HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 01-17-1995 - X-B 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF CONXISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: January 17, 1995
Action Agenda
Item # X- 13
SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT ON ENO DRIVE/CLOSURE OF I-85 EXIT 172
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING: —X—YES NO
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
- 10-8-91 Planning Board Minutes Slade McCalip, Ext. 2595
- 10-22-91 Letter from Moses Carey Gene Bell, Ext. 2589
- 3-26-92 Letter from Moses Carey
- 4-21-92 BOCC Minutes
- Eno Drive Newsletter, January 1995 TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Chapel Hill - 967-9251
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
PURPOSE: To receive a report on the Eno Drive Corridor
Study (Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop) and
issues surrounding the closure of I-85 Exit 172 .
BACKGROUND: On October 8, 1991 the Planning Board prepared a
recommendation to the County Commissioners on the
location of the proposed Eno Drive corridor lying
in Orange County. The Planning Board recommended
that the terminus of the proposed loop be in
Durham County where it would be better aligned
with US 15-501 and the East/West Expressway.
The BOCC endorsed the Planning Board
recommendation at their meeting on October 22,
1991 and followed up with a letter to NCDOT.
On March 24, 1992, the BOCC received a report from
staff on two possible Eno Drive corridors in
eastern Orange County. The first corridor
involved two crossings of the Eno River and came
extremely close, if not through, portions of Eno
river State Park. The second corridor lay to the
east and south of the river. While expressing
concern about any highway proposed for Orange
County, the Board recommended that corridor two be
considered for additional detailed study. This
position was expressed to NCDOT in a letter dated
March 26, 1992.
2
I
On April 21, 1992 the BOCC received a report from
NCDOT officials and the consulting firm preparing
the draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on
the corridor. Once again, the Board expressed its
concerns about the western most corridor and its
preference to study the corridor lying east and
south of the Eno River.
The DEIS has been completed and is now available
for public review. A brief summary of the more
substantial impacts is listed on page 3 of the
attached newsletter. The newsletter also lists
pre-hearing workshop dates of January 24 and 26
and public hearing dates of February 7 and
February 9. The DEIS is currently being reviewed
by staff.
The second part of this report dealing with the
closing of I-85 Exit 172 will be delivered under
separate cover.
RECOMMNDATION: Receive as information.
i
10-8-91 Planning Board Minutes 3
Collins reviewed the process and information
included in the memo for clarification.
The two items to be most closely reviewed for Orange
County will be general fund revenues (pay as you go
plan) and bond revenues.
Discussion followed regarding the issue of the
collection of revenues which might end up being used
for something other than those capital items
indicated, such as schools. Collins informed the
Board that impact fees must be used for items as
proposed and that a time frame, or limit, is set in
which funds must be used. Impact fees may only be
used for those items for which they were originally
collected.
b. Durham NW/NE Loop Corridor Study
Presentation by Marvin Collins.
This item is to formulate a recommendation to the
County Commissioners on the location of the
proposed Northwest Loop lying in Orange County.
The Northwest/Northeast Loop (also known as Eno
Drive) was first delineated in the 1964 Durham
Thoroughfare Plan and has been retained in
subsequent thoroughfare plans. It would consist
of a multi-lane roadway on new and existing
alignments. The western terminus would
interchange with I-85 approximately 1, 000 feet
west of the Durham/Orange County line and connect
with NC 751 at its intersection with US 70. It
circles a portion of the Durham urban area on the
north and east and ends along US 70 between Miami
• Boulevard and the Durham/Wake County line.
The proposed project is needed to reduce existing
traffic congestion in and around the urban areas
of north and east Durham and increase the overall
system capacity of the existing traffic network
based on projected travel demand. The project is
included in the 1991-97 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) for right-of-way
acquisition and construction after 1997.
NCDOT is in the first phase of a six-phase study.
The study will identify potential routes for the
proposed loop, including alternative corridor
evaluations, preliminary engineering, traffic
analysis, and environmental evaluations. Once
these studies are complete, a draft Environmental
4
Impact Statement will be produced and a Corridor
Location Public Hearing will be held. Following
the hearing, a final selection of a preferred
alternative will be made, and a final EIS will be
prepared.
Collins indicated the location of the corridor on
a map (a copy of this map was included in the
agenda materials and is an attachment to these
minutes on page3D-34 . He also indicated the
intersections and interchanges with US 15-501, 1-
85, US 70 and NC 751 on the maps and explained
the proposed alignment of roads.
The Planning Staff recommended the selection of a
corridor that does not adversely impact
environmentally sensitive areas, existing
residential uses, or historic sites in Orange
County.
Eidenier expressed concern that NC 751 would be
widened. Collins responded that it would not be
four-laned but better aligned. The Board
continued expressing the concern that there would
be considerable increase in traffic.
MOTION: Eidenier moved that Eno Drive intersect with the
East/West Expressway in Durham County. Seconded
by Hoecke.
Jobsis asked if the Planning Staff agreed that
the corridor should not come into Orange County.
Collins responded that would be preferred, but,
if it must come into Orange County that it stay
east of the Eno River.
Reid asked how close the corridor was already to
the East/West Expressway. Collins directed the
Board to a map (an attachment to these minutes on
page -;,2-,) that indicated alignment could be
accomplished.
Eidenier made an addition to the motion as
follows:
"rather than intersect with NC 751 and, also,
that the road be east of the Eno River as it
runs through Orange County. "
Burklin noted that he would also like to
recommend better alignment with the East/West
Freeway and US 15-501 in Durham County rather
than US 70.
5
AMENDED MOTION: The Planning Board recommends that the roadway be
located such that it is better aligned with US
15-501 and the East/West Expressway rather than
NC 751 and that it be in Durham County rather
than Orange County.
VOTE: Unanimous.
c. Blackwood Station Area Study Update
Presentation by David Stancil
In the spring of 1990, a proposed amendment to
the Joint Planning Area (JPA) Land Use Plan
involving the Blackwood Station area of Chapel
Hill Township revealed inconsistencies between
land use designations and the zoning of the
properties. The Planning board, in July of 1990,
supported a staff recommendation to study the
area and correct these errors.
Since Blackwood Station is within the Joint
Planning Area, Chapel Hill and Carrboro would be
involved in any changes to the JPA Land Use Plan,
if necessary.
Staff has initiated work on this study, and has
completed a draft background and survey of
existing conditions section. Preliminary data on
slope, soils, environmental and cultural features
have been compiled.
No response has been received from Chapel Hill or
Carrboro staffs regarding their participation in
this study. Staff plans to continue work on
background sections, a citizen survey, and a
strategy for community meetings. This item is
scheduled for public hearing in April-May 1992.
d. Update on Rural Character Study Strategy
Presentation by David Stancil.
On September 26, the Rural Character Study
Committee agreed to delay the adoption of a final
set of recommendations for Rural Orange.
This delay was agreed upon for two principal
reasons: 1) some committee members are
uncomfortable with portions of the draft
proposal; and 2) this delay provides an
opportunity for staff to utilize new resources
6
ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS �
108 EAST MAWAREr LANE
HILLSBOROUGH, N. C.
l 27278
MOSES GREY, DRAFT
STEPHEN H.HAL KIOTIS
JOHN HARTWELL
SHIRLEY E.MARSHALL
DON WILLHOIT
October 22, 1991
Mr. L.J. Ward, P.E. , Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
SUBJECT: DURHAM NORTHWEST/NORTHEAST LOOP CORRIDOR STUDY
Dear Mr. Ward:
The Orange County Planning Board met on October 8, 1991
to consider a recommendation on the Durham Northwest Loop and
Northeast Loop Corridor Study. In their deliberations, the
Planning Board expressed concern about potential adverse
impacts on the Eno River State Park, extensive areas of steep
slope, and existing residential development in the corridor
study area. They recommended to the Board of Commissioners
that the terminus of the proposed Northwest Loop be located
in Durham County where it would be better aligned with US
15-501 and the. East/West Expressway.
The Orange; County- Board of' Commissioners met in regular
session on the above-' referenced date to consider the study
and to receive the. Planning Board recommendation. The Board
of Commissioners concurs with the Planning Board
- recommendation and . requepts that the corridor study area be
moved eastward` coasT&tiat. with* the Planning Board
recommendation:.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this
subject.
Sincerely,
Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
DR9 :LOOP-LTR.DOC
7
NL ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
P.O. Box 8181
HILLSBOROUGH, N.C.
Moses Carey,Jr. 27278
Alice M. Gordon 732-8181
Stephen H. Ha ;dl!ch 26, 19 9 2 688-7331
Verla C. Insko
227-2031
Don willhoit 644-3004 (Fax)
N.C. Department of Transportation
Durham Northwest and Northeast
Loop Corridor Study
P.O. Box 30923
Raleigh, N.C. 27622
SUBJECT: CONCERNS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PROPOSED
CORRIDORS FOR ENO DRIVE IN ORANGE COUNTY
To the Corridor Study Steering Committee:
The announcement for the upcoming citizens informational
workshop contains a map which depicts two possible corridors
for Eno Drive in Orange County. We understand that a goal of
the workshop is narrowing down the list of potential
corridors to determine which ones should receive further
study. Toward this goal, the County Commissioners offer the
following comments concerning the two proposed corridors in
Orange County.
First Corridor (farther north and west)
The first corridor crosses the Orange County line at
Cole Mill Road. It then proceeds in a southwesterly
direction to the edge of, if not beyond, the boundaries of
the study area. Then it angles back to the southeast across
the Eno River and intersects with I-85 just west of the
Durham/Orange County Line. This alignment appears to cross
portions of the Eno River State Park and could pose serious
threats to the integrity of the park. Another area of
significant public interest, the Rhodes Creek Wildlife
Corridor, as identified in the recently adopted New Hope
Creek Open Space Master Plan lies immediately west of the
corridor. We have serious concerns about this proposed
corridor for Eno Drive and request that it be removed from
further consideration.
Two other points making this corridor a poor candidate
are the necessity of crossing the Eno River and extensive
areas of steep topography (exceeding 15% slope) . The Orange
County Planning Department has detailed thematic mapping of
the area and Mr. Gene Bell, Planner III, is available to
assist with any requests you may have concerning the maps.
Likewise, Ms. Emily Cameron, Planner II, is available to
answer any questions you may have regarding the New Hope
Creek Open Space Master Plan.
1
YOU COUNT IN ORANGE COUNTY !
8
Second Corridor (farther south and east)
The second corridor enters Orange County approximately
one mile north of I-85. It runs in a southerly direction
roughly parallel to the county line and intersects I-85 in
the same location as the first corridor. It passes through
areas of steep slope, but does not appear to cross any
portion of the Eno River State Park and is away from the
Rhodes Creek Wildlife Corridor. This second corridor is also
consistent with the alignment of Eno Drive as depicted on the
Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan.
The thoroughfare plan alignment was also used as the basis
for another recommendation in the adopted New Hope Creek
Plan, a bike and pedestrian way adjacent to Eno Drive.
Recommendation
While we have concerns about any highway proposed for
Orange County, we recognize that the second corridor is most
consistent with adopted regional plans, whereas the first
corridor clearly is not. We, therefore, recommend that the
second corridor be considered for additional detailed study
and that the first corridor be removed from further
consideration.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this most
important project. We shall look forward to receiving a
detailed presentation on the Corridor Study when the
consultant and DOT staff meet with us on April 21, 1992 .
Sincere y,
Moses Carey, Jr. , Chair
Orange County Board of ommissioners
2
4-21-92 BOCC Minutes 9
6
implementation of a cooperative planning process, target area analysis, anc
performance standards identification. Accomplishments in each of these areas
are listed in the report. All of the work completed by the Work Group has
led to the formation of a more definitive goal to develop an "economic
development district" proposal with clear, acceptable performance standards
and streamlined approval procedures. The zoning district designatior
currently exists in the Zoning Ordinance, and the purpose of the district is
"to provide locations for a wide range of low intensity industrial,
institutional, office and research use with no adverse impacts beyond the
space occupied by the use. " The Work Group will focus its remaining work or-.
the "Plan of Action" .
B. REPORT ON ENO DRIVE - DURHAM NORTHWEST AND NORTHEAST LOOP CORRIDOR
STUDY
Planner Gene Bell stated that at the March 24th County
Commissioners meeting, the planning staff gave a report on the status of the
Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop Corridor Study (Eno Drive) . The Board
asked that NCDOT be invited to _ an upcoming meeting to answer various
questions. Cindy Sharer, P.E. , DOT Project coordinator and Roy Bruce,
representatives of H. W. Lochner, Inc. were present to give a presentation
and to respond to questions and comments.
Roy Bruce briefly described where they are in this study. They
are currently working on the second phase of a six phase project. This loop
has been in the planning stage for over 25 years. The corridor begins in
Orange County approximately 1000 feet west of the orange/Durham County line.
A citizens informational workshop will be held on March 31. DOT
will take into consideration all verbal and written comments received. The
entire process will take them through 1993.
The Board agreed that they are opposed to the western corridor
because of environmental issues and because of the Eno River State Park. Mr.
Bruce indicated that an Environmental Impact Statement would not be done as
part of the process. When they get to the final corridors they will then dc:
a detailed study on the final corridors only.
Commissioners Halkiotis and Gordon stated their opposition to the
west corridor. He would prefer to keep it just to the edge of the line.
C. WIDENING NQ Of (AIRPORT ROAD) FROM HOMESTEAD ROAD TO 1-40
Gene Bell asked for Board comments on the widening of NC 86
(Airport Road) from Homestead Road to 1-40. NCDOT is requesting information
which will help identify potential environmental impacts. Erosion Control
Supervisor Warren Faircloth asked that DOT recognize the potential for
sediment damage during construction to both the stream and Lake Ellen and
design the erosion control plan before the right-of-way and construction
easements are obtained. The Board agreed that something needs to be done on
this stretch of NC 86. They support the four-foot bike path as part of the
project.
D. MUNICIPAL RECREATION AND LIBRARY SUPPORT
John Link presented a report on the County's financial support for
municipal recreation and library programs. Each year the County has
appropriated certain funds for the recreation programs of Chapel Hill,
DURHAM NORTHWEST AND NORTHEAST LOOP 10
CORRIDOR STUDY (ENO DRIVE)
State Project No. 6.358001T (R-2630 & R-2631)
... ........... ......
........ .....
...............
N --ATION..'
.... .......... T.OR:TRA_9P RT
..........................
.................................... 0 * , ::F:
......................... L -A 'a IN
............... .......
.............................. ...
............................ .. ..... ...................
JANUARY 1995 NEWSLETTER No.4
I.. F . .....
.................
.............
..........
........... .. ....
.... ..... ...... ... .... . ........
This newsletter is the fourth in a series of newsletters DEIS,::.A,VA14-A FORREVIEW..
published by the North Carolina Department of . .......
Transportation (NCDOT) to inform the public about The NCDOT recently released the DEIS for public
the Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop Corridor review. Copies of the document are available for
Study. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement citizens to read and study at the following locations in
(DEIS) is available for public review. This newsletter Durham and Orange Counties:
summarizes the results of the environmental studies,
provides information on locations where the DEIS can e NCDOT Division Office at the corner of Duke Street
be reviewed in greater detail, and announces the and Stadium Drive in Durham.
arrangements for the Pre-Hearing Workshops and the
Public Hearing for the corridor study. • Durham Public Library at 300 North Roxboro Street.
• Bragtown Branch of Durham Public Library at 3200
........................
..........
..... ................ Dearborn Drive.
.. ......................
x ... ...........
..........I...............
• North Durham Branch of Durham Public Library in
Three build alternates were identified for the project. the Riverview Shopping Center.
The three alternates can be separated at common points
or connectors and rejoined to form many roadway • City of Durham Department of Transportation at
possibilities. The map on the next page depicts the Durham City Hall.
general location of the three alternates.
• Orange County Manager's Office at 109 Court Street
The corridors for the three alternates vary in width, in Hillsborough.
depending on the surrounding land use. The final • Orange County Library at 300 West Tryon Street in
location of the roadway within the corridors will not be Hillsborough.
determined until the design phase of the project.
Corridors range from 500 to 1000 feet in width and are • Chapel Hill Public Library at 100 Library Drive.
much wider than the actual right of way (100 to 150 feet
minimum) proposed for the roadway. The new facility
............
..........
will be a major arterial street with most intersecting ........
...........
`AiM .
ARMN-1.6
.............. . . ....
street crossings at-grade with traffic signals. ..............................:..............
Interchanges are proposed at four locations including: The Corridor Hearing Map that will be used at the
1-85 South, 1-85 North, Roxboro Road, and US 70. Corridor Public Hearing for the project is available for
Alternate 1 is the northernmost alternate. Alternate 2 public review at the NCDOT Division Office at the
is the southernmost alternate. Alternate 3 generally corner of Duke Street and Stadium Drive in Durham as
follows the route portrayed in the Durham County well as at the Durham Department of Transportation on
portion of the Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro the third floor of Durham City Hall. The map shows the
Thoroughfare Plan. For the most part, Alternate 3 is a corridor areas for the three build alternates in different
combination of Alternates I and 2. Additionally, there colors along with existing streets, subdivisions, schools,
are nine connectors along the three alternates. These and other local landmarks. This map will also be
connectors allow for various combinations of alternates available for public review at both the Pre-Hearing
along the project length. Workshops and at the Corridor Public Hearing.
sa oH�p m „+�'•�� •�•,'• o{ ° ( � J �`, Falls
` a
Lake
000W1N RD
A o� •`" 0
t?
157 '•f ���`\?` ' �tt�d BS \
8�L � 4� •� S�
RD /• 4 S6 vti
♦• LATTA RO `� ,41,
�• � ea�N Rti ,{J x • •� c°��3o° �
Eno RA•r
C
1. S Alt 2.:.;
Se ,M1S NORTON RD ...s� ... •` 'Pp OOE S R <
1 Era Rlver S � v, '��,•�'•� h ♦• QQ- �i,•Dy f��C+ �?
' a
L RD M 1 J�O �ttad' % F• O p F
90
3 Eti f� r 70 f a E
` na S N0Ly0W AY ST Z
t{OLOER ROB RA
,l HERON DL�D j5 t}tAV£RSITY R9 { Qp o
co
rn
x,, </ > o �, z cncq ¢Q� �•
v,0 ot h`' ,yk $ LEESViLLE,
v s 40 <
MOUNT s dt�a ?3 9 p PY '� 4 N
iH 70
D '
ti e CORNWULIS RD �`/�9 c .��`•`+_• ' { - 7_
` ? St� O ter•"•. .
North Carolina -•-• STUDY WINDOW y,
0 60001 Project Vicinity BOUNDARY o
--- — Department of "
sl bd z
Transportation and Build Alternates BUIW ALTERNATE V CORRtDOR wtDTtiiRy
A�
i
12
AIV -. .`
The environmental, social, economic, and engineering The planning process is currently in the fourth of six
impacts vary with each alternate. The following is a phases as indicated by the chart below.
brief summary of the more substantial impacts associated
with the three build alternates. More detailed PHASE I
information on impacts is contained in the DEIS. Data Collection
ist Citizens Informational Workshop
Alternate 1 is the longest at 19.7 miles and most Inventory of Planning Issues
g Document Community Concerns
expensive at $143.9 million. Alternate 2 is the shortest Transportation Needs Study
at 17.8 miles and would cost $126.4 million. PHASE 2
Alternate 3 is 18.7 miles long and is the least costly at Alternatives Identification
$126.2 million. Initial Feld Studies
Corridor Refinement
2nd.Citizens Informational.Workshop
Relocations will be required for each of the alternates. selection of Corridors for Detailed Study
Alternate 1 would require the relocation of 86 families, . PHASE 3
15 businesses, and four non-profit organizations. Of Engineering Studies
these relocations' 25 minority amilies would be Detailed.Field Studies
Y Environmental Analysis
impacted. Alternate 2 would require the relocation of Technical Reports
100 families, 26 businesses, and two non-profit PHASE 4
organizations. Minority family relocations would be 41, Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)
minority businesses would be seven, and one minority Pre-Hearing.Open House/Workshop
non-profit organization relocation would be required. PEE Corridor Public Hearing
Alternate 3 would require relocation of 95 families, eight PHASE"5
businesses, and two non-profit organizations. Minority Review Comments.an the DEIS
relocations include 35 families, two businesses, and one Review Public Hearing Transcript
Selection of Preferred Alternative
non-profit organization. PHASE 6'
Final Environmental'Impact.Statement(FEIS)
In addition to relocations, right of way will need to be Record of Decision
acquired for the roadway. Alternate 1 would affect 443
parcels of land with 558 acres- of new right of way.
Alternate 2 would affect 539 parcels, but with less right The remainder of PHASE 4 includes the Pre-Hearing
of way at 475 acres. Alternate 3 would affect 503 Workshops and the Public Hearing for the project.
parcels and 505 acres of right of way. More detailed information on the workshops and hearing
is available on the back of this newsletter.
Wetlands will be impacted by the project. Alternate 1
will affect the greatest amount of wetlands at 15.9 acres. During PHASE 5, NCDOT will review the written
Alternate 3 has least impact on wetlands at 9.7 acres. comments on the DEIS from citizens, public officials,
Alternate 2 would impact 11.2 acres of wetlands. governmental review agencies, Citizens Advisory
Committee members, Steering Committee members,
Floodplains along existing streams and creeks will also neighborhood groups, and civic organizations. The
be affected. Alternates I and 2 would impact 25.5. and official transcript from the Public Hearing also will be
24.5 acres of floodplain, respectively. Alternate 3 part of the review during this portion of the study.
would impact 19.1 acres of floodplain. Based on these comments and the information contained
in the DEIS, NCDOT will select a Preferred Alternative
Noise levels would be altered in the vicinity of the in the spring of 1995. If this alternative involves new
alternates. The most receptors adversely affected by roadway construction, NCDOT will select a corridor for
noise increases would occur along Alternate 2 at 283. the road. The selected corridor may be a combination
Alternates I and 3 would impact about the same number of segments from the alternates evaluated in the DEIS.
of receptors at 189 and 190, respectively.
The last phase of the study includes the production of the
Parks would also be impacted by the alternates with Final Environmental Impact Statement and the Record of
Alternate 1 affecting the most parkland at 5.3 acres. Decision for the Preferred Alternative. PHASE 6 will
Alternates 2 and 3 would impact 0.4 and 0.9 acres of be completed towards the end of 1995.
parkland, respectively.
13
Pl `E#I a1 .PBLfCYEAR1N�.
Following public review of the DEIS, two Pre-Hearing two weeks following the hearing to submit written
Workshops will be held to discuss the results of the comments for inclusion in the official Public Hearing
DEIS, provide the public the opportunity to understand transcript. The Corridor Public Hearing will begin at
more fully the planning process, and prepare for the 7:30 p.m. and will be held on two evenings for the
Corridor Public Hearing. The Pre-Hearing Workshops convenience of the public.
will be conducted in an informal manner similar to the
previous Citizens Informational Workshops. Citizens pre-Hearing Workshops - 4 to 8 p.m.
can attend the workshops at their convenience between Tuesday, January 24th - Riverside High School
4:00 in the afternoon until 8:00 at night. Thursday, January 26th - Southern High School
Citizens will have the opportunity to officially comment
on the project at the Corridor Public Hearing. Both Corridor Public Hearing - 7:30 p.m.
written and verbal comments will be received by Tuesday, February 7th - Riverside High School
NCDOT at the hearing. Additionally, citizens will have Thursday, February 9th - Southern High School
Fffl 1t11E?R I,tV`FER,Ifl na1'
Call: Write:
Durham Northwest and Northeast NC Department of Transportation
Loop Corridor Study Hotline Durham Northwest and
(Toll Free) Northeast Loop Corridor Study
1-800-554-7849 P.O. Box 30923
Raleigh, NC 27622
Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop
Corridor Study Newsletter
P.O. Box 30923
Raleigh, NC 27622
MEMORANDUM
TO: Orange County Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Slade McCalip, Transportation Planner
DATE: January 17, 1995
-SUBJECT: Additional Information on Agenda Item X-B: Status of 1-85
Exit 172 Closure.
COPIES: Marvin Collins, Planning Director
Gene Bell, Planner III
As of today Exit 172 has been closed and a group of private
citizens have organized as the Exit 172 Corporation. The Exit 172
Corporation has met with NCDOT officials and their NC General
Assembly Delegates to discuss keeping Exit 172 open. Also
discussed by NCDOT was accelerating the completion of the I-85\Eno
Drive interchange (see attached Corridor Public Hearing Map) , the
extension of NC 751 (see attached Functional Design Plan) and
widening US 70 to three lanes from NC 751 to Cole Mill Road. For
other alternatives discussed see the attached I-85/US 70 Study
Alternatives Matrix.
Mr. Garland Garrett, NCDOT Deputy Secretary - Highways, has stated
that if the DCHC MPO approved the acceleration (i.e. , included this
project in the 1996-2002 TIP Regional Priority List) of the I-
85\Eno Drive interchange with the extension of NC 751, that
construction could begin as early as 1997 and could be completed in
approximately five years.
The Exit 172 Corporation had requested that a restraining order be
issued in Federal Court to keep Exit 172 open, but Magistrate
Wallace Dixon ruled in favor of NC DOT and allowed the exit to be
closed. The Exit 172 Corporation has appealed this decision and is
currently waiting for the results of that appeal. The Exit 172
Corporation is also supposed to meet with Governor Hunt within a
week to ten days to discuss this matter.
Mr. J.C. Porterhouse, President of the Exit 172 Corporation, has
stated today that the Corporation does not want Exit 172 closed and
that it also does not want NC 751 extended or the Eno Drive
interchange with 1-85 built.
For more information concerning the Northwest\Northeast Loop (Eno
Drive) Draft EIS please see the attached invitation to a special
presentation by NCDOT for elected officials on January 30, 1995.
^," �• d'g"!" Keay , #'�;.' ,f } a '# a s * •�
( q Y
�- tom,"°j '� 'f•'�+;+ "�^e� Q,.;�+ ,? �
DO k
Durham Northwest and Northeast Loop
Wire) t 0 .Y
,g #
sw low 1� 29M
1F Afbemate I ce gib' ti
a} '.,�� h . �fr ff.. ' �,�y1fr jji �� t l •y'' -''R- t �' ' r�F��'a n
r.rr"'w• .r;ss .y: � l..r bn + It� �`'j�++ 5 � �':. .r �. t.,Q
'y'' i`': y..fq�•� ,�. tyV :?!.- �X � IS 'eL f, i
Xn S :tYrwl( ♦ $r V'7
' • {v ,*,
/, •r ...t��.ice .� -� .'"W��;,�+t. `:y�' '`}jlll'+r .r�� ,' 'JP• <k.., f�'.
YP�Ad
ar
Opp
t r � ..
,,y, �r'• >4' q y it �' �v •r j•� r/•` `••
'�; T`t_ .;wy d #t, r .� Vy t..Cp A,
rr i
IL
" I;Y'rr
r q ,� �' •�Y+F .:4. jj '4#64 •�. =a; t�ps•� 4 �. +�
let
>t 1 .y/^} ..1 *; r..x_ t - �V•j' # r'W" ^f`,I i.Y4f.+';�•i{,'�i1�
It I
7671 pate 1,;r7—c! 6► �!, j\ T \�tr, \ :; \"^ Cry yr' Y L r-Y�d�'r)f✓ l -�7r,> ' �,
CRW�wP From 1JOn..r �cn/'-C./T_.�W '.L 1� �\\\t � � �\j1} it f �-� I ""'(' J 1 r�✓•i�[ {7� ""'�T' t .l".
Cn./jGaG/'(/ory,ocr
w `
_ dll
30z)7— Fax. 'It \
V'1
S
;� �'�...�.-" '�7�' T ��x y / rp0� � r� '-. rd� ' > � r'• {t a a� !1 'Y. -,�. � t
3-
'
�`�a3. '���f ��a,✓r""ff �r at vy x �.� 5 :.j 3)°.�„!u�. � $ � �/ia y.rk' ��. �tl t +'a°a6n S�r� � � E„ t,
?�b 3o- � ,��u'� hy�-..+��1.`+,�"v , ri G,)i f- ,v r 1Gii I+ �� vr• �a �r.,4 y rt{� � a �':
Y�t�vhS$? �M^ k l� 7 1 '. ��•/��''f-�''� _ a l � l 1 BSI ,\ tli' Y
�1W{
RNA",
Y
5._'bvG
.a '�s�'^F�rrt: ?.`,r 1�,''S $i�h t�4 d ,:.F ''` 2 y"oti o t
"� rtr r�
!=^� y �A�ta �-� ✓Illi p
J Y wl1�,�
vt� h4 . �j7 { 8 el,r4o ? ti �I�V e Ilt
r r =wp
1r w r42u��Y x r llli n {N� h
g
a ' " r `rr--1, i :3a S ��'€ {`'"'•�,.f },i 1 Sty„� '{�,�II 1� ,t'
14,
x':.�I� ,,'—m J:%,1 }I j t; �^7,-il.JZ{ ♦:Qi1 '��. ,-"��.,� �t d.. ii, Fri�J� l i t��
1-85 / US, -70-STUDY ALTIERNRT IVES
o --------------------------------------------------------------- ____.•._.___-_
-—--—---------
OPTIONS COST COMMENTS
CARLJEST
IWLEWNTATION
ALTERPATE STUDY *8- > Not a cost-efficient expenditure
Since reasonable &i:;ces% is
F;Nrovided with cur-rent 4esign.
Suck Dean Fr&vwm44 (NC lq-e>, :
4 > Must hive F11WA-Washington approval-
T ! SomAbbotind 1-95, aired US 70 S 2,VADO,OW (R)
> FIdditional Erwirorunov*al w-od Social
11 linpacts and protlable opposition.
> Access fr-04► Hillsbat-ough Road
140%Umuro to US 70 would be routed
01 to Cole Hill to 1-95 to US 70.
----------- --------------- ---------
FILTERWTE STLN)y a* > Not Reccwmended
> FH419 will not grant appr-oval .
Pripv1sion of: > Potential for significant safatLj
kcx-thbound US 70 8 1 150,000 4 C N/A pe-obleas, to. wrong &.tay vmve
Ac cv-ws to 1-05 Now-thbo%,nd * Z00,000 4R) onto Interstate 9S.
4 --—------------- > Pr-o%,ide-4
> Doesn't noot priAw" concern of
in asr-cess to US 70 from the East.
ALTERNFITE STUI)Y *C' 0 716001000 (C) > Part of Thoroughfare eta-w.
S 2,200,000 iR) 19994 > Provickm direct access frank US 70
Enq 1,00p Interchange
To 1-85 in both directions.
With Connector to LIS 70 $10,000,000
—-------------------- ---------------- —--------------
> Widen to 3 laner. From W*%t of 1• 85
FILTIERWTE STUDY wr-0 0 850,000 (C) to Eno Loop Exturvston 0 NC 751
-0- CR) 199^ > Can be Of fact ivelLj Lj%'C43 in
Improvemaints to us 70 conjunction with 1-85 / Eno Lcmap
------------------—---------
NO
*00 NOTHING, zlCt I T I ANAL NIA > Cur-rent pe-a i gn Prate i des
CQ
COST Reaso-e-b I e At::Qos%
—----------------
r •• •-•• •-• • • vt u�.tu.cun, uv. a a. U, r v"rut.n r 010QuU`*1)U1— y1dh44JUULr9 L/ 3
s
DURHAM CITY OF DURHAM
NORTH CAROLINA
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
101 CITY HALI.PLAZA
rs. DURHAM.NORTH CAROLINA 27701
Trlephonc(919)5CA"=Fax(919)687-0896
1 8 6 9 J�„ 17, 1995
GTYOf MEDCINE
Mr. John Lint(
County Manager
Orange County
106 E. Margllret Lane
Hillsborough, N.C. 27278
suoject: 13onhweslNvide4at Ujvy DiAR Tait; 1'ublia Offioiulo Procentation
Dear Mr. LaL ���` ,•�
At the invimrion of the City of Durham, the N. C. Department of Transportation will give a
special presentation of the Draft Environmental Impact Study (DEIS) to local elected officials.
Tile purpose of the presentation is to give elected officials an opportunity to discuss the
findings of the study with representatives of the N. C. Department of Transportation and
R W. Lochner, the consulting firer which prepared the study. This meeting is scheduled for
Monday January 30, 1995 at 7:00 P.M. in the Committee Room (2nd floor) of City Hall.
As you are awiuc, a tuition of the propmed project extends into Orange County Therefcire.
we are inviting any interested Orange County Commissioners to attend the special
preseluation on January 30. Members of the Durham County Board of Commissioners are
also invited. Elected officials imable to attend this se.%sion are encouraged to attend either of
the two public workshops scheduled for January 24 and 26, 1995 at Riverside High School
and Southern High Scbool, respectively. The workshops rule from 4:00 to 8:00 P.M.
if members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners are interested in attending the
elected officials presentation on January 30, please advise Mark Ahrendsen or Wesley Parham
(560-4366) in our 'D-An portation Department. They will be making arrangements for the
meeting alai preparing-a meeting agenda.
Sincerel ,
() a Powell
City Manager
cc: Mark Ahrenclsen
Wesley Parham
nn[?QV Ri.ormwst:Vmrinti-ua-unT Nt?nC.nnn 10AMA 171A