The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda- 06-05-2018 12-5 - Information Item - NC-54 West Corridor StudyPLANNING & INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Craig N. Benedict, AICP, Director Administration (919) 245-2575 (919) 644-3002 (FAX) www.orangecountync.gov 131 W. Margaret Lane Suite 201 P. O. Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners CC: FROM: Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Planner Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning Supervisor DATE: June 5, 2018 SUBJECT: Information Item – NC-54 West Corridor Study This memorandum is to update the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on the status of the NC-54 West Corridor Study, which is being completed by the consulting firm VHB for the Durham – Chapel Hill – Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO). The study area spans from Old Fayetteville Road in Carrboro to the I- 85/I-40 interchange in Graham. The final plan will include a comprehensive analysis and identify feasible improvements along the corridor. The study’s final recommendations will serve as feasible projects for consideration through future Strategic Prioritization of Transportation (SPOT) processes. VHB recently completed its second round of public workshops, which resulted in greater turnout and participation than the first set conducted in early May. This set of workshops focused on proposed recommendations including possible alternatives for the entire corridor. The consultants explored multiple options concentrating on intersection improvements and a variety of cross sections as potential strategies along the corridor, see Attachment 1. VHB is scheduled to complete its study in fall 2018. All public comments received through the process will be considered for the final NC-54 West Corridor Study scheduled for DCHC MPO consideration in fall 2018. Assuming the study process unfolds as scheduled, Orange County Transportation Planning staff will present the final NC-54 Corridor West Study for BOCC comment in fall 2018, prior to the MPO Board’s consideration. 1 NC 54 West Corridor Study Carrboro to I-85 in Alamance CountyPUBLICWORKSHOPS –ROUND 2 Presented by VHB May, 2018 Attachment 1 NC 54 Study Overview Analyze existing & future transportation & land use conditions along this 20+ mile corridor between Graham & Carrboro Review existing plans & proposed projects Clarify needs & long-term vision for the corridor –Safety –Multimodal options –Community character & environmental preservation –Economic viability Identify & evaluate trade-offs: –Low cost, low impact, easily implemented near-term solutions –Longer-term infrastructure improvements –Supportive land uses & development policies 2 NC 54 Study Background Funded by the City of Graham, NCDOT Division 7, and the Durham/Chapel Hill/Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO), and administered by DCHC MPO. Other agency participants: –Alamance County Planning –Town of Carrboro –Orange County Planning –Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BGMPO) –Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) Other agencies & organizations being contacted as needed: –Public safety –Public schools –UNC-CH –Others? –NCDOT Transportation Planning Division –Bicycle & pedestrian planners/advocates –Transit providers/planners –Economic development agencies NC 54 Planning Jurisdictions 3 NC 54 STIP Projects Project Schedule Collect & Analyze Data Stakeholder Outreach Public Workshop #1 Develop & Test Alternatives Finalize Plans & Priorities Public Workshop #2 Final Presentation Sep Octt Novv Dec Jan Feb Marr Aprr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Finalize Plans & Priorities Final Presentation Mayy JunJ Jul Aug SepS 4 Public Participation Project Project Team Public Public Workshop #1 Public Workshop #2 Final Presentation Background Alternatives Recommendations Feedback Concerns Suggestions Feedback Recommendations Feedback Final Presentation Project Website http://www.nc54west.com 5 Project Newsletter #2 Community Meetings Round #2 Orange County –Tues 5/1, 4:30-6:30PM •RigmorHouse Event Center •5501 NC Hwy 54, Chapel Hill, NC East Corridor –Wed 5/2, 6:30-8:30PM •Carrboro Century Center •100 N Greensboro St, Carrboro, NC West Corridor –Thurs 5/3, 6:30-8:30PM •Graham Civic Center •503 McGee Street, Graham, NC Alamance County –Thurs 5/10, 4:30-6:30PM •Swepsonville Fire Department •2736 Swepsonville Road, Graham, NC 6 Review study scope & objectives Explain potential improvement options Gather feedback –Concerns –Suggestions –New information –Questions Today’s Goals Workshop Format Sign in (to receive updates) Circulate and interact at segment stations of interest: –Do you think these options would improve how you use NC 54? –Do the U-turn locations make sense to you/your neighborhood? –What intersections do you think should have direct access (vs. U-turn)? –Shared Use Path: North or South side of NC 54? –Roadway cross sections: curb & gutter or roadside ditch? –Are your safety concerns addressed? Provide input: ideas, worries, new information, questions… –Write it down –Tell to staff 7 Existing Conditions NC 54 West Corridor Al a m a n c e C o u n t y Or a n g e C o u n t y 5050 55 55 4535 8 NC 54 West Corridor Crashes NC 54 Traffic Volumes Al a m a n c e C o u n t y Or a n g e C o u n t y Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) -2015 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) -2017 +17%+11%+7% Bicycles Counted Pedestrians Counted 6,900 16,000 21 , 1 0 0 9 Traffic Levels of Service Highway Segment Analysis A-C D E-F LOS* Al a m a n c e C o u n t y Or a n g e C o u n t y 2-lane V/C is typically in 0.5-0.6 range –Poor LOS is due to high Percent-Time-Spent-Following –More passing zones? Additional through-lanes? Bicycle LOS is generally D, with some E east of Dodson Crossroads –Bicycle LOS is based on comfort & safety, rather than congestion & delay *Worst case from AM & PM peaks 10 Intersection Analysis LOS AM PM Count Bikes Peds B B 2 3 D* C 0 2 A A 4 3 SB-F SB-F 6 0 SB-E SB-F 11 1 SB-E SB-D 9 0 B* A* 24 0 D* C* 21 48 Al a m a n c e C o u n t y Or a n g e C o u n t y A-C D E-F *Potential queuing problemsLOS^ ^Worst case from AM & PM peaks NC 54 Traffic Volumes Al a m a n c e C o u n t y Or a n g e C o u n t y +104%+94%+86% Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) -2017 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) –2045 36 , 7 0 0 12,000 27,900 11 Bicycles Trails & Bike Facilities 12 Land Use / Market Analysis Land Use Nodes Economic •Woody Dr. •NC 119 •Old Fayetteville Rd. Heritage/Recreation •Orange Grove Rd. •Mt. Willen Rd. •Mebane Oaks Rd. •Bethel-Hickory Grove Ch. Rd. Potential Development Nodes 13 What we have heard so far… Input from staff, stakeholders, community members and website Public Engagement –Interactive Map 0 5 10 15 20 25 Bicycle Bus Heavy Truck N/A Other Pedestrian Vehicle Online map to gather feedback on project website Accepting submissions since November 2017 Comments incorporated into the analysis Vehicles represent most of noted safety issues More entries for the eastern half of corridor Difficulty turning left to/from NC 54 similar to those at public meetings 14 Comments received include: Inadequate pedestrian and bicycle treatments/facilities (safety & access suffer) Difficulty turning left to/from NC 54 (crashes & delays) Preserve agriculture, rural communities, & natural environments Reduce intersection delays & queues More traffic signals More passing and turn lanes Enhance wayfinding Park & Ride with transit service Reduce truck traffic Widen (encourage development?) Don’t widen (discourage development?) Better lighting Potential Solutions 15 Potential Solutions / Improvements Intersection Configurations (signals, lanes, ped/bike crossings) –Conventional –Median U-turn –Superstreet –Quadrant –Roundabout Cross-section improvements –# lanes & widths –Median type & width –Shoulder width –On/off-street bicycle facilities –Sidewalks, shared paths, sidepaths Priorities to be Addressed Safety, especially for bicyclists & pedestrians •Both crossing & along NC 54 Intersection improvements (short-range) Ultimate cross-sections (long-range) Transit and other options Supportive land uses & policies Environmental protection & mitigation Implementation phasing 16 Preliminary Assumptions 55-mph speeds, dropping to 45-mph in places 1.5% average annual traffic growth No dramatic land use changes Primarily Shared-Use Path (SUP) east of Long Dairy Road, shown on north side Primarily sidewalks (both sides) west of NC 119 Cross-Sections 17 12’12’12’12’10’-12’23’ 55’ min (assumed 60’)85’ min (assume 90’) Assume 150’ Right-of Way ROW ROW 9.5’ min Not to scale 6’ 8’ paved shoulder 6’ 8’ paved unpaved 10’ to 17.5’ possible in limited situations 18 2’2’12’12’14’14’10’-12’23’ 55’ min (assumed 60’)65’ min (assume 70’) Assume 130’ Right-of Way ROW ROW 9.5’ min Not to scale 10’ to 17.5’ possible in limited situations What about 5 lanes with center turn lane? NCDOT policy not to build TWLTL due to safety concerns •Especially for Primary/NC Routes •Especially in higher-speed rural settings Per NCDOT crash reduction studies, converting from TWLTL to median •Reduces fatal crashes 47% •Reduces head on collisions 47% •Reduces sideswipe collisions 21% 2004 NCSU Study confirms raised medians are safer than TWLTL regardless of traffic volume or driveway density 19 5-Lane w/ Center Turn Lane 4-Lane w/ Median 2-Lane Undivided AASHTO Highway Safety Manual (2010) AASHTO Highway Safety Manual (2010) 20 Cross-Section1 Capacity Crashes Ped/Bike3 ROWRunoff 2-Lane (Existing) ---=+4 3-Lane2 (Imbalanced 2/1)+--=- 3-Lane2 (Imbalanced 2/1 + median)+-+-- 4-Lane (Raised median with curb & gutter)+++-- 4-Lane (Raised median with ditches)+++-- 4-Lane (Depressed median with ditches)+++-- 2 In limited locations 4 Without upgrade to Best Management Practices 1 3-Lane & 5-Lane with 2-Way Left-Turn Lanes not considered due to safety concerns and NCDOT design preferences. 2-Lane divided determined to be inappropriate. 3 Assumes Shared-Use Path constructed; focus is on crossing issues. Unconventional Intersections 21 Superstreet Median U-Turn Superstreet Median U-Turn 22 Unsignalized Median U-Turn U-Turn Bulbs U-Turn Bulbouts 23 Quadrant Quadrant 24 25 NC 119 / E Main StTraffic Crashes PedBikeROW Conventional +-++- Superstreet +---- Median U-Turn ++++- Quadrant ++++- Roundabout ????? ?–Potential back-up problems with school and plant traffic ? -May not be feasible due to physical constraints. >2 lanes required Old Fayetteville StTraffic Crashes PedBikeROW Conventional +-++- Superstreet +---- Median U-Turn ++++- Quadrant ++++- Roundabout ????? 26 IntersectionsTraffic Crashes PedBikeROW Signalized +-++- Roundabout ++++- Unsignalized ----= Left-Over U-Turn ++--= Right-Turn Only U-Turn ++--= Corridor Options 27 28 29 30 Main Findings 4 lanes will be needed throughout the corridor Access management will be critical, especially along existing 5-lane section Phasing is feasible (ends middle) Most likely 23-foot raised grassed median with ditches east of NC 119 •Potentially narrower median in limited locations •Curb-&-gutter appropriate in some locations Next Steps 31 Other Meetings Community Workshop Round #2 –Rigmor House –Tues 5/1 –Carrboro Century Center –Wed 5/2 –Graham Civic Center –Thurs 5/3 –Swepsonville Fire Department –Thurs 5/10 Refine Plan Ultimate cross-sections & extents Near-term & long-range intersection improvements Access management/median cuts Pedestrian & bicycle treatments Supportive land use policies Environmental mitigation Transit considerations •Park-&-Ride •Stop & service guidance Prioritization & phasing •Intermediate conditions •Transitions Documentation & presentation 32 Public Participation Project Project Team Public Public Workshop #1 Public Workshop #2 Final Presentation Background Alternatives Recommendations Feedback Concerns Suggestions Feedback groundBackg Alternatives Feedback Concerns Suggestions Public Workshop #1 Public Workshop #2 Project Schedule Collect & Analyze Data Stakeholder Outreach Public Workshop #1 Develop & Test Alternatives Finalize Plans & Priorities Public Workshop #2 Final Presentation SepOctNovDecJan FebMarApr Mayy Jun Jul Aug Sep Collect & Analyze Data Stakeholder Outreach Public Workshop #1 Develop & Test Alternatives Public Workshop #2 Sep OctOt NovNv DecD JanJ Feb MarMr AprAr MM 33 Thank you! 34