HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-21-2012 - 9aORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 21, 2012
SUBJECT: NC 54/1 -40 Corridor Study
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Corridor Study Table of Contents
2. Corridor Study Executive Summary
3. Copy of PowerPoint Presentation
Action Agenda
Item No. Lq - Q
PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Benedict, 245 -2592
Tom Altieri, 245 -2579
Darcy Zorio, 245 -2582
PURPOSE: To receive a presentation from Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro (DCHC)
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) staff (Leta Huntsinger) on the NC54/1 -40 Corridor
Study.
BACKGROUND:
What is the purpose of the study?
The purpose of the study is to analyze short-term and long -term land use issues and multi -
modal transportation problems, evaluate opportunities and challenges, and recommend short
and long -range land use and transportation solutions and strategies along the corridor.
Why is this study important?
The NC 54 corridor serves as one of the major gateways between Chapel Hill and southwest
Durham, and its interchange with 1 -40 has consistently ranked as one of the top congested
locations in the region. Development pressures within the corridor coupled with mobility and
capacity issues have illuminated 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.
What are the study objectives?
The vision of the DCHC MPO is to develop and implement transportation plans that are
multimodal and that fully integrate land use and transportation issues. To achieve this vision this
study will:
• Clearly define a realistic "blueprint" for an integrated growth and mobility strategy for the
corridor
• Establish a development framework that strengthens multimodal travel options and
reduces vehicle miles of travel
Improve operations, safety, and travel time
Categorize strategies into near, mid -term, and long -term phases
0
How much will the study cost and who is paying for it?
The total cost for the study is $349,977, with 80% of the funding coming from Federal
transportation planning funds and the remaining 20% funded jointly by the City of Durham,
Durham County, and the Town of Chapel Hill.
The Table of Contents (Attachment 1) and Executive Summary (Attachment 2) from the
Corridor Study are provided herein. The complete NC 54/1 -40 Corridor Study is 169 pages and
can be reviewed online: http:// www. nc54- i40corridorstudy .com /DraftReport.htm1.
IMPLICATIONS:
This study creates a short and long term transportation framework for the corridor where a
segment of light rail (LRT) is being proposed, future roadway widening, and mention of premium
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT -H). Since these are all major transit investments, and decisions should
consider the complementary and /or supplementary nature of these transportation methods. For
example, should widening include dedicated busways for BRT -H, how do commuters mode
transfer from car to LRT or BRT and where (i.e. adequate Park & Ride facilities and where in
corridor they should be located), how can efforts ensure that the transit method does not
duplicate investment (i.e. LRT fully addressing commuter patterns so parallel BRT or bus
service is not needed).
NEXT STEPS:
Feb 21 Presentation to Orange County Board of Commissioners (Planning Board and
Orange Unified Transportation Board members invited to attend)
Mar 8 Durham City Council receives the report at a work session for review and
comment
Mar 12 Chapel Hill Town Council approves comments on report
Mar 13 Orange County approves comments on the report
Mar 14 MPO Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Public Hearing
March Durham County reviews and approves comments on the report
(prior to March 16)
Mar 16 Deadline for public comment
Mar 28 MPO Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) recommends NC 54
recommendations for approval by TAC
Apr 11 Approval by TAC
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with receiving this presentation.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board receive the presentation.
Attachment 1 3
5-11 1/ 1--f2, COfRRIDOR STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS
TRA11,16POPTATT-01"4- LAND USE MASTED, PLAN
Table of Contents
NC 541 -40 Corridor Study Introduction and Vision ................................................. ............................1 -1
Overview................................................................................................................................................. ..........:.................... 1-1
StudyObjectives ..................................................................................................................................... ............................... 1-2
StudyPartners ......................................................................................................................................... ............................... 1-2
StudyArea ............................................................................................................................................... ............................... 1-3
StudyProcess ........................................................................................................................................... ............................... 1-3
Visionfor the Corridor ........................................................................................................................... ............................... 1 -5
LandUse Strategy .................................................................................................................................... ............................1 -5
TransportationStrategy ........................................................................................................................ ............................... 1-8
ReportContents ................................................................................................................................... ...............................
1 -16
LandUse in the NC 54 Corridor .................................................................................... ............................2 -1
Overview................................................................................................................................................. ............................... 2-1
NC54 Corridor Land Use Context ........................................................................................................ ............................2
-2
Growth Projections for Corridor Development .................................................................................... ............................2
-6
StudyArea Growth ............................................................................................................................... ...............................
2 -8
LandUse Blueprint ................................................................................ ............................... ................. .............................
2 -16
LandUse and Transportation Scenarios ........................................................................................ ...............................
2 -18
ImplementationPlan ............................................................................................................................ ...............................
2 -25
Park - and -Ride Facility Recommendations .................................................................... ............................3 -1
Overview................................................................................................................................................. ...............................
3 -1
TravelPatterns and Market Dynamics ................................................................................................... ............................3
-1
Park - and -Ride Travel Demand Markets ............................................................................................... ............................3
-2
Analysisof Data ........................................................................................................................................ ............................3
-8
Recommendations................................................................................................................................ ...............................
3 -13
Fundingand Implementation Strategies ............................................................................................. ...........................3
-19
Conclusion............................................................................................................................................. ...............................
3 -23
AdditionalConsiderations .................................................................................................................. ...............................
3 -23
TransitRecommendations ................................................................................................. ............................4 -1
Overview................................................................................................................................................. ...............................
4 -1
CurrentTransit Services ............................................................................................................................ ............................4
-2
ShortTerm Improvements ......................................................................................................................... ............................4
-5
Midand Long Term Improvements ......................................................................................................... ............................4
-9
TransitImplementation ........................................................................................................................ ...............................
4 -14
Pedestrianand Bicycle Recommendations .................................................................... ............................5 -1
Overview................................................................................................................................................. ...............................
5 -1
Existing Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................................. ............................5
-2
PlannedPedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ............................................................................................ ............................5
-6
Recommendations................................................................................................................................ ...............................
5-11
Implementation..................................................................................................................................... ...............................
5 -30
D E C,..,..,EP ..w;
4
14-_ 54 1-40 CORRIDOR STUDY
TRAiISPO'RV?ATION -LAND USE MASTER PLA.'i TABLE OF CONTENTS
RoadwayRecommendations ........................................................................................... ............................6 -1
Overview.................................................................................................................................................... ............................6
-1
ExistingConditions ..................................................................................................................................... ............................6
-2
FutureConditions ....................................................................................................................................... ............................6
-3
TestedScenarios and Results ................................................................................................................... ............................6
-5
ShortTerm Improvements ......................................................................................................................... ............................6
-6
RoadwayRecommendations .................................................................................................................... ............................6
-9
LightRail Alignment Alternatives ...................................................................................................... ...............................
6 -34
Roadway Recommendations by Implementation Phase ................................................................ ...............................
6 -39
Implementationand Funding ............................................................................................................. ...............................
6 -41
Conclusions............................................................................................................................................ ...............................
6-43
Summaryand Conclusions ............................................................................................... ............................7
-1
PerformanceMeasures and Monitoring ................................................................................................ ............................7 -2
List of Figures
Figure1 -1: Study Area ................................................................................................................................... ............................1 -4
Figure 1 -2: Recommended Corridor Land Use Concept .......................................................................... ............................1 -7
Figure2 -1: Future Land Use on Developed Land ...................................................................................... ............................2 -4
Figure2 -2: Future Land Use on Vacant Land ............................................................................................ ............................2 -5
Figure 2 -3: Vacant Land and Areas of Potential Change ....................................................................... ............................2 -7
Figure 2 -4: Growth Projections for Portions of Durham and Orange Counties within the Study Area by Scenario*
2 -8
Figure2 -5: Locations of Potential Development Sites .............................................................................. ............................2 -9
Figure2 -6: Potential Station Areas ........................................................................................................ ............................... 2 -10
Figure 2 -7: Example of Potential TOD Progression at the Leigh Village property......
2 -13
Figure 2 -8: Recommended Corridor Land Use Concept .................................................................... ............................... 2 -16
Figure2 -9: Trend Scenario A .................................................................................................................. ............................... 2 -19
Figure 2 -10: Trend Scenario B .. ...............................
Figure 2-11: Scenario 1 ............. ...............................
2 -20
.................... 2 -21
Figure2 -12: Scenario 2 ........................................................................................................................... ............................... 2 -22
Figure 3 -1: Concentration of Residents within Durham County Metropolitan Statistical Area ............... ....................... 3-9
Figure 3 -2: Concentration of Employment within Durham County Metropolitan Statistical Area ............................. 3 -10
Figure 3 -3: Travel Time Contours to Employment Destinations with Local Bus Service ................. ............................... 3-11
Figure 3 -4: Travel Time Contours to Employment Destinations with Express Bus S ervice ............. ............................... 3 -12
Figure 3 -5: Recommended Park- and -Ride Facility Locations ............................................................ ............................... 3 -16
Figure 3 -6: Footprint of a 1,000 Space Structured Parking Facility at Patterson Place ............. ............................... 3 -21
5
1g,: Set i I -4,i CORR CJOR S -FURY
CONTENTS TABLE OF
TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE MASTEP, PLAN
Figure 3 -7: Examples of Urban Structured Parking Facilities ........................................................... ............................... 3 -22
Figure4 -1: Existing Transit Service .............................................................................................................. ............................4 -3
Figure 4 -2: Chapel Hill Transit Daily Boardings by Bus Stop within the NC 54 Corridor ...................... ....................... 4-4
Figure4 -3: Short Term Recommendations ................................................................................................... ............................4 -8
Figure4 -4: Long Term Recommendations .................................................................................................. ...........................4 -12
Figure 4 -5: Transit Improvements in the Bus and Rail Investment Plan ............................................. ............................... 4 -16
Figure5 -1: Existing Pedestrian Facilities Map ........................................................................................... ............................5 -3
Figure5 -2: Existing Bicycle Facilities Map ................................................................................................. ............................5
-5
Figure5 -3: Existing and Planned Pedestrian Facilities Map ................................................................... ............................5
-9
Figure 5 -4: Existing and Planned Bicycle Facilities Map ........................................................................ ...........................5
-10
Figure5 -5: Pedestrian Emphasis Areas ................................................................................................. ...............................
5 -12
Figure5 -6: Bicycle and Pedestrian Network Recommendations ........................................................... ...........................5
-13
Figure5 -7: Corridor Crossing Facilities .................................................................................................. ...............................
5 -14
Figure 5 -8: Pedestrian & Bicyclist Crossing at Superstreet Locations .............................................. ...............................
5 -15
Figure5 -9: Example of a Sharrow ............................................................................................................ ...........................5
-16
Figure5 -10: Regional Trails near the NC 54 Corridor ...................................................................... ...............................
5 -18
Figure 5-11: Grade Separation Designs with Pedestrian Facilities ................................................. ...............................
5 -19
Figure 5 -12: Before and After Rendering of US 15 -501 Ramp Improvements for Pedestrians and Bicyclists ....5
-22
Figure 5 -13: Before and After Street View Rendering of Improvements at US 15 -501 Interchange .....................
5 -23
Figure 5 -14: Pedestrian Facilities at the 1 -40 Interchange Area (shown in grey) .......................... ...............................
5 -24
Figure5-15:1-440 Pedestrian Bridge ....................................................................................................... ...........................5
-25
Figure 5 -16: Before and After Rendering of Light Rail Crossing with Accommodations for Pedestrians ....
5 -26
Figure 6 -1: North Carolina Highways Carrying 70,000 Vehicles per Day ............................................... ....................... 6-4
Figure 6 -2: Adopted Collector Street Network ......................................................................................... ............................6 -7
Figure6 -3: Farrington Road Slip Ramp ...................................................................................................... ............................6
-8
Figure6 -4: Effects of Traffic Signals on Highway Capacity ................................................................... ............................6
-9
Figure 6 -5: Functional Design Solution for the 1 -40 Interchange Area . ........................................ ...............................
6-11
Figure6-6:1-40 Interchange Area Design Alternatives ..................................................................... ...............................
6 -12
Figure 6-7.1-40 Interchange Area Design Solution Construction Phase 1 .................................... ...............................
6 -14
Figure 6- 8:1 -40 Interchange Area Design Solution Construction Phase 2 ...................................... ...............................
6 -15
Figure 6 -9: I -40 Interchange Area Design Solution Construction Phase 3
Figure 6 -10: Potential Access Reconfiguration for Celeste Circle ..................................................... ............................... 6 -17
Figure6-11: Delay Comparison for Left Turn Movements at Farrington Road ........................................ .................... 6-19
Figure6 -12: Recommended Eastbound 1 -40 On -Ramp Configuration ............................................ ............................... 6 -20
Figure6-13: Partial Cloverleaf Interchange ........................................................................................ ............................... 6 -22
Figure 6 -14: Example of Blue Striping for Bicycle Weave Segment ............................................. ............................... 6 -24
Figure6 -15: Example of a Bicycle Box ................................................................................................. ............................... 6 -24
R, 0
L
NC 54 � 1-4() CORRiDOR STUDY
TRANS PORT ATION -LAND USE MASTER PILAIN' TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figure 6 -16: Recommended Barbee Chapel Grade Separation Design ....................................... ...............................
6 -26
Figure 6 -17: Alternative Barbee Chapel Grade Separation Design . .......................................... ...............................
6 -26
Figure6 -18: Efficiency of Two -Phase Signals ...................................................................................... ...............................
6 -27
Figure6 -19: The Superstreet Concept .................................................................................................. ...............................
6 -28
Figure6 -20: Superstreet Intersection Conflict Points ........................................................................... ...............................
6 -29
Figure6 -21: Photos of Superstreets in North Carolina ...................................................................... ...............................
6 -30
Figure 6 -22: Superstreet Configuration at Meadowmont Lane and Friday Center Drive .......... ...............................
6 -32
Figure6 -23: Future Light Rail Alignment Alternatives ........................................................................ ...............................
6 -34
Figure6 -24: Light Rail Alignment C1 Meadowmont Lane ..................................................................... ...........................6
-35
Figure 6 -25: Light Rail Alignment C2 George King Road ................................................................. ...............................
6 -36
Figure 6 -26: Combined NC 54 Roadway Recommendations Sheet 1 - US 15 -501 to Rogerson Drive ....
6 -44
Figure 6 -27: Combined NC 54 Roadway Recommendations Sheet 2 - Rogerson Drive to Meadowmont Lane /Friday
CenterDrive ............................................................................................................................................. ...............................
6 -45
Figure 6 -28: Combined NC 54 Roadway Recommendations Sheet 3 - Meadowmont Lane /Friday Center Drive
to
LittleJohn Road .............................................................................................................................................. ...........................6
-46
Figure 6 -29: Combined NC 54 Roadway Recommendations Sheet 4 - Little John Road to Crossland Drive ....
6 -47
Figure 6 -30: Combined NC 54 Roadway Recommendations Sheet 5 - Huntingridge Road to Leigh Farm Road/
QuadrangleDrive ..................................................................................................................................... ...............................
6 -48
List of Tables
Table1 -1: List of Transportation Recommendations ................................................................................. ............................1 -9
Table2 -1: Conceptual Land Uses ........................................................................................................... ............................... 2 -18
Table 2 -2: Projected Population and Employment Growth for 2035 .............................................. ............................... 2 -18
Table 2 -3: Density, Diversity & Design Criteria ................................................................................... ............................... 2 -23
Table2 -4: Walking Trip Adjustments ..................................................................................................... ............................... 2 -24
Table3 -1: Prioritized Park - and -Ride Recommendations ....................................................................... ...........................3 -17
Table4 -1: Transit Recommendations .......................................................................................................... ...........................4 -13
Table 5 -1: Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Recommendations ............................................. ............................... 5 -27
Table 6 -1: Operating Conditions at Signalized Intersections through the 1 -40 Interchange Area in Peak Hours
.................................................................................................................................................. ............................... 6 -18
Table 6 -2: NC 54 Travel Time through the 1 -40 Interchange Area in Peak Hours ........................ ............................... 6-18
Table 6 -3: Timeframe and Phasing of 1 -40 /Farrington Road Area Improvements ................................. .................... 6-19
Table6 -4: Partial Cloverleaf Navigation by Movement ....................................................................... ...........................6 -23
Table 6 -5: Overall Intersection Delay (seconds) & Level of Service .......................................................... .................... 6-33
Table 6 -6: Total Directional Delay (in minutes) ........................................................................................ ...........................6 -33
Table 6 -7: Meadowmont /Woodmont Alignment Options Opportunities and Constraints ......... ............................... 6 -35
Table6 -8: Roadway Transportation Recommendations ......................................................................... ...........................6 -39
Attachment 2
AMW
-
r
s f
K F
CORRIDOR STUDY
TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE MASTER PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
..........
DECEMBER 2011
,
Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
Metropolitan Planning Organization
woos
RENAISSANCE PLANNING GROUP
Baker
NC 54/ I-40 CORRIDOR STUDY F EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE MASTED kN
Executive Summary
Overview
A primary route connecting much of southern Orange, However, rising congestion levels threaten property
Durham and Wake Counties, as well as new growth values and economic growth for both jurisdictions, as
occurring in Chatham County, with the academic and well as the ability for UNC to compete for jobs and
medical destinations at the University of North Carolina patients. There are policies in place in Chapel Hill and
at Chapel Hill (UNC) and other destinations in Research on the UNC campus that restrict the amount of available
Triangle Park,the NC 54/1-40 corridor is facing pressures parking, and encourage the use of transit in reaching
unlike many others in the region. In destinations served by this corridor.
addition to the regional access that NC I Yet the heavy traffic, high speeds and"NC 54 is an 54 provides for UNC and its medical lack of multimodal facilities along the
complex facilities for commuters, patients and corridor create barriers that limit the
visitors from across the state and usefulness and safety of walking and
markets with each having
region, the corridor is experiencing bicycling for transportation. This also
adjacent land development changes influences transit usage, where heavy
that require careful planning with demand exists due to the parking
transportation improvements to serve constraints, but better pedestrian
the long-term vitality of the corridor access is needed to make transit more
and its surrounding neighborhoods.With environmental, effective as a travel option.As a result of those existing
physical and policy constraints limiting expansion and anticipated future demands,NC 54 is an extremely
of portions of the roadway and the development of complex corridor, serving multiple travel markets and a
parallel roadway connections, the corridor requires diverse array of stakeholder and community interests
a multimodal solution to meet future demand while focused on the success of different transportation modes,
improving safety for all users and traffic operations. protection of neighborhoods and the economic viability
of their land.
The NC 54/1-40 corridor is extremely important to the
communities in both Durham and Chapel Hill, where it
serves residential, commercial and institutional 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 and infill of the future light rail station
areas, NC 54 is poised for dramatic changes. As a
result,the corridor is rising in statewide importance and
regional prominence.
DECEMBER 2011 E-1
NC 54 f I-40 CORRIDOR STUDY
TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE MASTER PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Study Objectives
In that context, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro and future transportation needs. They address the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) functional design for specific geometric improvements at
initiated the NC 54/1-40 Corridor Study to develop a intersections along NC 54 and at the interchanges with
land use — transportation blueprint for this regionally 1-40 and US 15-501, the expansion and integration of
significant corridor. With its development potential and various types of transit services to help more people
the plan to construct a regional light rail system that reach their destinations as an alternative to driving,
would serve this corridor,the goal of the study is to define an interconnected network of bicycle and pedestrian
complementary land use and transportation strategies facilities to provide a more comfortable environment
that will guide public and private actions, investments with safe access along the corridor for walking and
and capital project priorities to improve mobility,safety cycling, and a phased implementation plan for capital
and access for all modes. The dynamic nature of this projects and service improvements.
critical corridor requires a bold vision supported by
practical, achievable strategies in the near term and These transportation recommendations support a land
set the right foundation for longer term improvements use strategy designed to create more opportunities
through the 2035 horizon year. for location-efficient housing and transportation in the
corridor to improve livability and regional mobility. The
Through a planning process that examined future land corridor is becoming increasingly employment-oriented,
use-transportation scenarios, the NC 54/1-40 Corridor and more proximate housing choices—particularly for a
Study seeks to build upon various transportation and range of income levels—will create shorter trip distances
land use plans and engage corridor stakeholders and and help make the use of non-auto travel options more
the public in finding solutions that are effective and find viable.The report includes design guidelines to provide
the right balance between mobility and accessibility further support for implementing the recommended land
for all users. Study recommendations in the final report use and transportation strategies.
offer a multimodal approach to meeting existing
Study Partners and Process
The DCHC MPO led the study, serving as the project While the NC 54 corridor study limits are from 1-40 to US
manager in partnership with the consultant team hired for 15-501, the study did not just focus on the linear right-
the project, Renaissance Planning Group, in association of-way along NC 54. It captured a regional context,
with ICF International and Michael Baker Corporation. including growth patterns, transportation plans and the
The MPO coordinated the active involvement of a broad planned regional light rail system anticipated to connect
group of study partners that include the North Carolina this corridor to other points in the Triangle Region.The study
Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Triangle Transit area boundaries encompass surrounding neighborhoods
Authority (TTA), the City of Durham, Durham County, the and the existing and planned street networks, including
Town of Chapel Hill, the University of North Carolina Ephesus Church Road, Barbee Chapel Road, Farrington
at Chapel Hill (UNC), Chapel Hill Transit (CHT) and the Road, NC 751 and others providing parallel routes or
Durham Area Transit Authority (DATA).The MPO,the City interconnecting with NC 54.
of Durham, Durham County, and the Town of Chapel Hill
funded the study. The study partners formed a steering Public engagement is critically important to the study.
committee that met monthly to guide the process,provide A part of the corridor's complexity is the multitude
input at key milestones, and review study work products. of interested stakeholders with diverse expectations
about the future of the NC 54 corridor. These include
landowners, institutions, businesses, neighborhood
�I
DECEMBER 201 1 E-2
NC 54/ I-40 CORRIDOR STUDY
TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE MASTER PLAN
SUMMARY—
residents, students and, of course, the commuting public. transportation vision is to promote community livability
A vigorous public participation process was employed to by guiding future development into targeted mixed-use
guide the development of study recommendations. This areas to reduce trip lengths,enable greater use of non-
entailed a series of in-depth focus group discussions with auto travel options and provide location-efficient choices
each of the key stakeholder groups (residents and non- for housing and transportation. These areas are within
residents alike)early in the project and again once initial 1/4 to 1/2 mile of the four planned light rail stations in the
recommendations were nearing completion. In addition, corridor.This will effectively support the investment in rail
a series of three public workshops at key milestones passenger service that will strengthen regional and local
defined priority issues and opportunities, provided the travel options between the UNC campus,Orange County,
basis for creation and evaluation of scenarios, and Durham County and elsewhere in the Triangle Region.
enabled participants to react and suggest refinements Over time, the centers help transform the corridor from
to draft land use and transportation master plan a drive-by strip into highly accessible, well-connected
recommendations. places that function as vibrant focal points serving local
and regional needs.
These outreach activities were augmented through use of
a project web site (http://www.nc54-i4Ocorridorstudy. Land Use Strategy
com/) to share information and provide additional - -
opportunities for the community to review materials Figure ES-1 presents the recommended nodal
and weigh in with ideas or issues of concern. The DCHC development vision for the corridor. This land use-
MPO staff and consultant team also met informally with transportation blueprint embraces livability principles
various individuals and groups throughout the study. The that provide more transportation choices, promote
recommendations contained in this report are a direct equitable, affordable housing through location and
reflection flection of the input provided over the entire public energy-efficiency, enhance economic competitiveness
engagement process. through reliable and timely access to employment,
educational opportunities and services, and by
Vision for the Corridor supporting existing communities through transit-oriented,
mixed-use development that will help safeguard existing
Through the study process, analysis and broad-based neighborhoods and preserve rural landscapes.
feedback, a vision emerged for a regionally significant
multimodal corridor that serves both regional and Table ES-1 shows the proposed height and density
local travel through an expanded and more efficient targets for the nodal development plan,which provides
network of streets, bus routes, bicycle facilities and the compact, mixed-use framework necessary to create
pedestrian enhancements. The integrated land use and a series of vibrant walking districts that enables reliance
primarily on non-auto travel modes as they approach
build-out of the development program.
Master The NC 54 Corridor Plan promotes
The creation of highly developed mixed-use centers can
. . - p lower help mitigate automobile travel demand by creating
combined housing and transportation
an environment where walking and access to transit
per household. It puts people together, served are priorities. It also provides a mechanism to advance
by a more efficient transportation system that transportation funding opportunities that are unlikely to
enables more trips to be made by walking, be available with the status quo or trend development
bicycling and transit. The plan defines tat-get
pattern. For instance, more intense development at the
areas growth . - . reduce sprawl
planned Leigh Village station and other "nodes" along
outlying areas. the corridor can provide incentive to obtain mitigation
funding from future development to offset transportation
costs for the roadway improvements that eventually will
DECEMBER 2011 E-3
NC 54/ I-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE MASTER
I
Recommended Corridor
Land Use Concept
Ephesus Church Road
LEGEND
Mixed-Use 1 `
"Leigh
Mixed-Use 2 1 Farm
Park
Residential 1 i '
Residential 1�'1 �� r
I Quadrangle Office Parks
Employment
Glen..` '. ♦. ___ .� _
Unchanged from Existing Lennox
fdeadowmont
Future Light Rail Alignment&Stations i`' ?� � — t11 A,Falconbridge
with 1/4 and 1/2 mile station buffer I i , 04' - \ Y �} Shopping Center
Proposed
j Alternative Light Rail Alignment C2 Light Rail
Y
i Falconbridge
r 6
s F
� I
Downing,
——— Creek
Figure ES-1:Recommended Corridor Land Use Concept
Table ES-1:Concept Land Uses
Residential I Residential 2 Employment
No. of Stories 3 - 8 2 - 4 2 - 4 1 - 3 4 - 12
Floor-to-area ratios (non- 1.25 - 2.25 1.0 - 1.5 - 0.5 - 1.0
residential)
Dwelling Units per Acre 35 60 20 35 12 - 35 6 - 12
Employees per Acre 45 - 90 25 - 50 9 - 15 6 - 12 35 - 175
DECEMBER 201 1 E ,4
NC 54/ I-40 CORRIDOR STUDY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY—
TRANSPORTATION USE MASTER PLAN
be needed in the corridor even without the development. 54/Farrington Road intersection, where development
The traffic projections for the MPO's adopted 2035 depends on highway visibility. Conversely, rail transit is
Long Range Transportation Plan — without the nodal likely to result in more compact development clustered
development plan in the NC 54 corridor — show that within walking distance of the station,and opens up new
major capacity improvements to NC 54 and 1-40 will opportunities for how people choose to live and travel.
be needed. Higher densities also enable developers to
incorporate a greater percentage of workforce housing The response is also strongly influenced by the land
into the development program, helping to shorten trip use policy and planning context — for example, when
lengths and creating more purchasing power for those the predominant mode of travel is the automobile, rail
residents who can effectively lower both housing and transit needs to be accompanied by strong land use
transportation costs. policies in order to concentrate development in station
areas. This type of strategy in the NC 54 corridor is
Transportation has a profound influence to shape growth necessary to avoid a future scenario where rising levels
in a region and along a corridor.The parking constraints of congestion will occur due to regional growth forecasts,
on the UNC campus and elsewhere in the Town of Chapel and the demands placed on the NC 54 corridor and
Hill have certainly influenced the use of transit, and, its interchange with 1-40 will lack any financial support
at least to a certain extent, where people choose to from planned development.
live. Developers and their clients (businesses, residents)
respond to transportation conditions when they decide The timing of the nodal development plan is dependent
where to build, live, or locate their business. Anew or on the schedule for light rail in the corridor.If the funding
improved roadway or transit project can make access to mechanism is approved and the light rail plan moves
a location easier—making it more attractive to develop. forward, detailed station area plans would guide the
A transportation improvement can also improve visibility development for the areas around each station in the
—an important consideration for commercial developers. corridor. Due to the roadway capacity constraints of this
Many businesses rely on being seen by "pass-by" traffic corridor,only relatively modest increases in development
and want to locate where there is a lot of vehicle and/ intensity can be supported until the light rail system is
or pedestrian traffic. This has been the case at the NC operational.
Transportation Strategy
Table ES-2 presents the phased m ultimodal transportation and unconventional intersection designs commonly
recommendations associated with the recommended referred to as "superstreets." Together these strategies
nodal development plan. The recommendations are will reduce delay and support anticipated traffic growth
divided into short-term, mid-term and long-term in the corridor.
strategies. These are described in detail in the full
report, with supporting data in a series of appendices. Longer term,with the recommended nodal development,
In general, the short-term roadway strategies consist of a redesign of the US 15-501 interchange at NC 54 will
a series of local street connections including the collector be needed, and can enhance bicycle and pedestrian
safety in the future Hamilton Road light rail station area.
streets to provide alternate routes for local trips and
improve traffic flow and operational efficiency. Transit is an integral part of this overall strategy. In
The interim components include reconstruction of the 1-40 addition to the planned light rail system, a network
interchange,where the critical intersection of Farrington of premium Bus Rapid Transit lines, expanded local
Road and NC 54 causes significant congestion due to its bus service, and additional park-and-ride lots are
proximity to the 1-40 interchange, grade separation to recommended for the corridor. The key park-and-ride
eliminate traffic signals at the most critical intersections, strategy is the implementation of multiple facilities north
and east of the NC 54/1-40 interchange to capture trips
DECEMBER 2011 E-5
NC 54/ I-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE MASTER PLAN
before they enter the corridor. The package of facilities crossing will likely not result in significant traffic impacts
will together serve regional commuters, latent demand beyond the congestion that already exists or will exist
for satellite parking, and future parking for light rail in the future without substantial intersection capacity
transit, and could provide an alternative to the Friday improvements. Constructing a grade-separated
Center lot should it redevelop in the future. interchange at Barbee Chapel Road will ease congestion
and lessen delays as traffic grows in the future. A
From a bicycle and pedestrian network standpoint, the grade-separated interchange at Barbee Chapel Road
recommended plan fills in gaps and improves safety and could likely be designed to accommodate the C-2 light
access along NC 54 through geometric modifications rail alignment, but may entail significantly higher casts
and the creation of a 15' shared use path adjacent to for extending the elevated segment of the light rail and
the roadway between Barbee Chapel Road and the a potential tri-level structure. Another option for the C2
1-40 interchange. This is a critical gap in the corridor, alignment would be to move the alignment further to the
and high speed traffic precludes an on-road solution south to avoid conflicts with the proposed ramp. These
for the section east of the Friday Center. Additional additional costs will need to be considered in the next
non-motorized transportation recommendations are phase of the Light Rail development process.
identified throughout the corridor, including along
Barbee Chapel Road and at US 15-501. The potential construction of the C2 alignment and the
potential development of the Lloyd property on the north
The roadway improvements, especially the superstreet side of NC 54 would likely generate high pedestrian
intersection design and partial cloverleaf interchange demand across NC 54. This would be located just
design at US 15-501, take advantage of existing slightly east of the future elevated crossing that would
infrastructure and will provide maximum capacity for the be constructed at Barbee Chapel Road. While crossing
cost of construction. The transportation recommendations at Barbee Chapel Road would still provide access to
for other modes will help to manage demand in the the Hillmont light rail station within a half-mile walk of
corridor, further extending the life of the roadway the Lloyd property, a more substantial direct pedestrian
improvements. The recommendations for each mode are crossing may be needed. This is another cost implication
linked to others, to support a well-balanced and inter- that should be considered in the EIS process.
connected mobility network. Each improvement is an
investment in another,and together will build a stronger
system for mobility than optimizing the network for one
particular mode.
The Durham-Orange County Corridor Alternatives
Analysis (AA) was conducted concurrently with the NC
54/1-40 Corridor Study. The AA recommends two light
rail alignments be carried forward to the PE/NEPA phase
within the NC 54/1-40 study area. Both alignments,
shown in Figure ES-1, recommend elevated crossings
over NC 54. Alignment C1 will have no adverse impacts
along the NC 54 corridor. Alignment C2 may cause
complications at the Barbee Chapel Road intersection
with NC 54, where the proposed C2 alignment crosses
Barbee Chapel Road just south of NC 54. With the
current intersection configuration, an at-grade light rail
DECEMBER 2011 E-b
NC 54/ I-40 CORRIDOR STUDY
TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE MASTER PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Conclusion
The analysis of growth and transportation indicates express routes are planned to meet the corridors growing
that substantial capacity improvements will be needed needs in the interim to light rail, and these services will
by 2035 with or without new development anticipated complement the rail system when it is built.
to occur in the corridor. The 1-40 interchange at NC 54 A network of non-motorized transportation facilities,
is fast approaching its capacity, and the proximity of along with signage/markings for shared on-road use
the Farrington Road intersection creates operational where appropriate,is needed to create a more accessible
challenges that affect much of the corridor. Heavy corridor and study area.This addresses travel along the
through traffic volumes projected along the corridor NC 54 corridor by bicyclists and pedestrians, as well
require intersection modifications that will help reduce as crossing the corridor safely and efficiently. Elsewhere
delay. While the planned light rail transit system will in the study area, the network provides additional
help when it becomes operational sometime around connections between residential areas, commercial
2025, it will not eliminate congestion. Rather, the light destinations and regional facilities,such as the American
rail network provides a sound basis to guide future Tobacco Trail.
growth into the planned station areas as part of a nodal
development strategy that will help reduce trip lengths, Establishing benchmarks and targets is an effective way
lower vehicle miles traveled per capita, and provide for to measure progress toward plan implementation. The
more location-efficient housing choices to increase the NC 54/I-40 Corridor Study is a multi-year, multi-phase
financial flexibility of those residents. master plan aimed at improving overall mobility and
accessibility,consistent with plans to create development
While the recommended land use plan increases growth focal points as places that become multipurpose
in the corridor beyond the levels assumed for the destinations. Given the concerns of some residents and
adopted Long Range Transportation Plan, most of that many stakeholders about traffic conditions and future
additional growth is expected to occur in Orange County development plans, it makes sense to take an approach
because the LRTP assumptions appear low relative to in partnership with NCDOT and the local governments
development potential and future plans. that addresses various aspects of this report to track
progress toward achieving outcomes of this planning
The recommended phasing plan for the transportation effort, not merely the programming and construction of
network creates better mobility for the next 25 years capital projects.
through a series of improvements to enhance local street
connectivity for alternate routes, relieve bottlenecks The recommended approach is for the MPO to prepare
at key interchanges and intersections through grade a biannual monitoring report every two years to
separation, and increase operational efficiency through document progress toward achieving the mobility goals
"superstreet" intersection treatments. outlined in this study. This monitoring report would
document transportation system conditions over time
As indicated,due to traffic impacts,much of the potential using the performance measures defined through this
future growth will need to wait until the light rail system study and expanded to address specific implementation
is operational and can help moderate auto travel activities and accomplishments on the part of each study
demand. However, the plan calls for expanded park- partner or jurisdiction. The report would fit within the
and-ride opportunities north and east of the NC 54/ MPO's established Congestion Management Process,
1-40 interchange to serve regional commuters, satellite and should document actions from a land development,
parking for nearby employment centers,and future light transportation and urban design framework to implement
rail transit station by capturing a reasonable share of the recommendations for improved livability, mobility,
single occupancy vehicles before they enter the corridor. safety and access.
Expanded local bus, Bus Rapid Transit, and commuter
DECEMBER 2011 E-7
NC 54/ I-40 CORRIDOR STUDY
TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE MASTER PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table ES-2: List of Transportation Recommendations
Description Location Jurisdiction Phase O&M Capital
Coordinate with retailers to Retail Center at Durham Short Term $565,0002 n/a
designate 50 shared park-and- NC 751/NC 54 (2012-2020)
ride spaces. Enhance TTA 805 Intersection'
service through Woodcroft.
Construct surface lot with 500 Gateway Center Chapel Hill Short Term 5565,0002 $3,555,000 3,4
spaces. Implement a new CHT Future Light Rail (2012-2020)
express route(or modify CHT Station
Routes D and DX to serve facility.
Extend Donziger Drive over 1-40
for additional access.
Coordinate with retailers to Patterson Place Durham Short Term $565,0002 n/a
designate 300 shared park-and- (2012-2020)
ride spaces. Extend existing CHT
DX route to serve facility.
Coordinate with retailers to Retail Center at Durham Short Term n/a n/a
designate 100 park-and-ride Governors Village (2012-2020)
spaces for carpool and vanpool.
Coordinate with retailers to Oak Creek Village Durham Mid Term 5565,0002 n/a
designate 160 park-and-ride (2020-2025)
spaces. Add a stop along TTA
Route 405 to serve facility.
Coordinate with retailer to Renaissance Durham Mid Term $565,0002 n/a
replace or expand existing Parkway Target (2020-2025)
facilities in Southpoint Mall. Store
Modify TTA and DATA routes as
necessary.
Construct small facility with up to Leigh Village Durham Long Term S565'0002 $10,000,0005
500 spaces after construction of Future Light Rail (2025-2035)
1-40 interchange improvements. Station
Provide express bus service if
constructed before light rail.
Convert surface lot into structured Gateway Center Chapel Hill Long Term n/a $20,000,0005
facility with 1,000 spaces. Future Light Rail (2025-2035)
Station
Construct structured parking Patterson Place Durham Long Term n/a $20,000,0005
facility with 1,000 spaces to (2025-2035)
service light rail station.
Implement CHT express route Retail Center at Durham Long Term $565,0002 n/a
Governors Village 1 (2025-2035)
1 The pursuit of several locations for a park-and-ride facility along NC 751 is recommended,including Southpoint Auto Park Boulevard and the Renaissance
Parkway Target Store. The retail center at the NC 751/NC 54 intersection represents an ideal location,but all three locations should be pursued.
2 Operating costs based on additional total annual hours multiplied by$86,with 15 minute frequency during peak hours and 30 minute frequency during
off-peak hours
3 Assumes$5,000 per space,the average surface parking construction cost from the National Parking Association's 2009 study Parking in America:Annual
Review of Parking Rates in the United States and Canada
4 Includes cost of two new buses based on a 50/50 split of$400,000 non-hybrid buses and$655,000 hybrid buses for an average of$527,500 per bus
5 Includes cost of multi-level parking structure at$20,000 per space.
DECEMBER 2011 E-8
NC 54/ I-40 CORRIDOR STUDY 'F EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE MASTER PLAN
Description Location Jurisdiction Phase O&M Capital
Expanded Local Bus service Southeast along Barbee Durham Short Term $1,355,400' $700,000
with 30 minute frequency Chapel Rd and returning (2012-2020) (2 buses at
north back to NC 54 along $350,000
Farrington Rd with transfer each)2
to regional service
Express Bus service along From NC 751 park-and- Durham& Short Term $1,355,4003 $700,000
NC 54 from the NC 751 ride facilities to downtown Chapel Hill (2012-2020) (2 buses at
park-and-ride facilities Chapel Hill along NC 751 $350,000
and NC 54 each)2
Express bus service us From Gateway Center Chapel Hill Short Term $1,355,4003 $700,000
service along US 15-501 at the 1-40/US 15-501 (2012-2020) (2 buses at
or Franklin St from the interchange to downtown $350,000
Gateway Center park-and- Chapel Hill along US 15- each)2
ride. 501 or Franklin St
Light Rail Transit Durham to Chapel Hill Durham & Mid-Term n/a n/a
Preliminary Engineering Chapel Hill (2020-2025)
and Design
Expanded Local Bus service North of NC 54 along Durham Mid-Term $1,355,400' $700,000
with 30 minute frequency Farrington Rd &SW (2020-2025) (2 buses at
Durham Dr to US 15-501 $350,000
(Durham- Chapel Hill Blvd) each)2
Bus Rapid Transit- Phase 1. From Meadowmont along Chapel Hill Mid-Term $11,566,0804 $3,400,000
Five minute frequency with NC 54 to downtown (2020-2025)
daily peak vehicle need of Chapel Hill
six buses
Bus Rapid Transit- Phase 2. From NC 751 park-and- Durham Mid-Term $11,566,0804 $3,400,000
Five minute frequency with ride facilities along NC (2020-2025)
daily peak vehicle need of 54 towards Chapel Hill,
six buses. aligning with Bus Rapid
Transit- Phase 1
Flex Route service General service north Chapel Hill Mid-Term $4,066,2005 $307,200
and south of study area (2020-2025) (4 buses at
along Barbee Chapel Rd, $76,800
Pinehurst Dr,Farrington each)2
Rd, Ephesus Church Rd,
serving the Falconbridge
Community, Downing Creek
community, and Glen
Lennox
Light Rail Transit(Final Durham to Chapel Hill Durham & Long Term TBD6 $2,750,0002
Design and Construction) Chapel Hill (2025-2035)
1 Operating cost for normal fixed route service with 30 minute frequency is based on Long Range Transportation Plan.
2 Source of vehicle cost is 2011 Transportation Improvement Program.
3 Operating cost for express bus service is based on the operation of a fixed route service,but at a higher frequency.
4 Bus Rapid Transit costs are based on the 2004 Long Range Transit Plan study conducted by the Town of Chapel Hill.They include the cost of roadway
improvements.
5 Flex Route costs are based on the normal operations of a fixed route service.Flex service is essentially the same type of service,only different in the
method of delivery.
6 Operating cost estimates for the light rail project cannot be provided.The project has a more complete analysis and cost estimated being conducted by
Triangle Transit.The current cost for this project is limited to an estimate of preliminary engineering and design.
DECEMBER 2011 E-9
NC 54/ I-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE MASTER PLAN
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE
Description Location Jurisdiction Phase Cost'
Install crosswalks and Burning Tree Dr/ Finley Golf Chapel Hill Short Term (2012- $80,000
pedestrian signals at Course Rd & NC 54 2020)
signalized intersections with
pedestrian refuge islands and W Barbee Chapel Rd & NC Chapel Hill Short Term (2012-
street lighting for crossing NC 54 2020)
54.2
Meadowmont Ln/ Friday Chapel Hill Short Term (2012-
Center Dr& NC 54 2020)
E Barbee Chapel Rd & NC 54 Chapel Hill Short Term (2012-
2020)
Huntingridge Rd & NC 54 Durham Short Term (2012-
2020)
Farrington Road (northern, Durham Short Term (2012-
southern and eastern 2020)
approaches) & NC 54
Leigh Farm Rd/Quadrangle Durham Short Term (2012-
Dr& NC 54 2020)
Install crosswalks with US 15-501 on/off ramps Chapel Hill Short Term (2012- $40,000
pedestrian-activated flashers 2020)
and expand refuge islands.
Extend the solid marking From SB US 15-501 on ramp Chapel Hill Short Term (2012- $2,700,000
designating the westbound to 500 feet to the east 2020)
exclusive right turn lane for
US 15-501 on—ramps to
minimize weaving movements
at interchange and increase
safety for on-road bicyclists.
Provide a minimum 5-foot NC 54 from Burning Tree Dr/ Chapel Hill Short Term (2012-
wide on-road bicycle lane Finley Golf Course Rd to the 2020)
by restriping travel lanes to west
be 11 feet wide and making
minor median modifications.
Modify sloped abutment NC 54 underneath US 15-501 Chapel Hill Short Term (2012-
wall to provide 8-foot wide overpass 2020)
sidewalk behind overpass
structural piers.
Pave road shoulders to From NC 54 to the American Durham Short Term (2012- $4,000,000
accommodate bicyclists Tobacco Trail via Barbee 2020)
on select roads to provide Chapel Rd,Farrington Rd,
connections to the American Stagecoach Rd, NC 751, and
Tobacco Trail. Massey Chapel Rd
DECEMBER 2011 E-10
NC 54/ I-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE MASTER PLAN
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE
Description Location Jurisdiction Phase Cost'
Ensure adequate facilities for Farrington Road through Durham Short Term Variable cost.
pedestrians and cyclists are available. the study area (Old Chapel (2012-2020) Paving five-foot
Provide a 5-foot wide bicycle lane Hill Rd to Stagecoach Rd) wide bike lanes
where possible,or provide "share the Ephesus Church Rd from Durham & Short Term on both sides
road" signage and a paved shoulder or Farrington Rd to E Franklin Chapel Hill (2012-2020) of the roadway
sharrow markings for on-road bicycle would cost
travel.Many of the collector streets are St approximately
designed with for low vehicular speeds George King Rd & Durham Short Term $1,200,000 per
with the intent for bicycles to share the Crossland Dr(proposed (2012-2020) lane assuming
travel lane. Fill in sidewalk gaps.3 collector street) from medium duty
Ephesus Church Rd to NC pavement.
54 Striping a bike
lane without
SW Durham Dr from Durham & Short Term paving would cost
Ephesus Church Rd to NC Chapel Hill (2012-2020) approximately
54 $5,000 per mile.
Lancaster Dr and E/W Durham & Short Term Installing signag
collector street from Chapel Hill (2012-2020) would cost about
ton Rd to Pinehurst $1,500 n. In per
Farrington sign. Installing
Dr sidewalks would
Pinehurst Dr from Ephesus Chapel Hill Short Term cost about
Church Rd to Burning Tree (2012-2020) $265,000 per
Dr mile.
Burning Tree Dr from Chapel Hill Short Term
Pinehurst Dr to NC 54 (2012-2020)
Hamilton Rd from NC 54 to Chapel Hill Short Term
Cleland Dr (2012-2020)
Cleland Dr from Burning Chapel Hill Short Term
Tree Dr to US 15-501 (2012-2020)
Construct Little Creek Trail to connect Meadowmont Trail at Chapel Hill Short Term TBD
Meadowmont Trail to Lancaster Drive. Rashkis Elementary School (2012-2020)
Widen the existing bicycle path to a 15- Along the east side of US Chapel Hill Short Term TBD
foot wide shared use path. 15-501 from Cleland Rd to (2012-2020)
S Estes Dr
Construct the Bolin Creek Greenway Bolin Creek Greenway Chapel Hill Short Term TBD
connection to Pinehurst Dr. (2012-2020)
DECEMBER 2011 E-11
NC 54/ I-40 CORRIDOR STUDY
__'k, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE MASTER PLAN
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE
Description Location Jurisdiction Phase Cost'
Construct an off-road Along NC 54 from E Barbee Durham & Mid-Term The cost for these
shared-use path,with Chapel Rd to 1-40 overpass Chapel Hill (2020-2025) improvements is included
a boardwalk bridge as in the roadway projects
an alternative solution in Along the NC 54 frontage to Chapel Hill Mid-Term list under the item "Widen
environmentally sensitive connect to the existing multi- (2020-2025) NC 54 to six lanes in the
areas. Path should have use path at Burning Tree Dr Durham section.Construct
minimum 10-foot width; the multi-use path
ideally 15 feet if possible. concurrent with the road
"
Construct pedestrian Falconbridge Rd & Farrington Durham Mid-Term project
facilities with ramps at Rd (2020-2025)
Falconbridge Rd and
Farrington Rd bridges over
NC 54
Construct sidewalk on south South side of NC 54 from Durham Mid-Term
side of NC 54 to connect to Huntingridge Rd east to 1-40 (2020-2025)
1-40 overpass. overpass
Construct a 10-foot wide NC 54 bridge over 1-40 Durham Mid-Term
shared use path on south (2020-2025)
side of overpass.
Implement crosswalks and Huntingridge Rd & NC 54 Chapel Hill Mid-Term The cost for these
landscaped median refuges (2020-2025) improvements is included
at superstreet intersections. in the roadway projects
list under the item
Meadowmont Ln/Friday Durham Mid-Term "Construct EB NC 54
Center Dr& NC 54 (2020-2025) to EB 1-40 flyover from
Farrington Road to I-40
EB on-ramp."
Design and construct light Across NC 54 connecting Chapel Hill Long Term TBD
rail bridge over NC 54 Meadowmont and Friday (2025-2035)
to serve as an elevated Center
pedestrian crossing.
Construct Southwest Rail Trail Along future light rail corridor Durham & Long Term TBD
along light rail alignment Chapel Hill (2025-2035)
during light rail construction.
Construct US 15-501 S Estes Dr& US 15-501 Chapel Hill Long Term TBD
underpass to connect Bolin (2025-2035)
Creek Greenway.
Continue to make regional where possible Durham& Long Term variable cost
connections with greenways Chapel Hill (2025-2035)
1 Cost estimates do not include right-of-way,utilities or escalation.
2 Crosswalks, refuge islands, pedestrian signals and street lighting can be installed with developer mitigation funds. They may also be implemented
concurrently with road maintenance projects such as resurfacing,or as part of more substantial road improvements(i.e.,construction of the superstreet
intersections)
3 Although it may not be feasible to provide bike lanes or paved shoulders and construct sidewalks on all of these roads within the next five years,these
recommendations should remain a priority and should be constructed as soon as funds are available.
DECEMBER 2011 E-1 2
I
NC 54/ I-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE MASTER PLAN
ROADWAY
Description Location Jurisdiction Phase Cost'
Construct Farrington Rd slip ramp for Farrington Rd Durham Short Term $3,400,000
northbound traffic on Farrington Rd to (2012-2020)
access eastbound 1-40 directly.Modify
on-ramp to allow for transition.
Construct collector street system including As specified in the adopted Durham Short Term $31,400,000
turn lanes on NC 54. Southwest Durham (2012-2020)
—Southeast Chapel Hill
Collector Street Plan
Construct access road behind the Between Farrington Rd and Durham Short Term $400,000
Farrington Road shopping center for Falconbridge Rd (2012-2020)
connection between Farrington Rd and
Falconbridge Rd.
Obtain Marriot Way,then upgrade to Between Friday Center Dr Chapel Hill Short Term $800,000
NCDOT standards and extend to Barbee and E Barbee Chapel Rd (2012-2020)
Chapel Rd.
Construct other connections as Through study area Durham& Short to Long Variable cost
opportunities arise through development Chapel Hill Term
proposals.
Close Glenwood Square shopping center Glenwood Square Shopping Chapel Hill Short Term $100,0003
driveways along NC 54 and provide Center at US 15-501 (2012-2020)
access via Hamilton Rd interchange
Construct dual exit lanes for 1-40 WB 1-40 Interchange with NC 54 Durham Mid-Term $6,100,000"
to NC 54 WB loop ramp plus two thru (2020-2025)
lanes on NC 54 WB. Widen bridge for
four EB lanes,three WB lanes,and 10-
foot sidewalk on south side.
Add new partial cloverleaf ramp for 1-40 Interchange with NC 54 Durham Mid-Term $2,100,000
1-40 EB to NC 54 EB, remove existing (2020-2025)
signal and install yield sign at the 1-40
EB to NC 54 WB ramp. Reconfigure EB
approach at 1-40 EB on-ramps for two
free-flow lanes to EB 1-40.
Widen NC 54 to six lanes east of Barbee Chapel Rd to 1-40 Durham Mid-Term $22,700,000
Barbee Chapel Rd to match six lane Interchange (2020-2025)
section to the west.Construct the multiuse
path concurrent with the road project.
Implement superstreet configuration at Future western collector Durham Mid-Term $3,900,000
Crossland Drive. streets & NC 54 (2020-2025)
Convert Farrington Rd intersection to an Farrington Rd at NC 54 Durham Mid-Term $6,500,000
overpass over NC 54 with pedestrian (2020-2025)
facilities.
Convert Falconbridge Rd intersection Falconbridge Rd at NC 54 Durham Mid-Term $9,800,000
to a grade separated interchange with (2020-2025)
pedestrian facilities.
DECEMBER 2011 E-1
NC 54/ I-40 CORRIDOR STUDY r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE MASTER PLAN
ROADWAY
Description Location Jurisdiction Phase Cost'
Implement superstreet configuration at Meadowmont Ln/Friday Chapel Hill Mid-Term $4,300,000
Meadowmont Ln/ Friday Center Dr. Center Dr& NC 54 (2020-2025)
Construct Barbee Chapel RdgGrade Barbee Chapel Rd & NC Chapel Hill Mid-Term $9,200,000
separation. 54 (2020-2025)
Construct partial cloverleaf redesign of US US 15-501& NC 54 Chapel Hill Long Term $17,300,000
15-501 interchange. interchange (2025-2035)
Implement superstreet configurations at W NC 54 intersections with Chapel Hill Long Term $4,900,000
Barbee Chapel Rd and Burning Tree Dr/ W Barbee Chapel Rd and (2025-2035)
Finley Golf Course Rd. Burning Tree Dr/Finley
Golf Course Rd
I
1 Cost estimates do not include right-of-way,utilities or escalation.
2 Cost estimates include fourth travel lane on eastbound 1-40 to bridge across creek prior to NC 751 interchange.Recommended to extend travel lane to NC
751 interchange.
3 Cost estimates do not include right-of-way damages.
4 Cost estimate extends from 1-40 romps to Leigh Farm Rd/Quadrangle Dr.
5 Crossland Drive refers to the future western collector street. Throughout the study process,public citizens raised concerns over the Crossland Drive alignment
and proposed George King as a future collector street. The superstreet configuration is recommended for whichever road alignment becomes the collector
street.
DECEMBER 2011 E-14
P�:r7 rr
RENAISSANCE PLANNING GROUP
Baker
r Attachment 3
1/12/2012
Land Use - Transportation
The NC 54 Corridor Master Plan promotes
location-efficient decisions to help lower
combined housing and transportation costs
NC-54/1-40 CORRIDOR per household. It connects people and jobs,
BLUEPRINT FOR MOBILITY served by a more energy efficient
transportation network that enables more
Recommended Master Plan trips to be made by walking, bicycling and
transit.The plan defines target growth areas
that help reduce sprawl in outlying areas.
Project History Study Area
7 T' 7' 7-
I t
www.nc54-i4Ocorridorstudy.com
1
1/12/2012
Public 1
Overview of Study Refinements
What we heard from Phase I - Key Issues
• Superstreet ■ Adjusted development expectations in the corridor
• Proposed flyover ramps ■ More detailed park-and-ride study
• Structured parking deck
■ Greater integration of bus&rail to address gaps
• Park and ride facilities
• Growth projections ■ Expansion of pedestrian/bicycle recommendations
• Collector street connections ■ Further analyzed and developed roadway design options
• Fordham Boulevard Modified functional design recommendations and phasing
■ Others Addressed neighborhood concerns
• Recommended 15-501 interchange modifications
• Coordinated with Light Rail alignments
Land Use Concept Park-and-Ride Strategy
• Multiple markets
-- - Regional commuters
- Satellite parking for constrained
LEGEND f n destinations �!
f - Transit/light rail commuters `
• Dispersed park-and-ride
li opportunities to capture -�--
markets
Y�
Reduced future park-and-ride =� _
.,'., capacity at Leigh Village
• Phased approach
2
1/12/2012
Transit Recommendations
• Alignment C-1 and C-2
1 Short Term are still viable
Expand local -E4EN6 alternatives
regional connections
Roadway designs reflect
corridor C-1 alignment;however,
C-2 alignment will work
with minor design
r changes
p' (1 Long Te I Additional traffic analysis
�:• • • • • _• , ti may be needed if C-2 is
I selected as preferred
1 transit generators alignment
r Increased bus service north of •rridor t�
region_RT connects corridor with Neither the C-1 or C-2
Flex route shuttle service for • density area alignment is in direct
conflict with NC 54
recommendations
Bicycle & I
Pedestrian
Roadway 1 1 1
Recommendations
• Cohesive,connected Complete collector street
network connections
• On-road and off-road • Widen NC 54 to six lanes
facilities f4` • Improve capacity through
• Pedestrian emphasis superstreet design and
areas _ grade separation
• Intersection at grade , • Address critical issues at '
and grade-separated ° 1-40 interchange r"
crossing treatments =. Modify US 15-501
• Pedestrian signals -- _ interchanges+
3
1/12/2012
Next Steps
Dec Jan peb Mar Apr `-
2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 _. _
Public Review Period �
NC-54/I-40 CORRIDOR
Mar 14 Public
Hearing
BLUEPRINT FOR MOBILITY •��
www.nc54-i40corridorstudy.com fg �
Final
Approval