HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-05-94-X-D ORANGE COUNTY 1.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 5, 1994
Action Agenda
Item # X-D
SUBJECT: ANNUAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS (STIP & LTIP)
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes _x_No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Slade McCalip
Extension 2595
- DCHC URBAN AREA MAP TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
- 1993 TIP REQUEST Hillsborough-732-8181
- STATUS OF 1993 TIP REQUEST Durham -688-7331
- STATUS OF 1995-2001 LTIP/STIP Mebane -227-2031
1996-2002 ( 1994) POSSIBLE TIP REQUESTS Chapel Hill -967-9251
PURPOSE: To receive a report on the N.C. Department of
Transportation's (NCDOT) annual State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) and the Durham-Chapel Hill-
Carrboro Local Transportation Improvement Program (LTIP)
and to assist staff in the identification of transpor-
tation needs for possible inclusion in upcoming STIP and
LTIP requests.
BACKGROUND: Every year the N.C. Board of Transportation (BOT) adopts a
multi-year STIP specifying needed transportation
improvements across the state. If a project is outside
the DCHC Urban Area, then the County can request directly
of the BOT that the project be included in the STIP. In
. the development of the STIP, a series of statewide public
hearings is held in each of the state's 14 highway
divisions (Orange County is located in Division Seven) .
The purpose of these public hearings is for the BOT to get
input from the public and elected officials on the
existing STIP ( 1995-2001) projects and proposed projects
for the next STIP ( 1996-2002 ) . The tentative date and
location for this year's public hearing is October 25, at
Yanceyville, Caswell County.
If a project is inside the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
(DCHC) Urban Area, then that project has to be coordinated
with the other DCHC local jurisdiction requests, also
known as the LTIP. In the development of the LTIP, a
series of meetings is held by the DCHC TAC and TCC to
develop regional transportation priorities. This year's
process begins with the local jurisdictions submitting
their transportation priorities to the DCHC TCC by October
31, 1994 .
RECOMMENDATION: Receive as information and identify, as appropriate,
transportation needs for possible inclusion in the
County's 1996-2002 STIP and LTIP Requests by October 25,
1994 .
•
2.
L •
#3a (7/14/1993) ,
,g,--. •-,,, r -Am mr , . . oire7{ -0.,A, M:49. A ilE3
‘rivir (-- .1L-- -re .;:-.A. 41_1“-_---7---. .
•- . f 4..., • ., „....,
4,.. Illidru„1 -1TA :•' >*.‘fr. - .-\\. L''''',MX:a' ', — •
4*
0.
:Ir. -0111intat•---1-. - \ - 44 . ' )! 1 ft
it
1, 11pliri.,411* iii?"-eripi:-...-q Aitolosti......7411
Ifip, ' il. ---
--, : -r-i-Ir . 7,7,-,::r,''lit ..,,it':1431 Vi, Artgaltil,.y.---, i .00 .
ilip.....law
i,:ni. _ '„..-g.-, mite i . 4 -. . wr
viNfoceigr
- % Art _ Ng/ ( is
! .
•
,,,, .14, ,49„-.74.1, ...,a• _ d
- wr, ,. - it _ . itimprort t..,44...„4,_. ,,,,r,
4, 4,41,4„,44. ...10
'lly.,-- •
% ., :. I, 11. I
. 10.,. • ..
, ' ,„...utc ,As 5,: ,,:la de '''' . ( fA...a.•_kvillii ! IF \
wa �Jn
, r'� AdA4.1,t%'
,� 1 1e * `% / _1 ,.., liettor
iiiik
ilk 1 ''' --'Nib, ,.- -' 4''' ji,P4*.'" AI' lilAyi . flettiikopit -,
i
-..\••14 -Pk\......„--...,_' A.' 4„,.,,,e,4- if* i .4 ' '„,-"774110 "11
-,et, "3\.L.:- . ..,4,0,,,.....„-&_,.„ -A_ _ Iva .0,.. J „de:- .,;.all'Ilk ,.4.
_ .. --,_ . . r V?" tiOff':;:liVirt.6 lit
r
" JOE'Pb.:''-..\-'1:fAl .4:-,-'-...... *lit 211141,-11114PArroggiktire ifir NI*/ ...t, .,leivi .-
' ' i-41 47.2:41VM!';,--41i7j#,Plet, ; iiL,..,A.&■., '\,„' AA•it,_,_-;:11A)77„-.., „iiiirAy im, -•
4
5 „ ,..4„.. .....,,F;.„.x=1 4`00111._ht --..'s"..i.. ./0. 40.**pk, 4,1 WI, AvViriV.Z.-411AV laralt Ai
, , ..' 0.F-WarlriVit31 Al----=4.414rdb,i p44:4411pOr- 011 ( ,
„,,,....., 1 ,itictitiqr,r,,,, . _ irtr...,,' w_ealla ,i. „.4.‘,4, c,
- . li I__&'•14:#4,
worn . / P1.4111W-t.k f 7 , -41„If kg, ' 1 . .7.
1.,,i.,° ,..1',:r gh-4144. 0V "di / lig: kl -94,11-21,1%14 'VI,If. 4,:„.
,'-i. _ _ i 4.t,ivit,./. „ 1",41/ iiir
�� ��„1►, fir.± .,o�^.���,,�% �r �-����y �1.. .iy.��i�a ��f _- ,- Airte„.;,-- •.:t. „„4„.44 to, ,,,,itrAwv.k.,- . :
Appo igko, .1 p
• 04-* _ `
J i WAKE
.\ v. fir •/,, .,�
o � 1 ♦ 4Pip. Durham—Chapel Hill—Carrboro
�� " ' �►,^ t1 r. Metropolitan Area.
ilk'; 1 .1- I viipw. . • 111111111 Metropolitan Area Boundary•
4 I 40v ilorewift.rovre.... ... A I .:', s r tcaffecrame===1 .
... t_
y
Appoved by the TAC
February 10, 1993
3.
ORANGE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST
FOR CONSIDERATION OF FUNDING IN THE
NORTH CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION ThIPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PRESENTED AT THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PUBLIC
HEARING ON OCTOBER 28, 1993
Orange County appreciates the opportunity to participate in the North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program process. Like so many jurisdictions across the state, we have
- transportation-needs we feel are necessary to provide our citizens with a safe and efficient
multimodal system throughout the County. Although our needs are extensive, we have
concentrated our priority list on those projects we feel are most critical to all in Orange County.
We would also like to commend the North Carolina Department of Transportation on its use of
recycled and alternative materials in road construction projects. We encourage you continue the
practice of using alternative materials such as shredded tires and recycled asphalt on all projects
statewide.
Our transportation needs list is divided into two sections. The first section deals with selected
projects within the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro metropolitan planning area. The second
section deals with projects in the remaining portions of Orange County which lie outside of the
urbanized area boundary.
PROJECTS W.IT GIN THE DURHAM - CHAPEL HILL- CARRBORO
METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREA --- _
As a member of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization, Orange
County will continue to work with the Transportation Advisory Committee (DCHC..TAC) to
develop a complete list of project priorities for the portion of Orange County that lies inside the
urbanized area boundary. However, there are selected projects in Orange County which we - - -.
would like to address now because they have been the subject of discussions between the TAC
and the Department of Transportation.
L Homestead Road Widening
This is Orange County's top priority for new road projects requested from TIP funds.
Tact year the Orange County Board of Commissioners supported the request by the Durham -
Chapel Hill - Carrboro MPO to widen and make safety improvements on Homestead Road-from
High School Road (SR 1834) to Airport Road (NC 86). The requested improvements also =
included bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Although a small portion of this project was funded,
the County feels a broader scope needs to be assigned to the project limits. Homestead Road
is a connector facility for the Carrboro and Chapel Hill communities and is the primary route .
I
4.
to Chapel Hill High School. A background investigation of this facility indicates safety
problems associated with turning movements along the entire corridor limits. Left turns into
driveways of large traffic generators such as the Duke Power Building and the Brookstone
development, as well as at major intersections with Airport Road, prove dangerous due to sight-
distance problems in existing road design.
Substantial future traffic increases are expected on Homestead Road. Several residential
developments are under construction in the vicinity of the Brookstone development and the
Southern Human Services Complex will be constructed on Homestead Road in the near future.
Orange County urges the North Carolina Board of Transportation to review the project limits
for TIP Project U-2805 and revise the scope to include improvements from High School Road
to Airport Road (NC 86), as described in the Regional Priority List.
II. Bridge over Morgan Creek at Arboretum/Ashe Place (Independent Bicycle Program
Project].
The current TIP proposes a feasibility study in 1997 for pedestrian and bicycle improvements
for a Morgan Creek Bridge. Orange County supports the DCHC TAC recommendation that this
project be programmed for a feasibility study in 1994 and construction in 1995. [Estimated
construction cost is $50,000]
iii. Two Projects Related to Traffic in Orange and Chatham Counties: US 15-501
Widening from Morgan Creek to the Chatham County Line TR-9421 and the
Chatham Connector LR-29241. _
Orange County's major concern is with the timing of these two projects. Orange County
supports the building of a southern connector road in Chatham County to handle traffic between
Chatham County and destinations in the Research Triangle Park and Durham. Otherwise
increased traffic will come through the already congested intersection between US 15-501 and
SR 1008 and funnel through Chapel Hill. Orange County cannot support the widening of US
15-501 south of Chapel Hill from Mt. Carmel Church Road (SR 1008) to the Chatham County
line unless a Chatham Connector is built previously or at the same time.
Recognizing that these roads cross county and DOT district lines, the Commissioners encourage
continued coordination of transportation planning at the county, municipal, district and
Metropolitan Planning Organization level to handle this regional traffic.
IV Projects Built with the STP Attributable Allocation
Orange County supports the DCHC TAC position that the STP Attributable Allocation be
reflected as a separate item in the 'UP. It is the County's position that the federal ISTEA
legislation delegates to the TAC the authority to allocate these funds to projects selected by the
TAC, in cooperation with NCDOT, rather than have the project selection rest solely with the
NCDOT.
5.
PROJECTS IN ORANGE COUNTY OUTSIDE OF THE
URBANIZED AREA BOUNDARY
Orange County would like to give priority to identified safety needs on existing roads and
bridges and to other transportation projects which foster alternatives to automobile travel. The
County also endorses environmentally responsible construction of all transportation projects.
Finally, the County supports adequate maintenance for existing transportation facilities.
I. I-85 Widening Projects
A) I-304 and I-305 - Best Management Practices (BMP's) for Erosion Control
during and after widening construction of both portions of I-85. Last year the
Orange County Board of Commissioners requested a line item in the TIP for
funding of BMP's for both I-85 widening projects. The construction contract for
I-304 has been awarded and is scheduled to begin on September 27, 1993.
NCDOT Division 7 officials and the contract engineer met with State and County
Erosion Control Officers, the County Engineer, and the County Transportation
Planner on September 21, 1993 to physically evaluate erosion control measures _ ._.
needed on the I-304 project limits. This meeting represents a cooperative effort
between NCDOT and the County and we request these efforts continue until
completion of both projects. Among other concerns, the County desires input
into the erosion control measures in order to ensure optimal protection of the
Sevenmile Creek watershed, a possible future water source. The Upper Eno
watershed, of which Sevenmile Creek is a sub-basin, has been designated a WS-II
watershed, thus the county is committed to protect the water quality by working
with NCDOT to implement the strongest protection measures available.
B) I-305 - widening of I-85 to six lanes and reconstruction of interchanges from-
__
Orange Grove Road to Durham County Line
1) Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities - Orange County has worked over the --
last year with the MPO to produce the Regional Bicycle Plan for Durham
and Orange Counties. This plan represents the first such study to identify
both rural and urban bicycle needs for one region. An element of the plan
is to provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities at interchanges of major
highways. Some of Orange County's major commuter roads that -- -
interchange with I-85 include NC 86, Old NC 86 (SR 1009), and US 70.— ------ --
These facilities are often used for bicycle and pedestrian travel as well,
and the County requests that accommodations be made for these two
alternate modes of travel when designing and constructing the I-85
widening. Features requested for inclusion are sidewalks, bike lanes, and
_ adequate guardrails on overpasses.
2) I-305 Wildlife Corridor Under I-85 - In 1993 the Orange County
Planning Department, in conjunction with the UNC Chapel Hill
Department of City and Regional Planning compiled a report titled "New
6.
Hope Corridor Open S
Forest and Eno RPver State Park." One.of threcommendations of Duke
of the
study is to construct a wildlife corridor under the I-85/US 70 interchange
in conjunction with TIP Project I-305. This crossing would have two
positive effects at the I-85/US 70 interchange:
1) it would reduce the amount of vehicular incidents on I-85
due to wildlife crossing in traffic, and;
2) the corridor would provide a safe connector for wildlife
migrating between the Duke Forest and Eno River State
Park.
NCDOT was consulted during the study and advised on a staff level of the need for a
6' x 100' culvert along the stream under the I-85/US 70 interchange. This culvert specification
is recommended by Tom Hoctor, a wildlife corridor specialist from the University of Florida
at Gainesville.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners is now formally requesting this wildlife corridor
be addressed in the early stages of planning for the 1-305 project. We encourage your planners
to include this as an element in the environmental assessment scheduled in 1997, the design, and
the final construction of the project.
IL Intersection Improvements - Countywide
Orange County recognizes that intersection improvements provide immediate safety benefits
without the environmental impact or cost of full roadway improvements. We request the
following intersections be programmed either through Transportation Improvement Program
funding or Safety Program funding for improvements which can be implemented as soon as
possible. Each of these locations are listed on the NCDOT High Accident Location Analysis
for Orange County.
1) NC 86 / New Hope Church Road (SR 1723) experiences two types of traffic
during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. NC 86 carries daily commuters to Chapel
Hill, Hillsborough, and I-40 as well as students to New Hope School. Delays and
dangerous vehicular movements are experienced due to the high amount of left
turns at this intersection. We request it be improved to include turn lanes on all
approaches.
2) US 70 Bypass / Miller Road (SR 1555) also carries both local commuter traffic
and Orange High School traffic. We appreciate the study in early October which
indicates the.need for a full traffic signal at this location. We encourage you to
place the signal as soon as possible. We also request the intersection be studied -
for other improvements which will provide for safer traffic movement.
7.
Also on the High Accident Location List or identified by staff and in need of evaluation are the
following locations:
3) NC 54 / Southern Drive (SR 2016)
4) NC 86 / US 70 Bypass
5) US 70 / St. Mary's Road (SR 1002)
6) Carr Store Road (SR 1352) / Efland Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004)
(Orange County appreciates NCDOT's quick response in providing a caution light
at this intersection in response to concerns expressed by area residents in May).
III. Railroad Grade Crossing Improvements - Countywide
There are several at-grade railroad crossings throughout the County which are in need of
improvements, from track crossings to grade work on the roadway facility. The main line of
the Southern Railway traverses the entire county. Motorists travelling roadway facilities which
cross the railway encounter a multitude of signs warning of dangerous grade crossings. An
inspection of existing crossings countywide indicates sight-distance problems, potential
"bottoming out" grade problems, intersection grade problems, and substandard warning devices.
Orange County requests railroad crossings countywide be improved to provide for safer travel
conditions. Crossings of note include:
1) Southern Railway / Buckhorn Road (SR 1114)
2) Southern Railway / Mt. Willing Road (SR 1120)
3) Southern Railway / University Station Road (SR 1712)
4) Southern Railway / Mt. Herman Church Road (SR 1713)
Fach of these crossings need roadway refinements to provide for better sight-distance and grade
changes.
IV.. Maintenance of Bridges
Orange County has many bridges on its road system. We realize maintenance of all of these
bridges is an enormous task, however many of our bridges are beginning to need some
maintenance. In particular, the bridges along the Interstate are becoming somewhat of an
eyesore. Rusting metal, and concrete streaked and discolored with rust from the runoff from.
the unpainted metal, cause a less than appealing appearance. We request that bridges over the
interstate be painted.
L Bridge Replacement Projects
The Orange County Board of Commissioners also continues to support the following TIP
projects currently programmed in our jurisdiction. We hope to see them completed in a timely
manner.
8.
* B-2598 - NC 157 Bridge Replacement - FY 95
* B-2100 - SR 1005 Bridge Replacement - FY 94
* B-2599 - SR 1148 Bridge Replacement - Under Construction
* B-3010 - SR 1352 Bridge Replacement - FY 98
* B-3218 - SR 1538 Bridge Replacement - FY 2000
* B-3219 - SR 1540 Bridge Replacement - FY 2000
* B-2852 - SR 1734 Bridge Replacement - FY 97
Thank you for your consideration of these requests.
Submitted this 28th day of October, 1993
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
By:
Moses Carey, Jr., hair
9.
STATUS OF ORANGE COUNTY'S PRIORITY LIST
PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF TRANSPORATION
ON OCTOBER 28, 1993
PROJECTS WITHIN THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO
METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREA
I . Homestead Road Widening,
The project limits were expanded in the 1995-2001 TIP from (High
School Road to Sewell School Road) to (Highschool Road to Airport
Road) .
SOURCE: 1995-2001 STIP & LTIP
II . Bridge over Morgan Creek at Arboretum/Ashe Place fIndependent
Bicycle Program Projectl •
This project is not listed in the 1995-2001 TIP.
SOURCE: 1995-2001 STIP & LTIP
III . US 15-501 Widening from Morgan Creek to Chatham County Line IR-
9421 and Chatham Connector [R-29241 .
R-942 : Project is scheduled to go to construction in the last
quarter of 1997.
R-2924 : Project consists of intersection and safety improvements
to be built in 1996, no change from last TIP ( 1994-
2000) .
SOURCE: 1995-2001 STIP & LTIP
IV. Projects Built with the STP Attributable Allocation.
The STP Attributable Allocations are not listed as separate items
in the 1995-2001 TIP.
SOURCE: 1995-2001 STIP & LTIP
10.
•
PROJECTS IN ORANGE COUNTY OUTSIDE OF THE
URBANIZED AREA BOUNDARY'
2 . I-85 Widening Protects .
A) Best Management Practices (BMP 's) for Erosion Control during and
after widening construction of I-85 .
1) I-304 : widening of 1-85 to six lanes and reconstruction of
interchanges from NC 54 to Dimmocks Mill Road - NCDOT has
installed temporary erosion control measures according to NCDOT
standards . Orange County staff have requested that these measures
be of a more permanent nature, the measures are currently
scheduled for removal upon project completion. NCDOT has no plans
for erosion control measures after construction.
SOURCE: Warren Faircloth, Orange County Erosion Control
Supervisor, 732-8181 ext. 2586 .
2) I-305*: widening of I-85 to six lanes and reconstruction of
interchanges from Orange Grove Road to Durham County Line - At
this time the erosion control measures for this project are to be
designed in 2001 . It may be possible to have enhanced erosion
control measures included in a. future TIP as a line item.
SOURCE: J. Wilson Stroud, Project Planning Unit Head, Planning &
Environmental Branch, Division of Highways, NCDOT, ( 919) -733-3141 .
B) I-305*: widening of I-85 to six lanes and reconstruction of
interchanges from Orange Grove Road to Durham County Line.
1) Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities - Project planning for this
facility is scheduled to begin in April, 1998 . Determination of
where and what type of facilities to be included during
construction will be made during this stage of the project.
2 ) Wildlife Corridor Under- I-85 _ This will be considered during
the planning stage and this issue will be brought to the attention
of the NCDOT Staff Biologist.
SOURCE: J. Wilson Stroud, Project Planning Unit Head, Planning &
Environmental Branch, Division of Highways, NCDOT, ( 919) -733-3141 .
' The Town of Hillsborough and Northern Chatham County became
part of the DCHC Urbanized Area as of February 9, 1994 . This has
changed the boundaries of the DCHC Urban Area, projects now partly
or wholly within the Urban Area will be designated with an
asterisk.
11.
; .
II . Intersection Improvements - Countywide
1) NC 86 / New Hope Church Road (SR 1723) - This intersection has
been studied by NCDOT and will be improved to include Left Turn
lanes at the intersection itself and a Right Turn lane out of the
New Hope Elementary School 's Entrance onto New Hope Church Road.
A traffic signal is not warranted at this time.
2 ) US 70 Bypass / Miller Road (SR 1555 ) - NCDOT has studied the
intersection and found that it warranted a traffic signal and
installed one.
3 ) NC 54 / Southern Drive (SR 2016 ) - NCDOT has studied the
intersection and improvements will be made as soon as funding
becomes available, possibly after July, 1995 .
4 ) NC 86 / US 70 Bypass - NCDOT has performed additional studies
(as per last year's TIP request) on this intersection and found
that most accidents (Rear-End Collision type) are caused by driver
error. Improvements are recommended by NCDOT for this
intersection to include adding Left-Turn Green Arrows to the
traffic signal for every approach. Funding for this improvement
may be available after July, 1995 .
5 ) US 70 / St. Mary's Road (SR 1002 ) - NCDOT has studied the
intersection and found that it warranted a traffic signal and
installed one.
6 ) Carr Store Road (SR 1352) / Efland Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004 ) -
NCDOT has installed a flashing traffic signal and has performed
further studies at the intersection. The result of the traffic
studies indicate that there is poor sight distance at this
intersection due to trees. NCDOT is going to contact the
landowner' that the trees are located upon and request to cut down
the trees to increase the intersection's safety.
SOURCE: Tommy J. Dyer, District Engineer, Division of Highways,
NCDOT, ( 910) 570-6833 .
III . Railroad Grade Crossing Improvements - Countywide
A) Improvements were requested for the following railroad
crossings; 1) Southern Railway / Buckhorn Road (SR 1114 ) , 2 )
Southern Railway / Mt. Willing Road (SR 1120 ) , 3) Southern Railway
/ University Station Road (SR 1712 ) , and 4 ) Southern Railway / Mt.
Herman Church Road (SR 1713 ) .
B) Improvements are underway or scheduled in the 1995-2001 STIP
for the following railroad crossings; 1) Southern Railway / 1
University Station Road (SR 1712 ) under construction, 2 ) UNC I
Railway / S. Merritt St (SR 1927 ) under construction, 3) UNC
Railway / Cameron St, (Chapel Hill) under construction, 4)
Southern Railway / Redmond Crossing (SR 1399) funded -
construction not authorized, 5) Southern Railway / Piedmont Drive,
) ,
12.
(Hillsborough) funded - construction not authorized.
C) The difference between those improvements requested and those
programmed is a function of the NCDOT Traffic Engineering Branch's
Public At Grade Crossing Investigative Index. This index is a
formula that indicates the most dangerous crossings, in priority
order, across the state. Therefore the crossings within Orange
County must compete with the rest of the state for improvements
and on a statewide basis may not be as bad as other intersections.
SOURCE: Don Adams, Railroad/Highway Grade Crossing Safety
Engineer, NCDOT Traffic Engineering Branch ( 919 ) 733-3915 .
IV. Maintenance of Bridges - Currently NCDOT has a "tremendous
backlog" regarding the painting of bridges. This backlog has been
caused by the lead content in bridge paints previously used.
Because of environmental regulations removal of lead based paints
must now be handled and disposed of as hazardous material. This
has increase the cost of painting from $ 1 . 75 per square foot to
over $ 9. 00 per square foot.
SOURCE: Jimmie Lee, Head of NCDOT's Bridge Maintenance Unit,
( 919) 733-4362 .
VI. Bridge Replacement Prolects - There has been no change in the
programming of last year's request other than: project B-2599 has
been completed and project B-2100 is currently under construction.
SOURCE: 1995-2001 STIP / A.E. Moore, District Bridge Maintenance
Engineer, ( 910 ) 570-6818.
13.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gene Bell, Planner III
FROM: Slade cCalip, Planner II
DATE : September 6, 1994
SUBJECT: Status of the 1995-2001 LTIP/STIP
As you already know there is some concern by DCHC TAC that NCDOT is
not responsive to regional priorities . This is evidenced by the
inclusion of the 1-40 widening project in the 1995-2001 STIP. As
per ISTEA the STIP and LTIP must be developed cooperatively and
therefore each agency must approve the STIP and LTIP.
The 1995-2001 LTIP is taken verbatim from the STIP. The DCHC TAC
is the agency responsible for the adoption of the LTIP. The TAC is
against adopting the LTIP without meeting with the Secretary of
Transportation and the Governor about the 1-40 project.
As of today the TAC has met with the Secretary of Transportation
and has had no success in modifying the LTIP to be more in accord
with the DCHC Adopted Regional Priorities . The TAC is currently
trying to arrange a meeting with the Governor.
If the meeting with the Governor has the same results as the
meeting with the Secretary the TAC is considering taking the
following course of action:
a) that they take no action on the 1995-2001 LTIP, which renders
the document unusable for "new" project programming\funding,
"new" being projects not in the last adopted LTIP ( 1994-2000 ) .
and
b) that they move forward and develop next year's Regional TIP
Priority List and develop a 1996-2002 LTIP prior to the NCDOT
developing a 1996-2002 STIP ( see attached request from the
lead planning agency) .
The two most significant changes from the 1994-2000 to the 1995-
2001 STIP was the expanded Homestead Road project and the inclusion
of the 1-40 widening project. The Homestead Road project is
programmed to begin planning 1996 and there will probably be no
changes to this project. The 1-40 project is programmed to begin
planning in 1997, the scope and priority of this project may change
as the DCHC TAC develops the 1996-2002 LTIP.
' r .
14.
DURHAM City of Durham
.= North Carolina
# Department of Transportation
1 Z * 101 City Hall Plaza Phone (419) 56(}4366
**** Durham, North Carolina 27701 FAX(919) 687-0896
4
1 8 6 9
CITYOFMEDICINE August 25, 1994
MEMO TO: David Bonk, Town of Chapel Hill
Dick Hails, County of Durham
Margaret.Hauth, Town of Hillsborough
Mary Hough, Durham Area Transit Authority
Slade McCalip, County of Orange
Keith Megginson, County of Chatham
Jim Ritchey, Triangle Transit Authority
Dan Thomas, Statewide Planning Branch, NCDOT
Kenneth Withrow, Town of Carrboro % l / /
FROM: H. Wesley Parham, Senior Transportation Engineer I
SUBJECT: Regional Priority List for FY 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program
The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO is reevaluating its Regional Priority List. This list will
be used for the identification and selection of future transportation improvement projects to be
funded with federal and State transportation funds.
By the end of October, units of local government should reexamine local priorities submitted to
the MPO last Fall. Local boards may elect to adjust local priority lists to reflect the few regional
projects which received funding in the State's 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program.
Local boards are encouraged to endorse the projects identified in the State TIP for your area.
They may use this opportunity to reaffirm local and MPO opposition to the State's proposed
widening of Interstate 40 from the Durham Freeway (NC 147) and Interstate I-85 in
Hillsborough.
We suggest that you inform your local board of the regional priority given to local requests. A
copy of the Regional Priority List is enclosed. If your board chooses to add or reorder its local
projects, advise them of the criteria considered by the MPO in ordering local priorities into,
regional priorities. This criteria includes: (1) selection of projects from adopted regional and
local transportation plans; (2) the regional significance of the, project; (3) congestion
improvements; (4) accident history and safety benefits; (5) project costs/benefits; (6) reduction
of single-occupant vehicles; (7) scheduled transit replacement capital; and (8) economic
development opportunities. Projects requested by multiple jurisdictions are given more weight.
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
15.
•
As per the recommendations of the TCC TIP Subcommittee (see 10/27/93 TCC Minutes), local
requests are to be submitted as follows:
1. Local governments must submit a composite comprehensive local priority list.
Projects must be elements of regional transportation plans and may be located
anywhere in the MPO planning area. Local governments should priority order
State TIP projects which are unfunded (e.g., projects labeled "Identified Future
Need", "Feasibility Study in Progress", etc.).
2. Each project request must be accompanied by a MPO project request foiui
(enclosed). The project description and a concise justification should be included
here. Supporting data is strongly encouraged (i.e., traffic counts, accident rates,
project costs).
3. Local Priority Lists are to be submitted to the Lead Planning Agency by October
31, 1994 with a certified resolution of your board's action.
The TIP Subcommittee of the TCC will meet during the first two weeks of November to review
any changes in local priorities. The subcommittee will review the adopted Regional Priority List
and recommend any changes at the November 23, 1994 TCC meeting. A DRAFT Regional
Priority List will be presented to the TAC on December 14, 1994. The TAC will authorize the
release of a DRAFT Regional Priority List for public comment. The TAC will receive public
comment through January 11, 1995, at which time the MPO will adopt a final Regional Priority
List. The new Regional Priority List will be submitted to the State on behalf of the MPO. Local
boards may also elect to submit their requests directly to the Board of Transportation.
Some sample project request forms are enclosed to provide guidance. Transit operators are
strongly encouraged to identify transit requests by project type (specifying funding across years
in a table at the bottom of the form) rather than by funding year. You may use your own
wordprocessor to re-create the project request faun, but please strive to make it consistent with
the one provided. If you would like a WordPerfect template form, please let me know.
Since this is the second year using the process and format described above, the process should
be much smoother. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.
cc: Mark Ahrendsen, TCC Chairman
Enclosures
6 7z1.7.7 .p./._ 11.:„....
. 16.
Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program
Project Request Form
..
Project Title: Alston Avenue (NC 55) Widening: Holloway Street to the Durham Freeway
Project Category: Requesting Agency: City of Durham Regional Priority 6
x Highway Local Priority Number: 5 WO Approval
Public Transit TIP ID Number: N/A
Bicycle (if applicable)
Enhancement
—..... .
Project Description: Widen and upgrade existing facility to a five-lane cross section, including
replacement of the Norfolk-Southern Railway bridges. Project is to include bicycle and
pedestrian features as deemed appropriate by the City and State. Project length is 1 mile.
ProjectJustification: The 1992 Average Daily Traffic (ALT) Count is 18,800 vehicles per day
(vpd) and the capacity of this segment is 15,000 vpd. The project is a high priority
implementation measure of the "East Central Durham Plan". Intersections at NC 147, Liberty
Street, Angier Avenue, Holloway Street, and Main Street areNos.8, 15, 19, 38, and 49,
respectively, on the City's highest accident location report. This is the major access
route to N.C. Central University from 1-85. .
,stimated Total Cost: N/A
Potential Funding Source(s): STP
NHS x SIT CMAQ Other -
Section 9 Section 3 , State
•
,
rs —2-"'a•r ! st,,—‘` as ' x lc" 1: ....i ..ta . ' totica Ave.
-
itc,1
1 ...„,._
. .
p .:.,,,,,, 4 wi s-, . • .... i 1 g 1 I., f...4 g cr ley
■ • '- ,, 40 i e.N9.. . ,/, iti 0044 <)(• ",:f.1:
a A . ""0), •1 ' .40 'a'" t' i Liza be th rf 1
cc'. 'd'e• -W • ki ek'.... -4%11,- u, .6 1
44 p • ,s, ,.. I .: , 1 h 4..415Il §
1
Wa 4 Ater/sc
1 .
,...2.:,,t„ ,,tkiit, .. .. eiv.4, ,4.•,1,-z AMR cs t..I i
4..-• ....-"c.-.,:vorz,: i 3,-„--..,...--„,-,„ ,, ,§. ,s,
dsi h a4e9 4.e,S•4t,4c.,'A 7t 2.t-7°1`.2*7.4-'...1. 4.i't.r7 aAll?4.'.4:.-..-cI.'.S*t.i'°r 0 'I‘.'+
'-'c'3,,,.4i,tZ 4 1)7 ,;' 4I.q A•.,-i
iri,ii„,r,i,,`'8---''`,.3?i.h1,■'
,v.>
a;',-'i—ttc...:..,5*1,-"8.t.B.4a1..•
i ...
''
i-
rnes■Ave. Calvin ntr So
..0.r0..
AiHyde' FLk Ave.
? ' W Ma.le
8161PIEPcr ”:
4,.. AS) ,°y° ti pi ca. 1 loa 200
.6'.5.,. 41) • 5,•4.1 - .,_, . sbrice sc.: _
MPL
• 17.
Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program
Project Request Form
Project-Fide: . Miscellaneous Transit Capital and Maintenance
Project Category: Requesting Agency: City of Durham Regional Priority 20
Highway Local Priority Number:, 8 MPO Approval
x Public Transit TIP ID Number:
Bicycle (if applicable) . •
Enhancement
• _
Project Description: Miscellaneous transit capital and maintenance
Project Justification: Items needed to replace existing equipment and/or supplement
administrative- needs, increase efficiency of maintenance department and maximize
use of capital funds versus operating funds.
EstirnatedTotalCost $481,400: $385,120 Federal, $48,140 State, $48,140 Local
Potential Funding Source(s):
NHS x STP CMAQ Other .
Section 9 x Section 3 State
11 95 FY 96 FY 97 FY 98 FY 99
-0- Computer Equip. Office Furn. 1 Support Computer Equip.
$20,000 - $10,000 Vehicle $5,000
$15,000
•
3 Support Passenger
Vehicles Amenities
$36,000 $30,000
•
Bus Tires Bus Tires Bus Tires Bus Tires Bus Tires
$52,500 $55,125 $56,775 $59,600 $61,400
Associated Maintenance
Capital Equipment
Maintenance $50,000
Items •
$30,000 •
\,
J
1g _
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FDP\
REGKJNALPHOJE[TPR|DR[�'UBTFOR �E '
THE DURHAM—CHAPEL HILL—CARABORO URBAN AREA
FY1QQS - 2OO1
(1/12/Q3)
Potential
Funding
Priority Project Description Justification
Source
1. Chapel Hill Transit capital projects FY 1994-95. * Preventive maintenance 8eo3/9
* Improvements at transit stops GTP
2. US 15-501 corridor improvements to include * Development pressure NHS
freeway conversion between MIX Pkway and * Over a million sq. ft. of
1-40; and intersection improvements at Erwin development request
Road and Sage Road between 1-40 and pending
Franklin St. in Chapel Hill, subject to the * Congestion
Corridor Plan to be be approved by affected * Regional Access
jurisdictions.
3. 1-85:Advance and compress construction *Traffic distruption NH3
schedule for Durham Co. segments, and use * Economic impacts on
of best management prtices in Durham businesses and business
and Orange Counties. recruitment
4. Site acquisition and construction of a * DATA downtown terminal Sec 3
multi—modal transportation center in Durham inadequate STP
*Amtrak terminal inadequate CMAQ
* Inadequate inter city
bus terminal
* No regional transit terminal
* Encourages non auto
alternatives
5. Congestion Management Plan Study for the *18TEA mandate CMAQ
DCHC Urban Area *Will assist in developing GTp
implementation stategies
and TIP pr ject selection
6. Alston Ave (NC 55) Widening: Holloway St. to * Inadequate capacity BTp
Durham Freeway. Widen and upgrade existing * Highest accident s `gnnent
facility to a five—lane cross section, including *Avoid truck diversions
replacement of the Norfolk—Southern Railroad from RR underpass
bridges. (Durham) * Need to reserve ROW
7. Cornwallis Rd. (BF{ 1308) Bicycle and * Encourages non—auto alts. BTp
Pedestrian Enhancement Project: Upgrade * Consistent with Durham bike
existing two—lane facility from Chapel Hill Rd. plan
(SR 1127) to South Roxboro St. to a two—lane * Provides transit walk access
curb and gutter facility with four—foot bike
lanes and sidewalks (approximately 1.5 miles) .
(Durham)
' ~
8. South Columbia S Improvement of * bottleneck STp
US 15-501 South to Manning Road with * Sight distance problem.
bicycle and pedestrian accomodation. * Provides direct access to UNC
(Chapel Hill)
' '
1S.
x .
TRANSPORTA11ON IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP)
REGIONAL PROJECT PRIORITY UST FOR THE
ThE DURHAM—CHAPEL HILL—CARRBORO URBAN AREA
FY1QQ5 - 2OO1 •
(1/12/93) _
Potential
Funding
Priority Project Description Justification Source
Q. Rosemary Street: Sidewalk infill from Carrboro * Fill missing links STP
Town limits to Boundary Street. (Chapel Hill) * Promotes pedestrian mode
10. Nash Street (SR 115G>vertioa( alignment *Accident problem STP
improvement: King St. to Revere Road. *Access to school
(Hillsborough) * Heavy truck movement
11. Mineral Springs Road (SR 1917) Improvement: * Accidents STP
US 70 to Sherron Road. Widen to a multi—lane *Severe peak—hour congestion
facility, approximately 1500 ft. Also revise US 70 *Safety concerns
/Mineral Springs/Miami Blvd. intersection * Poor lane channelization
(Durham)
12. Garrett Road and Chapel Hill Rd. intersection * Bottleneck intersection STP
improvements. Upgrade intersection by adding * Severe congestion during
and extending turn lanes on all 4 approaches. peak periods
Widen Chapel Hill Rd. east to University Dr. * High accident and
to a multi lane section (Durham) safety concerns
13. Weaver Dairy Rd: Improvements to include a4 * Development pressure STP
lane cross section (NC 86 to Sage Road *To increase level of service
Extension in Chapel Hilt) *Anticipated congestion.
14. Bicycle Park and Ride: Installation of bike * Provides easy transit access STP
lockers at selected locations including NC 54 * Encourages bicycle mode
Park and Ride lot. (Chapel hill)
15. Widen Smith Level Rd.to 5 lanes from NC 54 * Capacity problem STP
Bypass to Rock Haven Rd. in Carrboro. *Anticipated congestion.
16. Widen T.W.Alexander Drive to a *Ties into existing STP
multi—lane facility from Comwailis Road to 4—lane section
Miami Blvd. (Durham) * Improves traffic flow
to RTP. Safety concerns.
17. Widen North Greensboro St. at Estes Dr. *Traffic operations problem STP
intersection to provide exclusive right turn lane * Saturation flow problem
(Carrboro)
18. Improve US 70 to accomodate tuck turning * Improves truck operation STP
movement at NC 86. (Hillsborough) *Safety concerns
19. Widen Hillandale Road from 1-85 south to * Direct acces from 1-85 STP
Club Boulevard to a multi—lane facility with to VA & Duke Hospitals
provisions for bicycle and pedestrian * Discourages traffic
facilities. (Durham) diversion to
neighborhood streets
*Anticipated congestion.
20.
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP)
REGIONAL PROJECT PRIORITY UST FOR THE
THE DURHAM—CHAPEL HILL—CARRBORO URBAN AREA
FY 1995 — 2001
_(1/12/93)
Potential
Funding
Priority Project Description Justification Source
20. DATA Miscellaneous Transit Capital * Maximizes use of capital funds STP
and Maintenance Projects. * Preventive maintenance Sec 3/9
* Maintains transit service quality
21. Fayetteville Street (SR 1118) Pedestrian Project * Pedestrian network linkage STP
Construct sidewalks along street from * Provides pedestrian
Cornwallis Road (SR 1308) to Riddle Road. access to new high school
(Durham)
22. Culbreth Road: Bike lanes from Smith Level * Encourages non—auto STP
Road to US 15-1501 South (Chapel Hill) altematives
* New major development
23. Raleigh Rd (Chapel Hill): Construct sidewalk * Improves ped access STP
on both sides from US 15-501 Bypass to * Encourages non—auto acts.
Country Club, (Chapel Hill)
24. Pittsboro Street: construct sidewalks on both * Improves ped access STP
sides of entire length (Chapel Hill) * Encourages non—auto alts,
25. Paratransit vehicle purchase for DATA *To increase level—of—service STP
* Expand paratransit service Sec 3/9
* Preventive maintenance
26. TTA bus maintenance facility for buses * Maximizes use of capital funds Sec 3
• and Tri—A—Ride vans * Preventive maintenance
* Maintains transit service quality
27. TTA Automatic Vehicle Locator System.
28. Construct two park and ride facilities in Durham * Encourages mode shift STP
* Increases transit usage Sec 3/9
* Reduces SOV dependence
29. Vehicle Procurement (Bus purchase) — for *To increase level of service Sec 3/9
Fixed Route System expansion for DATA * Expand transit service STP
* Encourages mode shift
30. Construct two park and ride facilities for TTA *Encourages mode shift Sec 3/9
* Increases transit usage STP
* Reduces SOV dependence
31. Erwin Road improvements from US 15-501 *Traffic operations problem STP
in Chapel Hill to Town Limits. (Chapel Hill) *Saturation flow problem
32, NC 54 and Page Rd widening project. Revise * Access to RTP STP
feasibility study and project scope to include * Alternative to 1-40
Hopson Connector. (Durham) * Continues existing multi
lane cross section
'�.
A '
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP)
REGIONAL PROJECT PRIORITY UST FOR ThE
THE DURHAM—CHAPEL HILL—CARRBORO URBAN AREA
FY 1995 — 2001
(1/12/93)
Potential
Funding
Priority Project Description Justification Source
33. Provide Fed. and bike access from BPW Club *Vehicular/bike conflicts STP
Road area to Westbrook Dr (Carrboro) * Encourages non—auto alts.
34. Homestead Road improvements from High * Poor sight distance STP
School Road to NC 86 (Chapel Hill) * Need for channelization
* 2 schools
* Government Services Building
35. Merritt Mill Rd. — sidewalk on east side from * Vehicular/bike conflicts STP
Cameron Ave. to Franklin St. (Chapel Hill). * Encourages non—auto alts.
36. Pope Road—Ephesus Church Road Bike lanes + Encourages non—auto alts. STP
(Chapel Hill) * Provides bike access
37. Widenfimpmve Old Fayettville Road from NC 54
to Hillsborough Rd (Carrboro)
38. Sage Road. Extension: Construct 4 lane cross * Congestion problem STP
section from Erwin Rd. to Weaver Dairy Road. * High peak volume
(Chapel Hill)
39, Widen NC 55 to a multi—lane facility from * Regional access STP
Comwallis Road to the Wake County Une *Access to RTP
(Durham) * Continues existing multi—lane
40. Old Durham/Chapel Hill oad bicycle, * Encourage alternative modes STP
pedestrian, and transit enhancement project. of transportation
* Congestion
* School traffic
41. Prepare study and plans for widening 1-40 for * Congestion problem NHS
HOV lanes from NC 147 in Durham County * High peak—hour volume
west to N C 86 in Orange County. * Regional access
42. Transit Service — NC 86 and US 15-501 South * Reduce peak—hour congestion CMAQ
park and ride * Increase transit ridership
43. DATA Transit Service — Hillandale Road/Duke * Reduce peak—hour congestion CMAQ
Hospital areas in Durham. * Reduce SOV emissions
* Increase transit ridership
22.
Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program
Project Request Form
Project Title:
Project Category: Requesting Agency: Regional Priority
Highway Local Priority Number: MPO Approval
Public Transit TIP ID Number:
Bicycle (if applicable)
Enhancement
Project Description:
Project Justification:
Estimated Total Cost:
Potential Funding Source(s):
NHS SIP CMAQ Other
Section 9 Section 3 State
23.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gene Bell, Planner III
FROM:
Slade cCalip, Planner II
DATE: September 6, 1994
SUBJECT: 1996-2002 Possible TIP Project Requests
One of the purposes of the Board of Transportation's annual TIP
Public Hearing is to gather input from the public and local elected
officials as to projects that they would like to see in next year's
TIP. Toward that goal the following transportation projects are
needed by Orange County and are long range in nature.
1) That a Long Range (20 year) Transit Development Plan for
Orange County be funded: The purpose of this study would be to
plan for and coordinate local transit development with ongoing
state and regional transit projects and plans . An example of
an ongoing state transit projects is the development of a High
Speed Rail Corridor from Raleigh to Charlotte; a feasibility
study should be performed to determine whether Hillsborough
should be a stop along this route. An example of an ongoing
regional transit project is the Triangle Fixed Guideway Study;
if this study becomes the 20 year Regional Transit Plan for
the Triangle Region there should be a plan to coordinate local
transit with regional transit.
2 ) That "Park & Ride" lots be included in the design of the
interchanges for project 1-305 (widening of 1-85 to six lanes
and reconstruction of interchanges from Orange Grove Road to
Durham County Line) . These lots if convenient to major
highways promote and accommodate the use of carpools and
vanpools.
Next year at this time the results of three transportation studies
currently being performed will provide information on needed
transportation facilities and programs. Ongoing studies include:
a) Orange County Traffic Congestion Study - an analysis of the
major roadways and intersections in the County that rates the
amount of congestion at each facility.
b) Bicycle Route Suitability Study - an analysis of the DCHC
Planned Bicycle Routes to determine the level of interaction
between vehicular traffic and bicyclists .
c) Orange County Transportation Plan - developed cooperatively
with the HillSloorough Transportation Plan (currently being
developed) to identify transportation needs and priorities .
MEMORANDUM
TO: Alice ordon, County Commissioner
FROM: Slade cCalip, Transportation Planner II
DATE: October 6, 1994
SUBJECT: Draft Orange County Transportation Priority List
COPIES: John Link, County Manager
Marvin Collins, Planning Director
Gene Bell, Planner III
Planning Board Members
EDD Infrastructure Committee Members
As per your suggestion last night at the Board of County Commissioners
meeting, I have developed a draft Orange County Transportation Priority
List ( see attachment) . Under Part A. - PROJECTS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS
PRIORITY LISTS I included the project requests from last year that have
not been acted on to provide continuity with last year's request. As
you will notice I have not included several items from last year's
request.
I did not include intersection improvements because, of the
responsiveness of Mr. T.J. Dyer, our Division Engineer, in studying
intersections and making improvements at our request. I would recommend
that in the future when we request intersection improvements of Mr
Dyer's office that we send a copy our request to Dr. Gorman Gilbert (our
NC BOT representative) . Additionally, I did not include bridge projects
because of their being programmed on a statewide "worst is first" basis .
Under Part B. - NEW PRIORITY PROJECTS I included projects that are
intended to support the infrastructure needs of the adopted Economic
Development Districts.
Please call me at 732-8181, ext. 2595 if you have any questions or would
like me to prepare materials for the October 25 BOT Public Hearing in
Yanceyville.
attachment
DRAFT 6 OCT 94 DRAFT 6 OCT 94 DRAFT 6 OCT 94 DRAFT 6 OCT 94 DRAFT
ORANGE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST
FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION
ON OCTOBER 25, 1994
PART A. - PROJECTS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PRIORITY LISTS
PROJECTS WITHIN THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO
METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREA
1) I-305: widening of I-85 to six lanes and reconstruction of
interchanges from Orange Grove Road to Durham County Line -
a) At this time the erosion control measures for this project are
to be designed in 2001. Orange County requests that permanent
erosion control measures be included in the 1996-2002 TIP as a
line item.
b) Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities - Project planning for this
facility is scheduled to begin in April, 1998 . Orange County
requests that its staff be allowed to participate in the
determination of where and what type of facilities are to be
included in this project.
c) Wildlife Corridor Under I-85 - Orange County requests that its
staff be allowed to participate during this part of the planning
stage and that this issue be brought to the attention of the NCDOT
Staff Biologist.
cc: J. Wilson Stroud, Project Planning Unit Head, Planning &
Environmental Branch, Division of Highways, NCDOT, (919) -733-3141.
2 ) Homestead Road Widening.
The project limits were expanded in the 1995-2001 TIP from (High
School Road to Sewell School Road) to (Highschool Road to Airport
Road) .
3) Bridge over Morgan Creek at Arboretum/Ashe Place flndependent
Bicycle Program Projectl .
This project is not listed in the 1995-2001 TIP.
4 ) US 15-501 Widening from Morgan Creek to Chatham County Line IR-
9421 and Chatham Connector IR-29241 .
5) Projects Built with the STP Attributable Allocation.
We request again that the STP Attributable Allocations be listed
as separate items in the 1996-2002 TIP.
DRAFT 6 OCT 94 DRAFT 6 OCT 94 DRAFT 6 OCT 94 DRAFT 6 OCT 94 DRAFT
PROJECTS IN ORANGE COUNTY OUTSIDE OF THE
URBANIZED AREA BOUNDARY
1) I-304 : widening of 1-85 to eight lanes and reconstruction of
interchanges from NC 54 (in Alamance County) to Dimmocks Mill Road
- NCDOT has installed temporary erosion control measures according
to NCDOT standards. Orange County requests that permanent erosion
control measures be implemented, the existing measures are
currently scheduled for removal upon project completion. NCDOT
currently has no plans for erosion control measures after
completion of construction.
cc: Warren Faircloth, Orange County Erosion Control Supervisor,
732-8181 ext. 2586.
2) Railroad Grade Crossing Improvements - Countywide,
a) Improvements are requested again for the following railroad
crossings; 1) Southern Railway / Buckhorn Road (SR 1114 ) , 2)
Southern Railway / Mt. Willing Road (SR 1120) , and 3) Southern
Railway / Mt. Herman Church Road (SR 1713) .
cc: Don Adams, Railroad/Highway Grade Crossing Safety Engineer,
NCDOT Traffic Engineering Branch (919) 733-3915.
DRAFT 6 OCT 94 DRAFT 6 OCT 94 DRAFT 6 OCT 94 DRAFT 6 OCT 94 DRAFT
PART B. - NEW PRIORITY PROJECTS
1) I-304 : widening of I-85 to eight lanes and reconstruction of
interchanges from NC 54 (in Alamance County) to Dimmocks Mill Road
- Orange County requests that the following infrastructure
improvements be made to the I-85/Buckhorn Road Economic
Development District:
a) Widen Buckhorn Road to 24 feet (two 12 ' travel lanes) .
b) Improve the Southern Railway / Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) railroad
crossing.
c) Improve the Intersection of Buckhorn Road and US 70 to include
turn lanes and improved turning radii.
2 ) I-305 : widening of I-85 to six lanes and reconstruction of
interchanges from Orange Grove Road to Durham County Line - Orange
County requests that the following infrastructure improvements be
made to the I-85/US 70 Economic Development District:
a) Intersection of Pleasant Green Road & Mt Herman Church Road -
This intersection has recently been studied by the NCDOT Division
7 Traffic Engineers. The NCDOT Traffic Engineers recommend that
this intersection be included as a part of I-305 because of its
proximity to the I-85/US 70 interchange. The entire intersection
needs to be realigned so that Pleasant Green Road can intersect US
70 at a 90 degree angle.
b) US 70 from NC 751 to University Station Road - Due to the needs
of the Pleasant Green Road\US 70 intersection, Orange County
requests that US 70 be upgraded to a 4 lane divided highway from
NC 751 to University Station Road.
c) Mt Herman Church Road - Preliminary plans by the Planning &
Environmental Branch, Division of Highways of NCDOT indicate that
this road is to be relocated as part of I-305. Orange County
requests that this road be designed with 12 ' wide travel lanes and
4 ' wide bicycle lanes, total paved width of 32 ' .
d) Old NC 10 - Preliminary plans by the Planning & Environmental
Branch, Division of Highways of NCDOT indicate that this road is
to be relocated as part of I-305. Orange County requests that
this road be designed with 12 ' wide travel lanes and 4 ' wide
bicycle lanes, total paved width of 32 ' .
e) Park and Ride Facilities - Project planning for this facility
is scheduled to begin in April, 1998 . Orange County requests that
its staff be allowed to participate in the determination of where
and what type of facilities are to be included in this project.
DRAFT 6 OCT 94 DRAFT 6 OCT 94 DRAFT 6 OCT 94 DRAFT 6 OCT 94 DRAFT
3) Transit Planning - It is increasingly evident, through the
Triangle Fixed Guideway Study and other research, that Orange
County needs to begin Transit Planning to include the following:
a) Feasibility Study for an AMTRAK Station in Hillsborough.
b) Twenty Year Transit Development Plan for Orange County that
would coordinate local transit planning with the Triangle Fixed
Guideway Study recommendations.