Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-07-2013 - 6bORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 7, 2013 Action Agenda Item No. 6 -b SUBJECT: Draft Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) Yes ATTACHMENT(S): 1. January 24, 2013 BOCC Public Hearing Comments on Comprehensive Transportation Plan 2. OUTBoard Recommended Revisions 3. Excerpt from Draft February 20, 2013 OUTBoard Minutes 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 receive the Orange Unified Transportation Board's recommendation, close the public hearing, and make a decision 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). 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. Much like the County's Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map, the CTP represents a long -range vision. Implementation will be incremental and funded through a variety of sources, a majority of which will need to be identified in the future based on the availability of State and Federal funding. 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) • 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). January 24, 2012 BOCC Public Hearing — The Orange County BOCC held a public hearing on the draft CTP January 24"'. Three individuals spoke at the hearing. Meeting notes, including staff commentary, are included in Attachment 1. OUTBoard Recommendation — At its meeting on February 20, 2013, the OUTBoard unanimously recommended approval of the draft CTP to include the revisions as provided in Attachment 2. Draft Minutes of the meeting are provided as Attachment 3. Adoption Process — The BOCC will be asked to consider adoption of the Plan 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 . BOCC consideration of Part 1 (this meeting); 2. TARPO endorsement of Part 1 (Spring 2013); 3. NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch staff recommendation of Part 1 to NCDOT Board of Transportation (Spring 2013); 4. NCDOT Board of Transportation adopts only Part 1 (Spring 2013); 5. 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); 6. NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch staff finalizes the report and distributes the final document including previously adopted Map Sheets; and K 7. BOCC consideration of Part 2 (May -June 2013). 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 and considering the OUTBoard's recommendation on draft CTP. 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, re- hiring is in process. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board- 1 . Receive the Orange Unified Transportation Board's recommendation of approval; 2. Close the public hearing; 3. Adopt Part 1 (Attachment 5) of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan to include map revisions recommended by the OUTBoard (Attachment 2); and 4. Provide any additional comments the Board may have on the CTP technical report (Attachment 4). M Attachment 1 01 -24 -2013 BOCC Public Hearing Comments on the Draft Comarehensive Transportation Plan (CTP Public Comments: Mr. Ed Flowers, Hillsborough spoke. He had special interests with regard to bus /transit services for the aging, and especially increasing these services for rural senior citizens, and having more buses with better communication systems. Mr. Alex Castro, Bingham Township spoke. Alex is also on the Advisory Board on Aging and the OUTBoard, but stressed that he was speaking tonight strictly as a private citizen. He said that there is a problem of governance and coordination with all the transportation plans and issues and there needs to be some consolidation. He also said that seniors fall through the cracks; they have disabilities, etc. and there are few bus services, and these are fragmented and disjointed. Ms. Bonnie Hauser spoke. She asked if it would be possible to combine cycling lanes /trails with the Mountains -to -Sea Trail through Bingham Township. The BOCC didn't offer a response at this time. Planning Staff Comment: The Pedestrian Map component of the CTP reflects a concept and desire to connect rural community nodes, public facilities and other destinations via off -road trails. Exactly how this is to be accomplished, funding sources and precise locations of trails are not known at this time. In April 2010, the Orange County BOCC adopted a Resolution Supporting the Mountains -to -Sea Trail Through Orange County as reflected on the CTP Pedestrian Map. Implementation of the Trail remains a work in progress across the state and in Orange County. Presently, a series of connectors on bicycle routes and back roads knit together finished sections of the Trail to span the state. The use of NCDOT Right -of -Way for these purposes is informal and done only as an interim solution to complete the Trail. It is staffs understanding that NCDOT does not allow the construction of formal walking trails and advertising of trails located within its Right -of -Way. The County's Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation, through its Lands Legacy program, is working together with the State (NCDENR) and non - governmental agencies to secure trail corridors for the NC Mountains -to -Sea Trail. For more information on the Mountains to Sea Trail visit: http.Ilwww.ncrost.org Commissioner Comments: Commissioner Gordon asked a question about the initials "MAX that is used on page 101 of the agenda packet. Do we need a key? What does this mean? Sarah Lee, Transportation Engineer, NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch, referred to page 100 and communicated that MAJ refers to "Other Major Thoroughfare ". Commissioner Gordon asked Sarah Lee about what kind of comments DOT was looking for from the BOCC. Is the BOCC trying to figure out if the CTP recommendations are correct? Sarah Lee replied that DOT is looking for approval on the recommendations (adoption sheet and four maps) when the CTP comes back to them in March. Planning Staff Comment: Specifically, NCDOT is seeking any final changes to the CTP Maps (Attachment 5) that the BOCC might determine necessary prior to its adoption of the Maps. Comments on the technical report (Attachment 4 ) are welcome, the County's OUTBoard is offering some, and NCDOT will consider any that are received as it prepares the final technical report. Commissioner Dorosin asked about how coordination worked with the MPO CTPs, transit plan, etc. Replies came from staff as well as a few other commissioners. Vice -Chair McKee explained that the various plans have different controlling organizations and different funding sources. There were various questions about project funding sources from various commissioners. Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Pelissier both asked about the park- and -ride lots depicted on the CTP Transit Map - is there consistency with the Transit Plan and coordination of funding? They asked if the park- and -ride lots would be funded by DOT or through the Transit Plan. Tom Altieri, Orange County Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, responded, reiterating that the CTP is not fiscally constrained and the funding for projects in the plan is not known at this time. Commissioner McKee stated that funding decisions through the TARPO TAC has been very fair, and added that Orange County doesn't have a lot of control over this DOT CTP. Chair Jacobs stressed that the CTP is not fiscally constrained. Chair Jacobs made a brief statement about the Orange County vs the DOT position on the NC 86 Strategic Highway Corridor. He stated that Orange County has long been opposed to widening NC 86 from the Caswell County line to where it comes into Hillsborough, and this CTP (Highway Map project) is NCDOT's way to make it a major Boulevard. This will create a huge bottleneck where NC 86 comes into Hillsborough and this hasn't really been addressed in the CTP or by anyone, and now we're going to try to run transit though the same bottleneck. Vice -Chair McKee moved the Manager's recommendations to refer the matter to the OUTBoard and adjourn the public hearing until March 7, 2013 in order to receive and accept the OUTBoard's recommendation. Commissioner Price seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously. Attachment 2 OUTBoard Recommended Revisions A. CTP Map Recommendations 1. Highway Map a. The dashed line legends for Minor Thoroughfares are very difficult to read on the map. It is suggested that the dashed lines for `Needs Improvement' and `Recommended' be made a bolder color that would be more visible. b. Extend the Minor Thoroughfare `Needs Improvement' line on Efland -Cedar Grove Road north from Carr Store Road to the northern property line of the U.S. Post Office. Staff Note: This minor extension of the project to include the U.S. Post Office is recommended because the Post Office is one of the larger trip generators in the area (1300 AADT, 2011 per NCDOT), and the frontage has wide open access and needs improvements that enhance safety. 2. Public Transportation and Rail Map — No change recommended. 3. Bicycle Map - No change recommended unless it is determined by the BOCC that an off - road bicycle path would be a desirable option for Old NC 86 between Arthur Minnis Road and Ode Turner Road. Such a change would need to be coordinated with the Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro (DCHC) Metropolitan Organization (MPO). Background: The section of Old NC 86 between Arthur Minnis Road and Ode Turner Road is on the boundary between the jurisdictions of the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) and the DCHC MPO. Although not as far along in the planning process, the MPO is also working on a draft CTP, which presently includes the widening of Old NC 86 from a 22 -foot to a 24 -foot cross section, with 4 -foot wide shoulders, as part of its bicycle plan. This would not be consistent with Orange County's Bicycle Map, which shows no improvements to this section of Old NC 86 as currently proposed in the draft CTP. OUTBoard Discussion: The OUTBoard commented that this section of Old NC 86 is not suitable for bike paths because the road is hilly, curvy and very dangerous for bicyclists. Bicyclists avoid Old NC 86 for this reason. It wouldn't make sense to invest in any widening for the purpose of bike paths unless the route can be straightened and the elevation issues addressed. If bike paths are desired on Old NC 86 then they should be off -road to ensure safety and usage. Or alternatively, the much safer new NC 86 should be solely used for a commuter bike path. Coordination will be needed with the DCHC MPO to establish consistency. OUTBoard Options for BOCC Consideration: Option 1 — Make no change to the Bicycle Map, which shows no improvements to the aforementioned section of Old NC 86, and request for consistency that no improvements are reflected in the draft CTP bicycle plan for the DCHC MPO. OR Option 2 - Add an off -road bicycle path to the Bicycle Map along the aforementioned section of Old NC 86 and request for consistency that the draft CTP for the DCHC MPO reflect the same. 7 Planning Staff Recommendation: Planning Staff recommends Option 1. The concept of off - road bicycle paths for the purpose of improving commuter safety has not been thoroughly explored. The idea was mentioned and presented by the OUTBoard as a potential alternative to address the danger associated with cycling on Old NC 86. Presently, bicycling in the County is primarily for recreational purposes and staff would need a better understanding of the demand for commuter routes before making a recommendation to pursue off -road bicycle paths for this purpose. Discussions would need to be held with the staffs of other local governments in the County and the MPO to determine the demand for commuter cycling opportunities between jurisdictions and if and how to proceed with a coordinated effort. 4. Pedestrian Map — Rural Community Nodes are not labeled correctly and should be revised as follows: • Revise Cane Creek /Bingham label to White Cross • Revise Upper Eno /Cedar Grove label (western one on map) to Carr • Revise Upper Eno /Cedar Grove label (eastern one on map) to Cedar Grove • Revise Little River label (northern one on map) to Caldwell • Revise Little River label (southern one on map) to Schley 5. General Comment — Clearly label the MPO boundaries on all maps. The lack of labeling causes confusion. -------------------------------------------- - - - - -- -END OF MAP REVISIONS-------------------------------------------- - - - - -- B. CTP Report Recommendations 1. Page 1 -15 Bicycles and Pedestrians a. Delete: Grange r,,, Rty also has a pedestriaR plan in PFGgrreGG +h -+ Ini -c i U+iliZed in the d pMeRt erthe eferna.pf ertheGT° and Add: The Pedestrian Map depicts approximate locations of recommended off -road trails that follow historic road corridors and link rural community nodes, public facilities and destinations. The trail locations are consistent with a draft Rural Pedestrian Connectivity Plan for Orange County that was developed by a Steering Committee subcommittee for the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. 2. Page II -3 — II -5 Highway Problem Statements (Project Descriptions) - Revise project descriptions to include shoulder widths and paving details. 3. Page II -5 Highway Problem Statements / Minor Improvements a. Revise project description for (North) Efland- Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004), SPOT ID #559 to add underlined text as follows: Efland -Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004) from Highland Farm Road (SR 1332) to the northern property line of the US Post Office north of Carr Store Road (SR 1004 /SR 1342) is currently a 2- lane, 20 -foot cross section. b. Add a statement at the end of the Old NC 86 description expressing that widening should be done only if needed to improve vehicular safety and not to accommodate or encourage bicycling along this route. This section of Old NC 86 is not suitable for bike paths because the road is hilly, curvy and very dangerous for bicyclists and would remain so even with wider shoulders. Bicyclists avoid Old NC 86 for this reason. It wouldn't make sense to invest in any widening for bike paths unless the route can be straightened and the elevation issues addressed. 4. Page II -6 Public Transportation & Rail Problem Statements (Project Descriptions) — Add a statement to the rail discussion stating that the development of commuter rail lines in the MPO areas will have a traffic impact on surrounding `feeder' routes that may need to be addressed. t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Attachment 3 DRAFT MINUTES EXCERPT ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD FEBRUARY 20, 2013 MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Guthrie, Chapel Hill Township; Jeff Charles, Bicycle Advocate; Alex Castro, Bingham Township; Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township; Ted Triebel, Little River Township; Jeff Miles, Pedestrian Access & Safety Advocate; Annette Jurgelski, Eno Township; Alan Campbell, Planning Board Representative; Amy Cole, Transit Advocate MEMBERS ABSENT: Susie Enoch, Cheeks Township; Bryant Warren, Hillsborough Township; Economic Development Commission - Vacant; CfE Representative- Vacant; STAFF PRESENT: Abigaile Pittman, Transportation /Land Use Planner; Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II OTHERS PRESENT: Matthew Day, Senior Planner, TARPO; and Scott Walston, PE, NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch AGENDA ITEM V: REGULAR AGENDA January 24, 2013 Public hearing Draft of Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) http: / /www,ncdot,gov /doh /preconstruct /tpb /planning / orangecounty,html • Copy of Draft CTP sent to OUTBoard on 02/06/2013 (please bring this copy to the OUTBoard meeting on 02/20/2013) • Abstract providing history, background, and intro to CTP • Highway Map and Projects (Attachment 1) • Public Transportation and Rail Map and Projects (Attachment 2) • Bicycle Map and Projects (Attachment 3) • Pedestrian Map and Projects (Attachment 4) • Draft CTP Adoption Map (Attachment 5) • OUTBoard and Staff Draft CTP Comments (Attachment 6) • BOCC CTP Public Hearing Comments (Attachment 7) ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENTS FOR REFERENCE: • Composite Countywide Bicycle Map (Prepared by Planning Staff) (Attachment 8) • Proposed Orange County Rural Connectivity Pedestrian Plan (Prepared by CTP Steering Committee Subcommittee) (Attachment 9) OUTBoard Action: To make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration at its March 7, 2013 meeting Paul Guthrie noted that the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) is winding its way through the process and the OUTBoard needs to finish its review of the plan and send comments to the BOCC. He noted that at the BOCC retreat it was indicated that they are quite interested in the OUTBoard comments. Abigaile Pittman reviewed CTP background and maps. Ted Triebel asked how the plans move from being essentially a vision without budget and priorities, as it is not fiscally constrained, to eventually being prioritized and budgeted. 9 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 9]CL1aI Matthew Day, TARPO explained that essentially the RPO submits a list of projects to NCDOT that it would like to see funded. Those projects are pulled from the CTP. Then there is a very elaborate scoring process and the RPO gets to assign some points, DOT gets to assign some points, and then how a project scores goes into the decision on what gets funded. Scott Walston, NCDOT explained the difference between the RPO and MPO transportation project planning steps, illustrating with a drawing on the white board for the group. Paul Guthrie noted that it is important to know what is coming into the area from other surrounding RPO and MPO jurisdictions and not knowing what is happening in other places is a limitation. He noted that everyone is at a different stage and /or uses a different format so coordination is difficult, but the planning itself is simpler than what many other more urban jurisdictions are dealing with. He noted that several of the Commissioners sit on boards of other planning jurisdictions and that becomes significant as they need some background from the OUTBoard. Paul Guthrie commented that he thinks the projections for the rural numbers for the Durham — Chapel Hill population is under estimated. He thinks NC 54 will need more improvements all the way to Orange Grove Road than what the CTP calls for. Scott Walston, NCDOT noted that this plan gets adjusted along the way to account for changes in information. Alex Castro noted that there are very few commuter corridors into Chapel Hill and UNC like NC 54. When you assess the population using NC 54 to commute, it does not all originate within Orange County, but a large percentage is from people coming through from outside the County and using it a link to get to their jobs. He is concerned with how few commuter links there are. He observed that Chapel Hill is difficult to get to and asked how to factor the commuting pattern into the calculations of traffic growth on NC 54. Scott Walston, NCDOT advised that two things were looked at, past traffic trends and also the Triangle Regional Model, which is a travel demand model that replicates the travel patterns that both DCHC and CAMPO use to predict their traffic patterns. Matthew Day, TARPO added that Alamance County has no plans to extend their 4 lanes of NC 54 farther down than it is now. Jeff Charles added that at the bicycle committee meeting in Chapel Hill it was reported there were 51,000 jobs in Chapel Hill, noting that this puts some perspective on how many people are coming into Chapel Hill for work. Highway Map Comments: Jeff Charles commented on the improvements regarding making improvements to Old NC 86 that include four -foot wide shoulders for use by bicyclists. He stated that Old NC 86 will never make a good commuter bike route because of the line of sight deficiency. He noted that no one is going to ride on a road that is as dangerous as Old NC 86 is to bicyclists. The only way it would work is if you straighten it and make elevation changes which is unlikely due to the investment it would require. Additionally, Jeff commented that improvement for cars would be favorable but no monies should be spent on it to install 4 foot shoulders to accommodate bicyclists. Cars travel too fast and it makes no sense to invest money there and it is not a necessary connector. There are other roads for recreation and commuter cyclists in that area, such as new 86. The exception to that is the one project that is a pet project of the cycling community which is Calvander, the one section of Old NC 86 between Carrboro and the Homestead /Dairyland intersection. Jeff noted the natural place to stop improvement on the Highway Map in regard to accommodating bicycles /pedestrians is at the Dairyland /Homestead intersection. 10 11 9]CL1aI Sam Lasris commented that there may be a need to have some traffic calming measures, i.e. flashing lights, posted speed limits on the improvements suggested on Efland -Cedar Grove Rd in addition to extending the project to the Post Office. Scott Walston, NCDOT advised that traffic calming measures was something that needs to be discussed with the Division 7 office. Paul Guthrie commented that what goes on regarding the Rail map will increase traffic in the rural areas at certain times of the day. You could have feeder transportation needs to those stations that may be along the rail line. Paul suggested there should be some sort of footnote in the comments. He noted that while there is no public transportation rail in Orange County's territory, there will be. Public Transportation and Rail Map Comments: Paul Guthrie referred back to his previous comment on the Highway Map regarding the need of a footnote. Bicycle Map Comments: Jeff Charles noted he thinks the Bicycle Map is really quite good. He referred back to his comment on the Highway Map about the widening project on Old NC 86 that proposes four -foot shoulders for bicyclists. He noted that in actuality the Bicycle map shows that there is no recommendation for a bike route improvement in our plan but if you go the Composite Map (prepared by the Planning Staff), Durham /Chapel Hill has the route on either side of it and then DOT comes in and says now we are going to link it. Then it becomes part of the CTP and it is wrong thinking and needs to be pointed out the County Commissioners because they must have some input on the DCHC part of these recommendations. The Commissioners need to recognize that this project would be spending a lot of money for bicycles on Old NC 86 while also spending money on the DCHC plan on NC 86. It is basically from Eubanks Road to Hillsborough where they are going to put four -foot bike lanes on 86. Jeff added that he questions it but at least on new NC 86 you have line of sight and 86 is the way to commute from Hillsborough as opposed to Old NC 86 which is too dangerous. Amy Cole noted that while she understands Jeffs comments on Old NC 86 between Arthur Minus and Davis, and stated that she clearly sees the safety issue. But she is looking at it from a connectivity point of view and leaving that out bothers her but the safety of having a four -foot shoulder makes no sense. Would it be possible to have the CTP designate this bike path as an off -road facility? Jeff Charles responded that it would require doing all of Old NC 86 and not just the rural section. He questions the financial input of that versus just going to new NC 86 and going up that way. Jeff noted he could see that it would benefit pedestrians. Paul Guthrie commented again on the problems of assessing projects without full information on connectivity with other jurisdictions. For example, referencing that on the little segment of Jones Ferry Road which is marked up, he understands what it connects to because of what is down in Chatham County, but to someone in Orange County looking at this map, without reference to Chatham County's map, may not have any idea why that piece is there. Abigaile Pittman asked for a summary of the Board's final comment on the Old NC 86 project. It was summarized that the investment in the wide shoulders should be dropped unless needed for vehicle safety, that the commuting bike route would be best on new NC 86, and that the only way that a bike route should be included along Old NC 86 was if it was an off -road facility. Pedestrian Map Comments: 12 9]CL1aI 150 Sam Lasris commented that he would like to see better identification of the MPO boundary lines and road names on 151 the map. He said that he kept getting confused on what was a boundary line and what was a proposed pedestrian 152 trail. Multiple other members of the OUTBoard agreed, saying that the boundary lines should be labeled on all of the 153 CTP maps. 154 155 Motion by Alex Castro that the OUTBoard recommend the comments discussed in the presentation and the 156 additional comments discussed here tonight. Seconded by Jeff Charles 157 Vote: Unanimous ✓�Y wUBi�i ���N ti, �y RP Attachment 4 " " uuuuuuiiiii uuuuuuuuuuu° I�Il�ll�llu � ,I- I F:31 I :31 B Ni m Vuuuuummouuu immomNODU mNUUUmmomNUV t� I� a` I l'� I =' 1 1 9 �+ 1 '4 �II' II p l l l I �° II... F4 I l 1" I k M`�P F f-1 I •;' FS. f l l. I -U DRAFT Comprehensive Transportation Plan Ztb an l — W� Orange County Month, 2012 13 14 15 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 16 17 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 ................................................ .........._................I -27 11. Recommendations .........._ ... ............................ Implementation ........ ............................... Problem Statements ............................. Highway.......... ............................... Public Transportation and Rail ,...... Bicycle ........... ............................... an ................. ........... ..............................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 ............................................. ............................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 W 19 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 informations can be found in Chapter 2. 20 This page intentionally left blank. Caswell County Adopted b Orange Cp Date: NCDOT Date: TrianglenaOt Date: Recomi � Transporta ' ni ag nch Date: o � i NOTES:! Q c 0 U m U C (E E (E a Chatham County Person County a Durham - Chapel Hill- Ci 0 U ;_ to .c 0 0 + Airports Sheet 1 Adoption Sheet ®K os r SDt,DD18 Me= Sheet 2 Highway Map Roads N l7 Sheet 3 Public Transportation Rivers and Streams WE and Rail Map Water Bodies S DRAFT Sheet Bicycle Map — Parks and Gamelands Figure 1 Orange County County Boundaries Sheet 1 of 5 North Carolina Sheet 5 Pedestrian Map Q MPO Boundaries Comprehensive Base map date: April, zoog Transportation Plan Refer to CTP document for more details Plan date: December 11, 2012 22 Back of Figure Caswell County Person County 23 I o m aPR & ' 7s p 2QJ s/ Li le River Church Rd S 153 � I 7 U Burlington-Graham Metropolitan U Planning Organizalk c I (E E (E Q _ / Durham-Chapel Hill - Carrbom Metropolitan CI >, C I � O U E RS -G 7 e M° o 0 Freeways / Other Major Thoroughfares a `5� pca" e 5 Existing P M� A Arthur Minnis Rtll`'� Needs Improvement Needs Improvement a�0 Dairy /a Recommended ■��������I Recommended Minor Thoroughfares N r J Expressways � 3 Existing . sa Durham-Chapel Hill - Carrbom Metropolitan CI >, C I � O U E RS -G 7 Chatham - � C o u n t � �� --------- - - - - -- Freeways Other Major Thoroughfares Highway Map Existing Existing M� Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Recommended ■��������I Recommended Minor Thoroughfares N iz z Expressways Existing W E Existing Needs Improvement S �'rb �aenv +o Needs Improvement ---------- Recommended DRAFT ■NEENEENE1 Recommended 0 Existing Interchange Figure 1 Sheet 2 of 5 Orange County Boulevards � Existing O Proposed Interchange Comprehensive Needs Improvement 0 Existing Grade Separation Base map date: April, 2009 Transportation Plan ■NEENEENE1 Recommended 0 Proposed Grade Separation Refer to CTP document for more details Plan date: December 11, 2012 24 Back of Figure Caswell County Person County i o 49 oWm Rd P d 545) l I I I A I I C � I O I U I Burlington- Graham Metropolitan U Planning Organization i CU E CU I Q Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Metropolitar Chatham County CI >1 C 0 U E .c Z 0 Public Transportation Bus Routes Rail Corridor Intermodal Connector Existing Active A Existing M��� and Rail Map Needs Improvement n - -� -� Inactive 0 Recommended a „qe �„ °��• Recommended Fixed Guideway Recommended High Speed Rail Corridor Rail Stops N W E ®� v Existing Existing - Existing S - ' - -� - -` Needs Improvement Recommended ® Recommended Recommended DRAFT Figure 1 Sheet 3of5 Orange County Operational Strategies Park and Ride Lot Existing 0 Existing Comprehensive Base map date: April, 2009 Needs Improvement Transportation Plan • • Recommended D Recommended Refer to UP document for more details Plan date: December 11, 212 26 Back of Figure viii c 0 U U C (E E (E a Caswell County Burlington- Graham Metropolitan M Chatham County 6 Person County a Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrbom Metropolitan C >+ I � O U E .c 0 0 Bicycle Map On -road Multi -Use Paths Existing Existing N Needs Improvement • • • • • • . Needs Improvement 17 ......••• Recommended = _ _ _ _ _ = Recommended W E - S Off -road DRAFT 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, 2009 Transportation Plan Refer to CTP document for more details Plan date: December 11, 2012 28 Back of Figure Caswell County A � I 7 O U Burlington- Graham Metropolitan U Planning Organizatic i I CU E (LS Q _ X1201 a�SR • Jc R ♦� r stout R am •♦ ■ ■ ■■■ ■■c■■■ ° /a'and Person County Z a • Litt�e'River R (S 1 3 ■1Z ♦� ■ 1 ' `� ■ 15] e R ■ P_ ■ CI I = I 0 a i U cu l r I � I O � Durham - Chapel Hill - Can., Metropolitan Planning Organization Pedestrian Map Chatham n Cou y N W E C, Sidewalks S Off -Road Existing - Existing Orange County Needs Improvement ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Needs Improvement ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I Recommended ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Recommended Multi -Use Paths Existing O Existing Grade Separation ...... Needs Improvement O Proposed Grade Separation Recommended - Rural Communities IN Local Recreation Sites Person County Z a • Litt�e'River R (S 1 3 ■1Z ♦� ■ 1 ' `� ■ 15] e R ■ P_ ■ CI I = I 0 a i U cu l r I � I O � Durham - Chapel Hill - Can., Metropolitan Planning Organization Pedestrian Map d N W E n , a `r�4 S �e� ■via DRAFT Figure 1 Sheet 5of5 Orange County Comprehensive Base map date: April, 2009 Transportation Plan Refer to CTP document for more details Plan date: December 11, 2012 30 Back of Figure 31 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 of future ti ability of the transportation depend on careful analysis of and travel patterns. An analysis of the transportal and identifies existing and through a capacity deficiency analysis. This information,, potential, and Land use trend; transportation system. Roadway System including any local and statewide ronment, including natural resources, id goals and objectives. avel patterns must be estimated in order to analyze the ystem to meet future travel demand. These forecasts 'he character and intensity of existing and future land use m system looks at both current and future travel patterns anticipated 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 32 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 i future growth rates any Regional Model ( "TRN comparison to the gro) Model (TRM) is a tool region impacts transpo location and scale of ft problems can be teste( comparison were found ans and growth expectations were used to further refine erns. The second projection method used the Triangle to si The above two methods \A ranging between 1.0% and AADT data to the 2035 hori: Board of Commissioners on 08," Official Adopted Triangle Regional Model) as a erns of the = .trendline analysis. The Triangle Regional developed for understanding how future growth in the acilities and services. The TRM can help identify the nsportation problems, and proposed solutions to those the TRM. The projections of the TRM utilized for this )nsistent with the trendline AADT data projections. used to establish growth rates for studied roadways, I%. The final growth rates were used to project 2007 year, and this data was endorsed by the Orange County y 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 33 • 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 percen along a road at any given time. The relationship of travel demand compare level of service (LOS) of a roadway. Six levy conditions. Designations range from LOS conditions, to LOS F, which represents the w LOS D indicates "practical caps begins to express dissatisfact developed based on the 2000 Recommended improvements a upon achieving a minimum LOS Refer to Appendix E for detailed 19 of vehicles traveling in each direction to the roadway capacity determines the of service identify the range of possible k, which represents the best operating st operating conditions. ty" of a roadway, or the capacity at which the public i. The practical capacity for each roadway was ghway Capacity Manual using the NCLOS program. I overall design of the transportation plan were based ) on existing facilities and a LOS C for new facilities. formation on LOS. 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 c 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 c 0 U U C cu E cu a Caswell County ■� Burlingt —Graham T}f Metmpolitan (SR Chatham Coun t y Growth Rate ( %) 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 R' A Person County a U Z Durh— Chapel Hill - Carrbom Metmpoldai N WE S Figure 2 Base map date: April, 2009 Refer to CTP document for more details 1� OR G 7 O U r 0 0 Growth Rates Map IN aE � �04a b sa a ca- Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan 36 Back of Figure 1 -6 Caswell County a _T I C 7 O U Burlingt —Graham Metropolitan U Planning Organizatic i (B E (B Q I� 0 m Im � H�H (SR a, Person County U Z ^y1113 � a Durh— Chapel Hill - Carrbom Metropoldai OR G Z O U ;_ to r Z 0 Chatham Coun --- - - - - -- — Y Roadway Deficiency (Volume /Capacity Ratio) Future (2035) Roadway Deficiency Map Under Capacity (0 - 0.7) Mg Vt,iSf �,ahr a Near Capacity (0.8 - 0.9) N Over Capacity (1.0 +) W S Figure 3 Orange County Base map date: April, 2009 Comprehensive Refer to CTP document for more details Transportation Plan 38 Back of Figure 1 -8 Caswell Co77-un ty/// Person County a 5 �'o9Ra` o �yo 4 n � m A � h ^5 01a 2 P A Arthur Mi mji Rd (SR 111" 3 sa Dairy (SRaRa r U �g S) WillRd `S Chatham County Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Metrumlitai CI C 0 i CU C -C L 0 0 sR _T Y i Crash Locations (# Map Index) � I O U Me= } Co rlington-Graham CTP Road Network Metropolitan Organization Roads CU LIlarming E CU Q 5 �'o9Ra` o �yo 4 n � m A � h ^5 01a 2 P A Arthur Mi mji Rd (SR 111" 3 sa Dairy (SRaRa r U �g S) WillRd `S Chatham County Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Metrumlitai CI C 0 i CU C -C L 0 0 Crash Locations Map ® Crash Locations (# Map Index) Me= } Co CTP Road Network acA�gQ Roads N Rivers and Streams W E 17 5Z Water Bodies S ;4. a Parks and Gamelands ^ rh CAT" r Figure 4 County Boundaries Orange County Q MPO Boundaries Base date: April, 2009 map Comprehensive Refer to CTP document for more details Transportation Plan 40 Back of Figure 1 -10 Caswell County Person County a 5 �'o9Ra` o �yo 4 n � m A � h ^5 Gta� 2 P A Arthur Mi"j. Rd (SR 111" 3 s ado Dairy /a (sR 1 °Ra �j m � WillRd `S Chatham County Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Metrumlitai CI C 0 i CU C -C L 0 0 sR _T Y i Deficient Bridges (# Bridge Number) � I O CTP Road Network U a`ArgQ rlington-Graham Roads Metropolitan N Organization Rivers and Streams CU LIlarming E 17 5Z CU Q 5 �'o9Ra` o �yo 4 n � m A � h ^5 Gta� 2 P A Arthur Mi"j. Rd (SR 111" 3 s ado Dairy /a (sR 1 °Ra �j m � WillRd `S Chatham County Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Metrumlitai CI C 0 i CU C -C L 0 0 Deficient Bridges Map ® Deficient Bridges (# Bridge Number) Me= CTP Road Network a`ArgQ Roads N Rivers and Streams W E 17 5Z Water Bodies S ;4. a Parks and Gamelands ^ rh CTS Fi ure 5 g County Boundaries Orange County Q MPO Boundaries Base date: April, 2009 map Comprehensive Refer to CTP document for more details Transportation Plan 42 Back of Figure 1 -12 Public Transportation and Rail 43 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 .. 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 growing Carolina. Many communities are workin pedestrians. operate in North Carolina — CSX :, there are more than 20 smaller the CTP planning area; Orange 'O 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 45 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 2008, 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 where, 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 ER 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 - - - -- fr6.P- 'rAllrrTEe�'�i- Figure 6 Future Land Use Map of the Orange County Comprehensive Plan CaswelkCounty lJ j Chatham County 1 -17 Person CoAri y PAeplle deb: 4. 18, 2008 ornw0,d fNragh °...N —b.,2012 (r" r - �© Wallershed Critical Areas . tt�o ! BMiller Supply Mtersheds OGCHICA Joint Planning Area j - Resource Protection Areas -PubliclnterestAreas - 16 Year Transition y� ®26 Year Transition Rural Residential } 4 Rural Buffer - Agricultural Residential _ City Limits ET.! Activity Nodes Rural Neighborhood -Commercial Transibor v - Commerclal- Industrial Transltlon Economic Development Transition r Rural Community 1 - Rural Industrial 1 2 3 4 Miles 1 in = 2.75 miles orapur c7him ®mP— ii,epo m >w120oww +mpApr This copy pnniea Norm �r ffi, 2012. rEfrrrec wlY. .. rrin.i +inr m Mlrr renM1C� ion ol0etc 47 ME., Back of Figure 1 -18 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 examined 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 (NCDOT) • 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 i • 50 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 51 Caswell County - - - -- - - -- - - Person County -- - - - - -- - - -- I - - - -- f v y - / 1 G II I f ( d 2 5 ) s 5] 15] I I � o _ °s �Ir I _T _ I I C I � I I O I I U Burlington- Graham jMetropolitan I U Planning Organization CU _ CI I CU j G Q O I U zo a sR I 1 . i E I � I ` jr n Durham - Chapel Hill - O Carrboro Metropolitan 2n Planning Organization I I �t (SR EII I I d I N I I it o �rCA — I [ I Chatham o° —� - -- — -- _ - -- C o Lin t y - - - - Environmental Features - National Wetlands Inventory M,1 3 1 Map 1 Water Supply Watersheds 7 � S e ok4a Target Local Watersheds i�P 0 Roads WE t, County Boundaries MPO Boundaries Figure 7 Orange County Base map date: April, 2009 Comprehensive Refer to CTP document for more details Transportation Plan 52 Back of Figure 1 -22 Caswell County A, C 7 U I uu0ingl j Meh U Planning i I CU E (B i Q Zak M �a �c 14 Chatham County a Rd Person County Carrboo Met ow l litai G 0 0 U ;_ -C L 0 • Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites Environmental Features ■ Inactive Hazardous Sites M1P5 Map 2 - Recreation Projects - Land and Water Conservation Fund N {gnge & - Conservation Tax Credit Properties Significant Natural Heritage Areas WE _ li Natural Heritage Element Occurrences S Land Trust Priority Areas r NCDOT Bike Routes Figure 8 Roads Orange County County Boundaries Base map date: April, 2009 Comprehensive QMPO Boundaries Refer to CTP document for more details Transportation Plan 54 Back of Figure 1 -24 c 0 U m U C (E E (E E0 Caswell County Planning M �c Chatham County a Person County Carrboo Met ow l litai G 7 O U ;_ -C L Z 0 - Hydrography (1:24k scale) Environmental Features M- Map 3 High Quality Water Outstanding Resource Water Management Zones Roads N rp County Boundaries W g €l ; MPO Boundaries c Sv Figure 9 for r CV, a Orange County Base map date: April, 2009 Comprehensive Refer to CTP document for more details Transportation Plan 56 Back of Figure 1 -26 Public Involvement 57 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 the 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 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 an overlap of boundaries between Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro MPO and Burlington Graham MPO in Orange County. Staff discussions on options for adjusting boundaries were held between the fall of 2011 and the fall of 2012, with a final option being, approved by Orange County and the MPOs in the fall of 2012. Due to these developments, after the Orange County CTP recommendations were finalized by the committee in the spring of 2012, adoption of the CTP was postponed until approval of the MPO boundary 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 59 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 3I1y and submitted to the Triangle Area RPO NCDOT via a formalized process. Projects can only move into the project development phase after first being ranked in NCDOT's Prioritization Process and programmed into the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which requires coordination with local MPOs and RPOs. Once programmed, the MPOs and RPOs play a significant role (as a concurring member on the team that oversees the project development and permitting process) in the location and design of projects as they move through the process. These projects must be in compliance with local plans and undergo additional public involvement efforts. Orange County is a member of the Triangle Area RPO and thus represented by the RPO throughout this process. Local governments may use the CTP to guide development and protect corridors for the recommended projects. It 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 AEI The following pages contain problem statements for each recommendation, organized by CTP modal element. 11 -2 Problem Statements Multi -Modal Plan Aspects 61 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 L I r map. le Road /DCHC MPO), Local ID ORAN0002 -H 1006) to Neville Road (SR 1945) (the DCHC MPO 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 Kane 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%. ov J% v1C111an wvN rwauivvn%o inry w %.aawCU % UU11LYJ, wL,01 w vrwiwvv 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 LOS 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 62 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 Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) and Dairyland Ro for travel in southwest Orange County. Hov at their shared intersection with Orange Gr01 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 108 -H (SR 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 63 • 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 Minnis Road (SR 1113) (the DCHC MPO boundary) to Davis Road (SR 1129) (the DCHC 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 Z 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 C' 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 proj • 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 B6a and B6b. 3ng NC 86 from Coleman Loop Road (SR aswell County. Park - and -Ride Lots' The CTP proposes the following potential park- 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 65 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 fz for bicycles. Road (SR 1352) / Sawmill Road dar Grove Park (ORAN0004 -T). ride users on the recommended / Sawmill Road W (SR 1545) the proposed park- and -ride lot ad recommendation for more e expressway cross section for ;ility to maintain this connection • Local ID ORAN0002 -13: ; 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 Alamance 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 -13: 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 -13: 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 -13: Schley Rd (SR 1548) from Walnut Grove Church Rd (SR 1001) to New Sharon Church Rd (SR 1538) (the DCHC MPO boundary). 11 -7 TO 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 2.0 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 1D 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 67 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. uO Z.,] This page intentionally left blank. II -10 M 70 71 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 Project 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 mai 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 72 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 Transa, 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 on outdoor advertising, junkyard control, review and approval, Adopt A Highway of way, issuance of oversize /overwidth truction 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 73 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 Seco roads to be pavec the Industrial Acc( Roads Office for info Lions and deletions of nds program. 1535 Mail Service Centei Raleigh, NC 27699 -,1535 (919) 707 -2500 http: / /www.ncdot.gov /dor 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 74 75 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 76 This page intentionally left blank. M. 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 mi 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 (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 77 rU• 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 79 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 roads 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 :@ 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 the railroad tracks. • Intermodal Connector — A location where more than one mode of transportation meet such as where light rail and a bus route come together in one location or a bus station. • Park and Ride Lot — A strategically located parking lot that is free of charge to anyone who parks a vehicle and commutes by transit or in a carpool. • Existing Grade Separation — Locations where existing rail facilities and are physically separated from existing highways or other transportation facilities. These may be bridges, culverts, or other structures. • Proposed Grade Separation — Locations where rail facilities are recommended to be physically separated from existing or recommended highways or other transportation facilities.; These may be bridges, culverts, or other structures. Bicycle Map • 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 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. • 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. 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 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 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. AM 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. LC1 M-11 This page intentionally left blank. AMR 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 L( were developed using the NCLOS, program, a • 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) ry facilities'. These capacity estimates J in Chapter I. aily Traffic) volumes, given in vehicles per day fl analysis. The `2035 AADT with CTP' is an CTP improvements assumed to be in place. =xceeds the proposed capacity, indicating an assumptions 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 CTP INVENTORY AND RECOMMENDATIONS HIGHWAY 2007 Existing System 2035 Proposed System 2035 Cross- Speed Existing 2007 AADT Proposed CTP Dist. Section ROW Limit Capacity (2006 *) with Capacity Cross- ROW Classifi- Other Local ID Facility Section (From - To) Jurisdiction (mi) (ft) (mph) (vpd) AADT CTP (vpd) Section (ft) cation Tier Modes (ft) lanes - NC 49 Alamance Co - Lynch Store Rd Orange County 1.7 24 2 60 55 12,000 2,600 4,100 - ADQ - Maj Reg - (SR 1364) Lynch Store Rd (SR 1364) - - NC 49 Carr Store Rd / Corbett Ridge Orange County 0.8 24 2 60 55 12,000 3,300 5,100 - ADQ - Maj Reg - Rd (SR 1004) - NC 49 Carr Store Rd / Corbett Ridge Orange County 2.7 24 2 60 55 12,000 2,900 4,500 - ADQ - Maj Reg - Rd (SR 1004) - NC 86 ORAN0001- NC 49 NC 86 - Caswell Co Orange County 0.1 24 2 60 55 12,000 7,100 12,100 15,000 4B 150 Maj Reg T H / W -5318 - NC 54 Alamance Co - Mebane Oaks Orange County 0.6 24 2 120 55 12,000 5,400 9,200 - ADQ - Maj Reg - Rd (SR 1007) - NC 54 Mebane Oaks Rd (SR 1007) - Orange County 2.8 24 2 120 55 12,000 5,400 9,200 - ADQ - Maj Reg - Morrow Mill Rd (SR 1958) - NC 54 Morrow Mill Rd (SR 1958) - Orange County 0.8 24 2 120 55 12,000 5,400 9,200 - ADQ - Maj Reg - Orange Grove Rd (SR 1006) ORAN0002- Orange Grove Rd (SR 1006) - H NC 54 Butler Rd (SR 1951) / Dodsons Orange County 1.6 24 2 120 55 12,000 8,700 14,800 15,000 4B 150 B Reg T Cross Rd (SR 1102) ORAN0002- Butler Rd (SR 1951) / Dodsons H NC 54 Cross Rd (SR 1102) - Neville Orange County 2.2 24 2 120 55 12,000 12,000 20,400 15,000 4B 150 B Reg T Rd (SR 1945) / Inside DCHC 00 C -2 0') HIGHWAY 2007 Existing System 2035 Proposed System 2035 Cross- Speed Existing 2007 AADT Proposed CTP Dist. Section ROW Limit Capacity (2006 *) with Capacity Cross- ROW Classifi- Other Local ID Facility Section (From - To) Jurisdiction (mi) (ft) (mph) (vpd) AADT CTP (vpd) Section (ft) cation Tier Modes (ft) lanes - NC 57 Phelps Rd (SR 1550) / DCHC - Orange County 1.8 20 2 100 55 12,000 4,900 7,600 - ADQ - Maj Reg - Schley Rd (SR 1548) - NC 57 Schley Rd (SR 1548) - Little Orange County 2.8 20 2 100 55 12,000 4,900 7,600 - ADQ - Maj Reg - River Church Rd (SR 1543) - NC 57 Little River Church Rd (SR Orange County 0.8 20 2 100 55 12,000 3,700 5,800 - ADQ - Maj Reg - 1543) - NC 157 (Guess Rd) NC 157 (Guess Rd) - Holly - NC 57 Ridge Rd (SR 1524) / New Orange County 1.8 20 2 100 55 12,000 2,700 4,200 - ADQ - Maj Reg - Sharon Church Rd (SR 1538) Holly Ridge Rd (SR 1524) / New - NC 57 Sharon Church Rd (SR 1538) - Orange County 3.2 20 2 100 55 12,000 1,800 2,800 - ADQ - Maj Reg - Person Co ORAN0001- Coleman Loop Rd (SR 1334) / H / W -5318 NC 86 DCHC - Walnut Grove Church Orange County 0.8 24 2 100 55 12,000 8300* 14,300 15,000 4B 150 E Sta T, B Rd (SR 1001) ORAN0001- Walnut Grove Church Rd (SR H / W -5318 NC 86 1001) - Carr Store Rd (SR Orange County 2.3 24 2 100 55 12,000 4,800 8,200 15,000 4B 150 E Sta T 1352) / Sawmill Rd (SR 1545) Carr Store Rd (SR 1352) / ORAN0001- NC 86 Sawmill Rd (SR 1545) - Orange County 1.6 24 2 60 55 12,000 4,800 8,200 15,000 4B 150 E Sta T, B H / W -5318 Caviness Jordan Rd (SR 1506) / AADT Change ORAN0001- Caviness Jordan Rd (SR 1506) / H / W -5318 NC 86 AADT Change - Efland -Cedar Orange County 2.3 24 2 60 55 12,000 4,200 7,100 15,000 4B 150 E Sta T Grove Rd (SR 1357) ORAN0001- NC 86 Efland -Cedar Grove Rd (SR Orange County 1.9 24 2 60 55 12,000 4,400 7,500 15,000 4B 150 E Sta T H / W -5318 1357) - NC 49 - INC 86 NC 49 - Caswell Co Concurrent with NC 49 00 C -3 A HIGHWAY 2007 Existing System 2035 Proposed System 2035 Cross- Speed Existing 2007 AADT Proposed CTP Dist. Section ROW Limit Capacity (2006 *) with Capacity Cross- ROW Classifi- Other Local ID Facility Section (From - To) Jurisdiction (mi) (ft) (mph) (vpd) AADT CTP (vpd) Section (ft) cation Tier Modes (ft) lanes New Sharon Church Rd (SR - NC 157 (Guess Rd) 1538) / DCHC - Green Riley Rd Orange County 2.0 20 2 60 55 12,000 2,200 3,400 - ADQ - Maj Reg - (SR 1579) / AADT Change - NC 157 (Guess Rd) Green Riley Rd (SR 1579) / Orange County 1.0 20 2 60 55 12,000 2,100 3,300 - ADQ - Maj Reg - AADT Change - NC 57 - NC 157 (Guess Rd) NC 57 - Holly Ridge Rd (SR Orange County 2.8 20 2 60 55 12,000 2,400 3,700 - ADQ - Maj Reg - 1524) - NC 157 (Guess Rd) Holly Ridge Rd (SR 1524) - Orange County 1.1 20 2 60 55 12,000 2,400 3,700 - ADQ - Maj Reg - Person Co Arthur Minnis Rd Orange Grove Rd (SR 1006) - Orange County 1.2 22 2 60 55 12,000 380* 700 - ADQ - Min Sub - (SR 1115) Dodsons Cross Rd (SR 1102) ORAN0003- Arthur Minnis Rd Dodsons Cross Rd (SR 1102) - unsurf- H (SR 1115) Rocky Ridge Rd / Arthur Minnis Orange County 1.6 20 2 60 55 aced 2,300 3,900 12,000 2A 60 Min Sub - Rd (SR 1113) Rocky Ridge Rd (SR 1113) / Arthur Minnis Rd Arthur Minnis Rd (SR 1115) - Orange County 1.8 20 2 60 50 10,300 2,300 3,900 - ADQ - Min Sub - (SR 1113) Old NC 86 (SR 1009) / DCHC Bradshaw Quarry Mebane Oaks (SR 1007) - Teer Rd (SR 1100) Rd (SR 1100) / Bradshaw Orange County 0.7 20 2 60 55 12,000 500* 900 - ADQ - Min Sub - Quarry Rd (SR 1115) Bradshaw Quarry Teer Rd / Bradshaw Quarry Rd Rd (SR 1115) (SR 1100) - Buckhorn Rd (SR Orange County 3.1 20 2 60 55 12,000 500* 900 - ADQ - Min Sub - 1114) Bradshaw Quarry Buckhorn Rd (SR 1114) - Orange County 1.2 24 2 60 55 12,000 990 1,700 - ADQ - Min Sub - Rd (SR 1115) Orange Grove Rd (SR 1006) 00 C -4 00 HIGHWAY 2007 Existing System 2035 Proposed System 2035 Cross- Speed Existing 2007 AADT Proposed CTP Dist. Section ROW Limit Capacity (2006 *) with Capacity Cross- ROW Classifi- Other Local ID Facility Section (From - To) Jurisdiction (mi) (ft) (mph) (vpd) AADT CTP (vpd) Section (ft) cation Tier Modes (ft) lanes ORAN0004- Buckhorn Rd (SR Orange Grove Rd (SR 1006) - Orange County 1.6 20 2 - 55 unsurf- 750 1,200 12,000 2A 60 Min Sub B H 1114) Bradshaw Quarry Rd (SR 1115) aced Buckhorn Rd (SR Bradshaw Quarry Rd (SR 1115) Orange County 3.2 20 2 - 55 12,000 750 1,200 - ADQ - Min Sub - 1114) Mount Willing Rd (SR 1120) Buckhorn Rd (SR Mount Willing Rd (SR 1120) - W Orange County 2.2 20 2 - 55 12,000 1,500 2,100 - ADQ - Min Sub - 1114) Ten Rd (SR 1146) ORAN0008- Buckhorn Rd Orange Grove Rd (SR 1006) - Orange County 0.7 New location - 12,000 2A 60 Min Sub - H Extension Dairyland Rd (SR 1177) - Butler Rd (SR 1951) White Cross Rd (SR 1952) - NC 54 Orange County 1.0 20 2 60 55 12,000 940 1,500 - ADQ - Min Sub - Carr Store Rd (SR NC 49 - Pentecost Rd (SR Orange County 2.1 20 2 - 55 12,000 800 1,100 - ADQ - Min Sub - 1004) 1361) / AADT Change Carr Store Rd (SR Pentecost Rd (SR 1361) / AADT 1004) Change - Mill Creek Rd (SR Orange County 1.1 20 2 - 55 12,000 830* 1,200 - ADQ - Min Sub - 1343) Carr Store Rd (SR Mill Creek Rd (SR 1343) - Orange County 1.1 20 2 - 55 12,000 1,100 1,600 - ADQ - Min Sub - 1004) Speed Limit Change Carr Store Rd (SR Speed Limit Change - Efland- 1004) Cedar Grove Rd (SR 1004 / SR Orange County 0.3 20 2 - 45 6,200 1,100 1,600 - ADQ - Min Sub - 1357) / Carr Store Rd (SR 1352) Carr Store Rd (SR Efland -Cedar Grove Rd (SR 1352) 1004 / SR 1357) / Carr Store Rd Orange County 2.0 20 2 - 45 6,200 1300* 1,900 - ADQ - Min Sub - (SR 1004) - NC 86 Claibornes Rd (SR Alamance Co - Corbett Ridge Orange County 1.0 20 2 60 55 12,000 650* 800 - ADQ - Min Sub - 1367) Rd (SR 1004) 00 C -5 HIGHWAY 2007 Existing System 2035 Proposed System 2035 Cross- Speed Existing 2007 AADT Proposed CTP Dist. Section ROW Limit Capacity (2006 *) with Capacity Cross- ROW Classifi- Other Local ID Facility Section (From - To) Jurisdiction (mi) (ft) (mph) (vpd) AADT CTP (vpd) Section (ft) cation Tier Modes (ft) lanes Coleman Loop Rd Highland Farm Rd / Coleman Orange County 1.1 20 2 60 45 6,200 390 500 - ADQ - Min Sub - (SR 1334) Loop Rd (SR 1332) - NC 86 Corbett Ridge Rd Caswell Co - Claibornes Rd (SR Orange County 0.4 18 2 - 55 10,900 650* 900 - ADQ - Min Sub - (SR 1004) 1367) Corbett Ridge Rd Claibornes Rd (SR 1367) - NC Orange County 2.2 18 2 - 55 10,900 650* 900 - ADQ - Min Sub - (SR 1004) 49 Crawford Dairy Rd Chatham Co - Old Greensboro Orange County 1.5 20 2 60 55 12,000 600* 800 - ADQ - Min Sub - (SR 1956) Rd (SR 1005) Dairyland Rd (SR Orange Grove Rd (SR 1006) - Orange County 1.9 24 2 100 50 12,000 810 1,000 - ADQ - Min Sub - 1177) Dodsons Cross Rd (SR 1102) Dodsons Cross Rd NC 54 - Speed Limit Change Orange County 2.7 22 2 60 55 12,000 1800* 2,800 - ADQ - Min Sub - (SR 1102) Dodsons Cross Rd Speed Limit Change - Dairlyland Orange County 0.7 22 2 60 45 6,200 1800* 2,800 - ADQ - Min Sub - (SR 1102) Rd (SR 1177) Dodsons Cross Rd Dairlyland Rd (SR 1177) - Orange County 1.6 20 2 - 45 6,200 1800* 2,800 - ADQ - Min Sub - (SR 1102) Arthur Minnis Rd (SR 1115) Dodsons Cross Rd Arthur Minnis Rd (SR 1115) - Orange County 1.2 20 2 - 45 6,200 770* 1,200 - ADQ - Min Sub - (SR 1102) Orange Grove Rd (SR 1006) C -6 0 HIGHWAY 2007 Existing System 2035 Proposed System 2035 Cross- Speed Existing 2007 AADT Proposed CTP Dist. Section ROW Limit Capacity (2006 *) with Capacity Cross- ROW Classifi- Other Local ID Facility Section (From - To) Jurisdiction (mi) (ft) (mph) (vpd) AADT CTP (vpd) Section (ft) cation Tier Modes (ft) lanes Harmony Church Rd (SR 1339) (N) Efland -Cedar / Brookhollow Rd (SR 1338) / Orange County 2.0 20 2 - 55 12,000 1900* 3,600 - ADQ - Min Sub - Grove Rd (SR 1004) DCHC - Highland Farm Rd (SR 1332) SPOT ID # (N) Efland -Cedar Highland Farm Rd (SR 1332) - Orange County 1.4 20 2 - 55 12,000 2100* 3,900 12,000 2A' 60 Min Sub B 559 / W -5143 Grove Rd (SR 1004) Speed Limit Change SPOT ID # (N) Efland -Cedar Speed Limit Change - Carr Orange County 0.1 20 2 - 45 6,200 2100* 3,900 6,200 2B' 60 Min Sub B 559 / W -5143 Grove Rd (SR 1004) Store Rd (SR 1004 / SR 1352) Efland -Cedar Grove Carr Store Rd (SR 1004 / SR Orange County 0.3 20 2 - 45 6,200 980* 1,800 - ADQ - Min Sub - Rd (SR 1357) 1352) - Speed Limit Change Efland -Cedar Grove Speed Limit Change - NC 86 Orange County 3.1 20 2 - 55 12,000 980* 1,800 - ADQ - Min Sub - Rd (SR 1357) High Rock Rd (SR Alamance Co - Mill Creek Rd Orange County 2.7 20 2 60 55 12,000 740* 1,200 - ADQ - Min Sub - 1340) (SR 1343) High Rock Rd (SR Mill Creek Rd (SR 1343) - Ira Orange County 2.0 20 2 60 55 12,000 740* 1,200 - ADQ - Min Sub - 1340) Rd (SR 1341) / DCHC Efland -Cedar Grove Rd (SR Highland Farm Rd 1004) - Coleman Loop Rd (SR Orange County 3.1 20 2 60 55 12,000 680* 1,000 - ADQ - Min Sub - (SR 1332) 1334) Holly Ridge Rd (SR NC 57 - Hall Dairy Rd (SR Orange County 0.8 20 2 60 55 12,000 460* 600 - ADQ - Min Sub - 1524) 1525) / AADT Change Holly Ridge Rd (SR Hall Dairy Rd (SR 1525) / AADT Orange County 1.7 20 2 60 55 12,000 610 800 - ADQ - Min Sub - 1524) Change - NC 157 (Guess Rd) Jones Ferry Rd (SR Chatham Co - Ferguson Rd (SR Orange County 0.9 24 2 - 55 12,000 3,500 6,000 - ADQ - Min Sub - 1942) 1948) / DCHC C -7 HIGHWAY 2007 Existing System 2035 Proposed System 2035 Cross- Speed Existing 2007 AADT Proposed CTP Dist. Section ROW Limit Capacity (2006 *) with Capacity Cross- ROW Classifi- Other Local ID Facility Section (From - To) Jurisdiction (mi) (ft) (mph) (vpd) AADT CTP (vpd) Section (ft) cation Tier Modes (ft) lanes Little River Church Walnut Grove Church Rd (SR Rd (SR 1543) 1001) - Hawkins Rd (SR 1508) / Orange County 3.0 18 2 - 55 10,900 610 800 - ADQ - Min Sub - AADT Change Little River Church Hawkins Rd (SR 1508) / AADT Orange County 1.0 18 2 - 55 10,900 580* 700 - ADQ - Min Sub - Rd SR 1543 Change - NC 57 ORAN0005- Little River Church Walnut Grove Church Rd (SR Orange County 0.8 New location - 12,000 2A 60 Min Sub - H Rd Extension 1001) - Sawmill Rd E (SR 1545) Lynch Store Rd (SR Alamance Co - NC 49 Orange County 3.5 20 2 - 55 12,000 690* 900 - ADQ - Min Sub - 1364) ORAN0006- Mebane Oaks Rd NC 54 - Bradshaw Quarry Rd Orange County 1.1 22 2 60 45 6,200 2,300 4,200 6,200 2B' 60 Min Sub - H (SR 1007) (SR 1100) ORAN0006- Mebane Oaks Rd Bradshaw Quarry Rd (SR 1100) Orange County 0.8 22 2 60 45 6,200 2,300 4,200 6,200 2B' 60 Min Sub - H (SR 1007) Alamance Co ORAN0006- Mebane Oaks Rd Alamance Co - Oak Grove Orange County 1.4 22 2 60 45 6,200 3000* 5,500 6,200 2B' 60 Min Sub - H (SR 1007) Church Rd (SR 1117) ORAN0006- Mebane Oaks Rd Oak Grove Church Rd (SR Orange County 1.5 22 2 60 45 6,200 3,900 5,500 6,200 2B' 60 Min Sub - H (SR 1007) 1117) - Alamance Co Mill Creek Rd (SR W Lebanon Rd (SR 1306) / 1343) DCHC - Doe Run Rd (SR Orange County 0.3 20 2 - 55 12,000 1800* 2,600 - ADQ - Min Sub - 1343/1344) Mill Creek Rd (SR Doe Run Rd (SR 1343/1344) - Orange County 1.5 20 2 60 55 12,000 1800* 2,600 - ADQ - Min Sub - 1343) High Rock Rd (SR 1340) Mill Creek Rd (SR High Rock Rd (SR 1340) - 1343) Harmony Church Rd (SR 1341) Orange County 1.4 20 2 60 55 12,000 1,700 2,400 - ADQ - Min Sub - / AADT Change Mill Creek Rd (SR Harmony Church Rd (SR 1341) 1343) / AADT Change - Carr Store Rd Orange County 2.3 20 2 60 55 12,000 730* 1,000 - ADQ - Min Sub - (SR 1004) C -8 N HIGHWAY 2007 Existing System 2035 Proposed System 2035 Cross- Speed Existing 2007 AADT Proposed CTP Dist. Section ROW Limit Capacity (2006 *) with Capacity Cross- ROW Classifi- Other Local ID Facility Section (From - To) Jurisdiction (mi) (ft) (mph) (vpd) AADT CTP (vpd) Section (ft) cation Tier Modes (ft) lanes Morrow Mill Rd (SR Orange Chapel Clover Garden Orange County 1.4 20 2 60 55 12,000 1,200 1,500 - ADQ - Min Sub - 1958) Rd (SR 1956) - NC 54 Mount Willing Rd Oak Grove Church Rd (SR (SR 1120) 1117) - Holly Hill Rd / AADT Orange County 0.5 20 2 - 55 12,000 590* 900 - ADQ - Min Sub - Change Mount Willing Rd Holly Hill Rd / AADT Change - Orange County 1.7 20 2 - 55 12,000 630* 1,000 - ADQ - Min Sub - (SR 1120) Buckhorn Rd (SR 1114) Mount Willing Rd Buckhorn Rd (SR 1114) - Speed Orange County 2.9 20 2 - 55 12,000 900 1,400 - ADQ - Min Sub - (SR 1120) Limit Change Mount Willing Rd Speed Limit Change - W Ten Orange County 0.8 20 2 - 45 6,200 1900* 3,000 - ADQ - Min Sub - (SR 1120) Rd (SR 1146) / Inside DCHC New Sharon Church Walker Rd (SR 1553) / DCHC - Orange County 2.2 20 2 60 55 12,000 1600* 2,500 - ADQ - Min Sub - Rd (SR 1538) Schley Rd (SR 1548) New Sharon Church Schley Rd (SR 1548) - Terry Rd Orange County 1.1 20 2 60 55 12,000 1,600 2,500 - ADQ - Min Sub - Rd (SR 1538) (SR 1573) / AADT Change New Sharon Church Terry Rd (SR 1573) / AADT Orange County 1.9 20 2 60- 55 12,000 1400* 2,200 - ADQ - Min Sub - Rd (SR 1538) Change - NC 157 (Guess Rd) 110 New Sharon Church NC 157 (Guess Rd) - NC 57 Orange County 3.0 20 2 60 55 12,000 1800* 2,800 - ADQ - Min Sub - Rd (SR 1538) Oak Grove Church Mebane Oaks Rd (SR 1007) / Rd (SR 1117) DCHC - Mount Willis Rd (SR Orange County 0.6 20 2 60 55 12,000 1,100 1,700 - ADQ - Min Sub - 1120) C -9 �' HIGHWAY 2007 Existing System 2035 Proposed System 2035 Cross- Speed Existing 2007 AADT Proposed CTP Dist. Section ROW Limit Capacity (2006 *) with Capacity Cross- ROW Classifi- Other Local ID Facility Section (From - To) Jurisdiction (mi) (ft) (mph) (vpd) AADT CTP (vpd) Section (ft) cation Tier Modes (ft) lanes Old Greensboro Rd Alamance Co - Crawford Dairy (SR 1005) Rd / Orange Chapel Clover Orange County 0.9 24 2 - 55 12,000 2800* 4,800 - ADQ - Min Sub - Garden Rd (SR 1956) Crawford Dairy Rd / Orange Old Greensboro Rd Chapel Clover Garden Rd (SR Orange County 1.7 24 2 - 55 12,000 2800* 4,800 - ADQ - Min Sub - (SR 1005) 1956) - Wildcat Creek Rd (SR 1953) / AADT Change Old Greensboro Rd Wildcat Creek Rd (SR 1953) / (SR 1005) AADT Change - White Cross Rd Orange County 1.1 24 2 - 55 12,000 2,400 4,100 - ADQ - Min Sub - (SR 1951) Old Greensboro Rd White Cross Rd (SR 1951) - (SR 1005) Carl Durham Rd (SR 1950) / Orange County 1.4 24 2 - 55 12,000 2900* 5,000 - ADQ - Min Sub - AADT Change Old Greensboro Rd Carl Durham Rd (SR 1950) / (SR 1005) AADT Change - Bowden Rd Orange County 1.6 20 2 - 55 12,000 4,000 6,800 - ADQ - Min Sub - (SR 1946) / Inside DCHC ORAN0007- Old N Old NC 86 (SR Arthur Minnis Rd (SR 1113) / DCHC - Davis Rd (SR 1129) / Orange County 2.1 22 2 60 45 6,200 3,500 6,400 6,200 1 2B 60 Min Sub - H DCHC Orange Chapel Old Greensboro Rd (SR 1005) - - Clover Garden Rd Morrow Mill Rd (SR 1958) Orange County 2.0 20 2 - 55 12,000 820 1,000 - ADQ - Min Sub - (SR 1956) C -10 J�, HIGHWAY 2007 Existing System 2035 Proposed System 2035 Cross- Speed Existing 2007 AADT Proposed CTP Dist. Section ROW Limit Capacity (2006 *) with Capacity Cross- ROW Classifi- Other Local ID Facility Section (From - To) Jurisdiction (mi) (ft) (mph) (vpd) AADT CTP (vpd) Section (ft) cation Tier Modes (ft) lanes Orange Grove Rd NC 54 - Teer Rd (SR 1101) / Orange County 2.5 22 2 - 55 12,000 1300* 1,900 - ADQ - Min Sub - (SR 1006) AADT Change Orange Grove Rd Teer Rd (SR 1101) / AADT (SR 1006) Change - Dairlyland Rd (SR Orange County 0.9 22 2 - 55 12,000 980* 1,400 - ADQ - Min Sub - 1177) Orange Grove Rd Dairlyland Rd (SR 1177) - Orange County 0.2 22 2 - 55 12,000 980* 1,400 - ADQ - Min Sub - (SR 1006) Buckhorn Rd (SR 1114) Orange Grove Rd Buckhorn Rd (SR 1114) - Speed Orange County 0.8 22 2 - 55 12,000 980* 1,400 - ADQ - Min Sub - (SR 1006) Limit Change Orange Grove Rd Speed Limit Change - Arthur (SR 1006) Minnis Rd / Bradshaw Quarry Orange County 0.4 22 2 - 45 6,200 980* 1,400 - ADQ - Min Sub - Rd (SR 1115) Orange Grove Rd Arthur Minnis Rd / Bradshaw (SR 1006) Quarry Rd (SR 1115) - Dodsons Orange County 1.6 22 2 - 45 6,200 980* 1,400 - ADQ - Min Sub - Cross Rd (SR 1102) Orange Grove Rd Dodsons Cross Rd (SR 1102) - (SR 1006) Dimmicks Mill Rd (SR 1134) / Orange County 2.1 20 2 - 45 6,200 2,400 3,700 - ADQ - Min Sub - DCHC Sawmill Rd E (SR Wilkerson Rd (SR 1507) - 1545) Walnut Grove Church Rd (SR Orange County 0.4 20 2 - 55 12,000 1,200 1,700 - ADQ - Min Sub - 1001) Sawmill Rd W (SR NC 86 - Speed Limit Change Orange County 0.7 20 2 - 45 6,200 1,200 1,700 - ADQ - Min Sub - 1545) Sawmill Rd W (SR Speed Limit Change - Wilkerson Orange County 0.6 20 2 - 55 12,000 1,200 1,700 - ADQ - Min 1545) Rd (SR 1507) Saxapahaw Rd (SR Alamance Co - NC 54 Orange County 0.4 20 2 - 45 6,200 2,000 3,100 - ADQ - Min 1961) flb Schl ey Rd (SR NC 57 - New Sharon Church Rd Orange County 3.1 18 2 - 55 12,000 1100* 1,600 - ADQ - Min 1548) (SR 1538) C -11 ci HIGHWAY 2007 Existing System 2035 Proposed System 2035 Cross- Speed Existing 2007 AADT Proposed CTP Dist. Section ROW Limit Capacity (2006 *) with Capacity Cross- ROW Classifi- Other Local ID Facility Section (From - To) Jurisdiction (mi) (ft) (mph) (vpd) AADT CTP (vpd) Section (ft) cation Tier Modes (ft) lanes Walnut Grove NC 86 - Wilkerson Rd (SR - Church Rd (SR 1507) Orange County 2.4 20 2 - 55 12,000 2,600 4,100 - ADQ - Min Sub B 1001 Walnut Grove Wilkerson Rd (SR 1507) - - Church Rd (SR Sawmill Rd (SR 1545) Orange County 0.6 20 2 - 55 12,000 2,600 4,100 - ADQ - Min Sub B 1001) Walnut Grove Sawmill Rd (SR 1545) - Little - Church Rd (SR River Church Rd (SR 1543) Orange County 0.3 20 2 - 55 12,000 1600* 2,500 - ADQ - Min Sub B 1001 Walnut Grove Little River Church Rd (SR - Church Rd (SR 1543) - Person Co Orange County 4.2 20 2 - 55 12,000 1,200 1,900 - ADQ - Min Sub B 1001) White Cross Rd (SR Chatham Co - Old Greensboro Orange County 1.8 20 2 60 55 12,000 1200* 1,900 - ADQ - Min Sub - 1951) Rd (SR 1005) White Cross Rd (SR Old Greensboro Rd (SR 1005) - Orange County 1.0 20 2 60 55 12,000 1200* 1,900 - ADQ - Min Sub - 1951) Butler Rd (SR 1951) Wilkerson Rd (SR Walnut Grove Church Rd (SR Orange County 0.5 20 2 60 55 12,000 640 900 - ADQ - Min Sub - 1507) 1001) - Sawmill Rd (SR 1545) Wilkerson Rd (SR Sawmill Rd (SR 1545) - Hurdle Orange County 1.3 20 2 60 55 12,000 550 800 - ADQ - Min Sub - 1507) Mills Rd (SR 1506) Wilkerson Rd (SR Hurdle Mills Rd (SR 1506) - Orange County 0.1 18 2 60 55 12,000 550 800 - ADQ - Min Sub - 1507) Person Co 1 Add turn lanes where needed. C -12 0') PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND RAIL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION Speed Existing System Proposed System Limit Distance Other Local ID Facility/ Route Section (From - To) (mph) (mi) Type Type Modes ORAN0001 -T NC 54 Alamance Co - Neville Rd (SR 1945) / Inside 55 8.0 None Bus H DCHC rORAN00027NC 86 2 and NC 49/86 Coleman Loop Rd (SR 1334) / DCHC - 55 8.9 None Bus H, B Caswell Co 1 Park - and -ride lot (ORAN0003 -T) proposed on INC 54 at White Cross Rd (SR 1951). 2 Park - and -ride lot (ORAN0004 -T) proposed on INC 86 at Cedar Grove Park. C -13 1 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE' Existing System Proposed System Cross - Section Distance Other Local ID Facility/ Route Section (From - To) (m I) (ft) anes Type Cross - Section Modes INC Bike Route 2 / Mountains to Sea Trail (along Old Greensboro Alamance Co - Carl Durham Rd (SR 1950) 5.3 24 2 ADO ADO Rd SR 1005 INC Bike Route 2 / Mountains to Carl Durham Rd (SR 1950) - Bowden Rd ORAN0002 -B Sea Trail (along Old Greensboro 1946) / Inside DCHC 1.6 20 2 On Road 2A Rd SR 1005 (SR ORAN0009 -B INC 49 McDade Store Rd (SR 1361) - Caswell Co 1.3 24 2 On Road 2A H, T Alamance Co - Neville Rd (SR 1945) / Inside INC 54 DCHC 8.0 24 2 ADO ADO Carr Store Rd (SR 1352) / Sawmill Rd W ORAN0001 -B INC 86 (SR 1545) - Park and Ride lot at Cedar 0.3 24 2 On Road 2 2A 2 H, T Grove Park Phelps Rd (SR 1551) - Walnut Grove 2 2 ORAN0004 -B INC 86 0.5 24 2 On Road 2A H, T Church Rd SR 1001 Efland -Cedar Grove Rd (SR Carr Store Rd (SR 1004/1352) - McDade ORAN0007 -B 1357 Store Rd SR 1358/1354 1.5 20 2 On Road 2A Chatham Co - Ferguson Rd (SR 1948) / ORAN0003 -B Jones Ferry Rd (SR 1942) 0.9 24 2 On Road 2A DCHC Saddle Club Rd (SR 1346) - Mill Creek Rd ORAN0010 -B W Lebanon Rd (SR 1306) 0.6 24 2 On Road 2A SR 1345 Mebane Oaks Rd (SR 1007) / Alamance County Bicycle Route Alamance Co - Alamance Co 1.4 22 2 ADO ADO Pentecost Rd (SR 1361) / McDade Store Rd ORAN0008 -B McDade Store Rd (SR 1361) 1.0 24 2 On Road 2A SR 1358 - INC 49 SPOT ID # Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) Dairyland Road (SR 1177) to West Ten 20 1160 3 / Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) Road (SR 1146) / Inside DCHC 7.3 22 2 On Road 2A 20 EB -5520 3 Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) INC 54 - Arthur Minnis Road (SR 1115) 4.9 2 On Road 2A Walnut Grove Church Rd (SR 1001) - New ORAN0006 -B Schley Rd (SR 1548) 6.2 18 2 On Road 2A Sharon Church Rd SR 1538 / DCHC ORAN0005 -B Walnut Grove Church Rd (SR 11001) INC 86 - Pearson Rd (SR 1544) 3.0 20 2 On Road 2A 1 For all other CTP bicycle recommendations, see the 1999 Orange County Bicycle Transportation Plan. 2 Cross section 2A will suffice for more immediate improvements, but the ultimate 4 -lane expressway cross section for INC 86 in the future could require an off -road facility to maintain this connection for bicycles. 3 These projects include a small portion of overlap on Orange Grove Road. PEDESTRIAN ° ° For all CTP pedestrian recommendations, see the pedestrian plan under development by Orange County. CD C -14 •• 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 on December 7, 2010 to support the Department's "Complete Streets" policy that was adopted in July 2009. This guidance established design elements that emphasize safety, mobility, and accessibility for multiple modes of travel. These "typical" cross sections should be used as preliminary guidelines for comprehensive transportation planning, project planning and project design activities. The specific and final cross section details and right of way limits for projects will be established through the preparation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation and through final plan preparation. 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 needed 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 -1 100 Figure 10 Plaw.1 Q 001 1,01101 RMUMMUMMUFUM FOSTEV SFEED = 555 MrH WILE PAYED SHOULVERS ros.TED "WEED = 35 MrH OR L D-2 Revised 12'1/07/20101 TYPICAL HIGHWAY CROSS SECTIONS101 2D 2E 2 LANES 51DEWALK PLACEMENT BEHIND A ROADWAY DITCH CLEAR ZONE J= MIN. 4' 1.5 51DEWALK 8, CLEAR ZONE 5' 5' 2' 4'P.5 MIN. 51DEWALK 90' RIGHT OF WAY CURB AND GUTTER WITH BIKE LANE5 AND 51DEWALK5 2 BUEEER5 AND 51DEWALK5 WITHOUT A ROADWAY DITCH (20 MPH TO 45 MPH) (TYPICALLY COA5TAL AREA MANAGEMENT ACT COU NTIE5) 10'- 20' 10' - 20, CLEAR ZONE CLEAR ZONE 51DEWALK 51DEWALK 2' 5' 6-16, 16' 4' 1.5. 11, 11, 4' 1.5. MIN. MIN. 60' - 80' RIG HT OF WAY D -3 Revised 12/07/2010 TYPICAL HIGHWAY CROSS SECTIONS 102 2 LANES 2G 2H I CURB & GUTTER - PARKING ON EACH 51DE 5' 5' MIN. MIN. 51DEWALK PARKING BIKE BIKE PARKING 51DEWALK LANE LANE 10' 2' 8' 5' 11' 11' 5' 8' 2' 10' MIN. MIN. 85' MIN. RIGHT OF WAY CURB & GUTTER - PARKING ON ONE 51DE RA15ED MEDIAN WITH CURD & GUTTER LAND5CAPED MEDIAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH POLICY D -4 Revised 12/07/2010 5' 5' \ MIN. MIN. 51DEWALK BIKE BIKE 51DEWALK LANE LANE 2 3'(17'- 6" MIN.) 10' 2' 5' 11' MEDIAN 11' 5' 2' 10' MIN. MIN. 80 - 90' RIG HT OF WAY D -4 Revised 12/07/2010 TYPICAL HIGHWAY CROSS SECTIONS 3A 3 LANES WIDE PAVED 5HOULDER5 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 104 4 LANES 12' 12' 12' moff"m 4C DIVIDED WITH MEDIAN FULL OR LIMITED CONTROL OF ACCE55 46' MIN. MEDIAN 1 80' M IN. RIGHT OF WAY (LIMITED CONTROL OF ACCESS) 250'- 300' MIN. RIGHT OF WAY (FULL CONTROL OF ACCESS) f� fT 4'- 1O'P.. 12' 12' 12' DIVIDED WITH MEDIAN - NO CURB & GUTTER PARTIAL CONTROL OF ACCE55 own W,z 4'- 2' 2' 1,5 P S. P.S. 12' 12' 30' MIN. MEDIAN 12' 12' 8' 150' MIN. RIGHT OF WAY RA15ED MEDIAN WITH WIDE OUT5IDE LANES AND 51DEWALK5 t C� SHARE THE ROAD LANDSCAPED MEDIAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH POLICY V V MIN. 51DEWALK SIDEWALK 10' 2' 14' 11' 23'(17'-6 " MIN.) 11' 14' 2' 10' MIN. MIN. 1 1 O' MIN. RIGHT OF WAY D -6 Revised 12/07/2010 TYPICAL HIGHWAY CROSS SECTIONS 105 4 LANES 4 D RA15ED MEDIAN - CURB & GUTTER WITH BIKE LANES AND 51DEWALK5 LAND5CAPED MEDIAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH POLICY 4 E GRA55 MEDIAN WITH BIKE LANE5 AND 51DEWALK5 II-II II-II 4 4 I MIN. BIKE �Y �Y P6' 65 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 LANE5 D -7 Revised 12/07/2010 1I InI InI 1 MIN. BIKE BIKE MIN. 51DEWAL1 LANE LANE SIDEWALK 10' 2' 5' 11' 11' 23'(17'-6" MIN.) MEDIAN 11' 11' 5' 2' 10' MIN. MIN. 1 1 O' MIN. RIGHT OF WAY 4 E GRA55 MEDIAN WITH BIKE LANE5 AND 51DEWALK5 II-II II-II 4 4 I MIN. BIKE �Y �Y P6' 65 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 LANE5 D -7 Revised 12/07/2010 TYPICAL HIGHWAY CROSS SECTIONS 106 6 LANES DIVIDED WITH GRA55 MEDIAN 300' MIN. RIGHT OF WAY 6 B RA15ED MEDIAN - CURB & GUTTER WITH WIDE OUT5IDE LANES AND 51DEWALK5 K SHARE SHARE THE THE ROAD ROAD LANDSCAPED MEDIAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH POLICY MIN. M� MIN. SIDEWALK 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. RIGHT OF WAY 6 B RA15ED MEDIAN - CURB & GUTTER WITH WIDE OUT5IDE LANES AND 51DEWALK5 K SHARE SHARE THE THE ROAD ROAD LANDSCAPED MEDIAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH POLICY 8 LANES 8 A RA15ED MEDIAN - CURB & GUTTER WITH 51DEWALK5 LANDSCAPED MEDIAN IN ACCORDANCE 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. RIGHT OF WAY 8 LANES 8 A RA15ED MEDIAN - CURB & GUTTER WITH 51DEWALK5 LANDSCAPED MEDIAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH POLICY M� IDEWALK 51DEWALK 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 107 TYPICAL MULTI - USE PATH MULTI - U5E PATH ADJACENT TO RIGHT OF WAY OR SEPARATE PATHWAY M A R,W RIGHTOFWAYLIMIT FOR HIGHWAY CLEAR ZONE u, 4' P.5 TRAVEL LANE 40' MIN. ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY MULTI - U5E PATH ADJACENTTO CURD AND GUTTER ADDITIONAL R /W _4 LANE LANE �� MAYBE REQUIRED D -9 Revised 12/07/2010 RW M B MINIMUM RIGHT OF WAY LIMIT FORPLACEMENT OF 5' 51DEWALK ADDITIONAL R /W _4 LANE LANE �� MAYBE REQUIRED D -9 Revised 12/07/2010 W: This page intentionally left blank. D -10 109 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 up+ existing facilities and a LOS C on new facilities. Tt below and illustrated in Figure 11. to the desired capacity and level of iadway, or the capacity at which the mended improvements and overall n achieving a minimum LOS D on 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: Represen the traffic stream vehicles is about LOS C: Provides 1 increases will cau noticeably restrict( service will be gr blockaqe. Minimu )nly slightly re ft, or 18 car len • LOS D: Borders on un =. quickly with increasing deterioration in service. experiences drastically r create substantial queuii lengths. ow conditions. ie motorist experiences a high effects of minor incidents of m density, the average spacing ability to maneuver within verage spacing between ble operations, but flows approach the range in which small astantial deterioration in service. Freedom to maneuver is inor incidents may still be absorbed, but the local decline in Queues may be expected to form behind any significant rage spacing 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 Ddver Comfort: H.,,sgh Maximum Density. 12 passmgor cars pc,�' mi�o �x,�r Level of Service, D Dr! ver C o rnforL Pair Maximum Density: 42 psseripe ,-Iars Per inile pji k-u Driver Comfort: K 'q q maximum Density: 2) pa accg)r cars por ri"ils, por 1,, ai Level of Service E Leve! of Service C Driver Comfort: Rmo T Drsi on Maximum Density: ,3O pa3 scngor cars per rnko c. <jr Iano Level of Service F Ddver Comfbrt: Extiemehj Poor Maximum Density: 67 passellge� ca's ppr nile, p�l 1&�' Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual E-2 Driver Coarfort: Th E? cwest ,Maximum Densityi 'i lairi�� More than 67 pas�q�4i car; pe,, miie pH 110 111 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 invc 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 ranc Severity Sever low < 6 =.0 average 6.0 to moderate 7.0 to hicth 14.0 _t Table 4 depicts a su January 1, 2007 and more crashes anaior "Total" column indica intersection during the that location. Map Index 2 Me series of weighting factors developed by 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 -1 112 This page intentionally left blank. F -2 113 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 defici obsolete. Structurally deficient monitored and /or repaired. Tt imply that it is likely to collar monitored, inspected and rep structural integrity. A functions are not used today. These brit nor are they inherently unsafe. adequate lane widths, should( demand or to meet the current flooded. ent if it is either structurally deficient or functionally means there are elements of the bridge that need to be fe fact that a bridge is "structurally deficient" does not ,se 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 -1 114 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 - 76 Arthur Minnis New Hope Creek Functionally Obsolete - Rd SR 1113 Old 84 Greensboro Collins Creek Structurally Deficient - Rd (SR 1005 228 Old NC 86 (SR 1009) New Hope Creek Functionally Obsolete ORAN0007 -H G -2 115 Includes: 0 Listing of committee members; M 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 Organization Orange County Planning Orange Unified Transportation Board Orange Unified Transportation Board e= County Pla le Area RPO NCDOT nsportation Board . Transportation Planning Branch Chapel Hill - Carrboro MPO 116 117 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 al 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. 118 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 senior population, youth, uding 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 trap 2 -6. Increase safety awareness between car drive safety for pedestrians. 2 -7. Construct bicycle facilities in Orange County t convenient, and more efficient. Goal 3: Integrated land use planning a development, supports future develops County's land use plans which include and community character. Objectives: 3- 1.1MDrove the County's transgori 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 as opposea to aeveioping new tacimies. 3- 2.Create and implement an Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan that provides the framework for a comprehensive and connected transportation system supporting a mix of all transportation modes, including sidewalks and bicycle facilities, bus and rail transit facilities, and highways. 3 -3.The plan should be coordinated with the goals and objectives of this Comprehensive Plan and seek to maintain and enhance community character and the natural environment 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 3 119 120 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.nc ot.orq /doh/ preconstruct /tpb /planninq /orangecountv.htmi 121 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 122 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 123 124 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 5:00pm to 9:00pm 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 7:30prn Link Government Services Center, 200 S. Cameron Street, Hillsborough Purpose / information presented: draft recommendations Number of attendees: 9 (not 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 Plan (MTP) and CTP to ensure connectivity with Organization 2030 Comprehensive o Coordination was conducted to ensur€ 1990 Orange County Thoroughfare Plan (not 1 -1 t /fgbOp Ian ning0 O ` OCT .html nnectivity with recommendations )pted) 125 126 This page intentionally left blank. 1 -2 Attachment 5 Caswell County Adopted b . Orange Cp Date: ► i NCDOT Date: 9 TrianglenaOt Date: Recorn i Transporta ' ni ag nch Date: o � i NOTES:! ! r Q c 0 U m U C (E E (E a Chatham County Person County a Durham - Chapel Hill- Ci 0 U ;_ to .c 0 0 + Airports Sheet 1 Adoption Sheet ®K os r SDt,DD18 Me= Sheet 2 Highway Map Roads N l7 Sheet 3 Public Transportation Rivers and Streams WE and Rail Map Water Bodies S DRAFT Sheet Bicycle Map — Parks and Gamelands Figure 1 Orange County County Boundaries Sheet 1 of 5 North Carolina Sheet 5 Pedestrian Map Q MPO Boundaries Comprehensive Base map date: April, zoog Transportation Plan Refer to CTP document for more details Plan date: December 11, 2012 Caswell County Person County 128 I o m aPR & ' 7s p 2QJ s/ Li le River Church Rd S 153 � I 7 U Burlington-Graham Metropolitan U Planning Organizalk c I (E E (E Q _ / Durham-Chapel Hill - Carrbom Metropolitan CI >, C I � O U E RS -G 7 e M° o 0 Freeways / Other Major Thoroughfares a `5� e Existing 5 rpca" P A Arthur Minnis Rtll`'� a�0 — Dairy /a N iz z Expressways r J Existing � 3 . sa Existing Durham-Chapel Hill - Carrbom Metropolitan CI >, C I � O U E RS -G 7 Chatham County Freeways Other Major Thoroughfares Highway Map Existing Existing M� Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Recommended ■��������I Recommended Minor Thoroughfares N iz z Expressways Existing W E Existing Needs Improvement S �'rb �aenv +o Needs Improvement ---------- Recommended DRAFT ■NEENEENE1 Recommended 0 Existing Interchange Figure 1 Sheet 2 of 5 Orange County Boulevards � Existing O Proposed Interchange Comprehensive Needs Improvement 0 Existing Grade Separation Base map date: April, 2009 Transportation Plan ■NEENEENE1 Recommended 0 Proposed Grade Separation Refer to CTP document for more details Plan date: December 11, 2012 Caswell County Person County i o 49 Q P oWm Rd d l 545) I I I A I I C � I O I U I Burlington- Graham Metropolitan U Planning Organization i CU E CU I Q Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Metropolitar Chatham County CI >1 C 0 U E .c Z 0 Public Transportation Bus Routes Rail Corridor Intermodal Connector Existing Active A Existing and Rail Map Needs Improvement n - -� -� Inactive 0 Recommended a „qe �„ °��• Recommended Fixed Guideway Recommended High Speed Rail Corridor Rail Stops N W E ®� v Existing Existing - Existing S - ' - -� - -` Needs Improvement Recommended ® Recommended Recommended DRAFT Figure 1 Sheet 3of5 Orange County Operational Strategies Park and Ride Lot Existing 0 Existing Comprehensive Base map date: April, 2009 Needs Improvement Transportation Plan • • Recommended D Recommended Refer to UP document for more details Plan date: December 11, 212 c 0 U U C (E E (E a Caswell County Burlington- Graham Metropolitan M Chatham County 6 Person County a Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrbom Metropolitan C >+ I � O U E .c 0 0 Bicycle Map On -road Multi -Use Paths Existing Existing N Needs Improvement • • • • • • . Needs Improvement 17 ......••• Recommended = _ _ _ _ _ = Recommended W E - S Off -road DRAFT 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, zoog Transportation Plan Refer to CTP document for more details Plan date: December 11, 2012 Caswell County A � I 7 O U Burlington- Graham Metropolitan U Planning Organizatic i I CU E (LS Q _ X1201 a�SR • Jc R ♦� r stout R am •♦ ■ ■ ■■■ ■■J�c■■■ ° /aOand Person County Z a • Litt�e'River R (S 1 3 ' `� ■ 15] e R ■ P_ ■ CI I = I 0 a i U cu l r I � I O � Durham - Chapel Hill - Can., Metropolitan Planning Organization Pedestrian Map Chatham Cou y n N W E C, , Sidewalks S Off -Road Existing - Existing Orange County Needs Improvement ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Needs Improvement ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ I Recommended ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Recommended Multi -Use Paths Existing O Existing Grade Separation ...... Needs Improvement O Proposed Grade Separation Recommended - Rural Communities IN Local Recreation Sites Person County Z a • Litt�e'River R (S 1 3 ' `� ■ 15] e R ■ P_ ■ CI I = I 0 a i U cu l r I � I O � Durham - Chapel Hill - Can., Metropolitan Planning Organization Pedestrian Map d N W E n , a `r�4 S �e� ■via DRAFT Figure 1 Sheet 5of5 Orange County Comprehensive Base map date: April, 2009 Transportation Plan Refer to CTP document for more details Plan date: December 11, 2012