Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 01-24-2013 - 6a
1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: January 24, 2013 Action Agenda Item No. 6 -a SUBJECT: Draft Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) Yes ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Minutes Excerpt from October 18, 2011 BOCC Meeting 2. Legal Advertisement 3. NCDOT PowerPoint Presentation UNDER SEPARATE COVER 4. Draft CTP (113 pages) 5. Adoption Sheet and Four Maps INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Altieri, 245 -2579 Abigaile Pittman, 245 -2567 Craig Benedict, 245 -2592 PURPOSE: To hold a public hearing on the draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) for Orange County's rural areas. BACKGROUND: Orange County approved a resolution in June 2009 endorsing completion of a CTP for rural Orange County. The study is being completed through a coordinated effort among the Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard), Orange County planning staff, Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO), Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO), and the North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT). NCDOT Staff will attend the meeting to present the draft CTP and provide a summary of the planning process. WHAT IS THE CTP ?: The CTP consists of a technical report and four maps: 1) Highway; 2) Public Transportation; 3) Bicycle; and 4) Pedestrian. It is not fiscally constrained and incorporates local interests, community goals, and statewide needs in a common multi -modal plan. WHAT AREA DOES THE CTP COVER ?: The draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) covers the rural portions of the County, generally defined as the area outside of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, and Mebane (See attached maps for specifics). PROCESS: A Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) Steering Committee, comprised of representatives of those groups, has coordinated to complete the draft. The following tasks have been completed: • Held a public workshop to kick off the process (September 2009) 2 • Conducted an on -line public survey (October — November 2009); Collected current traffic data and projected future traffic (August 2010 — October 2010) • Analyzed traffic growth rates to use in final data projections (November 2010) • Prepared a highway deficiency analysis (November — December 2010) • Held a public input meeting on the deficiency analysis (February 2011) • Developed alternatives and draft recommendations for all modes (March- August 2011) • Held public drop in session and collected County advisory board input (September 2011) • Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) received draft CTP maps and provided input (October 2011) • Project delayed to rectify boundaries between the Burlington- Graham and Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organizations (January 2012 — November 2012. • Orange County Planning staff reviewed a rough draft of the CTP report and provided comments to NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch staff (December 2012). • NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch staff revised draft Plan for public hearing (January 2013). OCTOBER 18, 2011 BOCC MEETING — The Orange County BOCC last discussed the CTP at its meeting on October 18, 2011. All comments provided by the BOCC at that time have been acknowledged and addressed in some manner by the draft CTP. Staff will include a brief summary of how these items have been addressed during tonight's presentation. Minutes from this meeting are provided as Attachment 1. NEXT STEPS — Following tonight's public hearing on the 113 page CTP (Attachment 4), Orange County will consider adoption in two parts: Part 1 - adoption of Sheets 1 -5 (4 Maps), as provided in Attachment 5; and Part 2 - adoption of the technical report (Attachment 4). It should be noted that Sheets 1 -5 (Attachment 5) can also be found within the technical report (Attachment 4), albeit at a smaller, 8.5 x 11 page size. Following is the anticipated schedule and sequence of events- 1 . Public Hearing (January 2013); 2. Orange Unified Transportation Board formal recommendations (February 2012); 3. BOCC consideration of Part 1 (March 2013); 4. TARPO endorsement of Part 1 (Spring 2013); 5. NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch staff recommendation of Part 1 to NCDOT Board of Transportation (Spring 2013); 6. NCDOT Board of Transportation adopts only Part 1 (Spring 2013); 7. NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch distributes the technical report for external review by other staff within NCDOT (local contacts and modal contacts), a designated member of NCDOT Board of Transportation, TARPO, and Orange County (any comments collected are to be forwarded to the BOCC); 8. NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch staff finalizes the report and distributes the final document including previously adopted Map Sheets; and 9. BOCC consideration of Part 2 (May -June 2013). 3 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Additional information about the CTP can be found online at. http://www.ncdot.org/—tpb/planning/orangecounty.html FINANCIAL IMPACT: Other than the cost of legal advertisement and staff time, there is no financial impact associated with receiving the draft CTP and conducting the public hearing. This work is being completed by existing Planning staff in the Department's Comprehensive Planning Division with assistance from the NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch. Although the Comprehensive Planning Division, which includes the County's primary Transportation Planner, has undergone some turnover, a request to re -hire is in process. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board- 1 . Receive the draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan (Attachment 4); 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept public and BOCC comment on the proposed Plan; 3. Refer the matter to the OUTBoard with a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for the March 7, 2013 BOCC regular meeting; and 4. Adjourn the public hearing until March 7, 2013 in order to receive and accept the OUTBoard's recommendation and any submitted written comments. APPROVED 12/5/2011 Attachment 1 Minutes Excerpt MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING October 18, 2011 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, October 18, 2011 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, NC. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners Valerie Foushee, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee, and Steve Yuhasz COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Alice Gordon COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Gwen Harvey, Interim Assistant County Manager Michael Talbert and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) Chair Pelissier said that Commissioner Gordon is unable to attend tonight's meeting because she is out of town. NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. 1. A g Additions or Changes to the Agenda The lavender sheet was additional information for item 7 -a, North Carolina T orroi Compreh sive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) for Orange County as rt of the Seven Coun Triangle J council of Governments. There also a letter, related to item 7 -b, Orange - Alamance Bo ary Line '9 %' Adjustment Action. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with tlre,,reading of the public 2. Public Comments a. Matters not of Petitions /Resolutions/Proclamatio and othe similar requests submitted by the public will not be acted upon the Board of Co /ssioners at the time presented. All such requests will be eferred for Chair/Vice air /Manager review and for recommendations to th ull Board at a later date rega 'ng a) consideration of the request at a future re lar Board meeting, or b) receipt of request as information only. Submittal o information to the Board or receipt of in ation by the Board does not const' to approval, endorsement, or consent. Matters on the Printed Agenda 0 5 T FORE, THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS QUESTS THAT T WN OF HILLSBOROUGH BOARD OF COMMISSIO . 1) Accept a servation easement that pro!patlthe historical integrity of properties at 112 hurton Street and N. Churton Street, Hillsborough NC and indefinitely dela moli ' of the facilities; and 2) Authorize the Town A ey to de a suitable easement in concert with the Orange Cou ttorney for final appr by the Town Commissioners; said ease to be recorded with the Orange C Register of Deeds and aft to the properties in perpetuity. i8-this 18th day of October, 2011. b. Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan The Board received a presentation from North Carolina Department of Transportation staff and provided Board input prior to a public hearing on the draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Comprehensive Planning Supervisor Tom Altieri introduced Sarah Lee from NCDOT Engineer, who presented the draft Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Sarah Lee made a PowerPoint presentation. Overview • What is a Comprehensive Transportation Plan? • What has been accomplished so far? — Goal: get your input on the recommendations • What are the next steps? MPO / RPO Areas - TARPO = Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization Reminder: - This plan is for RPO area - Encompasses no municipalities (simple compared to most CTPs) What is a CTP? (Comprehensive Transportation Plan) • 4 maps with supporting documentation • Long -range (25 -30 years), multi - modal, fiscally unconstrained (no funding or priorities) — Highway, Public Transportation, Rail, Bicycle, Pedestrian • Replaces previous thoroughfare plans • Provides a "needs list" for year 2035 (high -level planning) • Developed by steering committee with representation from NCDOT, Orange County planning, OUTBoard, and Triangle Area RPO — Coordination with surrounding MPOs and counties • Designed to be easily updated in order to remain relevant R *Rural Area * • NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch • October 18, 2011 • CTP Progress Input So Far • Planning Board, September 7 — Make bicycle recommendations connect to Park and Ride lots on Public Transp. map — Discussion of County's Bicycle Map being more recreation based, vs. commuter based — possibility of adding recommendations to NC 54 and NC 86 (and Coleman Loop Rd) • Public drop -in session, September 14 — Questions about the type of bicycle improvements in the County's plan — Idea for an on- demand or constant minivan transit service for rural areas, could be public - private partnership, possibly using a taxi service Public comment website, open through September 26 — Nothing so far Committee meeting, September 21 — Decided not to display Highway and Public Transp. in MPO area (will have BGMPO map on hand and provide link) — Discussion of bicycle recommendation on Old 86, but decided not to based on information from bicycle advocates that the terrain is not suitable for bicyclists Next Steps • Get your input on the recommendations • CTP committee will review all input on the draft recommendations for incorporation into the CTP • Adoptions will begin in early 2012 • Coordinating with DCHC MPO — Possibility for county -wide plan to be readopted down the road when DCHC CTP is finished • Thank you! Questions? Orange County CTP Website: http: / /www.ncdot.org / ~tpb /planning /orangecounty.html Sarah E. Lee Scott Walston Transportation Engineer Triangle Unit Supervisor NCDOT TPB NCDOT TPB (919) 707 -0946 (919) 707 -0941 selee @ncdot.gov swalston @ncdot.gov Tom Altieri Other committee contacts: Comprehensive Planning Supervisor' Paul Guthrie Orange County Randy Marshall (919) 245 -2579 Nancy Baker taltieri @co.orange.nc.us Tina Love Matt Day 7 More info at www.ncdot.org /--tpb Additional Information... • Highway Categories... Freeway Facility • High mobility, low access • 55mph or greater • Cross section: minimum 4 lanes with median • Connections provided only at interchanges; all cross streets are grade- separated • Driveways not allowed • Traffic signals not allowed • Examples: 1-40,1-95, US 64 from Rocky Mount to Williamston, US 1 from Raleigh to Sanford Expressway Facility • High mobility, low access • 45 to 60 mph • Cross section: minimum 4 lanes with median • Connections at interchanges (major cross streets) and at -grade intersections (minor cross streets) • Driveways limited in location and number, right -in /right -out only • Traffic signals not allowed • Examples: US 117 north of 1-40, US 74 just east of 1 -277 in Charlotte Boulevard Facility • Moderate mobility, moderate access • 30 to 55mph • Cross section: minimum 2 lanes with median • Connections are at -grade intersections for most major and minor cross streets • Driveways allowed — primarily right -in /right -out; consolidation and sharing access is encouraged • Traffic signals allowed • Examples: US 1 in Raleigh, NC 55 (Holly Springs Bypass), US 70 from Clayton to Garner Major /Minor Thoroughfares • Balanced mobility and access • 25 to 55mph • Cross section: minimum 2 lanes, no median; includes facilities with a continuous left turn lane • Connections are at -grade intersections • Driveways allowed with full movements; consolidate and share access when possible • Traffic signals allowed • Examples: NC 86 north of Hillsborough, US 64 in Siler City, US 70 in Kinston, NC 168 in Currituck County Strategic Highways • Strategic Highway Corridors Plan — Ultimate vision for maintaining statewide mobility - specifically identifies the desired facility type for each corridor — Impact on our study area: • NC 86 — Upgrade to Expressway M Why Develop a CTP? • It's the law - GS 136 -66.2 • Recommendations address future travel demand - not just for vehicles, but for all modes - Ensures that data and projections are in place to support projects - Informs future land use planning and corridor protection Documentation is customer - friendly and easy to update A well- informed public - Public workshops are included - Local officials are regularly updated - Plans available on NCDOT website Commissioner Yuhasz asked if there was a narrative about the pedestrian lanes and some of the bicycle lanes. Sarah Lee said that she would check on this. She said that she reflected on what was on the pedestrian plan in the County as being developed. Commissioner Jacobs made reference to recreation -based versus community -based bike routes that was mentioned. Sarah Lee said that the bicycle map reflects the County's bicycle plan and the discussion was primarily about whether it should be recreation -based or more commuter - based. Visibly, it is more of a recreational plan. The discussion was adding some more commuter -based routes. The concern is the amount of traffic and the safety. Commissioner Jacobs encouraged NCDOT to accent the recreational component. The plan from the late 90's was a commuter plan, but that is really not feasible now. Commissioner Jacobs said that he would have trouble adopting this not knowing when the MPO will adopt it. Sarah Lee said that she would make sure to coordinate this. Chair Pelissier made reference to the park and ride lots and asked for an idea of the traffic analysis and how many parking spaces there would be. Also, she said that it is hard to know how the bus routes on this plan mesh with the draft transit plan, which still has not been formulated. No action needed tonight. Reports -NONE 10. NE 11. County Att2h 'sRe ortrt John Roberts said- at all of the edits to Municode hav een submitted and there should be an introductory predbAtation in early November. a second meeting in November there will be adoption of the ordinan This is not th O and there are no substantive changes. 12. Appointments a. Carrboro Noohglfin Transition Area Adviso ommittee - Appointment The Board cons! d making an appointment to the Carrb o Northern Transition Area Advisory Committee A motio as made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Co issioner McKee to appoint n Decker to the Carrboro Northern Transition Area Advisory Com ' ee to a partial t term expiring January 31, 2012. V : UNANIMOUS UffiMIT I T- O ti NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS A public hearing will be held at the Orange County Department of Social Services, Hillsborough Commons, 113 Mayo St., Hillsborough, North Carolina, on Thursday, January 24, 2013 at 7:00 PM for the purpose of giving all interested citizens an opportunity to speak for or against the following item: Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan: A Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) has been developed for the rural area of Orange County outside the Metropolitan Planning Organization boundaries, which include the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough and the City of Mebane. Modes of transportation evaluated as part of this rural plan include: highway, public transportation, bicycle, and pedestrian. Findings included in this CTP were based on an analysis of the transportation system, environmental screening, and public input. Implementation of the plan is the responsibility of Orange County and the North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT). This plan, which can be amended when needed, is intended to produce a long -range document that will guide transportation decisions through the year 2035. This plan is a cooperative effort among Orange County, the Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard), the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and the NCDOT. The Draft Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan is available on the NCDOT website at: http: / /www. ncdot. gov /doh /preconstruct /tpb /plan n i ng /orangecou nty. htm I Additional supporting documentation will be posted online by the County by or shortly after 5:00 PM on January 18, 2013 at www. co. orange. nc.us under "Meeting Agendas." Questions may be directed to the Orange County Planning Department located on the second floor of the County Office Building at 131 West Margaret Lane, Suite 201, Hillsborough, North Carolina. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. You may also call (919) 245 -2575 or (919) 245 -2585 and you will be directed to a staff member who will answer your questions. PUBLISH: The Herald Sun News of Orange January 9, 2013 January 9, 2013 January 16, 2013 January 16, 2013 0 Attachment 3 Orange County Draft '° Comprehensive Transportation Plan X140 a V; *Rural Area* NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch January 24, 2013 Public Hearing cav! 11 Overview • Review of a Comprehensive Transportation Plan • Draft maps and recommendations • Input provided and next steps MPO / RPO Areas TARPO = Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization by: 3 Date: Dam\ \ \`~ ISBN ww\ Late: Reco y: �T m D Reminder: a \, L o E' IN - E g • This plan is for RPO area N 0 T E � • Encompasses no w municipalities o E -_ Study Area SON' 7 e RAIR 3--Awt 4 o* MW c --tea —. Orange County. Comprehensive ranspertation Ptan What is a CTP? (Comprehensive Transportation Plan) 14 • 4 maps and cover sheet with supporting documentation • Long -range (25 -30 years), multi - modal, fiscally unconstrained (no funding or priorities) — Highway, Public Transportation, Rail, Bicycle, Pedestrian • Replaces previous thoroughfare plans • Provides a "needs list" for year 2035 (high -level planning) • Developed by steering committee with representation from NCDOT, Orange County planning, OUTBoard, and Triangle Area RPO — Coordination with surrounding MPOs and counties • Designed to be easily updated in order to remain relevant Why Develop a CTP? • It's the law — GS 136 -66.2 • Recommendations address future travel demand — not just for vehicles, but for all modes — Ensures that data and projections are in place to support projects — Informs future land use planning and corridor protection • Documentation is customer - friendly and easy to update • A well- informed public — Public workshops are included — Local officials are regularly updated — Plans available on NCDOT website 15 16 Typical Sequence of NCDOT Project Development 0 0 0 0 0 2 -3 YEARS U P TO 7 1 -2 YEARS 1 -2 YEARS 1 -2 YEARS YEARS g DATA g STIP LAND BIDDING PDEA - COLLECTION PROCUREMENT PROCESS RPO PROJECT EVALUATION ALIGNMENT PRIORITIZATION SELECTION EASEMENT NCDOT BOARD ENVIRONMENTAL ATTAINMENT AWARDS PROJECTS DOCUMENTS TRANSPORTATION CONTRACT FACILITY DESIGN PUBLIC PRESENTED TO ALTERNATIVE ASSISTANCE CONTRACT NCDOT BOARD STUDIES ESTIMATES & ADMINISTRATION FOR STIP QUANITIES LEGAL ACTION CONSIDERATION PUBLIC COMPLETED INVOLVEMENT PROJECT 2 -3 YEARS U P TO 7 1 -2 YEARS 1 -2 YEARS 1 -2 YEARS YEARS Roadway Public Surve Traffic Gi Rate, Traffic Projectic Capacity Deficiencies Public Drop -in Drat Recommer. 17 CTP Progress Gathered Input Adoption Sheet UN 'AWN R .�aR� M.P � � RAF U914 4 E4001� Mao F-K—cc— Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan %n taw 1 t 2012 UN Highway Map 19 Public Transportation & Rail Map • References "The Bus and Rail Investment Plan in Orange County" • Intended to be updated 20 a. F--- F-1 i M. C— SY Public Transportation A and Rail Map 7= H S� � F- I F-1 9 Er.&, DP AFT Fla—, r--- 3 -. S Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan 20 Bicycle Map • Incorporates County's bicycle plan and connections to DCHC recommendations • Includes SPOT projects Bicycle Map DRAFT E-11-Q C-- t— S Orange County S.- d- A,,-- 20N Comprehensive Transportation Plan Rardate: DeoefnbeT11,20`2 21 Pedestrian Map • Incorporates County pedestrian plan that is currently under development Pedestrian Map Dad m- _ EY-- i G - r-sF i gig DRAFT County $h. �: Comprehensive Transportation Plan 22 23 Previous Input on Recommendations • Planning Board, September 2011 • Public drop -in session, September 2011 • Public comment website, open through September 26 • Committee meeting, September 21 — Reviewed input and finalized draft recommendations for presentation to BOCC in October 2011 • Orange County Planning staff review of Technical Report and edits incorporated by NCDOT staff, December 2012 Addressing Input on RecornmendationE;° October 2011 BOCC • Discussion of county bicycle plan being recreational, and adding more commuter -based routes, while being mindful of traffic and safety — Coordination by Orange County staff with draft DCHC MPO 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) resulted in minor deletions and additions to CTP bicycle recommendations — Verbiage added to Chapter 1 (p. 1 -15) of report to reflect combined recreational and commuting opportunities • Discussion of park and ride lots regarding traffic analysis and specifics for the lots — Verbiage added to Chapter 2 (p. II -6) of report to clarify that specific information would be developed at a later date, and that the CTP identifies the general areas of anticipated need • Verbiage added to report in Chapter 2 (P. II -1 and II -3/4) to reflect NCDOT project implementation process and elaborate on project proposal details with regards to NC 86 expressway recommendation 25 Next Steps • OUTBoard recommendation in February • Adoption of 5 maps by Orange County in March • Endorsement of 5 maps by TARPO • Adoption of 5 maps by NCDOT • Technical report review by external contacts — Orange County, multiple NCDOT contacts, TARPO • Technical report finalized by NCDOT and distributed — Consideration of entire report by Orange County if desired 26 Thank you! Questions? Orange County CTP Website: Sarah E. Lee Transportation Engineer NCDOT TPB (919) 707 -0946 selee @ncdot.gov Tom Altieri Comprehensive Planning Supervisor Scott Walston Triangle Unit NCDOT TPB Supervisor (919) 707 -0941 swalston@ncdot.gov Matt Day Senior Planner Orange County Triangle Area RPO (919) 245 -2579 (919) 558 -9397 taltieri @co.orange.nc.us mday @tjcog.org More info at www.ncdot.org / -tpb 27 Manager Recommendation 1. Receive the draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan. 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept public and BOCC comment on the proposed Plan. 3. Refer the matter to the OUTBoard with a request that a recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for the March 7, 2013 BOCC regular meeting. 4. Adjourn the public hearing until March 7, 2013 in order to receive and accept the OUTBoard's recommendation and any submitted written comments. pp Attachment 4 �llllll R 4 A F P LJ I P P, I ii u rt P I A r Y IN! � KIM Ci L.N R A 11.1 1., R I • DRAFT Comprehensive Transportation Plan I/ 4N Orange County Month, 2012 w 29 30 Comprehensive Transportation Plan Orange County Prepared by: Sarah Lee, El, Project Engineer Scott Walston, PE, Triangle Planning Group Supervisor Transportation Planning Branch N.C. Department of Transportation In Cooperation with: Orange County Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Burlington Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization Month, 2012 Scott Walston, PE Triangle Planning Group Supervisor 31 32 Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary ........................................................ ..............................i Analysis of the Existing and Future Transportation System ........................1 -1 Analysis Methodology and Data Requirements .... ............................1 -1 Roadway System Analysis ............................. ............................1 -1 Traffic Crash Analysis .......................... ............................1 -3 Bridge Deficiency Assessment ............ ............................1 -3 Public Transportation and Rail ....................... ...........................1 -13 Public Transportation ........................... ...........................1 -13 Rail.................................................... ...........................1 -14 Bicycles and Pedestrians ....... .................................................... 1 -14 LandUse .................................................... ...........................1 -15 Consideration of the Natural and Human Environment :.....................1 -19 Public Involvement ................... ., ........................................................ 1 -27 11. Recommendations ............ ....................... .I......: Implementation ....................................... Problem Statements ........................ Highway.......... ............................... Public Transportation and Rail ....... Bicvble . ............................` ..... an ................. LE ........... ..............................I I -1 ............. ..............................I I -1 .. ........................................ 11 -2 ............... ...........................11 -2 ............... ...........................11 -5 ............. ...........................11 -6 ............... ...........................11 -8 Appendix A: Resources and Contacts ........................................ ............................A -1 Appendix B: Comprehensive Transportation Plan Definitions .... ............................B -1 Appendix C: CTP Inventory and Recommendations .................. ............................0 -1 Appendix D: Typical Cross-Sections .......................................... ............................D -1 Appendix E: Level of Service Definitions ...... ............................... ............................E -1 Appendix F: Traffic Crash Analysis ............................................ ............................F -1 Appendix G: Bridge Deficiency Assessment .............................. ............................G -1 Appendix H: Public Involvement ................................................. ............................H -1 Appendix I: Existing Transportation Plans ................................... ............................1 -1 List of Figures Figure 1 Comprehensive Transportation Plan ..................... ............................iii Figure 2 Growth Rates Map ................................................. ............................1 -5 Figure 3 Future (2035) Roadway Deficiency Map ................ ............................1 -7 Figure 4 Crash Locations Map ... ............................... 7 .................................... 1 -9 Figure 5 Deficient Bridges Map ..................................... .................................. 1 -11 Figure 6 Land Use Element of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan .......1 -17 Figure 7 Environmental Features Map 1 ............ ....,,...................................... 1 -21 Figure 8 Environmental Features Map 2 ...... .... ........... . .................................... 1 -23 Figure 9 Environmental Features Map 3 ........................ ... ............................. 1 -25 Figure 10 Typical Cross Sections ............. . ........................................................ D -2 Figure 11 Level of Service Illustrations ...................................... ......................... E -2 List of Tables Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table Table Envi Envi CTP Inventory an( tures... ...............:....... ... . ..................................... 1 -19 nental Features .............. .................................... 1 -20 Recommendations ................. ............................0 -2 ....... ....................... ............................F -1 ................................................ ............................G -2 33 34 Executive Summary In March of 2009, the Transportation Planning Branch of the North Carolina Department of Transportation and Orange County initiated a study to cooperatively develop the Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP), which includes only the rural areas of the county (no municipalities) not included in an MPO. The planning area is the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) area of Orange County, outside the Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) and the Burlington Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BGMPO). This is a long range multi -modal transportation plan that covers transportation needs through the year 2035. Modes of transportation evaluated as part of this plan include: highway, public transportation and rail, bicycle, and pedestrian. This plan does not cover routine maintenance or minor operations issues. Refer to Appendix A for contact information on these types of issues. Findings of this CTP study were based on an analysis of the transportation system, environmental screening, and public input. Refer to Figure 1 for the CTP maps, which were mutually endorsed /adopted in YEAR. Implementation of the plan is the responsibility of Orange County and NCDOT. Refer to Chapter 2 for information on the implementation process. This report documents the recommendations for improvements that are included in the Orange County CTP. More detailed information can be found in Chapter 2. 35 This page intentionally left blank. Sheet 1 Adoption Sheet p Airports 9so °;o Schools � Sheet 2 Highway Map - - - - - -- Roads N av 52 Sheet 3 Public Transportation Rivers and Streams WE and Rail Map Water Bodies S Sheet Bicycle Map Parks and Gamelands Figure 1 Orange County County Boundaries Sheet 1 of 5 North Carolina Sheet 5 Pedestrian Map - - - -- MPO Boundaries Comprehensive Base map date: April, zoos Transportation Plan Refer to CTP document for more details Plan date: December 11, 2012 37 Back of Figure 38 Caswell aunty Person County - - - - - -— �L----- - - - - -- - - - - - -- ° A � p o NO�iy I �p e 49 G F O J I N it v v ,6 1 M I Little River u'° Ch hRd SR 1543 tiR' Pa r. Sawmd\ R ♦ (SR 1004) o4 too Rd l5R 1545) r7� 157 C (SR 13521 °� 57 I i o m j Sdh1 ,� I I �Q N is y \oS iSR Pa 1 9hR � 9hia S\a /548 9.0 n C'3 _.. o _.. i I, ariingion ( ih�n _. ,. I Q7 I: Mot ol�ol' tan � 'Wrinillil CI I ani-lon of Ew of R t M° I CO ;f c 1 INi rz C'11, C °> > Mai li I a ^ge � s O c z ICI gi I t n O m ,s ^511113 ° -1 _. ^ �n O .I A A hl Arthur Min, Rtll`' c ra � gcad _ Dairy If I N � a I I 54 ° I U � 0 ,958 o I I j _ ye I/ O" Old Greensboro Rd SR 1 W51 "..� a N I / — ------------------ e - i ChathamCO U n t y ----------------------------------- ------------------------------------ -------- - - - - -- Freeways Other Major Thoroughfares Highway Map Existing Existing c , Needs Improvement �`�`� v` ° Needs Improvement b. ■��������I Recommended Recommended N 17 5A Minor Thoroughfares Expressways Existing W E m m Existing _ _ _ _ _ _ - Needs Improvement Sp`�4 iiiiimiiiiimiiiiimiiiiimiiiiimiiiiioiiiii, Needs Improvement ---------- Recommendedq uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu11 Recommended Figure 1 0 Existing interchange Sheet 2of5 Orange County Boulevards Proposed Interchange IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Existing Comprehensive ull�lll�lll�lll�lll�lll�lll� Needs Improvement 0 Existing Grade Separation Base map date: April, 2009 Transportation Plan VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII II Recommended 0 Proposed Grade Separation Plan date: December 11, 2012 Refer to CTP document for more details 39 Back of Figure Public Transportation Bus Routes Rail Corridor Intermodal Connector NNN"NNN Existing Active A Existing ^ ^ °P5 and Rail Map Needs Improvement Inactive lei Recommended ;,qe • "-p. a BnP; "NOON Recommended Fixed Guideway Recommended High Speed Rail Corridor Rail Stops N W E ®` 17 P Existing Existing Existing S °P14 �si41�e° Needs Improvement ®® Recommended Recommended p XX Recommended �,�I" Figure 1 Sheet 3of5 Orange County Operational Strategies Park and Ride Lot Existing Existing Comprehensive Base map date: April, 2009 Needs Improvement Transportation Plan ■ ■ ■ ■ Recommended © Recommended Refer to CTP document for more details Plan date: December 11, 212 41 Back of Figure viii Bicycle Map On -road Multi -Use Paths .qkv Cn¢�r� Existing Existing N " "• "'• "'• "'• "'• "'• "" Needs Improvement • • • • • • ' Needs Improvement 17 ;2 ••••••••• Recommended = _____= Recommended W E S�rr3 Off -road Existing 0 Existing Grade Separation Figure 1 • •'• " "• •'• " "' Needs Improvement 0 Proposed Grade Separation Sheet 4of5 Orange County ®®®®®®®®® Recommended " ° "" North Carolina Bike Route Comprehensive Base map date: April, zoos Transportation Plan Refer to CTP document for more details Plan date: December 11, 2012 43 Back of Figure 0 O 0 as c> CU E CU In - Caswell County Person County ------- - - - - -- �iII�B�;;IIIIII ,� -- �m Upper Eno ,�2, Cedar Grove fr�,i>� � � IL ru �r a y�r 0 0 U as 0 Sidewalks Off -Road Pedestrian Map Existing Existing ol- e r ����.��•���.��•��•���.��• Needs Improvement Needs Improvement ® ® ® ® ® ® ® i Recommended ® ® ® ® ® ® ®i Recommended N 17 ;2 W E Multi -Use Paths SOtr C nco11 �6 Existing 0 Existing Grade Separation ...... Needs Improvement 0 Proposed Grade Separation Figure 1 Sheet 5of5 Orange County Recommended Comprehensive Base map date: April, 2009 Transportation Plan ! Rural Communities ® Local Recreation Sites Refer to CTP document for more details Plan date: December 11, 2012 45 Back of Figure M I. Analysis of the Existing and Future Transportation System A Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) is developed to ensure that the progressively developed transportation system will meet the needs of the region for the planning period. The CTP serves as an official guide to providing a well- coordinated, efficient, and economical transportation system for the future of the region. This document should be utilized by the local officials to ensure that planned transportation facilities reflect the needs of the public, while minimizing the disruption to local residents, businesses and environmental resources. In order to develop a CTP, the following are • Analysis of the transportation system, initiatives; • Impacts to the natural and human env historic resources, homes, and businesse • Public input, including community vision a Analysis Methodology and Reliable forecasts ability of the trans depend on careful and travel patterns. An analysis of and identifies through a cap analysis. " Th potential, and transportation s of the iransporiai existing and acity deficiency is information, land use trend: system. Roadway System including any Local and statewide ronment, including natural resources, 7d goals and objectives. avel patterns must be estimated in order to analyze the ystem to meet future travel demand. These forecasts fhe character and intensity of existing and future land use )n system looks at both current and future travel patterns 1nticipated deficiencies. This is usually accomplished analysis, a traffic crash analysis, and a system deficiency along with population growth, economic development is used to determine the potential impacts on the future An important stage in the development of a CTP is the analysis of the existing transportation system and its ability to serve the area's travel desires. Emphasis is placed not only on detecting the existing deficiencies, but also on understanding the causes of these deficiencies. Roadway deficiencies may result from inadequacies such as pavement widths, intersection geometry, and intersection controls; or system problems, such as the need to construct missing travel links, bypass routes, loop facilities, additional radial routes or infrastructure improvements to meet statewide initiatives. One of those statewide initiatives is the Strategic Highway Corridor (SHC) Vision Plan adopted by the Board of Transportation on September 2, 2004 and last revised on July 1 -1 47 10, 2008. The SHC Vision Plan represents a timely initiative to protect and maximize the mobility and connectivity on a core set of highway corridors throughout North Carolina, while promoting environmental stewardship through maximizing the use of existing facilities to the extent possible, and fostering economic prosperity through the quick and efficient movement of people and goods. The primary purpose of the SHC Vision Plan is to provide a network of high- speed, safe, reliable highways throughout North Carolina. The primary goal to support this purpose is to create a greater consensus towards the development of a genuine vision for each corridor — specifically towards the identification of a desired facility type (Freeway, Expressway, Boulevard, or Thoroughfare) for each corridor. Individual Comprehensive Transportation Plans shall incorporate the long -term vision of each corridor. Refer to Appendix A for contact information. In the development of this plan, travel demand was projected from 2007 to 2035 by two methods. The first method was a trendline analysis based on Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) from 1990 to 2007. AADT data from 2008 and 2009 was available, but due to high gasoline prices and less travel during these years, the data did not match past growth trends. In order to avoid underestimating future travel demand in 2035, data from 2007 was used for projections instead. In addition, local land use plans and growth expectations were used to further refine future growth rates and patterns. The second projection method used the Triangle Regional Model ("TRM V4- 2008," Official Adopted Triangle Regional Model) as a comparison to the growth patterns of the trendline analysis. The Triangle Regional Model (TRM) is a tool that was developed for understanding how future growth in the region impacts transportation facilities and services. The TRM can help identify the location and scale of future transportation problems, and proposed solutions to those problems can be tested using the TRM. The projections of the TRM utilized for this comparison were found to be consistent with the trendline AADT data projections. The above two methods were used to establish growth rates for studied roadways, ranging between 1.0% and 3.0 %. The final growth rates were used to project 2007 AADT data to the 2035 horizon year, and this data was endorsed by the Orange County Board of Commissioners on May 17, 2011. Refer to Figure 2 for the Growth Rate Map. Existing and future travel demand is compared to existing roadway capacities. Capacity deficiencies occur when the traffic volume of a roadway exceeds the roadway's capacity. Roadways are considered near capacity when the traffic volume is at least eighty percent of the capacity. The planning area contained no capacity deficiencies in the existing conditions. Refer to Figure 3 for future capacity deficiencies. Capacity is the maximum number of vehicles which have a "reasonable expectation" of passing over a given section of roadway, during a given time period under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions. Many factors contribute to the capacity of a roadway including the following: 1 -2 M • Geometry of the road (including number of lanes), horizontal and vertical alignment, and proximity of perceived obstructions to safe travel along the road; • Typical users of the road, such as commuters, recreational travelers, and truck traffic; • Access control, including streets and driveways, or lack thereof, along the roadway; • Development along the road, including residential, commercial, agricultural, and industrial developments; • Number of traffic signals along the route; • Peaking characteristics of the traffic on the road; • Characteristics of side -roads feeding into the road; and • Directional split of traffic or the percentages of vehicles traveling in each direction along a road at any given time. The relationship of travel demand compared to the roadway capacity determines the level of service (LOS) of a roadway. Six levels of service identify the range of possible conditions. Designations range from LOS A, which represents the best operating conditions, to LOS F, which represents the worst operating conditions. LOS D indicates "practical capacity" of a roadway, or the capacity at which the public begins to express dissatisfaction, The practical capacity for each roadway was developed based on the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual using the NCLOS program. Recommended improvements and overall design of the transportation plan were based upon achieving a minimum LOS D on existing facilities and a LOS C for new facilities. Refer to Appendix E for detailed information on LOS. Traffi Traffic crashes are often used as an indicator for locating congestion and roadway problems. Crash patterns obtained from an analysis of crash data can lead to the identification of improvements that will reduce the number of crashes. A crash analysis was performed for the Orange County CTP for crashes occurring in the planning area between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009. During this period, a total of 2 intersections were identified as having a high number of crashes as illustrated in Figure 4. Refer to Appendix F for a detailed crash analysis. Bridge Deficiency Assessment Bridges are a vital and unique element of a highway system. First, they represent the highest unit investment of all elements of the system. Second, any inadequacy or deficiency in a bridge reduces the value of the total investment. Third, a bridge presents the greatest opportunity of all potential highway failures for disruption of 1 -3 community welfare. Finally, and most importantly, a bridge represents the greatest opportunity of all highway failures for loss of life. For these reasons, it is imperative that bridges be constructed to the same design standards as the system of which they are a part. The NCDOT Structures Management Unit inspects all bridges in North Carolina at least once every two years. Bridges having the highest priority are replaced as Federal and State funds become available. Six (6) deficient bridges were identified within the planning area and are illustrated in Figure 5. Refer to Appendix G for more detailed information. 1 -4 W - - - Caswell County Person C ounty --- :. O IIIIIII �' - 49 K a ;f Illy - /sR 11 o M 6 �W Ili^ R7Q r \ �ttle Rver Church Rd SR 154 d "- - - -1 a o to a mll Ra 5loiell�„uuu Sawm11 R oo I� e 1645) r... Hill o � 1352 I 7 S01 aa� c U 9h G, p�yi uriington Girflialyl - - Q7 Motlopol' tan ..:.. � I Is", Cl iiat'on cu G I g�- i Cti 0 i Ca I L o° I Op. as - / Y C VIII I P rn I m �'4 � - -Go - C i rho o Mct'ohol i i i w i o � � Ccao9 uuuu o Imi �I Ci qa iiitoi �...I m P 511113 ._._ ..:..... ...... FlIXIur MYdfi!II I 4"V''° �k "'I Ri S11w1Q'151 ��.uwo dh Rd I I i _ I II - a d ra �� ,? 13 Dairy/ N 0 I a � roo II .. y �I I o ; 968 n 1 I e�M7lIRd tl�YP' R AS�a o a o ) 41- (� n urnu "" ( 100 Nv�r✓stnava' �' ,.I ©� � l co Qa � as 1 d2\ --------------- Chatham Co u n t � � - --------------- -- - - - -- - - - - - -- -- Back of Figure 1 -6 -------------------- Caswell County Person County 52 ------- - - - - -- ---------------------- p At o Noisy I 0o a 49 86 m c little River Church °P Rd (SR 1543) - -1 r. 5 Rd RIO lovz Pa awR" pp 4 (SR7Qpgl Rd.. ASR 1545) r7� ,57 I ^o a O (SR \13521 �7 II a G Sch/ as ae 9h o a 9hv �a 1548) p 1 R I _ S -w . P 33 - I,u rlington Girflialyl - Q7 MMopoltall _ I 111'anililiq C)Iqailuafioil CU I G � g-� I CU np\ -- I 0 , 9� Rd I V4 CO Oa A 9 p 0 C", pc¢`° O ^ p I m A ^, -Arthur Mini Rdl °b IA s � A ` Pa \5 Ir rah erad5 Dairy /a I o II I 1 I �Sa O l i .y 18581 a � I m }� Ste. Old G�ensboto� Rd (SR 1005) I - - - -- .- 0 - -- -_ 1c I Chatham -- � -- - -- -- --- - - - - -- Co U n t y_. - -- --- - - - - -- Future (2035) Roadway Roadway Deficiency (Volume /Capacity Ratio) 1 1 Deficiency Map Orange County Base map date: April, 2009 Comprehensive Refer to CTP document for more details Transportation Plan 53 Back of Figure 1 -s Crash Locations (# Map Index) CTP Road Network Roads Rivers and Streams Water Bodies Parks and Gamelands County Boundaries MPO Boundaries N W E S Figure 4 Base map date: April, 2009 Refer to CTP document for more details Crash Locations Map I Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan — Caswell Caswell County i Person --------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ County IIII J) (81 X) A" 711111 cw, jjlllj� �1111111 M. JT q, 21 0 Q7 C7 I Miol It 111knilillil C)Iijanvafiorl CU E CU < 0 C, 16, rz di� s" I Niiharyi Chapol 11111 C""holo Mohopolit"', 11'annillil C)Iijanvafiorl A, fl M or' t 4 F — - — - — - — - — - — - ---- — - — - — - — - — - — - C h a t am Co Unty-------------------------------- ------------------- Crash Locations (# Map Index) CTP Road Network Roads Rivers and Streams Water Bodies Parks and Gamelands County Boundaries MPO Boundaries N W E S Figure 4 Base map date: April, 2009 Refer to CTP document for more details Crash Locations Map I Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan 55 Back of Figure 1 -10 Deficient Bridges (# Bridge Number) — Caswell Caswell County i Person --------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ County Roads Rivers and Streams Water Bodies Parks and Gamelands County Boundaries MPO Boundaries IIII �711111 cw, jjlllj� �1111111 IIIU.. 111111 Ir M. JT q, 21 0 C7 I 'WrIIIIIIij C)Iijanvafiorl CU E CU < 0 C, 16, rz di� Is" 1,11 haryl Chapol 11111 C""holo Mohopolit"', 11'annillil C)Iijanvafiorl A, fl M or' t 4 JI — - — - - - - — - — - — - --- — - — - — - — - — - — - C h a t Fe am -------------------------------- Co Un t Y ------------------- Deficient Bridges (# Bridge Number) N W E S Figure 5 Base map date: April, 2009 Refer to CTP document for more details Deficient Bridges Map I Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan CTP Road Network Roads Rivers and Streams Water Bodies Parks and Gamelands County Boundaries MPO Boundaries N W E S Figure 5 Base map date: April, 2009 Refer to CTP document for more details Deficient Bridges Map I Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan 57 Back of Figure 1 -12 Public Transportation and Rail W Public transportation and rail are vital modes of transportation that give alternative options for transporting people and goods from one place to another. Public Transportation North Carolina's public transportation systems serve more than 50 million passengers each year. Five categories define North Carolina's public transportation system: community, regional community, urban, regional urban and intercity. • Community Transportation - Local transportation efforts formerly centered on assisting clients of human service agencies. Today, the vast majority of rural systems serve the general public as well as those clients. • Regional Community Transportation - Regional community transportation systems are composed of two or more contiguous counties providing coordinated / consolidated service. Although such systems are not new, the NCDOT Board of Transportation is encouraging single - county systems to consider mergers to form more regional systems. • Urban Transportation — There are currently nineteen urban transit systems operating in North Carolina, from locations such as Asheville and Hendersonville in the west to Jacksonville and Wilmington in the east. In addition, small urban systems are at !work in three areas of the' state. Consolidated urban - community transportation exists in five areas of the state. In those systems, one transportation system provides both urban and rural transportation within the county. • Regional Urban Transportation - `Regional urban transit systems currently operate in 'three areas of the state. These systems connect multiple municipalities and counties. • Intercity Transportation - Intercity 'bus service is one of a few remaining examples of privately owned and operated public transportation in North Carolina. Intercity buses serve many cities and towns throughout the state and provide connections to locations in neighboring states and throughout the United States and Canada. Greyhound /Carolina Trailways operates in North Carolina. However, community, urban and regional transportation systems are providing increasing intercity service in North Carolina. An inventory of existing and planned fixed public transportation routes for the planning area is presented on Sheet 3 of Figure 1. Although the areas of Hillsborough and Chapel Hill have public transportation services in place, there are currently no fixed or scheduled services that serve the Orange County CTP area (the rural areas of the county). Orange Public Transit (OPT) offers transportation for the elderly or disabled to medical care, shopping, nutrition sites, and senior centers; however, these services are provided on the basis of individual qualifications and requests, so they were not included in the CTP inventory of existing routes. 1 -13 59 The Triangle Regional Transit Plan (TRTP), which is in progress, contains a bus element for Orange County, which was utilized in the development of the public transportation element of the CTP. All recommendations for public transportation were coordinated with the local government and the Public Transportation Division of NCDOT. Refer to Appendix A for contact information. Rail Today North Carolina has 3,684 miles of railroad tracks throughout the state. There are two types of trains that operate in the state, passenger trains and freight trains. The North Carolina Department of Transportation sponsors two passenger trains, the Carolinian and Piedmont. The Carolinian runs between Charlotte and New York City, while the Piedmont train carries passengers from Raleigh ..to Charlotte and back everyday. Combined, the Carolinian and Piedmont carry more than 200,000 passengers each year. There are two major freight railroad companies Transportation and Norfolk Southern Corporation freight railroads, known as shortlines. There are currently no existing rail facilities wi County's existing rail lines are contained within th contact information for the Rail Division of NCDO' Bicycles & Pedestrians Bicyclists and pedestrians are ,a growin Carolina. Many communities are worki pedestrians. operate in North Carolina — CSX ), there are more than 20 smaller the CTP planning area; Orange 'U areas . Refer to Appendix A for of the transportation equation in North improve mobility for both cyclists and NCDOT's Bicycle Policy, updated in 1991, clarifies responsibilities regarding the provision of bicycle facilities upon and along the 77,000 -mile state - maintained highway system. The policy details guidelines for planning, design, construction, maintenance, and operations pertaining to' bicycle facilities and accommodations. All bicycle improvements undertaken by the NCDOT are based upon this policy. The 2000 NCDOT Pedestrian Policy Guidelines specifies that NCDOT will participate with localities in the construction of sidewalks as incidental features of highway improvement projects. At the request of a locality, state funds for a sidewalk are made available if matched by the requesting locality, using a sliding scale based on population. NCDOT's administrative guidelines, adopted in 1994, ensure that greenways and greenway crossings are considered during the highway planning process. This policy was incorporated so that critical corridors which have been adopted by localities for future greenways will not be severed by highway construction. 1 -14 W The 1999 Orange County Bicycle Transportation Plan was utilized in the development of the bicycle element of the CTP. Orange County currently contains the Mountains to Sea Trail, also known as NC Bike Route 2, which runs along Old Greensboro Road (SR 1005) within the planning area. Although much of the bicycling that presently occurs in Orange County is for recreational purposes, the proposed network of bicycle recommendations in the CTP, when combined with connections recommended in neighboring plans by Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro (DCHC) MPO and Burlington Graham MPO, will present additional commuting opportunities as well. Detailed coordination was specifically performed with the draft 'DCHC MPO 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and CTP as it was under development, to ensure consistent connections across planning boundaries throughout the county. Orange County also has a pedestrian plan in progress that was utilized in the development of the pedestrian element of the CTP. Inventories of existing and planned bicycle and pedestrian; facilities for the planning area are presented on Sheets 4 and 5 of Figure 1. All recommendations for bicycle and pedestrian facilities were coordinated with the `local governments and the NCDOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation. Refer to Appendix A for contact information. Land Use G.S. §136 -66.2 requires that local areas have a current (less than five years old) land development plan prior to adoption of the CTP For this CTP, the 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2608, was used to meet this requirement and is illustrated in Fiaure 6!. Land use refers to the physical patterns of activities and functions within an area. Traffic demand in a given area is, in part, attributed to adjacent land use. For example, a large shopping center typically generates higher traffic volumes than a residential area. The spatial distribution of different types of land uses is a predominant determinant of when, where, and to what extent traffic congestion occurs. The travel demand between different ;land uses and the resulting impact on traffic conditions varies depending on the size, type, intensity, and spatial separation of development. Additionally, traffic volumes have different peaks based on the time of day and the day of the week. For transportation planning purposes, land use is divided into the following categories: Residential: Land devoted to the housing of people, with the exception of hotels and motels which are considered commercial. Commercial: Land devoted to retail trade including consumer and business services and their offices; this may be further stratified into retail and special retail classifications. Special retail would include high- traffic establishments, 1 -15 61 such as fast food restaurants and service stations; all other commercial establishments would be considered retail. Industrial: Land devoted to the manufacturing, storage, warehousing, and transportation of products. Public: Land devoted to social, religious, educational, cultural, and political activities; this would include the office and service employment establishments. Agricultural: Land devoted to the use of buildings or structures for the raising of non - domestic animals and /or growing of plants for food and other production. • Mixed Use: Land devoted to a combination of any of the categories above. Anticipated future land development is, in general, a logical extension of the present spatial land use distribution. Locations and types of expected growth within the planning area help to determine the location and type of proposed transportation improvements. Orange County anticipates the CTP planning area, which covers the rural areas of the county outside of the MPOs and municipalities, to remain primarily rural. The county's 2030 Comprehensive Plan reflects predominantly low- density residential development on private wells and septic systems and agricultural land uses for the future (See Figure 6). There are five Rural Community Nodes, located at key intersections along the more heavily traveled routes, and relatively smaller Rural Neighborhood Nodes at other less traveled intersections. One Rural Industrial Node, intended for small scale industrial uses not requiring urban services, is located at the northwest boundary of the planning area at the intersection of NC 86 and NC 49. Small portions of the Rural Buffer, an area that is jointly planned among Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro, are also located within the planning area. The Rural" Buffer is intended to protect rural character and is to remain rural, containing very low- density residential uses, and not require urban services. In general, the county's plan focuses the majority of the growth in and around the municipalities, which fall inside the MPO areas. 1 -16 62 Figure 6 1 -17 Back of Figure 1 -18 63 Consideration of Natural and Human Environment Environmental features are a key consideration in the transportation planning process. Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires consideration of impacts on wetlands, wildlife, water quality, historic properties, and public lands. While a full NEPA evaluation was not conducted as part of the CTP, potential impacts to these resources were identified as a part of the project recommendations in Chapter 2 of this report. Prior to implementing transportation recommendations of the CTP, a more detailed environmental study would need to be completed in cooperation with the appropriate environmental resource agencies. A full listing of environmental features that were exarnioed as a part of this study is shown in the following tables utilizing the best available data. Environmental features occurring within Orange County are shown in Figure(s) 7, 8, and 9. Table 1.— Environ • Airport Boundaries • Anadromous Fish Spawning • Beach Access Sites • Bike Routes (N'CDOT) • Coastal Marinas • Colleges and Universities • Conservation Tax Credit Prc • Emeraencv Operation CentE • Federal Land Ownership • Fisheries Nursery Areas • Geology (including dikes and Faults) • Hazardous Substance Disposal Sites • Hazardous Waste Facilities • High Quality Water and Outstanding Resource Water Management Zones • Hospital Locations • Hydrography (1:24,000 scale) • Land Trust Priority Areas • National Heritage Element Occurrences • National Wetlands Inventory 1 -19 North Carolina Coastal Region Evaluation of Wetland Significance (NC- CREWS) • Paddle Trails — Coastal Plain Railroads (1:24,000 scale) Recreation Projects — Land and Water Conservation Fund • Sanitary Sewer Systems — Discharges, Land Application Areas, Pipes, Pumps and Treatment Plants • Schools — Public and Non - Public • Shellfish Strata • Significant Natural Heritage Areas • State Parks • Submersed Rooted Vasculars • Target Local Watersheds - EEP • Trout Streams (DWQ) • Trout Waters (WRC) • Water Distribution Systems — Pipes, Pumps, Tanks, Treatment Plants, and Wells • Water Supply Watersheds • Wild and Scenic Rivers E Additionally, the following environmental features were considered but are not mapped due to restrictions associated with the sensitivity of the data. Table 2 — Restricted Environmental Features • Archaeological Sites 0 Macrosite Boundaries • Historic National Register Districts 0 Managed Areas • Historic National Register Structures 0 Megasite Boundaries I -20 65 Caswell County Person County -- ulu�l „ 3 I� "= � .. �, pVu 1111111 � nuu ullll � b w c4�,y -rvw — I N11111,11ton Giallaryll I r Q7 �&'Iolpolltall - I I line cI C,I 1 nii�'on _ - � Cg-t �i . -..1 G 11 w., CU IMIOI(IIIPo+Tn�I� I '� < j 0 a `a 1 III I CCi �I II C rz r �A C' P� n' .. I Y C I { I I il II C I M t I It POP, , l ul q C c anio n I I <� I I u " xy ,rl - �` I ✓1 rrJ l2�P I „ (SI I 1775 /Y9j ") _ �tq I J � I venal I 1 C }ai' lxd Vf ""m C`I4 1�dR'V �v � I k Fill' 111111111 r � Ca 1 V 111111. � � I r n , I 2+ I w 1 a.. I I/ U cJ CDIC' u " ' V _ 1 Chatham 4) U n ----------------------------------- -- - - -- ------ — — - -- q Y — Environmental Features National Wetlands Inventory Map 1 Water Supply Watersheds N Target Local Watersheds ® fO WE Roads 17 sz County Boundaries MPO Boundaries }O +'rfil Figure 7 Orange County Base map date: April, 2009 Comprehensive Refer to CTP document for more details Transportation Plan 67 Back of Figure 1 -22 69 Back of Figure 1 -24 Caswell County O�, CU E CU Larson County I'lanililiqC)1ga -nho � WJI r,.) >, 0 I U I i i co a( r_a Hydrography(1:24kscale) Environmental Features Map 3 High Quality Water Outstanding Resource Water Management Zones x Roads .N. � ,m'4Q X04 �` �rn County Boundaries W E — — MPO Boundaries 17 52 S ¢"b Figure 9 Cato Orange County Base map date: April, 2009 Comprehensive Refer to CTP document for more details Transportation Plan Back of Figure 1 -26 Public Involvement 72 Public involvement is a key element in the transportation planning process. Adequate documentation of this process is essential for a seamless transfer of information from systems planning to project planning and design. A meeting was held with the Orange County Board of Commissioners in September, 2009 to provide an overview of the transportation planning process and to gather input on area transportation needs. Throughout the course of the study, the Transportation 'Planning Branch cooperatively worked with the CTP committee, which included representatives from the Orange County planning staff, the Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard), Triangle Area RPO, and Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro 'MPO, and NCDOT Division 7. The committee worked to provide information on current local plans, to develop transportation vision and goals, to discuss population and employment projections, and to develop proposed CTP recommendations. A representative from Burlington Graham MPO was also routinely updated on the CTP status and data from the committee. Refer to Appendix H for detailed information on the Statement of the CTP Vision and Goals & Objectives, the public survey, and a listing of committee members. The Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) is a local volunteer advisory board that reports to the Orange County Board of Commissioners and provides information on transportation projects and issues. This board served as a key element for input throughout he CTP study. Three OUTBoard members served on the CTP committee, and they were responsible for updating the entire OUTBoard of the CTP status at its regularly scheduled meetings. Presentations were also given to the OUTBoard by the Transportation Planning Branch at various steps throughout the planning process. In addition to the OUTBoard, the County Planning Board is another volunteer advisory board, comprised of members; appointed by the County Board of Commissioners. The focus of this group is to determine objectives in the development of the County, and make recommendations to the Board of Commissioners. The Planning Board was routinely updated on the status of the CTP by Orange County planning staff, and a presentation was also given by the Transportation Planning Branch on the draft recommendations. The public involvement process included holding three public drop -in sessions in Orange County to present the proposed CTP to the public and solicit comments. The first was a public awareness session, held on September 29, 2009 from 5:00pm to 9:00pm at the Efland Ruritan Club, with the purpose of informing citizens of the plan that was under development and gaining their input on areas in need of study. The second meeting was a public drop -in session for the growth data, traffic projections, and preliminary recommendations, held on February 7, 2011 from 4:30pm to 7:30pm at the Orange County Public Library. The third meeting was a public drop -in session for the draft recommendations, held on September 14, 2011 from 4:30pm to 7:30pm at the Link 1 -27 73 Government Services Center. Each public session was publicized in the local newspaper, on local government websites, in local blogs and advisory websites, on local radio shows, through email lists, and on flyers in various locations around the county. One comment form was submitted during the session held on February 7, 2011, and one comment form was submitted during the session held on September 14, 2011. An online comment website was also created for the duration of the study, but no comment submissions were received via that format. The public involvement process also included a public survey, which was created with input from the Transportation Planning Branch, Triangle Area RPO, Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro MPO, Orange Unified Transportation Board, and Orange County Board of Commissioners. It was released to the public on September, 23, 2009, and closed on November 2, 2009. A total 491 surveys were completed (including both online and paper submissions). In January of 2011, it was discovered that there was Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro MPO and Burlington Staff discussions on options for adjusting boundaries and the fall of 2012, with a final option being apps MPOs in the fall of 2012. Due to these developrne recommendations were finalized by the committee in CTP was postponed until approval of the MPO bound in overlap of boundaries between ,raham MPO in Orange County. vere held between the fall of 2011 wed by Orange County and the ts, after the Orange County CTP he spring of 2012, adoption of the iry adjustments. A public hearing was held on FUTURE DATE during the Orange County Board of Commissioners meeting. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the plan recommendations and to solicit further input from the public. The CTP was adopted at the meeting held on FUTURE DATE. The Triangle Area RPO endorsed the CTP on FUTURE DATE. The North Carolina Board of Transportation voted to mutually adopt the Orange County CTP on FUTURE DATE. I -2s 74 II. Recommendations This report documents the development of the YEAR Orange County CTP as shown in Figure 1. This chapter presents recommendations for each mode of transportation in the County. Implementation The CTP is based on the projected growth for the planning area. It is possible that actual growth patterns will differ from those logically anticipated. As a result, it may be necessary to accelerate or delay the implementation of some recommendations found within this plan. Some portions of the plan may require revisions in order to accommodate unexpected changes in development. Therefore, any changes made to one element of the CTP should be consistent with the other elements. Initiative for implementing the CTP rE citizens of the County, as well as NC State exceed available funding, it is imr pursue funding for priority projects. F funding. Projects should be prioritized' for regional prioritization and submittal predominately with the policy boards and T. As transportation needs throughout the Live that the local planning area aggressively �r to Appendix A for contact information on ally and submitted to the Triangle Area RPO NCDOT via a formalized process. Projects can only move into the, protect development phase after first being ranked in NCDOT's Prioritization Process and programmed into the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which requires c programmed, the MPOs and RPOs the team that oversees the project d and design of projects as they mov( compliance with local plans and and County is a member of the Triang throughout this process. )rdination with local MPOs and RPOs. Once ay a significant role (as a concurring member on ✓elopment and permitting process) in the location through the process. These projects must be in rgo additional public involvement efforts. Orange Area RPO and thus represented by the RPO Local governments may use the CTP to guide development and protect corridors for the recommended projects. A is critical that NCDOT and local government coordinate on relevant land development reviews and all transportation projects to ensure proper implementation of the CTP. Local governments and NCDOT share the responsibility for access management and the planning, design and construction of the recommended projects. Prior to implementing projects from the CTP, additional analysis will be necessary to meet the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or the North Carolina (or State) Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). This CTP may be used to provide information in the NEPA/SEPA process. II -1 The following pages contain problem statements for each recommendation, organized by CTP modal element. 11 -2 75 Problem Statements Multi -Modal Plan Aspects 76 A complete inventory of studied facilities and recommendations for the CTP is provided in Appendix C. Several facilities contain recommendations for multiple modes of transportation. These additional modes are referenced in the final column entitled "Other Modes" in the table in Appendix C. HIrHWAY Refer to Figure 1, Sheet 2 for the Hig NC 54 (Orange Grove Road to Nevi NC 54 from Orange Grove Road (SR boundary) is projected to exceed Lev needed in order to relieve anticipates the existing facility. This section of N section, with a continuous center turn sway U I v map. le Road /DCHC MPO), Local ID ORAN0002 -H 1006) to Neville Road (SR 1945) (the DCHC MPO I of Service (LOS) D by 2035. Improvements are congestion and to maintain a minimum LOS D on C 54 is currently a 2 -lane, 24 -foot undivided cross lane in some segments: The CTP project proposal is to provide The addition of a median will allow for mobility for the facility. ne divided cross section for this facility. access control, thereby providing higher 11%. vv 1vvIc1na11 wvN r-.vauiLJxrn%o inry w %.aawCU %.vu11Lyl, wL,01 w vr-kr+iwvv I- H NC 86 from Coleman Loop Road (SR 1334) (the DCHC MPO boundary) to Walnut Grove Church Road (SR 1001) is projected to exceed Level of Service (LOS) D by 2035. Improvements are needed in order to relieve anticipated congestion and to maintain a minimum LDS D on the existing facility. In addition, NC 86 throughout northern Orange County is identified as a recommended expressway on the Strategic Highway Corridor Vision Plan, in order to maintain regional and statewide mobility and connectivity. This section of NC 86 is currently a 2 -lane, 24- foot undivided cross section. The CTP project proposal is to provide a 4 -lane divided expressway cross section for this facility from Coleman Loop Road (SR 1334) (the DCHC MPO boundary) to Caswell County. This includes the section of NC 86 that is concurrent with NC 49. The conversion to an expressway is consistent with the Strategic Highway Corridors Vision Plan. Refer to the draft DCHC MPO 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and 11 -3 77 CTP for the preferred concept for NC 86, which will connect this CTP project segment to 1 -40 with a consistent expressway cross section around the Town of Hillsborough. The CTP was temporarily delayed in the spring of 2010 due to local concerns with this project proposal and the Strategic Highway Corridors designation. However, while traffic on NC 86 is still projected to exceed capacity, CTP traffic projections to 2035 do not warrant a full expressway cross section within the planning horizon of this CTP. Ultimately, it was decided to move forward with the CTP, including this project proposal, with the understanding that the proposed cross section is ultimately driven by vision and not yet by traffic. NC 86 will be improved as needed, with the ultimate vision of an expressway. As with all projects, any improvements to NC 86 must also be submitted and programmed through NCDOT's Project Prioritization process in order to enter project development. This project proposal overlaps with NCDOT project W -5318 to provide geometric improvements, paved shoulders, and rumble strips to NC 86 from NC 57 (inside the DCHC MPO) to the Caswell County line. NCDOT proJect W -5318 is scheduled to begin right -of -way in January, 2012 and construction in January, 2013. Buckhorn Road Extension, Local ID; ORM Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) and Dairyland Ro for travel in southwest Orange County. Hov at their shared intersection with Orange Grog throughout the area. The CTP project pro cross section at Orange Grove Road (SR 1 (ORAN0004 -H) into Dairyland Road (SR 117 improve traffic flow for this area of the county )08 -H (R 1177) are currently primary choices (er, the two roadways are discontinuous Road (SR 1006), another primary carrier sal is to provide a new location 2 -lane 6) to extend Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) This will provide better connectivity and Northern Orange County contains very few options for continuous east -west travel beyond the primary route along Carr Store Road (SR 1004 / SR 1352), Sawmill Road (SR 1545), and Little River Church Road (SR 1543). However, Sawmill Road (SR 1545) and Little River Church Road (SR 1543) are discontinuous at their shared intersection with Walnut Grove Church Road (SR 1001). The CTP project proposal is to provide a new location 2 -lane cross section at Walnut Grove Church Road (SR 1001) to extend Little River Church Road (SR 1543) into Sawmill Road (SR 1545). This will provide better east -west continuity and connectivity for this area of the county. Minor Improvements Not all of the following facilities are projected to exceed Level of Service (LOS) D by 2035, but improvements such as turn lanes, minor widening, and /or surfacing are ideal for better mobility and more streamlined facilities as growth occurs. 11 -4 W • Arthur Minnis Road (SR 1115), Local ID ORAN0003 -H: Arthur Minnis Road (SR 1115) from Dodsons Cross Road (SR 1102) to Rocky Ridge Road / Arthur Minnis Road (SR 1113) is currently an unsurfaced, 20 -foot cross section. The CTP project proposal is to provide a surfaced, 24 -foot cross section suitable for public traffic use. The CTP committee identified the importance of this facility for east -west connectivity in this area of the county. • Buckhorn Road (SR 1114), Local ID ORAN0004 -H: Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) from Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) to Bradshaw Quarry Road (SR 1115) is currently an unsurfaced, 20 -foot cross section. The CTP project proposal is to provide a surfaced, 24 -foot cross section suitable for public traffic use. The CTP committee identified the importance of this facility for north -south connectivity in this area of the county. • (North) Efland -Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004), SPOT ID # 559: Efland -Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004) from Highland Farm Road (SR 1332) to Carr Store Road (SR 1004 / SR 1352) is currently a 2 -lane, 20 -foot cross section. The CTP project proposal is to provide a 24 -foot cross section with improvements to turn lanes and straightening of the roadway where needed. This project proposal overlaps with NCDOT project W -5143 to improve the horizontal alignment of the curve on Efland -Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004) north of the intersection with Highland Farm Road (SR 1332). NCDOT project W -5143 is scheduled to begin right -of -way in April, 2013 and construction in April, 2014. Mebane Oaks Road :(SR 1007 ).Local ID _ORAN0006 -H: Mebane Oaks Road (SR 1007) from NC 54 to Alamance County is currently a 2 -lane, 22 -foot cross section. The CTP project;, proposal is to provide a 24 -foot cross section with wide shoulders and turn lanes where needed. Old NC_ 86 (SR 1009), Local ID ORAN0007 -H: Old NC 86 (SR 1009) from Arthur Mihhi,s Road (SR '1113) (the DCHC MPO boundary) to Davis Road (SR 1129) (the DGHC MPO boundary) is currently a 2 -lane, 22 -foot cross section. The CTP project ;proposal is to provide a 24 -foot cross section with wide shoulders and turn lanes where needed. 11 -5 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION & RAIL 79 Refer to Figure 1, Sheet 3 for the Public Transportation & Rail CTP map. There are currently no existing rail facilities or recommendations within the CTP planning area; Orange County's existing rail lines are contained within the MPO areas. Bus Routes "The Bus and Rail Investment Plan in Orange Coun Board of County Commissioners on October 2, 2012 the bus element of the Orange County CTP. The G below. More detailed information regarding "The Orange County" is available through Orange County. • Local ID ORAN0001 -T: Bus route Neville Road (SR 1945) (the DCHC 2040 Metropolitan Transportation recommendation as Express Bus proji • Local ID ORAN0002 -T: Bus route a 1334) (the DCHC MPO boundary) to ( y ", adopted by the Orange County was utilized in the development of 'P bus recommendations are listed Bus and ;Rail Investment Plan in along NC 54 from Alamance County to MPO boundary). The draft DCHC MPO Plan (MTP) and CTP identifies this cts 136a and B6b. Ong NC 86 from Coleman Loop Road (SR aswoll Countv. The CTP proposes the following potential parr- and -ride lots to provide access to the proposed bus routes (ORAN0001 -T and ORAN0002 -T). All locations are based on current available information and are subject to change based on further study in the future. In addition, specific information such as number of spaces, surface of lot, and additional amenities would be developed at a later date. The CTP recommendation identifies general areas where lots are anticipated to be needed, with the intent of initially small lots with relatively minor amenities that grow as ridership increases. • Local ID ORAN0003 -T: The CTP project proposal is to provide a park- and -ride lot at the intersection of NC 54 and White Cross Road (SR 1951). This project would provide access to the bus route along NC 54 (ORAN0001 -T), for users of both vehicles and bicycles. • Local ID ORAN0004 -T: The CTP project proposal is to provide a park- and -ride lot at the Cedar Grove Park on NC 86. This project would provide access to the bus route along NC 86, for users of both vehicles and bicycles (ORAN0001 -B). W BICYCLE W Refer to Figure 1, Sheet 4 for the Bicycle CTP map. The Orange County Bicycle Transportation Plan was adopted in 1999 and was intended to develop transportation facilities and programs for bicyclists in Orange County. These recommendations were incorporated into the Orange County CTP. The 1999 Orange County Bicycle Transportation Plan and detailed information regarding its recommendations are available through Orange County. Minor additions to the CTP recommendations beyond the 1999 Orange County Bicycle Transportation Plan are listed below. As previously mentioned, the network of CTP recommendations provides a combination of recreational and commuting opportunities. Local ID ORAN0001 -B: NC 86 from Carr Store W (SR 1545) to proposed park- and -ride lot at Q This recommendation was added in order to prc bicycle facility along Carr Store Road (SR 135; with access to public transportation services vi (ORAN0004 -T). This is currently an on -rc immediate improvements, but the ultimate 4 -lai NC 86 in the future` could require an off -road f for bicycles. Road (SR 1352) / Sawmill Road Oar Grove Park (ORAN0004 -T). ride users on the recommended / Sawmill Road W (SR 1545) the proposed park- and -ride lot Eid recommendation for more e expressway cross section for ;ility to maintain this connection • Local ID ORAN0002 -B: NC Bike Route 2 / Mountains to Sea Trail along Old Greensboro Road (SR 1005) from Carl Durham Road (SR 1950) to Bowden Road (SR 1946) (the DCHC MPO boundary). Although this facility is already designated as NC Bike Route 2, this section is in need of upgrades, such as wider lanes or shoulders, in order to accommodate bicycles. (The section from Alemance County to Carl Durham Road (SR 1950) has recently been widened and resurfaced.) • Local ID ORAN0003 -B: Jones Ferry Road (SR 1942) from Chatham County to Ferguson Road (SR 1948) (the DCHC MPO boundary). This project was included in order to ensure connectivity with the 2035 DCHC MPO Long Range Transportation Plan recommendations and the draft DCHC MPO 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and CTP recommendations. • Local ID ORAN0004 -B: NC 86 from Phelps Rd (SR 1551) to Walnut Grove Church Rd (SR 1001). This project was included in order to provide connectivity with recommendations in the draft DCHC MPO 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and CTP recommendations. • Local ID ORAN0005 -B: Walnut Grove Church Rd (SR 1001) from NC 86 to Pearson Rd (SR 1544). This project was included in order to provide connectivity with recommendations in the draft DCHC MPO 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and CTP recommendations. • Local ID ORAN0006 -B: Schley Rd (SR 1548) from Walnut Grove Church Rd (SR 1001) to New Sharon Church Rd (SR 1538) (the DCHC MPO boundary). 11 -7 91 This project was included in order to provide connectivity with recommendations in the draft DCHC MPO 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and CTP recommendations. • Local ID ORAN0007 -13: Efland -Cedar Grove Rd (SR 1357) from Carr Store Rd (SR 1004/1352) to McDade Store Rd (SR 1358/1354). This project was included in order to provide further connectivity between recommendations included from the 1999 Orange County Bicycle Transportation Plan. • Local ID ORAN0008 -13: McDade Store Rd (SR 1361) from Pentecost Rd (SR 1361) / McDade Store Rd (SR 1358) to NC 49. This project was included in order to provide further connectivity between recommendations included from the 1999 Orange County Bicycle Transportation Plan. • Local ID ORAN0009 -13: NC 49 from McDade Store Rd (SR 1361) to Caswell County. This project was included in order to provide further connectivity between recommendations included from the 1999 Orange County Bicycle Transportation Plan. • Local ID ORAN0010 -13: W Lebanon Rd (SR 1306) from Saddle Club Rd (SR 1346) to Mill Creek Rd (SR 1345). This project was included in order to provide connectivity with recommendations in the draft DCHC MPO 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and CTP recommendations. • SPOT ID 1160: Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) and Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) from Dairyland Road (SR 1177) to West Ten Road (SR 1146). This project was submitted by the Triangle Area RPO to the NCDOT Strategic Planning Office of Transportation (SPOT) as part of the Prioritization 20 Process in 2011. This project overlaps with a section of NCDOT project` EB -5520 on Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) between , Dairyland Road (SR 1177) and Buckhorn Road (SR 1114). Local ID EB -5520: NCDOT project EB -5520 is to add 4 -foot shoulders to Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) from NC 54 to Arthur Minnis Road (SR 1115). There is currently no right -of -way or construction date scheduled. This project overlaps with the Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) section of SPOT ID 1160 between Dairyland Road (SR 1177) and Buckhorn Road (SR 1114). The projects below were also submitted by the Triangle Area RPO to the NCDOT Strategic Planning Office of Transportation (SPOT) as part of the Prioritization 2.0 Process in 2011, but were already included in the CTP recommendations taken from the 1999 Orange County Bicycle Transportation Plan. • SPOT ID 1095: Dairyland Road (SR 1177) from Union Grove Church Road (SR 1111) to Orange Grove Road (SR 1006). • SPOT ID 958: Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) and Dodsons Cross Road (SR 1102) from 1 -40 to Dairyland Road (SR 1177). • SPOT ID 559: Efland -Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004) from Highland Farm Road (SR 1332) to Carr Store Road (SR 1004 / SR 1352). PEDESTRIAN Refer to Figure 1, Sheet 5 for the Pedestrian CTP map. Orange County currently has a pedestrian plan under development for off -road pedestrian facilities throughout the county. Existing recommendations from this plan were incorporated into the Orange County CTP. The county's pedestrian plan and detailed information regarding its recommendations are available through Orange County. M* M This page intentionally left blank. II -10 m o W 0 III m W North Carolina Department of Transportation Customer Service Office Contact information for other units within the NCDOT that are not listed in this appendix is available by calling the Customer Service Office or by visiting the NCDOT homepage: 1- 877 - DOT -4YOU (1- 877 - 368 -4968) https: // apps. dot.state.nc.us / dot / directory /authenticated/ToC.aspx Secretary of Transportation Eugene A. Conti, Jr., Ph.D. 1501 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1501 (919) 733 -2520 gconti @ncdot.gov http://www.ncdot.org/about/ Board of Tran Mr. Michael S. Fox Post Office Box 2888 Greensboro, NC 27402 (336) 334 -3192 mikefox@ncdot.gov http: / /www.ncdot.gov /abo Contact the Division'` within each Division a ershi rd/ aer with general questions concerning NCDOT activities nformation on Small Urban Funds. Mr. Mike Mills, PE PO Box 14996 (mail) 1584 Yanceyville Street (office) Greensboro, NC 27415 -4996 (336) 334 -3192 http: / /www.ncdot.gov /doh /operations /division7/ A -1 Division Proiect Manager Contact the Division Project Manager with questions concerning transportation projects within each Division. Mr. John Hunsinger PO Box 14996 (mail) 1584 Yanceyville Street (office) Greensboro, NC 27415 -4996 (336) 334 -3192 jhunsinger @ncdot.gov Division Construction Engineer Contact the Division Construction Engineer for information concerning major roadway improvements under construction. Ms. Patty Eason, PE PO Box 14996 (mail) 1584 Yanceyville Street (office) Greensboro, NC 27415 -4996 (336) 334 -3192 peason @ncdot.gov Contact the Division signs, pavement ma Ms. Dawn McPherson PO Box 14996 (mail)` 1584 Yanceyville Street Greensboro, NC 27415 -4 (336) 334 -3192 dmcpherson @ncdot.gov c Engineer for information concerning traffic signals, highway Contact the Division Operations Engineer for information concerning facility operations. Mr. Pat Wilson, PE PO Box 14996 (mail) 1584 Yanceyville Street (office) Greensboro, NC 27415 -4996 (336) 334 -3192 pwilson @ncdot.gov A -2 M Division Maintenance Engineer Contact the Division Maintenance Engineer information regarding maintenance of all state roadways, improvement of secondary roads and other small improvement projects. The Division Maintenance Engineer also oversees the District Offices, the Bridge Maintenance Unit and the Equipment Unit. Mr. Brad Wall, PE PO Box 14996 (mail) 1584 Yanceyville Street (office) Greensboro, NC 27415 -4996 (336) 334 -3192 bwall @ncdot.gov District Engineer Contact the District Engineer for informatior driveway permits, road additions, subdivisio program, encroachments on highway right permits, paving priorities, secondary road cor Mr. C. N. (Chuck) Edwards, PE PO Box 766 (mail) 127 East Crescent Square Dr. (office Graham, NC 27253 (336) 570 -6833 cnedwards @ncdot.gov, Trans& Contact the Transportation PI planning services, including S1 1554 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1554 (919) 707 -0900 http: / /www.ncdot.gov /doh /prec n outdoor advertising, junkyard control, -eview and approval, Adopt A Highway f way; ;issuance of oversize /overwidth -uction program and road maintenance. Branch for information on long -range multi -modal Highway Corridors. nstruct /tpb/ Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (RPO) Contact the RPO for information on long -range multi -modal planning services. Mr. Matthew Day, AICP PO Box 12276 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 919- 558 -9397 mday @tjcog.org www.tarpo.org (www.tjcog.org) A -3 W Strategic Planning Office Contact the Strategic Planning Office for information concerning prioritization of transportation projects. Mr. Don Voelker 1501 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1501 (919) 707 -4740 djvoelker @ncdot.gov https: // apps. dot.state.nc.us /dot /directory /authenticate Contact PDEA for information on environ the TIP. 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1548 (919) 707 -6000 http: / /www.ncdot.gov /doh /preco Contact the Secondary Reads Office for info roads to be paved, additions and deletions of the Industrial Access Funds program. 1535 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1535 (919) 707 -2500 http: / /www.ncdot.gov /doh /operations /second8i s dies fo s/ age.aspx ?id =11054 that are included in the status for unpaved maintained system and Contact the Program Development Branch for information concerning Roadway Official Corridor Maps, Feasibility Studies and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). 1534 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1534 (919) 707 -4610 http: / /www.ncdot.org /planning /development/ Public Transportation Division Contact the Public Transportation Division for information public transit systems. 1550 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1550 (919) 707 -4670 http: / /www.ncdot.gov /nctransit/ A -4 W .% Rail Division Contact the Rail Division for rail information throughout the state. 1553 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1553 (919) 707 -4700 http://www.bytrain.org/ Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Contact this Division for bicycle and pedestrian the state. 1552 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1552 (919) 707 -2600 http: / /www.ncdot.gov /bikeped/ Structure Management Unit Contact the Bridge Maintenance the state. 1565 Mail Service CE Raleigh, NC 27699 -1 (919) 707 -6400 http: / /www.ncdot.gov on information throughout ion on bridge management throughout The Highway Design Branch consists of the Roadway Design, Structure Design, Photogrammetry, Location '& Surveys, Geotechnical, and Hydraulics Units. Contact the Highway Design Branch for information regarding design plans and proposals for road and bridge projects throughout the state. 1584 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1584 (919) 707 -6200 http: / /www.ncdot.gov /doh /preconstruct /highway/ Other State Government Offices Department of Commerce — Division of Community Assistance Contact the Department of Commerce for resources and services to help realize economic prosperity, plan for new growth and address community needs. http:// www. nccommerce .com /en /CommunityServices/ A -5 This page intentionally left blank. W. 91 Revised: August 31, 2010 Highway Map For visual depiction of facility types for the following CTP classification, visit http: / /www. ncdot. gov/dohlpreconstructltpblSHC /facility /. Facility Type Definitions Freeways - Functional purpose — high mobility, hi - Posted speed — 55 mph or greater - Cross section — minimum four lanes - Multi -modal elements — High Occ Transit (HOT) lanes, busways, trt interchanges, adjacent shared use ROW) - Type of access control — full control o - Access management — interchange s miles); at interchanges on the inter continuous median ncy Vehicles (HC lanes, park- and -ri s ( separate from r access acing (u 1,OOOft or for 350ft plus 650ft island or im service roads - Intersecting facilities — interchange or grade intersections) - Driveways - not allowed gh Occupancy icilities at /near av and outside i - one mile; non -urban — three vay, full control of access for ; use of frontage roads, rear Lion (no signals or at -grade - Functional purpose = high mobility, high volume, medium -high speed - Posted speed — 45 to 60 mph - Cross section — minimum four lanes with median - Multi -modal elements — HOV lanes, busways, very wide paved shoulders (rural), shared use paths (separate from roadway but within ROW) - Type of access control - limited or partial control of access; - Access management — minimum interchange /intersection spacing 2,OOOft; median breaks only at intersections with minor roadways or to permit U- turns; use of frontage roads, rear service roads; driveways limited in location and number; use of acceleration /deceleration or right turning lanes - Intersecting facilities — interchange; at -grade intersection for minor roadways; right -in /right -out and /or left -over or grade separation (no signalization for through traffic) - Driveways — right -in /right -out only; direct driveway access via service roads or other alternate connections 'M 92 93 Revised: August 31, 2010 • Boulevards - Functional purpose — moderate mobility; moderate access, moderate volume, medium speed - Posted speed — 30 to 55 mph - Cross section — two or more lanes with median (median breaks allowed for U- turns per current NCDOT Driveway Manual - Multi -modal elements — bus stops, bike lanes (urban) or wide paved shoulders (rural), sidewalks (urban - local government option) - Type of access control — limited control of access, partial control of access, or no control of access - Access management — two lane facilities may have medians with crossovers, medians with turning pockets or turning lanes; use of acceleration /deceleration or right turning lanes is optional; for abutting properties, use of shared driveways, internal out parcel access and cross - connectivity between: adjacent properties is strongly encouraged - Intersecting facilities — at grade intersections and driveways; interchanges at special locations with high volumes - Driveways — primarily right -in /right -out, some right -in /right -out in combination with median leftovers; major driveways may be full movement when access is not possible using an alternate roadway • Other Major Thoroughfares - Functional purpose balanced mobility and access, moderate volume, low to medium speed - Posted speed — 25 to 55 mph - Cross section — four or more lanes without median (US and NC routes may have - Multi -modal elements — bus stops, bike lanes /wide outer lane (urban) or wide paved shoulder (rural), sidewalks (urban) - Type of access control — no control of access - Access management — continuous left turn lanes; for abutting properties, use of shared driveways, internal out parcel access and cross - connectivity between adjacent properties is strongly encouraged - Intersecting facilities — intersections and driveways - Driveways — full movement on two lane roadway with center turn lane as permitted by the current NCDOT Driveway Manual • Minor Thoroughfares - Functional purpose — balanced mobility and access, moderate volume, low to medium speed - Posted speed — 25 to 55 mph - Cross section — ultimately three lanes (no more than one lane per direction) or less without median - Multi -modal elements — bus stops, bike lanes /wide outer lane (urban) or wide paved shoulder (rural), sidewalks (urban) - ROW — no control of access LZIN El Revised: August 31, 2010 - Access management — continuous left turn lanes; for abutting properties, use of shared driveways, internal out parcel access and cross - connectivity between adjacent properties is strongly encouraged - Intersecting facilities — intersections and driveways - Driveways — full movement on two lane with center turn lane as permitted by the current NCDOT Driveway Manual Other Highway Map Definitions • Existing — Roadway facilities that are not recommended to be improved. • Needs Improvement — Roadway facilities that need to be improved for capacity, safety, or system continuity. The improvement to the facility may be widening, other operational strategies, increasing the level of access control along the facility, or a combination of improvements and strategies. "Needs improvement' does not refer to the maintenance needs of existing facilities. • Recommended — Roadway facilities on new location that are needed in the future. • Interchange — Through movement on intersecting reads is separated by a structure. Turning movement area accommodated by on /off ramps and loops. • Grade Separation — Through movement on intersecting roads is separated by a structure. There is no direct access between the facilities. • Full Control of Access — Connections to a facility provided only via ramps at interchanges. No private driveway connections allowed. • Limited Control of Access Connections to a facility provided only via ramps at interchanges (major, crossings) and at -grade intersections (minor crossings and service roads). No private driveway connections allowed. • Partial Control of Access — Connections to a facility provided via ramps at interchanges, at -grade intersections, and private driveways. Private driveway connections shall be defined as a maximum of one connection per parcel. One connection is defined as one ingress and one egress point. These may be combined to form a two -way driveway (most common) or separated to allow for better traffic flow through the parcel. The use of shared or consolidated connections is highly encouraged. • No Control of Access Connections to a facility provided via ramps at interchanges, at -grade intersections, and private driveways. Public Transportation and Rail Map • Bus Routes — The primary fixed route bus system for the area. Does not include demand response systems. • Fixed Guideway — Any transit service that uses exclusive or controlled rights -of -way or rails, entirely or in part. The term includes heavy rail, commuter rail, light rail, monorail, trolleybus, aerial tramway, included plane, cable car, automated guideway transit, and ferryboats. LZIN 95 Revised: August 31, 2010 • Operational Strategies — Plans geared toward the non - single occupant vehicle. This includes but is not limited to HOV lanes or express bus service. • Rail Corridor — Locations of railroad tracks that are either active or inactive tracks. These tracks were used for either freight or passenger service. - Active — rail service is currently provided in the corridor; may include freight and /or passenger service - Inactive — right of way exists; however, there is no service currently provided; tracks may or may not exist - Recommended — It is desirable for future rail to be considered to serve an area. • High Speed Rail Corridor — Corridor designated by the U.S. Department of Transportation as a potential high speed rail corridor'. - Existing — Corridor where high speed rail service is provided (there are currently no existing high speed corridor in North Carolina). - Recommended —Proposed corridor for high speed rail service. • Rail Stop — A railroad station or stop along th • Intermodal Connector — A location where meet such as where light rail and a bus route station. • Park and Ride Lot — A strategically locate anyone who parks a vehicle and commutes b • Existing Grade Separat physically separated from E may be bridges, culverts, o • Proposed Grade Separat be physically separated transportation facilities. Th Bicycle Map rail parKir ransit - L_V%,0L1V110 :' VVIIGIG'r ng highways or other er structures. tracks. i one mode of transportation ether in one location or a bus that is free of charge to i carpool. ting rail facilities and are sportation facilities. These n — Locations where rail facilities are recommended to `rom existing or recommended highways or other e may be bridges, culverts, or other structures. • On Road - Existing — Conditions for bicycling on the highway facility are adequate to safely accommodate cyclists. • On Road -Needs Improvement — At the systems level, it is desirable for an existing highway facility to accommodate bicycle transportation; however, highway improvements are necessary to create safe travel conditions for the cyclists. • On Road - Recommended — At the systems level, it is desirable for a recommended highway facility to accommodate bicycle transportation. The highway should be designed and built to safely accommodate cyclists. LZMA .• Revised: August 31, 2010 • Off Road - Existing — A facility that accommodates only bicycle transportation and is physically separated from a highway facility either within the right -of -way or within an independent right -of -way. • Off Road -Needs Improvement — A facility that accommodates only bicycle transportation and is physically separated from a highway facility either within the right -of -way or within an independent right -of -way that will not adequately serve future bicycle needs. Improvements may include but are not limited to, widening, paving (not re- paving or other maintenance activities), and improved horizontal or vertical alignment. • Off Road - Recommended — A facility needed to accommodate only bicycle transportation and is physically separated from a highway facility either within the right -of -way or within an independent right -of -way. • Multi -use Path - Existing — An existing facility physically separated from motor vehicle traffic that is either within the highway right -of -way or on an independent right -of -way that serves bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Sidewalks should not be designated as a multi -use path. • Multi -use Path -Needs Improvemr motor vehicle traffic that is either wi independent right -of -way that serVE adequately serve future needs. Iml widening, paving (not re- paving or ( horizontal or vertical alignment. Sid path. • Multi -use Path- Recomn traffic that is either within that is needed to serve b designated as a multi -use • Existing Grade Separat "Multi -use Paths" are phy transportation facilities. $1 • .-• EM existing facility physically separated from highway right -of -way or on an and pedestrian traffic that will not nts may include'' but are not limited to, intenance activities), and improved hould not be designated as a multi -use ftsically separated from motor vehicle f -way or on an independent right -of -way n traffic. Sidewalks should not be — Locations where existing "Off Road" facilities and illy separated from existing highways, railroads, or other >e may be bridges, culverts, or other structures. • Proposed Grade Separation — Locations where "Off Road" facilities and "Multi -use Paths" are recommended to be physically separated from existing or recommended highways, railroads, or other transportation facilities. These may be bridges, culverts, or other structures. Pedestrian Map • Sidewalk- Existing — Paved paths (including but not limited to concrete, asphalt, brick, stone, or wood) on both sides of a highway facility and within the highway right -of -way that are adequate to safely accommodate pedestrian traffic. 97 Revised: August 31, 2010 • Sidewalk -Needs Improvement — Improvements are needed to provide paved paths on both sides of a highway facility. The highway facility may or may not need improvements. Improvements do not include re- paving or other maintenance activities but may include: filling in gaps, widening sidewalks, or meeting ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements. • Sidewalk- Recommended — At the systems level, it is desirable for a recommended highway facility to accommodate pedestrian transportation or to add sidewalks on an existing facility where no sidewalks currently exist. The highway should be designed and built to safely accommodate pedestrian traffic. • Off Road - Existing — A facility that accommodates only pedestrian traffic and is physically separated from a highway facility usually within an independent right -of- way. • Off Road -Needs Improvement — A facility that accommodates only pedestrian traffic and is physically separated from a. highway facility usually within an independent right -of -way that will not adequately serve future pedestrian needs. Improvements may include but are not limited to, widening, paving (not re-paving or other maintenance activities), improved horizontal or vertical alignment, and meeting ADA requirements. • Off Road - Recommended — A facility needed to accommodate only pedestrian traffic and is physically separated from a highway facility usually within an independent right -of -way. • Multi -use Path - Existing — An existing facility physically separated from motor vehicle traffic that is elther within the highway right -of -way or on an independent right -of -way that serves bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Sidewalks should not be desianated as a multi -use oath. • Multi -use Path -Needs Improvement — An existing facility physically separated from motor vehicle traffic that is either within the highway right -of -way or on an independent right -of -way that serves bicycle and pedestrian traffic that will not adequately serve future needs. Improvements may include but are not limited to, widening, paving (not re- paving or other maintenance activities), and improved horizontal or vertical alignment. Sidewalks should not be designated as a multi -use path. • Multi -use Path - Recommended — A facility physically separated from motor vehicle traffic that is either within the highway right -of -way or on an independent right -of -way that is needed to serve bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Sidewalks should not be designated as a multi -use path. • Existing Grade Separation — Locations where existing "Off Road" facilities and "Multi -use Paths" are physically separated from existing highways, railroads, or other transportation facilities. These may be bridges, culverts, or other structures. Revised: August 31, 2010 • Proposed Grade Separation — Locations where "Off Road" facilities and "Multi -use Paths" are recommended to be physically separated from existing or recommended highways, railroads, or other transportation facilities. These may be bridges, culverts, or other structures. A-IN W .. This page intentionally left blank. 100 Assumptions/ Notes: • Local ID: This Local ID is the same as the one used for the Prioritization Project Submittal Tool. If a TIP project number exists it is listed as the ID. Otherwise, the following system is used to create a code for each recommended improvement: the first 4 letters of the county name is combined with a 4 digit unique numerical code followed by ` -H' for highway, ` -T' for public transportation, ` -R' for rail, ` -B' for bicycle, ` -M' for multi -use paths,'or ` -P' for pedestrian modes. If a different code is used along a route it indicates separate projects will probably be requested. Also, upper case alphabetic characters (i.e. `A', `B', or `C') are included after the numeric portion of the code if it is anticipated that project segmentation or phasing will be recommended. • Jurisdiction: Jurisdictions listed are based on municipal limits, 'county boundaries, and MPO Metropolitan Planning Area Boundaries (MAB), as applicable. • Existing Cross - Section: Listed under `(ft)' is the approximate width of the roadway from edge of pavement to edge of pavement. Listed under `lanes' is the total number of lanes, with the letter `D' if the facility is divided. • Existing ROW: The estimated existing right -of -way is based on the Road Characteristics shapefile from the NCDOT GIS Unit. These right-of-way amounts are approximate and may vary. • Existing and Proposed Capacity: The estim based on LOS D for existing facilities and V were developed using the NCLOS program, ac • Existing and Proposed AADT (Annual Avera (vpd), are estimates only based on a system; estimate of the volume in 2035 with all prop The `2035 AADT with ;CTP' is shown in `bold unmet need. For additional information about the AADT volume estimates, refer to Chapter I ies are given in vehicles per day (vpd) tv facilities. These capacity estimates J in Chapter I. ily Traffic) volumes, given in vehicles per day analysis. The `2035 AADT with CTP' is an ;TP improvements assumed to be in place. Kceeds the proposed capacity, indicating an ssumptions and techniques used to develop • Proposed Cross- section: The CTP recommended cross - sections are listed by code; for depiction of the cross- section, refer to Appendix D. An entry of `ADQ' indicates the existing facility is adequate and there are no improvements recommended as part of the CTP. • CTP Classification: The CTP classification is listed, as shown on the adopted CTP Maps (see Figure 1). Abbreviations are F= freeway, E= expressway, B= boulevard, Maj= other major thoroughfare, Min= minor thoroughfare. • Tier: Tiers are defined as part of the North Carolina Mulitmodal Investment Network (NCMIN). Abbreviations are Sta= statewide tier, Reg= regional tier, Sub= subregional tier. • Other Modes: If there is an improvement recommended for another mode of transportation that relates to the given recommendation, it is indicated by an alphabetic code (H= highway, T= public transportation, R= rail, B= bicycle, and P= pedestrian). C -1 � Z O � D W � O W � Z Q � � O W � Z � V ]O] 0 } 0 3> F- ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) / % .2 * * * * * * * m m C) / § > > > > > > > o 2 � , , , / , , , / / � ± k ( \ / / / / / / m / g � \f^ 0 o! J @ @ @ a. 0 co / / / LO Eo ~ 2 0 0 0 § / / / \ » k k k \ \ \ ƒ 4 0 ¥ 3 « / _ _ = 4 \ w e e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = @ \ @ a±) w a w & m m m 3 / E = y g e? o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ -!= 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 j E 2 / / / / / / / / ƒ 0 7 g2 g g g g g g g g g k ƒ\ f LU 0 ± � \ « k 0 a a a a a a a a a 21- co F 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 _ t ^ jƒ » @ ® - @ _ @ @ a o w a o w o w ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ 0 0 0 0 0 / 0 0 0 0 o m m m m m m m m m 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , & & ` o ' % y o # o 3 0 to , _ o ¥ E E o /_= 0 0 0 _ o m o ® = @ m ±££ m ± ±/ /f\ 3 ±e e00 0 2 5± �f S0 0 / ] =®® ±7722222 -0 -0 G °G °@ a ±yy±± -Q -Q2 E o Of _ _ % , o ] ± ± a) a) ± ± ± ± 2 2 Of Of ! ool - -o> LO �m «2�/�/ o m °0 (D(D J JJ» § \ CO / / / / / \ \ \ § / / \ I / � <SJo k J ±o k J ±z o % J a± § § » § § =003030± § § § _ 2 / / / / / $ $ $ $ } k k k k k k k k k '_ & & \ 0 \\ \_ \_ \ ]O] 0 102 M U o o� F rn a U) o U(n 1U . w w w w w U O O O O O o— LO LO LO LO LO � ° U U U U o m m m m m c Q Q Q Q Q v v v v v U C/) d to O a N .� Q O _ O Co O O O O O a Q Q o co LO M d U N M_ CD OM O 000 O O O O O 3 U N I- I- LO It N 00 00 1, Z * H O O O O O * O p � � O O 00 C) 00 00 O I N N It V M N 00 E � .� E U -p O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O - Co Q O O O O O O O O O O O cn E y ° J W LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO W _ w O O O O O O O G Q O O Cfl N O a p C tq N N N N N N N N N N O U � = U o o O O O It It It It It N N N N N N N N N N OR OR OR OR N O0 M CR M O — N O co O N N — T T T T T T T T T T C C C C C C C C C C O 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 ° U U U U U U U U U U U N N N N N N N N N N 'p al al al al al al al al al al O O O co co co co co co co o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U Z 00 L LO o o co _ O CO _ a O �' 2i CO N .�-. CO co � U � � �— � � � U � (n M J � O N� N O (� (� i N= C/) > L a� CO Lo a O_ L L C7 N -° (n a -° U` N LL W M O U of 0 O � ' � O -O — � co O U` N O (n (n (n i ci 7 (n 7 N 7 O (6 O O L 2i �.. ° C of ° C (� co to Co a a a 7 N U (D :.. L O7 L O J O c6 c6 U` 0C/) N LO= N U 0 O-N NU >Z �M I`�o'ODU N 0 0 0 c EU(n c�c� to C) E cH V)ci� CH UZ ' N L U U L� U _° L O L N O U 'O O O M (6 (6 (6 Q� (6 Q* O (.�6 M U cnacncn� �� Z�cn 2cna U�� � 0C/)0 UQC7 LU 2' = LO LO LO LO LO 00 00 00 00 00 00 o U U U U U U U U U U U IL Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 00 00 00 00 00 O O O O O O LO O M O LO O M O LO O M O LO O M O LO o 2 o 2 o 2 o 2 o 2 102 M U ]O3 0 } \ 3> A Of Of Of Of / / / / / / E e § e q. . E E E E C) > > > > 2 2 2 2 2 2 /§ 4 � } k ( \ / / 0 / / 4 / / / / m ^ g / < < < < < < < < < � \Z 0 o ! J @ a. /E± / LO Eo C-4 Lo o 0 0 0 0 0 0 r c R g @ / / @ \ \ @ CC 3ƒ 4 G a a a a ® r r = _ \ \ \ \ \ @ a±) w w w w r w w m m = y 7 k o 0 0 0 0 \= S S S S / f @ @ @ @ to m r o 0 0 j co 2 / / / / / / / / ƒ C) 7 g2 g g g g g g @ g g g k ƒ\ f \ 4^ o = � 0 ED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m ± «§ k a a a a a a a a a a 2 2 \ \ \ \ R \ \ \ \ 2 � x ƒ^ c g = 7 a @ @ ® — w a C) w — w — — — — a — ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f m m m m m m m m m m \ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ± , 2� �f ~§ * f %� - ƒ}/ S ¥ /QQ/ ®/§ �% %7 ) a) 2 2 2 7 / ± / / / — o ~ / § JJDemz� m o ± u m ���� 0-1 ��\ /%} \ » /c�,= S of ±] �7 =�� a=�=o }3 C/) Of E5o)7 I \/ 7 �@@ 2 2 \2 \// `y/ + § e ¥ § * = //} 5 m 2/ e o //\Q\ _ _ _ §$ o \Q§ _ , \ o /§� &W(nC \� }& §I�222LO °0257 >1 /) k co C/) \$2C` §000J8a2 DJ§ m0 C/) (D E occ±± ±#o >af0CS Of Of Of Of m $ m $ m $ m $ Of Of Of % % % _ _ \� \� \� %— %— %- _± _± _± ± � } } } } #7 #7 #7 \ k k k k \� S. \� /7 /7 /7 \ G 0 ]O3 0 104 LO U o o� m 0 = C U co U E y ( .0 cn L N N O U L7 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q d 0 O (D N .� Q O O coo C Q Q a Q o co (n M o U N O O O O O O O O O M O O U N N N O O O co C H O O 0 O O O O Q O Q N O LO I� LO O W 00 O E U O O O O O O O O O O C co C (n U O O O O O O O N O N O � X j O O `U O cn N = cm (o C 'y N Q E Lf) LO LO U O LO LO LO LO LO LO LO Q LO LO LO LO LO LO LO V V LO % W L7 z �� Qo Qo 0 N p U C a tq N N N N N N N N N N O U Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 U� N N N N N N O N N � 7 O O N � � O N T T T T T T T T T C C C C C C C C C C C O 7 O 7 O 7 O 7 O 7 O 7 O 7 O 7 O 7 O 7 O 7 O O - U U U U U U U U U U U U N N N N N N N N N N N 'p al al al al al al al al al al al V) C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O O O O O O O O O O O O U Z 0_ N L7 LO a a �2 c a� _ O _ O O O N L7 ^ co Q L7 O (L L7 L7 a M W O (n a ,.. � L7 L7 L7 a N 0 M Y M N -0 N Of N C) N O a —. � co W N of F C7 L7 N > O O i Of " i of E co 7 7 �� a H a— a U U N C M Ln Z 0 LL O O O. . O O O N M I � O O a i U O o >� co >� d 0 J J (� i.i U L7 O C N > a N O U U 0 N 'O 'O 0 0) c a Of Z c7 V^ 01 C M U N N Co -0 'O Q C co cn E U (6 (6 O00 Z) (6 O O C L (6 . OC C (o V — N N Lo O O O O L7 00� �H �LLO Z� 0_C) �L7 L7U� Lu QO Of Of Of LO U i i i c i 0 N N N N N C >' O O O O O ._ L L L L � L7 L7 L7 L7 L7 O Y Y Y Y O (p 7 7 7 7 X 7 (6 p (6 p (6 p (6 p (6 M O M LL 00 00 00 00 W 00 U U U U U U V 00 O O U qZ qZ -i 1 0 2 0 2 104 LO U ]O5 0 } 0 3> A / / / / / / / / / ® 0 eq� _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ C) 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 /§ 0 E k \ 0 0 0 / / / / / / o m g / < < < < < < < < < tof ^ CL 0 0 E J e!± LO Eo C-4 co C) \ \ \ / \ \ \ / ƒ 00 w w w \ ƒ ° \ \ \ \ ° \ \ \ G a ± ) _ _ _ / / E / = y = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ \ > N C C \ \ \ ƒ / CU 0 (6 7 g2 ƒ E f g g g g @ g g g g k w � \ ± « § k a a a a a a a a a 0 C F \ / / \ 2 R R \ \ � jƒ - f a @ g ® ® @ a o w w a ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ / 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m m m m m m m m m e e e e e e e e e 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e , \ §$ \ § f 2 7/ & ƒ '2 I- c / } a 22= ' o_ 0 k co T �% 0 1 1- a S= \ �IIS 222 \ ±2 a ± / 7/ \ o e S 0 _ \��7 ± ± E [ } , § 0 2 �- > @ m / J = - /\\/ - 777 0 § /\ ƒ\ } 2 § % / } m ` ± o m /3= ;J) I S / 2C/) \ t 0 @ @ » _ e = § = o - I == o o /± o CO) z m± e## o 7 7 7 7 / § § § § ) ) ) ) / / / / - 7 _0 -6 -o- ¥ ±¥ ±¥ 7= = / amamama ZE� co CO -@_@ 5�m� oG_ % °� 0 °� 0 0;: ° ° 0 \ \± \ ±\± \} /& {cf) 0 ± =07 0707 07 eQ e7MM 0 Cl) C) 0 ]O5 0 106 U �o o� m m d = C U co U CD CD E >+ (n o M M M M M M M M M o 5 Q m fn) (n Q N N Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q d to O T to O CL O Q co Q i O N LO M d U N M _ H O � � OC OC ON ON O O O O N 3 U co co M O W O 00 00 O O CN N N N � � 1- 1- (D V O M E E )- O O 00 00 O O O O O O O O Q O O N N O O O O O O O .�+� 04 C14 C14 C14 C14 C Q - LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LO L1) LO V V LO LO LO LO LO LO LO W ^ G O N O a tq p C N N N N N N N N N N N O U � O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N O 7 M 7 7 W � O N O O M N N CO O — O T T T T T T T T T T T C 7 C 7 C 7 C 7 C 7 C 7 C 7 C 7 C 7 C 7 C 7 O 0 — 0 U O U O U O U O U O U O U O U O U O U O U U N N N N N N N N N N N 'p al al al al al al al al al al al V) C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O O O O O O O O O O O O of co ' N O � � H C) Of � � 00 'O Of co � i co (n al C 00 U Y — ' (n a Of O a coco � U V o Z N M (n Lf) 0 00 a O N N O U U M= O (D C14 LL co co co J U co O — E U U U O -0 E H -O U U LL U p E E -0 (n O E O M M O U = Q U E 0 JO N U \ O Co E O 2 N N N O E U v v LO Lo 00 N co m U M � Q Q o co Q co Of— a � p C) co M 0 L;' (o L CO Co L� (n 2��� 2(n (n (n U� (n Q� �� W �� Z� 2U U� 0 0 0 > O > O Of (n (n a U cn U cn U cn " -O LO " -0 LO � co N N i a a a N� N� U U _ L N 0) 0 N co co U U O O M LL ._ W> W> W> C� C� p p T T 0 O O O (o (o a_7 V p7 V 0) � 5 N 5 N O N C V L Z U Z U Z U W af W Of 2 M 2 M 2 2 2 co co 0 \ d d J cn Lo cn Lo 106 U 107 W U �o o� a U co U E M Q M D D D > 0 U C) N m m m m cn (n Q Q Q N N N N Q Q Q Q U d G 0 CL to' T to O O O O O Q co Q i O O C14 O C14 O CN O CN a` o co —� U C\F ( ( ( ( (n M d N Q d O O O O O O O O M p3 U � ' N N (f) ((� O O V O N co 0) (f) (O N N N p 0 Q N OO O O M M Q O co co co N Q N N co M .� O O O O O O O O O O O '� Co Q a) a) O O O O O O O O O LJ co O O O O O O 04 04 04 04 f> O 'y O Q J (f) ((� ((� V V V V (f) ((� ((� ((� W z �� CD CD CD CD CD CD CD 0 N p U C a q N N N N N N N N N N N O U 00 00 O N N N N O O O O U O O 00 (q 00 V (f) M (q M M M O co O — — O — N T T T T T T T T T T T T C C C C C C C C C C C C O 7 O 7 O 7 O 7 O 7 O 7 O 7 O 7 O 7 O 7 O 7 O 7 O O — U U U U U U U U U U U U U N N N N N N N N N N N N 'p al al al al al al al al al al al al O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O W LO a O O �.', -O Q (f) co co (1) (n L O O O � (n (n L U O (n p i O i W -O U U a Of co U a a Co U U co O (D � c (n (n � N N C/) LO (o a C/) -O O 7 i 7 o O 3 c a Z O 3 U co O D U U E o a LL O O O _ m a N (6 > O Y Y U U U 2 ' U (n U 0 O CO U U Q OL C V U 7 U T U T U O C '� i U C O N i O C co ' T C co C co i O ' = M 0 O C � 0 Q C 0 Q 0� O p co CO p E O U a E (o j (o Y (6 U M of C'/D) ��2U (o L �� Q Z mQ L QU O� �c) � O 02 (6 22� (6 2� Of U U U -O -O -O -O of o 7 7 7 -O of of of of L U co L U co L O U O of N N N N a a of a o a It N It � N N O co Ojz-: co Ojz-: co Ojz-: co Ojz-: >+ O 0-1 of O (n C O C O C O C O N N N N _ L.L J of J J J � � � � (17 O O O O O O O O O Z Z Z Z Z U -1 0 2 0 1:10 2 0 2 0 2 107 W U Im 0 } \ 3> A / / / / / / / / / / ® § eq� _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ u/§ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 E k ( \ / 0 / / / / / / / / m g / < < < < < < < < < < tof ^ CL e \ E J a. e!± LO Eo C-4 Lo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° \ f @ @ \ G ƒ ƒ \ \ / / \ \ r w w w w E ° k \ \ @ \ \ / \ \ J \ \ ) m = £ 7 E = y g e? o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o y 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ -!= 2 0 0 o a o C C C C j E 2 / / / ƒ 0 7 g2 g g g g g g g g g g k ƒ\ f \ / � m ± «§ k a a a a a a a a a a 2 0 cn 2 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ � z �^ jƒm » _ OR a 7 g c w @ a w o w o ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ / 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m m m m m m m m m m � e e e e e e e e e e 3 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 o 0 % \ \ 7 �0 § \ \ ) ��� /c /} \ z �J -± k3 )% -¥ /QQ mf LO ,! 20 \§ o ' \7 //k // /� \ §\ Eke \/ S S §� �� �\ ±o ) me e!m = 77 \ _ } - §§ az o0 o> C) & )} + / =!fQ / § / ± ® §� ® m _' & @ \ § yG� / o y } ®co 00 a) } 7 7- 3% } ==o \// }33 \7§ /\ \\ /0 k ]§/ A6§ { { { 2 ) 7 _ 7 _ 7 _ 7 _ 0 0 0 0 /� co _ § \o \o\o\o /- /j /j /j )/ \ƒ _ _ _ _ I cn I cn I I o / \� \�\�0 $J $J a) $J o >S >S :§CS z± z± z± z± o± \ Im 0 109 \ } 0 3> A / / / / / / / e� ® q § u/§co 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 � o y E k ( \ / / / / / / m g / < < < < < m a < � \ Z^ = S a. \ / f , , , , , / , LO Eo eqco ° *� \ ƒ40 k k k k k k « It m = _ §C) \ \ k \ k k j C ) a± a a a a It a / = y t k o 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ 0 @ = o @ f \ ƒ j co 0 2 / / / / _ / /� ƒ\ E g g g g g g g k w 0 2 , , , , g , \, ± « § k a a a a a a a 0 C C F 2 2 2 2 \ R \ _ C)ƒ a w w ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f % m E m E m E m E m E m E m E e e e e e e e \- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y /± Of co \Of \0 22 �2 -2 �\ GLO � \ /7 \ /) j\ \\\ �\ �/ /E� })C = %b6 co SS Sam -J 7/ CU Of __ =22 Of eJ E$ G I a% E e&&&/ ! E ® ® > o± e ¥` o m _ = = ±704)ee > = c c 2 & _ ! e _ » ! ! e = =e _ ! ! == �� § — — > @e °- C) LO o- 2, k §! o% e e— a) M M » X 0 0 0 2 \ / %\ \2mm\ » » §)S ° /o)o)S \ °± /}} _» I <±000 #cc 5> § § § § § e e e e e Of § \ \ \ \ \ /\ %2 %2 %2 %2 %2 $ 0CD (D * T@ (D @ o LO 7(D e o— o— o— o— z2 >- §o± 257 57 57 57 57 5/ 0O7 \ G 0 109 \ 110 U �o o� a C) co U o 015 M M M M M M M M M M M M cn 6 ) Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q cn d O N. _ O coT Q co Q a o co -� L M d U N M O O O O O O O O O O O O �_ p O V V V V V P- P- P 0 * H p 0 * 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 ON p O N N � � N O O O O O O O O 00 O O 00 O O 00 N� (U6 Q O O O O O O O O O CN f> `X co �.' 0 0 0 0 0 c C 'y E Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q J 0 0 0 0 V V V 0 V 0 V 0 LU ^ G G N O a tq p C N N N N N N N N N N N N O U � U N N N N N N O O O O O 00 0 O N W V 0 V 0 V T T T T T T T T T T T T C 7 C 7 C 7 C 7 C 7 C 7 C 7 C 7 C 7 C 7 C 7 C 7 O 0 — 0 U O U O U O U O U O U O U O U O U O U O U O U U N N N N N N N N N N N N 'p al al al al al al al al al al al al V) C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O a N N C ' O O a \ N C/) i O O H C) U O Mi i C >- Of V '� V Q 3 — cn I- > U ~ p (6 'O 'O O a L J Z co a L co _r_ co to U a- o i.i m N U OL O c6 (n C � U > O U co a V) Y O U (n E U Z 000 C O V Q al O Y L Y U J i O U ( C J 1 0 O � o � i 'co 0 0 E N O Q z�� co o E= o� Y — Co °O 000 N C Q E co LO U Q .� U ��� U a U� C/) HUB �m mJ (n o QCyU C) C) � Z �� Q z� � w O O O O O O O -0 �.. 6 (D (D co O O O C O � O (D O (D O Q co C C C C p7CD C C C E L17 3 E L!') 3 E 3 x N � U E2 (6 O� (6 O�O� (6 2 � 0 c (6 � O� co � Ocn V V -cn� V 0 V LLO� cn� cn Cf) cn� U O J 110 U \ } \ a U) 3 B ill \ / 0 3> A / / / / / / / / / ® § eq� _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0/§ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 E k ( \ / / / / / / / / / m g / < < < < < < < < < tof ^ CL e \ E J a. e!± LO Eo / ° } \ / / § / / / \ \ \ ƒ « It w k k k k � \ / \ / \ \ a±) w w = y g e? o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CE 0 $ -!= 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 j E 2 / / / / / / / / ƒ 0 7 D k ƒ\ f g g g g g g g g g w $ o= � ' ' ' ' 2 2 2 2 2 \ ± «§ k a a a a a a a a a 2 0 c F \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / _ ^ j t @ r a @ g m m - ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 f m m m m m m m m m \ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m / 7 ƒ7\ 2 /� \ ± ' _ C/) Lo 2 7\ \/ /J \o \_ �G �§ /2/ S 0 §e \ \ e2 ±@J ( } 7 \ 0 § $ LO / / > [ ® S } / y\ _ _ 2 ±_ o e /Of _ � )\ §I E7EJ o §/ §\� }\ \/ "f f/6} m± _,__ / ^y /7§ \ \§ \\ }} k/ \\ \j �� §) / § ± ± S S ± ± ± %\ %\ %\ %\ § § § /7 /7 /7 /7 \ \ \ \ { \^ \ \{ \ ^ \{ \ m ^a^ }2 »2 »2 »a :3a :3a :3a =3 GaLo 03030 24//4//4//4// 0 \ } \ a U) 3 B ill \ t i A Z Q Z `Q r O a Z H U J m a rn ry U Y -0 Co r a > o a U U � U m m m co U U Z Z c c O O -0 -0 N N O O Q Q QQ O O 2 2 A � 0 0 0 O O Z Z ry Q Q O O O O co co co co N N c c Y Y a. a. � N 112 U �(D m o = E T C/) N Q U U (D m m O Q O d E N T C/) CL H C Z C Z 'x w (D U O E �_ co co M O 0 J L17 L17 c O IL N LO U 2 U F- v V a M co J � m (D Of IL �Z -0 E O Q o U J O LL O U U co 2 aa) U o co c/QC) UU CD eo rn v Z N 0 a co T CD = L17 00 U U IL Z Z H H 0 0 M 0 0 U qZ qZ � 1 O 1 O rn ry U Y -0 Co r a > o a U U � U m m m co U U Z Z c c O O -0 -0 N N O O Q Q QQ O O 2 2 A � 0 0 0 O O Z Z ry Q Q O O O O co co co co N N c c Y Y a. a. � N 112 U Z Q W 0 W a 0 Z Q W J v m O 0 O LLQ C (0 H N T m C O U m c (0 O rn rn rn N N vi 0 N O N T a a H U L O (0 O O O U Q CN O U N y O U 0 U a O 0 U N c c 0 E 0 T a (0 O O N .j N N m c m O c O m 0 0 O O (0 N a O Q N O N H C 7 O U N O) (0 O 4 C N a 0 N N a c a C (0 a a 0 a N E O (0 N a 113 LO a) � 0 U y N N N N N N N N N N N N >y Q Q Q T U) a ° U 0 o O o o O m m o 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 a T a' a' 0 0 0 of Q-' Q-' Q-' 0 Q' Q' Q' Q' Q' F Q C C Q C C C Q C C C C C O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O C y O F N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N T.0 U) O co m 4 C —_ 0 y LL U V N O N V N V N V N V N O N V N V N N N -IT N N N N N N W O N U (� W O O O O — 1- V (D m o a a � W °' a CJ — C a m o a3 Z UOf aa) 3 n m > 0 c aa) r 3 N O�j aa) — U ° 2 U "00 aa)i O U N a v °O v v � 0 m m a ° L F co �) a aa) m Y �oryw m u)�a m a`) Q M U) u7 � c �a CJ � a a Z 0 0 U o o U �U O U a a 0� - 0 m 0 Yea o a�� oa U(n 0 n a°.� -0 Q o o a o m �°' m CU(%7 'r a� avin ��U- v m Om Cu) ma 0 m `mom co U `mom 2 `m ��U -oo� m� m a�i� 0 0 c ° m� U) Q U� 2 Q00 oa.00 0 u)� Q acid a� �� U z �U) U z o ° o ° o m n O O 5 C C a U) 0 O O O u) O O 0 m a' U a' ' L 2 _ 2a _ co a w O O a 0 ) co U U 0 0 m o o m o a C m ° 0 o o . - O a) C O ) o � 0 U -or a 9 0 a a ~Cm v m 00 0 coon Q) O m m °c�� °c� co 0aU 0a U U U U C c m e m L �a0 azu7�zu7� z z z z w° - 2Q 2 Om O u7 m m m m m m m m m m N O W O o V O 1- O M O O W O (D O (O O O O O O O O O O O O O co U Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z" 9 0 °- (t7 Z Z � O O O O O O O O u7 m w 1 O O O 0 O LLQ C (0 H N T m C O U m c (0 O rn rn rn N N vi 0 N O N T a a H U L O (0 O O O U Q CN O U N y O U 0 U a O 0 U N c c 0 E 0 T a (0 O O N .j N N m c m O c O m 0 0 O O (0 N a O Q N O N H C 7 O U N O) (0 O 4 C N a 0 N N a c a C (0 a a 0 a N E O (0 N a 113 114 Cross section requirements for roadways vary according to the capacity and level of service to be provided. Universal standards in the design of roadways are not practical. Each roadway section must be individually analyzed and its cross section determined based on the volume and type of projected traffic, existing capacity, desired level of service, and available right -of -way. These cross sections are typical for facilities on new location and where right -of -way constraints are not critical. For widening projects and urban projects with limited right -of -way, special cross sections should be developed that meet the needs of the project. The typical cross sections were updated Department's "Complete Streets" policy that established design elements that emphas multiple modes of travel. These "typical" crc guidelines for comprehensive transportatio design activities. The specific and final cros projects will be established through the prepE i December. 7, 2010 s adopted in July 2009 safety, mobility, and sections should be use Manning, project plane action details and right on of the National Envii Act (NEPA) documentation and through final plan preparation. to support the This guidance accessibility for d as preliminary ng and project of way limits for onmental Policy On all existing and proposed roadways delineated on the CTP, adequate right -of -way should be protected or acquired for the recommended cross sections. In addition to cross section and right -of -way recommendations for improvements, Appendix C may recommend ultimate jneeded right -of -way for the following situations: • roadways which may require widening after the current planning period, • roadways which are borderline adequate and accelerated traffic growth could render them deficient, and • roadways where an urban curb and gutter cross section may be locally desirable because of urban development or redevelopment. • roadways which may need to accommodate an additional transportation mode D -1 Figure 10 " i► Cog i@jq#j[0]vk " "Aim W I as il�A1,121= WIDE PAVED 9*0ULDERS POSTED ►� w' w Mmoluff A00% WIDE PAVEV SHOULDERS POSTED SPEED OR LESS °. C MN WSW OF WAY • d 0 115 TYPICAL HIGHWAY CROSS SECTIONS 116 2D 2E 2F 2 LANES 51DEWALK PLACEMENT BEHIND A ROADWAY DITCH CLEAF ZONE MIN. SIDEWALK 8, CLEAF ZONE 5' 5' 2' 4'P.5 MIN. SIDEWALK 90' PIGHTOF WAY CURB AND GUTTER WITH BIKE LANES AND 51DEWALK5 BUFFERS AND 51DEWALK5 WITHOUT A ROADWAY DITCH (20 MPH TO 45 MPH) (TYPICALLY COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT ACT COUNTIES) 1. 10' -2O' .I 1- 10' -2O' -1 SIDEWALK SIDEWALK 2' 5' 6' - 16' +F.5. 1 1' 1 1' 4' P.S. 61-16, 5' 1 1_2' MIN. MIN. 60' - 80' k1G HT OF WAY D -3 Revised 12/07/2010 TYPICAL HIGHWAY CROSS SECTIONS 2 LANES 2G 2H I CURB & CUTTER - PARKING ON EACH 50E 5' 5' MIN. MIN. SIDEWALK PARKING BIKE BIKE PARKING SIDEWALK LANE LANE 10' 2' 8' 5' 11' 11' 5' 8' 2' 10' MIN. MIN. 85' MIN. RIGHTOF WAY CURB & GUTTER - PARKING ON ONE 50E 5' 5' 5' MIN. \ MIN. MIN. SIDEWALK PARKING BIKE BIKE SIDEWALK LANE BIKE SIDEWALK LANE 10' 2' 8' 5' 11' 11' 5' 2' 10' MIN. 2 3' (17'- 6" MIN.) MIN. 75' MIN. RIGHTOF WAY RA15ED MEDIAN WITH CURB & GUTTER LANDSCAFED MEDIAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH POLICY 117 D -4 Revised 12/07/2010 5' 5' \ MIN. MIN. SIDEWALK BIKE BIKE SIDEWALK LANE LANE 2 3' (17'- 6" MIN.) 10' 2' 5' 11' MEDIAN 11' 5' 2' 10' MIN. MIN. 80 - 90' RIG HT OF WAY 117 D -4 Revised 12/07/2010 TYPICAL HIGHWAY CROSS SECTIONS 3A 3 LANES WIDE PAVED SHOULDERS �v 3 B CURB & GUTTER WITH WIDE OUT5IDE LANES AND 51DEWALK5 m co,M m D -5 Revised 12/07/2010 P.S. P.S. 3 B CURB & GUTTER WITH WIDE OUT5IDE LANES AND 51DEWALK5 m co,M m D -5 Revised 12/07/2010 TYPICAL HIGHWAY CROSS SECTIONS "9 4 LANES '- 1O'F.S. Z 12' 1 12' 12' moff"ol 4C DIVIDED WITH MEDIAN FULL OR LIMITED CONTROL OF ACCE55 46' MIN. MEDIAN 1 80' M IN. FIGHT OF WAY (LIMITED CONTFOL OF ACCESS) 250'- 300' MIN. FIGHT OF WAY (FULL CONTFOL OF ACCESS) f� fT 4'- 1O'F.. 12' 12' 12' DIVIDED WITH MEDIAN - NO CURB & GUTTER PARTIAL CONTROL OF ACCE55 Il��lil� �IP, own uuu�sus��nuN m 150' MIN. FIGHTOF WAY RA15ED MEDIAN WITH WIDE OUT5IDE LANES AND 51DEWALK5 t C� SHARE THE ROAD LANDSCAFED MEDIAN IN ACCOFDANCE WITH POLICY V V MIN. SIDEWALK SIDEWALK 10' 2' 14' 11' 23'(17' -6 "MIN.) 11' 14' 2' 10' MIN. MIN. 1 10' MIN. FIGHT OF WAY D -6 Revised 12/07/2010 2' 2' 14'- PS F.S 'a f[ 12' 12' 30' MIN. MEDIAN 12' 12' 8' 150' MIN. FIGHTOF WAY RA15ED MEDIAN WITH WIDE OUT5IDE LANES AND 51DEWALK5 t C� SHARE THE ROAD LANDSCAFED MEDIAN IN ACCOFDANCE WITH POLICY V V MIN. SIDEWALK SIDEWALK 10' 2' 14' 11' 23'(17' -6 "MIN.) 11' 14' 2' 10' MIN. MIN. 1 10' MIN. FIGHT OF WAY D -6 Revised 12/07/2010 TYPICAL HIGHWAY CROSS SECTIONS 4 LANES 4 D RA15ED MEDIAN - CURB & GUTTER WITH BIKE LANES AND 51DEWALK5 LANDSCAFED MEDIAN IN ACCOFDANCE WITH POLICY 4 E GRA55 MEDIAN WITH BIKE LANES AND 51DEWALK5 II-II II-II 4 4 I MIN. BIKE �Y �Y F 6' 6 S BIKE MIN. DEWALK LANE LANE 51DEWAL 10' 2 5' 11' 11' 46 (30'MIN.) 11' 11' 5' 2' 10' MIN. MIN. 5 LANES 5 A WIDE OUT5IDE LANES 120 D -7 Revised 12/07/2010 1I InI InI 1 MIN. BIKE BIKE MIN. SIDEWALK LANE LANE SIDEWALK 10' 2' 5' 11' 11' 23' (17' -6" MIN.) MEDIAN 11' 11' 5' 2' 10' MIN. MIN. 1 10' MIN. FIGHT OF WAY 4 E GRA55 MEDIAN WITH BIKE LANES AND 51DEWALK5 II-II II-II 4 4 I MIN. BIKE �Y �Y F 6' 6 S BIKE MIN. DEWALK LANE LANE 51DEWAL 10' 2 5' 11' 11' 46 (30'MIN.) 11' 11' 5' 2' 10' MIN. MIN. 5 LANES 5 A WIDE OUT5IDE LANES 120 D -7 Revised 12/07/2010 TYPICAL HIGHWAY CROSS SECTIONS 121 6 LANES DIVIDED WITH GRA55 MEDIAN 300' MIN. FIGHT OF WAY 6 B RA15ED MEDIAN - CURB & GUTTER WITH WIDE OUTSIDE LANES AND 51DEWALK5 K SHARE SHARE THE THE ROAD ROAD LANDSCAFED MEDIAN IN ACCOFDANCE WITH POLICY MIN. M� 12'F5. MIN. SIDEWALK 12'F5. 12' P.S. 12'F5. 51DEWAL 10' 2' 14' 11' -12' 14' 23'(17'-6" MIN.)MEDIAN 1 4' 11' -12' 14' 2' 10' MIN. MIN. 14' 12' 12' 12' 46' MIN. MEDIAN 12' 12' 12' 14' 300' MIN. FIGHT OF WAY 6 B RA15ED MEDIAN - CURB & GUTTER WITH WIDE OUTSIDE LANES AND 51DEWALK5 K SHARE SHARE THE THE ROAD ROAD LANDSCAFED MEDIAN IN ACCOFDANCE WITH POLICY 8 LANES 8 A RA15ED MEDIAN - CURB & GUTTER WITH 51DEWALK5 LANDSCAFED MEDIAN IN ACCOFDANCE WITH POLICY MIN. M� MIN. SIDEWALK 51DEWAL 10' 2' 14' 11' -12' 11' -12' 23'(17'-6" MIN.)MEDIAN 11' -12' 11' -12' 14' 2' 10' MIN. MIN. 150' MIN. FIGHTOF WAY 8 LANES 8 A RA15ED MEDIAN - CURB & GUTTER WITH 51DEWALK5 LANDSCAFED MEDIAN IN ACCOFDANCE WITH POLICY M� IDEWALK SIDEWALK 10' 2' 11' -12' 11' -12' 11' -12' 11' -12' 23' (17'- 6" MIN.) 11' -12' 11' -12' 11' -12' 11' -12' 2' 10' MIN. MEDIAN MIN. 160' MIN. D -8 Revised 12/07/2010 122 TYPICAL MULTI - USE PATH MULTI - U5E PATH ADJACENT TO RIGHT OF WAY OR SEPARATE PATHWAY M A F,W FIGHTOFWAYLIMIT FOP HIGHWAY CLEAF ZONE u, 3' 2' 2' 3' 4' F.5 12' 8' TFAYEL LANE 40' MIN. ADDITIONAL FIGHT OF WAY MULTI - U 5 PATH ADJACENT TO CURB AND GUTTER ADDITIONAL F /W _4 LANE LANE �� MAYBEFEQUIFED D -9 Revised 12/07/2010 FW M B MINIMUM FIGHT OF WAY LIMIT FOFFLACEMENT OF 5' SIDEWALK ADDITIONAL F /W _4 LANE LANE �� MAYBEFEQUIFED D -9 Revised 12/07/2010 123 This page intentionally left blank. D -10 124 The relationship of travel demand compared to the roadway capacity determines the level of service (LOS) of a roadway. Six levels of service identify the range of possible conditions. Designations range from LOS A, which represents the best operating conditions, to LOS F, which represents the worst operating conditions. Design requirements for roadways vary according service. LOS D indicates "practical capacity" of a r public begins to express dissatisfaction. Recon design of the transportation plan were based u,p existing facilities and a LOS C on new facilities. TI below and illustrated in Figure 11. to the desired capacity and level of )aday, or the capacity at which the mended improvements and overall in achieving a minimum LOS D on e six levels of service are described LOS A: Describes primarily free flow conditions level of physical and psychological comfort. breakdown are easily absorbed. Even at the ma between vehicles is about 528 ft, or 26 car length LOS B: Represents rez the traffic stream: is on vehicles is about 330 ft, • LOS C: Provides for stable increases will cause subst< noticeably restricted. Minoi service will be great. Qu blockage. Minimum averag • LOS D: Borders on un quickly with increasing deterioration in service. experiences drastically r create substantial queui lengths. ably free flow conditions. ightly restricted. The to 8. car lengths. ie motorist experiences a high effects of miner incidents of m density, the average spacing ability to maneuver within verage spacing between rations, but flows approach the range in which small deterioration in service. Freedom to maneuver is idents may still be absorbed, but the local decline in > may be expected to form behind any significant acing is in the range of 220 ft, or 11 car lengths. e flow'. Density begins to deteriorate somewhat more w. Small increases in flow can cause substantial eedom to maneuver is severely limited, and the driver ced comfort levels. Minor incidents can be expected to At the limit, vehicles are spaced at about 165 ft, or 9 car LOS E: Describes operation at capacity. Operations at this level are extremely unstable, because there are virtually no usable gaps in the traffic stream. Any disruption to the traffic stream, such as a vehicle entering from a ramp, or changing lanes, requires the following vehicles to give way to admit the vehicle. This can establish a disruption wave that propagates through the upstream traffic flow. At capacity, the traffic stream has no ability to dissipate any disruption. Any incident can be expected to produce a serious breakdown with extensive queuing. Vehicles are spaced at approximately 6 car lengths, leaving little room to maneuver. E -1 LOS F: Describes forced or breakdown flow. Such conditions generally exist within queues forming behind breakdown points. Level of'Service A Figure 11 - Level of Service Illustrations Level of Service B Dflver Comfort: Hgh Maximum Density". 12 pass igngor cars per rnilo, per I an @ Level of Service D Ddver C omfort: Po or Maximum Density: 42 pa senqer gars, per inilo- peer laic Drilver ComFort: Kig� Maximum Density: 20, passeuggr cars per rride per We Level of Service, E Level of Service C Driver Comfort: Sorng T 9rJ on Maximum Density: 30 pessGingor cars pier rNq N, r I an@ Level of Service F Driver Coma art: Extrenieh) Pocr Maximum Density: 67 passenger d.ats per mild per la,it- Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual E-2 Driver Comforffhe kw st Mgximum Density: More than 67 p8st,�mgor r8r; per ndk� por lave 125 126 A crash analysis performed for the Orange County CTP factored crash frequency, crash type, and crash severity. Crash frequency is the total number of reported crashes and contributes to the ranking of the most problematic intersections. Crash type provides a general description of the crash and allows the identification of any trends that may be correctable through roadway or intersection improvements. Crash severity is the crash rate based upon injuries and property damage incurred.' The severity of every crash is measured with a the NCDOT Division of Highways (DOH). The crash as 47.7 times more severe than one i'nvc resulting in minor injury is 11.8 times more sev In general, a higher severity index indicates rr levels of severity for various severity index rang Severity Sever low 60 average 6.0 to moderate 7.0 to Table 4 depicts a su January 1, 2007 and more crashes anaior "Total" column indica intersection during the that location. Map Index M am >eries of weighting factors developed by a factors define a fatal or incapacitating ving only property damage and a crash re than one with only property damage. ire severe accidents. Listed below are -nmary of the crashes occurring in the planning area between December 31, 2009. The data represents locations with 10 or severity average greater than that of the state's 4.56 index. The :es the total number of crashes reported within 150 -ft of the study period. The severity listed is the average crash severity for able 4 - Crash Locations Intersection Average Total Crashes Severity 1 NC 57 and NC 157 16.86 19 2 NC 54 and Dodsons Cross Road (SR 1102) 2.48 10 The NCDOT is actively involved with investigating and improving many of these locations. To request a more detailed analysis for any of the locations listed in Table 4, or other intersections of concern, contact the Division Traffic Engineer. Contact information for the Division Traffic Engineer is included in Appendix A. F -1 This page intentionally left blank. F -2 127 128 The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) development process for bridge projects involves consideration of several evaluation methods in order to prioritize needed improvements. A sufficiency index is used to determine whether a bridge is sufficient to remain in service, or to what extent it is deficient. The index is a percentage in which 100 percent represents an entirely sufficient bridge and zero represents an entirely insufficient or deficient bridge. Factors evaluated in calculating the index are listed below. • structural adequacy and safety • serviceability and functional obsol • essentiality for public use • type of structure • traffic safety features The NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit inspects all bridges in North Carolina at least once every two years. A sufficiency rating for each bridge is calculated and establishes the eligibility and priority for replacement. Bridges having the highest priority are replaced as Federal and State funds become available. A bridge is considered defic obsolete. Structurally deficien monitored and /or repaired. T imply that it is likely to colla monitored, inspected and rel structural integrity. A function are not used today. These bri nor are they inherently unsafe. adequate lane widths, should demand or to meet the curren flooded. ent if it is either structurally deficient or functionally means there are elements of the bridge that need to be ie fact that a bridge is "structurally deficient" does not use or that it is unsafe. It means the bridge must be aired /replaced at ` an appropriate time to maintain its ly obsolete bridge is one that was built to standards that ges are not automatically rated as structurally deficient, Functionally obsolete bridges are those that do not have �r widths, or vertical clearances to serve current traffic geometric standards, or those that may be occasionally A bridge must be classified as deficient in order to quality for Federal replacement funds. Additionally, the sufficiency rating must be less than 50% to qualify for replacement or less than 80% to qualify for rehabilitation under federal funding. Deficient bridges within the planning area are listed in Table 5. G -1 129 Table 5 - Deficient Bridges Bridge, Number — Facility Feature Condition Local ID 8 High Rock Rd (SR 1340) Unnamed Creek Structurally Deficient Walnut Grove 24 Church Rd (SR North Fork Little River Functionally Obsolete - 1001 43 Mount Willing Rd (SR 1120) Seven Mile Creek Structurally Deficient - 76 Arthur Minnis New Hope Creek Functionally Obsolete - Rd SR 1113 Old 84 Greensboro Collins Creek Structurally Deficient - Rd SR 1005 228 Old 86 (SR 1009) ) New Hope Creek Functionally Obsolete ORAN0007 -H G -2 Includes: 0 Listing of committee members; Statement of CTP Vision and Goals & Object 0 Public survey description and summary of 0 Summary of public involvement sess M 130 Orange County CTP Committee List Name Tom Altieri (formerly Karen Lincoln) Paul Guthrie Randy Marshall Nancy Baker Tina Love Matthew Day (formerly Paul Black) Sarah Lee Scott Walston Andy Henry Organization Orange County Planning Orange Unified Transportation Board Orange Unified Transportation Board Orange Unified Transportation Board e County Pla le Area RPO NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch Transportation Planning Branch Chaeel Hill- Carrboro MPO 131 132 ORANGE COUNTY CTP Vision Statement Goals and Objectives The goals of the 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan were used as a guide when creating the following document for the CTP. Vision: To provide an efficient and balanced transportation system that uses multiple motorized and nonmotorized modes of transportation and for which the planning, design, and implementation will be guided by the following overarching qualities: A. Protects air quality, water quality and quantity, soil quality, and biological resources B. Promotes public health and safety C. Encourages sustainable economic development D. Provides equal access to all users E. Is highly modally and inter - modally integrated and connec F. Fosters sustainable and efficient use of resources, includ resources G. Protects the County's natural and cultural heritage H. Uses creative and well- designed infrastructure I. Is attractive, user - friendly, and easy to understand becau signage, brochures, and web pages J. Respects privacy and citizen rights. Goals and Obj cial and natural se of factors such as Goal 1. An efficient and integrated multi-modal transportation system that protects the natural environment and community character. Objectives: 1- 1.Increase the occupancy of automobiles through ridesharing and other means; and expand the use of public transit (including bus and rail), walking, and biking as primary modes of travel. 1 -2. Facilitate the overall development and use of a transportation system that is more energy- efficient, reduces carbon emissions, and reduces the use of fossil fuels while, promoting the use of local renewable and sustainable fuels. 1 -3. Develop new transportation facilities in a manner that has a positive impact or avoids negative impacts on the natural environment, including air quality, water resources, biological resources, and wildlife habitat. 1 -4. Develop new transportation facilities in a manner that has a positive impact or avoids negative impacts on the community, including historical or cultural assets, existing neighborhoods, schools and recreational facilities, and the overall rural character in Orange County. 1 -5. Identify prime view sheds along major transportation corridors and protect these areas for their scenic and natural resource values. 1 -6. Expand the availability and use of public transportation (including bus and rail) throughout the County to provide better connections between employment centers, shopping and service locations, and other key points of interest in both Page 1 ORANGE COUNTY CTP Vision Statement Goals and Objectives urban and rural areas, particularly for the County's senior and disabled populations and others without access to automobiles. 133 Goal 2: A multi -modal transportation system that is affordable, available, and accessible to all users and that promotes public health and safety Objectives: 2-1. Increase the provision of bikeways and walkways, and also increase supportive facilities such as bicycle parking zones. 2 -2. Evaluate and serve special transportation needs of t the economically disadvantaged and the disabled, in needs and disaster transit provision. 2 -3. Increase countywide access for emergency vehicles response times, both for existing and new developm 2- 4.Improve the provision of public transit facilities and s e senior population, youth, :luding both everyday including ways to improve supportive facilities for transit, such as park and ride lots 2-5. Improve public education and advertising of existing tran 2 -6. Increase safety awareness between car drive safety for pedestrians. 2 -7. Construct bicycle facilities in Orange County 1 convenient, and more efficient. Goal 3: Integrated land use development, supports futui County's land use plans wh and community character. Objectives: 3- 1.Imorove the County' as opposeo to aeve 3- 2.Create and implemE that provides the frz system supporting bicycle facilities, bu; 3 -3.The plan should be Comprehensive Pla and the natural envi lanning and tran development, a h include Drovisi for bicycle , and also increase ces. -s, and increase will make cycling safer, more on planning that serves existing insistent with the ing the natural environment n system by first enhancing existing facilities ng new tacMues. an Grange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan work for a comprehensive and connected transportation x of all transportation modes, including sidewalks and id rail transit facilities, and highways. �rdinated with the goals and objectives of this id seek to maintain and enhance community character ment 3 -4. Determine the policies to guide connectivity within and between residential developments based on their impact on neighborhood character. 3 -5. Direct development to higher density mixed -use districts along transit corridors and make necessary multi -modal transportation improvements to service lands that are slated for future intense development, such as Economic Development Districts. 3 -6. Use innovative techniques to increase mobility and reduce rush hour congestion. ORANGE COUNTY CTP Vision Statement Goals and Objectives Goal 4: A countywide and regionally- integrated, multi -modal transportation planning process that is comprehensive, creative and effective. Objectives 4- 1.Work with nearby jurisdictions to integrate the County's transportation plans with those of other transportation planning agencies and service providers in Orange County and the Triangle region. The resulting intermodal transportation system should reflect regional goals and objectives to meet projected travel demand and to reduce congestion and reliance on single occupancy vehicles. 4 -2. Plan and integrate the County's multi -modal transportation routes and services with regional transportation agencies and transit service providers, agencies and transit providers in neighboring counties, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, Amtrak, and the North Carolina Railroad. 4 -3. Revive rail transportation in Orange County and the Triangle region. Page 3 134 135 Orange County CTP Public Survey The public survey was open from September 23, 2009 to November 2, 2009, and a total of 491 surveys were completed (including both online and paper submissions). The following sheets contain a short summary of the information garnered from the survey results. Other documents pertaining to the public survey, incl • The blank survey that was distributed to the public, • The overall results of the survey (not including open -ended answers), and • A full response set of the survey results, including all open -ended responses, pie charts, and graphs, can be viewed on the Orange County CTP website at http: / /www.ncdot.orq/ doh/ preconstruct/ tpb /planninq /orangecountv.htmi. 136 Orange County CTP 2/15/2011 Survey Results Important Transportation Issues Top picks... • Increased walking and biking choices • Service for low income, elderly, and disabled residents • Preserving the community /rural character and heritage • Protecting the natural environment, such as air and water quality • Sustainable and efficient use of natural and financial resources How to Improve a Road Top rated... • Build additional travel lanes • Provide an alternative means of transportation, such as bus, train, bicycle, or park -n -ride Lowest rated... • Control the access of driveways and cross streets • Use less frequent traffic signals Comments... • Stop building additional roads • Promote public transportation /transit • Bike lanes on roads that don't have them • Estes • Carrboro to Hillsborough • Old NC 86 • Separate bike paths • Bypass around Hillsborough • Enforce traffic laws with bicyclists • Connector roads between neighborhoods • Light rail from Chapel Hill / Durham / Raleigh to RDU and RTP • Better signal timing and synchronization • Sidewalks and greenways in other areas of county besides the main towns • Information Technology • Multi -use land -use and zoning - live and work close together Roads to Focus Improvements Top rated... • US 70 Bypass • New NC 86 • NC 15 -501 Lowest rated... • 1 -85/40 • NC 49 • NC 57 • NC 157 Comments... • Sidewalks, bike routes, and public transportation connecting Efland with Hillsborough • Old NC 86 Bike lanes • Between Orange County schools in the county and population centers like Hillsborough • New Hope Church Rd • NC 10 • Erwin Rd (commute to Durham) • Extend existing in Carrboro on Greensboro St /Hillsborough Rd to Calvander on SR 1009 • Across the bypass from 15 -501 up Columbia St toward campus and town Page 1 of 3 Summarized by Sarah Lee 137 Orange County CTP 2/15/2011 • New NC 86 • Old NC 86 • NC 15 -501 • NC 54 • NC 86 bypass of Hillsborough • NC 86 connector to 1 -85 • Sidewalks and bike lanes on Smith Level from high school to NC 54 • Reopen bus service from Hillsborough to Durham - to Duke East Campus, down Main St to downtown Congested Routes Comments... (all in MPO) Economic Development Districts Comments... (all 3 mentioned, all in MPO) Safety /Crash Problems Comments... • Bicyclists on Old Greensboro Rd • Dodson's Crossroads at NC 54 Safe and Convenient Bike Routes Important - 79% Comments... • Dairyland • Orange Grove • Dodson's Crossroads • Bradshaw Quarry • NC 86 • Old NC 86 • Off -road greenways • Jones Ferry • Old Greensboro • where there are schools (ex. Cameron Park) • New Sharon Church Rd • Schley • NC 57 • NC 157 • NC 54 Safe and Convenient Walking Routes Important - 78% Comments... • NC 86 • Dairyland Destinations for Taxi, Bus, or Van Service Top picks... • RDU Airport • Downtown Durham • UNC and Duke hospitals Comments... • Efland • Shopping - Southpoint, Crabtree Page 2of3 Summarized by Sarah Lee Orange County CTP 2/15/2011 • Alamance Community College • Pittsboro Any Other Transportation Issues Comments... • Improving Efland -Cedar Grove Rd, due to traffic using it from Virginia to 1 -40/85 • Transportation service in rural areas for not only elderly but disabled as well • Want bike routes and sidewalks to the schools • Preserve rural peace and quiet General observations... • Lots of concern for bicycling - many wanting better facilities o Also many drivers frustrated at the safety issues bicycles present, as well as bicyclists not obeying traffic laws, and the fact that they must share the road but are not registered or taxed • Generally don't want more roads - instead want more public transit, as well as more mixed use development and consolidated growth • There is interest in rail service to connect the Triangle • Got a few comments that they appreciated the survey and it had good questions *Most summaries here only list answers from the RPO areas for purpose of the CTP study. There are many more answers regarding the MPO area within the survey results. *Questions not included in this summary... • NC 86 / Strategic Highways • Traffic in downtown Hillsborough • Demographic section Page 3of3 Summarized by Sarah Lee 138 139 Summary of Public Involvement Sessions Three total sessions were held for members of the public to attend to learn about the Orange County CTP and provide input. Common information presented at all sessions included the basic definition of a CTP, the typical CTP process, a description of the Strategic Highway Vision Plan and its corridors in Orange County, and the definitions and examples of highway facility types. Below is information specific to each public session. September 29, 2009 Public Awareness Session 5:OOpm to 9:OOpm Efland Ruritan Club, 3106 Highway 70 West, Efland Purpose / information presented: informing locals of the CTP study that was in its early stages, gaining their input on areas in need of study Number of attendees: 2 (not including NCDOT and county staff) February 7, 2011 Public Drop -in Session 4:30pm to 7:30pm Orange County Public Library, 137 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough Purpose / information presented: growth data, traffic projections, and preliminary recommendations Number of attendees; 13 (not including NCDOT and county staff) September 14, 2011 Public Drop -in Session 4:30pm to 7:30pm Link Government Services Center, 200 S. Cameron Street, Hillsborough Purpose / information presented: draft recommendations Number of attendees: 9 (riot `including NCDOT and county staff) The following CTPs or Thoroughfare Plans for areas within the County that are not included as a part of this plan are listed below and depicted in this appendix. Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization o 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (2009): see view &id= 65 <emid =35 • Draft 2040 Metropolitan Trans • Extensive coordination was cc recommendations Burlington Graham Metropolitan Plar Transportation Plan (2010) o See http: / /www.ncdot.org /dohs Lion Plan (MTP) and CTP ted to ensure connectivity with Organization 2030 Comprehensive o Coordination was conducted to ensurE 1990 Orange County Thoroughfare Plan (not 1 -1 ;tftpb /planning /BGMPOCTP.html nnectivity with recommendations )peed) 140 This page intentionally left blank. 1 -2 141 Aff—k f r, Caswell County Adopte 11 by: Orange unty p Date: I 9so °;o NCDOT Date: ! Sheet 2 Highway Map - - - - - -- Endor �'d by: Y av 52 Triangle ea 0 Public Transportation Date: Rivers and Streams WE and Rail Map Recommends 1 y: Transpotta ' a ning Branch Date: Water Bodies S i NOTES:! Bicycle Map Parks and Gamelands Figure 1 Orange County I 1 County Boundaries Sheet 1 of 5 North Carolina Sheet 5 Pedestrian Map - - - -- 0 Comprehensive as Base map date: April, zoos Im`1loillll CC Transportation Plan E CC i Refer to CTP document for more details Plan date: December 11, 2012 ------------------------- Chatham Count - -- Y - -- - - - -- - - -- Sheet 1 Adoption Sheet p Airports 9so °;o Schools � Sheet 2 Highway Map - - - - - -- Roads N av 52 Sheet 3 Public Transportation Rivers and Streams WE and Rail Map Water Bodies S Sheet Bicycle Map Parks and Gamelands Figure 1 Orange County County Boundaries Sheet 1 of 5 North Carolina Sheet 5 Pedestrian Map - - - -- MPO Boundaries Comprehensive Base map date: April, zoos Transportation Plan Refer to CTP document for more details Plan date: December 11, 2012 143 Caswell aunty Person County - - - - - -— �L----- - - - - -- - - - - - -- ° A � p o NO�iy I �p e 49 G F O J I N it v v ,6 1 M I Little River u'° Ch hRd SR 1543 tiR' Pa r. Sawmd\ R ♦ (SR 1004) o4 too Rd l5R 1545) r7� 157 C (SR 13521 °� 57 I i o m j Sdh1 ,� I I �Q N is y \oS iSR Pa 1 9hR � 9hia S\a 1548 9.0 n C'3 _.. o _.. i I, ariingion ( ih�n _. ,. I Q7 I: Mot ol�ol' tan � 'Wrinillil CI I ani-lon of Ew of R t M° I CO ;f c 1 INi rz C'11, C °> > Mai li I a ^ge � s O c z ICI gi I t n O m ,s ^511113 ° -1 _. ^ �n O .I A A hl Arthur Min, Rtll`' c ra � gcad _ Dairy If I N � a I I 54 ° I U � 0 ,958 o I I j _ ye I/ O" Old Greensboro Rd SR 1 W51 "..� a N I 1— ------------------ e< cP1� j i Chatham C � -- - - - - -- ----------------------------- ----------------------------------- -------- - - - - -- 1 O U n t y__ Freeways Other Major Thoroughfares Highway Map Existing - Existing ummummummuu "" " "" " "" "" Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Recommended 0000000001 Recommended N Minor Thoroughfares Expressways Existing W E m m Existing _ _ _ _ _ _ - Needs Improvement Sp`�4 iiiiimiiiiimiiiiimiiiiimiiiiimiiiiioiiiii, Needs Improvement ---------- Recommendedq uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu11 Recommended Figure 1 0 Existing Interchange Sheet 2of5 Orange County Boulevards Proposed Interchange IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Existing Comprehensive u11�111�111�111�111�111�111� Needs Improvement 0 Existing Grade Separation Base map date: April, 2009 Transportation Plan VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII II Recommended 0 Proposed Grade Separation Plan date: December 11, 2012 Refer to CTP document for more details Public Transportation Bus Routes Rail Corridor Intermodal Connector NNN"NNN Existing Active A Existing ^ ^ °P5 and Rail Map Needs Improvement Inactive lei Recommended ;,qe • "-p. a BnP; "NOON Recommended Fixed Guideway Recommended High Speed Rail Corridor Rail Stops N W E ®` 17 P Existing Existing Existing S °P14 �si41�e° Needs Improvement ®® Recommended Recommended p XX Recommended �,�I" Figure 1 Sheet 3of5 Orange County Operational Strategies Park and Ride Lot Existing Existing Comprehensive Base map date: April, 2009 Needs Improvement Transportation Plan ■ ■ ■ ■ Recommended © Recommended Refer to CTP document for more details Plan date: December 11, 212 Bicycle Map On -road Multi -Use Paths .qkv Cn¢�r� Existing Existing N " "• "'• "'• "'• "'• "'• "" Needs Improvement • • • • • • ' Needs Improvement 17 ;2 ••••••••• Recommended = _____= Recommended W E S�rr3 Off -road Existing 0 Existing Grade Separation Figure 1 • •'• " "• •'• " "' Needs Improvement 0 Proposed Grade Separation Sheet 4of5 Orange County ®®®®®®®®® Recommended " ° "" North Carolina Bike Route Comprehensive Base map date: April, zoos Transportation Plan Refer to CTP document for more details Plan date: December 11, 2012 0 O 0 as c> CU E CU In � - Caswell County Person County - ------- - - - - -- QV Ply �r m L S" i it ^ vi unn e G n M a %4 "S '�'m 01 100 �r /<^ 0 0 U as 0 Sidewalks Off -Road Pedestrian Map Existing Existing ol- e r �m•m•m- Needs Improvement Needs Improvement ® ® ® ® ® ® ® i Recommended ® ® ® ® ® ® ®i Recommended N 17 ;2 W E Multi -Use Paths SOtr C nco11 �6 Existing 0 Existing Grade Separation ...... Needs Improvement 0 Proposed Grade Separation Figure 1 Sheet 5of5 Orange County Recommended Comprehensive Base map date: April, 2009 Transportation Plan ! Rural Communities ® Local Recreation Sites Refer to CTP document for more details Plan date: December 11, 2012