HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard agenda 062117 AGENDA
Orange Unified Transportation Board
June 21, 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
6:40
6:45
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
5.a.
Call to Order and Determination of Quorum
Approval of Minutes from April 19, 2017
Consideration of Additions to the Agenda
Special Presentations
Regular OUTBoard Agenda (Action Items)
Bicycle Safety Task Force (BSTF) Report Discussion (Abigaile Pittman) –
Discussion of the no-cost implementation items from the BSTF Report.
OUTBoard Action: Discuss and provide staff with comments regarding proceeding
with identified no-cost implementation items from the BSTF Report.
7:15
7:30
8:20
6.
6.a.
7.
7.a.
7.b.
7.c.
7.d.
7.e.
8.0
Informational Items
Public Road Closing Process (Abigaile Pittman) – A review of the statutory road
closing process using the Eubanks Road realignment project as an example.
Staff Updates
Transportation Report for the Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane (E-B-M) Study Area and
General Next Steps for Amending the E-B-M Access Management Plan (Abigaile
Pittman)
Transportation Items from the Revised Master Aging Plan (Abigaile Pittman)
Orange Grove Road Bridge Fencing (Abigaile Pittman)
Replacement of Atkins Road bridge (Abigaile Pittman)
NCDOT Division 7 transportation projects located in the DCHC MPO planning area
(Abigaile Pittman)
OUTBoard Action on all informational items: Receive information and provide any
comments that the Board might have.
Board Comments
1
Packet Page
Number
8:30 9.0 Adjournment – The next regularly scheduled meeting date is August 16, 2017.
Charge of the OUTBoard (from Section I, Part C of the adopted Rules and Procedures)
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 MINUTES 1
ORANGE COUNTY OUTBOARD 2
APRIL 19, 2017 3
REGULAR MEETING 4
5
6
MEMBERS PRESENT: Heidi Perry (Chair), At-Large Representative; Alex Castro (Vice-Chair), Bingham Township 7
Representative; Donna Musson, Eno Township Representative; Alyson West, At-Large; Jenn Sykes, At-Large; Ed 8
Vaughn, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Art Menius, At-Large Representative; Erle Smith, Chapel Hill 9
Township Representative; Gary Saunders, At-Large Representative; Ted Triebel, Little River Township 10
Representative; 11
12
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Charles, At-Large Representative; Brantley Wells, Hillsborough Township Representative; 13
Justin Miller, At- Large; David Laudicina, Cheeks Township Representative; 14
15
STAFF PRESENT: Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use Planner; Max Bushell, Transportation Planner; Meredith 16
Kern, Administrative Assistant. 17
18
OTHERS PRESENT FOR TRANSIT ADVISORY SERVICES: Marabeth Carr, Landscape Architect (DEPAR); Matt Day, 19
TARPO 20
21
AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 22
23
Heidi Perry called the meeting to order. 24
25
AGENDA ITEM 2: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 26
FEBRUARY 15, 2017 MEETING 27
MARCH 1, 2017 MEETING 28
29
MOTION by Alex Castro to approve the February 15, 2017 OUTBoard Minutes. Seconded by Erle Smith. 30
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 31
32
MOTION by Art Menius to approve the March 1, 2017 OUTBoard Minutes. Seconded by Ed Vaughn. 33
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 34
35
AGENDA ITEM 3: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 36
37
No additions. 38
39
AGENDA ITEM 4: SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 40
41
42
AGENDA ITEM 4A. UPDATE ON MARCH 2017 MOUNTAINS-TO-SEA TRAIL OPEN HOUSE MEETING (MARABETH CARR) 43
44
Marabeth Carr presented 45
46
Ted Triebel inquired about trail funding. Marabeth Carr explained that there would be plenty of volunteers to help 47
build the trail and they mainly need funds for purchasing. She also added that there are a lot of grant opportunities for 48
natural service trails, and the direction they go with it will be up to the BOCC. Marabeth informed the Board that this 49
will go to the BOCC on May 16th and that they were encouraged to attend. Marabeth stated that there is an 50
Environmental advisory board and suggested the OUTBoard could write a letter of recommendation regarding the 51
trail to them. Marabeth explained that the biggest issue is how many different properties the trail goes through and 52
3
there’s been a lot of controversy. Heidi Perry asked how much of the trail had already been developed, to which 53
Marabeth informed her it was a little over halfway completed. 54
55
AGENDA ITEM 5: REGULAR OUTBOARD AGENDA (ACTION ITEMS) 56
57
58
AGENDA ITEM 5A. DRAFT TRANSPORTATION PROJECT PRIORITY LIST (MAX BUSHELL) 59
60
Max Bushell presented 61
62
Heidi Perry asked if there was a better chance of getting projects done if they submitted fewer of them. Matt Day 63
explained that they’re going to go through the same scoring process and that the MPO and RPO are going to want to 64
submit as many projects as they can. Heidi inquired about Asheville and how they got their funding for their greenway 65
projects. Art Menius said they switched designated responsibility for their greenways from the city’s park and 66
recreation department to the city’s department of transportation. Heidi Perry inquired about the widening on NC 54 67
not being submitted. Max Bushell explained that it was a sibling project and it’ll automatically carry over to this 68
prioritization process. Ted Triebel asked if they expected that these projects would not score well again. Max Bushell 69
explained that they’re changing the scoring criteria slightly as opposed to last time, so hopefully that will boost the 70
project scores for some of the projects. He added that the area is continuing to grow and develop and the roads in 71
question are going to continue to be more congested, so these projects can be considered as local priorities and will 72
likely have higher congestion than before. This will increase the score. Heidi Perry requested adding a round-about to 73
the bike lane project along Old NC 86. Max mentioned that he will add the roundabout in Calvander at the 74
intersection of Old NC 86 and Homestead Road/Dairyland Road as a separate project. Alex Castro asked if there 75
was consistency in the 4-foot shoulders on the Old NC 86 project or if it will only be two feet in some places. He 76
added that this had been a problem before. Max Bushell explained said he thinks that that is a project scope and 77
funding issue and that a two foot shoulder is more feasible than a four-foot shoulder, as constructing a four foot 78
shoulder would require moving the ditch. Matt Day added that it makes a project more difficult if there’s a ditch that 79
they have to move to make the shoulder four feet, which is why the shoulder is so narrow in some places. Alex 80
Castro also mentioned a concern about having a four-foot shoulder and then adding rumble strips, which defeats the 81
purpose of adding the shoulder for cyclists. Matt Day said they now have bicycle friendly rumble strips, where it’s 82
either where the paint stripe is rather than on the shoulder, or that there are gaps to allow bicyclists to access the 83
travel lane. 84
85
MOTION by Ted Triebel to recommended the list to the BOCC. Seconded by Art Menius. 86
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 87
88
89
AGENDA ITEM 6: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 90
91
92
6A. CARRBORO TO HILLSBOROUGH MULTI-USE PATH UPDATE – (MAX BUSHELL) 93
94
Max Bushell presented 95
96
Heidi Perry mentioned that during a previous discussion regarding the bike lanes on Old NC Hwy 86 it was said that 97
they thought the shoulders would work well for strong cyclists. However, due to the fact that it would bring tourists, a 98
separated bike lane would be preferred. She added that it wouldn’t have to run parallel with the road, and it would 99
have a lot of merit as a bicycle tourism destination. Art Menius stated that NC Hwy 86 has much higher speeds than 100
Old 86. Heidi Perry also suggested using Duke Energy easements. Max Bushell said that’s something that’s typically 101
done in cities, but hasn’t been explored much in counties. Heidi asked if it could be funded with DOT funding that 102
way. Max said it could, but it would still require the same 20% local match and local administration. Heidi asked what 103
they could do to see if it was a feasible idea. Max said a feasibility study would be a good place to start, but doubts 104
the County would fund that. He added that he found one source from Asheville that used funding of $75,000 for a 105
4
feasibility study as a rule of thumb. Heidi asked if there were grants for those and if grant money could be used for 106
the 20% match. Max said grant money for that could conceivably come through the MPO but there’s already one 107
corridor study being done in Orange County, so programming another study from MPO funds may have to wait. He 108
added that grant money could be used for the 20% match. 109
110
111
AGENDA ITEM 7: STAFF UPDATES 112
113
7A. ORANGE COUNTY & NCDOT MEETING NOTES – (ABIGAILE PITTMAN) 114
115
Abigaile Pittman reviewed the item 116
117
Ted Triebel inquired if there was agreement that the fence needs to get done. Max Bushell confirmed that they did 118
agree that the fence should be done, but they are struggling to find the funding. Heidi Perry asked when the next 119
contact is to find out how that’s going. Max Bushell said that they would continue to follow up with them the next few 120
weeks. 121
122
7B. BURLINGTON-GRAHAM METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (BGMPO) MARCH 21, 2017 MEETING UPDATED – 123
(ABIGAILE PITTMAN) 124
125
Abigaile Pittman explained Peter Murphy and Theo Letman presented their items from the February OUTBoard 126
meeting of the Burlington – Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization on March 21st. 127
128
No discussion. 129
130
7C. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (BOCC) UPDATES – (ABIGAILE PITTMAN, MAX BUSHELL) 131
132
Abigaile Pittman reviewed the item, referencing the memorandum in the agenda packet. 133
134
No discussion. 135
136
AGENDA ITEM 8: BOARD COMMENTS 137
138
No comments 139
140
AGENDA ITEM 9: ADJOURNMENT 141
142
OUTBoard meeting was adjourned by consensus. 143
144
145
____________________________________
Heidi Perry, Chair
5
6
ORANGE COUNTY
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD (OUTBoard)
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 21, 2017
Action Agenda
Item No. 5.a.
SUBJECT: Bicycle Safety Task Force (BSTF) Report Discussion
DEPARTMENT: Planning
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. BSTF Report (online link)
http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/pl
anning_and_inspections/BSTFFINALREPORT
WATTAPP03012017.pdf
2. Implementation Excerpts from the Report
Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/
Land Use Planner, 245-2567
PURPOSE: Discussion of the no-cost implementation items from the BSTF Report.
BACKGROUND:
On March 1, 2017, the OUTBoard reviewed and endorsed the Bicycle Safety Task Force
Report and forwarded it to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). At its May 2,
2017 meeting, the BOCC received the Report. Through the Report, the BSTF
recommends and request a budget of $15,000 for FY 17-18 and appropriate County staff
support to launch the campaign. A link for the final BSTF Report is provided above
(Attachment 1).
The County Manager has expressed that county staff support will be available to be used to
pursue some of the no-cost implementation needs, and to also seek opportunities to work
with stakeholders, the Visitors Bureau and other entities to move the campaign forward.
No-cost Implementation Items
There are a several 1st year no-cost implementation items from the Report that can be
addressed now with County staff (Community Relations Director, Graphics Design
Specialist, and Planning Staff) in coordination with the OUTBoard (Attachment 2):
Design of bumper stickers/magnets
Website development (static website with safety information, linked to Chapel
Hill/Carrboro websites)
School outreach apps/programs
Social media kickoff (e.g., Orange County Facebook events page)
7
It would be also be timely to begin some pre-planning for a number of activities from the
ongoing implementation list, and discuss who will ultimately be involved in performing the
following tasks:
Safety message to listservs
Tabling at community events (following design and production of bumper
stickers/magnets, and posters/flyers
News/media engagement
Best safety video contest
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Other than staff time and utilization of existing budget allocations,
there is no immediate financial impact associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The staff recommends the OUTBoard:
1. Receive the information, discuss and provide staff with comments regarding
proceeding the identified no-cost implementation items from the BSTF Report.
8
It
e
m
5
a
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
9
10
11
12
Item 6.a.
PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Comprehensive Planning
(919) 245-2575
(919) 644-3002 (FAX)
www.orangecountync.gov
131 W. Margaret Lane
Suite 201
P. O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 21, 2017
TO: Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard)
FROM: Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use Planner
SUBJECT: Information Item 6a: Review of the Statutory Road Closing Process Using
the Eubanks Road Realignment Project as an Example
ATTACHMENTS: 1. NC General Statute §153A-241
2. Orange County Municipal Ordinance Section 22 – Land Records
3. Eubanks Road Realignment Map
4. Closed Right-of-Way Transfer to Adjoining Property Owners Map
Background
North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) §153A-241 (Attachment 1) provides the state
law for closing public roads or easements in counties that are not under the control and
supervision of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). The process
is for public roads or easements whose maintenance has been abandoned by NCDOT.
Additionally, per Orange County Municipal Ordinance Section 22 – Land Records, a
Property Identification Number (PIN) is required to be assigned to the portions of the
closed right-of-way (Attachment 2). Therefore, the road closing process also requires
the completion of a survey and deed(s) for the right-of-way, to facilitate the recording of
the Order to close and the transfer of property to adjacent property owners.
Eubanks Road Realignment
A recent local project provides a good example of how this process works. A portion of
Eubanks Road (SR 1727) between Old NC 86 and Dromoland Road was realigned to
provide for improved intersection sight distance, as a NCDOT secondary paved road
improvement project. The project has been completed and NCDOT has now formally
abandoned maintenance of the old road alignments, including removal of the pavement.
The realigned (new) portion of Eubanks Road has been added to the State Maintained
Secondary Road System (Attachment 3).
13
In accordance with NCGS §153A-241 and the County’s Land Records Ordinance, the
following steps after abandonment of maintenance of the Eubanks Road right-of-way
are required to formally close the public road:
1. Completion of a survey and deeds for the right-of-way;
2. Accommodation of any remaining utilities within a recorded easement. In
this case there is a remaining 16-inch OWASA water utility line that would
need to be accommodated within a thirty-foot easement on a recorded
survey prior to the transfer of the closed right-of-way;
3. Public notice in a local newspaper, and registered or certified mail notice
to adjoining property or easement owners;
4. A public hearing;
5. Findings of fact that closing the public road would not be contrary to the
public interest and that no individual owning property in the vicinity of the
road would be deprived of reasonable means of ingress and egress to
their property;
6. An approved, recorded Order by the BOCC closing the right-of-way; and
7. A thirty-day appeal period to allow any person aggrieved by the closing to
file a de novo appeal the BOCC Order to court.
Transfer of Closed Right-of-way to Adjoining Property Owners
After the road is officially closed per the above process, all right, title, and interest in the
closed right-of-way can be transferred to persons owning the adjoining parcels,
pursuant to NCGS §153A-241 and the requirements of the Section 22 Land Records
Ordinance. This process would require the recording of the survey and deeds assigning
ownership to the adjoining property owners. A map approximately depicting how the
land/former right-of way would be transferred to adjoining property owners is provided
as Attachment 4.
NCGS §153A-241 does not require property owners or the County to proceed with the
official closing of the abandoned portion of Eubanks Road. In this case, should the
property owners come to agreement and fulfil the described requirements, the County
would proceed with the road closing process. Should the property owners decline, the
property will remain as it is – with the roadway abandoned by NCDOT but not officially
closed. In this case the property ownership would remain with NCDOT.
14
Item 6a Attachment 1 15
Item 6a Attachment 2
Chapter 22 ‐ LAND RECORDS[1]
Footnotes:
‐‐‐ (1) ‐‐‐
Cross reference— Administration, ch. 2.
State Law reference— Modernization of land records, G.S. 161-30.
Sec. 22‐1. ‐ Authority.
This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to N.C. General Statutes § 161-30.
(Ord. of 11-16-1982, § 1, eff. 1-1-1983; Amend. of 9-18-1990, eff. 9-18-1990)
Sec. 22‐2. ‐ Requirements for registration.
The Register of Deeds shall not accept for registration any deed, deed of trust, map or plat, or any
other instrument containing a description of the real property affected by the instrument unless the parcel
identifier numbers of all parcels affected have been assigned and written on the instrument by the County
Land Records Office in accordance with the county procedures manual for creating and assigning parcel
identifier numbers. Presentation of the instrument to the Land Records Office as herein described does
not constitute filing the instrument for registration.
(Ord. of 11-16-1982, § 2, eff. 1-1-1983; Amend. of 9-18-1990, eff. 9-18-1990)
Sec. 22‐3. ‐ Assignment of parcel identifier numbers.
The Land Records office shall have exclusive authority to create and assign parcel identifier
numbers and shall maintain a procedures manual for that purpose. The procedures manual shall include
provisions to insure that no two parcels of property will be assigned the same parcel identifier number.
(Ord. of 11-16-1982, § 3, eff. 1-1-1983; Amend. of 9-18-1990, eff. 9-18-1990)
Sec. 22‐4. ‐ Parcel identifier numbers required.
Every map (including a map incorporated by reference in a deed), subdivision plat, or land survey
plot that creates or more fully defines one or more parcels of land must have a parcel identifier number
written on it before it can be registered. This requirement shall not apply to flood plain maps, annexation
and municipal boundary maps, and similar maps prepared by governmental agencies.
(Ord. of 11-16-1982, § 4, eff. 1-1-1983; Amend. of 9-18-1990, eff. 9-18-1990)
Sec. 22‐5. ‐ Order of processing instruments.
16
Page 2
All instruments pertaining to the same parcel or to related parcels shall be assigned parcel identifier
numbers and processed according to the date and time when they were presented to the Land Records
Office.
(Ord. of 11-16-1982, § 2, eff. 1-1-1983; Amend. of 9-18-1990, eff. 9-18-1990)
Sec. 22‐6. ‐ Description of parcels for which identifier number does not exist.
(a) Any deed, deed of trust, map or plat, or other instrument that contains a description of a parcel or
parcels not previously plotted on the county large-scale cadastral maps and for which a parcel
identifier number does not exist must contain a description of the parcel or parcels of sufficient
accuracy and detail that the Land Records Office is able to locate and plot the parcel or parcels on
the county maps from the description standing alone, or with the aid of supporting maps or other
documents furnished by the person presenting the instrument.
(b) The description contained in any map or plat that is to be registered and that creates or more fully
defines a parcel or parcels not previously plotted on the county large-scale cadastral maps and for
which a parcel identifier number does not exist must be sufficiently precise to create a consistent
closed parcel boundary within a plotting accuracy of 1/40 (one-fortieth) of an inch.
(Ord. of 11-16-1982, § 6, eff. 1-1-1983; Amend. of 9-18-1990, eff. 9-18-1990)
Sec. 22‐7. ‐ Effective date.
This Ordinance shall become effective January 1, 1983.
(Ord. of 11-16-1982, § 7, eff. 1-1-1983; Amend. of 9-18-1990, eff. 9-18-1990)
17
Added 0.13 miles
Abandoned 0.12 miles
LUC
Y
L
N
OLD SPRING RD
DUBLIN
R
D
E U B A N K S R D
DR
O
M
O
L
A
N
D
R
D
K A R E N WOODSRD
OL
D
N
C
8
6
KELLYCT
Eubanks Road Realignment
Road Abandoned
Road Added
City Limits ·Orange County Planning and InspectionsBrian Carson (5/10/2017)
0 200Feet
1 in = 400 feet
Item 6a Attachment 3 18
9860869817FINN & HUNTERPROPERTIES LLC0.91 ac.
9860866730RICHARD G HISKEYJOAN HISKEY5.47 ac.
9860878399PARKER LOUIS LLC4.13 ac.
0.3 ac.0.1 ac.
0.4 ac.
EU
B
A
N
K
S
R
D
OL
D
N
C
8
6
LUCY LN
DRO
MOLAND
RD
Approximate Eubanks Road Right-of-way Available forTransfer to Property Owners
Road Right-of-way ThatCould be Transferred toAdjacent Properties
PIN: 9860866730
PIN: 9860869817
PIN: 9860878399 ·Orange County Planning and InspectionsBrian Carson (5/10/2017)
0 50Feet
1 in = 100 feet
Item 6a Attachment 4 19
20
Item 7.a.
PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Comprehensive Planning
(919) 245-2575
(919) 644-3002 (FAX)
www.orangecountync.gov
131 W. Margaret Lane
Suite 201
P. O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 21, 2017
TO: Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard)
FROM: Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use Planner
SUBJECT: Update 7a - Transportation Report for the Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane (E-B-
M) Study Area and General Next Steps for Amending the E-B-M Access
Management Plan
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Transportation Report for the Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Study
Area
Background
Orange County is in the process of completing an examination of access management
issues in the E-B-M Study Area that runs along the north side of I-40 between Buckhorn
Road and I-85/US 70 Connector and along the south side of I-40 between Ben Wilson
Road and Mt. Willing Road. As part of this process, the County first hired an
environmental consultant, and then a transportation consultant to provide technical
analysis. The final technical report, the Transportation Report for the Efland-Buckhorn-
Mebane Study Area, was completed this month (Attachment 1).
Section 1 of the Report – Introduction: Purpose and Background, and Access
Management
The primary purpose of this work is to inform the development of a roadway network to
support investment in the E-B-M Study Area, based on an examination of existing plans,
future land use, environmental constraints, cultural and historic resources, key
transportation considerations, and future development potential. The scope of work
included forecasting future traffic volumes, a study of key intersections, a calculation of
Level of Service (LOS) rating, and the recommendation of cross-sections for new and
existing roads.
21
Access management of the road network in the study area will facilitate access to land
for development, while maintaining the functional safety and efficiency of the State’s
transportation system. Within Orange County, the E-B-M Study Area was selected as a
location to encourage future economic development activities, based on its strategic
location along major transportation corridors. Recent growth along the I‐40/I-85 corridor
has resulted in an average increase of traffic of 3% each year; with the expected growth
of residential activity and office, service, research, commercial and industrial
development in the Study Area, the future traffic is anticipated to intensify.
Section 2 of the Report - Existing Conditions: Environmental Features, Cultural
Features, and Existing Roadway Network
The County’s environmental consultant conducted preliminary studies regarding
hydrology, wetlands determination, threatened and endangered species determination,
historic properties/structures and/or archaeological remains, and cultural resources. The
purpose of this work was to document environmentally and culturally sensitive areas to
assist in the long-range planning and regulating future road networks related to
development proposals in the area. See pages 7 and 8 of the Report.
Existing primary transportation facilities in the Study Area were included in the planning
of future road networks. Below is a description of the seven primary existing roadways:
Road Name Road Type Speed Limit AADT
I-40/I-85 8-lane interstate 65 mph 98,000 vehicles/day
Ben Wilson Rd 2-lane major
connector
35 mph
Not Available
West Ten Rd 2-lane major
connector
55 mph/ 45 mph
near school
1,800 vehicles/day
Mattress Factory Rd 2-lane major
connector
35 mph
2,500 vehicles/day
Buckhorn Rd 2-lane major
connector
35 mph
2,700 vehicles/day
US 70 2-lane Other
Principal Arterial
45 mph
3,600-5,300
vehicles/day
I-85/US-70
Connector
4-lane interstate
55 mph
4,400 vehicles/day
Section 3 of the Report – Future Network: Future Lane Use Map, Study Area Buildout
Analysis, Future Roadway Network, Typical Sections, Traffic Volume Analysis, and
Intersection Analysis
The Future Land Use Map (FLUM), a component of the Orange County Comprehensive
Plan, provides guidance and direction regarding future land use planning and
development efforts in the Study Area. See page 11 of the Report. The FLUM defines
the location of appropriate land use classifications to achieve a desired pattern of
development, and is accomplished primarily through the application of zoning districts.
The classifications designated for the area are: Commercial-Industrial Transition;
Economic Development Transition Activity Node; and 10-Year Transition.
22
The land use classifications of the FLUM, together with the existing and future
recommended zoning districts, informed a 30-year build-out analysis for the Study Area.
The analysis served as the basis for estimation of the amount of additional traffic that
could be generated in the future, as well as serving as a tool for planning for future
improvement to the transportation network.
Based primarily on a combination of the existing road network, the existing Zoning Map,
and the designated future land use, eighteen development pods were created as a base
for the buildout analysis. See page 14 of the Report. The process incorporated a
number of attributes. The result of the analysis was the estimated buildable acres per
pod, used for estimating future trip generation for the area. Future trips were determined
per pod by combining data from existing transportation impact analyses (TIAs) in the
vicinity, NCDOT traffic counts, and trip generation data calculated based on various
land use codes and the buildable areas of the pods. See Attachment C of the Report for
more detailed information. The analysis serves as a tool for consideration of future
needs and improvements to the transportation network serving the Study Area.
Based on environmental and cultural constraints, existing and projected traffic volumes,
functional classification, design speed, character and composition of traffic and type of
right-of-way, a roadway network and cross-sections were recommended for the Study
Area. See pages 16-21 of the Report. The Report includes three different cross-
sections: A 2-lane undivided with paved shoulders and sidewalks (within Mebane’s
future jurisdiction); a 2-lane undivided with paved shoulders (outside Mebane’s future
jurisdiction); and a 2-lane with two way left turn lane, and paved shoulders (on several
existing primary roads). Recommendations for the future road network are to 2025 and
may require additional technical analysis at the time of implementation. Traffic volumes
were then assigned to the roadway network. See pages 23-24 of the Report.
Future traffic volumes were also applied to five key intersections. See page 42 of the
Report:
New Road A at Ben Wilson Road
New Road A at West Ten Road
West Ten Road at Buckhorn Road
New Road H at Mt. Willing Road
US-70/I-85 Connector
Recommended cross sections for the five intersections were determined based on the
estimated traffic from the capacity analysis, and coordination with NCDOT. The Level
of Service (LOS) was calculated for each new and existing intersection. (LOS is based
on a measure of the average time delay at an intersection and ranges from A to F, with
A having the shortest delay time and F having the longest). See pages 25-41 of the
Report. The intersection capacity analysis revealed that several of the five intersections
will need additional consideration and analysis during the upcoming amendment of the
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan: West Ten Road at Buckhorn
Road; New Road A and West Ten Road; and the US-70/I-85 Connector.
23
Section 4 of the Report – Cost Analysis: Conceptual Design and Construction Cost
Estimate
Cost estimates were developed for each new road and for roadway improvements to
existing roadways. Based on the conceptual design process, the overall cost for
constructing the approximately 11 miles of new roadways and improvements to existing
roadways would be around $30.9 million. The additional cost for adding sidewalks is
about $13.6 million. The total cost to provide the identified roadway network and
associated improvement to existing roads is approximately $44 million. Projects will be
funded by both by developers and through the Statewide Transportation Improvement
Plan (STIP) process. See pages 43-44 of the Report.
General Next Steps – Amending the E-B-M Access Management Plan
The Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan (AMP) was adopted in
November 2011 to address traffic, access and connectivity and to maintain the
functionality of the transportation network as the E-B-M area develops. The following is
a link to the 2011 AMP:
http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/planning_and_inspections/AdoptedEfland
BuckhornMebaneAMP.pdf
Over time, with the installation of sewer and water lines and development of several
industrial and commercial sites, it became evident that a somewhat less conceptual and
more precise access management concept for the area was necessary. The data
presented in the consultant’s technical report will inform an upcoming amendment of the
access management plan and provide the basis and justification for requiring the
dedication of rights-of-way in the E-B-M Study Area.
The amendment process will occur approximately over the next year, and include a
review by the OUTBoard, review and approval by the Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC). Additional details will be provided as amendment plans progress.
24
Transportation Report for the Efland‐Buckhorn‐
Mebane Study Area
Prepared For:
Orange County Planning & Inspections Department
131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 201
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
May 2017
Prepared By:
5540 Centerview Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
25
Contents
Section 1 ‐ Introduction................................................................................................................................... 3
Purpose and Background ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Access Management ............................................................................................................................................ 3
Business Impacts .................................................................................................................................................. 5
Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) ......................................................................................................... 5
Section 2 – Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 6
Environmental Features ....................................................................................................................................... 6
Cultural Features ........................................................................................................................................... 6
Existing Roadway Network ............................................................................................................................ 9
Section 3 – Future Network .................................................................................................................... 10
Future Land Use Map ................................................................................................................................... 10
Study Area Buildout Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 12
Future Roadway Network ............................................................................................................................ 15
Typical Sections .............................................................................................................................................. 16
Traffic Volume Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 22
Intersection Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 25
Section 4 – Cost Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 43
Conceptual Design .......................................................................................................................................... 43
Construction Cost Estimate ............................................................................................................................. 43
Section 5 – Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 44
Attachment A ‐ Study Area Map ............................................................................................................... 45
Attachment B – SHPO Cultural Resources Response Letters ................................................................. 47
Study Area 1A SHPO Response Letter ........................................................................................................... 48
Study Area 1B SHPO Response Letter ........................................................................................................... 50
Study Area 2A SHPO Response Letter ........................................................................................................... 51
Study Area 2B SHPO Response Letter ........................................................................................................... 53
Attachment C – Formulas and Assumptions .......................................................................................... 54
Formulas ........................................................................................................................................................ 55
Assumptions ...................................................................................................................................................... 55
Buildout Analysis Spreadsheet ...................................................................................................................... 58
Attachment D ‐ Traffic Volume Data ..................................................................................................... 59
26
Figures and Tables
Figures
Figure 1‐ Study Area for the Efland‐Buckhorn‐Mebane Transportation Report……………………………………. ... 4
Figure 2‐ Existing Conditions ......................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 3 ‐ Environmental Features ............................................................................................................... 8
Figure 4 ‐ Future Land Use Map .................................................................................................................. 11
Figure 5‐ Development Pod Map ................................................................................................................ 14
Figure 6 ‐ Typical Section 2D ...................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 7 ‐ Typical Section 2A ...................................................................................................................... 19
Figure 8 ‐ Typical Section 3A ...................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 9 ‐ 2014 AADT ................................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 10 ‐ 2025 AADT ................................................................................................................................ 24
Figure 11 ‐ Study Intersections ................................................................................................................... 42
Tables
Table 1 ‐ Anticipated Traffic Generated from Development. ..................................................................... 13
Table 2‐ Construction Cost Estimates for New Roads. ..................................................................................43
Table 3 ‐ Construction Cost Estimates for Updating Existing Roads. ............................................................. 44
27
Section 1 ‐ Introduction
PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
The primary purpose of this technical report is to develop a roadway network to support investment in
the Efland‐Buckhorn‐Mebane Study Area, based on an examination of existing plans, future land use,
environmental constraints, cultural and historic resources, key transportation considerations, and future
development potential. The data presented in this technical report will provide the basis and justification
for requiring the dedication of rights‐of‐way in the Efland‐Buckhorn‐Mebane Study Area and may serve
as an appendix to the updated Efland‐Buckhorn‐Mebane Study Area Access Management Plan.
Access management of the road network in the study area will facilitate access to land for development,
while maintaining the safety and efficiency of the State’s transportation system. The goals of an access
management plan include creating access to new developments and ensuring that existing facilities
remain operating at a functional level. Within Orange County, the Efland‐Buckhorn‐Mebane Study Area
was selected as a location to encourage future economic development activities, based on its strategic
location along major transportation corridors. The Efland‐Buckhorn‐Mebane Study Area runs along the
north side of I‐40 between Buckhorn Road and I‐85/US 70 Connector and along the south side of I‐40
from Ben Wilson Road and Mt. Willing Road. Recent growth along the I‐85/40 corridor has resulted in an
average increase of traffic of 3% each year; with the expected growth of residential activity and office,
service, research, commercial and industrial development in the study area, the future traffic is
anticipated to also intensify. A map of the project study area is shown in Figure 1.
ACCESS MANAGEMENT
Access management is the systematic control of the location, spacing, design and operation of driveways,
median openings, interchanges and street connections to a roadway1. The Federal Highway
Administration’s (FHWA) official definition of access management is “the process that provides access to
land development while simultaneously preserving the flow of traffic on the surrounding system in terms
of safety, capacity, and speed.” By controlling these access points, a local or state government can:
Maintain the overall safety of the transportation system;
Minimize congestion;
Provide for efficient traffic flow and pedestrian safety;
Minimize crash rates;
Provide appropriate access to adjacent business properties.
Ultimately, Orange County seeks to develop an access management plan in order to maintain the
functionality of the transportation network as the Efland‐Buckhorn‐Mebane Study Area develops.
1 Access Management Manual, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C. 2003
28
·
Study Area for the Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Transportation Report - Figure 1
FOREST AVE OUTHERN DR
Study Area 1 in = 3,400 feet
0 2,000
Parcel
Feet
Orange County Planning and Inspections
Brian Carson (12/21/2016)
EST TEN R
TON
RD
O
S EL
EV
E
N
TH
ST
AR
RY
RD
CE
N
T
E
R
IN
29
BUSINESS IMPACTS
Addressing the roadway network and access management issues during the planning and development
of land in the study area and transportation projects can help a community in various ways. Customers
are seeking businesses with unblocked driveways and easy access while businesses are seeking access to
signalized intersections and interconnected developments which allow easy access to interstate facilities.
Having a plan in place to address the needs of the community is critical to the economic prosperity of
the region and ultimately to the State of North Carolina.
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (CTP)
The North Carolina Department of Transportation and Orange County adopted the Orange County
Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP), which provides project recommendations for rural areas of
the county, in 2013. The Durham‐Chapel Hill‐Carrboro MPO (DCHC MPO) CTP is currently under
development and will be adopted in 2017. This plan addressed future transportation needs in the
urbanized areas. The Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) will be used to further foster
economic development in the Mebane/Buckhorn Economic Development District (EDD).
Under State law (N.C.G.S. § 136‐66.2), Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and municipalities
shall develop Comprehensive Transportation Plans (CTPs) in cooperation with the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT). For municipalities and counties, or portions thereof, located
within an MPO planning area, the development of a CTP shall be by the MPO in cooperation with the
NCDOT. The CTP is not required to be fiscally constrained and no minimum horizon year or update
timeframes are specified. The CTP is the element of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) that
identifies transportation needs before fiscal constraint is applied.
Under Federal law (23 U.S. Code § 134), MPOs are required to prepare a MTP. The MTP is required to
address the federal planning requirements in 23 U.S.C. § 134, which include being fiscally constrained,
having a minimum 20 year horizon, and being updated every 4 years in air quality non‐attainment or
maintenance areas (every 5 years in attainment areas).
It is important to note that the CTP/MTP does not include every road on the highway system. As such, in
accordance with G.S. § 136‐66.2, to complement the roadway element of the CTP, municipalities and
MPOs may develop a collector street plan and/or include additional projects that may be included in the
transportation plan if reasonable additional resources beyond those identified in the financial plan were
available to assist in developing the roadway network. The Department of Transportation may review
and provide comments but is not required to provide approval of the collector street plan. The CTP and
the locally approved collector street plan(s) work together to identify the future transportation system.
The street and highway elements of the plans developed pursuant to G.S. § 136‐66.2 shall serve as the
plan referenced in G.S. § 136‐66.10(a), which addresses the reservation and dedication of right‐of‐way
under local ordinances.
Locally approved transportation plans may contain street or highway right‐of‐way alignment and
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.
30
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. The Orange County UDO, Sections 6 and 7 includes the
requirements for reserving and dedicating right of way or requiring construction of roads listed in Access
Management Plans or on the CTP. Specific mention is also made to 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.
Section 2 – Existing Conditions
ENVIRONMENTALFEATURES
To begin the transportation report development process, Orange County’s environmental contractor, Pilot
Environmental, Inc. (PEI) conducted preliminary studies within the Study Area: Wetlands determination,
threatened and endangered species determination. Specifically, PEI’s field work and use of existing federal
and state agency data determined the presence of any streams, ponds and Wetlands, assessment of potential
historic properties/structures and/or archaeological remains, and obtain information regarding federally
protected threatened and endangered species that could be located in the area. The project was broken into
four study areas: 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B, a map of which is shown in Attachment A. The purpose of the work was
to document environmentally sensitive areas to assist the County in long‐range planning and regulating
future road networks related to development proposals in the area. The future road network proposals will
ultimately be developed to mitigate impacts on environmental features in the Study Area. Figure 2 depicts
the Existing Conditions, highlighting water features, schools, and cemeteries. Figure 3 contains
Environmental Features including endangered species and elevation contours.
CULTURAL FEATURES
PEI also conducted a cultural resources inquiry in the Study Area. A cemetery and several historic
structures were located. PEI submitted a letter to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) soliciting
comments pertaining to the Study Area. Copies of their responses are shown in Attachment B. SHPO
determined that the road network as proposed will not have an effect on any of the historic structure, and
additionally, the cemetery is protected in accordance with NCGS Chapter 65.
Portions of the Study Area also have a high probability for the presence of archeological resources.
Archaeological data was obtained but is not depicted on Figure 2 in order to protect sensitive areas
of archaeological interest.
31
Existing ConditionsNote: This map is for presentation use only and not to be used for construction purposes.
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4WEST TEN RD
INDUSTRIAL DR
M
A
T
T
R
E
S
S
F
A
C
T
O
R
Y
R
D
SOUTHERN DR
WEST TEN RD
RO
C
K
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
R
D
BOWMAN
R
D
B
E
N
W
I
L
S
O
N
R
D
SOUTHERN RAIL
W
A
Y
I-85/40
I-85/40
Legend
Cemetery kj Cemetery
Riverines
Ponds
Wetlands
Lakes
4 Schools
Wetlands
Streams
Railroad
F010.5 Miles
§¨¦
§¨¦
§¨¦
I-85/4
0
FOREST AVE
BU
C
K
H
O
R
N
R
D
B
U
C
K
H
O
R
N
R
D
MT.
W
I
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
US-70
US-70
US-70
US-70
Figure 2
32
Legend
Riverines
Ponds
NWI Wetlands
Lakes
Endangered Species
Elevation Contours
0 0.5 1
Miles
Note: This map i s for pr esentation use only
and not to be used for construction purpos es.
Environmental Features Map
Figure 3
Archaeologica l data is not provided on
this map in order to protect sen sit ive areas
of arch a e o l o gic a l i n t eres t . However a r c hae ologic a l
site acreage in the study area was c o n sid e red in our
analysis and was removed from the total buildable area
calculated for the purposes of trip g e n e r ati o n .
F
33
EXISTING ROADWAY NETWORK
The project area (shown in Figure 1) is approximately 4.25 square miles bounded on the west by Ben
Wilson Road, on the east by The I‐85/US‐70 Connector, on the north by US‐70, and on the south by West
Ten Road and Bowman Road. The area lies between two municipalities, Mebane and Hillsborough. A
description of the transportation facilities in the general vicinity of the project study area is as follows:
I‐40/I‐85 is an eight‐lane interstate that runs concurrently through Guilford, Alamance, and Orange
Counties. I‐40 diverges from I‐85 at exit 163 south of Hillsborough. The posted speed limit is 65 mph and
the AADT is 98,000 vehicles/day.
Ben Wilson Road is a two‐lane major connector which is accessed from the Mebane Oaks Road
interchange on I‐85/40 and carries mainly residential traffic. It was recently extended to act as a service
road for employees of Morinaga America Foods, Inc. The extension of Ben Wilson Road to Mebane Oaks
Road has been studied, however plans have not been approved and will not be discussed in this report.
The posted speed limit is 35 mph.
West Ten Road is a two‐lane major connector south of I‐40/I‐85 which runs from Mattress Factory Road
to the I‐85 Connector. The posted speed limit is 55 mph, except for a 45 mph section near Gravelly Hill
Middle School, and the AADT is 1,800 vehicles/day.
Mattress Factory Road is a two‐lane major connector that is north of I‐40/85 which runs from East
Washington Street (SR 1303) to West Ten Road, intersecting at I‐40/85. The posted speed limit is 35 mph
and the AADT is 2,500 vehicles/day.
Buckhorn Road is a two‐lane major connector stretching from US‐70 in the north to Orange Grove Road
(SR 1006) in the south. Within the study area, i.e. from US‐70 to West Ten Road, Buckhorn Road has a
posted speed of 35 mph and the AADT is 2,700 vehicles/day.
US 70 is a two‐lane road classified as an Other Principal Arterial, which provides east‐west access across
Orange County from I‐85 and Durham in the east to Mebane in the west. US‐70 represents the northern
boundary of the study area. The posted speed limit is 45 mph and the AADT is between 3,600 and 5,300
vehicles/day.
I‐85/US‐70 Connector is a four‐lane interstate providing access between I‐40/I‐85 and US‐70. A full
access interchange is provided at I‐40/I‐85, while a partial access interchange is present at US‐70. The
partial access interchange restricts westbound travel onto US 70 from the I‐85/US‐70 Connector and
southbound travel from US‐70 onto the I‐85/US‐70 Connector. The posted speed limit is 55 mph and the
AADT is 4,400 vehicles/day.
34
Section 3 – Future Network
FUTURE LAND USE MAP
The Future Land Use Map (FLUM) (Figure 4) is a key component of the adopted Orange County 2030
Comprehensive Plan. The FLUM provides guidance and direction regarding future land use planning and
development efforts undertaken in the county, including the Study Area. The FLUM defines the location
of appropriate land use classifications that would achieve a desired pattern of development, and is critical
for achieving sustainable growth.
Implementation of the stated land use goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan is accomplished
primarily through the application of zoning districts consistent with the FLUM. The land use classifications
depicted by the FLUM provide the locations in the county where certain zoning districts may or may not
be appropriate. The classifications designated for the Study Area are: Commercial‐ Industrial Transition;
Economic Development Transition Activity Node; and 10‐Year Transition. A variety of zoning districts are
appropriate for these classifications with specifics provided through a Land Use and Zoning Matrix that
is included in the Comprehensive Plan. If a proposed zoning district is not compatible with the
classifications contained in the Matrix, re‐zoning cannot take place unless the FLUM is amended.
The land use classifications of the FLUM, together with the existing and projected future zoning districts,
informed a build‐out analysis for the Study Area. The analysis provides an estimation of future
development. It serves as the basis for estimations of the amount of additional traffic that could be
generated if the Study Area was developed to its full potential, as well as serving as a tool for planning
for future improvements to the transportation network.
35
Me
b
a
n
e
Efland
US
7
0
W
B U C K H O R N R D
LEBANON
RD
ECENTER
ST
US 70 W
WEST
TEN
RD
I85US70CONNECTOR
R IC H MOND RD
H
E
B
R
O
N
C
H
U
RCH
R
D
B
O
W
M
A
N
R
D
FRA Z I E R R D
EFLAND CEDAR GROVE RD
M A T T R E S S F A C T O R Y R D
MILL CREEKRD
BROOKHOLLOWRD
IRA RD
BU
S
H
Y
C
O
O
K
R
D
H I G H R O C K RD
M EB A N E O A K S R D
C H ES T N U T R I D G ECHURCHRD
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
Ar
e
a
Fu
t
u
r
e
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
M
a
p
o
f
t
h
e
O
r
a
n
g
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
o
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
Plan 01,000 Feet 1 in = 3,500 feet.Adoption Date: Nov 18,2008 Amended through November 2014
Wa
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
C
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
A
r
e
a
s
Wa
t
e
r
S
u
p
p
l
y
W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
s
Re
s
o
u
r
c
e
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
A
r
e
a
s
Pu
b
l
i
c
I
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
A
r
e
a
s
10
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
20
Y
e
a
r
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
Ru
r
a
l
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ag
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ci
t
y
L
i
m
i
t
s
ET
J
Ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
N
o
d
e
s
Ru
r
a
l
N
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
h
o
o
d
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
Co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
-
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
T
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
Orange County and Planning and Inspections Department.This copy printed July 19, 2016. Map is for reference use only.Contact Planning staff for verification of data.
Fi
g
u
r
e
4
36
STUDY AREA BUILDOUT ANALYSIS
An important element of the Transportation Report for the Efland‐Buckhorn‐Mebane Study Area was the
preparation of a thirty (30) year buildout analysis. The buildout analysis provides an estimation of future
development and helps determine quantity and location of future growth. The analysis utilized an
Orange County parcel map with a GIS overlay, and was based upon a number of attributes, among the
most important being:
Existing land uses;
Existing zoning; and
The adopted Future Land Use Plan
Delineation of Development Pods
Based primarily on a combination of the existing road network, the existing Zoning Map, and the designated
future land use (per the adopted Land Use Plan), eighteen (18) development pods were created as a base for
estimating future trip generation for the study area. The development pods are depicted in Figure 5, and
range in size from 22 acres to 362 acres.
The buildout analysis process incorporated a number of attributes:
Zoning and Future Land Use Plan designations for the pods.
Gross acreages of development pods, undeveloped land, current non‐residential land, current
residential acreages including subdivisions and development, existing non‐residential
development, and other developed area to be preserved;
Documentation of environmental and cultural constraints by developable areas;
Estimation of appropriate land uses by ITE codes;
Consideration of development regulations restricting the percentage of site development;
Provision of public services (water, sewer);
Proximity of interstate interchanges;
Proximity of and potential access to the rail line;
Potential impact of future transit (OPT); and
An applied market reduction factor based on location and available public services.
The primary concern in the study area in terms of developing a feasible future roadway network are the
presence of streams that have a fifty‐foot vegetative buffer based on the Neuse River Riparian Buffer
Rules. While roadway crossing of streams are allowable per the buffer rules, Volkert attempted to
minimize stream crossings in the development of the future roadway network and assumed that no
development would take place within the stream buffers.
The trip generation analysis is summarized in the spreadsheet provided in Attachment C. The result of the
analysis was the estimated buildable acres per pod. The analysis provides valuable estimated projections
about future land uses and development potential, and serves as the basis for estimations of the amount
of additional traffic that could be generated if the study area was developed to its full potential. The
analysis also serves as a tool to be used to consider future needs and improvements to the transportation
network serving the Study Area.
37
Future Traffic
Future trips to and from the development pods were determined by combining data from existing
transportation impact analyses (TIAs) in the vicinity, NCDOT traffic counts, and trip generation data,
calculated based on various land use codes and the buildable areas of the pods. The formulas and land
use codes used to determine the trip data area listed in Attachment C. The anticipated number of
vehicles generated from the development in each pod in shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1 – Anticipated Traffic Generated from Development
Pod Area (acres)
Total
Daily
Traffic
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
1 86.8 7,440 986 1,025
2 19.1 2,781 338 302
3 81.0 21,917 2,227 2,144
4 135.2 40,432 4,114 3,270
5, 6 19.7 1,998 189 203
7 7.5 36,955 3,476 2,865
8 70.1 5,088 715 738
9 18.1 17,736 1,534 1,492
10 48.6 4,336 586 574
11 7.1 4,516 468 466
12 4.9 392 51 49
13 15.2 925 128 124
14 8.5 4,896 509 507
15 11.1 1,010 127 124
16 1.8 772 81 81
17 79.3 16,228 1,931 1,770
18 24.3 5,422 647 614
Note: Pods 5 and 6 were combined because Pod 5 did not have any developable area. There are plans for the development of
additional soccer fields at the Soccer.com center in Pod 5 which will add another 3 vehicles to the peak hour of Pod 5/6.
38
Development Pod MapNote: This map is for presentation use only and not to be used for construction purposes.
1
2
3 4
6
7 8
9
10
11 12
13
14
15 16 17
18
WEST TEN RD
INDUSTRIAL DR
M
A
T
T
R
E
S
S
F
A
C
T
O
R
Y
R
D
SOUTHERN DR
WEST TEN RD
RO
C
K
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
R
D
BOWMAN
R
D
B
E
N
W
I
L
S
O
N
R
D
I-85/40
I-85/40
F010.5 Miles
Pods were created in areas of potential development to determine future traffic volumes based on land uses and pod size.
5
FOREST AVE
US-70
US-70
US-70
US-70
BU
C
K
H
O
R
N
R
D
B
U
C
K
H
O
R
N
R
D
MT.
W
I
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
Figure 5
39
FUTURE ROADWAY NETWORK
Based on the information presented in this report and taking into account functional classification, design
speed, traffic volumes, character and composition of traffic and type of right‐of‐way, the roadway
network on the following pages is recommended. NCDOT Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) counts
were used to determine the traffic volumes surrounding the study area, while traffic studies for adjacent
streets were also used to inform this analysis. In recommending these new facilities, Orange County used
the following criteria as guidelines:
1.Serve all of the future development areas
2.Keep traffic off of the existing roadway network
3.Provide access to the existing interchanges
4.Minimize stream crossings
5.Avoid historical areas, cemeteries, and archaeological resources
6.Avoid currently developed properties
7.Avoid wetlands, poor soil, and rock
8.Create better conditions for non‐automobile modes
Roads will be constructed to the design speeds provided for each cross‐section.
40
TYPICAL SECTIONS
Typical sections for the proposed streets were evaluated and selected based on an analysis of future
traffic volumes, the NCDOT Average Annual Daily Traffic and NCDOT’s Roadway Design Manual
guidelines. All roads are classified as local roads or minor collectors according to NCDOT Functional
Classification Maps.
A. For proposed streets A‐ F1, 2 and 4 (seen in figure 6) the cross section 2D includes 2 lanes
undivided with paved shoulders and sidewalks. Due to the proximity of the City of Mebane, the
city may consider annexation of some additional areas at a future date and then will assume the
costs of sidewalk construction and maintenance. An annexation process would include
coordination with Orange County.
Roadway Table for Typical Section 2D
Roadway
Name
Map
Identifier
Roadway
Type Responsible Party Proposed Cross‐Section
Type (Line Color)
New A A New Developer Built with Sidewalk in ROW (Future Mebane Area) Two Lane, Ditch, Sidewalk
New B B New Developer Built with Sidewalk in ROW (Future Mebane Area) Two Lane, Ditch, Sidewalk
New C C New Developer Built with Sidewalk in ROW (Future Mebane Area) Two Lane, Ditch, Sidewalk
New E E New Developer Built with Sidewalk in ROW (Future Mebane Area) Two Lane, Ditch, Sidewalk
New F1 F1 New Developer Built with Sidewalk in ROW (Future Mebane Area) Two Lane, Ditch, Sidewalk
Bowman 2 Existing State TIP Two Lane, Ditch, Sidewalk
Rock Quarry 4 Existing State TIP/Developer Two Lane, Ditch, Sidewalk
Wilson 9 Existing State TIP Two Lane, Ditch, Sidewalk
41
It is recommended that the above map be constructed according to cross‐section 2D
9
Figure 6
42
B. For proposed streets F2‐K, 6, and 7 (seen in figure 7), the cross section 2A includes 2 lanes
undivided with paved shoulders. As these roads are not anticipated to fall within the jurisdiction
of any neighboring community in the foreseeable future, no pedestrian amenities are included in
this area. The County does not build or maintain infrastructure.
Roadway Table for Typical Section 2A
Roadway
Name
Map
Identifier
Roadway
Type Responsible Party Proposed Cross‐Section
Type (Line Color)
New F2 F2 New Developer Built (Sidewalk Built Outside of ROW by Developer per Ordinance) Two Lane, Ditch Section
New G G New Developer Built (Sidewalk Built Outside of ROW by Developer per Ordinance) Two Lane, Ditch Section
New H H New Developer Built (Sidewalk Built Outside of ROW by Developer per Ordinance) Two Lane, Ditch Section
New I I New Developer Built (Sidewalk Built Outside of ROW by Developer per Ordinance) Two Lane, Ditch Section
New J J New Developer Built (Sidewalk Built Outside of ROW by Developer per Ordinance) Two Lane, Ditch Section
New K K Existing State TIP Two Lane, Ditch Section
Southern 6 Existing No Improvement Possible due to Rail Right‐of‐Way Two Lane, Ditch Section
Forest 7 Existing No Improvement Possible due to Rail Right‐of‐Way Two Lane, Ditch Section
43
It is recommended that the above map be constructed according to cross‐section 2A
Figure 7
44
C. For proposed roads 1, 3, 5, and 8 (seen in figure 8), the cross section 3A includes 2 lanes with a
two‐way left turn lane and paved shoulders. The cross sections depicted by this cross section
may also include sidewalks with the proper right‐of‐way reservation.
Roadway Table for Typical Section 3A
Roadway
Name
Map
Identifier
Roadway
Type Responsible Party Current Cross‐
Section Type
Proposed Cross‐Section Type
(Line Color)
Ben Wilson 1 Existing State TIP Two Lane, Ditch Three Lane, Ditch, Sidewalk
West Ten 3 Existing State TIP Two Lane, Ditch Three Lane, Ditch, Sidewalk
Buckhorn 5 Existing State TIP Two Lane, Ditch Three Lane, Ditch, Sidewalk
Mt Willing 8 Existing State TIP Two Lane, Ditch Three Lane, Ditch, Sidewalk
45
It is recommended that the above map be constructed according to cross‐section 3A
Figure 8
46
TRAFFIC VOLUME ANALYSIS
After developing the proposed roadway network, Volkert assigned the traffic volumes generated as
discussed above to the roadway network. Information indicating the process used to generate traffic
volumes is included in Attachment D.
For the areas with future development proposed, Volkert assumed that all traffic would be going to/
coming from the closest interchange, i.e.: traffic on the west side of the study area would be going to
the interchange at Buckhorn Road and I‐40 and any traffic on the east side would be going to the
interchange at Mount Willing Road and I‐40. The Pod Traffic volumes generated in Table 1 were added
to the future 2025 AADTs of the existing roadway network based on the proposal access points. Pod
traffic volumes were assigned proportionally to each access point. Volkert assumed that fifty percent
of the project traffic going through the interchanges would be headed westbound on I‐40 and the other
fifty percent would be headed eastbound.
These volumes were added to the volumes from the NCDOT traffic volume maps for the area to give a
general idea of how many lanes would need to be created for new roads or added to existing roads.
The daily traffic volumes along with the AM and PM peak hour traffic volumes are provided in the
following figures for the Buckhorn Road, W. Ten Road, and Mt. Willing Road interchanges with I‐40.
Existing and future AADT’s are shown in figures 9 and 10 respectively. It should be noted that a future
interchange at Mattress Factory Road has been proposed by the Burlington‐Graham Metropolitan
Planning Organization (B‐G MPO) and will significantly impact traffic counts if constructed.
Recommendations for the future road network are to 2025 and may require additional technical
analysis at the time of implementation.
47
410065
0
0
6
3
0
0
19
0
0
6000
13
3
00
1100
1700
15
0 4200 3800
2
4
0
0
2100 3000 470
640
98000
9900
0
4200
710
1400 420
7800
3400
96000 2603300
4200
290
9
1
0
1000
820 1100
410
46
0
1400
2300
18001
8
0
0
470
16
0
0
1
3
0
0
5
0
0
0
320
WEST TEN RD
INDUSTRIAL DR
M
A
T
T
R
E
S
S
F
A
C
T
O
R
Y
R
D
SOUTHERN DR
WEST TEN RD
RO
C
K
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
R
D
BOWMAN R
D
B
E
N
W
I
L
S
O
N
R
D
SOUTHERN RAILWAY
I-85/40
I-85/40
Note: This map is for presentation use only and not to be used for construction purposes.
0 10.5 Miles F
US-70
US-70
US-70
US-70
WILSON
R
D
B
U
C
K
H
O
R
N
R
D
B
U
C
K
H
O
R
N
R
D
FOREST AVE
MT
.
W
I
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
2014 AADT
Figure 9
48
164
6
6
23
6
1
5
4
2
1
0
9
23
6
2
25196
50
5
1
2
285
6
18
7
15026 6893
2
9
8
4
2611 3730 58
4
796
121851
123
0
9
4
5222
883
17340 522
9698
4227
119364 323
4103
5222
361 1
1
3
1
1243
1020 17450
510
57
2
3739
2860
2238
2
2
3
8
584
19
8
9
1
6
1
6
6
2
1
7
398
WEST TEN RD
INDUSTRIAL DR
M
A
T
T
R
E
S
S
F
A
C
T
O
R
Y
R
D
WEST TEN
R
D
RO
C
K
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
R
D
BOWMA
N
R
D
B
E
N
W
I
L
S
O
N
R
D
SOUTHERN RAI
L
W
A
Y
I-85/40
I-85/40
2025 AADT
Note: This map is for presentation use only
and not to be used for construction purposes.0 10.5 Miles F
Wilson R
d
.
US-70
MT
.
W
I
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
SOUTHERN DR
B
U
C
K
H
O
R
N
R
D
US-70 US-70
US-70
Forest Ave
BU
C
K
H
O
R
N
R
D
Figure 10
2640
1
4
8
8
49
INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
To complete the intersection analysis, the traffic volumes derived from the development pods were
applied to the study intersections shown in figure 11. Travel demand was projected from 2014‐2025 by
the trend line analysis method.
This method projects Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) based on historical trends. Traffic volumes
over the past 15 years in this area has increased at 3% annually accordingly. Traffic in the study
intersections were increased to the year 2025 by that rate.
Both the 2014 and 2025 traffic volumes at the intersections are shown in the following figures. Cross
sections for the 5 intersections were determined based on the estimated traffic from the capacity
analysis, and coordination with NCDOT. The Level of Service (LOS) was calculated for each new and
existing intersection using Synchro. LOS is based on a measure of the average time delay at an
intersection and ranges from A to F, with A having the shortest delay time and F having the longest.
According to NCDOT Level of Service Definitions the six levels of service are defined as:
LOS A: Describes primarily free flow conditions
LOS B: Represents reasonably free flow conditions
LOS C: Provides for stable operations, but flows approach the range in which small increases will cause
substantial deterioration in service
LOS D: Borders on unstable flow
LOS E: Describes operation at capacity
LOS F: Describes forced or breakdown flow
The five intersections studied by Volkert were:
1)New Road A at Ben Wilson Road
2)New Road A at West Ten Road
3)West Ten Road at Buckhorn Road
4)New Road H at Mt. Willing Road
5)US‐70/I‐85 Connector
50
1)New Road A and Ben Wilson Road ‐ Ben Wilson Road is a two‐lane road with a speed limit of
35 mph. This roadway currently operates at LOS C and would operate at LOS A after adding
turn lanes to accommodate the anticipated traffic in 2025 on New Road A.
51
New Road A and Ben Wilson Road
52
53
2)New Road A and West Ten Road – West Ten Road is a two‐lane road with an existing intersection
at Rock Quarry Road. The proposed intersection with New Road A would be 1300 ft from the
intersection with Rock Quarry Road. This roadway currently operates at LOS B and would operate
at LOS D after adding turn lanes to accommodate the anticipated traffic in 2025 of the New Road
A.
54
New road A and W Ten Road
55
56
3)West Ten Road and Buckhorn Road ‐ West Ten Road is an existing two‐lane road with a speed
limit of 55 mph. Buckhorn Road is two‐lane road with a speed limit of 45 mph. This intersection
currently operates at LOS F and would continue to operate at LOS F after adding turn lanes to
accommodate the anticipated traffic in 2025.
57
W Ten Road and Buckhorn Road
58
59
4)New Road H and Mt. Willing Road ‐ Mt. Willing Road is a two‐lane road with a speed limit of 45
mph. This roadway currently operates at LOS C and would continue to operate at LOS C after
adding turn lanes to accommodate the anticipated traffic in 2025 at the New Road H.
60
New Road H and Mt. Willing Road
61
62
5)US‐70/I‐85 Connector – US‐70 is a two‐lane road with a speed limit of 50 mph. I‐85 Connector is a
four‐lane divided highway with a speed limit of 55 mph. This current configuration operates at LOS
C. Poor connectivity led to an interchange reconfiguration project which did not score well enough
to receive funding in NCDOT’s prioritization process, and a more cost effective alternative was
requested. NCDOT Highway Division 7 has studied this intersection to determine whether a
roundabout or signalization would be more effective in the realignment of the intersection and
determined a roundabout would yield better results. With the realignment and added traffic for
2025, this intersection would operate at LOS D.
2016
63
A conceptual map of a possible intersection improvement is shown above.
2025
64
US 70/I‐85 Connector
65
66
±0 0.5 10.25 Miles
STUDY INTERSECTIONS
Figure 11
Legend
Planned Roads
Study Intersections
Railroad
Developable Area
WEST TEN
R
D
INDUSTRIAL DR
M
A
T
T
R
E
S
S
F
A
C
T
O
R
Y
R
D
SOUTHERN DR
WEST TEN
R
D
RO
C
K
Q
U
A
R
R
Y
R
D
BOWMAN
R
D
B
E
N
W
I
L
S
O
N
R
D
SOUTHERN RAIL
W
A
Y
I-85/40
I-85/40
US-70
US-70
US-70
US-70
B
U
C
K
H
O
R
N
R
D
MT W
I
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
FOREST AVE
WILSON RD
BU
C
K
H
O
R
N
R
D
67
Section 4 – Cost Analysis
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
Volkert refined the roadway networks based on the forecast future traffic volumes. Specifically turn lanes
were added at key locations with high turning volumes and signals were assumed to be located at areas
with high crossing and turning volumes. The conceptual design took all environmental features into
consideration and outlined the locations of planned roads, taking into account where the planned roads
would cross the water sources. The roads generally avoid all environmental features. The conceptual
design also includes frontage roads as access management options.
Most of these roads are intended to provide access to the areas of assumed development. Others, such
as new roads, are placed to connect existing roads to other existing roads in order to provide more
connections within the system. In order to accommodate new traffic from the pods, changes to existing
roads were also proposed.
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Using the conceptual analysis described above, cost estimates were developed for each new road and
for roadway improvements to the existing roadways. Table 2 below details the cost for each new roadway
based on the recommended typical section. The overall cost for constructing the approximately 11 miles
of roadway is $30.9 million.
Table 2 ‐ Construction Cost Estimates for New Roads
New Road Typical Section Sidewalk Length (mi) Cost Estimate
A 2D Y 1.52 $4,351,189
B 2D Y 0.69 $1,975,653
C 2D Y 1.16 $3,321,323
D 2D Y 0.47 $1,345,883
E 2D Y 0.37 $1,059,139
F1 2D Y 0.52 $1,488,508
F2 2A N 1.28 $3,520,000
G 2A N 0.23 $632,500
H 2A N 3.99 $10,972,500
I 2A N 0.34 $935,500
J 2A N 0.18 $495,000
K 2A N 0.29 $797,500
Total 11.04 $30,894,260
68
44
Table 3 details the cost for upgrading the existing roadways described in this report. Bowman and Rock
Quarry Roads are already the recommended typical section and therefore the costs shown are for adding
sidewalk. The overall cost for upgrading these existing roadways is $13.6 million.
Table 3 ‐ Construction Cost Estimates for Updating Existing Roads
Widened Road Typical Section Sidewalk Length (mi) Cost
Ben Wilson Rd 3A Y 0.85 $1,672,794
Bowman Rd 2D Y 1.42 $159,722
W Ten Rd 3A Y 4.33 $8,505,230
Rock Quarry Rd 2D Y 0.5 $56,372
Buckhorn Rd 3A Y 1.10 $2,156,046
Mt Willing Rd 3A Y 0.55 $1,078,023
Total 8.75 $13,628,190
Southern and Forest Roads, identified in the report, have no recommended improvements and are not
shown in either table.
Section 5 ‐ Conclusion
The primary purpose of this transportation report is to inform development of a roadway network to
support investment in the Efland‐Buckhorn‐Mebane Study Area. The new roadways identified in this
report have been located in such a way as to take into consideration environmental features and cultural
resources. Typical sections for both the new and existing roadways are recommended based on the
anticipated growth of the 18 development pods identified by Orange County.
Five key intersections were studied, forecasting future traffic volumes in the year 2025. Volkert was able
to refine the proposed roadway networks, specifically adding turn lanes at key locations. A Level of Service
(LOS) rating was calculated for each intersection. The total cost to provide the identified roadway network
and associated improvements to existing roads is approximately $44 million.
69
ATTACHMENT A
70
Environmental Features Map
Note: This map is for presentation use only and not to be used for construction purposes.F010.5 Miles
Legend
Project Area 1a
Project Area 1b
Project Area 2a
Project Area 2b
Project Area 2c
ATTACHMENT A
71
Transportation Report for the Efland Buckhorn
Mebane Study Area
ATTACHMENT B
72
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susan Kluttz Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
June 18, 2015
Bradley Luckey
Pilot Environmental, Inc.
PO Box 128
Kernersville, NC 27285
Re: Construct Road Network, I‐40 900 Acre Tract, Efland, PEI 1012, Orange County, ER 15‐1240
Dear Mr. Luckey:
Thank you for your letter of May 28, 2015, transmitting information for our review concerning the above
project.
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the proposed project area, although it has never been
systematically surveyed for the presence of archaeological resources. The adjacent property that has
been surveyed contains several Native American archaeological sites. Certain portions of your proposed
project area have a high probability for the presence of such resources. In addition, the Orange County
soil survey dated 1977 shows the location of a cemetery within your project area. Although cemeteries
are not ordinarily eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, they are protected by
state statutes. If the cemetery is to be affected by your proposed project, it will need to be preserved or
moved in accordance with NCGS Chapter 65.
If your project is subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we recommend that
you forward project plans to us so we can delineate those areas that should be subjected to a
comprehensive survey by an experienced archaeologist in order to identify and evaluate the significance
of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed development. Potential
effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.
Two copies of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well as one copy of the appropriate site
forms, should be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as they are available and well in
advance of any construction activities.
A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in
North Carolina is available at www.archaeology.ncdcr.gov/ncarch/resource/consultants.htm. The
archaeologists listed, or any other experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the
recommended survey.
We have determined that the project as proposed will not have an effect on any historic structures.
73
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill‐Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919‐807‐6579 or
environmental.review@ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
74
June 18, 2015
Bradley Luckey bluckey@pilotenviro.com
Pilot Environmental, Inc.
PO Box 128
Kernersville, NC 27285
Re: Construct Road Network, I‐40, 300 Acre Tract, Efland, Orange County, ER 15‐1241
Dear Mr. Luckey:
Thank you for your letter of May 28, 2015, concerning the above‐referenced undertaking. We have
reviewed the materials submitted and offer the following comments.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our knowledge of the
area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources that may be eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project. We, therefore, recommend that no
archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The S.C. Forrest II House (OR1409), which may be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places is located on the north side of US 70 and within direct view of the three hundred acre tract being
considered for road construction. In addition, there are a number of surveyed properties also located
within the project area. We will offer a determination of effect once a detailed scope of work has been
submitted for environmental review.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill‐Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919‐807‐6579 or
environmental.review@ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
75
July 7, 2014
David S. Brame
Pilot Environmental, Inc.
PO Box 128
Kernersville, NC 27285
Re: Construct Roads on a 400 Acre Tract, Wilson Road/Bowman Road, Mebane, PEI 1012,
Orange County, ER 14‐1189
Dear Mr. Brame:
Thank you for your letter of June 3, 2014, transmitting information for our review concerning the above
project.
There are two previously recorded archaeological sites within the proposed project area. These two sites,
31OR640 and 31OR641, were recorded during a survey for the Buckhorn‐Mebane EDD Phase 2 water and
sewer improvements project by Orange County. The archaeological survey was conducted as a result of
Orange County policy, not for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act compliance, so our
office has not yet received a complete copy of the resulting report.
The information we do have concerning these two archaeological sites indicates that one site, 31OR640
contains a buried cultural horizon and it may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places. Site 31OR641 has been recommended as not eligible and no additional work is recommended by
the consultant. The map included with your request for comments did not indicate the proposed locations
for the roads, so we are unable to determine if either site will be affected.
If your project is subject to Section 106, we recommend that you forward specific information regarding the
locations of the proposed roads and any other plans for the property so we may determine effects. In the
meantime, we will request a copy of the archaeological report from Orange County so we have complete
site information.
We have checked our maps and files and find that there are three properties in the project area that were
identified in a 1993‐1994 county survey of historic buildings. They are the Ben Wilson House (OR1141),
Heath Log House (OR1662) and L. M. Ray House (OR1663). From our GIS, they appear to still be standing
and may have outbuildings associated with them. If your project has the potential to affect these buildings,
their potential for National Register eligibility will need to be determined.
76
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill‐Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919‐807‐6579 or
renee.gledhill‐ earley@ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
77
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Pat McCrory Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susan Kluttz Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
April 21, 2015
Brad Luckey
Pilot Environmental, Inc.
PO Box 128
Kernersville, NC 27285
Re: Develop Road Network for Mixed Use Site, Project Area 2B, Buckhorn Road & West Ten Road,
Mebane, Orange County, ER 15‐0780
Dear Mr. Luckey:
Thank you for your letter of April 6, 2015, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected
by the project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill‐Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919‐807‐6579 or
environmental.review@ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the
above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
78
ATTACHMENT C
79
Formulas
Pod 1 Daily Traffic=(Pod 1 Area in 1000s Sq Ft)*0.5*(Rate of Daily Traffic for LUC 110)*(Floor Area
Ratio)+(Pod 1 Area in 1000s Sq Ft)*0.25*(Rate of Daily Traffic for LUC 140)+(Pod 1 Area in 1000s Sq
Ft)*0.25*(Rate of Daily Traffic for LUC 150)
Other pods are calculated the same way
Assumptions for Pod Traffic
Pod 1 (4996000 sq ft)
o 50% General Light Industrial (110)
o 25% Manufacturing (140)
o 25% Warehousing (150)
o Pod 2 (1198000 sq ft)
o 100% General Light Industrial (110)
o Pod 3 (4265000 sq ft)
o 47% General Light Industrial (110)
o 50% Manufacturing (140)
o 3% High Turnover Sit Down Restaurant (932)
o Pod 4 (7113000 sq ft)
o 90% General Light Industrial (110)
o 8% Warehousing (150)
o 1% Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru Window (934)
o 1% Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market (945)
Pod 5 (0 sq ft)
o None
Pod 6 (1032000 sq ft)
o 100% Single Family Detached Housing (210)
Pod 7 (392000 sq ft)
o 20% Fast Food Restaurant with Drive Thru Window (934)
o 25% Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market and Car Wash (946)
6 gas pumps
o 55% General Light Industrial (110)
Pod 8 (3803000 sq ft)
o 50% General Light Industrial (110)
o 50% Manufacturing (140)
Pod 9 (1076000 sq ft)
o 70% General Light Industrial (110)
o 2% Fast Food Restaurant without Drive Thru Window (933)
o 15% Automobile Care Center (942)
o 13% Automobile Parts and Service Center (943)
Pod 10 (2910000 sq ft)
o 50% General Light Industrial (110)
80
o 25% Manufacturing (140)
o 25% Warehousing (150)
Pod 11 (423000 sq ft)
o 100% General Light Industrial (110)
Pod 12 (292000 sq ft)
o 100% General Light Industrial (110)
Pod 13 (880000 sq ft)
o 100% General Light Industrial (110)
Pod 14 (501000 sq ft)
o 100% General Light Industrial (110)
Pod 15 (662000 sq ft)
o 100% General Light Industrial (110)
Pod 16 (91000 sq ft)
o 100% General Light Industrial (110)
Pod 17 (4156000 sq ft)
o 100% Business Park (770)
Pod 18 (1446000 sq ft)
o 100% Warehousing (150)
81
Assumptions for total traffic
3% Increase in traffic each year until 2025
Assumptions from Mattress Factory Traffic Planning Study:
Mattress Factory Road and Industrial Drive
o 50% of combined WBL and SBT traffic into Pod 2
o 50% of combined WBL and SBT traffic into Pod 3
o 50% of combined NBT and NBR traffic out of Pod 2
o 50% of combined NBT and NBR traffic out of Pod 3
At Buckhorn Road and I 40 WB Ramps:
o 100% of combined NBT and WBR traffic into Pod 7
o 100% of combined SBT and SBR traffic out of Pod 7
At Buckhorn Road and I 40 EB Ramps:
o 50% of combined SBT and EBR traffic into Pod 3
o 50% of combined SBT and EBR traffic into Pod 4
o 50% of combined NBT and NBR traffic out of Pod 3
o 50% of combined NBT and NBR traffic out of Pod 4
Daily traffic is 10 times the average of the AM and PM traffic
Assumptions from Bowman Road Residential Development TIA:
At Ben Wilson Road and Bowman Road
o NBT, NBR, EBT, and EBL are considered traffic into Pod 1
o SBT, SBL, SBR, WBT, WBL, and WBR are considered traffic out of Pod 1
o Daily traffic is 10 times the average of the AM and PM
traffic Assumptions from NCDOT AADT
AM and PM traffic are each 10% of the daily traffic
Any traffic shown on the border of a pod was assumed to go to that pod
o If traffic is shown at a point on a road that borders two pods, it was split evenly between
the two
82
Po
d
In
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
fo
r
Tr
i
p
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
‐
Me
b
a
n
e
/
B
u
c
k
h
o
r
n
Ec
o
n
o
m
i
c
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Plan
Po
d
ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Gr
o
s
s
Ac
r
e
a
g
e
34
3
.
4
1
75
.
3
5
25
7
.
5
3
36
2
.
3
5
13
8
.
9
5
10
9
.
7
3
22
.
0
1
24
3
.
1
9
55
.
9
6
19
2
.
1
2
62
.
2
35.32 49.26 63.26 49.91 23.59 144.61 72.77
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Zo
n
i
n
g
O/
R
M
,
AR
AR
O/
R
M
,
R1
ED
B
2,
R1
,
PD
H
R
1
ED
B
2
ED
B
2,
R1
,
AR
ED
B
2,
R1
ED
B
2,
R1
R1
,
EC
5
R1
R1
,
EC5 R1 R1, AR R1, EI, NC2, I2 R1, AR, I1 LC1,NC2,R1 O/RM,AR,R1 AR
Fu
t
u
r
e
La
n
d
Us
e
Pl
a
n
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
Co
m
m
In
d
Tr
a
n
s
Co
m
m
In
d
Tr
a
n
s
Co
m
m
In
d
Tr
a
n
s
Co
m
m
In
d
Tr
a
n
s
;
Ec
o
n
De
v
Tr
a
n
s
Ec
o
n
De
v
Tr
a
n
s
Ec
o
n
De
v
Tr
a
n
s
,
Ag
r
i
Re
s
10
Ye
a
r
Tr
a
n
s
,
Ec
o
n
De
v
Tr
a
n
s
Ec
o
n
De
v
Tr
a
n
s
,
Co
m
m
In
d
Tr
a
n
s
10
Ye
a
r
Tr
a
n
s
Co
m
m
In
d
Tr
a
n
s
10
Year
Tr
a
n
s
10 Year Trans 10 Year Trans Comm Ind Trans Comm Ind Trans Comm Ind Trans Comm Ind Trans Agri Res
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
No
n
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
an
d
Bu
i
l
t
Ou
t
Ac
r
e
a
g
e
26
.
7
6
2.
3
5
30
.
7
12
8
.
5
13
8
.
9
5
0
1.
8
6
49
.
5
7
0
25
.
8
7
1.
3
4
3.14 0 32.62 11.03 4.1 0 0
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Su
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ac
r
e
a
g
e
18
7
.
1
6
53
.
5
9
13
6
.
2
9
10
2
.
4
2
0
33
.
9
9
8.
4
7
5.
1
2
47
.
5
7
31
.
3
1
41
.
0
3
13.39 30.78 21.53 0.09 12.41 124.19 72.77
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
No
n
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ar
e
a
s
/
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
,
Ot
h
e
r
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
Ar
e
a
s
54
.
7
1
4.
3
5
41
.
6
4
32
.
8
4
13
8
.
9
5
15
.
4
4
4.
7
1
49
.
8
0
1.
3
9
25
.
8
7
39
.
3
3
19.28 0.31 32.62 11.03 18.80 0.00 0.00
To
t
a
l
Re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
b
l
e
Ar
e
a
(A
c
r
e
s
)
28
8
.
7
0
71
.
0
0
21
5
.
8
9
32
9
.
5
1
0.
0
0
94
.
2
9
17
.
3
0
19
3
.
3
9
54
.
5
7
16
6
.
2
6
22
.
8
7
16.04 48.95 30.64 38.88 4.79 144.61 72.77
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
Co
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
of
De
v
e
l
o
p
a
b
l
e
Pa
r
c
e
l
s
We
t
l
a
n
d
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X X X
Se
v
e
r
e
Sl
o
p
e
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X
Co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
La
n
d
s
Fl
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n
s
St
r
e
a
m
s
an
d
Re
q
u
i
r
e
d
Bu
f
f
e
r
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X X X
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Si
t
e
s
(O
n
Re
g
i
s
t
e
r
of
Hi
s
t
o
r
i
c
Pl
a
c
e
s
)
Ar
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
X
X
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
X
X
X
X
X
X X
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
Ea
s
e
m
e
n
t
s
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X X
To
t
a
l
47
.
5
6
6.
8
4
40
.
0
8
49
.
3
2
0.
0
0
6.
2
3
1.
5
2
41
.
8
3
5.
8
0
32
.
7
5
3.
0
1
1.62 7.35 0.11 10.63 1.40 12.30 19.42
To
t
a
l
Re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
b
l
e
Ar
e
a
mi
n
u
s
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
Co
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
s
(Ac
r
e
s
)
24
1
.
1
5
64
.
1
7
17
5
.
8
1
28
0
.
1
9
13
8
.
9
5
88
.
0
6
15
.
7
7
15
1
.
5
6
48
.
7
7
13
3
.
5
1
19
.
8
5
14.4141.61 30.54 28.253.39132.3153.35
IT
E
Tr
i
p
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Co
d
e
s
11
0
,
14
0
,
15
0
11
0
11
0
,
14
0
,
93
2
11
0
,
15
0
,
93
4
,
94
5
21
0
93
4
,
94
6
11
0
,
14
0
11
0
,
93
3
,
94
2
,
94
3
11
0
,
1
4
0
,
15
0
11
0
110 110 110 110 110 770 150
% Wa
t
e
r
s
h
e
d
/
I
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
Su
r
f
a
c
e
Re
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
0%
0%
5%
30
%
N/
A
69
%
15
%
30
%
30
%
30
%
30
%
30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%
% Se
t
b
a
c
k
s
,
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
,
Et
c
.
(a
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
fo
r
do
u
b
l
e
co
u
n
t
i
n
g
)
39
%
45
%
31
%
3%
N/
A
0%
21
%
3%
9%
5%
12
%
15% 10% 25% 0% 0% 11% 0%
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Sq
.
Ft
.
of De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
14
7
.
1
35
.
3
11
2
.
5
18
7
.
7
0.
0
27
.
3
10
.
1
10
1
.
5
29
.
8
86
.
8
11
.
5
7.925.0 13.7 19.82.4107.237.3
Ot
h
e
r
At
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
s
Wa
t
e
r
/
S
e
w
e
r
?
Se
w
e
r
Wa
t
e
r
Wa
t
e
r
/
Se
w
e
r
Wa
t
e
r
/ Se
w
e
r
Wa
t
e
r
/
Se
w
e
r
Wa
t
e
r
/ Se
w
e
r
Wa
t
e
r
/
Se
w
e
r
Wa
t
e
r
Wa
t
e
r
/
Se
w
e
r
No
n
e
Wa
t
e
r
/
Se
w
e
r
Water/Sewer Water Water / Sewer None Water/Sewer Water/Sewer Water/Sewer
Pr
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
of
In
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
In
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
?
X
X
X
X
X
X X X
In
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
Ex
p
o
s
u
r
e
?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X
Pr
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
to
Ra
i
l
?
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X X X X
Fu
t
u
r
e
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
?
X
X X X
Ma
r
k
e
t
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Fa
c
t
o
r
41
%
46
%
28
%
28
%
N/
A
28
%
26
%
31
%
39
%
44
%
38
%
38% 39% 38% 44% 26% 26% 35%
Bu
i
l
d
a
b
l
e
Ar
e
a
(A
c
r
e
s
)
86
.
8
19
.
1
81
.
0
13
5
.
2
0
19
.
7
7.
5
70
.
1
18
.
1
48
.
6
7.
1
4.9 15.2 8.5 11.1 1.8 79.3 24.3
IT
E
Co
d
e
s
:
11
0
(G
e
n
e
r
a
l
Li
g
h
t
In
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
)
,
14
0
(M
a
n
u
f
a
c
t
u
r
i
n
g
)
.
15
0
(W
a
r
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
)
,
21
0
(S
i
n
g
l
e
Fa
m
i
l
y
De
t
a
c
h
e
d
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
)
,
93
2
(H
i
g
h
Tu
r
n
o
v
e
r
Si
t
Do
w
n
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
)
,
93
3
(F
a
s
t
Fo
o
d
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
wi
t
h
o
u
t
Dr
i
v
e
Th
r
u
Wi
n
d
o
w
)
,
93
4
(F
a
s
t
Food Restaurant with Drive Thru Windown), 942 (Automobile Care Center), 943 (Automobile Parts and
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Ce
n
t
e
r
)
,
94
5
(G
a
s
o
l
i
n
e
/
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
St
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
Co
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
c
e
Ma
r
k
e
t
)
,
94
6 (G
a
s
o
l
i
n
e
/
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
St
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
Co
n
v
e
n
i
e
n
c
e
Ma
r
k
e
t
an
d
Ca
r
Wa
s
h
83
ATTACHMENT D
84
Po
d
Ac
r
e
s
1
0
0
0
Sq
.
Ft
.
Da
i
l
y
Da
i
l
y
In
D
a
i
l
y
Ou
t
A
M
AM
In
A
M
Ou
t
P
M
P
M
In
P
M
Ou
t
PodDailyTotal AMTotal PM
1
8
6
.
8
3
7
8
1
4
3
3
4
2
1
6
7
2
1
6
7
7
0
5
5
7
7
1
2
8
6
8
5
2
3
1
4
5
3
174409861025
2
1
9
.
1
8
3
2
9
8
9
4
9
5
4
9
5
1
4
3
1
1
9
2
4
1
3
9
3
1
1
0
8
22781338302
3
8
1
.
0
3
5
2
8
1
7
0
0
6
8
5
0
3
8
5
0
3
1
7
3
1
1
1
4
7
5
8
5
1
6
5
7
8
6
6
7
9
2
32191722272144
4
1
3
5
.
2
5
8
9
3
3
7
4
5
9
1
8
7
3
0
1
8
7
3
0
3
7
8
0
2
2
4
2
1
5
3
8
3
0
0
9
1
2
8
2
1
7
2
8
4 & 54043241143270
50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5000
6
1
9
.
7
8
5
8
5
1
3
2
5
6
2
5
6
4
1
1
3
2
8
5
4
3
6
1
8
61998189203
7
7
.
5
3
2
7
2
5
8
2
6
1
2
9
1
3
1
2
9
1
3
2
3
6
3
1
2
1
9
1
1
4
4
1
7
5
2
8
9
8
8
5
4
73695534762865
8
7
0
.
1
3
0
5
4
3
1
7
8
1
5
8
9
1
5
8
9
5
2
4
4
6
1
6
3
5
4
7
2
1
1
3
3
6
85088715738
9
1
8
.
1
7
8
8
1
4
3
9
4
7
1
9
7
7
1
9
7
1
1
9
9
6
6
9
5
3
1
1
1
5
8
5
0
9
6
5
0
91773615341492
10
4
8
.
6
2
1
1
7
2
4
2
6
1
2
1
3
1
2
1
3
3
9
5
3
2
3
7
1
3
8
3
1
3
0
2
5
4
104336586574
11
7
.
1
3
0
9
3
6
8
1
8
4
1
8
4
5
3
4
4
9
5
2
1
1
4
0
114516468466
12
4
.
9
2
1
3
2
5
4
1
2
7
1
2
7
3
7
3
1
6
3
6
8
2
8
123925149
13
1
5
.
2
6
6
2
7
8
7
3
9
4
3
9
4
1
1
4
9
5
1
9
1
1
0
2
4
8
6
13925128124
14
8
.
5
3
7
0
4
4
0
2
2
0
2
2
0
6
4
5
3
1
1
6
2
1
4
4
8
144896509507
15
1
1
.
1
4
8
4
5
7
5
2
8
7
2
8
7
8
3
6
9
1
4
8
1
1
8
6
3
151010127124
16
1
.
8
78
9
3
47
4
7
1
4
1
1
2
1
3
3
1
0
167728181
17
7
9
.
3
3
4
5
4
1
1
8
7
8
5
9
3
9
5
9
3
9
1
4
9
6
1
2
7
1
2
2
4
1
3
3
5
2
6
7
1
0
6
8
171622819311770
18
2
4
.
3
1
0
5
9
1
3
9
1
6
9
5
6
9
5
2
4
4
1
7
5
6
8
2
1
1
7
4
1
3
7
185422647614
63
8
.
3
12
1
9
1
3
1728441810716348
La
n
d
Us
e
Co
d
e
s
D
a
i
l
y
D
a
i
l
y
In
Da
i
l
y
Ou
t
A
M
A
M
In
A
M
Ou
t
P
M
P
M
In
P
M
Ou
t
11
0
5
1
.
8
0
2
5
.
9
0
2
5
.
9
0
7
.
5
1
6
.
2
3
1
.
2
8
7
.
2
6
1
.
6
0
5
.
6
6
14
0
3
8
.
8
8
1
9
.
4
4
1
9
.
4
4
7
.
4
4
6
.
9
2
0
.
5
2
8
.
3
5
4
.
4
3
3
.
9
2
15
0
5
7
.
2
3
2
8
.
6
2
2
8
.
6
2
1
0
.
0
3
7
.
2
2
2
.
8
1
8
.
6
9
3
.
0
4
5
.
6
5
21
0
2
6
.
0
4
1
3
.
0
2
1
3
.
0
2
2
.
0
6
0
.
6
4
1
.
4
2
2
.
7
4
1
.
8
1
0
.
9
3
77
0
1
4
9
.
7
9
7
4
.
8
9
5
7
4
.
8
9
5
1
8
.
8
6
1
6
.
0
3
1
2
.
8
2
9
1
6
.
8
4
3
.
3
6
8
1
3
.
4
7
2
93
2
1
2
7
.
1
5
6
3
.
5
8
6
3
.
5
8
1
0
.
8
1
5
.
9
5
4
.
8
6
9
.
8
5
5
.
9
1
3
.
9
4
93
3
7
1
6
.
0
0
3
5
8
.
0
0
3
5
8
.
0
0
4
3
.
8
7
2
6
.
3
2
1
7
.
5
5
2
6
.
1
5
1
3
.
3
4
1
2
.
8
1
93
4
4
9
6
.
1
2
2
4
8
.
0
6
2
4
8
.
0
6
4
5
.
4
2
2
3
.
1
6
2
2
.
2
6
3
2
.
6
5
1
6
.
9
8
1
5
.
6
7
94
2
2
6
.
8
0
1
3
.
4
0
1
3
.
4
0
2
.
2
5
1
.
4
9
0
.
7
7
3
.
1
1
1
.
4
9
1
.
6
2
94
3
4
4
.
6
0
2
2
.
3
0
2
2
.
3
0
4
.
4
6
1
.
8
7
2
.
5
9
4
.
4
6
1
.
8
7
2
.
5
9
94
5
1
6
2
.
7
8
8
1
.
3
9
8
1
.
3
9
1
0
.
1
6
5
.
0
8
5
.
0
8
1
3
.
5
1
6
.
7
6
6
.
7
6
94
6
1
5
2
.
8
4
7
6
.
4
2
7
6
.
4
2
1
1
.
8
4
6
.
0
4
5
.
8
0
1
3
.
8
6
7
.
0
7
6
.
7
9
Po
d
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
Total Traffic85
Po
d
D
a
i
l
y
A
M
AM
In
A
M
Ou
t
P
M
P
M
In
P
M
Ou
t
Po
d
D
a
i
l
y
A
M
P
M
Po
d
D
a
i
l
y
A
M
AM InAM OutPMPM InPM Out
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
6
6
4
4
1
1
0
6
6
4
4
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1645361619933261
2
7
9
5
9
3
5
1
4
2
6
6
3
6
3
0
2
8
2
0
8
2
8
2
2
3
3
5
5
5
4
0
1
1
8
6
2
1
5
3
1
0
1
7
0
1
4
0
3
7
4
5
2
9
1
2
0
3
4
4
6
0
7
8
3
4
4
4
1
4
8
6
4
2
3
0
0
2
3
0
2
3
0
4
5
50
0
0
5
6
6
1
4
0
0
1
4
0
1
4
0
6
7
5
4
0
5
4
1
5
3
9
5
4
3
3
2
1
7
9
9
0
0
9
9
0
9
9
0
7
8
8
1
8
0
0
1
8
0
1
8
0
8
9
9
3
1
5
0
3
1
5
3
1
5
9
10
10
1
8
0
0
1
8
0
1
8
0
10
11
11
3
9
1
0
3
9
1
3
9
1
11
12
12
1
3
0
1
3
1
3
12
13
13
1
3
0
1
3
1
3
13
14
14
4
2
0
0
4
2
0
4
2
0
14
15
15
4
1
0
4
1
4
1
15
16
16
6
4
0
6
4
6
4
16
17
17
4
1
0
0
4
1
0
4
1
0
17
18
18
3
8
0
0
3
8
0
3
8
0
18
Po
d
D
a
i
l
y
20
1
6
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
(3
%
in
c
r
e
a
s
e
/
y
e
a
r
)
AM
AM
In
AM
Ou
t
PM
PM
In
P
M
Ou
t
Po
d
D
a
i
l
y
A
M
P
M
Po
d
D
a
i
l
y
A
M
AM InAM OutPMPM InPM Out
1
1
2
7
5
1
2
8
7
7
5
1
1
2
8
7
7
5
1
1
1
1
6
7
1
1
7
1
1
7
1664371720963363
2
9
2
2
1
0
8
5
9
4
9
7
7
4
2
3
5
2
8
7
0
8
7
8
7
2
3
4
1
2
1
4
6
5
2
1
6
2
4
9
3
5
9
1
9
7
1
6
2
3
7
9
0
3
1
1
2
7
3
4
5
3
3
9
0
4
0
5
1
1
6
9
7
4
2
4
4
0
2
4
4
2
4
4
4
5
50
0
0
5
6
6
1
4
8
5
1
4
9
1
4
9
6
7
6
2
6
6
3
1
8
4
5
6
3
3
8
2
4
7
1
0
5
0
3
1
0
5
0
1
0
5
0
7
8
8
1
9
1
0
1
9
1
1
9
1
8
9
9
3
3
4
2
3
3
4
3
3
4
9
10
10
1
9
1
0
1
9
1
1
9
1
10
11
11
4
1
4
8
4
1
5
4
1
5
11
12
12
1
3
8
1
4
1
4
12
13
13
1
3
8
1
4
1
4
13
14
14
4
4
5
6
4
4
6
4
4
6
14
15
15
4
3
5
4
3
4
3
15
16
16
6
7
9
6
8
6
8
16
17
17
4
3
5
0
4
3
5
4
3
5
17
18
18
4
0
3
1
4
0
3
4
0
3
18
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
20
1
6
NC
D
O
T
AA
D
T
20
1
4
NC
D
O
T
AA
D
T
20
1
1
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
fr
o
m
Me
b
a
n
e
TI
A
& Wi
l
s
o
n
Rd
2015 Existing Traffic from Bowman Road Residential TIA 2016 Existing Traffic from Bowman Road Residential TIA86
Item 7.b.
PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Comprehensive Planning
(919) 245-2575
(919) 644-3002 (FAX)
www.orangecountync.gov
131 W. Margaret Lane
Suite 201
P. O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 21, 2017
TO: Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard)
FROM: Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use Planner
SUBJECT: Update Item 7b: Transportation Items from the Revised Master Aging Plan
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Transportation Domain, Goal, Objectives, Strategies, Indicators
2. Index of Implementation Agencies
The 2017-22 Master Aging Plan (MAP) was approved by the MAP Steering Committee
on April 12, and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on May 16.
The MAP is the fourth cycle of strategic planning for the Orange County Department of
Aging (ODDOA). However, this is the first MAP based on the World Health
Organization/American Association of Retired Persons Framework for an Age-Friendly
Community (AFC). This framework was chose after deciding to be the first NC county
to work toward becoming an age-friendly community. The AFC framework contained
eight domains of livability that influence the quality of life for older adults: outdoor
spaces and buildings, transportation, housing, social participation, respect and social
inclusion, civic participation and employment, communication and information and
health services. The goals included in the MAP are intended to make Orange County
an age-friendly community, a place where structures and services are adapted to be
accessible to and inclusive of older adults with varying needs and capacities.
The focus of this update is on the transportation domain, goal, objectives, strategies and
indicators of success in addressing the elements of this domain. These are provided in
Attachment 1.
A Transportation Work Group was one of the work groups that met over a five-meeting
sequence from January to March 2017. The final output from the work group was a
concise list of objectives and strategies associated with the domain goal. A summary of
the Transportation Work Group main discussion points were:
87
Volunteer driving program
Access to transportation outside of Chapel Hill/Carrboro
Coordination between transportation agencies, both public and private, in the
Triangle
Planning process include older adults and their needs
Easy to understand and accessible information about transportation options
The Aging Department developed the process for the 2017-22 MAP. Representatives
of the OUTBoard, the Planning staff, and Orange Public Transportation (OPT) staff
were included in both the MAP Steering Committee and the Transportation Work Group.
The MAP also provides an index of agencies that will be responsible for assisting in the
implementation of the strategies of transportation domain. These have been provided in
Attachment 2. These agencies will receive a letter of commitment in June, to be signed
and returned to the Department of Aging.
Below is the online link for Master Aging Plan:
http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/aging/MAP_Final_5-1-17.pdf
88
It
e
m
7
b
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
89
90
91
It
e
m
7
b
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
Item 7.c.
PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Comprehensive Planning
(919) 245-2575
(919) 644-3002 (FAX)
www.orangecountync.gov
131 W. Margaret Lane
Suite 201
P. O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 21, 2017
TO: Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard)
FROM: Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use Planner
SUBJECT: Update Item 7c: Orange Grove Road Bridge Fencing
Safety Improvements at Orange Grove Road Bridge over I-40
The bridge on Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) over I-40 provides the only access
between the Patriot’s Pointe apartment complex and a nearby mobile home park and
two schools, the Grady Brown Elementary School and the Cedar Ridge High School.
Originally designed only for automobile traffic, the bridge is consistently used by
pedestrians to access the schools despite the dangerous conditions for walking along
the roadway.
Funding for Safety Fencing
On May 9, Transportation Planning staff was advised by the NCDOT Division Engineer
for Division 7 that the funding for the proposed safety fencing on both sides of the
Orange Grove Road bridge over I-40 was on the agenda for funding approval at the
June 1, 2017 NCDOT Board of Transportation meeting (WBS 47418). Funding in the
amount of $100,000 has been approved from the Statewide Contingency Funds.
Orange County Planning staff will receive information about the schedule for the
installation of the fence from Division 7. This is a great step toward increasing the safety
of all road users along Orange Grove Road.
99
100
Item 7.d.
PLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director
Comprehensive Planning
(919) 245-2575
(919) 644-3002 (FAX)
www.orangecountync.gov
131 W. Margaret Lane
Suite 201
P. O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 21, 2017
TO: Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard)
FROM: Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use Planner
SUBJECT: Update Item 7d: Replacement of Atkins Road Bridge
North Carolina Department of Transportation contractors plan to replace the existing
Atkins Road bridge that crosses Frank Creek, closing the roadway between N.C. 49 and
Corbett Ridge Road in Orange County. This is in the northwest corner of Orange
County.
The road closed for work at 7 a.m. on Wednesday, May 24. Traffic will be able to travel
on the new bridge by Wednesday, Aug. 23, weather permitting.
Northbound and southbound traffic will use N.C. 49, Corbett Ridge Road and Atkins
Road in opposite directions to detour around the closure.
This project is part of the department’s overall bridge program to improve the condition
of the state’s bridges and ensure the safety of drivers who rely on them.
“The wooded substructure and guardrails of the 60-year-old bridge does not meet
modern design standards,” said Division 7 Assistant Resident Engineer Stephen
Robinson.
The bridge will be replaced with a double-barrel culvert, which will last longer than the
current design.
101
Mebane
Orange County
102
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.
May. 2017 Fall 2017 Planning and design
activities underway.
$100,000 TAP, DMP
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 complete,
R/W plans being developed
$40,500 R/W
$43,200 CON
State Spot Safety, Constr. By
State Forces, May need R/W
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 June 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
Jun. 2018 Fall 2019 Planning and design
activities underway, R/W
plans complete June 2017,
utility coordination
underway
$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
4/20/2017 7/31/17 Planning and design
activities underway. Signal
pedestrain improvements
complete.
$10,000 PE
$60,000 CON
HSIP, DMP
NCDOT DIV 7 PROJECTS LOCATED IN DCHCMPO
Page 1 DCHCMPO 3-3-17.xlsx
It
e
m
7
e
10
3
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
Pr
o
g
r
e
s
s
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Pa
g
e
1
o
f
1
04
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
7
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
NC
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
9
.
0
0
9
8
.
8
9
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
6
3
.
0
0
4
6
.
0
7
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
4
2
.
5
0
8
7
.
5
0
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
1
0
0
.
0
0
9
9
.
9
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 IN
S.
EA
S
T
E
R
N
O
R
AN
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
2
2
.
0
0
4
5
.
8
3
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
4
8
.
3
6
1
6
.
3
5
DG
0
0
3
1
9
RE
S
UR
F
A
C
E
SR
1
0
0
2
(
S
T
.
M
A
R
Y
'
S
R
O
A
D
)
FR
O
M
US
7
0
T
O
T
H
E
D
U
R
H
A
M
C
N
T
Y
L
I
N
E
AN
D
SR
1
5
4
8
(
S
C
H
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
)
F
R
O
M
N
C
57
T
O
SR
1
0
0
2
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
$2
,
1
7
3
,
3
8
6
.
3
5
0
4
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
7
0
3
/
0
6
/
2
0
1
7
1
1
/
1
7
/
2
0
1
7
DG
0
0
3
2
3
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
F
I
B
E
R
-
O
P
T
I
C
CO
M
M
U
N
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
N
E
T
W
O
R
K
A
N
D
RE
L
A
T
E
D
W
O
R
K
F
O
R
C
E
N
T
E
R
T
O
CE
N
T
E
R
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
I
O
N
AL
S
O
F
N
O
R
T
H
C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
,
IN
C
.
Ki
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$8
8
5
,
6
0
5
.
6
0
1
1
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
6
0
2
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
7
0
9
/
0
9
/
2
0
1
7
1
3
.
5
0
1
2
.
8
0
DG
0
0
3
2
4
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
B
R
I
D
G
E
N
O
.
1
2
6
O
N
S
R
1
5
2
6
(G
R
A
Y
R
O
A
D
)
O
V
E
R
L
I
C
K
C
R
E
E
K
W
I
T
H
A
N
AL
U
M
I
N
U
M
A
R
C
H
C
U
L
V
E
R
T
FS
C
I
I
L
L
C
D
B
A
F
R
E
D
SM
I
T
H
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
Ki
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$9
7
4
,
4
7
9
.
0
0
1
0
/
2
4
/
2
0
1
6
0
1
/
1
6
/
2
0
1
7
1
1
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
7
8
0
.
0
0
8
2
.
3
6
DG
0
0
3
2
5
IN
S
T
A
L
L
A
R
C
H
P
I
P
E
O
N
SR
1
9
1
9
(
S
O
U
T
H
GR
E
E
N
S
B
O
R
O
S
T
R
E
E
T
)
AT
N
C
54
FS
C
I
I
L
L
C
D
B
A
F
R
E
D
SM
I
T
H
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
Ki
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$1
,
9
7
0
,
7
9
1
.
0
0
1
1
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
6
1
2
/
0
7
/
2
0
1
6
1
1
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
7
2
8
.
0
0
3
7
.
3
3
DG
0
0
3
3
1
R
E
S
U
R
F
A
C
E
1
7
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
O
F
SE
C
O
N
D
A
R
Y
R
O
A
D
S
A
N
D
W
I
D
E
N
A
N
D
RE
S
U
R
F
A
C
E
S
R
1
3
5
4
,
S
R
1
5
0
4
,
S
R
1
5
0
6
AN
D
S
R
1
5
7
7
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
$2
,
1
4
4
,
9
6
4
.
1
2
0
4
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
7
0
3
/
0
9
/
2
0
1
7
1
1
/
1
7
/
2
0
1
7
DG
0
0
3
3
2
NI
C
K
E
L
S
T
O
N
I
N
D
U
S
T
R
I
E
S
,
IN
C
.
Ki
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$4
9
4
,
2
4
3
.
0
0
1
2
/
0
5
/
2
0
1
6
09
/
0
5
/
2
0
1
7
DG
0
0
3
4
5
IN
S
T
A
L
L
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
GU
A
R
D
R
A
I
L
EN
D
TE
R
M
I
N
A
L
UP
G
R
A
D
E
S
ON
I
-
8
5
LA
N
D
S
C
A
P
I
N
G
O
N
SR
17
3
3
(WE
A
V
E
R
DA
I
R
Y
RO
A
D
)
MO
T
S
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
I
N
G
&
LA
W
N
S
L
L
C
Ki
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$7
3
,
1
0
1
.
8
0
0
1
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
7
06
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
8
104