Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES-2002-099 Resolution Providing Comments to NCDOT and DCHC TAC Regarding the Draft 2004-2010 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)~'~~~ ~ i~ ~'~S ~~o c~ z- 0 9 5~ t~,~~f'c~~~ ~..:, ~~ ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A RESOLUTION PROVIDING COMMENTS TO THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL- CARRBORO TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGARDING THE DRAFT 2004 -2010 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, Orange County has participated in the development of the Durham- Chapel Hill- Carrboro (DCHC) Metropolitan Priority List for the 2004 -2010 Transportation improvement Program (TIP) as a member of the Durham-Chapel Hill- Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization; and WHEREAS, North Carolina Department of Transportation has considered the DCHC Priority List for the 2004 -2010 TIP and has released the Draft 2004 -2010 Transportation Improvement Program for public comment; and WHEREAS, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee is charged with the development of the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program which is consistent with the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP); and ~ WHEREAS, Orange County may offer additional comments on this draft Transportation Improvement Program at a later date; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that the Board submit the attached comments to the DCHC Transportation Advisory Committee to be considered in the development of the final 2004 -2010 DCHC Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program. Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner ~ ~ ,/ the foregoing resolution was adopted this the ~ day of K(~ 02. . I, Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on December 10, 2002 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of said Board. f4 / WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, thi~day of/~~a~~002. ~~~ e,,y C(erk to the Board of Commissioners :~.- ~ ~8T6~~ ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS REGARDING THE ;004 -2010 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEnnFtiT p~ As a member of the Durham-Chapel Hiil-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization, Orange County will continue to work with the Transportation Advisory Committee (DCHC TAC) to develop a complete list of project priorities for the portion of Orange County that lies inside the urbanized area boundary. However, there are selected ~ projects in Orange County that we would like to address now because they have been the subjects of discussions between the TAC and the Department of Transportation or because there are other special concerns. Proiects Requested By Oranqe County A. NC 86. Bicycle Lanes Construct bicycle lanes (4-foot paved shoulders) from Chapel Hill (WhitField Road) to Hillsborough (US 70 Business). This project will extend bicycle lanes on Airport Road (NC86) in Chapel Hill to US 70 Business in Hillsborough. Bicycle lanes have recently been completed along NC 86 from UNC to Whitfield Road (SR 1731) in Orange County. NC 86 from Chapel Hill to Hillsborough is experiencing increasing numbers of bicyclists using this route and there are also finro schools along this route. This route is listed as priority I of the primary bicycle routes proposed in the Orange County Bicycle Transportation Plan adopted April 6, 1999. This project is listed in the 2002- 2008 TIP as an incidental bicycle need. Orange County requests that bicycle lanes be constructed as an independent project, and, if necessary, programmed in phases. B. R-2825, Improvements to South Churton Street Develop congestion management, limited access, aesthetic and capacity improvements between US 70 Business and Interstate 40. The portion befinreen Inferstates 40 and 85 will conform to the design criteria of the Economic Development District Design Manual (4-lane divided section with bike and pedestrian improvements). The feasibility study should explore a variety of improvements within the current right-of-way for the segment north of Interstate 85. Improved capacity through widening is not the first choice because of significant constraints between Interstate 85 and US 70 Business and the proximity of the historic district north of the project limits. Orange County requests that, where conditions do not prevent the addition of frontage roads, the feasibility study include the addition of frontage roads with limited access from the corridor. B. US 70 Bvpass Widening Widen, from the Orange/Durham County Line to the US 70 -I-85 Connector east of Efland, US 70 Bypass to a four-lane divided section with bike and pedestrian improvements. This project should be phased to address traffic counts and existing congestion. Orange County requests that this project be identified as a need and included in the 2004-2010 STIP. C. NC 86 (North of Hillsborough) imqrovements Widen, from US 70 Bypass north of Hillsborough to SR 1332 (Coleman Loop), NC 86 to four lanes with intersection improvements at US 70 Bypass. NC 86 is the major north-south route through Orange County. NC .57 converges into US 86 just north of US 70 Bypass. The segment of NC 86 befinreen NC 57 and US 70 is congested, rendering a high accident location at the intersection of US 70 Bypass at NC 86. Development pressures in this area will exacerbate traffic congestion and accident proliferation. II. Comments on Proiect U-3808 Elizabeth Bradv Road Extension A. The Orange County Board of Commissioners is pleased that bicycle and pedestrian facilities have been included in the Elizabeth Brady Road Extension project connecting US 70 Business with US 70 Bypass. The Board requests that the 2004 - 2010 DCHC Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program use the following alignment and cross section for the project. 1. An alignment that has the least impact on the Eno River, the natural environment and cultural sites. . 2. An alignment that does not cross the Eno River, but is aligned along the ridge south of the river (if that alignment has the least impact on the natural environment and cultural sites). This recommendation is in accordance with the Orange County/Hillsborough Economic Development District Transportation Work Group priority order by preference of options to be studied for environmental analysis. 3. A road configuration of two lanes with right-of-way reserved for four lanes (four lanes if necessary). B. An Economic Development District (EDD) Transportation Work Group made up of Orange County and Town of Hillsborough elected officials, planning staff, developers and community groups was established to address transportation issues regarding the Hillsborough area EDD. That group's recommendations and comments regarding the planning and design of this project were submitted on Decernber 3, 2001, as part of Orange County's Transportation Priority List for Consideration of Funding in the 2004 -2010 Transportation Improvement Program. III. Comments on Proiect U-2805, Homestead Road Wideninq Orange County requests that there be no further delays in the scheduled widening of Homestead Road and that construction begin in FFY 2004. Construction has previously been delayed from mid-2001 (1998 -2004 TIP) to 2004 (2000 -2006) TIP. The project includes facilities for bicycles and sidewalks, and is needed to enhance safety around Chapel Hill High School, especially for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. IV. Comments On Other Tia Proiects Initiated Bv NCDOT A. I-3306: widenina of I-40 to six lanes from I-85 in Orange Countv to NC 147 ~Buck Dean Freewav) in Durham Countv Project planning and design for this facility in Orange County is in progress and construction in Durham County is underway. Orange County is opposed to any widening of I-40 through Orange County unless there is a commitment by NCDOT to provide HOV and/or dedicated bus lanes. Transportation modeling studies indicate that the existing four-lane section from I-85 to NC 86 may be adequate to handle projected future traffic, but HOV lanes, along with widening to a six-lane section for general traffic, will be needed to help alleviate congestion from NC 86 to Wake County. Orange County requests that, if funding cannot be secured through other transportation programs, this project include widening the bridge on Orange Grove Road over Interstate 40 to provide safe access for bicycle and pedestrian traffic over the interstate as recommended in the Orange Grove Road Study recently' executed by a joint committee made up of Orange County and Town of Hillsborough Commissioners and staff from Orange County and Hillsborough Planning Departments, Orange County Economic Development Department, and NCDOT. ~ Orange County also requests that NCDOT landscape interchanges for this project in an aesthetic manner. B. Orange County is opposed to any widening of I-85 through Orange County unless there is a commitment by NCDOT to provide HOV and/or dedicated bus lanes. Orange County requests that its staff be allowed to participate in the planning of the facility. The County is specifically interested in the following infrastructure improvements as they relate to the I-85/US 70 Economic Development District: Erosion Control Measures - Orange County requests that permanent erosion control measures be included in the project. 2. Landscapinq of Interchanaes - Orange County requests that NCDOT landscape all reconstructed interchanges in an aesthetic manner. 3. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities - Orange County requests that its staff be allowed to participate in the determination of where and what type of facilities are to be included in this project. Among the features requested for inclusion are sidewalks and bike lanes (see the Reqional Bicvcie Plan for Durham and Oranqe Counties) along roads where interchange improvements are required and adequate guardrails on overpasses. 4. Wildlife Corridor Under I-85 (in the vicinity of US70 Interchange) - Orange County requests that its staff be allowed to participate during the planning stage and that this issue be brought to the attention of the NCDOT Staff Biologist. Constructing this wildlife corridor is one of the recommendations presented in the "The New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan: Proposals for Linking Duke Forest and Eno River State Park." Orange County also requests that NCDOT consult county staff in designing the interchange at US 70 to provide a pedestrian trail under I-85 linking New Hope Creek and the Eno River (New Hope Rustic Woodland Trail proposed as an element of the Lands Legacy Program). 5. Intersection of Pleasant Green Road (SR 1567) & Mt Herman Church Road (SR 1713) - NCDOT Division 7 Traffic Engineers have recommended that this intersection be included as a part of I-305 because of its proximity to the I-85/US 70 interchange. The entire intersection should be realigned so that Pleasant Green Road intersects US 70 at a 90-degree angle. 6. US 70 from NC 751 to Universitv Station Road (SR 1712) - Due to the needs of the Pleasant Green Road1US 70 intersection, Orange County requests that US 70, from NC 751 to University Station Road, be upgraded to provide for a suitable transition from/to I-85. An example of the need for this project is the intersection of US 70 with Old No.10 (SR 1715) which is currently operating at level of service "F". 7. Mt Herman Church Road (SR 1713~ - Preliminary plans by the Planning & Environmental Branch, Division of Highways of NCDOT indicate that this road may be relocated as part of I-305. Orange County requests that this road be designed with 12' wide travel lanes and 4' wide bicycle lanes for a total paved width of 32'. 8. Old NC 10 (SR 1710) - Preliminary plans by the Planning & Environmental Branch, Division of Highways of NCDOT indicate that this road may also be relocated as part of I-305. Orange County requests that this road be designed with 12' wide travel lanes and 4' wide bicycle lanes for a total paved width of 32'. 9. NC 86 - NCDOT has expressed concern that the width (2-lane) of the NC 86 overpass is inadequate for increased traffic volumes fhat would result from proposed development in the adjacent Economic Development District. Orange County requests that the NC 86 overpass be widened. V. Comments on R-2630 Durham Northwest Loop (Northern Durham Parkwav) This pro~ect has had several different alignments and has been referred to by several different names, including Eno Drive. A. "Durham Northwest Loop" (as described in the draft STIP~ In the Draft 2004 - 2010 State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), this project is described as being in Durham and Orange Counties. As stated in previous resolutions, Orange County is strongly opposed to having this facility within Orange County, and is also very concerned about the environmental impacts to the Eno River State Park. Orange County requests that this facility be on a location outside of Orange County. Orange County is also opposed to any alignment of this facility where the western terminus could be extended in future years to form a loop or freeway into Orange County. B. Revised Northern Durham Parkwav The most recent alignment for this project is called the Revised Northern Durham Parkway. This alignment was initially referred to as "Option 7" by the DCHC Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) at the October 23 and November 6, 2002, meetings of the Transportation Advisory Committee. The Orange County Board of Commissioners recommends that the alignment of the Revised Northern Durham Parkway terminate at Roxboro Road, and that the Durham City Council and Durham County Board of Commissioners ensure by resolution that there will be no westward extension of the corridor