Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard agenda 011817 AGENDA Orange Unified Transportation Board January 18, 2017 6:30 p.m. You can bring your laptops/tablets if you would like to use them. Conference Room 004 (Lower Floor) Orange County West Campus 131 West Margaret Lane, Hillsborough Time Item Title 6:30 6:35 1. 2. Call to Order and Determination of Quorum Introduction of New OUTBoard Members 6:40 6:45 6:50 7:40 8:10 8:20 8:30 3. 4. 5. 5.a. 5b. 6. 6.a. 7. 8. Approval of Minutes from November 16 , 2016 Consideration of Additions to the Agenda Regular OUTBoard Agenda (Action Items) Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) (Max Bushell, Andy Henry, DCHC MPO, and Julie Bollinger, Transportation Planning Branch, NCDOT) OUTBoard Action: Receive a presentation on the purpose of the CTP; review and comment on the Draft CTP maps, and forward to the BOCC at its February 7, 2017 meeting for consideration. Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Plan Implementation Discussion (Abigaile Pittman) OUTBoard Action: Discuss implementation and identify next steps. Informational Items NCDOT Division 7 transportation projects located in the DCHC MPO planning area. (Max Bushell) OUTBoard Action on all informational items: Receive information and provide any comments that the Board might have. Board Comments Adjournment Charge of the OUTBoard (from Section I, Part C of the adopted Rules and Procedures) 1 1. The OUT Board is charged with advising the Board of County Commissioners on the planning and programming of transportation infrastructure improvements and other County transportation planning initiatives, as directed by the Board. 2. From time to time the OUT Board may be directed to provide input on regulations on which the Planning Board has primary statutory and local ordinance advisory duties. In such instances, the OUT Board shall serve in an advisory capacity to the Planning Board. Meetings (from Section IV, Part C of the adopted Rules and Procedures) C. Date, Time, and Location of Regular Meetings 3. Regular meetings of the OUT Board shall be held as needed to address items that require Board action consistent with its Charge and Duties identified herein. Meetings are held on the third Wednesday of the month. The start time and location of the meeting shall be included on the agenda and shall typically be 6:30 p.m. at the Orange County West Campus Office Building located at 131 West Margaret Lane, Hillsborough. The OUT Board Chair, in consultation with staff, shall have the authority to change the start time and location of a regular meeting to meet any special circumstances, provided the information is included on the distributed agenda. 2 DRAFT 1 MINUTES 1 ORANGE COUNTY OUTBOARD 2 NOVEMBER 16, 2016 3 REGULAR MEETING 4 5 6 MEMBERS PRESENT: Heidi Perry (Chair), At-Large Representative; Art Menius, At-Large Representative; Jeff Charles, 7 At-Large Representative; David Laudicina, Cheeks Township Representative; Brantley Wells, Hillsborough Township 8 Representative; Erle Smith, Chapel Hill Township Representative, Alex Castro (Vice-Chair), Bingham Township 9 Representative; Gary Saunders, At-Large Representative; Donna Musson, Eno Township Representative. 10 11 12 MEMBERS ABSENT: John Rubin, At-Large Representative; Ed Vaughn, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Ted 13 Triebel, Little River Township Representative; Alyson West, At-Large. 14 15 16 STAFF PRESENT: Peter Murphy, OPT Transportation Administrator; Malcum Massenburg, OPT Transportation 17 Assistant Administrator; Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use Planner; Max Bushell, Transportation Planner; 18 Meredith Kern, Administrative Assistant. 19 20 OTHERS PRESENT FOR TRANSIT ADVISORY SERVICES: Nancy Baker, Walkable Hillsborough Coalition; Amy Cole, 21 Walkable Hillsborough Coalition. 22 23 AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 24 25 Heidi Perry called the meeting to order. 26 27 AGENDA ITEM 2: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 28 SEPTEMBER 21, 2016 REGULAR MEETING 29 30 Heidi Perry pointed out a revision on page 3 of the Minutes; line 138, to add what item 7 referred to in the motion to 31 remove it; which was to promote development of new regional division prioritization criteria for highway 32 modernization projects. And another revisions on page 4, line 160, to clarify that David Laudicina told the Board that 33 at the BOCC meeting the night before we met they had discussed the GoTriangle evaluation of extending light rail 34 between Alston Avenue to NCCU, and that Earl was considering re-evaluating his support for the light rail transit 35 project. 36 37 MOTION by Art Menius to approve the September 21, 2016 OUTBoard Minutes with the two revisions. Seconded by 38 Alex Castro 39 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 40 41 AGENDA ITEM 3: PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION TO AMY COLE 42 43 Heidi Perry presented certificate. 44 45 AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 46 47 Heidi Perry asked if they could add picking a date for the discussion of OPT marketing to the November 16 48 OUTBoard agenda. 49 50 AGENDA ITEM 5: TRANSIT SERVICES/ORANGE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION (OPT) 51 52 3 DRAFT 2 AGENDA ITEM 5A. OPT QUARTERLY OPERATIONAL UPDATES – (PETER MURPHY) 53 54 Peter Murphy Presented 55 56 Heidi Perry asked if the problem with lack of bus drives was a problem other systems were having or if it was unique 57 to Orange County. Peter Murphy answered that it was not unique to Orange County, and referred to a recent article 58 about how bad it was getting in Alamance County. 59 60 Peter continued presentation. 61 62 Heidi Perry asked if they were asking people who weren’t using the service and what would make them use it. Peter 63 Murphy answered that it would be a good thing to ask and that one of the things they were considering putting on the 64 agenda was a survey that Human Resources did about that, and they’ve put a report together for the BOCC based 65 on that. He explained further that they will be reaching out to people and that’s something they’d want to know. 66 67 Jeff Charles asked how much more ridership they can take on and if they would be over capacity. Peter Murphy 68 answered that they’re nowhere near reaching full capacity and if they did run into that problem that it would be a good 69 problem and there’s a formula for that but that OPT is years away from reaching that point. 70 71 Alex Castro inquired about the limit on wheelchairs. Peter Murphy explained that there are two seats lost to every 72 wheelchair but it will only be one lost with the buses they’re buying now. 73 74 Dave Laudicina inquired about the bus rapid transit that Chapel Hill is planning and asked about thoughts on long-75 term plans. Peter Murphy answered that they’re absolutely looking at what Chapel Hill Transit is proposing, and that 76 ridership is higher when they don’t have to transfer. He explained further that when they meet with the staff working 77 group through the OC prep plan those are the types of things that are discussed and they have it predicted as 78 starting in 2018. 79 80 Peter Murphy continued presentation. 81 82 Alex Castro asked about the Go Passes and if they will have to swipe it or just show it. Peter Murphy answered that 83 it’s only being done the manual way now but they do have the approval to buy the fare boxes and are going to put in 84 the card readers. Alex Castro commented on the new bus shelter that was at Cedar Grove and commented that it 85 just needed to have a bus route map displayed. Peter Murphy added that all the stops on the Hillsborough Circulator 86 side need to have signs installed. Alex Castro inquired about having shelters at other locations. Peter Murphy 87 answered that they’ll be putting together a list for shelters as part of the OC prep plan that’s being worked on now 88 and advised the Board that now is the time to let us know of specific locations that they think would be good to add 89 shelters because there are definitely funds available under the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan. 90 91 92 AGENDA ITEM 5B. MARKETING OPT’S ROUTES AND SERVICE CHANGES – (PETER MURPHY AND MAX BUSHELL) 93 94 Max Bushell Presented 95 96 Jeff Charles asked if there was a local app for all of these transportation systems. Gary Saunders replied that there is 97 one that most of the transportation services are using in the region and that it’s called TransLoc. He further explained 98 that TansLoc ties into whatever system you are operating and as long as the transponder and the locator are working 99 on the bus you can actually see where the bus is and it’s all selectable. Peter Murphy added that you can find most 100 things on GoTriangle’s site. He stated that the first step is having the locators on the bus and that’s part of the 101 technology they’re adding. His intent is to talk to TransLoc about it because they really only need to track the fixed 102 routes for the general public, which is a very small portion of OPT’s service. He explained that it would be very 103 4 DRAFT 3 expensive but there can probably be something done fairly reasonably. He added that the tablets they’re adding will 104 be trackable also and they’ll be able to see where the buses are. 105 106 Max Bushell summarized that they need the Board to suggest any other locations shelters should be placed, and 107 also to suggest any other technology that might help. 108 109 The Board provided the following suggestions: The Courthouse by Chapel Hill and Hillsborough, and the Jail; any 110 public buildings that are close to the bus service should let people know that it’s an available service; the North 111 Carolina Hospital in Hillsborough; Durham Technical Community College should have the information on their 112 website with something to draw attention to it; radio spots advertising the service; social media could be used to get 113 the information out; any schools that the buses go near should get the information out to students; Walmart and the 114 Senior Center are places where they could let more people know that the service is available; and it should be 115 advertised around Weaver Street Market. 116 117 Heidi Perry suggested that people don’t need so much detailed information right away. That they just need to know 118 that there’s a bus that serves that area and how to find out more information about it. 119 120 Peter Murphy suggested having a Tri Transit week. He explained that this is done around the beginning of the school 121 year in bigger cities and the Healthy Carolinians Group may be voting on picking a Tri Transit week in Durham where 122 there would be no charge for fare. He added that doing this would probably need approval because it’s a monetary 123 item and they may need to bring it to the BOCC. Heidi Perry suggested doing prizes to get people to ride the bus and 124 those prizes could also be a way to get email addresses to notify if they’ve won something. And then they could send 125 out the information they need to. Heidi Perry also suggested doing Tri Transit in September versus August so people 126 would be settled in with school. 127 128 Erie Smith inquired about ridership demographics. Peter Murphy answered that it was actually pretty well mixed with 129 a wide variety. 130 131 Jeff Charles asked what it would cost for the County to go to ride free and what the benefits would be for that versus 132 not doing this, and how much is paid for the Go Passes. Peter Murphy explained that UNC pays fifty cents on the 133 dollar for riders and then the County bills them for everyone riding using the pass on an OPT bus. He added that right 134 now they’re charging full fare but once the agreement is worked out he’ll be charging them for everyone that boards 135 the bus and ultimately Durham Tech’s going to pay more. He added that it’s a huge sum of money for ridership near 136 the large universities. 137 138 Peter Murphy confirmed that he’d get all the information together for the next meeting and would add a pie chart to 139 show where money’s coming from and how the fares fall into total revenue. He also confirmed that September will be 140 the targeted month. 141 142 AGENDA ITEM 6: REGULAR OUTBOARD AGENDA (ACTION ITEMS) 143 144 145 6A. OUTBOARD ANNUAL REPORT (2016) AND WORK PLAN (2017) – (ABIGAILE PITTMAN) 146 147 Abigaile Pittman Presented. 148 149 Heidi Perry referenced the anticipated activity regarding the review of appropriate linkages between economic 150 development area access management plans and CTP/MTP documents of the BG MPO and DCHC MPO for the 151 purpose of addressing the dedication of right-of-way under local ordinances. She asked why the CTP/MTP maps 152 were separate instead of compiled together. Max Bushell explained that if the maps were compiled it would be a 153 mess of lines and too hard to understand. He explained further that the connectivity with local access management 154 plans was important in order to maintain connectivity. Abigaile Pittman explained that the ability to require right-of-155 5 DRAFT 4 way dedication a statutory right that North Carolina towns have but not counties. Therefore, crafting this linkage 156 between our access management plan(s) and the CTP/MTP documents is a way to ensure our right to require right-157 of-way dedication at the time of development, as warranted. The revised CTP/MTP documents are being approved 158 by the MPO’s and RPO’s. Jeff Charles was concerned that legislature was going to have a problem with this and 159 inquired if this had been done before. Abigaile Pittman confirmed that the process had already been approved by 160 NCDOT and as they are the ones that created it it’s also already approved in the Burlington/Graham MPO and is 161 going forward next year for the DCHC MPO. And Max Bushell also confirmed they’ve done their due diligence and 162 checked through various lawyers. 163 164 Abigaile Pittman continued presentation. 165 166 Abigaile Pittman was reviewing the list of items of concerns or emerging issues that they want the BOCC to be aware 167 of, and wanted to know how the Board wanted to word their efforts on Safe Routes to School. Heidi Perry suggested 168 titling it “Pursue implementation opportunities for Safe Routes to School”. 169 170 Alex Castro inquired about research for funding. Abigaile Pittman explained that it didn’t have to be federal, just any 171 kinds of funding sources, which could even be County. 172 173 Jeff Charles inquired about the light rail and pointed out how it keeps being delayed year after year, and inquired 174 about all the money that was going into it. Max Bushell explained that they’re 15% short of funding right now, which is 175 about 200 million dollars. Jeff Charles asked what will happen to the money when the plan just doesn’t go through. 176 Max Bushell answered that some of the money has been expended in the process of trying to get it built but not all of 177 it. He went on to say that essentially there will be a new plan developed to achieve the same purpose and that it’s 178 something they’re working on but the process has been set back a couple of years. 179 180 Abigaile Pittman reviewed item 4. 181 182 Jeff Charles questioned whether the bicycle related things should be kept on there due to the fact that state 183 legislatures have taken away current and future funding for it. Heidi Perry suggested leaving it on there just in case 184 there is funding that becomes available to bicycle related things. Heidi Perry also inquired about why electric bikes 185 were separated. Abigaile Pittman explained that it was a carryover from last year. It was agreed to take them out. 186 187 Abigaile Pittman referred to the item “To work with NCDOT to promote funding of pedestrian and bicycle projects in 188 rural areas to a greater degree”. Jeff Charles commented that they need to come up with some issues that they have 189 some chance to be successful with. Alex Castro made an item addition suggestion regarding a commuter rail going 190 from Garner to West Durham. He proposed that they find a way to make an extension of the currently planned 191 commuter rail from West Durham to the Hillsborough Amtrak state. He added that Hillsborough’s population if going 192 to double with everything planned and there could be a lot of people very interested in having that service. It was 193 agreed to call it “Explore expansion of commuter rail”. 194 195 Jeff Charles recommended point 4 be modified regarding connectivity between Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Bicycle 196 Pedestrian Plans. 197 198 MOTION by Art Menius to approve the Work Plan for 2017 with the discussed revisions, and with item 4 being 199 modified to address connectivity and infrastructural changes. Seconded by Alex Castro. 200 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 201 202 6.B. NEXT OUTBOARD MEETING DATE - (ABIGAILE PITTMAN) 203 204 Abigaile Pittman suggested that the Board not meet in December due to the holidays and the lack of agenda items 205 for the meeting. The items they have for the next meeting would not be ready until January. 206 207 6 DRAFT 5 Jeff Charles commented that with the understanding that they put in significant time to discuss the Safe Routes to 208 School. Heidi Perry agreed that should be on the next meeting agenda. 209 210 MOTION by Jeff Charles to not meet in December, but to have the Board’s next meeting on January 18, 2017. 211 Seconded by Alex Castro. 212 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 213 214 AGENDA ITEM 7: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 215 216 217 7.A. UPDATE ON SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION CONCEPTS BY WALKABLE HILLSBOROUGH – (AMY 218 COLE) 219 220 Amy Cole Presented 221 222 Abigaile Pittman suggested that Amy Cole inform the Board about the smaller SRTS Plan projects that Hillsborough 223 recommended in a recent meeting. Amy Cole informed the Board of two smaller projects that Hillsborough thinks 224 could be accomplished much quicker and would help to build interest in their cause with the community. The first was 225 to build a little pedestrian bridge over a creek on Hayes Street for Central Elementary School students. The second 226 was to build in a gate at the back of the field of Orange High School, which would give students quicker, more direct 227 and safer access to the school. 228 229 Amy Cole continued her presentation. 230 231 Jeff Charles expressed the importance of getting someone on the BOCC to be their advocate for this project to get 232 this pushed forward and that they need to get political support. 233 234 Amy Cole also explained that they have to find access to the federal funding to which the County would have to 235 provide a 20 percent match for, and that this is going to be difficult. Max Bushell explained that this is something else 236 the BOCC would have to sign off on and that there would also have to be someone accountable to manage the 237 project and the maintenance and liability issues once the project is completed. 238 239 Heidi Perry suggested keeping this one as of the OUTBoard’s priorities. She also suggested that Amy Cole come to 240 the meeting presenting this to the BOCC as a citizen. Heidi Perry also said that she would speak to some of the 241 County Commissioners to see if they’re interested in being a supporter or if they can recommend someone who 242 could be. 243 244 Jeff Charles suggested also getting policy regarding maintenance involved, getting the press involved, getting a 245 reporter to go out there themselves to see first hand what’s going on, and getting pictures with vehicles going by. He 246 pointed out that a lot of people see this going on and they need to apply pressure on policy to move forward. Art 247 Menius then informed the Board that he had a column coming out soon in the Chapel Hill News about the dangers of 248 the bridge over I-40. 249 250 Jeff Charles mentioned the many years the Board has spent trying to accomplish this and thinks that should be 251 pointed out. Abigaile Pittman informed the Board that Hillsborough has brought up some of the same issues and if 252 they want to move forward there’s going to need to be a different way of approaching it because Hillsborough has 253 also said that they don’t have money to spend. She also mentioned that Hillsborough brought up the two smaller 254 projects they thought could be successful that could be done until they’re able to figure out how to approach bigger 255 projects. 256 257 7 DRAFT 6 Max Bushell informed the Board that Hillsborough mentioned that it was proposed that someone build a sidewalk 258 along Orange Grove Road and that there might be a case to be made that if there’s sidewalk along some stretch it 259 would be easier and more affordable to connect the sidewalk segments. 260 261 Heidi Perry asked how they wanted to proceed. Abigaile Pittman informed her that she would need a revised request. 262 Abigaile also stated that she would provide something specific incorporating the short-term items that were 263 suggested at the next meeting. 264 265 Jeff Charles asked if there was a way of tracking the progress of the BOCC’s discussion on the matter and the 266 process it would go through. Abigaile Pittman explained that there has been some internal discussion on how to 267 structure it because it’s an unusual situation given that there are multiple groups and jurisdictions reviewing related 268 issues (the OUTBoard, Walkable Hillsborough, the Bicycle Safety Task Force, the BOCC, and the Town of 269 Hillsborough). This matter can be discussed in more detail at the January 18 meeting. 270 271 Alex Castro asked why the School Board wasn’t involved. Abigaile Pittman answered that they would be at a certain 272 point in time, when project proposals move forward. Amy Cole informed the Board that they’re just waiting on 273 approval from the Orange County School Board for Walkable Hillsborough’s letters to be released to all of the 274 families. 275 276 Heidi Perry again suggested putting this on the agenda for January 18. She added that in the meantime she would 277 speak to some members of the BOCC to find a champion. There was a lot of discussion of when it would come 278 before the BOCC and it wasn’t able to be settled at this point in time so it was agreed to be tabled for the January 279 meeting. 280 281 282 7.B. HILLSBOROUGH TRAIN STATION – (MAX BUSHELL) 283 284 Max Bushell Presented 285 286 Dave Laudicina inquired about whether there would be a short extra track that would branch off so other trains could 287 get by. Max Bushell answered that this is not being considered in this plan as far as he knows. 288 289 7.B. NCDOT DIVISION 7 TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS LOCATED IN THE DCHC MPO PLANNING AREA – (MAX BUSHELL) 290 291 Max Bushell Presented 292 293 Jeff Charles asked if Max had received an update about the bridge on Borland. Max Bushell told him that he would 294 have to try to follow up with Chuck Edwards, NCDOT again. Brantley Wells informed the Board that he was in that 295 area recently and there were fresh stakes so it looks like there is definitely work beginning on it. 296 297 AGENDA ITEM 8: BOARD COMMENTS 298 299 No Comments. 300 301 AGENDA ITEM 9: ADJOURNMENT 302 303 OUTBoard meeting was adjourned by consensus. 304 305 306 ____________________________________ Heidi Perry, Chair 8 ORANGE COUNTY ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD (OUTBoard) ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: January 18, 2017 Action Agenda Item No. 5.a. SUBJECT: Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Comprehensive Transportation Plan DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): 1. Comprehensive Transportation Plan Presentation 2. Draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan Maps 3. Draft Highway Minimum Problem Statements 4. 1985 Thoroughfare Plan Maps for the Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization INFORMATION CONTACT: Max Bushell, Transportation Planner, 919-245-2582 Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor, 919-245-2579 Craig Benedict, Planning Director, 919-245-2592 PURPOSE: To review the Draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) maps for the Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) and receive a presentation on the purpose of the CTP. BACKGROUND: The Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) is a document prepared at the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) level and identifies roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure improvements for future implementation. The North Carolina Department of Transportation requires MPOs to produce a CTP; these plans are often the product of a joint planning effort between MPO planning staff, NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch staff, and local planners. Once adopted, the CTP will replace county and local community thoroughfare plans. CTP Purpose The purpose of the CTP is to identify a universe of potential future highway, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure projects for the MPO’s planning area, based on identified needs. CTPs typically have a horizon year, or year of proposed full implementation, of more than 20 years into the future and are fiscally unconstrained. Using the Triangle Regional Model (TRM), the travel demand model for the Triangle region, a deficiency analysis is conducted on the current roadway network to better understand where and how future growth in employment and population will affect the transportation network. The deficiency analysis also examines metrics for transit, bicycling, and walking. CTPs are adopted by the MPO Board as well as by the North Carolina Board of Transportation. Once adopted, CTPs represent the mutual vision on the part of the State, local jurisdictions, and the MPO for future transportation needs. The presentation, provided in Attachment 1, will 9 provide more information about the CTP, its relationship to other plans, and its importance with respect to reserving right-of-way. Deficiency Analysis In order to program improvements to infrastructure, the CTP includes a deficiency analysis, which uses socioeconomic data (SE Data) generated from a land use model (CommunityViz) to forecast future transportation demand. SE Data includes households and employment. Since households and employment are generators and attractors for trips, an understanding of where new households and employment opportunities are likely to occur is crucial to forecasting future travel demand. With the household and employment location data as a focused input, the TRM forecasts demand for the current network, ultimately producing a map indicating future transportation deficiencies across the Triangle region. Roadways that are significantly over capacity in future years and/or roadways with a significant safety issue are programmed for improvement in the CTP. Transit demand is also evaluated by forecasting population and examining density thresholds in traffic analysis zones (TAZs), while bicycle and pedestrian projects are generated through an analysis of non-motorized trips and potentially hazardous intersections. Existing deficiencies are identified for each mode and projects are generated for inclusion on the CTP maps. Relationship to Other Plans The CTP is the overarching transportation plan for the DCHC MPO. As a State requirement, the CTP replaces the thoroughfare plans that have been conducted in North Carolina since the 1950s. With a focus on multi-modal transportation, the CTP is designed to work within a planning framework, which includes the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). As indicated, the CTP includes all of the projects needed to address transportation deficiencies in the future without regard for fiscal constraint. The MTP, a Federal requirement, takes the initial CTP project list and programs improvements within a minimum 20-year planning horizon. This plan is fiscally constrained and focuses more attention on critical projects for funding and the phasing of project implementation. The STIP is a 10-year funding program. Projects are drawn from the MTP and put forward to the State’s prioritization process for inclusion in the STIP. Attachment 1 contains a graphic that explains this relationship in detail. Products The final CTP will contain two distinct elements, the CTP Maps (Attachment 2) and the CTP Study Report. The CTP Study Report contains a great deal of background information including problem statements for specific projects and a summary of the CTP process. The Highway Minimum Problem Statements document is provided as an example (Attachment 3). The entire draft document, all of the maps, and explanatory tables for each mode can be found at this link: http://bit.ly/2bv3RQV. It is important to note that the NCDOT Board of Transportation only approves the CTP maps; this body does not approve the CTP Study Report. This is important, especially for Orange County, as Orange County Transportation Planning staff has advocated for the inclusion of a footnote linking the CTP to local access management plans in both the CTP Study Report and on the CTP maps. By including this footnote on the maps, the Board of Transportation will be aware of the addition and will approve the footnote along with the maps. 10 CTP Footnote In many communities, the dedication of right-of-way for the construction of new facilities or the enhancement of existing facilities is handled using subdivision/land development ordinances or special zoning entitlements. In Orange County, however, land is often developed “by right” under existing zoning. In order to compel developers/sub-dividers/etc. to dedicate right-of-way for new streets/highways or to improve existing streets/highways, an adopted CTP is required. The CTP requirement would only apply if the jurisdiction is interested in acquiring the dedication through its zoning or subdivision control ordinances and/or special zoning entitlements. It is the opinion of the County Attorney that no other planning policy guide (e.g. small area plans, locally adopted corridor plans, special district plans, etc.) can legally compel right-of-way dedication when the dedication is being sought through zoning, subdivision, or any other land use control ordinances. With this in mind, staff has worked with the MPO and with NCDOT Transportation Planning branch for over two years to create language linking local access management plans and small area plans to the CTP, i.e. to ensure that the roadway alignments in these plans are equivalent to CTP alignments. This will provide solid footing to support requiring the dedication of the right- of-way in development projects that are programmed “by right.” The following language has been tentatively finalized for inclusion on the CTP maps. A longer, more explanatory passage will also be included in the CTP Study Report. The concepts shown on a CTP are for planning purposes and are subject to change. These concepts will need additional analysis to meet state and federal environmental regulations, to determine final locations and designs, and to be funded for implementation. Local zoning or subdivision ordinances may require the dedication of right of way based on the concepts shown on the CTP and local collector street plans, based on N.C.G.S. § 136-66.2 and § 136-66.10. For the purposes of Orange County, access management plans and small area plans are referenced in the CTP as including collector street plan alignments. Next Steps The CTP Report document and the CTP maps have undergone an internal NCDOT review. At this point in the process, the DCHC MPO is currently accepting public comment on the CTP maps. The CTP maps can be found here: http://www.dchcmpo.org/programs/ctp/default.asp. The NCDOT Board of Transportation will approve the CTP maps in early 2017. Staff reviewed the 1985 un-adopted Thoroughfare Plan for Orange County as well as the Thoroughfare plans for Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough to ensure that undesirable projects had not been carried forward to the CTP. The maps from these plans are provided in Attachment 4. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact associated with this item. RECOMMENDATION(S): Staff recommends that the OUTBoard: 1. Receive the information; 2. Review the draft Comprehensive Transportation Plan alignments; and 3. Provide any comments on Attachment 2 that the OUTBoard may have for the Board of County Commissioners. 11 Comprehensive Transportation Plan At t a c h m e n t 1 Review: ◦Relationship to Other Plans ◦CTP Schedule ◦Products Maps Tables Thoroughfare Plans vs. CTP Complete Streets Element CTP Footnote Next Steps Comprehensive Transportation Plan Metropolitan Transportation Plan Transportation Improvement Program Contains all projects needed to address all deficiencies in the roadway network. Also contains transit recommendations, based on population forecasts and future density calculations. Bicycle and pedestrian projects are generated through an analysis of non-motorized trips and potentially hazardous intersections as well as local plans. Plan Horizon Identifies Fiscally Constrained Adopted by: Requirement? Comprehensive Transportation Plan 30+ Years Existing and Planned Facilities No, i.e. all projects MPO Board and NCDOT Board of Transportation State of North Carolina Metropolitan Transportation Plan 20 Year Minimum Planned Facilities Yes, only projects prioritized in 10 year increments MPO Board (and FHWA) Federal State Transportation Improvement Program 10 Years Funded Facilities (first 5 Years) and Developmental Program (second 5 Years) Yes MPO Board, NCDOT, Endorsement by Local Governments State of North Carolina January 2015 Published draft Deficiency Analysis for public comment •December 2016 Release draft CTP for public comment •January /February 2017 Conduct public workshops and public hearing •January/February 2017 Local review •March 2017 MPO Board adopt CTP •April 2017 NCDOT adopt final plan Maps •Shows all roadways that are minor thoroughfare and above, not just the ones that are to be improved •Designates roadway type Main Table (continued) •2040 volume and volume/capacity (i.e., congestion level) •Projected future cross-section. Abides by Complete Streets. Remember: environmental process determines ultimate cross-section design. Other •Problem statements – Eight Full and thirty-one minimum statements; explains why improvements are needed •Unaddressed needs – explains why roadway that is over capacity does not have improvements designated •Bus and rail maps and tables •Designates stations, centers and park and ride •Bus and fixed guideway maps and tables •Designates bus express routes, stations, centers and park and ride (continued) •Map •Tables •Existing and future sidewalks will not be on map. A policy statement will require sidewalks. The NCDOT Board of Transportation will adopt only the maps. The MPO Board may adopt the entire document. The CTP replaces existing Thoroughfare Plans. Any reference to Thoroughfare Plans in local ordinances may need to be changed. Both Grant legal authority to reserve right-of-way Both permit certain types of uses, e.g. industrial and allow speed humps, depending on the jurisdiction CTP Thoroughfare Plans Multimodal Works in coordination with the MTP Defines Facility Type Better Only Highway Does not work in coordination with MTP Not specific on access type Durham, 1992 Chapel Hill, 1994 Carrboro, 1994 Hillsborough, 1996 Orange County, 1990 (not adopted) Chatham County, 1983 •CTP matches old Thoroughfare plans fairly well in terms of roadway type. MPO staff conducted multiple meetings with local staff to ensure comfortable with any roadway changes. •Local government reference to Thoroughfare: Local staff are aware of any references to old T-fare Plan Local staff will make any needed changes to local ordinance after CTP is adopted. CTP Roadway Types But, “Old” Thoroughfare Plans have: •Interstate/Freeway •Major •Minor •Report Reference Complete Streets policy will be prominent in the CTP report. •Cross-Sections In CTP highway table, every roadway has cross-section designated. MPO, NCDOT and local staff have worked to ensure that bicycle and pedestrian facilities are included. Footnote Text: ◦The concepts shown on a CTP are for planning purposes and are subject to change. These concepts will need additional analysis to meet state and federal environmental regulations, to determine final locations and designs, and to be funded for implementation. Local zoning or subdivision ordinances may require the dedication of right of way based on the concepts shown on the CTP and local collector street plans, based on N.C.G.S. § 136-66.2 and § 136-66.10. Report Text: ◦Locally approved transportation plans may contain street or highway right-of-way dedication recommendations or requirements, and collectively function as the collector street plan for the MPO or municipality as referenced under G.S. § 136-66.2. CTPs replace Thoroughfare Plans CTP Maps are adopted by the Board of Transportation Many of the controversial alignments from the Thoroughfare Plan have been removed Action Today: Endorse the CTP and Recommend for Endorsement by the BOCC Thanks! ®v ®v ®v®v ®v ®v ®v o n n n n n !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !R !R !R !R !R !R !R !R !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !.!. !. !.!. !. !. !. !.!. !. !. !. !. !. !.!. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !. !(#* !(#* !(#* !(#* !(#* !(## !(## !(#*!(## !(## S ain t M a r y s R d (S R 1 0 0 2 ) Old NC86(SR1009)Cheek Rd (SR 1800) E Geer S t (SR 16 7 0 ) OldOxfo r d H w y ( S R 1004) New SharonChurchRd(SR 1538) M t W illi n g R d(S R 1120) D o dsons Xrds(SR 1102) HighRockRd(S R 1 340) W Ten Rd (SR 11 4 6 ) S Alsto n A v e ( S R 194 5 ) BigWoods R d ( S R 1 7 1 6 ) OldNC10(S R 1 7 10) SMiamiBlvd(SR1959) BahamaRd(SR1607) M t S i n a i R d (SR1718) P ageRd(S R1973) TWAle xanderDr(SR 2 0 2 8 ) G a rr e tt R d ( S R 1 116) WLebanon R d (SR 13 0 6 ) BaptistRd(SR 1 8 0 7 ) ColeyRd(SR1900) GlennRd(SR1636) R e d M ill R d ( S R 1 6 3 2 ) KempRd(SR1902) Sta gville R d ( S R 1 6 1 5 ) H a mptonRd(S R 1 603) CassamRd (SR 1622) SnowHillRd(SR 1 6 3 1) Russell Rd(SR1451) M a n n s Ch ape l Rd (SR 15 32) L y s t r a Rd (S R 1 7 21) Hamlin R d (S R 1 6 3 4) J o n e s F e rry R d(S R 1 9 42) Bahama R d ( S R 1 6 1 6 ) Erw i n R d (S R 1 7 3 4 ) C ole M ill R d ( S R 1401) PattersonRd (S R 1 8 11 ) PleasantGreenRd(SR1567) W Carver S t (SR 140 7 ) Faye t t e v i l l e S t (SR 1 1 1 8 ) S h e rro n R d (SR 1 811) O l i v e B ra n c h R d ( S R 1 9 0 5 ) BivinsRd(SR1453) Da v i s D r (S R 1 9 9 9 ) U m s t e a d Rd (S R 1 4 4 9) W Club Blvd I n fi n it y R d (S R 1 6 3 9 ) DavisR d (S R 1 129)Hillandale Rd ( S R 1321 ) BarbeeRd W i l k i n s R d ( S R 1 6 1 3 ) New H o p e C h u r c h Rd (S R 1 7 2 3 ) S R oxboroSt TerryRd(SR1573 ) Milt o n R d( S R 1 4 5 6) Mo o r e s M i l l R d ( S R 1 6 0 1 ) MtCarmelChurchRd(S R 1 0 0 8 ) Hom e steadRd(S R 1 7 7 7 ) E u b anks R d (S R 1 7 2 7 ) Smit h L e v e l R d ( SR 1919) Gr a n d a l e D r (S R 1 1 0 0 ) W h i tfie l d R d (S R 1 7 3 1 ) Le e s villeRd(SR1906) M a s onRd(SR1002) Jack Be n n e t t R d (SR1717) E C o r n w a l l i s R d (S R 1 1 2 1 ) MillerRd(SR 1 5 5 5 ) RedwoodRd(SR16 3 7) Erwin Rd (SR 1306) F arrin g t o n P o i n t R d ( S R 1 0 0 8 ) LumleyRd(SR1966 ) E FranklinSt(SR101 0) Pickett Rd (SR 1303) WCornwallisRd(SR1308) M artinLutherKingJrPkwy O r a n g e F a c t o r y R d (S R 1 6 2 8) ErwinRd(S R 1 3 20) B ill P o ole Rd(SR 1470) Hopson Rd(SR 1978) Fa y e t t e v i l l e R d (S R 1 1 1 8 ) D a ir y l a n d R d ( S R 1 1 1 3 ) QuailR o o st R d ( S R 1 6 1 5) W e a ver DairyRd(SR1733) E l l i s C h a p e l Rd(SR1616) G o o d w i n Rd(SR164 0 ) O K elly C hapelRd(SR1731) U n i v e r s i t y D r BroadSt BaconRd(SR1471) S t a t e F o r e s t R d (S R 1 6 1 4) Sc o t t King R d (SR 1 1 0 3 ) N e w H o p e C h u rchRd(SR1733) S LowellR d(S R 146 4) B urton R d ( S R 1 8 1 8 ) Ne v i l l e R d (S R 1 9 4 5 ) R oseOfSharonRd (S R 1 4 0 4 ) Hebron Rd (SR 1656) W o o d c roftPkw y A n d r e w s Store Rd(SR1526) Horto nRd(SR1443) W h i p p o o r w i l l L n ( S R 1 7 2 7 ) Hill s b o r o u g h R d (S R 1 0 0 9 ) OldLy str a Rd(SR 1 9 1 5 ) Estes Dr(SR 1750) B a l d w i n R d ( S R 1 5 5 4 ) FaucetteMillRd(SR1328) ArthurMinnisRd (S R 1113) E llis R d ( S R 2 1 4 9 ) Latta Rd (SR 144 8 ) LawrenceRd(SR17 0 9 ) Po y t h r e s s R d (S R 1 5 3 4 ) Estes D r E X T (SR 1 7 8 0 ) Ge o r g e K i n g R d (S R 1 1 1 2 ) Stagecoach Rd(SR 1107) W King St(SR 1150) Ma n n i n g D r (SR 1 9 0 2 ) Dairyland Rd(SR 1104) Ephesus ChurchRd (SR 1742) He r n d o n R d (S R 1 1 0 4 ) Carpenter Fletcher Rd ScienceDr O a k G r ovePkwy S R oxboro St(SR229 5 ) Sla t e r R d ( S R 2 1 0 4 ) W h i t e C r o s s R d ( S R 1 9 5 2 ) Raleigh Rd(SR 2048) OrangeGroveRd(SR 1006) R e d M o u n t a i n R d (SR 1 471) Schley R d ( S R 1 5 4 8 ) Frida y Ctr D r Barb e e C h a p e l R d (SR 1 1 1 0 ) FarringtonMillRd(SR1109) Old G r e e n s b o r o R d (S R 1005) Po p e R d (S R 1 1 1 3 ) Sedwick D r (SR 110 2 ) Duke U n i v ersityRd S Min e r a l S p r i n g s Rd (S R 1 8 1 5 ) N ort h e r n D u r h a m P k w y Range Rd(SR 1610) C o l e m a n L o op (S R133 2 ) N Efland Cedar Gr o v e R d ( S R 1 0 0 4 ) E Club Blvd(SR 1669) Midland Terr a c e E x t AlstonAve E x t F l e t c h e r s C h a p e l R d ( S R 1 8 1 5 ) L a k e H o g a n F a r m E x t B u c k h o r n R d ( S R 1 1 1 4 ) §¨¦85 §¨¦40 §¨¦540 §¨¦40 §¨¦85 £¤501 £¤70 £¤15501 "$751 "$57 "$98 "$55 "$157 "$86 "$540 "$54 "$57 "$86 "$54 "$157 §¨¦85 §¨¦85 "$751 "$751 £¤15501 £¤15501 "$86 "$54 "$54 "$147 "$147 £¤501BUS "$55 £¤15-501BUS £¤70BUS £¤70 £¤70 "$98 £¤501 §¨¦40 §¨¦40 Wa k e C o u n t y Wa k e C o u n t y Du r h a m C o u n t y Du r h a m C o u n t y D u r h a m C o u n t y D u r h a m C o u n t y G r a n v i l l e C o u n t y G r a n v i l l e C o u n t y O r a n g e C o u n t y O r a n g e C o u n t y Person CountyPerson County D u r h a m C o u n t y D u r h a m C o u n t y Orange County Orange County Chatham Coun t y Chatham Coun t y Chatham CountyChatham County Durham CountyDurham County Falls Lake B EverettJordan Lake £¤70 £¤501 Hillsborough Carrboro Chapel Hill Durham Cary Raleigh ResearchTriangle Park En o R iver EllerbeCree k Fla tRiver Ne w H o p e C r e e k LittleRive r Lic k C r e e k ThirdForkCreek M o r g a n C r e e k LittleLickCr e e k Little Creek S e v e n mile Creek Pokeber r y Creek Sto n y C reek BolinCreek(Hoga n L a k e ) KitC r e ek Boo k e r C r e e k CrookedCreek So u t h F o r k L i t t l e R i v e r RhodesCre e k LittleRiver(LittleRive r R e s e rvoir) Little Brie r C r e e k UT2toLittle L i c k C reek D e e p C r e e k Flat River EnoRiv e r Little Riv e r FlatRiv e r ThirdFork C r e e k E noRiver E n o Riv er Lick Cre e k DRAFTWorking CopyNot Adopted ®v n !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !. !. !. !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !(!( !. !. !. !(#* !(#* !(#* W W Hwy-54 G a r r e tt R d ( S R 1 1 1 6 ) Farr i n g t o n R d ( S R 1 1 1 0 ) PinehurstDr Martin L u t h e r K i n g J r B l v d Mt C a r melC h urchRd(SR1008) Homestead Rd (SR 1777) E u b a n ks R d (S R 1 7 2 7 ) SmithLevelRd(SR1919) Old Durh am R d (S R 1 8 3 8) EFranklinSt(SR1010) Willo w D r PathwayDr Weaver Dairy Rd(SR 1733) Legion R d S C o lumbiaSt SFordhamBlvd Farrington MillRd(SR1109) K e n m ore R d Hills b oro u ghRd(SR 1009) Estes Dr (SR 1750) Barclay Rd Ha m i l t o n R d D a m a s c u s C h u r c h R d (S R 1939) D a v i e R d P ineyMountain Rd WPo p l a r A v e Mason Fa r m Rd Jones F e r r y R d (SR 100 5 ) Cottonwood Dr K in g s t o n D r E s t e s Dr Ext(SR178 0 ) G eor g e King R d ( SR 1112) Elliott Rd S a g e R d R o g e r s R d ( S R 1 7 2 9 ) Stagecoac h R d (S R 1 1 0 7 ) NLakeshoreDr R id geRd E R o s e m a r y S t Ma n n i n g D r (SR 1 9 0 2 ) PopeRd(SR1113) L e a k L n W e a v e r D airyRd KellyD r Long Le a f D r B arb e e C h apelRd(SR1110) Carol St McCauley S t B u r n i n g Tree D r P u r e f o y Rd FieldCt CulbrethRd(SR 1 9 9 4 ) S e a w e l l S c h o o l Rd (SR 1843) Meadowmont L n Sol Rd King Charles Rd NGreensboroSt(S R 1 7 72) S o u t h w e s t D u r h a m D r ( S R 1 1 1 0 ) Old F a yetteville R d ( S R 1 9 3 7 ) R aleighRd(SR2048) Parker R d ( S R 1 9 1 6 ) T allyh o T rl(SR2213) Cu r t i s R d W Rosema r y S t W Camer o n A v e EphesusCh u r c h R d (S R 1742) Bim S t T h etford R d SimpsonSt Stateside Dr H u l o n D r Ra mp (SR 2 7 3 3) D o gwood Acres D r ( S R 1962) Danziger Dr Clayton Rd Colorado Av e K e p le y R d (SR1108) M t Moriah R d ( S R 2 2 9 4) T r o t t e r Ri d g e Rd Cleland Rd S Este s D r(SR 17 5 0 ) Lind e n R d Ray Rd (S R 1 9 3 8 ) Bolinwood D r Kildaire Rd D u rh a m -C h a p el H ill B lv d Eastow n e D r S G r e e n s b o r o S t (S R 1 9 1 9 ) Old Mason F a r m Rd (SR 19 0 0 ) FinleyGolfCourseRd Emily Rd S t a n c e ll D r (S R 2 2 8 1) Waterbury Dr Kings Mill Rd Klein Dr L a n d s b u r y D r Dry Creek Rd (SR 1897) Libra r y Dr Ashwort h D r New Bern Pl Hun t e r H i l l P l Alexan Dr Berry hillDr OteysRd Erwin Rd (SR1734) Old Chapel HillRd (SR 2220) Fordham Blvd H ill s borou g h S t Falco n bridg e R d Frid ayCtrDr F a lco n bridge Rd Ex t HighSchool Rd Purefoy Dr Ext §¨¦40 £¤15501 "$86 "$54 £¤15501 "$54 "$86 £¤15501 Chapel Hill Carrboro Durham O r a n g e C o u n t y O r a n g e C o u n t y D u r h a m C o u n t y D u r h a m C o u n t y LittleCreek B o o k e r C r e e k B olin Creek(H o g a n Lake) M organCreek Tan b a r k B r a n c h New Ho p e C r e e k !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !R !( !( !. !. !.!. !(!( !(!( !(!( §¨¦85 §¨¦40 §¨¦40 §¨¦85 £¤70 "$57 "$86 §¨¦85 £¤70 "$86 £¤70BUS £¤70BUS S a i n t M a r y s R d (S R 10 0 2) OrangeGroveRd(SR1006) MtWillingRd(SR1120) Ol d N C 10(SR1710) D a v i s R d (S R11 2 9 ) M i l l e r R d ( S R 1 5 5 5 ) C o r n e l i u s S t C e d ar P a s s ELeban o n R d (S R 1 3 0 6 ) B a l d w i n R d ( S R 1 5 5 4 ) Eno St A lexDr FaucetteMillRd(SR 1 3 28) Tre e F a r m R d N C h u r t o n S t Ben JohnstonRd (S R 1144) R e d Hill L n LawrenceRd(SR1561) W King St(SR 1150) W Queen St S C h u r t o n S t (SR 1 0 0 9 ) OdeT u r n e r R d ( S R 1 1 3 0 ) Beck etts R i d g e D r Vireo Ln Rev e r e R d OakdaleDr(SR 1 1 3 3 ) F r a n k P erryRd(SR1379) Lafayette Dr Southern Dr (SR 1317) LindenRd(SR1566) W M a r g a r e t Ln Carringt o n L n Millsto n e Dr Waterstone Dr Moorefields R d (S R 1 135) O r a n g e H i g h S c h o o l R d ( S R 1 5 8 8 ) FarmGateRd Cheyenne Dr I-85 U S - 7 0 C o n n e c t o r (SR 1 2 3 9 ) Windy Hill R d El i z a b e t h Br a d y R d Tree Farm Rd (SR 1199) WHillAve ( S R 1 1 6 1 ) Crutchfield Rd Cedar Trl A m e s h i a D r Rocky Ln (SR 1622) Gibbs Ln Oak K n o b C t ( S R 1 6 0 5 ) Cypre s s R d Rabbit Dr Paw Ct En o M o u n t a i n R d (S R 1 1 4 8 ) Mayo St(SR 1192) Cedar Stone W a y Faucette Mill Rd US-70 E O l d N C 8 6 ( S R 1 0 0 9 ) PalmersGrove C h u r c h R d ( S R 1 5 6 2 ) N e w C o l l e c t o r R d Hillsborough E n o Ri v e r Sevenmile C reek E n o R i v e r Hillsborough Inset Carrboro, Chapel Hill and SW Durham Inset 0 1 2Miles 0 1 2Miles http://tinyurl.com/DCHC-CTP Adopted by: NCDOTDate: Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPODate: Transportation Planning BranchDate: Recommended by: DCHC MPO - CTPADOPTION SHEET / HIGHWAY MAP DRAFTWorking CopyNot Adopted See Carrboro, Chapel Hill and SW Durham Inset See Hillsborough Inset See Durham Inset-Sheet 2 Legend n Schools o Airports ®v Hospitals Railroads Roads County Boundaries Rivers and Streams Water Bodies Parks and Gamelands Municipalities MPO Boundaries Base map date: February 18, 2016 Refer to CTP document for more details µ 0 1 2Miles Sheet 1 of 5 Plan date: December 2, 2016 Adoption Sheet/Highway Map Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO DRAFT ComprehensiveTransportation Plan Working CopyNot Adopted North Carolina Chatham, Durham, and Orange Counties D R A F TD R A F T Note: The Strategic Transportation Investments (STI) law (House Bill817) establishes design elements that emphasize safety, mobility,complete streets, and accessibility for multiple modes of travel. The"typical" highway cross sections used in this CTP were updated onMay 5, 2014 in response to STI law, reflect NCDOT’s Complete StreetsPolicy and are consistent with SPOTOn!ine (used for projectprioritization). These cross sections should be used as guidelines forproject planning and project design activities. NCDOT’s Complete Streets Policy “requires that NCDOT’s plannersand designers will consider and incorporate multimodal alternatives inthe design and improvement of all appropriate transportation projectswithin a growth area of a town or city unless exceptional circumstancesexist.” (For more information on Complete Streets, go tohttp://www.completestreetsnc.org/). Sheet 5 Highway Map Inset Public Transportation and Rail Map Bicycle MapSheet 4 Sheet 3 Sheet 2 Sheet 1 Adoption Sheet/Highway Map Pedestrian Map Note: The concepts shown on a CTP are for planning purposes andare subject to change. These concepts will need additional analysisto meet state and federal environmental regulations, to determine finallocations and designs, and to be funded for implementation. Localzoning or subdivision ordinances may require the dedication of rightof way based on the concepts shown on the CTP and local collectorstreet plans, based on N.C.G.S. § 136-66.2 and § 136-66.10. Existing Needs Improvement Recommended Expressways Grade Separations Recommended!( Needs Improvement!R Existing!( Interchanges with Managed Lanes Access !(##Existing !(#*Needs Improvement !(##Recommended Interchanges (or Intersections) !.Existing !(!(Needs Improvement !.Recommended Existing Needs ImprovementRecommended Other Major Thoroughfares Existing Needs Improvement Recommended Minor Thoroughfares Existing Needs Improvement Recommended Boulevards ExistingNeeds Improvement Recommended Freeways with Managed Lanes ExistingNeeds Improvement Recommended Freeways 32 o n n n n n ®v ®v ®v®v ®v ®v ®v !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !R !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( "P "P "P " " "P %,,,P "P ""T ""T "P "P "P"P "P "P "P "T "P "P "P "P "P "P "P"P "P "P "P "P "P "P %,,, %,,, "P %,,,P %,,,P %,,, %,,,P %,,,P %,,,%,,,%,,, %,,, ## %,,,P %,,,P %,,, %,,, %,,,%,,, %,,,%,,, %,,, %,,, %,,, %,,, %,,, %P %,,, %,,, %,,, %,,, %,,, "P"" %,,, "P %,,, S ain t M a r y s R d (S R 1 0 0 2 ) Old NC86(SR1009)Cheek Rd (SR 1800) E Geer S t (SR 16 7 0 ) OldOxfo r d H w y ( S R 1004) New SharonChurchRd(SR 1538) M t W illi n g Rd(S R 1120) D o dsons Xrds(SR 1102) HighRockRd(S R 1 340) W Ten Rd (SR 11 4 6 ) S Alsto n A v e ( S R 194 5 ) BigWoods R d ( S R 1 7 1 6 ) OldNC10(S R 1 7 10) SMiamiBlvd(SR1959) BahamaRd(SR1607) M t S i n a i R d (SR1718) P ageRd(S R1973) TWAle xanderDr(SR 2 0 2 8 ) G a rr e tt R d ( S R 1 116) WLebanon R d (SR 13 0 6 ) BaptistRd(SR 1 8 0 7 ) ColeyRd(SR1900) GlennRd(SR1636) R e d M ill R d (S R 1 6 3 2 ) KempRd(SR1902) Stagville R d ( S R 1 6 1 5 ) Ha mptonRd(S R 1 603) CassamRd (SR 1622) SnowHillRd(SR 1 6 3 1) Russell Rd(SR1451) M a n n s Cha pel Rd (SR 15 32) L y s t r a Rd (S R 1 7 21) Hamlin R d (S R 1 6 3 4) J o n e s F e rry R d(S R 1 9 42) Bahama R d ( S R 1 6 1 6 ) Erw i n R d (S R 1 7 3 4 ) C ole M ill R d ( S R 1401) PattersonRd(SR 1 8 11 ) PleasantGreenRd(SR1567) W Carver S t (SR 140 7 ) Faye t t e v i l l e S t (SR 1 1 1 8 ) S h erro n R d (SR 1 811) O l i v e B ra n c h R d ( S R 1 9 0 5 ) BivinsRd(SR1453) Da v i s D r (S R 1 9 9 9 ) U m s t e a d Rd (S R 1 4 4 9) W Club Blvd I n fi n it y R d (S R 1 6 3 9 ) DavisR d (S R 1 129)Hi llandale Rd ( S R 1321 ) BarbeeRd W i l k i n s R d ( S R 1 6 1 3 ) New H o p e C h u r c h Rd (S R 1 7 2 3 ) S R oxboroSt TerryRd(SR1573 ) Milt o n R d( S R 1 4 5 6) Mo o r e s M i l l R d ( S R 1 6 0 1 ) MtCarmelChurchRd(S R 1 0 0 8 ) Hom e steadRd(S R 1 7 7 7 ) E u b anks R d (S R 1 7 2 7 ) Smith L e v e l R d ( SR 1919) Gr a n d a l e D r (S R 1 1 0 0 ) W h itfie l d R d (S R 1 7 3 1 ) Lee s villeRd(SR1906) M a s onRd(SR1002) Jack Be n n e t t R d (SR1717) E C o r n w a l l i s R d (S R 1 1 2 1 ) MillerRd(SR 1 5 5 5 ) RedwoodRd(SR163 7) Erwin Rd (SR 1306) F arrin g t o n P o i n t R d ( S R 1 0 0 8 ) LumleyRd(SR196 6 ) E FranklinSt(SR101 0 ) Pickett Rd (SR 1303) WCornwallisRd(SR1308) M artinLutherKingJrPkwy O r a n g e F a c t o r y R d (S R 1 6 2 8) ErwinRd(S R 1 3 20) B ill P o ole Rd(SR 1470) Hopson Rd(SR 1978) Fa y e t t e v i l l e R d (S R 1 1 1 8 ) D a ir y l a n d R d ( S R 1 1 1 3 ) QuailR o o st R d (S R 1 6 1 5) W e a ver DairyRd(SR1733) E l l i s C h a p e l Rd(SR1616) G o o d w i n Rd(SR164 0) O K elly C hapelRd(SR1731) U n i v e r s i t y D r BroadSt BaconRd(SR1471) S t a t e F o r e s t R d (S R 1 6 1 4) Sc o t t King R d (SR 1 1 0 3 ) N e w H o p e C h u rchRd(SR1733) S LowellR d(S R 146 4) B urton R d ( S R 1 8 1 8 ) Ne v i l l e R d (S R 1 9 4 5 ) R oseOfSharonRd (S R 1 4 0 4 ) Hebron Rd (SR 1656) W o o d c roftPkw y A n d r e w s Store Rd(SR1526) H ortonRd(SR1443) W h i p p o o r w i l l L n ( S R 1 7 2 7 ) Hill s b o r o u g h R d (S R 1 0 0 9 ) OldLystr a Rd(SR 1 9 1 5 ) Estes Dr(SR 1750) B a l d w i n R d ( S R 1 5 5 4 ) FaucetteMillRd(SR1328) ArthurMinnisRd (S R 1113) E llis R d ( S R 2 1 4 9 ) Latta Rd (SR 144 8 ) LawrenceRd(SR17 0 9 ) Po y t h r e s s R d (S R 1 5 3 4 ) Estes D r E X T (SR 1 7 8 0 ) Stagecoach Rd(SR 1107) W King St(SR 1150) Ma n n i n g D r (SR 1 9 0 2 ) Dairyland Rd(SR 1104) Ephesus ChurchRd (SR 1742) He r n d o n R d (S R 1 1 0 4 ) Carpenter Fletcher Rd ScienceDr O a k G r ovePkwy S R oxboro St(SR229 5 ) Sla t e r R d ( S R 2 1 0 4 ) W h i t e C r o s s R d ( S R 1 9 5 2 ) Raleigh Rd(SR 2048) OrangeGroveRd(SR 1006) R e d M o u n t a i n R d (SR 1 471) Schley R d ( S R 1 5 4 8 ) Frida y Ctr D r Barb e e C h a p e l R d (SR 1 1 1 0 ) FarringtonMillRd(SR1109) Old G r e e n s b o r o R d (S R 1005) Po p e R d (S R 1 1 1 3 ) Sedwick D r (SR 110 2 ) Duke U n i v ersityRd S Min e r a l S p r i n g s Rd (S R 1 8 1 5 ) Range Rd(SR 1610) C ol e m a n L o op (S R133 2 ) N Efl and Cedar Gr o v e R d ( S R 1 0 0 4 ) E Club Blvd(SR 1669) F l e t c h e r s C h a p e l R d ( S R 1 8 1 5 ) B u c k h o r n R d ( S R 1 1 1 4 )§¨¦85 §¨¦40 §¨¦540 £¤501 £¤70 £¤15501 "$751 "$57 "$98 "$55 "$157 "$86 "$54 "$54 "$57 "$98 "$54 §¨¦85§¨¦40 £¤70 £¤70BUS "$86 §¨¦40 "$86 £¤15501 £¤15501 "$54 "$751 §¨¦40 §¨¦40 "$54 "$55 "$147 "$147 "$540 "$751 £¤15-501BUS £¤15-501BUS £¤70 £¤70BUS £¤70 §¨¦85 §¨¦85 "$157 £¤501 £¤501BUS B Everett Jordan Lake D u r h a m C o u n t y D u r h a m C o u n t y G r a n v i l l e C o u n t y G r a n v i l l e C o u n t y Du r h a m C o u n t y Du r h a m C o u n t y Wa k e C o u n t y Wa k e C o u n t y D u r h a m C o u n t y D u r h a m C o u n t y O r a n g e C o u n t y O r a n g e C o u n t y Durham CountyDurham County Chatham CountyChatham County Orange Count y Orange Count y Chatham Cou n t y Chatham Cou n t y Person CountyPerson County Durham CountyDurham County CS X S D S - l i n e ( D & S S p u r ) NS H - l i n e ( N C R R ) NCD O T D D - l i n e (Am e r i c a n T o b a c c o T r a i l ) N C D O T D D - l i n e ( A m e r i c a n T o b a c c o T r a i l ) NS D - l i n e CSX S B - l i n e ( J o y l a n d L e a d ) NS D - l i n e N S L - l i n e ( T i m b e r l a k e C o r r i d o r ) NS L - l i n e ( T i m b e r l a k e C o r r i d o r ) NS H-line (NCRR) NS H - l i n e ( N C R R ) NS J - l i n e ( S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y R a i l r o a d ) NS DP-line (Duke Beltline) Falls Lake Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro Hillsborough Cary RaleighResearchTrianglePark En o R iver Ellerbe Creek Fla tRi v e r N e w Hope Creek LittleRiver T hirdFo r k C r e ek M o r g a n C r e e k Lic k Cr e e k LittleLick Cree k LittleCree k S e v e n mile Creek Pokeber r y Creek Sto n y C reek BolinCre e k (H o g a n L a k e ) KitC r e e k B o o ker C r e e k NorthForkLittleRiver CrookedCreek South F o r k L i t t l e R i v e r R hodesCreek LittleRiver(LittleRiverReserv o i r ) Little Brier C r e e k UT2toLittl e Li c k Creek Tan b a r k B r a n c h D e e p C r e e k Flat River EnoRiv e r Little Rive r Flat Rive r Lick C re e k EnoRiver E n o Riv er ThirdFork C r e ek n ®v ®v !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( "P "P"P "P "P "P %,,,%,,, %,,, %,,, ## %,,,P %,,,P %P %,,, %,,, %,,, E M a i n S t W C lu b B lv d Liberty St Ke n t S t BroadSt W Knox St Sprunt Ave An d e r s o n S t EPettigrewSt Fay S t W Mark h a m A ve Americ a n D r WCornwallisRd(SR1308) Ni n t h S t Erwin Rd(SR1320) Camd e n A v e ( S R 1 6 7 1 ) Gl e n d ale Ave ChapelHillRd(SR112 7) W Trinity Ave N Elizabeth St Fo s t e r S t Tower v i e w R d N Duke St (SR 1445) ScienceDr Broad St (SR 1322) N M ia m i Blvd N B u c h a n a n B l v d E Ellerbe e S t Harvard A v e DukeUniversit y R d Mo r r e e n e R d (S R 1 3 1 7 ) Sp r u c e S t FlowersDr W L a k e w o o d Ave N Gregson St (SR 1 3 27) E v a n s S t Gu e s s R d Swi f t A v e Raynor S t Ore g o n S t Hill s b o r o u g h R d Englewood Ave Circuit D r R i d ge w ay Av e W Geer St Ma r y l a n d A v e Morehead Ave Belle vue Ave Fideli t y Dr Linwood A v e Croa s d a il e D r (S R 1 4 9 3 ) R ese a r c hDr SDuke St (SR 1445) WCorporatio n S t E Ums t e a d S t C ra nford R d N L a s a l l e S t Blac k w e l l S t W Chapel HillSt (SR 1127) Chapel Hill Rd Elba St S G u t h r i e A v e W MainSt Fif t e e n t h S t Ke n t S t (S R 1 1 2 7 ) Fu l t o n S t (S R 1 3 2 1 ) Vis t a S t ELakewoodAve CampusWalk Ave Green St TaylorSt Chee k R d (S R 1 8 0 0 ) S Las alleSt Cox Ave SRoxboroSt ELawso n S t AngierAve(SR1926) Vi c k e r s A v e ( S R 1 3 6 1 ) UniversityDrAca demy R d CameronBlvd Holloway St NRoxboroSt NMangumSt N D u ke St N Roxbo ro St Gu e s s R d ( S R 1 3 2 2 ) £¤15501 "$55 £¤15-501BUS £¤15-501BUS "$98 £¤70BUS "$55 "$147 "$147 §¨¦85 "$751 £¤70BUS NS H - l i n e ( N C R R ) NS DP-line (Duke Beltline) NS L - l i n e ( T i m b e r l a k e C o r r i d o r ) NC D O T D D - l i n e (Am e r i c a n T o b a c c o T r a i l ) Durham Elle r b e C r e e k n ®v !(!( !(!( !(!( !. !(!( !( !( !( !( !. !. !(!( !( !( !( !. !. !. !( "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P %,,, %,,, "P %,,,P %,,,P %,,, %,,, %,,, %,,,%,,, %,,, %,,, %,,, %,,, %,,, §¨¦40 "$54 "$54 "$86 "$86 £¤15501 £¤15501 Old NC86(SR 1009) W W Hwy-54 G a r r e tt R d ( S R 1 1 1 6 ) Farr i n g t o n R d ( S R 1 1 1 0 ) PinehurstDr Martin L u t h e r K i n g J r B l v d UniversityDr Mt C a r melC h urchRd(SR1008) Homestead Rd (SR 1777) E u b a n ks R d (S R 1 7 2 7 ) SmithLevelRd(SR1919) Old Durham R d (S R 1 8 3 8) EFranklinSt(SR1010) Willo w D r PathwayDr Weaver Dairy Rd(SR 1733) Hatch R d ( S R 1 9 4 4) Legion R d S C o lumbiaSt SFordhamBlvd Farrington MillRd(SR1109) K e n m ore R d Hills b oro u ghRd(SR 1009) Estes Dr (SR 1750) Barclay Rd Ha m i l t o n R d D a m a s c u s C h u r c h R d (S R 1939) D a v i e R d P ineyMountain Rd WPo p l ar A v e Mason Fa r m Rd Jones F e r r y R d (SR 100 5 ) K in g s t o n D r E s t e s Dr Ext(SR178 0 ) G eor g e King Rd (SR 1112) Elliott Rd S a g e R d R o g e r s R d ( S R 1 7 2 9 ) Stagecoach R d (S R 1 1 0 7 ) NLakeshoreDr R id geRd E R o s e m a r y S t Ma n n i n g D r (SR 1 9 0 2 ) PopeRd(SR1113) Leak L n W e a v e r D airyRd CheekieBoyLn KellyD r Long Le a f D r B arb e e C hapelRd(SR1110) Carol St Britton Dr McCauley S t B u r n i n g Tree D r P u r e f o y Rd FieldCt CulbrethRd(SR 1 9 9 4 ) S e a w e l l S c h o o l Rd (SR 1843) Meadowmont Ln Sol Rd King Charles Rd NGreensboroSt(S R 1 7 72) S o u t h w e s t D u r h a m D r ( S R 1 1 1 0 ) Old F a y etteville R d ( S R 1 9 3 7 ) R aleighRd(SR2048) Parker R d ( S R 1 9 1 6 ) T allyh o T rl(SR2213) Cu r t i s R d W Rosema r y S t W Camer o n A v e EphesusCh u rc h R d (S R 1742) Bim S t Old School R d ( S R 1 9 4 1 ) Thetford R d SimpsonSt Stateside Dr H u l o n D r Ramp (SR2733) D o gwood Acres D r ( S R 1962) Danziger Dr O l d F a y e t t e v i l l e R d ( S R 1 1 0 7 ) Clayton Rd Colorado Av e K e p le y R d (SR1108) Mt Moriah Rd ( S R 2 2 9 4) T r o t t e r Ri d g e Rd Cleland Rd S Este s D r(SR 17 5 0 ) Lind e n R d Ray Rd (S R 1 9 3 8 ) LakeHog a n FarmRd Bolinwood D r Kildaire Rd D u r h a m -C h a p el H ill B lv d Easto w n e D r S G r e e n s b o r o S t (S R 1 9 1 9 ) Old Mason F a r m Rd (SR 19 0 0 ) FinleyGolfCourseRd Emily Rd S t a n c e ll D r (S R 2 2 8 1) Kings Mill Rd Deer Ridge Dr Klein Dr Sto n e y b r o o k R d ( S R 2 0 2 1 ) H a r d e e L n L a n d s b u r y D rDry Creek Rd (SR 1897) B iscayne R d Libra r y Dr Ashworth D r Colville Rd Holman L n New Bern Pl Byw a t e r W a y Kelly Ct Hun t e r H i l l P l Alexan Dr Berry hillDr OteysRd Erwin Rd (SR1734) Old Chapel HillRd (SR 2220) Fordham Blvd H ill s borou g h S t Falco n bridg e R d Frid ayCtrDr HighSchool Rd D u r h a m C o u n t y D u r h a m C o u n t y O r a n g e C o u n t y O r a n g e C o u n t y N S J - l i n e (S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y R a i l r o a d ) Chapel Hill Durham Carrboro LittleCre ek BolinCreek(HoganLake) B o o ker C r e e k M o r g a nCreek Tan b a r k B r a n c h B o o k e r Creek(East-wood Lak e ) N e w H o p e Creek DRAFTWorking CopyNot Adopted Base map date: February 18, 2016 Refer to CTP document for more details µ Sheet 3A of 5 Plan date: November 14, 2016 Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO DRAFT ComprehensiveTransportation Plan Working CopyNot Adopted DRAFTWorking CopyNot Adopted Downtown Durham Inset Carrboro, Chapel Hill and SW Durham Inset Public Transportation and Rail Map012Miles 0 0.5 1Miles 0 0.5 1Miles http://tinyurl.com/DCHC-CTP DCHC MPO - CTP - PUBLICTRANSPORTATION AND RAIL MAP See Carrboro, Chapel Hilland SW Durham Inset See DowntownDurham Inset Park and Ride Lot Existing"P "P Recommended Multimodal Connector #Existing Recommended## Recommended Existing Fixed Guideway Needs Improvement Active Inactive Rail Corridor Recommended Recommended Existing Needs Improvement Operational Strategies Hospitals®v Schoolsn Airportso Grade Separations Recommended!( Needs Improvement!R Existing!( Rail Stations %Existing Recommended,,, Transit Center ""Existing Recommended" Rail Stations with Park and Ride Lot %P Existing Recommended%,,,P Transit Center with Park and Ride Lot ""T Existing Recommended"T D R A F TD R A F T Note: The Strategic Transportation Investments (STI) law (House Bill817) establishes design elements that emphasize safety, mobility,complete streets, and accessibility for multiple modes of travel. The"typical" highway cross sections used in this CTP were updated onMay 5, 2014 in response to STI law, reflect NCDOT’s Complete StreetsPolicy and are consistent with SPOTOn!ine (used for projectprioritization). These cross sections should be used as guidelines forproject planning and project design activities. NCDOT’s Complete Streets Policy “requires that NCDOT’s plannersand designers will consider and incorporate multimodal alternatives inthe design and improvement of all appropriate transportation projectswithin a growth area of a town or city unless exceptional circumstancesexist.” (For more information on Complete Streets, go tohttp://www.completestreetsnc.org/). Note: The concepts shown on a CTP are for planning purposes andare subject to change. These concepts will need additional analysisto meet state and federal environmental regulations, to determine finallocations and designs, and to be funded for implementation. Localzoning or subdivision ordinances may require the dedication of rightof way based on the concepts shown on the CTP and local collectorstreet plans, based on N.C.G.S. § 136-66.2 and § 136-66.10. Note: For more information on the Durham-Orange Light Rail TransitProject, go to http://www.ourtransitfuture.com. 33 o n n n n n ®v ®v ®v®v ®v ®v ®v !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !R !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( "P "P "P " " "P %,,,P "P ""T ""T "P "P "P"P "P "P "P "T "P "P "P "P "P "P "P"P "P "P "P "P "P "P %,,, %,,, "P %,,,P %,,,P %,,, %,,,P %,,,P %,,,%,,,%,,, %,,, ## %,,,P %,,,P %,,, %,,, %,,,%,,, %,,,%,,, %,,, %,,, %,,, %,,, %,,, %P %,,, %,,, %,,, %,,, %,,, "P"" %,,, "P %,,, S ain t M a r y s R d (S R 1 0 0 2 ) Old NC86(SR1009)Cheek Rd (SR 1800) E Geer S t (SR 16 7 0 ) OldOxfo r d H w y ( S R 1004) New SharonChurchRd(SR 1538) M t W illi n g Rd(S R 1120) D o dsons Xrds(SR 1102) HighRockRd(S R 1 340) W Ten Rd (SR 11 4 6 ) S Alsto n A v e ( S R 194 5 ) BigWoods R d ( S R 1 7 1 6 ) OldNC10(S R 1 7 10) SMiamiBlvd(SR1959) BahamaRd(SR1607) M t S i n a i R d (SR1718) P ageRd(S R1973) TWAle xanderDr(SR 2 0 2 8 ) G a rr e tt R d ( S R 1 116) WLebanon R d (SR 13 0 6 ) BaptistRd(SR 1 8 0 7 ) ColeyRd(SR1900) GlennRd(SR1636) R e d M ill R d (S R 1 6 3 2 ) KempRd(SR1902) Sta gville R d ( S R 1 6 1 5 ) H a mptonRd(S R 1 603) CassamRd (SR 1622) SnowHillRd(SR 1 6 3 1) Russell Rd(SR1451) M a n n s Cha pel Rd (SR 15 32) L y s t r a Rd (S R 1 7 21) Hamlin R d (S R 1 6 3 4) J o n e s F e rry R d(S R 1 9 42) Bahama R d ( S R 1 6 1 6 ) Erw i n R d (S R 1 7 3 4 ) C ole M ill R d ( S R 1401) PattersonRd (S R 1 8 11 ) PleasantGreenRd(SR1567) W Carver S t (SR 140 7 ) Faye t t e v i l l e S t (SR 1 1 1 8 ) S h erro n R d (SR 1 811) O l i v e B ra n c h R d ( S R 1 9 0 5 ) BivinsRd(SR1453) Da v i s D r (S R 1 9 9 9 ) U m s t e a d Rd (S R 1 4 4 9) W Club Blvd I n fi n it y R d (S R 1 6 3 9 ) DavisR d (S R 1 129)Hillandale Rd ( S R 1321 ) BarbeeRd W i l k i n s R d ( S R 1 6 1 3 ) New H o p e C h u r c h Rd (S R 1 7 2 3 ) S R oxboroSt TerryRd(SR1573 ) Milt o n R d( S R 1 4 5 6) Mo o r e s M i l l R d ( S R 1 6 0 1 ) MtCarmelChurchRd(S R 1 0 0 8 ) Hom e steadRd(S R 1 7 7 7 ) E u b anks R d (S R 1 7 2 7 ) Smit h L e v e l R d ( SR 1919) Gr a n d a l e D r (S R 1 1 0 0 ) W h itfie l d R d (S R 1 7 3 1 ) Lee s villeRd(SR1906) M a s onRd(SR1002) Jack Be n n e t t R d (SR1717) E C o r n w a l l i s R d (S R 1 1 2 1 ) MillerRd(SR 1 5 5 5 ) RedwoodRd(SR16 3 7) Erwin Rd (SR 1306) F arrin g t o n P o i n t R d ( S R 1 0 0 8 ) LumleyRd(SR196 6 ) E FranklinSt(SR101 0 ) Pickett Rd (SR 1303) WCornwallisRd(SR1308) M artinLutherKingJrPkwy O r a n g e F a c t o r y R d (S R 1 6 2 8) ErwinRd(S R 1 3 20) B ill P o ole Rd(SR 1470) Hopson Rd(SR 1978) Fa y e t t e v i l l e R d (S R 1 1 1 8 ) D a ir y l a n d R d ( S R 1 1 1 3 ) QuailR o o st R d ( S R 1 6 1 5) W e a ver DairyRd(SR1733) E l l i s C h a p e l Rd(SR1616) G o o d w i n Rd(SR164 0 ) O K elly C hapelRd(SR1731) U n i v e r s i t y D r BroadSt BaconRd(SR1471) S t a t e F o r e s t R d (S R 1 6 1 4) Sc o t t King R d (SR 1 1 0 3 ) N e w H o p e C h u rchRd(SR1733) S LowellR d(S R 146 4) B urton R d ( S R 1 8 1 8 ) Ne v i l l e R d (S R 1 9 4 5 ) R oseOfSharonRd (S R 1 4 0 4 ) Hebron Rd (SR 1656) W o o d c roftPkw y A nd r e w s Store Rd(SR1526) H ortonRd(SR1443) W h i p p o o r w i l l L n ( S R 1 7 2 7 ) Hill s b o r o u g h R d (S R 1 0 0 9 ) OldLystr a Rd(SR 1 9 1 5 ) Estes Dr(SR 1750) B a l d w i n R d ( S R 1 5 5 4 ) FaucetteMillRd(SR1328) ArthurMinnisRd (S R 1113) E llis R d ( S R 2 1 4 9 ) Latta Rd (SR 144 8 ) LawrenceRd(SR17 0 9 ) Po y t h r e s s R d (S R 1 5 3 4 ) Estes D r E X T (SR 1 7 8 0 ) Stagecoach Rd(SR 1107) W King St(SR 1150) Ma n n i n g D r (SR 1 9 0 2 ) Dairyland Rd(SR 1104) Ephesus ChurchRd (SR 1742) He r n d o n R d (S R 1 1 0 4 ) Carpenter Fletcher Rd ScienceDr O a k G r ovePkwy S R oxboro St(SR229 5 ) Sla t e r R d ( S R 2 1 0 4 ) W h i t e C r o s s R d ( S R 1 9 5 2 ) Raleigh Rd(SR 2048) OrangeGroveRd(SR 1006) R e d M o u n t a i n R d (SR 1 471) Schley R d ( S R 1 5 4 8 ) Frida y Ctr D r Barb e e C h a p e l R d (SR 1 1 1 0 ) FarringtonMillRd(SR1109) Old G r e e n s b o r o R d (S R 1005) Po p e R d (S R 1 1 1 3 ) Sedwick D r (SR 110 2 ) Duke U n i v ersityRd S Min e r a l S p r i n g s Rd (S R 1 8 1 5 ) Range Rd(SR 1610) C o l e m a n L o op (S R133 2 ) N Efland Cedar Gr o v e R d ( S R 1 0 0 4 ) E Club Blvd(SR 1669) F l e t c h e r s C h a p e l R d ( S R 1 8 1 5 ) B u c k h o r n R d ( S R 1 1 1 4 )§¨¦85 §¨¦40 §¨¦540 £¤501 £¤70 £¤15501 "$751 "$57 "$98 "$55 "$157 "$86 "$54 "$54 "$57 "$98 "$54 §¨¦85§¨¦40 £¤70 £¤70BUS "$86 §¨¦40 "$86 £¤15501 £¤15501 "$54 "$751 §¨¦40 §¨¦40 "$54 "$55 "$147 "$147 "$540 "$751 £¤15-501BUS £¤15-501BUS £¤70 £¤70BUS £¤70 §¨¦85 §¨¦85 "$157 £¤501 £¤501BUS B Everett Jordan Lake FallsLake D u r h a m C o u n t y D u r h a m C o u n t y G r a n v i l l e C o u n t y G r a n v i l l e C o u n t y Du r h a m C o u n t y Du r h a m C o u n t y Wa k e C o u n t y Wa k e C o u n t y D u r h a m C o u n t y D u r h a m C o u n t y O r a n g e C o u n t y O r a n g e C o u n t y Durham CountyDurham County Chatham CountyChatham County Orange Count y Orange Count y Chatham Cou n t y Chatham Cou n t y Person CountyPerson County Durham CountyDurham County ResearchTriangle Park E n o R i ver Elle r b e C r e e k Ne w H o pe C r eek F l a t R iv e r LittleRiv e r ThirdFork Creek M o r g a n C re e k Li c kCre e k Little LickC r e e k LittleCreek S even m ile Creek Pokeberry C reek JumpingRun Stony C r e e k BolinC r e e k (H o g a n La k e ) KitC r e e k NortheastCreek B o oker C r e e k NorthFor k L i t t l e R iv e r CrookedCreek S o uth F o rk L ittleRiv e r RhodesCreek BuckwaterCreek LittleRiver(LittleRiver Reservoir) Little Brier C r e e k UT2toLittleLi c k C r e e k Tan b a r k B r a n c h F l a t Riv e r Eno R iver L i t t l e R iver Ne w HopeCreek Flat River Morgan C re ek Lic k C re e k LittleRiver Eno R i v e r Third F o rkCr e e k Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro Hillsborough Cary Raleigh Morrisville n ®v ®v !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( "P "P"P "P "P "P %,,,%,,, %,,, %,,, ## %,,,P %,,,P %P %,,, %,,, %,,, E M a i n S t W C lu b B lv d Liberty St Ke n t S t BroadSt W Knox St Sprunt Ave An d e r s o n S t EPettigrewSt Fay S t W Mark h a m A ve Americ a n D r WCornwallisRd(SR1308) Ni n t h S t Erwin Rd(SR1320) Camd e n A v e ( S R 1 6 7 1 ) Gl e n d ale Ave ChapelHillRd(SR112 7) W Trinity Ave N Elizabeth St Fo s t e r S t Tower v i e w R d N Duke St (SR 1445) ScienceDr Broad St (SR 1322) N M ia m i Blvd N B u c h a n a n B l v d E Ellerbe e S t Harvard A v e DukeUniversit y R d Mo r r e e n e R d (S R 1 3 1 7 ) Sp r u c e S t FlowersDr W L a k e w o o d Ave N Gregson St (SR 1 3 27) E v a n s S t Gu e s s R d Swi f t A v e Raynor S t Ore g o n S t Hill s b o r o u g h R d Englewood Ave Circuit D r R i d ge w ay Av e W Geer St Ma r y l a n d A v e Morehead Ave Belle vue Ave Fideli t y Dr Linwood A v e Croa s d a il e D r (S R 1 4 9 3 ) R ese a r c hDr SDuke St (SR 1445) WCorporatio n S t E Ums t e a d S t C ra nford R d N L a s a l l e S t Blac k w e l l S t W Chapel HillSt (SR 1127) Chapel Hill Rd Elba St S G u t h r i e A v e W MainSt Fif t e e n t h S t Ke n t S t (S R 1 1 2 7 ) Fu l t o n S t (S R 1 3 2 1 ) Vis t a S t ELakewoodAve CampusWalk Ave Green St TaylorSt Chee k R d (S R 1 8 0 0 ) S Las alleSt Cox Ave SRoxboroSt ELawso n S t AngierAve(SR1926) Vi c k e r s A v e ( S R 1 3 6 1 ) UniversityDrAca demy R d CameronBlvd Holloway St NRoxboroSt NMangumSt N D u ke St N Roxbo ro St Gu e s s R d ( S R 1 3 2 2 ) £¤15501 "$55 £¤15-501BUS £¤15-501BUS "$98 £¤70BUS "$55 "$147 "$147 §¨¦85 "$751 £¤70BUS Elle r b e C r e e k Durham n ®v "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P "P %,,, %,,, "P %,,,P %,,,P %,,, %,,, %,,, %,,,%,,, %,,, %,,, %,,, %,,, %,,, §¨¦40 "$54 "$54 "$86 "$86 £¤15501 £¤15501 Old NC86(SR 1009) W W Hwy-54 G a r r e tt R d ( S R 1 1 1 6 ) Farr i n g t o n R d ( S R 1 1 1 0 ) PinehurstDr Martin L u t h e r K i n g J r B l v d Mt C a r melC h urchRd(SR1008) Homestead Rd (SR 1777) SmithLevelRd(SR1919) Old Durham R d (S R 1 8 3 8) EFranklinSt(SR1010) Willo w D r PathwayDr Weaver Dairy Rd(SR 1733) Legion R d S C o lumbiaSt SFordhamBlvd Farrington MillRd(SR1109) K e n m ore R d Hills b oro u ghRd(SR 1009) Estes Dr (SR 1750) Barclay Rd Ha m i l t o n R d D a m a s c u s C h u r c h R d (S R 1939) D a v i e R d P ineyMountain Rd WPo p l ar A v e Mason Fa r m Rd Jones F e r r y R d (SR 100 5 ) K in g s t o n D r E s t e s Dr Ext(SR178 0 ) G eor g e King Rd (SR 1112) Elliott Rd S a g e R d R o g e r s R d ( S R 1 7 2 9 ) Stagecoach R d (S R 1 1 0 7 ) NLakeshoreDr R id geRd E R o s e m a r y S t Ma n n i n g D r (SR 1 9 0 2 ) PopeRd(SR1113) Leak L n W e a v e r D airyRd KellyD r Long Le a f D r B arb e e C hapelRd(SR1110) Carol St Britton Dr McCauley S t B u r n i n g Tree D r P u r e f o y Rd FieldCt CulbrethRd(SR 1 9 9 4 ) S e a w e l l S c h o o l Rd (SR 1843) Meadowmont Ln Sol Rd King Charles Rd NGreensboroSt(S R 1 7 72) S o u t h w e s t D u r h a m D r ( S R 1 1 1 0 ) Old F a yetteville R d ( S R 1 9 3 7 ) R aleighRd(SR2048) Parker R d ( S R 1 9 1 6 ) T allyh o T rl(SR2213) Cu r t i s R d W Rosema r y S t W Camer o n A v e EphesusCh u r c h R d (S R 1742) Bim S t Old School R d ( S R 1 9 4 1 ) Thetford R d SimpsonSt Stateside Dr Ramp (SR2733) D o gwood Acres D r ( S R 1962) Danziger Dr O l d F a y e t t e v i l l e R d ( S R 1 1 0 7 ) Clayton Rd Colorado Av e K e p le y R d (SR1108) Mt Moriah Rd ( S R 2 2 9 4) T r o t t e r Ri d g e Rd Cleland Rd S Este s D r(SR 17 5 0 ) Lind e n R d Ray Rd (S R 1 9 3 8 ) LakeHog a n FarmRd Bolinwood D r Kildaire Rd D u r h a m -C h a p el H ill B lv d Easto w n e D r S G r e e n s b o r o S t (S R 1 9 1 9 ) Old Mason F a r m Rd (SR 19 0 0 ) FinleyGolfCourseRd Emily Rd S t a n c e ll D r (S R 2 2 8 1) Kings Mill Rd Deer Ridge Dr Klein Dr Sto n e y b r o o k R d ( S R 2 0 2 1 ) H a r d e e L n L a n d s b u r y D rDry Creek Rd (SR 1897) Libra r y Dr Ashworth D r New Bern Pl Byw a t e r W a y Kelly Ct Hun t e r H i l l P l Alexan Dr Berry hillDr OteysRd Erwin Rd (SR1734) Old Chapel HillRd (SR 2220) Fordham Blvd H ill s borou g h S t Falcon bridg e R d Frid ayCtrDr HighSchool Rd D u r h a m C o u n t y D u r h a m C o u n t y O r a n g e C o u n t y O r a n g e C o u n t y Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro LittleCre ek BolinCreek(HoganLake) B o o ker C r e e k M o r g a nCreek Tan b a r k B r a n c h B o o k e r Creek(East-wood Lak e ) N e w H o p e Creek Base map date: February 18, 2016 Refer to CTP document for more details µ Sheet 3B of 5 Plan date: November 14, 2016 Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO DRAFT ComprehensiveTransportation Plan Working CopyNot Adopted DRAFTWorking CopyNot Adopted Downtown Durham Inset Carrboro, Chapel Hill and SW Durham Inset Public Transportation Map012Miles 0 0.5 1Miles 0 0.5 1Miles DCHC MPO - CTPPUBLIC TRANSPORTATION MAP See Carrboro, Chapel Hilland SW Durham Inset See DowntownDurham Inset Park and Ride Lot Existing"P "P Recommended Multimodal Connector #Existing Recommended## Recommended Existing Bus Routes Needs Improvement Active Inactive Rail Corridor Recommended Hospitals®v Schoolsn Airportso Rail Stations with Park and Ride Lot %P Existing Recommended%,,,P Rail Stations %Existing Recommended,,, Transit Center ""Existing Recommended" Transit Center with Park and Ride Lot ""T Existing Recommended"T Grade Separations Recommended!( Needs Improvement!R Existing!( Note: For more information on the Durham-Orange Light Rail TransitProject, including bus route and park and ride access, go tohttp://www.ourtransitfuture.com.D R A F TD R A F T Note: The Strategic Transportation Investments (STI) law (House Bill817) establishes design elements that emphasize safety, mobility,complete streets, and accessibility for multiple modes of travel. The"typical" highway cross sections used in this CTP were updated onMay 5, 2014 in response to STI law, reflect NCDOT’s Complete StreetsPolicy and are consistent with SPOTOn!ine (used for projectprioritization). These cross sections should be used as guidelines forproject planning and project design activities. NCDOT’s Complete Streets Policy “requires that NCDOT’s plannersand designers will consider and incorporate multimodal alternatives inthe design and improvement of all appropriate transportation projectswithin a growth area of a town or city unless exceptional circumstancesexist.” (For more information on Complete Streets, go tohttp://www.completestreetsnc.org/). DRAFTWorking CopyNot Adopted http://tinyurl.com/DCHC-CTP Note: The concepts shown on a CTP are for planning purposes andare subject to change. These concepts will need additional analysisto meet state and federal environmental regulations, to determine finallocations and designs, and to be funded for implementation. Localzoning or subdivision ordinances may require the dedication of rightof way based on the concepts shown on the CTP and local collectorstreet plans, based on N.C.G.S. § 136-66.2 and § 136-66.10. 34 n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n nn nn n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n nn n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n nn n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n nn n n n n !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !R!R !R !( !R !R !( S ain t M a r y s R d (S R 1 0 0 2 ) Old NC86(SR1009)Cheek Rd (SR 1800) E Geer S t (SR 16 7 0 ) OldOxfo r d H w y ( S R 1004) New SharonChurchRd(SR 1538) M t W illi n g R d(S R 1120) D o dsons Xrds(SR1102) HighRockRd(S R 1 340) W Ten Rd (SR 11 4 6 ) S Alsto n A v e ( S R 194 5 ) BigWoods R d ( S R 1 7 1 6 ) OldNC10(S R 1 7 10) SMiamiBlvd(SR1959) BahamaRd(SR1607) M t S i n a i R d (SR1718) P ageRd(S R1973) TWAle xanderDr(SR 2 0 2 8 ) G a rr e tt R d ( S R 1 116) WLebanon R d (SR 13 0 6 ) BaptistRd(SR 1 8 0 7 ) ColeyRd(SR1900) GlennRd(SR1636) R e d M ill R d (S R 1 6 3 2 ) KempRd(SR1902) Sta gville R d ( S R 1 6 1 5 ) H a mptonRd(S R 1 603) CassamRd (SR 1622) SnowHillRd(SR 1 6 3 1) Russell Rd(SR1451) M a n n s Cha pel Rd (SR 153 2) L y s t r a Rd (S R 1 7 21) Hamlin R d (S R 1 6 3 4) J o n e s F e rry R d(S R 1 9 42) Bahama R d ( S R 1 6 1 6 ) Erw i n R d (S R 1 7 3 4 ) C ole M ill R d ( S R 1401) PattersonRd (SR 1 8 11 ) PleasantGreenRd(SR1567) W Carver S t (SR 140 7 ) Faye t t e v i l l e S t (SR 1 1 1 8 ) S h erro n R d (SR 1 811) O l i v e B ra n c h R d ( S R 1 9 0 5 ) BivinsRd(SR1453) Da v i s D r (S R 1 9 9 9 ) U m s t e a d Rd (S R 1 4 4 9) W Club Blvd I n fi n it y R d (S R 1 6 3 9 ) DavisR d (S R 1 129)Hillandale Rd ( S R 1321 ) BarbeeRd W i l k i n s R d ( S R 1 6 1 3 ) New H o p e C h u r c h Rd (S R 1 7 2 3 ) S R oxboroSt TerryRd(SR1573 ) Milt o n R d( S R 1 4 5 6) Mo o r e s M i l l R d ( S R 1 6 0 1 ) MtCarmelChurchRd(S R 1 0 0 8 ) Hom e steadRd(S R 1 7 7 7 ) E u b anks R d (S R 1 7 2 7 ) Smit h L e v e l R d ( SR 1919) Gr a n d a l e D r (S R 1 1 0 0 ) W h i tfie l d R d (S R 1 7 3 1 ) Lee s villeRd(SR1906) M a s o nRd(SR1002) Jack Be n n e t t R d (SR1717) E C o r n w a l l i s R d (S R 1 1 2 1 ) MillerRd(SR 1 5 5 5 ) RedwoodRd(SR16 3 7) Erwin Rd (SR 1306) F arri n g t o n P o i n t R d ( S R 1 0 0 8 ) LumleyRd(SR196 6 ) E FranklinSt(SR101 0 ) Pickett Rd (SR 1303) WCornwallisRd(SR1308) M artinLutherKingJrPkwy O r a n g e F a c t o r y R d (S R 1 6 2 8) ErwinRd(S R 1 3 20) B ill P o ole Rd(SR 1470) Hopson Rd(SR 1978) Fa y e t t e v i l l e R d (S R 1 1 1 8 ) D a ir y l a n d R d ( S R 1 1 1 3 ) QuailR o o st R d (S R 1 6 1 5) W e a ver DairyRd(SR1733 ) E l l i s C h a p e l Rd(SR1616) G o o d w i n Rd(SR164 0 ) O K elly C hapelRd(SR1731) U n i v e r s i t y D r BroadSt BaconRd(SR1471) S t a t e F o r e s t R d (S R 1 6 1 4) S c o t t King R d (SR 1 1 0 3 ) N e w H o p e C h u rchRd(SR1733) S LowellR d(S R 146 4) B urton R d ( S R 1 8 1 8 ) Ne v i l l e R d (S R 1 9 4 5 ) R oseOfSharonRd (S R 1 4 0 4 ) Hebron Rd (SR 1656) W o o d c roftPkw y A nd r e w s Store Rd(SR1526) H ortonRd(SR1443) W h i p p o o r w i l l L n ( S R 1 7 2 7 ) Hill s b o r o u g h R d (S R 1 0 0 9 ) OldLystr a Rd(SR 1 9 1 5 ) Estes Dr(SR 1750) B a l d w i n R d ( S R 1 5 5 4 ) FaucetteMillRd(SR1328) ArthurMinnisRd (S R 1113) E llis R d ( S R 2 1 4 9 ) Latta Rd (SR 144 8 ) LawrenceRd(SR17 0 9 ) Po y t h r e s s R d (S R 1 5 3 4 ) Estes D r E X T (SR 1 7 8 0 ) Stagecoach Rd(SR 1107) W King St(SR 1150) Ma n n i n g D r (SR 1 9 0 2 ) Dairyland Rd(SR 1104) Ephesus ChurchRd (SR 1742) He r n d o n R d (S R 1 1 0 4 ) Carpenter Fletcher Rd ScienceDr O a k G r ovePkwy S R oxboro St(SR229 5 ) Sla t e r R d ( S R 2 1 0 4 ) W h i t e C r o s s R d ( S R 1 9 5 2 ) Raleigh Rd(SR 2048) OrangeGroveRd(SR 1006) R e d M o u n t a i n R d (SR 1 471) Schley R d ( S R 1 5 4 8 ) Frida y Ctr D r Barb e e C h a p e l R d (SR 1 1 1 0 ) FarringtonMillRd(SR1109) Ol d G r e e n s b o r o R d (S R 1005) Po p e R d (S R 1 1 1 3 ) Sedwick D r (SR 110 2 ) Duke U n i v ersityRd S Min e r a l S p r i n g s Rd (S R 1 8 1 5 ) Range Rd(SR 1610) C o l e m a n L o op (S R1332 ) N Efland Cedar Gr o v e R d ( S R 1 0 0 4 ) E Club Blvd(SR 1669) F l e t c h e r s C h a p e l R d ( S R 1 8 1 5 ) B u c k h o r n R d ( S R 1 1 1 4 )§¨¦85 §¨¦40 §¨¦540 £¤501 £¤70 £¤15501 "$751 "$57 "$98 "$55 "$157 "$86 "$54 "$54 "$57 "$98 "$54 §¨¦85§¨¦40 £¤70 £¤70BUS "$86 §¨¦40 "$86 £¤15501 £¤15501 "$54 "$751 §¨¦40 §¨¦40 "$54 "$55 "$147 "$147 "$540 "$751 £¤15-501BUS £¤15-501BUS £¤70 £¤70BUS £¤70 §¨¦85 §¨¦85 "$157 £¤501 £¤501BUS B. Everett Jordan Lake FallsLake D u r h a m C o u n t y D u r h a m C o u n t y G r a n v i l l e C o u n t y G r a n v i l l e C o u n t y Du r h a m C o u n t y Du r h a m C o u n t y Wa k e C o u n t y Wa k e C o u n t y D u r h a m C o u n t y D u r h a m C o u n t y O r a n g e C o u n t y O r a n g e C o u n t y Durham CountyDurham County Chatham CountyChatham County Orange Count y Orange Count y Chatham Cou n t y Chatham Cou n t y Person CountyPerson County Durham CountyDurham County Ç72 Ç72 Ç72 Durham ResearchTriangle Park Raleigh Cary Chapel Hill Carrboro Hillsborough B. EverettJordan Lake Falls Lake E n o R i ver Elle r b e C r e e k N e w H o p e Cre e k F l a t R iv e r LittleRiv e r ThirdFork Creek M o r g a n C re e k Li c kCre e k Little LickC r e e k LittleCreek S eve n m ile Creek Pokeberry C reek JumpingRun S t o n y C r e e k BolinC r e e k (H o g a n La k e ) KitC r e e k NortheastCreek B o oker C r e e k NorthFor k L i t t l e R iv e r CrookedCreek S o uth F o rk L ittleRiv e r RhodesCreek BuckwaterCreek LittleRiver(LittleRiver Reservoir) Little Brier C r e e k UT2toLittleLi c k C r e e k Tan b a r k B r a n c h F l a t Riv e r Eno R iver L i t t l e R iver Ne w HopeCreek Flat River Morgan C reek Lic k C re e k LittleRiver Eno R i v e r Third F o rkCr e e k n n n n n n n n n nn nn n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !R O ld NC 86 (SR 1009) W W Hwy-54 US-15501S F ar r i n g t o n R d ( S R 1 1 1 0 ) Pin e h u rstDr M artin L u t h e r K i n g J r B l v d Mt C a r m elChurc h R d(SR1008) H o m e s te a d R d (SR 1777) SmithLevelRd(SR1919) O l d D u r h a m R d (S R 1 8 3 8 ) EFranklin St(SR1010) Willo w D r PathwayDr Weaver Dairy Rd(SR 1733) Legion R d S C o lumbiaSt S Fordham Blvd Farring to n M illRd(SR1109) K e n m ore R d Hills b o ro u gh Rd(SR 1 0 0 9) Estes Dr (SR 1750) Barclay Rd Ha m i l t o n R d D a m a s c u s C h u r c h R d (S R 1939) D a v i e R d P ineyMountain R d WP o p l a r A v e Mason F a r m Rd Jones F e r r y R d (SR 100 5 ) K in g s t o n D r E s t e s D r Ext(S R1780) G e o r g e K ing Rd (SR 1112) Elliott Rd S a g e R d R o g e r s R d ( S R 1 7 2 9 ) Stagecoac h R d (S R 1 1 0 7 ) NLakeshoreDr R id geRd E R o s e m a r y S t Ma n n i n g D r (SR 1 9 0 2 ) PopeRd(SR 1113) L e a k L n W e a v e r D airyRd CheekieBoyLn Long L e a f D r B arb e e C h a pelRd(SR1110) Carol St Britton Dr McCauley S t B u r n i n g Tree D r P u r e f o y Rd F ield Ct Culbreth Rd (S R 1 9 9 4 ) S e a w e l l S c h o o l R d ( S R 1843) Me a d owmont L n Sol Rd NGreensboroSt(SR177 2 ) S o u t h w e s t D u r h a m D r ( S R 1 1 1 0 ) O ld F a y ette ville R d ( S R 1 9 3 7 ) R a l eighRd(SR 2048) Parker R d ( S R 1 9 1 6 ) T allyh o T r l (SR 2213) Cu r t i s R d W Rosema r y S t W Camer o n A v e EphesusC h u r c h R d (S R 1742) B im S t Old S chool R d ( S R 1 9 4 1 ) SimpsonSt Stateside Dr D o g w o o d Acres D r ( S R 1962) Danziger Dr O l d F a y e t t e v i l l e R d ( S R 1 1 0 7 ) C la y to n R d K e p l e y R d (SR1108) Mt M oriahRd(S R 2 2 9 4 ) C le la n d R d S Este s D r(SR 17 5 0 ) PrestonSpringsLn Lind e n R d Ray Rd (S R 1 9 3 8 ) Lake H o g a n F arm R d Bolinw ood D r Kildaire Rd D u r h a m -C h a p e l H ill B lv d Easto w n e D r S G r e e n s b o r o S t (S R 1 9 1 9 ) Old Mason F a r m Rd (SR 19 0 0 ) FinleyGolf Course R d Emily Rd S t a n c e ll D r (S R 2 2 8 1 ) Kings Mill Rd Deer Ridge Dr Klein Dr Sto n e y b r o o k R d ( S R 2 0 2 1 ) Milan Dr Ha r d e e L n L a n d s b u r y D rDry Creek Rd (SR 1897) Libra r y Dr Alston Dr Holman L n New Bern Pl Byw a t e r W a y Cr a m e r L n Ke l l y C t Hun t e r H i l l P l BerryhillDr OteysRd Erwin R d (SR1734) Old Chapel HillRd (SR 2220) F o rdham Blvd H ill s b oro u g h S t Falco n b ridge R d Frid a yCtrDr HighSchool Rd §¨¦40 "$54 "$54 "$86 "$86 £¤15501 £¤15501 D u r h a m C o u n t y D u r h a m C o u n t y O r a n g e C o u n t y O r a n g e C o u n t y Ç72 Ç72 Ç72 Ç72 Carrboro Chapel Hill Durham LittleCreek BolinCreek(HoganLake) B o o k e r C r e e k MorganCreek Tan b a r k B r a n c h Hillsborough Inset Carrboro, Chapel Hill and SW Durham Inset n n n n n n n n n n n !( !( !(!( !( !( S a i nt M a r y s R d (S R 1 0 0 2) OrangeGroveRd(SR1006) Old N C 10(SR1710) D a v i s R d (S R 1129) M i l l e r R d ( S R 1 5 5 5 ) C o r n e l i u s S t B a l d w i n R d ( S R 1 5 5 4 ) Eno St FaucetteMillRd(SR 1 3 28) N C h u r t o n S t Ben JohnstonRd (S R 1144)LawrenceRd(SR1561) W King St(SR 1150) W Queen St S C h u r t o n S t (SR 1 0 0 9 ) OdeT u r n e r R d ( S R 1 1 3 0 ) Beck e tts R i d g e D r Rev e r e R d OakdaleDr(SR 1 1 3 3 ) Lafayette Dr W M a r g a r et L n Millsto n e Dr Waterstone Dr Moorefields R d (S R 1 1 35) O r a n g e H i g h S c h o o l R d ( S R 1 5 8 8 ) F ar m GateRd I-85 U S - 7 0 C o n n e c t o r (SR 1 2 3 9 ) El i z a b e t h Br a d y R d WHillAve ( S R 1 1 6 1 ) Rocky Ln (SR 1622) Rabbit Dr Paw Ct En o M o u n t a i n R d (S R 1 1 4 8 ) Mayo St(SR 1192) C e d a r S t o n e W a y Faucette Mill Rd O l d N C 8 6 ( S R 1 0 0 9 ) PalmersGrove C h u r c h R d ( S R 1 5 6 2 ) N e w C o l l e c t o r R d §¨¦40 §¨¦85 £¤70 "$57 "$86 "$86 §¨¦85 §¨¦40 £¤70 £¤70BUS Hillsborough En o R i v e r See DurhamInset - Sheet 4B 0 1 2Miles 0 0.5 1Miles DRAFTWorking CopyNot Adopted DCHC MPO - CTP - BICYCLE MAP DRAFTWorking CopyNot Adopted http://tinyurl.com/DCHC-CTP See Carrboro, Chapel Hill and SW Durham Inset See Hillsborough Inset http://tinyurl.com/DCHC-CTP Base map date: February 18, 2016 Refer to CTP document for more details µ Sheet 4A of 5 Plan date: December 2, 2016 Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO DRAFT ComprehensiveTransportation Plan Working CopyNot Adopted Bicycle Map012MilesGrade Separations Recommended!( Needs Improvement!R Existing!( Bicycle On-road Recommended Existing Needs Improvement Multi-Use Paths Recommended Existing Needs Improvement Schoolsn North Carolina Bike RouteÇ7# Hydrography (1:24k scale) Recommended Bicycle Off-road D R A F TD R A F T Note: The Strategic Transportation Investments (STI) law (House Bill817) establishes design elements that emphasize safety, mobility,complete streets, and accessibility for multiple modes of travel. The"typical" highway cross sections used in this CTP were updated onMay 5, 2014 in response to STI law, reflect NCDOT’s Complete StreetsPolicy and are consistent with SPOTOn!ine (used for projectprioritization). These cross sections should be used as guidelines forproject planning and project design activities. NCDOT’s Complete Streets Policy “requires that NCDOT’s plannersand designers will consider and incorporate multimodal alternatives inthe design and improvement of all appropriate transportation projectswithin a growth area of a town or city unless exceptional circumstancesexist.” (For more information on Complete Streets, go tohttp://www.completestreetsnc.org/). Note: The concepts shown on a CTP are for planning purposes andare subject to change. These concepts will need additional analysisto meet state and federal environmental regulations, to determine finallocations and designs, and to be funded for implementation. Localzoning or subdivision ordinances may require the dedication of rightof way based on the concepts shown on the CTP and local collectorstreet plans, based on N.C.G.S. § 136-66.2 and § 136-66.10. Note: A multi-use path, or other bicycle and pedestrian accommoda-tions as needed, is recommended adjacent to the Durham-OrangeLight Rail Transit (D-O LRT) alignment. For more informationon the D-O LRT Project, go to http://www.ourtransitfuture.com. 35 n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n nn nn n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n nn n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n nn n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n nn n n n n !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !R!R !R !( !R !R !( S ain t M a r y s R d (S R 1 0 0 2 ) Old NC86(SR1009)Cheek Rd (SR 1800) E Geer S t (SR 16 7 0 ) OldOxfo r d H w y ( S R 1004) New SharonChurchRd(SR 1538) M t W illi n g R d(S R 1120) D o dsons Xrds(SR1102) HighRockRd(S R 1 340) W Ten Rd (SR 11 4 6 ) S Alsto n A v e ( S R 194 5 ) BigWoods R d ( S R 1 7 1 6 ) OldNC10(S R 1 7 10) SMiamiBlvd(SR1959) BahamaRd(SR1607) M t S i n a i R d (SR1718) P ageRd(S R1973) TWAle xanderDr(SR 2 0 2 8 ) G a rr e tt R d ( S R 1 116) WLebanon R d (SR 13 0 6 ) BaptistRd(SR 1 8 0 7 ) ColeyRd(SR1900) GlennRd(SR1636) R e d M ill R d (S R 1 6 3 2 ) KempRd(SR1902) Sta gville R d ( S R 1 6 1 5 ) H a mptonRd(S R 1 603) CassamRd (SR 1622) SnowHillRd(SR 1 6 3 1) Russell Rd(SR1451) M a n n s Cha pel Rd (SR 153 2) L y s t r a Rd (S R 1 7 21) Hamlin R d (S R 1 6 3 4) J o n e s F e rry R d(S R 1 9 42) Bahama R d ( S R 1 6 1 6 ) Erw i n R d (S R 1 7 3 4 ) C ole M ill R d ( S R 1401) PattersonRd (SR 1 8 11 ) PleasantGreenRd(SR1567) W Carver S t (SR 140 7 ) Faye t t e v i l l e S t (SR 1 1 1 8 ) S h erro n R d (SR 1 811) O l i v e B ra n c h R d ( S R 1 9 0 5 ) BivinsRd(SR1453) Da v i s D r (S R 1 9 9 9 ) U m s t e a d Rd (S R 1 4 4 9) W Club Blvd I n fi n it y R d (S R 1 6 3 9 ) DavisR d (S R 1 129)Hillandale Rd ( S R 1321 ) BarbeeRd W i l k i n s R d ( S R 1 6 1 3 ) New H o p e C h u r c h Rd (S R 1 7 2 3 ) S R oxboroSt TerryRd(SR1573 ) Milt o n R d( S R 1 4 5 6) Mo o r e s M i l l R d ( S R 1 6 0 1 ) MtCarmelChurchRd(S R 1 0 0 8 ) Hom e steadRd(S R 1 7 7 7 ) E u b anks R d (S R 1 7 2 7 ) Smit h L e v e l R d ( SR 1919) Gr a n d a l e D r (S R 1 1 0 0 ) W h i tfie l d R d (S R 1 7 3 1 ) Lee s villeRd(SR1906) M a s o nRd(SR1002) Jack Be n n e t t R d (SR1717) E C o r n w a l l i s R d (S R 1 1 2 1 ) MillerRd(SR 1 5 5 5 ) RedwoodRd(SR16 3 7) Erwin Rd (SR 1306) F arri n g t o n P o i n t R d ( S R 1 0 0 8 ) LumleyRd(SR196 6 ) E FranklinSt(SR101 0 ) Pickett Rd (SR 1303) WCornwallisRd(SR1308) M artinLutherKingJrPkwy O r a n g e F a c t o r y R d (S R 1 6 2 8) ErwinRd(S R 1 3 20) B ill P o ole Rd(SR 1470) Hopson Rd(SR 1978) Fa y e t t e v i l l e R d (S R 1 1 1 8 ) D a ir y l a n d R d ( S R 1 1 1 3 ) QuailR o o st R d (S R 1 6 1 5) W e a ver DairyRd(SR1733 ) E l l i s C h a p e l Rd(SR1616) G o o d w i n Rd(SR164 0 ) O K elly C hapelRd(SR1731) U n i v e r s i t y D r BroadSt BaconRd(SR1471) S t a t e F o r e s t R d (S R 1 6 1 4) S c o t t King R d (SR 1 1 0 3 ) N e w H o p e C h u rchRd(SR1733) S LowellR d(S R 146 4) B urton R d ( S R 1 8 1 8 ) Ne v i l l e R d (S R 1 9 4 5 ) R oseOfSharonRd (S R 1 4 0 4 ) Hebron Rd (SR 1656) W o o d c roftPkw y A nd r e w s Store Rd(SR1526) H ortonRd(SR1443) W h i p p o o r w i l l L n ( S R 1 7 2 7 ) Hill s b o r o u g h R d (S R 1 0 0 9 ) OldLystr a Rd(SR 1 9 1 5 ) Estes Dr(SR 1750) B a l d w i n R d ( S R 1 5 5 4 ) FaucetteMillRd(SR1328) ArthurMinnisRd (S R 1113) E llis R d ( S R 2 1 4 9 ) Latta Rd (SR 144 8 ) LawrenceRd(SR17 0 9 ) Po y t h r e s s R d (S R 1 5 3 4 ) Estes D r E X T (SR 1 7 8 0 ) Stagecoach Rd(SR 1107) W King St(SR 1150) Ma n n i n g D r (SR 1 9 0 2 ) Dairyland Rd(SR 1104) Ephesus ChurchRd (SR 1742) He r n d o n R d (S R 1 1 0 4 ) Carpenter Fletcher Rd ScienceDr O a k G r ovePkwy S R oxboro St(SR229 5 ) Sla t e r R d ( S R 2 1 0 4 ) W h i t e C r o s s R d ( S R 1 9 5 2 ) Raleigh Rd(SR 2048) OrangeGroveRd(SR 1006) R e d M o u n t a i n R d (SR 1 471) Schley R d ( S R 1 5 4 8 ) Frida y Ctr D r Barb e e C h a p e l R d (SR 1 1 1 0 ) FarringtonMillRd(SR1109) Ol d G r e e n s b o r o R d (S R 1005) Po p e R d (S R 1 1 1 3 ) Sedwick D r (SR 110 2 ) Duke U n i v ersityRd S Min e r a l S p r i n g s Rd (S R 1 8 1 5 ) Range Rd(SR 1610) C o l e m a n L o op (S R1332 ) N Efland Cedar Gr o v e R d ( S R 1 0 0 4 ) E Club Blvd(SR 1669) F l e t c h e r s C h a p e l R d ( S R 1 8 1 5 ) B u c k h o r n R d ( S R 1 1 1 4 )§¨¦85 §¨¦40 §¨¦540 £¤501 £¤70 £¤15501 "$751 "$57 "$98 "$55 "$157 "$86 "$54 "$54 "$57 "$98 "$54 §¨¦85§¨¦40 £¤70 £¤70BUS "$86 §¨¦40 "$86 £¤15501 £¤15501 "$54 "$751 §¨¦40 §¨¦40 "$54 "$55 "$147 "$147 "$540 "$751 £¤15-501BUS £¤15-501BUS £¤70 £¤70BUS £¤70 §¨¦85 §¨¦85 "$157 £¤501 £¤501BUS B. Everett Jordan Lake FallsLake D u r h a m C o u n t y D u r h a m C o u n t y G r a n v i l l e C o u n t y G r a n v i l l e C o u n t y Du r h a m C o u n t y Du r h a m C o u n t y Wa k e C o u n t y Wa k e C o u n t y D u r h a m C o u n t y D u r h a m C o u n t y O r a n g e C o u n t y O r a n g e C o u n t y Durham CountyDurham County Chatham CountyChatham County Orange Count y Orange Count y Chatham Cou n t y Chatham Cou n t y Person CountyPerson County Durham CountyDurham County Durham ResearchTriangle Park Raleigh Cary Chapel Hill Carrboro Hillsborough B. EverettJordan Lake Falls Lake E n o R i ver Elle r b e C r e e k N e w H o p e Cre e k F l a t R iv e r LittleRiv e r ThirdFork Creek M o r g a n C re e k Li c kCre e k Little LickC r e e k LittleCreek S eve n m ile Creek Pokeberry C reek JumpingRun S t o n y C r e e k BolinC r e e k (H o g a n La k e ) KitC r e e k NortheastCreek B o oker C r e e k NorthFor k L i t t l e R iv e r CrookedCreek S o uth F o rk L ittleRiv e r RhodesCreek BuckwaterCreek LittleRiver(LittleRiver Reservoir) Little Brier C r e e k UT2toLittleLi c k C r e e k Tan b a r k B r a n c h F l a t Riv e r Eno R iver L i t t l e R iver Ne w HopeCreek Flat River Morgan C reek Lic k C re e k LittleRiver Eno R i v e r Third F o rkCr e e k n n n n n n n n n nn nn n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n O ld NC 86 (SR 1009) W W Hwy-54 US-15501S G a r r e tt R d ( S R 1 1 1 6 ) F ar r i n g t o n R d ( S R 1 1 1 0 ) Pine h u rstDr Martin L u t h e r K i n g J r B l v d U n i v e rsityD r MtC a r m elChu rc h R d(SR1008) H o m e s te a d R d (SR1777) E u b a n k s R d (S R 1 7 2 7 ) SmithLevelRd(SR1919) O l d D u r h a m R d (S R 1 8 3 8 ) EFranklin St(SR1010) Willo w D r PathwayDr Weaver Dairy Rd(SR 1733) Legion R d S C o lumbiaSt S Fordham Blvd Farrin gton M illRd(SR1109) K e n m ore R d Hills b oro u g h Rd(SR 1 0 0 9) Estes Dr (SR 1750) Barclay Rd Ha m i l t o n R d D a m a s c u s C h u r c h R d (S R 1939) D a v i e R d Lucy Ln P ineyMountain R d W P o p l a r A v e Mason F a r m Rd Jones F e r r y R d (SR 100 5 ) Cottonwood Dr K i n g s t o n D r E s t e s D r Ext(S R1780) G e o r g e K ing Rd (SR 1112) Elliott Rd S a g e R d R o g e r s R d ( S R 1 7 2 9 ) Stagecoac h R d (S R 1 1 0 7 ) NLakeshoreDr R id geRd E R o s e m a r y S t Ma n n i n g D r (SR 1 9 0 2 ) P opeRd(SR 1113) L e a k L n W e a v e r D airyRd KellyD r Long L e a f D r B arbe e C h a p elRd(SR1110) Carol St Britton Dr McCauley S t B u r n i n g Tree D r P u r e f o y Rd F ield Ct Culbreth Rd (S R 1 9 9 4 ) S e a w e l l S c h o o l R d ( S R 1843) Me a d owmont L n Sol Rd King Charles Rd NGreensboroSt(SR177 2 ) S o u t h w e s t D u r h a m D r ( S R 1 1 1 0 ) O ld F a y ette ville R d ( S R 1 9 3 7 ) R a l eighRd(SR 2048) Parker R d ( S R 1 9 1 6 ) T allyh o T rl(SR 2213) Cu r t i s R d W Rosema r y S t W Camer o n A v e EphesusC h u r c h R d (S R 1 742) B i m S t Old S chool R d ( S R 1 9 4 1 ) T h e t f o r d R d SimpsonSt Stateside Dr H u l o n Dr R a m p (S R 2 7 3 3 ) D o g w o o d Acres D r ( S R 1962) Danziger Dr O l d F a y e t t e v i l l e R d ( S R 1 1 0 7 ) C la y to n R d Colorado Av e K e p l e y R d (SR1108) M t M oriahRd(S R 2 2 9 4 ) T r o t t e r R i d g e Rd C le la n d R d S Este s D r(SR 17 5 0 ) Lind e n R d Branchwood Dr Ray Rd (S R 1 9 3 8 ) Lake H o g a n F arm R d Bolinw ood D r Kildaire Rd D u r h a m -C h a p e l H ill B lv d Easto w n e D r S G r e e n s b o r o S t (S R 1 9 1 9 ) Old Mason F a r m Rd (SR 19 0 0 ) FinleyGolfCourse R d Emily Rd S t a n c e ll D r (S R 2 2 8 1) Waterbury Dr Kings Mill Rd Deer Ridge Dr Klein Dr Sto n e y b r o o k R d ( S R 2 0 2 1 ) Ha r d e e L n L a n d s b u r y D r Dry Creek Rd (SR 1897) B is c a y ne R d Libra r y Dr Ashworth D r Colville Rd New Bern Pl Byw a t e r W a y Ke l l y C t Hun t e r H i l l P l Alexan Dr BerryhillDr OteysRd Erwin R d (SR1734) Old Chapel HillRd (SR 2220) F o rdham Blvd H ill s b oro u g h S t Falco n b ridge R d Frid a yCtrDr HighSchool Rd §¨¦40 "$54 "$54 "$86 "$86 £¤15501 £¤15501 D u r h a m C o u n t y D u r h a m C o u n t y O r a n g e C o u n t y O r a n g e C o u n t y Carrboro Chapel Hill Durham LittleCreek BolinCreek(HoganLake) B o o k e r C r e e k M o r g anCreek Tan b a r k B r a n c h Durham Inset Carrboro, Chapel Hill and SW Durham Inset n n n n n n n nn n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n nn n n n n n n n n n n n n n !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !R !R !R !R E G e e r S t (S R 1 6 7 0 ) E M a i n S t S Alston Ave(S R 1 9 4 5 ) W C lu b B lv d Liberty St C o o k R d Ke n t S t BroadSt W KnoxSt Sprunt Ave An d e r s o n S t U n i v e r s it y D r Ba c o n S t EPettigrewSt Fay S t W Mark h a m A v e Americ a n D r WCornwallisRd(SR1308) Ni n t h S t Erwin Rd(SR1320) S B riggs A v e RiddleRd(SR 11 7 1 ) E Club Blvd(SR1669) Camd e n A v e ( S R 1 6 7 1 ) S hannonRd N H o o v e r R d Gl e n d ale Ave E L a w s on St ChapelHillRd(SR112 7) W Trinity Ave W Murray Ave N Elizabeth St EdCookRd Fo s t e r S t Tower v i e w R d E End Ave N Duke St (SR 1445) ScienceDr Broad St (SR 1322) N P ointeDr N M ia m i Blvd Jun c t i o n R d ( S R 1 8 3 8 ) E We a v e r S t N B u c h a n a n B l v d E Ellerbe e S t E llis R d ( S R 4 1 4 9 ) Harvard A v e DukeUniversit y R d Mo r r e e n e R d (S R 1 3 1 7 ) EllisRd(SR1171) Sp r u c e S t FlowersDr W L a k e w o o d Ave Neal Rd(SR 1317) Constitution Dr N Gregson St (SR 1 3 27) E v a n s S t Gu e s s R d Buxton Dr Swi f t A v e Raynor S t Ore g o n S t Hill s b o r o u g h R d Englewood Ave Circuit D r R i d geway Av e R o w e n a A ve D a k o taSt W Geer St Whil d en Dr Ma r y l a n d A v e Mid l a n d T e r (S R 1 8 2 7 ) Morehead Ave Willowdale Dr SRoxboroSt(SR2295) Bellevue Ave S o H i Dr (SR 1954) Fideli t y Dr E Maynard Ave Linwood A v e Croa s d a il e D r (S R 1 4 9 3 ) R ese a r c hDr S u m m i t S t W C o r n w a l l i s R d (SR 1 1 5 8 ) Rustich Dr SDuke St (SR 1 445) WCorporation S t E Umst e a d S t Cli n t o n R d C ra nford R d CappsSt M a r t i n L u ther King Jr Pkwy Larchwood Dr W e s t g a t e D r Midlan d T erraceExtension N L a s a l l e S t So H i D r Blac k w e l l S t W Chapel HillSt (SR 1127) To w e r B l v d M u l d e e S t ( S R 1 8 5 6 ) Chapel Hill Rd Elba St S G u t h r i e A v e W MainSt Glover R d ( S R 1 9 4 0) Fif t e e n t h S t Ke n t S t (S R 1 1 2 7 ) Fu l t o n S t (S R 1 3 2 1 ) Vis t a S t D u r h a m C h a p e l H i l l B l v d ELakewoodAve CampusWalk Ave Archdal e D r (S R 2 2 9 5 ) SJoylandSt E M u r r a y A v e Green St TaylorSt Cheek R d (S R 1 8 0 0 ) P i c k e tt R d (S R 1 3 0 3 ) S Las alleSt Cox Ave O l d C h a p el HillRd(SR2220) HardeeSt SRoxboroSt ELa wson St AngierAve(SR1926) Vi c k e r s A v e ( S R 1 3 6 1 ) UniversityDrAcademy Rd CameronBlvd Holloway St FayettevilleSt(SR1118) NRoxboroSt NMangumSt N D u ke St N Roxb o ro St E l l i s - G l o v e r C o n n e ctor E P e t t i g r e w E x t e n s i o n Gu e s s R d ( S R 1 3 2 2 ) £¤15501 "$147 "$98 £¤70BUS "$147 £¤15-501BUS £¤501BUS £¤501 "$147 "$751 £¤70BUS "$55 "$55 §¨¦85 £¤70 §¨¦85 Thir d F o rk C re ek Eller b e C r e e k EllerbeCreek See DurhamInset 0 1 2Miles 0 0.5 1Miles DRAFTWorking CopyNot Adopted DCHC MPO - CTP - PEDESTRIAN MAP DRAFTWorking CopyNot Adopted http://tinyurl.com/DCHC-CTP Note: Refer to existing local govern-ment plans and policies for existing,improvements and recommendedsidewalks in the MPO area. Note: Refer to existing local govern-ment plans and policies for existing,improvements and recommendedsidewalks in the MPO area. Note: Refer to existing local govern-ment plans and policies for existing,improvements and recommendedsidewalks in the MPO area. Note: Refer to existing local govern-ment plans and policies for existing,improvements and recommendedsidewalks in the MPO area. See Carrboro, Chapel Hill and SW Durham Inset http://tinyurl.com/DCHC-CTP Base map date: February 18, 2016 Refer to CTP document for more details µ Sheet 5 of 5 Plan date: December 2, 2016 Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO DRAFT ComprehensiveTransportation Plan Working CopyNot Adopted Pedestrian Map 0 1 2Miles Grade Separations Recommended!( Needs Improvement!R Existing!( Multi-Use Paths Recommended Existing Needs Improvement Schoolsn Hydrography (1:24k scale) Recommended Existing Needs Improvement Off-road D R A F TD R A F T Note: The Strategic Transportation Investments (STI) law (House Bill817) establishes design elements that emphasize safety, mobility,complete streets, and accessibility for multiple modes of travel. The"typical" highway cross sections used in this CTP were updated onMay 5, 2014 in response to STI law, reflect NCDOT’s Complete StreetsPolicy and are consistent with SPOTOn!ine (used for projectprioritization). These cross sections should be used as guidelines forproject planning and project design activities. NCDOT’s Complete Streets Policy “requires that NCDOT’s plannersand designers will consider and incorporate multimodal alternatives inthe design and improvement of all appropriate transportation projectswithin a growth area of a town or city unless exceptional circumstancesexist.” (For more information on Complete Streets, go tohttp://www.completestreetsnc.org/). Note: The concepts shown on a CTP are for planning purposes andare subject to change. These concepts will need additional analysisto meet state and federal environmental regulations, to determine finallocations and designs, and to be funded for implementation. Localzoning or subdivision ordinances may require the dedication of rightof way based on the concepts shown on the CTP and local collectorstreet plans, based on N.C.G.S. § 136-66.2 and § 136-66.10. Note: A multi-use path, or other bicycle and pedestrian accommoda-tions as needed, is recommended adjacent to the Durham-OrangeLight Rail Transit (D-O LRT) alignment. For more informationon the D-O LRT Project, go to http://www.ourtransitfuture.com. Sidewalks Recommended Existing Needs Improvement 36 Minimum Problem Statements – Highway – 1 Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO Minimum Problem Statements -- Highway Note -- The order of listing is: Interstates, US highways, NC routes and then other roadways. Each section is in alphabetical order. I-85 (US 70 to Granville County) I-85 from US 70 to the Durham and Granville county boundary is mostly a four-lane freeway but is six lanes in the section closest to US 70. In terms of regional trips, this interstate connects Durham to several small North Carolina cities and towns in the northeast, and is one of the few major roadways that connects Durham to the north and east because of the barrier that Falls Lake imposes. In terms of interstate trips, I-85 is the principal roadway connecting Atlanta (Georgia), Charlotte, the North Carolina piedmont cities, Richmond (Virginia) and Washington (DC). The CTP includes the addition of travel lanes to create a six-lane freeway and upgraded interchanges and ramps. As a practical matter, the lane additions and upgrades should be extended across the Falls Lake bridge to the I-85/US 15 interchange because there is a significant number of commuter trips to large employers in Butner, the prisons and state hospital, and to Creedmoor residences. The CTP has a new four-lane divided roadway, the Northern Durham Parkway, which will intersect I-85 at the current Glenn School Road (SR 1675) interchange. The 2013 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) ranges from 43,000 vehicles per day (vpd) to 52,000 vpd on a roadway with a 60,000 vpd Level of Service (LOS) D capacity. The 2040 volumes are projected to range from 65,000 vpd to 70,000 vpd. This increase will yield volume-to-capacity ratios that approach 1.2 and cause travel delays, and possible crash frequency and severity increases on this important interstate corridor. Currently, there are not any major interchanges on this segment and as a result there are not any extraordinary intersection delays or safety problems based on the 2014 DCHC MPO Mobility Report Card. Red Mill Road (SR 1632) and US 15 are the highest volume intersecting roads and their 2013 AADT is 9,600 vpd and 8,100 vpd, respectively. And, Glenn School Road is the only interchange that has a significant retail presence. However, the volume on the intersecting roads is expected to increase significantly given the expected residential and employment growth in this portion of the region. The CTP deficiency analysis shows that the Glenn School Road/I-85 and Red Mill Road/I-85 interchanges have functionally obsolete bridges, and the East Club Boulevard (SR 1671)/I-85 interchange bridge is both structurally and functionally obsolete. The Red Mill Road/I-85 interchange meets at least one of the intersection crash warrants, and should be further investigated. These interchanges and ramps will need to be upgraded. The 2040 projected volumes for Red Mill Road, East Club Boulevard and the Northern Durham Parkway (new facility) will approach 17,000 vpd, further straining the obsolete design of these facilities. The DCHC MPO, Capital Area MPO and NCDOT began the Triangle Tolling Study in late 2016 and will complete the study by 2018. I-85 will be part of the tolling study to ascertain whether or not managed lanes are feasible and logical for I-85. Attachment 3 Minimum Problem Statements – Highway – 2 Residential and employment development will continue to occur around the I-85 interchanges. Bicycle, pedestrian and transit trips will need to be considered in the interchange upgrades and the cross-section of the intersecting roadways. The US Army Corps of Engineers and resource agencies should be included in the environmental analysis stage of project development very early. I-85 crosses Falls Lake and its related wetlands, Army Corps of Engineering property, and critical watershed. The entire length of this study segment is within a protected or critical watershed. I-85 (I-40 to Durham County line) Traffic volume on segments of I-85 from I-40 to the Durham County line is currently between 33,000 vpd and 37,000vpd. It is projected to exceed LOS D by 2040 with expected volumes of 49,800 vehicles per day (vpd), 51,600 vpd, and 52,700 vpd from I-40 to South Churton Street (SR 1009), South Churton Street to NC 86, and NC 86 to US 70, respectively. LOS D capacities on the facility range from 29,700 vpd to 44,500 vpd. Improvements are needed in order to relieve anticipated congestion and to maintain a minimum LOS D on the existing facility. This section of I-85 is currently a four-lane divided freeway with three interchanges and corresponding ramps within an approximate 260-foot right-of-way. This section of I-85 is adjacent to the improved six-lane section of I-85 through Durham County. The CTP project proposal is to improve to a six-lane freeway with a raised median for this facility to better accommodate the projected 2040 volume. I-85/US 70 Connector (SR 1239) Peak-period traffic flow on Efland-Cedar Grove Road (SR 1372) from US 70 to Forest Avenue (SR 1322), from Forest Avenue to Mount Willing Road (SR 1120), and from Mount Willing Road to I-85/I-40 currently exceeds the realistic design capacity and service flow rate on the subject facilities. These facilities collectively serve as the only option for many commuters with origins in northern Orange County to access I-85/I-40 in the northbound/eastbound (respectively) direction to further access the region’s major employment centers to the south and east. This particular route involves taking two (2), 90-degree turns and traversing an at-grade railroad crossing located approximately 30 feet from two (2) intersections on either side. The combination of facilities creates a major capacity contraction relative to the facilities that feed it traffic. Additionally, stacking at the intersections connecting the combination of facilities creates hazardous conditions for vehicles encountering the at-grade railroad crossing adjacent to the intersections. The CTP proposal is to convert the existing I-85/US 70 Connector’s interchange with US 70 approximately 1.25 miles east to a full-movement interchange with ramps providing access from all directions or to convert the interchange to a full-movement T-shaped at-grade intersection. Currently, ramps only provide access from northbound on the Connector to eastbound US 70 and from westbound US 70 to southbound on the Connector. There is no access from westbound US 70 to the Connector or from the Connector to US 70 westbound. The project would allow an improved mobility alternative for Minimum Problem Statements – Highway – 3 commuters using Efland-Cedar Grove Road to access I-40/I-85 and avoidance of a major capacity contraction and safety hazard using a combination of local streets approximately 1.25 miles west. Any change to the interchange would consider the accommodation of bicycle travel along US 70. US 501 (North Roxboro Road) (North Duke Street (US 501) to Sandlewood Drive (SR 1698) US 501 (North Roxboro Road) needs additional capacity between the US 501 (North Duke Street)/ US 501 Business (North Roxboro Street) split and Sandlewood Drive (SR 1698) due to projected future congestion and to improve mobility. A 6-lane divided roadway is proposed for the current 5 -lane section from North Duke Street to Milton Road (SR 1456). A median should be added from Milton Road to Sandlewood Drive. Providing a divided roadway in this segment will improve mobility and effectively creates a divided cross-section from I-85 to Person County in the north. North Roxboro Road is the major thoroughfare that connects I-85 and central Durham with northern Durham County and the city of Roxboro. It is the most important commuter route in northern Durham County and currently experiences significant traffic delays at intersections such as Latta Road/Infinity Road. Retail, commercial, schools, libraries and other service locations for northern Durham residents are clustered along this thoroughfare. It is in the North Carolina truck network and in some cases twin and 53-foot trucks are permitted. Most of the area in the vicinity of this roadway segment is within the water and sewer service area of the city of Durham and expected to experience moderate residential growth in the future. The current LOS D capacity is 36,600 vehicles per day (vpd), and daily traffic counts range from 32,000 vpd near the Eno River to 21,000 vpd near Sandlewood Drive. There has been no measureable increase in daily traffic counts from 2003 through 2013. However, 2040 traffic forecasts have daily volumes increasing to as high as 48,000 vpd, which would result in volumes that are 30% over capacity, i.e., volume-to-capacity ratio (v/c) of 1.3. Capacity increases on North Duke Street and the extension of North Alston Avenue to North Roxboro Street/Old Oxford Road (SR 1004) would likely attract more trips to this segment of North Roxboro Road. It should be noted that the Omega Road intersection is a potentially hazardous intersection as indicated in the 2014 NC Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) report, i.e., it exceeds the warrant for frontal impact crashes. In addition, the Eno River bridge is functionally obsolete, which means that it was not constructed to the standards that are currently used. Although this project was not funded in the FY 2016-2025 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), it did receive a moderate score in the NCDOT prioritization process (SPOT P3.0) and therefore might score well enough in the next prioritization cycle to be funded in the TIP. A funded project, TIP# U-5516, is to provide intersection improvements to the Latta Road/Infinity Road intersection with US 501, which is just north of Omega Road. Minimum Problem Statements – Highway – 4 US 501 (North Duke Street) (I-85 to US 501 Business (North Roxboro Street)) US 501 (North Duke Street), from I-85 to US 501 Business (North Roxboro Street), is currently a five-lane roadway with sidewalks on both sides of the segment from I-85 to Murray Avenue. This US highway is the principal road between north Durham and I-85 and central Durham. US 501 merges with US 501 Business (North Roxboro Road) in northern Durham to continue north to the city of Roxboro (approximately 28 miles). The CTP includes the creation of a four-lane, divided synchronized street cross-section with turn lanes at major intersections and commercial driveways. A six-lane divided roadway would likely require impacts to many structures. It is expected that US 501 will attract the majority of new trips as northern Durham County grows because the CTP does not recommend significant improvements on parallel routes. NC 157 (Guess Road) does not have any improvements and possible capacity improvements on North Roxboro Street might be limited to the addition of a narrow median because of the proximity of residential and commercial buildings to the current roadway. Guess Road has similar limitations. Thus, capacity improvements for this corridor are likely to be less costly and complex on North Duke Street given a relatively lower density of residential and commercial development. The current volume exceeds the capacity. On US 501, the 2013 AADT ranges from 29,000 to 34,000 vehicles per day (vpd) on a roadway with a 26,800 vpd capacity (LOS D). There appears to be excess capacity on one parallel route. Guess Road (1.3 miles to the west) has 23,000 vpd on a roadway with a 44,000 vpd capacity. The current 28,000 vpd on North Roxboro Street (0.8 miles to the east), however, greatly exceeds 22,200 vpd capacity of that roadway. The 2040 volume is projected to range from 40,000 to 50,000 vpd. This will yield volume-to-capacity ratios from 1.4 to 1.7, an indication of heavy travel delays on this important corridor. The 2040 volume on North Roxboro Street will push that roadway to a highly congested 1.9 volume-to-capacity ratio, but Guess Road will continue to operate at a volume that is below capacity. There are not any major roads that intersect US 501 along this segment and as a result there are not any extraordinary intersection delays or safety problems. The intersections on this corridor have a level-of- service of C or better (i.e., A or B) based on the 2014 DCHC MPO Mobility Report Card. Residential development along this segment and the retail and office development on the northern section generate bicycle, pedestrian and transit trips. The CTP recommends bike lanes for the complete extent of this road segment and consideration of sheltered transit stops and bus pull-outs in the design. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) project EB-5715 is a sidewalk on the east side of US 501 from Murray Avenue to North Roxboro Road that is planned for construction in 2017. US 501 crosses Ellerbee Creek immediately south of the US 501/Stadium Drive intersection but there are not any associated wetlands or floodplains. The entire length of this study segment is within a protected watershed. Minimum Problem Statements – Highway – 5 US 70 (I-85/US 70 Connector to US 70 Alternate) Traffic volume on segments of US 70 from the I-85/US 70 Connector to US 70 Alternate is projected to exceed LOS D by 2040 with expected volumes of 17,200 vehicles per day (vpd), 19,700 vpd, and 22,200 vpd from the I-85/US 70 Connector to West Hill Avenue (SR 1161), West Hill Avenue to NC 86 (North Churton Street), and North Churton Street to US 70 Alternate, respectively. LOS D capacities on the facility range from 12,400 vpd to 12,700 vpd. Improvements are needed in order to relieve anticipated congestion and to maintain a LOS D on the facility. This section of US 70 is currently a two-lane, 24-foot undivided cross section with left and right-turn lanes at various intersections and a center two-way left turn lane at various locations along the facility. The CTP project proposal is to provide a four-lane divided cross section for this facility with five-foot bike lanes and five-foot sidewalks separated from the travel lanes to better accommodate the projected traffic volume. NC 54 (Old Fayetteville Road (SR 1937) to Bethel Hickory Grove Church Road (SR 1104)) NC 54 from Old Fayetteville Road (SR 1937 and SR 1107) to Bethel Hickory Grove Church Road (SR 1104) starts as a four-lane divided urban boulevard and quickly turns into a rural, two-lane highway as it heads west out of town. This road primarily serves commuters from western Orange County and Alamance County. Traffic volumes on NC 54 from Bethel Hickory Grove Church Road to Old Fayetteville Road currently exceed Level of Service (LOS) D capacity of 12,400 vehicles per day (vpd) with an existing volume of 15,000 vpd. Volume on the facility is forecast to exceed LOS D by 2040 with an expected volume of 24,900 vpd. However, NCDOT counts from the last decade show no increase in AADT just west of the intersection of NC 54 and Old Fayetteville Road. Improvements are needed in order to relieve existing and anticipated congestion and to maintain a minimum LOS D on the existing facility. This section of NC 54 is currently a two-lane, 24-foot undivided cross section with limited-storage right- and left-turn lanes at its intersection with Neville Road (SR 1945). The CTP project proposal is to improve the capacity of this roadway but further study is needed before any definitive cross-section or specific improvements are identified. The corridor runs through two watershed protection areas and the roadway is popular among bicyclists. It should be noted that the 2013 Orange County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) covering the portion of the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) planning area within Orange County recommends a four-lane divided cross section for this facility from Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) to Neville Road (SR 1945). NC 751 (NC 54 to Martha’s Chapel Road (SR 1752)) NC 751 runs from US 64 in Chatham County to US 70 in Durham County. This particular section of NC 751 is from Martha’s Chapel Road (SR 1752) in rural Chatham County, which is next to the DCHC MPO border, to NC 54 in the city of Durham. Most of this section is a two-lane road with turn lanes at cross streets and major driveways. The section adjacent to I-40 and Renaissance Parkway, which runs from Minimum Problem Statements – Highway – 6 Southpoint Auto Park Boulevard to Renaissance Parkway, has four to five lanes to accommodate the relatively high traffic volume with turn lanes for I-40 and Renaissance Parkway. The roadway drains to nearby Jordan Lake and there are over twenty fresh water ponds in the corridor. Improvements are needed to accommodate projected traffic in o rder to maintain a Level of Service D and provide mobility between I-40 and the growing retail, residential and employment development in southern Durham County and eastern Chatham County. Improvements might include adding turn lanes at intersections and widening the current lanes and shoulders at a minimum, or possibly include additional lanes. It should be noted that a feasibility study (FS-1008B) was started in 2014 for this section of NC 751 that collected field data and produced traffic forecasts. Although the feasibility study was not completed, it can provide details on the need for safety and capacity improvements on this roadway. This problem statement presents the roadway in four different sections below. The southern section, from Martha’s Chapel Road (SR 1752) to O’Kelly Chapel Road (SR 1731), is a two- lane major collector with turn lanes at some intersections. It mostly has a 60-foot right-of-way but some subsections have 90-foot and even 200-foot right-of-way sections. The area is rural but has occasional churches and small scale commercial development such as nurseries. The 2012 AADT is 8,300 vehicles per day (vpd) and this volume has been about the same since 2003. The capacity is 12,400 vpd at LOS D. Although the current volume is well within capacity, the high peak volume split (75%) and the narrow rural roadway (24 feet overall width) combine to create safety hazards and congestion that is not common on rural highways. The 2040 volume is expected to increase to 14,000, or a 1.1 V/C ratio, which will worsen the safety and congestion problems. It is recommended that this southern section be widened to a four-lane divided boulevard facility. The middle section, from O’Kelly Chapel Road to Renaissance Parkway, is a two-lane major thoroughfare with turn lanes at intersections. It mostly has a 60-foot right-of-way but some subsections have up to 90-foot, and the overall road width is 19 feet to 24 feet. It should be noted that this section connects to two east-west roads, Stagecoach Road (SR 1107) and O’Kelly Chapel Road, that provide travelers with a southern alternative to congested I-40 and NC 54. The area is a mixture of residential and retail/commercial, and there is ample undeveloped land that is developing at suburban densities. Recent development includes large single-family or multi-family development. The 2013 AADT ranges from 9,700 vpd at the southern end to 13,000 vpd at the northern end. The capacity is 12,700 vpd at LOS D. Although the current volume is close to capacity, the high peak volume split (65% to 75%), the narrow overall roadway, and multiple driveways and intersections combine to create many safety hazards and congestion. The 2040 volume is expected to be 18,000 vpd to 21,000 vpd, resulting in a 1.4 to 1.8 V/C ratio that will increase delay. The section adjacent to I-40, from Renaissance Parkway to Southpoint Autopark Boulevard, is a four - lane major thoroughfare south of I-40 and a four-lane divided boulevard north of I-40. It has many right turn slip lanes and double left turn lanes at the I-40 and Renaissance Parkway intersections to accommodate traffic to nearby South Pointe Mall and the adjacent big box and chain retail stores, and growing office developments. Local planners do not anticipate further widening of this roadway section because the roadway in some locations are close to buildings and the area to the west is mostly unbuildable given its proximity to Third Fork Creek and New Hope Creek. Minimum Problem Statements – Highway – 7 The 2011 AADT ranges from 15,000 vpd north of I-40 to 12,000 vpd south of I-40. The capacity is as high as 36,600 vpd. The 2040 volume is projected to be 30,600 vpd and 18,500 vpd north and south of I-40, respectively. Additional lanes are not recommended for this section in the long-range plan because the 2040 projected volumes do not exceed existing capacities. The northern section, from Southpoint Autopark Boulevard to NC 54, is mostly a two-lane major thoroughfare with turn and accessory lanes at the driveways for apartment complexes. It has a 60-foot right-of-way and the overall road width is 24 feet. The area is a mixture of multi-family residential and retail such as car dealerships, which has a relatively low trip volume among retail establishments. The road widens to a five-lane facility with a 110-foot right-of-way for about 800 feet south of NC 54 at the Hope Valley Commons shopping center. This roadway section provides an important connection between south Durham and I-40. The 2013 AADT is 15,000 vpd and has increased from 12,000 vpd in 2003. The capacity is 12,700 vpd at LOS D for the two-lane section and 27,600 for the five-lane section. The DCHC MPO’s Mobility Report Card did not discern any extraordinary delays in this alignment. The lack of congestion is probably because there are very few driveways and those that exist have turn and accessory lanes to help traffic flow. The 2040 volume is expected to be 31,000 vpd, resulting in a 2.4 V/C ratio in the two-lane section and considerable delays and safety problems. The NC 54/NC 751 intersection had an LOS C and LOS D rating in 2013 (see DCHC MPO Mobility Report Card) – this service level will continue to deteriorate. It is recommended that this northern section be widened to a four-lane divided boulevard facility where it is two lanes and a median be added where it is a five lane section. The future residential and commercial development around the section of NC 751 that is north of Fayetteville Road (SR 1118) will generate significant bicycle, pedestrian, and transit traffic. There are currently just a few sections with sidewalks and some bike lanes between Stagecoach Road (SR 1107) and Fayetteville Road. There is no transit service south of Renaissance Parkway. The CTP recommends sidewalks and bike lanes along this section of NC 751, and as well as a multiuse path called Eagle Spur Greenway to connect to the popular American Tobacco Trail. NC 751 (Hope Valley Road) (Woodcroft Parkway to South Roxboro Street (SR 1146)) NC 751 (Hope Valley Road), from NC 54 to South Roxboro Street (SR 1146), is currently a two-lane undivided major thoroughfare north of Woodcroft Parkway and a four to five-lane major thoroughfare south of Woodcroft Parkway. There are turn lanes at cross streets and major driveways, e.g., apartment complexes. Improvements to a four-lane divided boulevard are needed between Woodcroft Parkway and South Roxboro Street to accommodate projected traffic in order to maintain a LOS D and provide mobility between southwest Durham, I-40 and central Durham. The CTP includes an extension of Woodcroft Parkway from NC 751 to Garrett Road (SR 1116) that is expected to attract trips away from the section of NC 751 between Woodcroft Parkway and Garrett Road. This section of NC 751 currently has a 60-foot right-of-way, sidewalks covering many locations along the route, and no bicycle lanes. The 2013 AADT is 16,000 vpd to 21,000 vpd north and south, respectively of Woodcroft Parkway. The capacity north of Woodcroft Parkway is 11,600 vpd and thus already Minimum Problem Statements – Highway – 8 experiences LOS E congestion. Although the capacity south of Woodcroft Parkway, 31,600 vpd, is higher than the current 18,000 vpd, there are many traffic signals, driveways and lane changing that cause delays in this section. The 2040 volume is expected to increase to 22,800 vpd and 25,700 vpd in the north and south sections, respectively, and increase the congestion and delays. Intersection improvements will be needed, as well. The NC 751/Garrett Road intersection exceeds the NCDOT standard safety warrant for frontal impact crashes (as indicated in the 2014 NC Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) report), and has an LOS D rating in the 2014 Mobility Report Card. In this vicinity, there are many residential developments, shops, and restaurants, and a high school and two large grocery stores. There are also plans for more neighborhoods to be developed around this area. With the current and future developments around NC 751, there will be a significant percent increase in traffic congestion on this stretch of NC 751, especially during the PM peak time frame when both the nearby high school and working commuters are on the road at the same. Furthermore, the intersection of NC 751 and South Roxboro Street needs to be improved, possibly by making South Roxboro Street to NC 751 (south) a through movement and creating NC 751 (north) as the single leg of a T-intersection into South Roxboro Street. South Roxboro Street is a four-lane divided arterial that will be extended in the future to provide a direct route to downtown Durham. The current residential and commercial development around NC 751, in addition to the future residential development, will generate increased bicycle, pedestrian, and transit traffic. The current pedestrian facilities are discontinuous and inadequate for existing pedestrian traffic. There are no bicycle facilities, and many of the bus stops do not have any amenities and do not include bus pull-outs resulting in blocked traffic. The need for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities will only increase with additional development along NC 751. In the Durham Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan, bicycle lanes have been proposed along NC 751. The Third Fork Creek Trail intersects with this section of NC 751 and additional bicycle and pedestrian facilities are needed to connect nearby destinations to the trail. The DurhamWalks! Pedestrian Plan recommends sidewalks on both sides of NC 751. NC 86 (US 70 Bypass (Cornelius Street) to north of the NC 86/NC 57 split) NC 86, from US 70 Bypass (Cornelius Street) to north of the NC 86/NC 57 split, is currently a two-lane undivided regional facility that is expected to be near capacity by 2040. NC 86 overlaps with NC 57 on this section of roadway. Improvements are needed to accommodate projected traffic in order to maintain a LOS D and to improve pedestrian safety. This section of NC 86 currently has a 60-foot right-of-way, no sidewalks, and no bicycle lanes. The 2015 AADT is 15,000 vehicles per day (vpd); by 2040, the volume is expected to be over 20,000 vpd compared to an LOS D capacity of 12,900 vpd for the existing cross section. There are many neighborhoods, restaurants, shops, and a couple schools nearby this stretch of NC 86. This route provides an important connection to Roxboro and several towns in the southern Virginia region, which contribute to the high traffic volume on this route. Any further suburbanization of this northern Hillsborough area should also account for a significant percent increase in traffic on NC 86. Improvements at the NC 86/NC 57 intersection are identified as a need in the Safe Routes to School Action Plan for Stanford Middle School. While the intersection was reconfigured more than a decade ago to install a traffic signal, the intersection is still less than desirable with closely intersecting local streets and a right turn short cut Minimum Problem Statements – Highway – 9 that remains open. Additionally, the acute intersection angle with US 70 Bypass makes certain maneuvers difficult for the significant heavy truck traffic routed through this intersection by the town’s designated truck route which prohibits no-local trucks continuing south on NC 86. The current residential and commercial development around NC 86, in addition to any planned development, will generate increased bicycle, pedestrian, and transit traffic. The current pedestrian facilities are discontinuous and inadequate for existing pedestrian traffic. There are no bicycle facilities and currently no bus service. However there is a Triangle Transit route on NC 86 and the US 70 bypass directly south of this section. The need for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities will only increase with additional development along NC 86 and more through traffic from northern Orange County. NC 86 (Old NC 10 (SR 1710) to US 70 Business) NC 86, from Old NC 10 (SR 1710) to the US 70 Business route is currently a two-lane, undivided arterial that is approaching capacity and needs to be expanded to a four lane divided facility. There are two potential project sections: US 70 Business to I-85 and I-85 to NC 10. Improvements are needed to accommodate both current and projected traffic in order to maintain a LOS D. The current LOS D roadway capacity, 12,400 vehicles per day (vpd), struggles to handle the 10,000 vpd (2013 AADT). The 2040 volume forecast of 18,500 vpd and 32,600 vpd on NC 86 north and south of I-85, respectively, will create very high levels of congestion and delay. This section of NC 86 currently has sidewalks at select locations, but no bicycle lanes. There are many neighborhoods, restaurants, shops, and schools along this stretch of NC 86. This section of NC 86 serves as a major commuting route between Hillsborough and Chapel Hill, and provides access to several park- and-ride lots. Future passenger rail stations are also proposed for this corridor. Additionally, the Old NC 10 corridor is heavily used by both commuting and recreational bikers moving between Durham and Hillsborough. This route appears on both the Hillsborough Connectivity Plan and the Orange County bicycle plan. The current residential and commercial development around NC 86, in addition to the planned office and residential development, will generate increased bicycle, pedestrian, and transit traffic. The current pedestrian facilities are discontinuous and inadequate for existing pedestrian traffic. There are no bicycle facilities, and many of the bus stops do not have any amenities and do not include bus pull-outs resulting in blocked traffic. The need for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities will only increase with additional development along NC 86 and the construction of passenger rail stations. Old NC 86/Hillsborough Road (SR 1009) (I-40 to Old Fayetteville Road (SR 1107)) Traffic volume on segments of Old NC 86 (SR 1009) from I-40 to Old Fayetteville Road (SR 1107) is projected to exceed LOS D by 2040 with expected volumes of 15,300 vehicles per day (vpd), 17,900 vpd, and 23,700 vpd from I-40 to Eubanks Road (SR 1727), Eubanks Road to Dairyland Road (SR 1104), and Dairyland Road to Old Fayetteville Road, respectively. LOS D capacities on the facility range from 12,400 vpd to 13,800 vpd. Improvements related to travel lane width, intersection and driveway entrance sight distance, and paved shoulders accommodating bicycle travel are needed to improve safety and to modernize the roadway to accommodate the projected increase in traffic volume and multi-modal use. Minimum Problem Statements – Highway – 10 The section of Old NC 86 (SR 1009) from I-40 to Dairyland Road is currently a two-lane, 20 to 24-foot undivided cross section with right and left-turn storage at various intersections. The section of Old NC 86 from Dairyland Road to Old Fayetteville Road is currently a two-lane, 20 to 24-foot undivided cross section that widens to a 30 to 40-foot undivided cross section with a center two-way left turn lane transitioning to left-turn storage at two intersections. Additional vehicle lanes would affect the character of the roadway and likely impact residential and agricultural areas. Bike lanes along the segment between Hillsborough Road and Dairyland Road would improve the corridor, as this segment of roadway sees very heavy bicycle traffic at certain times. The road is narrow and it can be difficult for vehicles to pass bicyclists when there is traffic, and bicycle lanes would alleviate this pressure. There are existing turn lanes at major intersections along the entire corridor, but other safety improvements would also ease congestion in the future. The CTP designates the roadway as needs improvements. The project proposal is to provide a two-lane undivided cross section comprised of twelve-foot travel lanes and five-foot bike lanes to more safely and efficiently accommodate increasing traffic volume and facilitate bicycle travel. NC 98 (Holloway Street and Wake Forest Highway) (US 70 to Wake County Line) NC 98, from US 70 to the Wake County boundary, is currently a four-lane undivided road from US 70 to Nichols Farm Drive and a two-lane section east of the intersection with Nichols Farm Drive. The short section from US 70 to Junction Road is already five lanes and will receive capacity improvements as part of the East End Connector construction that is already in progress. There are two possible project sections: Junction Road to Nichols Farm Drive; and Nichols Farms Drive to the Wake County Line. There are commonly turn lanes at cross streets, center left turn lanes at some retail developments and turn and acceleration lanes at driveways to major subdivisions. Sidewalks and bike lanes are rare and mostly concentrated in the segment near US 70. NC 98 is the principal road between Durham and northern Wake County (including Wake Forest) because Falls Lake limits the number of roadways that can make this east-west connection. It is the only major east-west roadway between I-85 and I-540, which is ten miles or more, and these rural areas are likely to experience substantial residential growth over the next few decades. The CTP includes the addition of a narrow median in the current four-lane section and the addition of two travel lanes in the current two-lane section to create a four-lane divided boulevard throughout. The 2011 AADT for the four-lane segment of NC 98 ranges from 16,000 vpd to 24,000 vpd, and thus only the segment near US 70 is approaching the 24,000 vpd LOS D capacity. The 2040 volume, however, is projected to range from 24,000 vpd to 39,000 vpd. This will create volume-to-capacity ratios from 1.0 to 1.5, an indication of heavy travel delays on a key corridor. The 2011 AADT for the two-lane segment of 11,000 vpd, which given the 12,400 vpd LOS D capacity, is creating some delays and safety concerns (e.g., passing vehicles on a two-lane road). The 2040 volume is expected to increase to 18,000 vpd, causing many delays and crashes if additional capacity is not added. Although long-range plans provide for additional lanes on I-85 and I-540, this additional capacity is likely to have little effect in drawing traffic away from NC 98 given the ten plus mile distance between those roadways and the expected residential growth. Minimum Problem Statements – Highway – 11 There are other transportation issues on NC 98 besides congestion. The US 70/NC 98 bridge is considered functionally obsolete. The East End Connector project, which started construction in 2015, will make needed improvements to this bridge. Intersection delay is currently not a problem . The intersections on the NC 98 corridor have a level-of-service of C or better (i.e., A or B) based on the 2014 DCHC MPO Mobility Report Card. The current and future residential development in the NC 98 area and the expected retail development on NC 98 will generate increased bicycle, pedestrian, and transit traffic. Sidewalks and bike lanes are rare, and bus stops do not have any amenities. The CTP recommends a bike lane for the complete extension of the NC 98 corridor and sidewalks to fill any of the existing gaps. In addition, NC 98 roadway improvements need to consider safe crossing treatments for bicycle and pedestrian traffic that cross NC 98. The US Army Corps of Engineers and resource agencies should be included in the environmental analysis stage of the project development very early. Environmental impacts will be a concern and likely have an impact on the design and viability of adding lanes to this roadway. NC 98 crosses over Lick Creek and Little Lick Creek, and the Lick Creek section contains wetlands, Army Corps of Engineers property and critical watershed. The entire length of this project segment is within either a protected or critical watershed. Barbee Chapel Road (SR 1110) (NC 54 to Farrington Mill Road (SR 1109)) Barbee Chapel Road (SR 1110), from NC 54 to Farrington Mill Road (SR 1109), is currently a two-lane undivided suburban road that does not provide adequate pedestrian and on-road bicycle facilities. Improvements are needed to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic and improve connectivity between Chapel Hill, Chatham County, Durham, and Research Triangle Park. This section of Barbee Chapel Road currently has a 60-foot right-of-way, sidewalks at a few locations, and no bicycle lanes. The 2011 AADT is 11,000 vehicles per day (vpd); by 2040, the AADT is expected to be 19,100 vpd compared to a LOS D capacity of 11,600 vpd for the existing right-of-way. There are mostly residential units along this stretch of Barbee Chapel Road/Farrington Road and plans to build more residential units nearby as well. The traffic around Barbee Chapel Road will only increase with the increased development around this area. This route also serves as a connection to developing Chatham County neighborhoods and as a relief route for nearby NC 54 and I-40. This route is part of the Triangle Commuter Bike Initiative. The current and planned residential development around Barbee Chapel Road will generate increased bicycle, pedestrian, and transit traffic. The current pedestrian facilities are discontinuous and inadequate for existing pedestrian traffic. There are no bicycle facilities, and many of the bus stops do not have any amenities and do not include bus pull-outs resulting in blocked traffic. The need for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities will only increase with additional development around Barbee Chapel Road. Bicycle lanes have been proposed along this route in the Durham Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan. The DurhamWalks! Pedestrian Plan recommends sidewalks on both sides of this route. Minimum Problem Statements – Highway – 12 Carver Street Extension (Danube Lane (SR 1648) to Hamlin Road (SR 1634)) East Carver Street needs to be extended from Danube Lane (SR 1648) to Hamlin Road (SR 1634) to improve east-west connectivity in northern Durham County. This area has recently experienced significant residential growth and East Carver Street provides access to the retail, medical and commercial facilities clustered along US 501 Business (North Roxboro Street) and Ben Franklin Boulevard. A two-lane roadway with sidewalks and bicycle facilities is proposed. The only other east- west connectors in this area, Hebron Road (SR 1656) and Old Oxford Road (SR 1004), are about 1 ½ miles apart along US 501 Business (North Roxboro Street). This project is funded in the city of Durham Capital Improvement Program (CIP), the funding source being local traffic impact fees, and the City will also manage the project. Right-of-way acquisition and final design were underway in the fall of 2015 with construction to begin within the next year. South Churton Street (Eno River Bridge to I-40), TIP No. U-5845 Traffic volume on all segments of South Churton Street (SR 1009) from I-40 to the Eno River is projected to exceed LOS D capacity, 11,600 vehicles per day (vpd), by 2040 with expected volumes exceeding 21,000 vpd. Improvements are needed in order to relieve anticipated congestion and to maintain a minimum LOS D on the existing facility. This section of South Churton Street currently has a two-lane section from I-40 to Oakdale Drive (SR 1133) with some intersection improvements. The cross-sections convert to a three-lane profile from Oakdale Drive to north of Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) and converts back to a two-lane section before crossing bridge 240 over the Southern Railroad. This corridor provides significant access to neighborhoods and shopping areas throughout Hillsborough as well as connecting all portions of town to both I-85 and I-40. With only two bridges over the Eno River in town, this route is the primary north-south travel conduit. Significant development and redevelopment along this corridor is also projected in the town’s land use plan. The anticipated development will be compact in nature increasing the need for bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the corridor to more seamlessly connect the entire community and maximize the options to use alternate modes of transportation. The town also plans a passenger rail station near the intersection of Orange Grove Road and South Churton Street, which will also serve as a transit hub for the existing services in the community. The CTP project proposal is to provide a four-lane divided cross section with a raised median for this facility to better accommodate the projected 2040 volume. Bike lanes and sidewalks are also included along the project length. Eno Mountain Road (SR 1148) & Mayo Street (SR 1192) at Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) Intersection, TIP No. U-3436 The Eno Mountain Road (SR 1148) and Mayo Street (SR 1192) intersections with Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) are suburban intersections that need improved safety and traffic flow. Improvements are also needed for adequate pedestrian, on-road bicycle and bus accommodations. Minimum Problem Statements – Highway – 13 The Eno Mountain Road and Mayo Street intersections with Orange Grove Road are two 3-leg intersections that are approximately 300 feet apart. Orange Grove Road is the east-west street, with Eno Mountain Road intersecting it from the north and Mayo Street intersecting it from the south. All three roads are two-lane undivided, have 60-foot right-of-ways, no sidewalks, and no bicycle lanes. The 2013 AADT on Orange Grove Road is 7,600 vehicles per day (vpd); by 2040, the AADT is expected to be 9,100 vpd with 11,100 vpd and 8,700 vpd on the Eno Mountain and Mayo Street legs, respectively. These three roads combined make an alternative route to get from South Hillsborough to downtown Hillsborough without using congested Churton Street (SR 1148). Orange Grove Road is also scheduled to be extended east to US 70 Business, creating a critical east-west connection south of the river. This extension will greatly increase the future traffic through this intersection. Nearby residential and commercial development, in addition to any future development, will significantly increase traffic along these routes. The current and planned development around Eno Mountain Road, Mayo Street, and Orange Grove Road will generate increased bicycle, pedestrian, and transit traffic. The current pedestrian facilities are discontinuous and inadequate for existing pedestrian traffic. There are no bicycle facilities, and many of the bus stops do not have any amenities and do not include bus pull-outs resulting in blocked traffic. The need for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities will only increase with additional development around these three roads. Erwin Road (SR 1307) (US 15-501 (Fordham Boulevard/Durham-Chapel Hill Boulevard) to NC 751) Erwin Road (SR 1307), between US 15-501 (Fordham Boulevard/Durham-Chapel Hill Boulevard) and NC 751, is a two-lane minor thoroughfare road that does not provide adequate pedestrian and on-road bicycle facilities. Improvements are needed to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic and improve connectivity between Durham and Chapel Hill. There are two potential project sections: US 15-501 to Whitfield Road (SR 1731); and, Whitfield to NC 751. This section of Erwin Road currently has a 60-foot right-of-way, sidewalks at certain locations, a brief stretch of wide shoulders from Weaver Dairy Road (SR 1733) to I-40, and no bicycle lanes. The 2013 AADT is 8,800 vehicles per day (vpd); by 2040, the AADT is expected to be 14,200 vpd compared to a LOS D capacity of 11,600 vpd for the existing right-of-way. There are many residential units along Erwin Road with some schools, churches, and shops along it as well. Erwin runs parallel to US 15-501 and offers a direct connection between Durham and Chapel Hill. It is a convenient route for access to Duke University. In addition to inadequate shoulder width, there are several intersections with inadequate sight distance. Improvements are needed to improve safety for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. The development around Erwin Road will generate increased bicycle, pedestrian, and transit traffic. The current pedestrian facilities are discontinuous and inadequate for existing pedestrian traffic. There are no bicycle facilities, and many of the bus stops do not have any amenities and do not include bus pullouts resulting in blocked traffic. The need for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities will only increase with additional development around Erwin Road. Bicycle lanes have been proposed along this route in the Durham Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan. The DurhamWalks! Pedestrian Plan recommends sidewalks on both sides of Erwin Road within the Durham city limits. In the Chapel Hill Pedestrian Facilities Plan, sidewalks have been proposed from US 15-501 to I-40, crossing improvements Minimum Problem Statements – Highway – 14 have been proposed at US 15-501, Sage Road, and just north of Chippoaks Drive, and a greenway has been proposed from just north of Chippoaks Drive to I-40. Estes Drive Extension (SR 1780) (Seawell School Road (SR 1843) to NC 86 (Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard)) Estes Drive Extension (SR 1780), from Seawell School Road (SR 1843) to NC 86 (Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard), is currently a two-lane undivided minor thoroughfare that does not provide adequate pedestrian and on-road bicycle facilities, and is projected to exceed its vehicular capacity by 2040. Improvements are needed to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic and improve connectivity between Carrboro and Chapel Hill. Estes Drive currently has many residential areas, a couple schools, and a small airport located nearby. This section of Estes Drive Extension currently has a 30-foot right-of-way, sidewalks at certain locations, and no bicycle lanes. The 2013 AADT is 12,000 vehicles per day (vpd); by 2040, the AADT is expected to be 14,000 vpd compared to a LOS D capacity of 12,900 vpd for the existing right-of-way. This volume produces a volume- to-capacity ratio of just 1.1, which is unlikely to require a widening project. Estes Drive Extension may see significant traffic increases by 2040 due to Chapel Hill’s plans to construct a northern campus, “Carolina North,” for the University of North Carolina (UNC) just north of Estes Drive Extension. The development of Carolina North will include improvements to the roadway, which may include widening and intersection improvements at NC 86. The current development around this section of Estes Drive Extension, in addition to the future development (especially with Carolina North to be built along Estes Drive Extension), will generate increased bicycle, pedestrian, and transit traffic. The current pedestrian facilities are discontinuous and inadequate for existing pedestrian traffic. There are no bicycle facilities, and many of the bus stops do not have any amenities and do not include bus pull-outs resulting in blocked traffic. The need for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities will only increase with additional development around Estes Drive Extension, especially with the construction of Carolina North. The development of this new campus for UNC will drastically increase non-motorized and transit traffic along Estes Drive Extension. In the Carrboro Bicycle Network Plan, bicycle lanes are proposed from Estes Drive Extension to the Carrboro town limits (the railroad tracks). The Chapel Hill Bicycle Facilities Plan proposes bicycle lanes from Seawell School Road to Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard. Sidewalks have been proposed along the east side of Estes Drive Extension (from North Greensboro Street (SR 1772) to town limits) in the Carrboro Bicycle Policy and Sidewalk Policy. The Chapel Hill Pedestrian Facilities Plan has proposed sidewalks from Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard (NC 86) to the proposed Carrboro sidewalks. In both the Carrboro and Chapel Hill pedestrian plans, the Bolin Creek Greenway is proposed to cross underneath Estes Drive with a proposed underpass. Minimum Problem Statements – Highway – 15 Estes Drive Extension (SR 1780) (North Greensboro Street (SR 1772) to Seawell School Road (SR 1843)) Estes Drive Extension (SR 1780) from North Greensboro Street (SR 1772) to Seawell School Road (SR 1843) is one of the only routes on the western end of Town to travel from Carrboro to Chapel Hill. It is a narrow two-lane road at the North Greensboro end and gradually widens as it crosses the railroad tracks and approaches Seawell School Road. There are currently no bike lanes or sidewalks along the entire corridor, though the shoulders widen to 3-4 feet after crossing the railroad tracks. The segment sees an average of 13,000 vehicles daily, which exceeds the LOS D capacity. The only significant congestion on this segment of roadway is at the Estes Drive Extension/North Greensboro Street intersection, which will be improved in 2018 (TIP # U-5846). Additional travel lanes cannot be added to this segment of Estes Drive Extension due to the close proximity of residential homes to the roadway. Bike lanes and sidewalks are currently being considered, and additional safety improvements may help to increase capacity. Eubanks Road (SR 1727) (Rogers Road (SR 1729) to NC 86 (Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard)) Eubanks Road (SR 1727), from Rogers Road (SR 1729) to NC 86 (Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard), is currently a two-lane undivided minor thoroughfare road. Improvements are needed to adequately accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic and increase safety. This section of Eubanks Road currently has a 60-foot right-of-way, sidewalks at select locations, and no bicycle lanes. The 2013 AADT is 8,000 vehicles per day (vpd); by 2040, the AADT is expected to be 21,800 vpd compared to a LOS D capacity of 12,400 vpd for the existing right- of- way. There are some residential units, some offices, a landfill, and a park-and-ride lot along this stretch of Eubanks Road. Many residential units and a town/village center are proposed along this section of Eubanks Road and nearby. Eubanks Road is an important connector route between NC 86 (Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard) (which connects to I-40) and Old NC 86 (northwestern end of Carrboro), and should see significant traffic increase due to its connectivity and proposed development. The current and planned development around Eubanks Road will generate increased bicycle, pedestrian, and transit traffic. The current pedestrian facilities are discontinuous and inadequate for existing pedestrian traffic. There are no bicycle facilities, and the park-and-ride lot is almost at capacity in use. The need for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities will only increase with additional development around Eubanks Road. In the Chapel Hill Bicycle Facilities Plan, there is a proposed greenway path that will cross Eubanks Road near the park-and-ride lot (with proposed crossing improvements where it crosses) and another greenway path that will cross Eubanks Road near NC 86. There are proposed sidewalks along the south side of Eubanks Road from Millhouse Road (SR 2200) to NC 86 in the Chapel Hill Pedestrian Facilities Plan. Minimum Problem Statements – Highway – 16 Fayetteville Road (SR 1118) (Woodcroft Parkway to Riddle Road (SR 1171)) Fayetteville Road (SR 1118), between Woodcroft Parkway and Riddle Road (SR 1171), is currently a two - lane road except for the area immediately adjacent to Martin Luther King Jr Parkway, which has multiple through lanes and turning lanes. There are three potential project sections: Riddle Road to Martin Luther King Jr Parkway; Martin Luther King Jr Parkway to Barbee Road; and, Barbee Road to Woodcroft Parkway. A 4-lane divided cross-section with sidewalks, bicycle lanes and bus facilities is proposed for accommodating future traffic volume. Fayetteville Road serves as a major north-south route that connects the growing residential, retail and commercial areas around the Streets at Southpoint Mall with downtown Durham. This section of Fayetteville Road currently has a 60-foot right-of-way, an existing greenway path running parallel to the road, sidewalks at select locations, no bicycle lanes, and almost a dozen bus stops. The 2013 daily traffic count ranges from 15,000 vehicles per day (vpd) north of Martin Luther King Jr Parkway to 19,000 vpd between Martin Luther King Jr Parkway and Barbee Road. The traffic counts south of Barbee Road have increased by 2,000 the last several years. The LOS D capacities range from 12,700 vpd to 14,600 vpd on the two-lane sections of this roadway, and the 2040 projected traffic volume will be as high as 22,000 vpd, putting the projected volume at 70% over the capacity, i.e., v/c is 1.7. There are many neighborhoods, restaurants, shops, schools, and a church along this stretch of Fayetteville Road. A high level of new residential, retail and commercial development is expected in the future, including a large residential development near the Juliette Drive intersection. Major retail centers anchored by Lowes Home Improvement and Wal-Mart were recently constructed at the Martin Luther King Jr Parkway intersection and along Martin Luther King Jr Parkway. Bicycle, pedestrian and transit facilities are needed to connect the different land uses and to connect to the American Tobacco Trail. The current pedestrian facilities are discontinuous and inadequate for existing pedestrian traffic and there are no bicycle facilities. Many of the bus stops do not have any amenities and do not include bus pull-outs resulting in blocked traffic. The Durham Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan proposed bicycle lanes along this route, and the DurhamWalks! Pedestrian Plan recommends sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. The city of Durham has funded two phases of this project using traffic impact fees. The realignment of Buxton Road and Riddle Road to form a single intersection with Fayetteville Road is funded in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and construction is scheduled to begin in early 2016. The additional lanes in the East Cornwallis Road (SR 1121) to Barbee Road section are to start construction in fall 2016. North Greensboro Street (SR 1772) (Estes Drive Extension (SR 1780) to East Main Street (SR 1010)) This segment of North Greensboro Street (SR 1772) is one of the primary arteries through downtown Carrboro. It runs from a very congested intersection with Estes Drive Extension (SR 1780)/ past single and multi-family residential, and into dense high-volume commercial development. The northern portion of the roadway has a speed limit of 35 mph and decreases to 20 mph as it enters the commercial area. It is primarily two lanes, but has a right-turn lane at Estes Drive Extension and a center lane at the highest volume commercial area. Currently 14,000 vehicles travel this segment daily, putting the Minimum Problem Statements – Highway – 17 roadway at a daily volume greater than the LOS D capacity of this segment. In 2040 the projected volume will be 17,500 vpd, with a volume-to-capacity ratio of 1.5. The segment has been identified as ‘needing improvement’. The primary sources of congestion on this segment of roadway are the intersections at either end. The Estes Drive Extension/North Greensboro Street intersection experiences severe delays, but will be receiving improvements in 2018 (TIP# U-5846) to ease congestion. The intersection at the south end of the corridor, North Greensboro Street and East Main Street (SR 1010), is also very congested and should be improved to ease traffic flow. North Greensboro Street should not be widened to avoid significant impacts to residential and commercial development along the corridor. Bike and pedestrian improvements and some safety improvements would likely increase capacity of the roadway. South Greensboro Street (SR 1919) (East Main Street (SR 1010) to NC 54) This section of roadway leads from NC 54 into the heart of downtown Carrboro. It is a narrow, two-lane road lined with single and multi-family homes. There is some office and storage space at the bottom of the hill near NC 54, and a large commercial center has recently broken ground. This is also a major gateway road into Carrboro, with a current count of 12,000 vehicles per day. The 2040 projected count will produce a volume-to-capacity ratio of 1.3 and the road is identified as ‘needs improvement’. However, adding travel lanes would greatly impact the neighborhoods because the residential and commercial buildings are very close to the roadway. Additionally, once in downtown Carrboro, Greensboro Street (SR 1919) remains a two-lane road, and widening just the southern portion would create even more of a bottleneck than already exists. Suggested improvements to the road include adding bike lanes and sidewalks. While bike lanes are not currently planned (again, due to limited right-of-way), the 2016-2025 STIP includes construction of a sidewalk along one side of the roadway. TIP# U-4726DX, currently programmed for FY 2016, will construct a sidewalk from the north end of Old Pittsboro Road to NC 54. Suggested sidewalk improvements are recommended from the north end of Old Pittsboro Road to East Main Street. In addition, the mixed-use center being built at the intersection of Old Pittsboro Road and S Greensboro Street will construct a roundabout at the intersection to improve traffic flow. Hillsborough Road (SR 1009)/North Greensboro Street (SR 1772) (Old Fayetteville Road (SR 1107) to Estes Drive Extension (SR 1780)) Hillsborough Road (SR 1009) is a primary thoroughfare through Carrboro. This segment runs from the rural buffer at the western end of Town, past McDougle Elementary and Middle schools, through residential neighborhoods, and ends at one of the busiest intersections in Carrboro (Estes Drive Extension (SR 1780) and North Greensboro Street (SR 1772)). The roadway currently operates at less than LOS D volumes, and is projected to remain at less than 1.0 volume-to-capacity ratio in 2040. The segment is projected to average almost 11,000 vehicles daily in 2040 and is deemed to ‘need improvement’ from Old Fayetteville Road to Estes Drive Extension. Minimum Problem Statements – Highway – 18 The roadway does not experience significant congestion, except for peak hours near the schools and at the Estes Drive Extension/North Greensboro Street intersection. This intersection will be improved— likely in the form of a roundabout—in 2018 (TIP # U-5846)—which will ease peak hour congestion at that end of the roadway segment. Bike lanes and sidewalks were installed in response to the last call for corridor improvements. Additionally, there is transit service along the entire corridor that serves downtown Carrboro and Chapel Hill, and provides connection to other routes. Finally, Pathway Drive, just to the north of Hillsborough Road, was identified as a parallel route and takes a number of trips off of the roadway. Homestead Road (SR 1777) (Rogers Road (SR 1729) to NC 86 (Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard)) Homestead Road (SR 1777), from Rogers Road (SR 1729) to NC 86 (Martin Luther King Jr Boulevard), is currently a two-lane undivided minor thoroughfare road. Improvements are needed to adequately accommodate pedestrian and on-road bicycle traffic and increase safety. This section of Homestead Road currently has a 60-foot right-of-way, sidewalks at certain locations, and no bicycle lanes. The 2013 AADT is 7,200 vehicles per day (vpd); by 2040, the AADT is expected to be 13,600 vpd compared to a LOS D capacity of 11,600 vpd for the existing roadway. Currently, there are mostly residential units, three schools, and a couple of religious institutions along Homestead Road. There are plans for the construction of new residential, office, town/village center, and university developments near Homestead Road. The university development will be the north campus of UNC, which will create the need for the many other developments and a significant increase in traffic. With current and existing development along Homestead Road, a complete widening may not be feasible, but improvements to intersections and spot improvements are possible. The current and planned development around Homestead Road will generate increased bicycle, pedestrian, and transit traffic. The current pedestrian and bicycle facilities are discontinuous and inadequate for existing pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Many of the bus stops do not have any amenities and do not include bus pull-outs resulting in blocked traffic. The need for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities will only increase with additional development around Homestead Road, especially the development of the Carolina North campus. In the Chapel Hill Pedestrian Facilities Plan, there are proposed sidewalks from High School Road (SR 1834) that will be built to connect with existing sidewalks that run from NC 86 to around Northern Park Drive. The implementation of improvements to transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities should assist in reducing congestion in this corridor, since much of the traffic at peak hours is associated with the local schools, and providing alternative modes of travel may help to shift some trips away from personal vehicles. Homestead Road (SR 1777) (Rogers Road (SR 1729) to Old NC 86 (SR 1009)) This segment of Homestead Road (SR 1777) is a windy, two-lane road through residential and agricultural areas. It is an area of high development pressure, with new subdivisions being built Minimum Problem Statements – Highway – 19 frequently. There is only one road—Stratford Drive—that runs north-south and connects Homestead Road to Hillsborough Road (SR 1009) in the middle of Carrboro. Due to the limited connectivity of this part of Town, Homestead Road experiences a fair amount of traffic driving the entire length. There are currently 7,100 vpd traveling on this segment, making it operate at less than LOS D capacity. However, there is significant congestion in the morning and afternoon peak due to school traffic at the intersection of High School Road (SR 1834) and Homestead Road. The corridor is projected to more than double its AADT in 2040 to 15,500, which exceeds LOS D capacity. The segment has been identified as ‘needing improvements’ from Rogers Road to Old NC 86. Additional vehicle lanes could jeopardize existing residential and agricultural land uses along the corridor. Bike lanes and sidewalks have been requested along the entirety of the corridor to increase multi-modal capacity. Intersection improvements, particularly improvements to the High School Road/Homestead Road intersection, would greatly alleviate congestion. Additionally, improvements to the drop-off and pick-up practices of the three schools adjacent to Homestead Road would likely reduce peak hour congestion. Orange Grove Road Extension (South Churton Street (SR 1009) to US 70 Business), TIP No. U-5848 Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) is currently a two-lane undivided road that terminates just past the South Churton Street (SR 1009) intersection. South Churton Street (US 70 Business/NC 86), just north of its intersection with US 70 Business/NC 86, is currently exceeding capacity and traffic delays are expected to increase in the future. Additional connectivity is needed between Orange Grove Road and US 70 Business/NC 86 to provide an alternative route to South Churton Street. Having an alternative route will lessen the vehicle volume passing through the South Churton Street/US 70 Business intersection, and therefore maintain a LOS D along the section of Churton Street north of US 70 Business/NC 86, which is just south of downtown Hillsborough. Orange Grove Road currently has a 60-foot right-of-way, no sidewalks, and no bicycle lanes. South Churton Street (south of US 70 Business) currently has a 100-foot right-of-way, no sidewalks, and no bicycle lanes. Churton Street (north of US 70 Business to US 70 Bypass, in downtown Hillsborough) has a 60-foot right-of-way, sidewalks at certain locations, and no bicycle lanes. The 2013 AADT along Churton Street (north of US 70 Business to US 70 Bypass) is 20,000vpd, causing substantial traffic delays on a roadway that only has a LOS D capacity of 11,600 vpd. Extending Orange Grove Road would provide more connectivity for drivers and a means to use an alternate road to bypass the heavily congested Churton Street route. In addition, the town of Hillsborough has developed a planned rail station and government services development adjacent to this corridor. The current residential and commercial development around South Churton Street and Orange Grove Road, in addition to planned developments, will generate increased bicycle, pedestrian, and transit traffic. The current pedestrian facilities are discontinuous and inadequate for existing pedestrian traffic. There are no bicycle facilities, and many of the bus stops do not have any amenities and do not include bus pull-outs resulting in blocked traffic. Additional transit routes will serve the proposed rail station. The need for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities will only increase with additional development along South Churton Street. Four foot shoulders are proposed along this section of Orange Grove Road and along South Churton Street from I-40 to the Eno River in the DCHC MPO 2040 Metropolitan Minimum Problem Statements – Highway – 20 Transportation Plan (MTP). The related widening project along South Churton Street also calls for the installation of sidewalks and bike lanes from the Eno River to I-40. NC 86 South (Pittsboro Street) (West Cameron Avenue to NC 86 North (South Columbia Street)) Pittsboro Street (NC 86 South) runs from West Cameron Avenue to NC 86 North (South Columbia Street) and is a main thoroughfare down the West side of UNC’s campus. The road segment is the continuation of NC 86 heading to the south and corresponds with South Columbia Street (NC 86) heading to the north. The 2013 AADT is 9,100 vpd; by 2040, the AADT is expected to be 11,100 vpd compared to a LOS D capacity of 12,700 vpd for the existing right-of-way. Indicating that it will still be a competitive segment in 2040 if all things stayed the same; however, the planned Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route makes a change to this road segment necessary. In order to keep the area competitive at moving traffic and additional buses with designated right-of-way, it will be necessary to expand capacity on this segment. Woodcroft Parkway Extension (NC 751 to Garrett Road (SR 1116)), TIP No. U- 5823 Woodcroft Parkway runs west from Carpenter Fletcher Road to NC 751 (Hope Valley Road) on the east. Connecting the terminus of Woodcroft Parkway to the next road west, Garrett Road (SR 1116), would increase both time and route efficiency when travelling around the area. Improvements such as this are needed to increase grid connectivity and to divert traffic away from the already overloaded Garrett Road and NC 751 intersection. Woodcroft Parkway is predominantly a two-lane, undivided collector street, although there are lengths at which the road is divided by a grassy median. With the current and future developments around NC 751 and Garrett Road, there will be a significant percent increase in traffic congestion on this stretch of NC 751 and Garrett Road, especially during the PM peak time frame when both the nearby high school (Jordan High School) and working commuters are on the road at the same time. These roadways have several tightly spaced intersections that are often overloaded at peak hours with queues exceeding available storage. The current LOS D capacity for NC 751 south of Woodcroft Parkway is 31,600 vpd, and daily traffic counts are currently 18,000 vpd and expected to rise to 26,000 vpd in 2040. The current LOS D capacity for Garrett Road is 14,000 vpd, and daily traffic counts are 19,000 vpd and expected to rise to 25,000 vpd in 2040 resulting in a volume-to-capacity ratio of 1.8. The extension of Woodcroft Parkway would provide a direct connection between the current residential areas along Woodcroft Parkway and Garrett Road to the shopping centers and retail stores clustered at the confluence of Woodcroft Parkway, NC 751, Garrett Road, and NC 54 and to employment centers via NC 54 and I-40. Woodcroft Parkway has a shared pedestrian/bicycle sidepath along the entire route from Hope Valley Road to Fayetteville Road. A portion of this sidepath is part of the city’s Third Fork Creek Trail. Woodcroft Parkway also provides connectivity to the American Tobacco Trail. 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 ORANGE COUNTY ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD (OUTBoard) ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: January 18, 2017 Action Agenda Item No. 5.b. SUBJECT: Safe Routes to School Plan Implementation Discussion DEPARTMENT: Planning ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. SRTS Plan Update 2. Walkable Hillsborough Coalition Presentation Notes 3. SRTS Plan (online link) http://www.orangecountync.gov/document_cent er/Transport/Adopted_Safe_Routes_to_School __SRTS__Plan_AdoptedSRTSPlanallchapters. pdf Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/ Land Use Planner, 245-2567 Max Bushell, Transportation Planner, 245-2579 PURPOSE: Discussion of Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Plan implementation. BACKGROUND: At its September 21, 2016 meeting the OUTBoard received:  A SRTS Plan Update (Attachment 1); and  A presentation from representatives from the Walkable Hillsborough Coalition regarding the group’s support for moving forward with identified SRTS Plan projects associated with Grady Brown Elementary School and Cedar Ridge High School (Attachment 2). The identified projects included: o Sidewalks along Orange Grove Road from Churton Street to Grady Brown Road; and o Pursuing a local match for Federal funding and clearly identifying preliminary critical path steps. Discussions with the OUTBoard also addressed other related projects:  Improving safety on the bridge with side fencing (in lieu of a complete bridge replacement or pedestrian retrofit accommodation); and  Crosswalks on Grady Brown Road and on Orange Grove Road over to Oakdale Drive. 65 The Coalition concluded its presentation by petitioning the OUTBoard to make the SRTS Plan a high priority and to present this request to the BOCC. The OUTBoard unanimously approved the request from the Coalition. On October 13, 2016 Planning staff and representatives from the Walkable Hillsborough Coalition met with staff from the Town of Hillsborough. At this meeting, Hillsborough staff proposed two smaller school safety projects not officially included in the SRTS Plan:  Construction of a small pedestrian bridge over a creek on Hayes Street for Central Elementary School students; and  Construction at the end of Rencher Street of a gate at the back of the field for Orange High School, which would provide students quicker, more direct and safer access to the school. These two projects are being considered for inclusion in the revised Connectivity Plan that the Town is currently developing. Hillsborough staff felt that these two projects could be accomplished much quicker and would help to build interest in the SRTS Plan implementation cause within the community. At its November 16, 2016 meeting the OUTBoard received a second presentation from representatives from the Walkable Hillsborough Coalition regarding updates on the group’s activities since the September 21st OUTBoard meeting. The OUTBoard requested that Planning staff put a discussion of the SRTS Plan on its agenda for its January 18 meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Other than staff time, there is no immediate financial impact associated with this item. RECOMMENDATION(S): The staff recommends the OUTBoard receive the information, discuss, and identify next steps. 66 Attachment 1 PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Administration (919) 245-2575 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) www.orangecountync.gov 131 W. Margaret Lane Suite 201 P. O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Craig Benedict, Planning & Inspections Director DATE: August 16, 2016 SUBJECT: INFORMATION ITEM – Safe Routes to School Plan Update The Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Action Plan was adopted by Orange County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), Orange County Schools, and the Town of Hillsborough in 2014. This update includes a review of the Town’s adoption of its Community Connectivity Plan, and the shift in funding program criteria over the past several years, resulting in the prioritization of urban settings and highway projects over bicycle and pedestrian projects. However, limited implementation of non-infrastructure projects may be possible with the participation and support of our Plan partners. The SRTS Plan was developed under the NC SRTS Program, with the goal of identifying improvements that make bicycling and walking to and from school a safe and healthy transportation alternative. The three schools included in the SRTS Plan are part of the Orange County school system, and all are located in the County and adjacent to the Town of Hillsborough:  Grady A. Brown Elementary School (in the County’s jurisdiction)  Cameron Park Elementary School (in the Town’s jurisdiction)  C.W. Stanford Middle School (in the Town’s jurisdiction) Eligible SRTS projects can be bundled as infrastructure and non-infrastructure. Funding can include training volunteers, building sidewalks, creating cross walks, making safety improvements, constructing bicycle lanes and pedestrian paths, etc. All projects must be within two (2) miles of a K-8 school. Obstacles to Plan Implementation Project Funding: Following adoption, and as recommended by the adopted Plan, a SRTS Action Plan Advisory Committee (APAC) was established that would be responsible for managing plan implementation. However, during this same time period there were some revisions to federal and state funding sources that impacted future funding resources for the Safe Routes to School program. Specifically, the federal Moving Ahead for Progress in 67 2 the 21st Century Bill (MAP-21) SRTS program direct allocation funds were removed. In lieu of these funds, MAP-21 authorized the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) to provide funding for programs and projects defined as transportation alternatives, including safe routes to school projects. The TAP program replaced the funding from pre-MAP-21 programs, including the SRTS program. Under the TAP program the federal share is the same as for the general federal-aid highway program: 80 percent Federal/20 percent State or local match. Also, to address the shift in funding programs, prioritized SRTS projects are included on the list of future year projects submitted to the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Strategic Planning Office of Transportation (SPOT) scoring process. The metrics used to generate SPOT scores also evolved during this time frame and prioritized highway projects to a greater degree than other modes (such as bicycle, pedestrian and transit). Besides TAP funds there are other major program funds that may be used on bicycle and pedestrian improvements. However, the process is highly competitive and the metrics used to generate project scores prioritize urban settings and also favors highway projects to a greater degree than other modes:  Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds - Although bicycle and pedestrian projects are eligible for STP funding, it is rare for these funds to be used for bicycle/pedestrian projects outside of major urban areas (where MPOs have direct control over STP funding, rather than NCDOT for RPOs). Therefore, in RPOs STP funds are typically used primarily for highway and bridge projects. Every two years NCDOT selects funded projects based on project scores through the SPOT process and other funding eligibility rules.  Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds – Funded by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and administered by NCDOT, CMAQ funds must be obligated in designated air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas (Orange County is a maintenance area). NCDOT issues calls for CMAQ projects through the MPOs and RPOs on a semi-regular basis. Projects must be included in a MPO transportation plan and transportation improvement program (TIP), or the current Statewide TIP in areas that are in an RPO. These funds can be used for engineering/design, right-of-way, utility, and construction costs of bicycle and pedestrian projects. CMAQ-funded projects are locally administered. Length of SRTS Plan Preparation Process/Consultant Scope/Hillsborough Community Connectivity Plan – The development of the Orange County SRTS Plan began in January 2010. Although the County Transportation staff, OUTBoard, and local SRTS committee were heavily engaged in plan development, the process and product were managed by a NCDOT consultant. Unfortunately, the consultant experienced significant delays, which resulted in a delay of the adoption of the Plan. During this period of delay, at almost the same time the Town of Hillsborough adopted the SRTS Plan in March 2014, they also adopted revisions to its Connectivity Plan that were not consistent with the SRTS Plan recommendations. The purpose of the Connectivity Plan is to provide specific recommendations to improve the pedestrian and bicycle environment in Hillsborough. While the sidewalk and bike lane recommendations contained in the SRTS Plan were acknowledged in the Connectivity Plan, they were not ultimately recommended as part of the Town’s infrastructure network. From an implementation standpoint, the Connectivity Plan has replaced the SRTS Plan as the guiding document as it relates to Cameron Park Elementary School and C.W. Stanford Middle School. 68 3 Jurisdiction and Implementation of Infrastructure Projects The Town is responsible for the implementation of its Community Connectivity Plan. While the C.W. Stanford Middle School is within the County’s jurisdiction, the Town has extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction over Cameron Park Elementary and C.W. Stanford Middle schools and therefore could have some level of input over projects related to these schools. Priority projects for these school sites include sidewalks, crosswalks and bikeways. Orange County Planning staff and NCDOT have identified recommendations related to Grady Brown Elementary School and Cedar Ridge High School as potentially viable projects in the SRTS Plan. These projects would include sidewalks along the New Grady Brown School Road frontage and along Orange Grove Road to Interstate 40, where these sidewalks would serve as receiving sidewalks for a pedestrian crossing across the interstate and into the Town’s jurisdiction. If the County were to take steps towards this multi-phase project implementation, it would initially need to:  Contract or perform in-house engineering design of sidewalks, including an estimated cost of construction;  Obtain an easement encroachment agreement with NCDOT;  Enter into a mutually agreeable sidewalk maintenance agreement with the Town;  Enlist the schools as partners in the project planning; and  Acquire funding for the engineering and construction of the sidewalks, which would include a 20% local match, and seek competitive federal funds through the DCHC MPO; or fund the project through County funds. The interstate pedestrian overpass may become a more viable project following construction of the receiving sidewalks. Jurisdiction and Implementation of Non-infrastructure Projects Implementation of the SRTS Action Plan can also address non-infrastructure projects in the categories education, encouragement, enforcement, and evaluation. The County would be responsible for implementing projects its jurisdiction. Examples of these non-infrastructure project recommendations could include:  Integration of bicycle/pedestrian education into the class curriculum, including hands-on skills training such as simulated street crossings and bicycle handling drills/rodeos;  Start a comprehensive motorist/pedestrian/bicyclist safety campaign to create awareness of conflicts and safety behavior;  Begin a walking school bus program including a partnership of the school system, parents and members of the community, including law enforcement;  Begin mileage clubs/contests that can give children a sense of accomplishment;  Begin a crossing guard program;  Develop SRTS bicycle/walking maps;  Starting a Walk to School Day; and 69 4  Perform an update of the surveys identifying numbers of students walking and biking to school, or desiring to, and the key factors affecting parents’ decisions to allow or disallow children to walk or bike to schools. Many of these non-infrastructure projects cannot be fully implemented without the construction of the related infrastructure (sidewalks, bike lanes, cross walks, etc.). However, it may be possible for Orange County Schools to make some progress on some of these projects. Summary In summary, due to the Plan becoming partially obsolete, limited funding due to the revision in project criteria at the state level, and lack of any local matching funds, Orange County Transportation staff is at a standstill on implementation of infrastructure projects until such time as there is a revision of the funding landscape. However, should the Commissioners so direct, staff can provide support to Orange County Schools if they decide to proceed with implementation of non-infrastructure projects. 70 Attachment 2     Walkable Hillsborough Coalition Presentation Notes, OUTBoard Sept. 21, 2016  Local Support  • Elected Officials  • Community Members   Re‐assess scope of project:  • Include sidewalks from Churton St. to Grady Brown Road  • Look at Federal Funding – Need 20% Local Match      NEED DATA  • Crash Data  • Traffic Data  • Connectivity  • Hazard Bussing – Look at Auburn Texas reports  • Walking/Bus Data from Orange County      Federal Funding Sources   2 Different Funding Sources – 3 Ways to Pursue Funding    FUNDING SOURCE #1  Highway Safety Improvement Plan (HSIP)  Kevin Lacey w/DOT  Data Driven funding  WE NEED DATA:  • Crash Data  • Speed Data  • High speed limits are not safe for walking/biking without adequate infrastructure – Gather  data on impact of speed on crashes      FUNDING SOURCE #2 – 2 WAYS TO PURSUE   WE NEED LOCAL SUPORT:  DCHC – Dale McKeel  • Attend technical committee meetings  • Ask to get on their agenda   • Letter writing campaign – Need to show that we have local support         DOT ‐ Chuck Edwards   • Ped/Bike Projects  • Letter writing campaign – Need to show that we have local support      71       WALK TO SCHOOL DAY – OCTOBER 5, 2016  • Re‐engage mayors  • Media rep   • Need support from Grady Brown & Cedar Ridge      NEXT STEPS  • Obtain Local Support  • Acquire Data  • Connect with Schools  • Letter Writing Campaign  • Organize Walk to School Day – Oct. 5  • Attend DCHC Technical Committee Meetings – Get on agenda  • Show connectivity      72 TIP/WBS # Description Start/Let date Completion Date Status Cost Comments R-5787B 44917.3.3 Curb ramp improvements at various intersections in Orange and Alamance Co. Dec. 2016 Apr. 2017 Planning and design activities underway. $100,000 TAP, DMP SS-4907BF 44271.1.FD1 44271.2.1 44271.3.1 Radius and sight distance improvements at the intersection of SR 1567 (Pleasant Green Road) and SR 1569 (Cole Mill Road) in Orange Co. 4/18/2016 10/28/2016 Clearing and grading underway, Frontier utility relocation completed $15,000 PE $80,000 R/W $53,600 CON State Spot Safety, R/W plans received 7/8/15, Constr. By State Forces SS-4907BS 44894.2.1 44894.3.1 Installation of traffic signal at the intersection of US70 and SR 1114 (Buckhorn Road) East of Mebane. Apr. 2017 Jun. 2017 Signal design underway. $40,500 R/W $43,200 CON State Spot Safety, Constr. By State Forces, May need R/W U-3306(L) 34913.3.2 Landscaping on SR 1733 (Weaver Dairy Road) from NC 86 to SR 1734 (Erwin Road). Dec. 2016 Spring 2017 Contract let pending $58,645 Project funding, Division let U-5549/SS-4907AZ 50153.3.F1 44227 44247 Churton Street Access Improvements - Traffic signal and curb ramp revisions on east side of NC 86 (Churton Street) at SR 1150/SR 1002 (King Street), and NC 86 (Churton Street) at Margaret Street. Grading, curb & gutter, crosswalks and signal modifications on the west side of NC 86 /US 70 Bus.(Churton Street) from Tryon Street to just south of Margaret Street. Grading, curb & gutter, crosswalk and bus pull-out on NC 86 / US 70 Bus. (Churton Street) from south of Margaret Street to just south of Nash and Koolock Street in Hillsborough. 11/14/2016 Spring 2017 FHWA Construction Authorization approved, No bids received on Mar 17 let and April 13 re-let. 3rd let scheduled with floating availability date $156,000 CON $245,000 CON $120,000 CON Spot Safety-State (ADA curb ramp). Combine with Small Construction, Contingency, STP- DA. PCE approved Feb. 2015. LAP - Town of Hillsborough, MA executed U-5550 50154.3.FS1 Intersection improvements at Fordham Boulevard (US15/501) and Ephesus Church Rd. Improvements will include bike lanes and sidewalks. 1/27/2016 Mar. 2017 Under construction - 40% complete $2,170,000 National Highway Performance Program, LAP - Town of Chapel Hill, MA executed U-5846 50236.1.1 50236.2.1 50236.3.1 Construct a Roundabout at SR 1772 (Greensboro Street) and SR 1780 (Estes Drive) in Carrboro. Jan. 2018 Mar. 2019 Planning and design activities underway, R/W plans complete Jan. 2017 $775,000 STIP, P3.0, PEF-SEPI, Surveys received 3/15, DMP, Public meeting on Nov. 14 U-5847 50238.1.1 50238.2.1 50238.3.1 Intersection improvements at SR 1010 (West Franklin St.) and SR 1771 (Merritt Mill Rd)/SR1927 (Brewer Lane) in Chapel Hill / Carrboro. Jan. 2019 Mar. 2019 Planning and design activities underway, R/W plans complete Jan. 2018 $775,000 STIP, P3.0, PEF-STANTEC, Surveys received, traffic forecast and analysis complete, DMP U-5854 46382.1.1 46328.2.1 46382.3.1 Construct a roundabout at SR 1008 (Mt. Carmel Church Road) and SR 1913 (Bennett Road) in Chapel Hill Jul. 2017 Oct. 2018 Planning and design activities underway, R/W plans complete October 2016, Public comments have been received $775,000 STIP, P3.0,PEF-SEPI, DMP W-5707A 44853.1.1 Curb ramp improvements for ADA compliance at the following intersections: SR 2048 (South Road) at Raleigh Street; SR 2048 (South Road) at Country Club Road, SR 1902 (Manning Drive) at Paul Hardin Drive, and SR 1902 (Manning Drive) at Ridge Road / Skipper Bowles Road in Chapel Hill 3/16/2017 5/1/17 Planning and design activities underway. $10,000 PE HSIP, DMP NCDOT DIV 7 PROJECTS LOCATED IN DCHCMPO Item 6.a. 73 Co n t r a c t Nu m b e r Lo c a t i o n D e s c r i p t i o n Co n t r a c t o r N a m e Re s i d e n t E n g i n e e r Co n t r a c t B i d Am o u n t Av a i l a b i l i t y Da t e Wo r k S t a r t Da t e Co m p l e t i o n Da t e Progress Schedule PercentCompletionPercentPage 1 of 1 10/11/2016 No r t h C a r o l i n a D e p a r t m e n t o f T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Ac t i v e P r o j e c t s U n d e r C o n s t r u c t i o n - O r a n g e C o . C2 0 3 2 7 4 R E P L A C E M E N T O F 1 1 B R I D G E S I N AL A M A N C E C O A N D 3 B R I D G E S I N OR A N G E C O . HA Y M E S B R O T H E R S , I N C . K i r k m a n , P E , Ch r i s t o p h e r D $6 , 3 5 6 , 5 2 0 . 0 0 0 4 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 3 0 5 / 2 3 / 2 0 1 3 1 2 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 6 9 6 . 0 0 8 8 . 8 8 C2 0 3 6 4 0 R E P L A C E M E N T O F 4 B R I D G E S I N GU I L F O R D C O U N T Y A N D 3 B R I D G E S I N OR A N G E C O U N T Y . HA Y M E S B R O T H E R S , I N C . L o r e n z , P E , K r i s $ 3 , 1 2 4 , 5 0 0 . 0 0 0 6 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 5 0 9 / 0 2 / 2 0 1 5 1 1 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 7 3 8 . 3 0 1 6 . 0 3 C2 0 3 6 4 1 R E P L A C E M E N T O F 5 B R I D G E S I N GU I L F O R D C O U N T Y A N D 5 B R I D G E S I N OR A N G E C O U N T Y . R. E . B U R N S & S O N S C O . , IN C . Ki r k m a n , P E , Ch r i s t o p h e r D $5 , 9 4 0 , 3 2 3 . 0 0 0 6 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 5 0 6 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 5 1 1 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 8 3 0 . 0 0 6 6 . 7 6 C2 0 3 7 0 9 RE S U R F A C E 22 S E C T I O N S O F SE C O N D A R Y R O A D S . CA R O L I N A S U N R O C K L L C K i r k m a n , P E , Ch r i s t o p h e r D $1 , 8 1 5 , 0 2 3 . 6 0 0 4 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 6 0 5 / 0 5 / 2 0 1 6 1 1 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 6 9 0 . 0 0 8 2 . 9 5 DG 0 0 2 7 7 RE S U R F A C E US 1 5 - 5 0 1 , N C 8 6 , S O U T H RO A D CA R O L I N A S U N R O C K L L C K i r k m a n , P E , Ch r i s t o p h e r D $1 , 2 5 9 , 2 5 9 . 6 1 0 4 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 6 0 5 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 6 1 1 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 6 1 0 0 . 0 0 9 4 . 8 1 DG 0 0 2 9 8 P A S C H A L L D R I V E F R O M G O R D O N TH O M A S D R I V E T O S R 1 8 4 1 A N D GR E E N B R I A R T R I A L T O S R 1 8 4 6 , R E M O V E R/ R C R O S S I N G S TR I A N G L E G R A D I N G & PA V I N G I N C Ki r k m a n , P E , Ch r i s t o p h e r D $1 , 4 9 3 , 6 0 0 . 0 0 0 6 / 0 6 / 2 0 1 6 0 6 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 6 0 6 / 0 6 / 2 0 1 7 2 9 . 7 8 3 8 . 6 5 DG 0 0 2 9 9 RE S U R F A C E 22 S E C T I O N S O F S E C . RO A D S I N S E OR A N G E C O . CA R O L I N A S U N R O C K L L C K i r k m a n , P E , Ch r i s t o p h e r D $1 , 3 3 1 , 3 2 5 . 3 6 0 6 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 6 0 9 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 6 1 1 / 1 7 / 2 0 1 7 1 . 0 0 3 . 8 4 DG 0 0 3 0 2 E X T E N D B R Y D S V I L L E R O A D T O N C 8 6 AN D R E M O V E R A I L C R O S S I N G TR I A N G L E G R A D I N G & PA V I N G I N C Ki r k m a n , P E , Ch r i s t o p h e r D $1 , 6 8 3 , 9 0 0 . 0 0 0 7 / 0 1 / 2 0 1 6 0 9 / 2 9 / 2 0 1 6 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 7 74