Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-01-2018 7-a - NC 54 West Corridor Study 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 1, 2018 Action Agenda Item No. 7-a SUBJECT: NC 54 West Corridor Study DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: 1. Presentation Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Planner, 245-2582 UNDER SEPARATE COVER Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning 2. NC 54 West Corridor Study Supervisor, (919) 245-2579 ONLY AVAILABLE ELECTRONICALLY AT.- www.nc54west.com1 PURPOSE: To receive a presentation on the NC-54 West Corridor Study from Orange County Transportation Planning staff and provide comments. BACKGROUND: The NC-54 corridor study started in September 2017 by the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) and North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). The study area spans from Old Fayetteville Road in Carrboro to the 1-85/1-40 interchange in Graham. The final plan includes comprehensive analysis and identifies feasible improvements along the corridor. The study's final recommendations serve as feasible projects for consideration through future Strategic Prioritization of Transportation (SPOT) processes. These recommendations are to be presented to DCHC MPO for consideration on November 14, 2018. A draft plan is currently out for a public review period in accordance with DCHC MPO's Public Involvement Policy. DCHC MPO is the only MPO adopting the study. All other local governments and regional agencies involved in the study area are given the final plan for consideration and an opportunity to provide comments during the review period. The following is the review schedule: • October 2 - Graham City Council • October 11 - Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) • October 16 - Carrboro Board of Alderman • October 16 - Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BGMPO) • October 17 - Orange County — Orange Unified Transportation Board • November 1 - Orange County BOCC • November 14 - DCHC MPO Board - Adoption Two unique four-lane street cross-sections are recommended throughout NC-54 in the planning area. • Assumed 150' max right-of-way with 12' travel lanes, 8' shoulders (6' paved), 17' to 23' median and 10' to 12' shared use path. 2 • Assumed 130' max right-of-way with 2' curb & gutter, 12' to 14' travel lanes, 10' to 23' median and 10' to 12' shared use path. • Current right of way along NC-54 is 100'. Future right of way will need to be dedicated as development occurs. Roundabouts are recommended along NC-54 at: • Alamance County - Wormranch Road and Mt. Willen Road/Salem Church Road • Orange County - Mineral Springs Road and Morrow Mill Road Pedestrian cross walks and turn lanes are recommended at other intersections. Other general recommendations for all intersections (some of which can be deployed as relatively low-cost, short-range improvements) include: • Provide pedestrian crossing treatments, such as crosswalks, signage, and signals, where appropriate; • Where warranted, provide turn lanes (especially left-turns) of adequate length to accommodate typical vehicle queues; • Monitor and update signal timing and phasing as necessary to optimize efficiency; • Periodically assess unsignalized intersections to determine if traffic volumes, delay, or crash history warrant signalization; and • Enhance lighting, pavement marking, and signage as needed to maintain visibility. The total overall cost for all projects identified in the corridor study is estimated at $180 million. Projects would seek funding through future SPOT processes split over four phases: • Phase 1 - $43,200,000 - 2020-2030 o Old Fayetteville Road to Dodson Crossroads • Phase 2 - $47,700,000 - 2025-2035 o NC-119 to Wormranch Road and Dodson Crossroads to Morrow Mill Road • Phase 3 - $35,400,000 - 2035-2040 o Wormranch Road to Mineral Springs Road • Phase 4 - $52,200,000 - 2040 and beyond o Mineral Springs Road to Morrow Mill Road Estimate includes $26.3 million for the proposed Shared Use Path. A copy of the draft study and supporting materials is available at www.nc54west.com/. Public Involvement: VHB conducted two rounds of public workshops in Graham City Hall, Rigmor House in Orange County and Carrboro Town Hall: • January 2018 — presented existing condition analysis and gathered input from the public about their issues, concerns and discuss possible strategies to address them • May 2018 — presented proposed recommendations and addressed remaining public questions, issues, and concerns. A website (www.nc54west.com/) was created keeping the public involved in the study. Carrboro Board of Aldermen - October 16, 2018 3 NC-54 Corridor Study was presented before the Town of Carrboro Board of Aldermen. It provided that Board an opportunity to provide comments. No formal comments were submitted; however the following understanding was expressed: • While Carrboro is skeptical about the recommended widening, it understands current operational and intersection improvements in the Town may help address some of the growing traffic and safety issues at this end of the study area. • It also understands future improvements will be needed as traffic continues increasing along the corridor. These improvements are anticipated over the next 20 years and beyond and in future SPOT processes as presented. • Transit may help address the increasing traffic. Coordination between the two current providers — Piedmont Authority for Regional Transit (PART) and Chapel Hill Transit — along the corridor will need to be improved in the future. • Town acknowledges NCDOT does not fund Shared Use Paths due to its current bicycle and pedestrian policy as well as complete streets policy, even if it is NCDOT right-of-way. This is something local jurisdictions must address. OUTBoard Comments - October 17, 2018 OUTBoard provided the following comments: • The OUTBoard opposes widening NC-54, based on the rationale: increase lanes results in more cars on the road, this escalates negative impacts on air quality and subsequent impacts on climate change. • Recommends making intersection improvements first • Adding passing lanes second. • Provide a dedicated transit lane and improve transit services between all service providers along the corridor, this includes: • Better coordinated currently provided services by PART and Chapel Hill Transit • Adding additional services by Go Triangle and Orange County Public Transit • Include Bus Rapid Transit as a preferred recommendation to widening • Incorporate recent advancements in Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technologies at intersections. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact associated with this item. SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goal is applicable to this item: • GOAL: CREATE A SAFE COMMUNITY The reduction of risks from vehicle/traffic accidents, childhood and senior injuries, gang activity, substance abuse and domestic violence. • GOAL: ENSURE ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY The creation and preservation of infrastructure, policies, programs and funding necessary for residents to provide shelter, food, clothing and medical care for themselves and their dependents. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends BOCC: 1. Receive the presentation (Attachment 1); 2. Discuss as appropriate; and 3. Identify any comments the Board may have for staff to convey to DCHC MPO. 10/19/2018 Outline ORANGE COUNTY Background NORTH CAROLINA • Recommendations • Implementation • Carrboro Comments NC-54 West Corridor Study Action November 1,2018 Agdow ORANGE Col t 1 4!)nlpllf\Its;rl i' Background - jurisdiction & Issues Project Schedule e,nm_yt�' 4 TARPO •� •, --.13G MPO - Public Workshop#1 Public Workshnp#2 i Final Presentation Concerns&Suggestions r Allernan,as&1 _ Recommendations 8 l 1 Feedback: Feedback r Stakeholder DCHC MPO Outreach F 1 1 r Alamance County Orange County 1��' Collect8 Develop&Test 1 Finalize Plans �..® Analyze Data Alternatives 1 &Priorities I I 1 • Short&long-term vision Safety i'Inadequate pedestrian and bicycle Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mor Api May Jun Jul Aug Sep • Multimodal options treatments/facilities(safety&access) • Community&Environment 1 preservation Difficulty turning left to/from NC 54 orange County orange County All • Economic viability (crashes&delays) Graham Graham jurisdictions Carrboro Carrboro PAPOs and RPO Reduce intersection delays&queues Public Comments Level of Service/Capacity Analysis More traffic signals e¢ ,Reduce truck traffic g ,Widen(encourage development?) ,More passing and turn lanes a"�•, c ,Don't widen(discourage development?) ,Enhance wayfinding I I of I I a1� .Better lighting ,Park&Ride with transit service .Vehicles represent most of noted safety issues ,More entries for the eastern half of corridor 0 0 o e I o s o A 9— OD •E-F Wont raze hom AM&PM peaks "Potential queuing problems •Birycle LOS '- to •Heavy Tf- AM 8 D* A SB-F SB-E B* SB-E D' •H/A PM B C A SB-F SB-F A* SB-D C* ', n J tat 1 1.1 •Dthe, •Pedeman Count " •vehine Bikes 2 0 4 6 11 24 9 21 "!• •-J'�• P �'e o°� o� Peds 3 2 3 0 1 0 0 48 • o° 1 10/19/2018 Trails & Bike Facilities Traffic Volume ^� anD D < ':v an `N U �.. �I �� CAIS� 1� c°P Up P�4p it. iI .� , P _ iii I'P ins jn a Average Annual Daily Traffic(AADT)-2017 Average Annual Daily Traffic(AADT)—2045 Potential Solutions •Intersection Configurations(signals,lanes,ped/bike crossings) —Conventional —Median U-turn —Superstreet —Quadrant Recommendations —Roundabout Cross-section improvements —#lanes&widths —Median type&width —Shoulder width —On/off-street bicycle facilities —Sidewalks,shared paths,sidepaths 2 10/19/2018 Key Findings ✓55-mph speeds,dropping to 45-mph in places �Mmnmm conventional + - - ✓1.5%average annual traffic growth ✓No dramatic land use changes Superstreet ✓Primarily Shared-Use Path(SUP)east of Long Dairy Median U-Turn Road,shown on north side + + ✓Primarily sidewalks(both sides)west of NC 119 Quadrant Roundabout X ?-Potentialback-uppn.btems hschooland planttraffic ®®®®®® ®®®®®® Conventional Signalized - - Superstreet Roundabout Median U-Turn Unsignalized Quadrant Left-Over U-Turn + + - .. Roundabout X X X X X Right-Turn Only U-Turn + ?-Mey not be feasible due to pnysicar wnsrcainss.>2lanes requ'i red 2-Lane (Existing) 3-Lane' 0„0 (Imbalanced 2l7) z za' ti �z iz ..—. . 3-1-ane' L (lmbalancedtit+median) _ - n.m�.,soa­. - 4-Lane _ _,„..,., ISM (Raised median with curb&gutter) 4-Lane AdftOex) ,�, _ (Raised median with . 4-Lane (Depmssed median + + _ a„oSGfe 2, ia 12 Is +z to ��.amn.z m-u�.an7am atom m. ,o m�.o. oid.—to y e p re esmmtaamerot umxa 1 1— em.IN w 3 10/19/2018 Priorities Recommendations ✓Safety,especially for bicyclists&pedestrians ✓4 lanes will be needed throughout the corridor • Both crossing&along NC 54 -/Access management will be critical,especially along ✓Intersection improvements(short-range) existing 5-lane section ✓Ultimate cross-sections(long-range) ✓Phasing is feasible(ends-->middle) ✓Transit and other options ✓Most likely 23-foot raised grassed median with •Supportive land uses&policies ditches east of NC 119 •Environmental protection&mitigation Potentially narrower median in limited locations Curb-&-gutter appropriate in some locations ✓Implementation phasing �t -- c1 n � - * cwa�.-xnaax onafn1w.n3PgOVr Qaham _ •� e ti`.'"` — ,� ��.» • _ a.m. —�.�.,... �m»... um� 0 -tea«+. --"" --Mr �2w... 1 .r....� —w.w.rr 7171^..�a•m s GnESU.IAV-1b FWY Swl.•95P NbY '�. In - � i GaDd Qas.-tNFASIM'• ... ■ ...•... �-- - ©..rte+ 4 10/19/2018 J ° r _ - �r s' I e S..-I50'V3H -- t 4 -,ar«p,r swr.-,w Prnv Y.... •r.. O•ey f O»n •rwm. •�"-- 1 w[w �.a�rr rM PIFJ��ye � i� JJA^� •wr.... ie 3r y.qw 0w.�a.s A nms. cae«z �� AP ' .s Implementation �zo M M Ph-4 Zo p,a Estimated Costs Carrboro Comments Carrboro provided the following comments at its October 16 Meeting: Total =$180 million By MPO/RPO $80 million-BGMPO While Carrboro is skeptical about the recommended widening,it Alamance County=$ 80 million understands current operational and intersection improvements in the Orange County =$100 million $56 million-TARPO Town may help address some of the growing traffic and safety issues at By Phase $44 million-DCHC MPO this end of the study area. $43 million-Phase 1 Subtotal(Orange County) It also understands future improvements will be needed as traffic continues $48 million-Phase 2 Subtotal increasing along the corridor.These improvements are anticipated over the •$24 million—Phase 2:Alamance County next 20 years and beyond and in future SPOT processes as presented. •$24 million—Phase 2:Orange County -$36 million-Phase 3 Subtotal(Alamance County) Transit may help address the increasing traffic.Coordination between the -$53 million-Phase 4 Subtotal two current providers-PART and Chapel Hill Transit-along the corridor •$20 million—Phase 4:Alamance County will need to be improved in the future. •$33 million—Phase 4:Orange County Town acknowledges NCDOT does not fund Shared Use Paths due to its current bicycle and pedestrian policy as well as complete streets policy, even if it is NCDOT right-of-way.This is something local jurisdictions must M7 11n address. 5 10/19/2018 OUTBoard Comments Requested Action OUTBoard provided the following comments: The Manager recommends BOCC: ❑The OUTBoard opposes widening NC-54,based on the rationale:increase lanes results in more cars on the road,this escalates negative impacts on Receive the presentation(Attachment 1); air quality and subsequent impacts on climate change. Recommends making intersection improvements first. ® Discuss as appropriate;and Adding passing lanes second. Identify any comments the Board may have for staff to ❑ Provide a dedicated transit lane and improve transit services between all convey to DCHC MPO. service providers along the corridor,this includes: Better coordinated currently provided services by PART and Chapel Hill Transit. Adding additional services by Go Triangle and Orange County Public Transit. Include Bus Rapid Transit as a preferred recommendation to widening. ❑ Incorporate recent advancements in Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)technologies at intersections. ORANGE COUNTY 6