village light rail Durham Mid Term $400,0002 $40,000,000-5 and-ride facility at the Leigh transit station area (2017-2022) Village station area to be phased with transportation improvements. AUGUST 2010 -- DRAFT FINAL REPORT 7 NC 54 / 1-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1 Description Location Jurisdiction Phase O&M Capital Expanded Local Bus Service North along Burning Tree Dr Chapel Hill Short Term $1,35514001 $700,000(2 with 30 minute frequency. & Pinehurst Dr from NC 54 (2012-2017) buses at to Ephesus Church Road $354,000 each)2 Expanded Local Bus Service Southeast along Barbee Durham Short Term $1,355,400' $700,040(2 with 30 minute frequency. Chapel Rd and returning (2012-2417) buses at north back to NC 54 along $350►000 Farrington Rd each)2 Express Bus along NC 54 From NC 751 park-and- Durham& Short Term $1,355,400' $704,000(2 from Route 751 Park-and- ride lot north of 1-40 to Chapel Hill (2012-2017) buses at ride. downtown Chapel Hill $350,004 alongNC 751 and NC 54 each)2 Expanded Local Bus Service North of NC 54 along Durham Mid-Term $1,355,400' $7001000(2 with 30 minute frequency. Farrington Rd &SW (2015-2020) buses at Durham Dr to US 15-501 $350►000 (Durham-Chapel Hill Blvd) each)2 Bus Rapid Transit- Phase l. From Meadowmont along Chapel Hill Mid-Term $11,566,0803 $31400,000 Five minute frequency with NC 54 to downtown Chapel (2015-2020) daily peak vehicle need of Hill six buses. Bus Rapid Transit- Phase 2. From NC 751 park-and- Durham Long Term $111566,0803 $3,404,400 Five minute frequency with ride lot north of 1-40 along (2022-2035) daily peak vehicle need of NC 54 towards Chapel Hill, six buses. aligning with Bus Rapid Transit-- Phase 1 Flex Route General service north and Chapel Hill Long Term $41066,2004 $3071200(4 south of study area along (2022-2035) buses at Barbee Chapel Rd, $76,840 Pinehurst Dr,Farrington Rd, each)2 Ephesus Church Rd,serving AUGUST 2010-- DRAFT FINAL REPORT 8 12 NC 54 11-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ■ Description Location Jurisdiction Phase O&M Capital the Falconbridge Community,Donwing Creek community,and Glen Lennox Light Rail Transit(Preliminary Durham to Chapel Hill Durham & Long Term TBDs $2175010002 Engineering and Design) Chapel Hill (2022-2035) PEDESTRIAN ■ BICYCLE Description Location Jurisdiction Phase Cost Install crosswalks and pedestrian Burning Tree Dr/Finley Golf Chapel Hill Short Term $80,000 signals at signalized intersections with Course Rd& NC 54 (2012.. pedestrian refuge islands and street 2017) lighting for crossing NC 54.1 W Barbee Chapel Rd & NC 54 Chapel Hill Short Term (2012-- 2017) Meadowmont Ln/Friday Center Chapel Hill Short Term Dr& NC 54 (2412- 2017) E Barbee Chapel Rd & NC 54 Chapel Hill Short Term (2012- 2017) Huntingridge Rd & NC 54 Durham Short Term (2012- 2017) AUGUST 2010 —DRAFT FILIAL REPORT 9 NC 54 / 1-40 CORRIDGR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 13 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE Description Location Jurisdiction Phase Cost Farrington Road (northern, Durham Short Term southern and eastern approaches) (2012- &NC 54 2017) Leigh Farm Rd/Quadrangle Dr& Durham Short Term NC 54 (2012- 2017) Install crosswalks with pedestrian- US 15-501 on/off ramps Chapel Hill Short Term $40,000 activated flashers and expand refuge (2012- islands. 2017) Extend the solid marking designating From SB US 15-501 on ramp to Chapel Hill Short Term $2,700,000 the westbound exclusive right turn lane 500 feet to the east (2012- for US 15-501 on—ramps to minimize 2017) weaving movements at interchange and increase safety for on-road bicyclists. Provide a minimum 5-foot wide on- NC 54 from Burning Tree Dr/ Chapel Hill Short Term road bicycle lane by restriping travel Finley Golf Course Rd to the west (2012- lanes to be 11 feet wide and making 2017) minor median modifications. Modify sloped abutment wall to NC 54 underneath US 15-501 Chapel Hill Short Term provide 8-foot wide sidewalk behind overpass (2012- overpass structural piers. 2017) Pave road shoulders to accommodate From NC 54 to the American Durham Short Term $4,004,000 bicyclists on select roads to provide Tobacco Trail via Barbee Chapel (2012- connections to the American Tobacco Rd,Farrington Rd,Stagecoach Rd, 2017) Trail. NC 751,and Massey Chapel Rd Ensure adequate facilities for cyclists Farrington Road through the study Durham Short Term Variable cost. are available. Provide a 5-foot wide area (Old Chapel Hill Rd to (2012- Paving five-foot bicycle lane where possible,or provide Stagecoach Rd) 2017) wide bike lanes AUGUST 2010 —DRAFT FINAL REPORT 10 14 NC 54 /1-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PEDESTRIAN ■ BICYCLE Description Location Jurisdiction Phase Cost "share the road"signage and a paved on both sides of shoulder or sharrow markings for on- the roadway road bicycle travel.Many of the Ephesus Church Rd from Durham& Short Term Would cost collector streets are designed with for Farrington Rd to E Franklin St Chapel Hill (2012- approximately low vehicular speeds with the intent for 2017) $1 1200,400 bicycles to share the travel lane. Fill in per lane sidewalk gaps2. assuming George King Rd &Crossland Dr Durham Short Term medium duty pavement. proposed collector street) from (2012- Striping a bike Ephesus Church Rd to NC 54 2017) lane without paving would cost SW Durham Dr from Ephesus Durham & Short Term approximately Church Rd to NC 54 Chapel Hill (2012- $5,000 per 2017) mile. Installing signage would cost about Lancaster Dr and E W collector Durham & Short T erm $1,500 per street from Farrington Rd to Chapel Hill (2012- sign. Pinehurst Dr 2017) Pinehurst Dr from Ephesus Church Chapel Hill Short Term Rd to Burning Tree Dr (2012- 2017) Burning Tree Dr from Pinehurst Dr Chapel Hill Short Term to NC 54 (2012- 2017) Hamilton Rd from NC 54 to Chapel Hill Short Term Brandon Rd (2012- 2017) Construct an off-road shared-use path, Along north side of NC 54 from E Durham& Mid-Term The cost for with a boardwalk bridge as an Barbee Chapel Rd to Farrington Chapel Hill (2017- these alternative solution in environmentally Rd 2022) improvements is sensitive areas. Path should have included in the minimum 10-foot width; ideally 15 feet roadway if possible. Through the Glen Lennox Mid-Term list g Chapel H�II Mad Term AUGUST 2010 --DRAFT FILIAL REPORT � � i NC 54 / 1-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 15 PEDESTRIAN Description Location Jurisdiction Phase Cost property from Hamilton Rd at (2017- under the item Brandon Rd to connect to S Estes 2022) "Widen NC 54 Dr utilizing existing trail and to six lanes in along the NC 54 frontage to the Durham connect to the existing multi-use section. path at Burning Tree Dr Construct the multi-use path concurrent with off-road hared-use path NC 54 from Farrington Rd to 1-40 Durham Mid-Term the road Construct an o oad s p g project." on the south side of NC 54 with overpass (2017- accompanying signage to cross. Path 2022) should have minimum 10-foot width; ideally 15 feet if possible. Construct sidewalk on south side of NC South side of NC 54 from Durham Mid-Term 54 to connect to 1-40 overpass. Huntingridge Rd east to 1-40 (2017- overpass 2022) Construct a 10-foot wide shared use NC 54 bridge over 1.40 Durham Mid-Term path on south side of overpass. (2017- 2022) Implement crosswalks and landscaped Meadowmont Ln/Friday Center Chapel Hill Mid-Term The cost for median refuges at primary superstreet Dr&NC 54 (2017- these intersections. 2022) improvements is included in the roadway Huntin rid a Rd &NC 54 Durham Mid-Term projects list g g (2017- under the item 2022) "Construct EB NC 54 to EB I- 40 flyover from Farrington Adequately sign reverse superstreet E Barbee Chapel Rd & NC 54 Chapel Hill Mid-Term Road to I-40 EB intersections. (2017- on-ramp." 2022) Falconbridge Rd &NC 54 Durham Mid-Term (2017- 2022) AUGUST 2010— DRAFT FINAL REPORT 12 16 NC 54 11-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE Description Location Jurisdiction Phase Cost During construction of superstreet Farrington Rd&NC 54 Durham Mid-Term modifications,implement crosswalks (2017- and landscaped medians on the 2022) northern,southern and eastern approaches,and provide adequate signage for pedestrians to cross to south side to travel over 1-40 bridge. Design and construct light rail bridge Across NC 54 connecting Chapel Hill "Long Term TBD over NC 54 to serve as an elevated Meadowmont and Friday Center (2022- ; pedestrian crossing. 2035) Continue to make regional connections where possible Durham& Long Term Variable cost with greenways. Chapel Hill (2022- 2035) Description Location Jurisdiction Phase Cost Construct channelized free flow Along C 54 at E Barbee Chapel Short Term lane for eastbound right turns into g p Rd Chapel Hill (2012- $700,000 East Barbee Chapel Road 2017 Construct northbound right turn Short Term channelization to free flow merge Friday Center Dr Chapel Hill (2012- $900"000 lane onto eastbound NC 54 2017) Construct Farrington Road slip ramp Short Term for northbound traffic on Farrington Farrington Rd Durham (2012- $3,300,004 Road to access eastbound 1-40 2017) directly.Modify on-ramp to allow AUGUST 201 0 -- DRAFT FINAL REPORT 13 i NC 54 / 1-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 17 Description Location Jurisdiction Phase Cost for transition. Short Term As specified in the adopted (2012_ Construct collector street system Southwest Durham--Southeast Durham $31,400 1000 including turn lanes on NC 54. e! Hill Collector Street Plan 2017 and Chapel beyond) Construct access road behind the Short Term Farrington Road shopping center Between Farrington Rd and Durham (2012- $4401000 for connection between Farrington Falconbridge Rd 2017) Road and Falconbridge Road. Obtain Marriot Way,then upgrade Short Term Between Friday Center Dr and E Chapel Hill 2012- $$00,000 to NCDOT standards and extend to Barbee Chapel Rd p 4 Barbee Chapel Road. p 2017) Construct other connections as Durham & Short to opportunities arise through Through study area Variable cast Chapel Hill Long Term development proposals. Improve 1-40 interchange to add new partial cloverleaf ramp for I- Mid-Term 40 EB to NC54 EB,remove existing 1-40 Interchange with NC 54 Durham (2017- $1,1 OO,gOq signal and install yield sign at the 1- 2022) 40 EB to NC54 WB ramp with addition of merge lane. Construct EB NC 54 to EB I-40 Mid-Term flyover from Farrington Road to 1- 1-40 Interchange with NC 54 Durham (2017- $10,800,000 40 EB on-ramp. 2022) Construct auxiliary lane widening Mid-Term for 1-40 westbound off ramp to 1-40 Interchange with NC 54 Durham (201 7- $1,1 00,000 match the two lane section of the 2022) ramp. AUGUST 2010 -- DRAFT FILIAL REPORT 14 LJ NC 54/1-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ROADWAY Description Location Jurisdiction Phase Cost Widen the bridge over 1-40 to accommodate 4 lanes of westbound NC 54 laneage. In conjunction with Mid-Term this,widen the westbound approach 1-40 Interchange with NC54 Durham (2017- $21300,000 to two lanes for 500 feet as' 2022) needed for intersection capacity. Reconstruct the Farrington Road intersection to only allow the Mid-Term northbound left turn through the Farrington Rd Durham (2017- $3,700,000 intersection.Channelize for freeflow 2022) westbound right turn lane. Widen NC54 to six lanes in the Mid-Term Durham section. Construct the multiuse path concurrent with the -Durham section of NC54 Durham (2017-0 7 $18,7001000 road project. 2022) Implement superstreet configurations at Falconbridge Rd, Falconbridge Rd,Huntingridge Rd,E Mid-Term Huntingridge Rd,E Barbee Chapel Barbee Chapel Rd and Friday Durham (2017- $3,800,000 Rd and Friday Center Dr Center Dr 2022) intersections. Install triple southbound lefts at Long Term Falconbridge Road. Falconbridge Rd Durham 2022- $400,000 2035) Construct I-40 ramps into the Long Term 1-40 Interchange with NC54 and northern development(Leigh area to the north Durham (2022- $271700,000 Village) area 2035 Monitor for potential need to grade Durham & Beyond separate key intersections through Corridorwide y Variable cost. the corridor. Chapel Hill 2035 AUGUST 2010 —DRAFT FINAL REPORT 15 NC 54 / 1-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 19 Conclusions The analysis of growth and transportation indicates that substantial capacity improvements will be needed y by 2035 with or without new development anticipated to occur in the corridor. The 1-40 interchange at NC 54 is fast approaching its capacity, and the proximity of the Farrington Road intersection creates operational challenges that affect much of the corridor. Heavy through traffic volumes projected along the corridor require intersection modifications that will help reduce delay. While the planned light rail transit system will help when it becomes operational sometime around 2025, it will not eliminate congestion. Rather, the light rail network provides a sound basis to guide future growth into the planned station areas as part of a nodal development strategy that will help reduce trip lengths, lower vehicle miles traveled per capita, and provide for more location-efficient housing choices to-increase the f inancial flexibility of those residents. Implementation of an interim service of higher-capacity Bus Rapid Transit can enable some phasing of more intense development along the corridor until light rail becomes operational. Gaps in the local transit network need to be filled with higher frequency service in the peak periods. While the recommended land use plan increases,growth in the corridor beyond the levels assumed for the adopted Long Range Transportation Plan, most of that additional growth is expected to occur in Grange County because the LRTP assumptions appear low relative to development potential and future plans on the part of the University of North Carolina. The recommended phasing plan for the transportation network creates better mobility for the next 15 to 20 years through the "superstreet" operational improvements. The elevated bypass from eastbound NC 54 to eastbound 1-40 will also be needed between 2015 and 2020 to maintain a functioning intersection at Farrington Road and NC 54, allowing access to adjacent properties. Additional direct access ramps from 1-40 into the proposed Leigh Village development will be necessary before 2035 to support anticipated growth that should only occur with the construction of a light rail system. These ramps can be designed to avoid impacts to Leigh Farm Park and other sensitive neighborhoods. Geometric functional designs have been developed to guide these needed capacity improvements. As indicated, due to traffic impacts, much of the anticipated future growth will need to wait until the light rail system is operational and can help moderate auto travel demand. However, the plan calls for expanded park-and-ride opportunities, including a new parking structure immediately northwest of the I- 40/NC 54 interchange to improve mobility and regional access into the corridor.Additional park-and-ride lots would serve other travel markets. Expanded local bus, Bus Rapid Transit, and commuter express routes are planned to meet the corridor's growing needs in the interim to light rail, and these services will complement the rail system when it is built. A network of non-motorized transportation facilities, along with signage/markings for shared on-road use where appropriate, is needed to create a more accessible corridor and study area. This addresses travel along the NC 54 corridor by bicyclists and pedestrians, as well as crossing the corridor safely and efficiently. Elsewhere in the study area, the network provides additional connections between residential areas, commercial destinations and regional facilities, such as the American Tobacco Trail. Establishing benchmarks and targets is an effective way to measure progress toward plan implementation. The NC 54/1-40 Corridor Study is a multi-year, multi-phase master plan aimed at improving overall mobility and accessibility, consistent with plans to create development focal points as places that become multipurpose destinations. Given the concerns of some residents and many stakeholders about traffic AUGUST 2010-- DRAFT FINAL REPORT 16 20 NC 54/ 1-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY conditions and future development plans, it makes sense to take an approach in partnership with NCDGT and the local governments that addresses various aspects of this report to track progress toward achieving outcomes of this planning effort, not merely the programming and construction of capital projects. The recommended approach is for the MPG to prepare a biannual monitoring report every two years to document progress toward achieving the mobility goals outlined in this study. This monitoring report would document transportation system conditions over time using the performance measures defined through this study and expanded to address specific implementation activities and accomplishments on the part of each study partner or jurisdiction. The report would fit within the MPO's established Congestion Management Process, and should document actions from a land .development, transportation and urban design framework to implement the recommendations for improved livability,mobility, safety and access. AUGUST 2010 --DRAFT FINAL REPORT 17 A ISO NC-54/1-40 CORRIDOR BLUEPRINT FOR MOBILITY Recommended Master Plan Background F. Ole .� a .. wit, .,� AIM Val ox LA x; �`T y far: r+�a'•_- _ d' F i r '-w 70,000 vehimcles per day Stu y .. � .. .. .. •fig� �•'r '5.� •,gig -� ���. Objectives Vision A:. ��Ta.'"� ... '•fitly�":�.i-. ,'•z a is•}�;x gab�. .wy,. .t.'.,; uepr r Trans. 9/24/29J0 1 Regionally significant multimodal corridor that senses both: regional and bcal travel through an expanded and mope efficient network of streets, bus routes, bicycle facilities and pedestrian enhancements. Promote community livability by guiding future development into targeted mixed-use areas to reduce trip lengths., enable greater.:use of non- auto travel options and provide:location-efficient choices for housing_and transportation. Partmicipants DCHC .O �� Consulting Team i '41§.-`, kENA:55ANCE PLANNINC`,GROUP Chapel Hill UNC Ti 1CF . INTERNATIONAL Orange f Co �- Co i 'Funding Partners Focus Groups Steering Committee Workshops 3 24 9/24/2010 Study Process • Challenges/Opportunities Focus Data Collection/Analysis Community Profile Trend Analysis • 4F scenario Development/Testing • Initial Preferred Scenario • Full Analysis Preferred'Scenario Targeted -- Refined Recommendations Workshop • Master Plan What learned Future development wjil,continue to occur. ■ The growth in traffic f'o : do tad lava gillit in s significant congestion • There are insufricient alt gnat ves for parallel capacity.::... * 8cisting development patterns do not.su pp ort transit or encouraga.;non�motorized trips.. ■ Vehicle tn'p§destined to the Friday Center and lJIV contribute "'ifica to peak congestion • There is a public desire for multimodal options 4 Recommendatmions Land UselTransiVBicycle-Pedestrian Nodal Land Development Pattern •Guides grot%Jh into existing/ merging centei's •0I)I)Ortullltles.to cal)tui-e sli art tt-lps via wall,'Ing or 1)€l4€ng •Focal point for transit with focused,diverse activity t Transit y` Y •Expanded service aid 1111pro\-ed connections •LRT connects corridor with the region . ¢,. Flex route shuttle service for loti,v,density areas Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements ` •Connectivity •increased Safety •Complementary ■ Recommendations Park and RideZRoadwa,.Y-- Pa i-k a€�d Ride — U n kages for Success Frt.c-€Llt'11t.IF;iE3E]lf',and C{�Ii�E'Cllt.'llt t[ I1SIt�t IVIt� .L ay C eCO111111{"'nd"tloll �lt,s_;esSiNlity • lr�wd us influei ces I_is,i:;e • New locations€ loposed Short to Mid Term Roadway Improvements • Geometric (,onnectivity IIII W CAS:(ll+ rlt 7 • Coi1struct co I I(:"C to r strcot systcI-n •Widen NC 54 to 6-lanes in Dutham C(Dunty • Increase offlciency/safety thl-011 h Superstreet design Lang Term Major Investment °' • Improve 1-46 interchange(ram ps and- idening)- Fig 6-20 -�� -4 s • Farrington Road Flyover Ramp - Flg 6 =', P: • Ra rnp access into proposed Leigh V'i Page Fig 6-22,6-23 NG54/I-40 CORRIDOR BLUEPRINT FOR MOBILITY ��� 26 9/24/2010 www.nc54-i40corridorstudy.com 27 ATTACHMENT 3 Peripheral Issues of Hwy 54 and I-40 Interchange and the Regional Transit Light Rail Alternative The peripheral issues are complex and somewhat contradicting in this corridor and area that spans the Chapel Hill/Orange and Durham county border. 1. Public transit is necessary to provide an alternative to the automobile in this corridor. This is a high volume commuter route to UNC and Chapel Hill/Carrboro. 2. The Park and Ride lot at the UNC/Friday Center in Orange County still creates traffic problems at I-40/NC 54 intersection. 3. Moving the Park and Ride lot further east solves some of the NC 54 traffic but still does not correct intersection delays unless a Park and Ride can be found east of the intersection. 4. A Park and Ride lot in Durham County by itself does not create a land use that creates tax base. 5. Coupling a Park and Ride lot with a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) (a mixed-use development) and a future light rail station is ideal. However, the TOD location becomes a land use focal point that would bring some exterior traffic but also the potential of commercial tax base, a valuable commodity. Leigh Village, a potential TOD at the northwest corner of I-40/NC 54 in Durham County would fit this situation. However, does supporting this location create another opportunity for people to shop outside of Orange County? 6. Between UNC hospital area and the potential Leigh Village project is the segment that Triangle Transit has used in its draft financial plan of the Light Rail Alternative as the link of which Orange County would be financially responsible. Therein, Orange County would fund a 3-mile length in Orange County and a 1.75-mile length in Durham County. 7. This corridor transverses a large north-south environmental area owned by the ACOE for the Jordan Lake headwaters, which limits alternative locations for Park and Ride/Transit Oriented Development in the Orange County/Durham County general area. 28 i