HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard agenda 091918AGENDA
Orange Unified Transportation Board
September 19, 2018
6:30p.m.
You can bring your laptops/tabletsif you would like to use them.
Conference Room 004(LowerFloor) Orange County West Campus
131 West Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
Time Item Title
6:30
6:32
6:33
6:35
7:00
7:15
7:25
7:35
1.
2.
3.
4.
4.a.
4.b.
5.0
5.a.
5.b.
6.0
Call to Order and Determination of Quorum
Approval of Minutes from August 15, 2018
Consideration of Additions to the Agenda
Regular OUTBoard Agenda (Action Items)
Efland-Buckhorn-MebaneAccess Management PlanUpdate(Nish Trivedi)–To
review and comment on the Draft Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management
Plan (E-B-M AMP).
OUTBoard Action:Receive the information, discussand provide input.
Bicycle Safety Implementation Subcommittee Report(Abigaile Pittman)
OUTBoard Action: Receive the information and provide any comments or direction
that the Board might have.
Staff Updates
MPO/RPO and NCDOT Updates (Nish Trivedi) –Materials to be provided at the
meeting.
OUTBoard Action: Receive the information.
OUTBoard members whose terms are ending(Abigaile Pittman)
Adjournment –The next regularly scheduled meeting date is October 17,2018.
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
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.
DRAFT
1
MINUTES1
ORANGE COUNTY OUTBOARD2
AUGUST 15,20183
REGULAR MEETING4
5
6
MEMBERS PRESENT:Alex Castro (Vice-Chair), Bingham Township Representative;DavidLaudicina, Cheeks 7
Township Representative;Jenn Sykes, At-Large; Ed Vaughn, Cedar Grove Township Representative;Brantley 8
Wells, Hillsborough Township Representative; Art Menius, At-Large Representative; Alyson West, At-Large 9
Representative;Donna Musson, Eno Township Representative;10
11
MEMBERS ABSENT:Gary Saunders, At-Large Representative;Jeff Charles, At-Large Representative; Justin Miller, 12
At-Large Representative; Ted Triebel, Little River Township Representative; Heidi Perry (Chair), At-Large 13
Representative; Erle Smith, Chapel Hill Township Representative14
15
TRANSIT ADVISORY SERVICES MEMBERS PRESENT:Corintha Barber; Janice Tyler; Janet Sparks; Theo Letman, Allyson 16
Coltrane; Teleishia Holloway, Serena McPherson; Lisa Berkley17
18
STAFF PRESENT:Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use Planner;Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Planner; Tina 19
Love, Administrative Assistant III;20
21
AGENDA ITEM 1:CALL TO ORDER AND DETERMINATION OF QUORUM22
Alex Castro called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. and confirmed the presence of a quorum. 23
24
AGENDA ITEM 2:APPROVAL OF MINUTES25
Art Menius asked that the minutes becorrected to reflect that he was not present.26
MOTION by Art Menius to approve the May 16, 2018, OUTBoard Minutes with correction. Seconded by Donna 27
Musson.28
VOTE:UNANIMOUS29
30
AGENDA ITEM 3:CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA31
There wasnone. 32
33
AGENDA ITEM 4:SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS34
There wasnone. 35
36
AGENDA ITEM 5A:OCPTADMINISTRATIVE UPDATES (THEO LETMAN)-37
Theo Letman reported that the department had recently been under compliance reviewwhich also included a federal 38
review. That review noted that Conflict of Interest forms need to be filled out by members of this board. Theo Letman 39
explained that the review include a snapshot of the organization’s statistics for one week. In comparing the snapshot 40
statistics, OCPT is in the middle of its peer group. Theo Letman said there is a problem with rider no-shows and 41
OCPT is working on limiting those. 42
43
Alex Castro asked for the percentage of rider no-shows. Theo Letman said he would get that information to him.44
45
Alex Castro said the total rider no-shows doesn’t seemthat high. Theo Letman said it’s not but when a vehicle is 46
dispatched to Cedar Grove and then a client doesn’t accept the service, that’s a waste of resources.47
48
When asked, Theo Letman said people are supposed to pay on the bus at the time of service butthere isa history of 49
allowing users to be billed later. Theo Letman said that the number of no-shows a person accumulatesis tabulated 50
and could lead to termination of services for that person. 51
52
Alex Castro asked if OCPT has a minivan. Theo Letman answered yes and there is a long-range plan to have more 53
with a plan to use somethinglike an Uber. 54
3
DRAFT
2
55
Alex Castro said the services are expanding, and asked if the finances also expanding. 56
57
Theo Letman answered that the department is doing well financially and is applying for grants from the local MPOs. 58
59
Abigaile Pittman said TARPO just made an announcement for the grant period opening for 5310grants.60
61
Theo Letman said the new 20-foot vans would be wheelchair accessible. 62
63
When asked, Theo Letman said the deadhead is the not-in-service miles. Art Menius asked if there is any way to 64
reduce that deadhead. Theo Letman answered that reduction of that is attempted. 65
66
Theo Letman said the fleet mechanic started working in June. 67
68
Theo Letman said one person in an administrative position left in May and the department was able to change that 69
position to a business position to help take care of billing. The person in that positionstarts Monday. The department 70
is currently recruitingfor three full-time drivers. The department is also looking at an occupational therapist position 71
that would do functional assessments for ADA compliancy and perhaps also an operations manager. 72
73
Theo Letman said the department has been going through a procurement process for dispatching and scheduling. 74
This software would also allow dispatchers to send messages to busses, which may be in radio dead zones. The 75
software also hasan app component for clients called Ecolane. 76
77
Theo Letman said that he can make room for additional staff in the existingOCPTspace. 78
79
Theo Letman mentioned that he could not find an Orange County ADA Transition Plan and had been asked for it. 80
Others assured him that Orange County has one and suggested people to contact in order to locate the plan. 81
82
AGENDA ITEM 5B:OCPT/OCCOUPDATE (ALLYSON COLTRANE)-83
Allyson Coltrane statedthat in May a “burn carbon” event was held at a bicycle shop in Hillsborough. She handed out 84
information at the event onbicycle safely. Also, she and Teleishia Holloway spoke at a Hillsborough/Orange County 85
Chamberof Commerce event and highlighted ShareTheRideNC and the new route from Hillsborough to Mebane. 86
Participants boarded the bus and took that route. When asked, Theo Letman said the route is intentionally different 87
from the ODX route. 88
89
Allyson Coltrane said Orange County is piloting a Go Pass program for county employees. Also, they are getting 90
quotes on shared bicycles and possibly electric scooters. She thinks it makes sense to start with shared bicycles until 91
other jurisdictionswork out the kinks with electric scooters. When asked, she said it would be five bicycles and they 92
would have to be returned to their docks or the user would be fined. Helmets are passed out at the launch but are not 93
kept available with the bicycles. 94
95
Allyson Coltrane reported that the Transit Academy would be held at the main library on Thursday, Sept. 20, 9:00 96
a.m.to 10:00a.m. The focus is for health care providers on how to get patients to their appointments. 97
98
Allyson Coltrane also reported that near Halloween there would be a “Lighten Up” event at the main library to make 99
sure children are safe and visible while trick-or-treating. 100
101
AGENDA ITEM 5C:TRANSIT ADVISORY SERVICES (TAS)COMMENTS/QUESTIONS (THEO LETMAN)-102
There was none.103
104
AGENDA ITEM 6:REGULAR OUTBOARD AGENDA105
106
107
108
4
DRAFT
3
AGENDA ITEM 6A:OUTBOARD ORIENTATION MATERIALS –SECTION 2(ABIGAILE PITTMAN)109
Abigaile Pittman then commenced reviewing the orientation materials. When requested, she said she would email 110
board members the page of links.111
112
Alex Castro requested a calendar that indicates what happens in the planning cycle. Abigaile Pittman said it is 113
difficult to provide a yearly calendar because the MPOs change their schedules and she sometimes only gets two-114
months notice.115
116
Alex Castro said new members of this advisory board could find it confusing because of thejurisdictions of the 117
MPOs, DOT andregions. 118
119
Abigaile Pittman shared the transportation map nowon the Planning Department’s transportation page. The map 120
enables you to search for projects, for instance to determine which are currently funded.121
122
There was consensus that these materials are ready for the web. 123
124
AGENDA ITEM 6B:INFORMATIONAL ITEMS (ABIGAILE PITTMAN)125
Therewas none.126
127
AGENDA ITEM 7:STAFF UPDATES 128
Abigaile Pittman shared that two North Carolina transportation projects have been recognized nationallyby the129
America’s Transportation Awards Competition. One was the Piedmont Improvement Program and the other was the 130
Wilmington Bypass. She read some details about each. 131
132
Tina Love shared that agenda packets would be given to board members electronically unless paper copies were 133
requested. 134
135
Abigaile Pittman shared that Tina Love was replacing Meredith Kern in serving as staff to this board. 136
137
AGENDA ITEM 7A:EFLAND-BUCKHORN-MEBANE ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN COMMUNITY MEETING138
(NISH TRIVEDI)139
Nish Trivedi reported that there is a community meeting scheduled for Aug. 28, 4:30 –6:30 p.m. at Gravelly Middle 140
School. Notices had been mailed to those within and immediately adjacent to the study area for this project.141
142
Abigaile Pittman shared a copyof the letter that was sent out. 143
144
AGENDA ITEM 7B:OUTBOARD PSA FOR APPLICANTS (ABIGAILE PITTMAN)145
Abigaile Pittman shared the public service announcement that is intended to help fulfill five upcoming vacancies. A146
few members asked for it to be sent out again because they missed it. 147
148
AGENDA ITEM:ADJOURNMENT 149
OUTBoard meeting was adjourned at 7:47p.m.150
151
____________________________________
Heidi Perry, Chair
5
6
ORANGE COUNTY
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date:September 19, 2018
Action Agenda
Item No.4.a.
SUBJECT: Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan Update
DEPARTMENT:Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S):INFORMATION CONTACT:
1.Presentation
2.Draft Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access
Management Plan
Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Planner
(919) 245-2582
PURPOSE:To review and comment on the DraftEfland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access
Management Plan(E-B-M AMP) update.
BACKGROUND:In order to better promote economic development opportunities and help
preserve planned sewer and road corridors and associated capacities for all land uses within the
E-B-M AMP planningarea, the Planning Director is suggesting consideration of updates to the
current Access Management Plan. This update will utilize a 2017 Transportation Studyfor the
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Study Area to renew and replace the original 2011 Efland-Buckhorn-
Mebane Economic Development District Access Management Plan. In a few cases, it will also
incorporate other road and intersection improvements recommended by planning staff.
An access management plan is a conceptual master plan for roadway alignment and corridor
width necessary to serve future land uses in acomprehensive manner. If development occurs,
then this plan guides the specific part of their roadway construction as it supports the overall
existing and proposed roadway network. The original Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access
Management Planwas adopted November 15, 2011and itimplemented a recommendation of
the Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan (2006). It also served as a tool for implementing the 2030
Comprehensive Planprinciples, goals and objectives.
The original plan consisted of multiple access management strategies and was completed with
limited on-site analysis. However, this plan was instrumental in gaining North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) acceptance and participation in roadwork improvements
necessary to serve the Morinaga Candy Factory, which opened in 2016. Developments like this,
along with increased residentialand commercialgrowth in Hillsborough, especially growth’s
impact on traffic, demonstratethe plan’s importance.
A thorough existing conditions, environmental, and traffic analysis was conducted as part of the
2017 Transportation Study, which was completed by a consultant. This report reinforces the
original Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Planwith a comprehensive investigation
of the area’s development potential, traffic impact and recommended improvements.
7
CommunityMeeting
Planning staff held a communitymeetingon August 28th at Gravelly Hill Middle Schooland
collectedpublic commentson the presented analysis.
Advertising for the Community Meeting was done through direct mailing to over 700property
owners in and around the planning area.
Next Steps
x October 17rd –OUTBoardrecommendations to the BOCC on the draft plan.
x November 1st –Tentatively scheduledBoard of County Commissioners public hearing on
the draft plan.
The same presentation and draftwas given to the Planning Board for their review and comment
on October 3, 2018. Their comments will be included in the updated draft, as they are submitted
to staff, along with OUTBoard comments. Both advisory board recommendations will be
collected in October and submitted to Board of County Commissioners during the Public
Hearing tentatively scheduled for in November.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:Thereis no immediate financial impact associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATION(S):Staff recommends that the OUTBoardreview and comment on the
draft plan.
8
8/29/2018
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane
Access Management Plan
August 28, 2018
Background
o 2011 E-B-M AMP
o 2017 Transportation Study
Updating the Plan
o Process
o Analysis
o Public Participation
Next Step
o Public Process & Actions
o Implementation
Outline
Background Ȃ
Access Management Plan (AMP) is a proposed
master plan of possiblenew roads & connections to
existing roads while providing access to
development, preserve traffic flow, safety & capacity.
Improve overall
transportation system
Minimize congestion &
crashes
Efficient traffic flow, safety
& access to properties
Background
1981 -
comprehensive
plan
1991 -
The
Efland
Area
Study
2004 -
Expansion of
Public Water and
Sewer to Efland-
Buckhorn-
Mebane
2006 -
Efland-
Mebane
Small
Area
Plan
2011 -
E-B-M
AMP
2017 -
Volkert
transportation
study
•Highlighted key nodes &
corridors
BackgroundȂʹͲͳͳǦǦ
•Multiple access
management strategies
•2 possible street cross
sections
BackgroundȂʹͲͳͳǦǦ
September 7, 2011
Planning Board
September 21, 2011
Orange Unified
Transportation Board
November 14, 2011
Public Information Meeting
November 15, 2011
BOCCAdoption
Attachment 1
9
8/29/2018
BackgroundȂʹͲͳ
4.25 sq. mi.
•Existing conditions analysis
•Cultural and environmental issues
•Land use and traffic impacts
•Corridor and intersection feasibilities
BackgroundȂʹͲͳ
30 rows of data for 4.25 square miles of potential development
BackgroundȂʹͲͳ
24 different NCDOT street cross sections evaluated
BackgroundȂʹͲͳ
Studied possible
improvements
UpdatingthePlan UpdatingthePlan Ȃ
Community
Meeting
2011 AMP
and 2017
Transportation
Study
Recommendations
AMP Update
and
Implemention
10
8/29/2018
UpdatingthePlan Ȃ
New E-B-M AMP
Public
Input
2011 E-B-M AMP 2017 Transportation Study
UpdatingthePlan Ȃ
•NCDOT –“Typical” Highway Cross Section –2D
•2 Lane undivided with paved shoulder and sidewalk
•All streets west of Buckhorn Road
UpdatingthePlan Ȃ
•NCDOT –“Typical” Highway Cross Section –2A
•2 lane undivided with paved shoulder
•All streets east of Buckhorn Road
UpdatingthePlan Ȃ
•NCDOT –“Typical” Highway Cross Section –3A
•2 Lane with two way left turn lane and paved shoulder
UpdatingthePlan Ȃ
Intersection Improvements
BenWilsonRoadatNewRoadA
Southboundrightturnlane
Northboundrightturnlane
Westboundrightandleftturnlane
WestTenRoadatNewRoadA Rightandleftturnlanesinalldirections
WestTenRoadatBuckhornRoad Rightandleftturnlanesinalldirections
Mt.WillingRoadatNewRoadH Rightandleftturnlanesinalldirections
US-70/I-85Connector
Westboundleftturnlane
Eastboundrightturnlane
Northboundrightandleftturnlane
UpdatingthePlan Ȃ
11
8/29/2018
UpdatingthePlan Ȃ
Over 700 notices mailed out
to property owners
Website for public participation
UpdatingthePlan Ȃ
All comments included in plan
NextStep NextStepsȂ Ƭ
Board of County Commissioners
Public Notice & WebsitePublic Notice & Website Public Hearing
(November)
Public Hearing
(November)
Consideration
(November/December)
Consideration
(November/December)
Orange Unified Transportation Board
WebsiteWebsite Review
(September)
Review
(September)
Recommendation
(October)
Recommendation
(October)
Planning Board
Public Notice & WebsitePublic Notice & Website Review
(September)
Review
(September)
Recommendation
(October)
Recommendation
(October)
Section 2.5.3 Site Plan
(V) Compliance with County adopted
access management, transportation
and/or connectivity plans and denote the
location of future roadway(s) and access
easements, …
SECTION 6.10.A
(1) Roadway Design/Improvement
(a) Whether improvements are required or not,
adequate right-of-way must be dedicated to
accommodate the projected right-of-way
requirements as identified in adopted
thoroughfare plans.
NextStepȂ Questions?
12
8/29/2018
Contact
Nishith Trivedi
Orange County Planning Department
131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 201
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
E-mail:ntrivedi@orangecountync.gov
Phone: (919) 245-2582
13
14
2018
Orange County Planning Department
Orange County, NC
5/17/2018
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access
Management Plan
Attachment 2 15
16
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department
Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ i
I. Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................1
A. State and Local Regulations ................................................................................................................................ 2
B. Background and Planning Area ......................................................................................................................... 3
C. Goals and Objectives .............................................................................................................................................. 5
D. Planned Projects ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
II. Access Management Plan .......................................................................................................................7
A. Community Meeting ............................................................................................................................................... 7
B. 2017 Transportation Study ................................................................................................................................ 7
1. Land Use Matrix and Future Network ..................................................................................................... 12
2. Pod Delineation and Analysis .................................................................................................................. 12
3. Intersection Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 13
C. Recommendations - Future Roadway and Intersection Improvements ........................................... 14
1. Street Cross-Section Requirements ......................................................................................................... 14
2. Intersection Improvement Requirements and TIA .................................................................................. 16
D. AMP Update and Implementation .................................................................................................................. 17
III. Enforcement ......................................................................................................................................... 20
A. Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................................................................................ 21
B. Resources ................................................................................................................................................................ 22
IV. Appendix .............................................................................................................................................. 23
A. 2011 E-B-M EDD AMP .......................................................................................................................................... 23
B. 2017 E-B-M Transportation Study.................................................................................................................. 23
C. Community Meeting ............................................................................................................................................. 23
17
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department
Figures
Figure 1: Access vs Mobility ........................................................................................................................................1
Figure 2: Plan Chronology ..........................................................................................................................................3
Figure 3: E-B-M AMP Planning Area ...........................................................................................................................4
Figure 4: Transportation Projects Map .......................................................................................................................6
Figure 5: Planning Process ..........................................................................................................................................7
Figure 6: US-70 Traffic Trends ....................................................................................................................................8
Figure 7: Traffic Count Stations ..................................................................................................................................9
Figure 8:Crash by Severity ....................................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 9: Crash Frequency Trend ............................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 10: Rural vs Urban Crashes ........................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 11: POD Delineation Process ........................................................................................................................ 12
Figure 12: POD Trip Generation .............................................................................................................................. 13
Figure 13: 2017 Transportation Study – Street Cross Section 2A ........................................................................... 15
Figure 14: 2017 Transportation Study – Street Cross Section 2B............................................................................ 15
Figure 15: 2017 Transportation Study – Street Cross Section 3A ........................................................................... 16
Figure 16: E-B-M AMP ............................................................................................................................................. 19
Tables
Table 1: Traffic Trends ................................................................................................................................................8
Table 2: POD Buildable Acreage .............................................................................................................................. 12
Table 3: POD Daily Trips .......................................................................................................................................... 13
Table 4: Intersection Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 17
Table 5: AMP Practices ............................................................................................................................................ 17
18
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page i
Executive Summary
The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) official access management definition 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. This plan promotes FHWA’s access management practices by allowing local
government to:
x Maintain the overall safety of the transportation system;
x Minimize congestion and crash rates;
x Provide for efficient traffic flow and pedestrian safety; and
x Provide appropriate access to adjacent business properties.
The original Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan (E-B-M AMP) was adopted November 15, 2011
and it implemented Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan (2006) recommendations. It has also advanced several 2030
Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives.
The original plan identified access management strategies and
areas where new connector roads would be needed to
maintain and improve access within areas identified in the
County’s land use plan for economic development purposes.
This plan was instrumental in gaining North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) acceptance and
participation in roadwork improvements necessary to serve
the Morinaga Candy Factory, which opened in 2016, with
limited on-site surveying and analysis.
In 2017, a thorough existing conditions, environmental, and traffic
analysis was completed through an engineering-based transportation
study conducted by Volkert Inc., based in Raleigh, NC. Its
Transportation Report for the Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Study Area
(See Appendix A), hereafter referred to as the 2017 Transportation
Report, reinforces the original E-B-M AMP with a comprehensive
investigation of the area’s development potential, traffic impact and
recommended improvements.
This update uses the 2017 Transportation Report to renew and replace
the original 2011 Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Economic Development
District Access Management Plan. This plan takes into account input from local residents and businesses in the
area through a public workshop conducted throughout the planning process. It also incorporates other road and
intersection improvements recommended by planning staff based on their expertise and familiarity with
economic development activities coordinated by the County’s Economic Development Department.
19
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 1
I.Introduction
Orange County seeks to develop an access management plan in order to maintain and improve the functionality
of the transportation network as the Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane (E-B-M) Study Area develops. This E-B-M AMP
provides the basis and justification for requiring the dedication of right-of-way in the planning area. Orange
County’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) requires that proposed site plans demonstrate compliance with
adopted access management plans.
As properties are developed, transportation interconnectivity and access become increasingly important.
Orange County and regional metropolitan and rural planning organizations are dedicated to safe and efficient
use of the transportation network through sound access management practices. These practices in form of local
plans and policies are applied to highways, major arterials, and other roadways, including but not limited to:
x Access Spacing: Increasing the distance between traffic signals improves traffic flow on major roadways,
reduces congestion, and improves air quality for heavily traveled corridors.
x Driveway Spacing: Fewer driveways spaced further apart allow for more orderly traffic merging and
presents fewer challenges to drivers.
x Safe Turning Lanes: Dedicated left- and right-turn, indirect left-turns and U-turns, and roundabouts keep
through-traffic flowing. Roundabouts provide an opportunity to reduce conflict points within intersections
for safe travel.
x Median Treatments: Two-way left-turn lanes and non-traversable, raised medians are examples of some of
the most effective means to regulate access and reduce crashes.
x Right-of-Way Management: Right-of-way reservation for future widenings, good sight distance, access
location, and other access-related issues.
Such policies designate appropriate control levels for various land
uses. Local residential streets are allowed full access, while
commercial corridors have limited access. A wide range of road
types are included, each requiring standards that ensure free traffic
flow while allowing access to major businesses and other land uses
along a road (FIGURE 1).
Orange County uses Access management Plans to ensure land use
decisions take into consideration their impacts on the
transportation network. This practice is incorporated into the UDO
as a means of implementing the County’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The County currently has three Access
Management Plans in place:
x Orange Grove Road (March 2003)
x Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane (November 2011)
x Eno Economic Development District (November 2013)
A review of current legal and regulatory practices lists some fundamental access management aspects and
authority:
Figure 1: Access vs Mobility
20
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 2
x Access management starts at the state level through enabling legislation;
x State-enabling legislation dictates power given to local jurisdictions; and
x Land use planning techniques can be used to promote access management.
This regulatory framework is detailed in the following section.
A.State and Local Regulations
Under State law - North Carolina General Statutes (N.C.G.S.) § 136-66.2 - Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(MPOs) and municipalities shall develop Comprehensive Transportation Plans (CTPs) in cooperation with the
NCDOT. Orange County’s is divided among three regional transportation agencies, each with a CTP. These
agencies work with Orange County to meet state and federal regulations for all transportation projects, plans,
and programs. They also ensure transportation planning is continuing, coordinated, and comprehensive (23
U.S.C. 134-135).
x Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BG MPO)
x Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO)
x Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO)
TARPO’s CTP was adopted in 2013 and provides transportation project recommendations for Orange County’s
rural areas, while the MPO CTPs address the urbanized areas. DCHC MPO CTP was adopted in 2017 and a BG
MPO CTP is currently underway.
It is important to note that the CTPs do not include every road on the highway system. As such, in accordance
with state law, to complement the CTP roadway element, municipalities and MPOs may develop collector street
plans. Additionally, locally approved transportation plans, such as the E-B-M AMP, may contain street or
highway right-of-way alignment and dedication requirements, and collectively function as the collector street
plan for the MPO or municipality as referenced in N.C.G.S. § 136-66.2.
The Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) section
2.5.3.(v) and reiterated in section 6.10.A.1.(b), includes the
requirements for reserving and dedicating right of way or requiring
road construction 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 locally adopted transportation
plans, in accordance with N.C.G.S. § 136 66.2 and § 136 66.10.
The CTP, collector street plan and locally adopted transportation plans
pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 136-66.2 serve as the comprehensive legal
framework referenced in N.C.G.S. § 136-66.10(a), addressing the
reservation and dedication of right-of-way under local ordinances.
21
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 3
North Carolina requires development along state routes to be accordance with NCDOT’s Policy on Street and
Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways. This document sets specific driveway and street access points
criteria regulating their location, design, and operation. When any construction work is done on state routes or
adjacent to existing roadways, connection and access points must meet this state regulation; including
properties being modified or expanded. While the state’s policy focuses on the transportation network, local
zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations address land use. Local access management plans play an
important role in merging state policy and local authority in efforts to integrate land use and transportation,
including Orange County planning processes.
B.Background and Planning Area
Several plans have been completed within the E-B-M area, beginning with the 1981 Comprehensive Plan, which
was a Countywide plan addressing land uses for all of the County’s townships. FIGURE 2 illustrates the AMP’s
chronology. The E-B-M AMP encompasses 4.25 square miles along I-85/I-40 between Efland and Mebane and is
bounded by the following (FIGURE 3):
x North: US Highway 70
x South: West Ten Road/Bowman Road
x East: I-85/US-70 Connector
x West: Ben Wilson Road
1981 -
Comprehensi
ve Plan
1991 -The
Efland
Area
Study
2004 - Expansion of
Public Water and
Sewer to Efland-
Buckhorn-Mebane
2006 -
Efland-
Mebane
Small
Area Plan
2011 - E-B-M
AMP
2017 - Volkert
Transportation
Study
Figure 2: Plan Chronology
22
Ef
l
a
n
d
-
B
u
c
k
h
o
r
n
-
M
e
b
a
n
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
Or
a
n
g
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Page 4
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
:
E
-
B
-
M
A
M
P
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
A
r
e
a
23
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 5
C.Goals and Objectives
This update advances goals and objectives of the Orange County’s adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan (adopted in 2008) to ensure land use decisions
take into consideration their impact on the transportation network. Specific goals and objectives advanced include:
Economic Development (ED) Goal 2: Infrastructure that supports desired development.
x Objective ED-2.1: Encourage compact and higher density development in areas served by water and sewer.
x Objective ED-2.2: Encourage mixed use projects that support walkable communities.
x Objective ED-2.3: Promote public transportation, alternative modes of transportation, and encourage carpooling and park-and-ride
participation.
x Objective ED-2.5: Identify lands suitable to accommodate the expansion and growth of commercial and industrial uses in the County.
Land Use (LU) Goal 1: Fiscally and environmentally responsible, sustainable growth, consistent with the provision of adequate services and facilities and
a high quality of life.
x Objective LU-1.1: Coordinate the location of higher intensity / high density residential and non-residential development with existing or planned
locations of public transportation, commercial and community services, and adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e., water and sewer, high-
speed internet access, streets, and sidewalks), while avoiding areas with protected natural and cultural resources. This could be achieved by
increasing allowable densities and creating new mixed-use zoning districts where adequate public services are available.
x Objective LU-1.2: Evaluate and report on whether existing and approved locations for future residential and non-residential developments are
coordinated with the location of public transportation, commercial and community services, and adequate supporting infrastructure (i.e., water
and sewer services, high-speed internet access, streets and sidewalks).
Transportation (T) Goal 3: Integrated land use planning and transportation planning that serves existing development, supports future development,
and is consistent with the County’s land use plans which include provisions for preserving the natural environment and community character.
x Objective T-3.3: Determine the policies to guide connectivity within and between residential developments based on their impact on
neighborhood character.
x Objective T-3.4: Direct development to higher density mixed-use districts along transit corridors and make necessary multi-modal transportation
improvements to service lands that are slated for future intense development, such as Economic Development Districts.
x Objective T-3.5: Use innovative techniques to increase mobility and reduce rush hour congestion.
Additionally this AMP advances the Efland Mebane Small Area Plan’s following goals and objectives:
Goal: In the future, the planning area should be well served by reliable infrastructure to accommodate orderly, planned growth. The planning area will
retain the core village area that will be the center of community life. An efficient multi-modal transportation system will operate in the area and
commercial and light industrial uses both in the planning area and nearby will provide job opportunities to area residents. There will be a mix of housing
types and sizes that will be economically accessible to a broad spectrum of working people. Parks and greenspace will be connected by a system of
greenways that will allow people to enjoy a high-quality outdoor environment while also serving as corridors for wildlife migration.
x Objective: Orderly and planned expansion of the sewer system and a sufficient public water supply system.
x Objective: Preservation of community character while allowing for planned, sustainable residential and non-residential growth.
x Objective: Provision of an efficient, multi-modal transportation system.
x Objective: A greater level of intergovernmental coordination between Orange County and the other governmental entities in the planning area.
Given that a portion of the E-B-M AMP planning area is within the City of Mebane as designated in the city’s 2017 Mebane by Design Comprehensive
Land Development Plan and addressed in the water and sewer agreement between Orange County and Mebane, Mebane in coordination with Orange
County may seek to extend additional water and sewer lines into the planning area. Based on these policies, it is expected that any future development
within the E-B-M planning area that requests water and sewer service from the City of Mebane may at some point be annexed by the City of Mebane.
The planning process takes the adjacent city into consideration.
D.Planned Projects
I-85 bisects the planning area and is scheduled for pavement rehabilitation through NCDOT’s adopted FY 2018-2027 State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP).
x TIP I-5954 & TIP I-5958 - I-40/I-85 pavement rehabilitation totaling $18,365,000 and covering 7.4 miles.
Three projects from the FY 2016-2025 STIP remain critically important in Orange County and have a total project cost of $53,795,000. These projects are
x SPOT ID – H140373 - Mattress Factory Road - extended to US-70 0.04 miles - $17,300,000
x SPOT ID – H090193 - I-40 - convert grade separation into interchange - 0.08 miles - $21,700,000
x SPOT ID – H090557 - SR 111 - multi-lane with bike/ped accommodations – 1.10 miles - $14,795,000
While these projects will not be part of the FY 2020-2029 STIP, they are an Orange County priority for the E-B-M planning area. Other projects include
modernizing 7.29 miles of Buckhorn Road with paved shoulders and establishing and/or increasing ridership on Orange County Public Transit’s routes in
the area. All of these projects are presented on the map in FIGURE 4.
24
Ef
l
a
n
d
-
B
u
c
k
h
o
r
n
-
M
e
b
a
n
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
Or
a
n
g
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Page 6
Fi
g
u
r
e
4
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
M
a
p
25
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 7
II.Access Management Plan
The E-B-M AMP is updated using a strategic planning process. The detailed analysis included in the 2017
Transportation Study, located in APPENDIX B, documents the quantitative nature of the planning area, identifying
key access management issues addressed by the original 2011 access management plan. This E-B-M AMP update
is to follow a planning process similar to the original 2011 AMP. A community meeting was conducted to gather
public input on the plan, including the issues, concerns, and recommendations of the attendees. Access
Management strategies have been evaluated, recommended, and included in this document in order to execute
a successful plan. A summary of the planning process is shown below in FIGURE 5 and detailed in this chapter.
A.Community Meeting
On August 28, 2018, Orange County Planning Department hosted a Community Meeting at Gravelly Hill Middle
School, located within the planning area. Extensive outreach was conducted to get the public involved in the
planning process, this included:
x Individual letters mailed to each property owner in - and within 500’ of - the planning area notifying
them of the Community Meeting and encouraging their participation.
x Posted on County website urging public involvement and keeping them updated on the plan’s status.
x Provided a schedule requesting public participate when the plan goes before Planning Board, Orange
County Unified Transportation Board and Board of County Commission for approval.
The Community Meeting was held in the gym at Gravelly Hill Middle School from 4:30 pm – 6:30 pm. Maps of
the E-B-M planning area were displayed around the gym with comment cards and brief surveys soliciting their
input while crafting the plan. Detail comments from the community meeting are included in Appendix C. They
support the need for an update of the E-B-M AMP and are supportive of the implementation strategies
necessary to address their transportation concerns in the planning area.
B.2017 Transportation Study
The 2017 Transportation Study (APPENDIX B) analyzed existing conditions for the planning area. The area is
mostly rural in character with a few commercial properties scattered throughout. Sites such as Morinaga
America Foods, Inc., Forma-Fab Metals, Cleora Sterling, and Gravelly-Hill Middle School are located within the
planning area. I-85/I-40 bisects the area and is paralleled by US-70 and West Ten Road. Efland Fire Department
Station 2, GE Industrial Solutions, and Efland Cheeks Elementary School as well as other uses are found along the
area’s border. Since the 2011 AMP’s adoption and the subsequent 2017 Transportation Study, the planning area
has been further analyzed, including updating traffic count and crash data and additional road and intersection
improvements have been identified for the area.
2011 AMP and
2017
Transportation
Study
Community
Meeting Recommendation
AMP Update
and
Implementation
Figure 5: Planning Process
26
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 8
In 2016, nineteen NCDOT traffic counting stations were located throughout the planning area (FIGURE 6). These
stations count vehicular traffic traversing various corridors. Some stations collect traffic counts annually while
others are collected every other year.
Key highlights of traffic count analysis:
x Station 6701742 – Buckhorn Road north of I-58 – currently accounts for twice as many vehicles (12,000)
than 2006 (6,500).
x Stations 6701742 and 6701751 – I -85 within the planning area – currently has an estimated 30% more
traffic volume (113,000) than in 2006 (88,000).
x Stations 6700018 and 6700009 – US-70 east of Efland Cedar Grove Road – continue experiencing
increased traffic over the past few years (FIGURE 7).
Figure 6: US-70 Traffic Trends
x Traffic count stations along West Ten Road and Bowman Road indicate traffic has more than doubled
(TABLE 1).
ROUTE
Station
ID 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013
West Ten Road6701749830870100090010001500
West Ten Road67047189809101100100012001400
West Ten Road6704719120013001400130016001800
Bowman Road6704717440460610630770840
Bowman Road67047164608601200120015001200
Table 1: Traffic Trends
Increased traffic in the area has also resulted in greater number of accidents in the planning area. Access
Management policies must address this increased traffic to ensure safe travel for all users.
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
2013201420152016
US 70 Westbound at Efland Cedar Grove Road (Station ID 6700018)
US 70 Eastbound at Efland Cedar Grove Road (Station ID 6700009)
US 70 Connector North of I-85 (Station ID 6700008)
Av
e
r
a
g
e
A
n
n
u
a
l
D
a
i
l
y
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
C
o
u
n
t
Year
27
Ef
l
a
n
d
-
B
u
c
k
h
o
r
n
-
M
e
b
a
n
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
Or
a
n
g
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Page 9
Fi
g
u
r
e
7
:
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
C
o
u
n
t
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
28
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 10
This plan update includes a brief safety analysis, an analysis not included in the 2017 Transportation Study. A
total of 1,385 estimated crashes have been reported in the planning area over the past ten year. Accidents in
the urban area - as determined by the U.S. Census - account for only 2.74% (38) of all crashes (FIGURE 8). The
urban area is mainly along US-70. Crashes along rural streets in the E-B-M area have constantly been increasing
over the past ten years as reported to NCDOT (FIGURE 9). Five accidents in rural area have resulted in fatalities.
This trend may continue as more accidents continue to occur along rural roads like Buckhorn Road, Bowman
Road and West Ten Road. While US-70 portion of the planning area may be considered urban, the northern half
is still rural. Access management policies will seek to reduce this growing trend, especially in the rural areas.
Figure 8:Crash by Severity
0
100
200
300
400
RuralUrban
Crash Locations by Severity
Possible injury Suspected minor injury Suspected serious injury Fatal
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
A
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
s
0
50
100
150
200
2007200820092010201120122013201420152016
Crash Locations by Frequency
Rural UrbanNu
m
b
e
r
o
f
A
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
s
Figure 9: Crash Frequency Trend
29
Ef
l
a
n
d
-
B
u
c
k
h
o
r
n
-
M
e
b
a
n
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
Or
a
n
g
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Page 11
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
0
:
R
u
r
a
l
v
s
U
r
b
a
n
C
r
a
s
h
e
s
30
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 12
1.Land Use Matrix and Future Network
As part of the 2017 Transportation Study, the planning area was divided into eighteen potential development
sites called “pods”. These sites were analyzed and their maximum buildable area was determined APPENDIX B.
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generations were also evaluated to ascertain development impact
on the transportation network. The Pod analysis, street cross sections and intersection improvements were
developed to help identify and mitigate the traffic impact through this process and made as part of updated
AMP.
2.Pod Delineation and Analysis
The analysis completed as part of the Study estimates a total 638.2 buildable acres (27.73% of 2301.5 gross
acres), due to environmental constraints and other factors. Pods range in size from 22 to 362 acres. A summary
of each pod’s buildable acres is shown below (TABLE 2 & FIGURE 11). Refer to the 2017 Transportation Study
in APPENDIX B for additional information and assumptions used in the analysis.
Pod Gross
Acres
Buildable
Acres
Constraints/
Attributes
Percentage
Buildable
1 343.41 86.79 256.62 25.27%
2 75.35 19.06 56.29 25.29%
3 257.53 81.01 176.52 31.46%
4 362.35 135.16 227.19 37.30%
5 138.95 0.00 138.95 0.00%
6 109.73 19.65 90.08 17.91%
7 22.01 7.47 14.54 33.94%
8 243.19 70.07 173.12 28.81%
9 55.96 18.15 37.81 32.43%
10 192.12 48.60 143.52 25.30%
11 62.20 7.14 55.06 11.48%
12 35.32 4.91 30.41 13.92%
13 49.26 15.23 34.03 30.91%
14 63.26 8.52 54.74 13.47%
15 49.91 11.07 38.84 22.19%
16 23.59 1.76 21.83 7.44%
17 144.61 79.31 65.30 54.84%
18 72.77 24.28 48.49 33.36%
Total 2301.52 638.17 1663.35 27.73%
Table 2: POD Buildable Acreage
Total acres
Minus current development
Minus environmental
constraints
Minus other attributes
Buildable acres
Figure 11: POD Delineation Process
31
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 13
These pods were also used to estimate how much additional traffic future development could generate. Each
year, ITE publishes trip generations for individual land uses. Based on current analysis, if all pods were
developed over time and based on the designated land uses and current zoning, the planning area could
experience an additional 172,829 vehicular trips per day on the roads. Below is a summary of daily, morning,
and evening peak hour trip generations for the planning area (TABLE 2 & FIGURE 12).
Pod Daily
1 7,440
2 2,781
3 21,917
4 40,416
5 0
6 1,998
7 36,955
8 5,088
9 17,736
10 4,336
11 4,516
12 392
13 925
14 4,896
15 1,010
16 772
17 16,228
18 5,422
Table 3: POD Daily Trips
3.Intersection Analysis
Various intersections in the planning area were analyzed for potential improvements. This investigation is based
on the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) being projected from 2014-2025 using historic trends. NCDOT
monitors the AADT data and the 2017 Transportation Study estimates a 3% annual increase over the past 15
years. This data is collected from traffic count stations located throughout the planning area and helps in
determining each road’s Level of Service (LOS). ITE defines the various LOS as described below:
x LOS A: Free flow with individual users unaffected by others in the traffic stream.
x LOS B: Stable flow with freedom to select speed with some influence by others.
x LOS C: Restricted flow remaining stable with significant interaction with others.
x LOS D: High-density flow with speed and maneuverability restricted but steady traffic stream.
x LOS E: Unstable flow with poor comfort and convenience level.
x LOS F: Forced flow characterized by stop-and-go waves and increased accident exposure.
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
123456789101112131415161718
AM Peak
PM Peak
POD Number
Tr
i
p
s
Figure 12: POD Trip Generation
32
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 14
Refer to the 2017 Transportation Study for detail information on the planning area’s LOS. It provides the
engineering bases for requiring developers mitigate the traffic impact they will have on existing transportation
network in accordance with the County’s adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives.
C.Recommendations - Future Roadway and Intersection Improvements
Based on the information presented in the 2017 Transportation Study and taking into account public comments,
functional classification, design speed, traffic volumes, character and composition of traffic and type of right-of-
way, the roadway network and intersection improvements are recommended on the following pages.
In order to meet the goals and objectives identified on page 15, this AMP update recommends the following
actions:
x Require right-of-way dedication - based on the “Street Cross-Section Requirements” below - for all
development throughout the Planning Area and acquire necessary easements for infrastructure
improvements.
x Work with NCDOT to pursue funding to advance the following improvements:
o Install a traffic light at high frequency crash intersections to ensure safety and assist traffic flow.
o Install a crosswalk with a flashing light at key intersections in the planning area.
x Consider a provision that any development having ingress/egress in the Planning Area either construct
its fair share of recommended improvements or provide payment in lieu of such improvements.
x Work with developers, the Orange County Economic Development Department, and Orange County
Planning and Inspection Department to implement access management recommendations.
x Identify and promote transportation projects in the planning area to respective planning organizations
and NCDOT.
x Pursue NCDOT SPOT Safety projects for key intersections throughout the planning area.
x Support NCDOT’s County Complete Street Policy, which was being updated at the time this Plan was
prepared, to address multi-modal travel and protect pedestrian circulation around residential
subdivisions and commercial areas.
1.Street Cross-Section Requirements
Many existing roads will no longer have the capacity to handle the projected 172,829 additional vehicular trips.
New roads will have to be constructed while existing ones may require widening. Road design plays an
important role in access management. Several road cross sections have been designed to help address increased
traffic. This AMP update also takes into consideration bicycle and pedestrian requirements along the proposed
cross sections as demonstrated below (FIGURES 13-15).
33
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 15
Figure 13: 2017 Transportation Study – Street Cross Section 2A
x All new streets east of Buckhorn Road including, existing Southern Drive, and Forrest Road.
x Propose: 2 lanes and ditch/swale
Figure 14: 2017 Transportation Study – Street Cross Section 2B
x All new streets west of Buckhorn Road, including existing Bowman Road, Rock Quarry Road, and Ben
Wilson Road.
x Proposed: 2 lanes, ditch and sidewalk
34
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 16
Figure 15: 2017 Transportation Study – Street Cross Section 3A
x Existing Ben Wilson Road, Buckhorn Road, West Ten Road, and Mt. Willing Road
x To be done through State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
x Current: 2 lanes and ditch - Proposed: 3 lanes, ditch/swale and sidewalk
Implementation of the future roadway network and recommended cross sections is intended to occur over time
and largely through the development approval process. Developers are required to dedicate right-of-way
consistent with the recommended cross sections and construct roads in accordance with NCDOT Roadway
Design Manual requirements. While the cross sections are designed for local and collector roads, their capacity
is taken into account as intersections are also analyzed and recommendations are provided in an effort to
address traffic impact.
2.Intersection Improvement Requirements and TIA
Evaluating LOS determines the necessary recommendations at various intersections in the planning area. For
reference, many municipal governments adopt policies like TIAs that require that new development not
decrease LOS below level C or D. Determining the LOS for a given roadway involves complex calculations taking
into account factors such as roadway grades and lane width. The 2017 Transportation Study identified the
following intersections as those requiring specific improvements by developers and any transportation projects
associated with them (TABLE 4).
The 2017 Transportation Study serves as an overall Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the E-B-M area, as each
pod’s development potential was modeled in accordance with Section 6:17 - Traffic Impact Analysis – of the
County’s UDO. The purpose of a TIA is to “insure that proposed developments do not adversely affect the
highway network and to identify any traffic problems associated with access from the site to the existing
transportation network.” TIAs also document the required traffic mitigations that must be incorporated into the
proposed development. A TIA is required for all special use permits, subdivisions, conditional zoning applications
and site plans. This is for all applications with an estimated trip generation exceeding 800 daily trips as the pods
have previously demonstrated.
35
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 17
Intersection Recommendation
Ben Wilson Road at New Road A
South bound right turn lane
North bound right turn lane
West bound right and left turn lane
West Ten Road at New Road A Right and left turn lanes in all directions
West Ten Road at Buckhorn Road Right and left turn lanes in all directions
Mt. Willing Road at New Road H Right and left turn lanes in all directions
US-70/I-85 Connector
West bound left turn lane
East bound right turn lane
Northbound right and left turn lane
Table 4: Intersection Recommendations
The AMP for the planning area consists of planned streets intersections as illustrated in FIGURE 16. Details of
these intersection improvements are located on pp. 26-42 of APPENDIX B.
D.AMP Update and Implementation
Developers proposing projects within this area will be required to provide the appropriate street cross sections
and intersection improvements as specified in this plan. The E-B-M AMP update includes the original 2011 AMP
by carrying forward its list of access management concepts, treatments, and considerations as listed in TABLE 5.
Concepts Treatments
Driveway-Related Crashes, Spacing, Density and
Consolidation Access Management and Pedestrian Safety
Intersection Spacing and Traffic Signal Spacing Driveway Grade and Width
Functional Areas of Intersections and Conflict Points
Clearing Driveways Away From Corners and
Driveway Turn Radius
Speed Differential Between Turning Vehicles And
Through Traffic Shared/Joint Driveways and/or Cross Access
Benefits and Economic Impacts of Access Management Dedicated Left And Right Turning Lanes
Continuous Two-Way Left-Turn Lanes
Considerations
Three-Lane Roadways With Two-Way Left-Turn
Lanes
Internal Circulation In Land Developments and Sight
Distance
Raised Medians at Intersections and Continuous
Raised Median
Incorporating Aesthetics Into Access Management
Comparison Of Raised Median And Two-Way Left-
Turn Lanes
Clear Zones, Utility Placement And Lighting Frontage and Backage Roads
Table 5: AMP Practices
A detail explanation of each concept, treatment and consideration is provided in APPENDIX A at the end of this
Plan. The E-B-M AMP below (FIGURE 16) illustrated the road network and intersection improvements planned in
36
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 18
the area. This plan is based on detail transportation analysis as documented in the 2017 Transportation Study
(APPENDIX B) and public comments gathered throughout the planning process.
37
Ef
l
a
n
d
-
B
u
c
k
h
o
r
n
-
M
e
b
a
n
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
Or
a
n
g
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Page 19
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
6
:
E
-
B
-
M
A
M
P
38
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 20
III.Enforcement
The following is a list of plans, policies, and regulations currently in place aimed at addressing relevant issues:
x Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan
x Orange County Unified Development Ordinance
x E-B-M Small Area Plan and Access Management Plan
Consistent with adopted plans and access management practices, following is a list of criteria considered during
the development review process:
1.Restrict access where possible from the functional area of intersections.
2.Control turning movements at entrances where recommended by a TIA, right-in/right-out entrance
design prevents left ingress and egress turning movements.
3.Limit or share access through a proposed development in order to prevent vehicles from backing up on
to the major roads and to enhance onsite circulation.
4.Space intersections and driveway access points to plan for reduced traffic conflict points as traffic
congestion increases:
a.Align major intersections and minor entrances with positive offset(s) to increase safety.
b.Provide a limited number of strategically located median crossovers in the planning area.
c.Add exclusive turn lanes where required by NCDOT.
d.Provide adequate separation between traffic signals to expand road’s traffic capacity and simplify
signal synchronization.
5.Where feasible along arterials and collectors, share joint entrance(s) with adjoining property owner(s)
through the recordation of joint access easements with maintenance provisions by adjoining property
owner(s).
6.Where feasible along arterials, provide vehicular and pedestrian connections between adjoining
properties through the recordation of access easement(s) with maintenance provisions, and construct
connection(s) to the boundary with adjoining undeveloped parcel(s).
7.Provide frontage roads with non-residential development/redevelopment to increase safety on arterials
and collector roads, and promote non-residential development for economic benefit.
8.Provide an interconnected street network in the planning area as generally indicated on the map (FIGURE
16)
9.Provide an interior access network from identified primary access points along arterial and collector
roads.
10.Accommodate transit, bicyclists and pedestrians on roadways in the planning area.
11.Limit perennial stream crossings, and impacts to wetlands and steep topographical areas.
12.Required future road cross-sections shall be subject to NCDOT and Orange County review and are
incorporated in the Burlington Graham, Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization and Durham-Chapel
Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Comprehensive Transportation Plans (CTP) by
reference.
39
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 21
A.Roles and Responsibilities
NCDOT has full authority over state roads but not over local land use decisions. Orange County regulates land
use decisions but does not own or maintain local roads. Therefore, coordination is essential in balancing the two
authorities when it comes to access management policies and procedures. Each agency has authority over a
different part of the process and the partnership benefits the public, developer, and property owner whose
financial investment is at stake.
Role/Responsibility of the NCDOT
NCDOT is responsible for regulating the location, design, construction, and maintenance of street and driveway
connections on the State Highway system. The NCDOT recognizes landowners have certain reasonable rights of
access consistent with their needs. However, access connections are a major contributor to traffic congestion
and poor roadway facility operations that can result in decreased highway capacity, and increased safety
hazards. Early NCDOT review of development proposals helps ensure conformance with access management
requirements and provides NCDOT an opportunity to suggest changes prior to local project approval, which may
occur well in advance of a request for a driveway permit. The NCDOT Access Management Group (of the
Congestion Management Section of the Traffic Engineering and Safety Systems Branch) examines the potential
safety and capacity impacts that new or expanding traffic generation may have on the state roadway system and
provides recommendations based on the analysis. This process typically requires the completion of a Traffic
Impact Analysis by the Developer/ Property Owner/Applicant. Other recommendations may range from denying
access, to requiring the developer to construct additional travel or turn lanes, access restrictions, internal traffic
pattern operations or installing new traffic signals to minimize the traffic impact.
Role/Responsibility of Orange County
Several sections of the Orange County UDO assist with implementation of the E-B-M AMP. The UDO requires site
plans to comply with County adopted access management, transportation and/or connectivity plans and to
denote the location of future roadways(s) and access easements, whether public or private, and to ensure and
encourage future connectivity. The UDO also provides additional requirements for Economic Development
Districts as well as the Major Transportation Corridor Overlay District (MTC). An important implementation tool
for access management is the UDO requirement of a traffic impact analysis for all special use permits, major
subdivisions, conditional zoning applications, site plans that exceed 800 trips per day, and for 80 or more
dwelling units of residential development. Additionally, a traffic impact analysis may be required when a road
capacity or safety issue exists. The purpose of the traffic impact analysis is to insure that proposed
developments do not adversely affect the road network and to identify any traffic problems associated with
access from the site to the existing transportation network. The objective of the traffic impact analysis is to
identify solutions to potential problems and to present improvements to be incorporated into the proposed
development.
40
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 22
As individual developments occur in the planning area, permits can be issued that conform to the access
management plan, or permits outlining conditions (whether through conditional zoning, special use permits, or
site plan reviews) can be issued so that the development will ultimately be in conformance. NCDOT
representatives provide technical assistance and support. Orange County can assist the NCDOT by attaching
conditions to development approvals to require actions from the developer that support access management.
This may include conditions that require unified access and circulations systems, alternative access roads, or
joint and cross access. All development in the planning area must be in accordance with NCDOT Policy on Street
and Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways.
Continued intergovernmental coordination with the City of Mebane will be important to realizing desired
development and access management within the planning area since the City will be the service provider of
public water and sanitary sewer.
Role/Responsibility of the Developer /Property Owner/Applicant
A development applicant, such as the property owner and/or developer, is required to coordinate with Orange
County and the NCDOT to identify possible conflicts with local, state, or federal regulations and plans, including
adopted access management plans. A traffic impact analysis may be required to be prepared by the applicant’s
engineer, to determine any traffic concerns associated with access from the site to the existing transportation
network, and to identify solutions to potential problems for incorporation into the proposed development.
Additionally, prior to beginning any site disturbance work, the applicant is responsible for obtaining all
applicable permits required for construction within the highway right-of-way resulting from development,
including but not limited to, a Street and Driveway Access Permit issued by the NCDOT District Engineer, and all
applicable environmental permits (i.e., erosion control, water quality, and wetlands). All applicants are required
to coordinate with all agencies involved, including other local governments, to identify conflicting or overlapping
access issues.
B.Resources
The plan may require future updates as development occurs and other access management issues are identified.
While North Carolina counties do not own or maintain local roads, they do have certain authority over land use
decisions, and through innovative use of local regulations, Orange County can adopt local policies and
ordinances aimed at addressing specific issues such as access management. A variety of tools are made available
including and not limited to:
x Land Development Regulations
x Special Service Districts
x Intergovernmental Agreements
x Complete Streets Policy
x Exactions
41
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 23
IV.Appendix
A.2011 E-B-M EDD AMP
B.2017 E-B-M Transportation Study
C.Community Meeting
42
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Orange County Planning Department Page 24
APPENDIX A
2011 Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
43
Ef
l
a
n
d
-
B
u
c
k
h
o
r
n
-
M
e
b
a
n
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
Or
a
n
g
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Page 25
44
Ef
l
a
n
d
-
B
u
c
k
h
o
r
n
-
M
e
b
a
n
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
Or
a
n
g
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Page 26
45
Ef
l
a
n
d
-
B
u
c
k
h
o
r
n
-
M
e
b
a
n
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
Or
a
n
g
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Page 27
46
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
ACCESSMANAGEMENTPROGRAM
(ToBeAppliedWithinCorridorsAndDevelopmentZones)
ACCESSMANAGEMENTCONCEPTS
1.Driveway-RelatedCrashes
Muchofaccessmanagement involvesmanagingtrafficmovementsintoandout
of commercial driveways. Thereasonforthisisthatdrivewaytrafficgeneratesa
large number ofcrashesonmajor roadsandstreets-arterialsandcollectors.
2.DrivewaySpacing
Maintaininganadequatespacingbetweencommercial drivewaysisoneof the
most critical aspectsofaccessmanagement.
3.DrivewayDensityAndDrivewayConsolidation
Drivewaydensity(thenumber ofdrivewaysperblockor permile)anddriveway
consolidationareveryimportantconsiderationsinaccessmanagement.These
roadwaycharacteristicsarebasicissuesinanyaccessmanagement planor
program.
4.Intersection SpacingAndTrafficSignalSpacing
Althoughmost discussionsabout accessmanagementfocusonthe
management of privatedriveways,properspacingofroadwayintersectionsisan
equallyimportant accessmanagement issue.
Whyisintersectionspacingimportant?
Theimportanceofintersectionspacingissimilar tothatofdrivewayspacing. As
the number ofintersectionsper mileincrease,theopportunityfor crashes
increases.The existenceoftoomanyintersectionsper milealsoincreasesdelay
andcongestion.Ontheother hand, not providinganadequatelydensestreet
networkforcesmotoristsand pedestrianstotravelfarther totheirdestinations.
5.FunctionalAreasOfIntersections
Itisimportanttoprotect thefunctional areaofanintersectionfromdriveway
access. Drivewayslocatedwithinthisareamayresultinhighercrashratesand
increased congestion.
What isthefunctional areaof anintersection?
Thefunctional areaofanintersectionisthatareabeyondthephysical intersection
of tworoadwaysthat comprisesdecisionandmaneuveringdistance,plusany
requiredvehiclestoragelength.Thefunctional areaincludesthelengthofroad
upstreamfrom anoncomingintersectionneededbymotoriststoperceivethe
47
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
intersectionandbeginmaneuverstonegotiateit.Theupstreamareaconsistsof
distancefor travel duringa perception-reactiontime, travel formaneuveringand
deceleration,andqueuestorage. Thefunctional areaalsoincludesthelengthof
roaddownstreamfrom theintersection neededtoreduceconflictsbetweenthrough
trafficandvehiclesenteringandexitinga property.
6.ConflictPoints
Conflictspointsarecommonlyusedtoexplaintheaccident potential ofaroadway.
Accessmanagement strategiesaretypicallydesignedtoreducethenumberand
densityofconflictpoints.
What isaconflict point?
A conflict pointisthepointatwhichahighwayusercrossing,mergingwith,or
divergingfromaroador driveway conflictswithanother highwayuserusingthesame
roadordriveway.Itisanypointwherethepathsoftwothroughorturningvehicles
diverge, merge, or cross.
7.Speed DifferentialBetween TurningVehiclesAndThrough
Traffic
Speeddifferential isasimpleyetimportant concept thatformsthebasisfor many
accessmanagement measures.
What isspeeddifferential?
Speeddifferential isthedifferencebetweenthespeedofvehiclesthat arecontinuing
alongthemainroadwayversusthosethatareenteringandexitingthedrivewayFor
instance, ifthroughtrafficgenerallymovesat 35milesper hour andcarshavetoslow
to10milesperhourtoenter adriveway,thespeeddifferential atandnearthat
drivewayis25milesper hour.
Whyisspeeddifferential important?
A speeddifferential above20milesper hour beginstopresent safetyconcerns.When
thespeeddifferential approaches30to35milesperhour,thelikelihoodofacollision
betweenfast movingthroughvehiclesandturningvehiclesincreasesveryquickly.
8.BenefitsOfAccessManagement
Aneffective,local accessmanagementprogram canplayanimportantrolein
preservinghighwaycapacity,reducingcrashes,andavoidingor minimizingcostly
remedial roadwayimprovements.Thetravelingpublicwouldthenbenefitfromfaster
andsafertravel.Thegreat majorityofbusinesseswouldbenefitfromincreased
economicvitalityalongawell-managedcorridor.Taxpayerswouldbenefitfrommore
efficient useofexistingfacilities. Andpublicagencieswouldbenefitfromtherelatively
lowcostofaccessmanagement;theycouldthenusetheirresourcesfor otherneeds.
48
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
9.EconomicImpactsOfAccessManagement
Businessownersoftenareconcernedthatchangesinaccesstotheirpremiseswill
havetemporaryor permanentimpactsontheirsales. Theyareconcernedthat
changesindirectaccesstotheir property-suchasconsolidatingdrivewaysorinstalling
raisedmedianswillleadtodeclinesinpatronageandsales. Perceivedimpactsof
accessmanagement onadjacentcommercial businessesandlandownersareoften
majorimpedimentstoprojectsmovingforward. Inthecaseofaccessmanagement,
perceptionsareoftenworsethanreality.
Accessmanagement beforedevelopment offersclarityandrelievesthepost-
developmentdifficultyinretrofitting.
10.AccessManagementAnd Pedestrian Safety
Accessmanagementisusuallypromotedasawaytoimprovedrivingconditionsfor
motorists.Clearly,accessmanagementtechniquescanleadtoroadsandstreetsthat
aredramaticallysaferandmucheasier andmorepleasanttodrive. However,
researchalsoindicatesthatseveralkeyaccessmanagementtechniquesarejustas
valuabletopedestrians.Theseinclude:
•reducingthenumber ofdriveways,particularlycommercial driveways,withina
givendistance(per blockor mile)
•providingfor greaterdistanceseparationbetweendriveway
•providingasaferefugeforpedestriancrossingswithraisedmedians
COMMONACCESSMANAGEMENTTREATMENTS
11.DrivewayGrade
Alongolder urbanarterial streets,itiscommontofindrather steepdrivewayswith
grades(or slopes) of5-10percentormore.Drivewayswithsteepgradeswereoften
constructedtoallowthedrivewayandconnectingparkinglotstodrainmoreefficiently
andtosaveearth-movingcosts.Ontheotherhand, morerecentlyconstructed
arterialstypicallyfeatureverygentledrivewaygrades. Drivewaygradeisanimportant
–yetoftenoverlooked–safetyconsideration.
Themaximum practicalgradefor drivewaysvariesbetween8-14percentforlow-
volumedrivewaysandfivepercent for high-volumedriveways(a30-footlongdriveway
witha14percent gradewouldriseorfall aboutfour feet alongitslength).
Furthermore, themaximumpracticalchangeingradeisabout 12percent.Abovethis
value,manyvehicleswillscrapetheirbumpersorother low-hangingpartsonthe
driveway,potentiallycausingdamagetothevehicleanddrivewayorroadwaysurface.
Whilethismaybethemaximumpracticalgrade,itismuchsafertouseasmaller
grade. Aminimalgrade(say,twopercent)isstill neededfordrainage.
49
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
12.DrivewayWidth
Alongolder urbanarterial streets,itiscommontofindmanynarrowdriveways. Older
commercial drivewayandparkinglotdesignstendedtousetentofifteenfootwide
driveways. Thistypeof designwill safelyaccommodateonlyonevehicleatatime,
eitheranenteringoranexitingvehicle. Another commonproblemisdrivewaysin
urbanandrural areasthataretoowide. Insomecases,thedrivewaymayhaveno
discernibleboundariesorcurbs. Bothsituationscreateoperational andsafety
concerns.A properlydesigneddrivewayhelpsturni ngtrafficmoveoff theroadway
morequicklyandreducesthelikelihoodofcrashes.
13.Clearing DrivewaysAwayFromCorners
Clearingdrivewaysawayfrom cornersisthesimplest,yet perhapsthemostcritical
accessmanagement treatment.
What iscornerclearance?
Cornerclearanceistheminimum distancerequiredbetweenanintersectionandan
adjacent drivewayalonganarterial roador collectorstreet.
14.Shared/JointDrivewaysAnd/OrCrossAccess
Drivewayspacinganddrivewaydensityareimportant considerationsinmanaging
access.Whendrivewaysarespacedtoocloselytogetherorthenumber ofdriveways
perblockor milebecomestoolarge, a significantincreaseintrafficaccident rates
occurs.Trafficalsotendstobecomecongestedmorequicklyinsuchsituations.
What isdrivewaysharing?
A shareddrivewayiswhentwoor moreadjacent propertiesusethesamedrivewayfor
ingressand/or egress.Shareddrivewaysareverycommoninnewercommercial
areas,forinstanceat stripmalls, regional shoppingcenters, andofficeparks.Sharing
drivewaysissimplygooddesignpracticesinceconflictpointscausedbymotorists
enteringandleavingthebusinessesarereduced.Thiswill,inturn,tendtoreduce
trafficaccidentsassociatedwithturningtrafficandimprovethetrafficflowonthemain
road.
What arejointandcrossaccess?
Jointandcrossaccessareformal,legalmethodsofensuringthat adjacent properties
cansharedriveways. Inthecaseof jointaccess,twoadjacent propertyownersshare
adrivewayalongtheir commonpropertyline. Inthecaseof crossaccess, one
propertyownerhasthelegalrighttoaccessanduseadrivewaythatisontheadjacent
propertyowner’sland.
Jointandcrossaccesscanbebuiltintoprivatereal estatetitlesthrougheasements.
Theycanalsobeencouragedor requiredinlocalplanningor designstandardsorin
municipal andcountyordinances.
50
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
15.ContinuousTwo-WayLeft-TurnLanes
Continuoustwo-way-left-turnlanes(TWLTL) areacommonaccessmanagement
treatmentwhencombinedwithdrivewayconsolidationandcorner clearance.TWLTLs
simultaneouslyprovideaseparatelaneforleftturningvehiclesandpropertyaccess.
Typically,theyareusedasthecenter laneofafive-laneroadway.Alesscommon
designinvolvesthreelanes,aTWLTLinthecenter for leftturnsandonelaneineach
directionfor throughtraffic.
Recent theorysuggestsavoidingthisdesignunlessroadright-of-wayconditionsare
restrictive.
16.Three-LaneRoadwaysWith Two-WayLeft-TurnLanes Continuous
two-wayleft-turnlanes(TWLTL) areacommonaccessmanagement treatment.
Typically,theyareusedinthecenterofafour-laneroadway.However,aless-
commondesigninvolvingthreelanes–aTWLTLinthecenterfor leftturnsand one
laneineachdirectionforthroughtraffic–isbeingusedmoreandmorefrequently.At
first,theideaofathree-laneroadmayseem strange. Butundertheright
circumstancestheycanworkverywell,operatingbetter andmoresafelythanafour-
laneundividedroad.
17.RaisedMediansAtIntersections
Raisedmedianswithleft-turnlanesatintersectionsoffer acost-effectivemeansfor
reducingaccidentsandimprovingoperationsat higher volumeintersections.Theleft-
turnlanesseparateslower turningvehiclesfrom throughtrafficandprovideaprotected
spaceforthesevehiclestodecelerateandturn.Theraisedmedianprohibitsleftturns
intoandoutofdrivewaysthatmaybelocatedtooclosetothefunctional areaofthe
intersection.
18.ContinuousRaisedMedian
Continuousraisedmedianswithwell-designedmedianopeningsareamongthemost
importantfeaturesformanagingaccesstocreateasafeandefficient highwaysystem.
19.Comparison OfRaisedMedianAndTwo-WayLeft-TurnLanes
Becauseraisedmediansarethemostrestrictiveaccessmanagement treatment,
buildingaraisedmedianalonganarterial isoftenverycontroversial amongbusiness
andpropertyowners.Two-wayleft-turnlanes(TWLTL) aremuchlessso. Business
personsandpropertyownersfeel thatinstallationofraisedmedianswill havealarge,
negativeimpactontheir customers,sales,andpropertyvalues. Therefore,TWLTLs
areoftensuggestedasacompromisesolution. However,TWLTLsalsorepresent a
safetycompromisewhencomparedtoraisedmedians. Theyshouldbeusedwith
care.
51
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
20.FrontageAndBackageRoads
Frontageandbackageroadsrunparallel themainlinerouteandprovidealternative
accesstoproperty.Propertyaccessisprovidedalongthefrontageorbackageroad,
whichaccessesthearterial viaacrossroad(withatrafficsignal ifnecessary).This
reducesthenumberanddensityofconflictpointsassociatedwithstripdevelopment.
Theseroadsaregenerallyapplicabletocommercial development.
A backageroad providesaccesstotherear sideofcommercial properties
locatedbetweenthebackageroadandthearterial.It alsoprovides
accesstopropertieslocatedontheoppositesideofthebackageroad
fromthearterial,thusincreasinglandvaluesandreducinginfrastructure
coststoindividual properties.
A frontageroad providesaccesstothefront sideofcommercial
propertieslocatedalongthearterial.Caremustbetakentoensure
adequateseparationbetweenthearterial andtheintersectionofthe
frontageandcrossroads.
Whyarefrontageandbackageroadsimportant?
Frontageandbackageroadsreduceconflictpointsbetweenthroughtrafficandturning
trafficassociatedwithstripdevelopmentanddirectpropertyaccesstothearterial.
Conflict pointsareassociatedwithreducedlevelsofroadwaysafetyandoperations.
Studieshaveshownthat whendrivewayaccesstoarterial roadwaysisgrantedtotoo
manypropertyownerswithout consideringfuturetrafficvolumesandroad
classifications, theadditional drivewaysincreasetherateofaccidentsanddecrease
theefficiencyoftheroadway.
21.Dedicated LeftAndRightTurningLanes
Oneof themajor concernsoftransportationengineersandplannersincitiesand
suburbanareasiskeepingthroughtrafficmovingat asmoothandevenpace.When
trafficcan’tmoveat anevenpace,delaysandcongestionaretheresult.This
frustratesmotoristsandcreatesopportunitiesfor“fender-bender” crashes.Oneofthe
simplestwaystoaccomplishsmoothandeventrafficistoremovetheturningtraffic
fromthethroughtrafficflowatroadintersectionsandnear busydriveways.Often,
dedicatedturninglanesareprovidedtoservethat purpose. Manytimesturninglanes
areusedinconjunctionwithraisedmediansandmediansatintersectionstoprovide
additional safetybyprotectingturningtraffic.
22.DrivewayTurnRadius
Turnradiusreferstotheextentthattheedgeofacommercial drivewayis“rounded” to
permit easier entryandexitbyturningvehicles. Drivewayentranceswithlongerturn
radii helpslower,turningtrafficmoveoff thearterial morequickly.Theyalsohelp
trafficleavingadrivewayturnandenterthestreamoftrafficmoreefficiently.
Guidelinesfor turnradiiaregenerallyappliedtonon-residential developmentsand
subdivisions.
52
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
23.InternalCirculationInLandDevelopments
Internal sitedesignisprobablythemostneglecteddiscussionpoint inaccess
management.Itwouldbenatural tothinkthataccessmanagement concernsstopat
theroadwayright-of-wayline,but infact theycarrythroughintothepropertythat is
providedwithaccess.
Whyisinternal sitedesignimportant?
Themovementof trafficintoandout ofpropertiescanbedramaticallyaffectedbythe
internal designfor on-sitecirculation.Theinternal designofcirculationonaproperty
mayhelpor hinder trafficturningofforontoanarterial street.Thisinturnaffectsthe
speeddifferential betweenturningandthroughtraffic.
What isthebestwaytodesignforinternalcirculation?
Theinternalcirculationofalanddevelopment functionswellwhenitisdesignedwith
respect tohighwayaccesspoint(s) rather thanthebuilding(s).Designshouldstart
fromtheoutsideinandfinishwiththeparkingandbuilding.Veryoften,theopposite
approachistaken.Thecirculationdesignofdrivewaysandparkinglotsaredonelast.
Hereistheoptimal internal circulationdesignapproach:
1. Providesafeandreasonableaccesstoandfromthestreettomotoristsand
pedestrians.
2. Provideareasonabletransitionbetweentheaccessandtheinternalcirculation,
especiallybymakingsurethedrivewaysarewideandlongenough.
3. Designtheparkingareaandindividual parkingspaces.
4. Designthebuildingfootprintwithintheconstraintsoftheinternalcirculationandthe
parking.
OTHER CORRIDOR DESIGNCONSIDERATIONS
24.SightDistance
Guidelinesfor adequatesight distanceareoneofthemostimportant andbasic
approachesacommunitycantakeinmanagingaccesstoitsroadways. Sight distance
guidelinescanhelpcommunitiesensurethat itsarterialsaresafeformotoristsand
pedestrians.Sightdistanceguidelinescanalsohelpcommunitiespromoteadequate
spacingofresidential andcommercial driveways.
What issightdistance?
Sight distanceisthelengthofhighwayvisibletoadriver.A safesightdistanceisthe
distanceneededbyadriveronanarterial,oradriverexitingadrivewayorstreet,to
verifythattheroadisclearandavoidconflictswithothervehicles. Sighlinesmust be
keptfreeofobjectswhichmight interferewiththeabilityofdriverstoseeother
vehicles. Featuressuchashills,curvesintheroad,vegetation,other landscaping,
signs,andbuildingscanreducesightdistance.
53
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
25.IncorporatingAestheticsIntoAccessManagement
Accessmanagement projectsofteninvolvewideningexistingroadwaystoaddeither
anadditional two-way-left-turnlane(TWLTL) or araisedmedian. Suchprojectscan
leadtoawideexpanseofconcreteandasphalt.Anaestheticallypleasingtreatment,
however,doesnotneedtoruncounter tosoundaccessmanagement practices.In
fact,aestheticscanandshouldbeincorporatedintoaccessmanagement project
plans.
Whyareaestheticsimportant?
Accessmanagement projectsaremuchmorelikelytobeacceptedbythepublicand
bybusinessownersofadjacent propertiesiftheylookgoodaswell asimprovesafety
andtrafficflow.
26.Clear Zones,UtilityPlacementAndLighting
Adequateclear zoneswithproper placementofutilitiesandsufficientlightingare
essential componentsofwell designedroadways. Properdesignwill helpensure
sufficient sight distanceandimproveroadwayoperatingsafety.
What isaclearzone?
TheAmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials(AASHTO)
GreenBook statesthat “aclearzoneisusedtodesignatetheunobstructed, relatively
flatareaprovidedbeyondtheedgeofthetraveledwayfor therecoveryoferrant
vehicles.”Utilities, structures, signs, trees,andotherobjectsshouldnot belocated
withintheclearzone.
54
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Bi
k
e
l
a
n
e
Vehicle
Lane
Vehicle
Lane
Bi
k
e
l
a
n
e
2.
5
’
Cu
r
b
&
g
u
t
t
e
r
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Cu
r
b
&
g
u
t
t
e
r
Bi
k
e
l
a
n
e
2.
5
’
Bi
k
e
l
a
n
e
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
Figure1a.
80’PROPOSEDSTREETCROSSSECTION
SHOULDERSECTION
80’
11’–12’11’–12’
19’–20’19’–20’
Shoulder &Shoulder &
Drainage Drainage
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
Figure1b.
80’PROPOSEDSTREETCROSSSECTION
CURB&GUTTERSECTION
80’
5’4’11’–12’11’–12’11’–12’4’5’
VehiclelaneLeftturn
lane
Vehiclelane
55
56
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
APPENDIX B
2017 Transportation Study
57
58
TransportationReportfortheEflandͲBuckhornͲ
MebaneStudyArea
PreparedFor:
OrangeCountyPlanning&InspectionsDepartment
131W.MargaretLane,Suite201
P.O.Box8181
Hillsborough,NC27278
May2017
PreparedBy:
5540CenterviewDrive
Raleigh,NC27606
59
Contents
Section1ͲIntroduction...................................................................................................................................3
PurposeandBackground.....................................................................................................................................3
AccessManagement............................................................................................................................................3
BusinessImpacts..................................................................................................................................................5
ComprehensiveTransportationPlan(CTP).........................................................................................................5
Section2–ExistingConditions.......................................................................................................................6
EnvironmentalFeatures.......................................................................................................................................6
Cultural&ĞĂƚƵƌes......................................................................................................͘͘͘..................................6
ExistingRoadwayNetwork............................................................................................................................9
Section3–FutureNetwork....................................................................................................................10
FutureLandUseMap...................................................................................................................................10
StudyAreaBuildoutAnalysis.......................................................................................................................12
FutureRoadwayNetwork............................................................................................................................15
TypicalSections..............................................................................................................................................16
TrafficVolumeAnalysis...............................................................................................................................22
IntersectionAnalysis...................................................................................................................................25
Section4–CostAnalysis.........................................................................................................................43
ConceptualDesign..........................................................................................................................................43
ConstructionCostEstimate.............................................................................................................................43
Section5–Conclusion...............................................................................................................................44
AttachmentAͲStudyAreaMap...............................................................................................................45
AttachmentB–SHPOCulturalResourcesResponseLetters.................................................................47
StudyArea1ASHPOResponseLetter...........................................................................................................48
StudyArea1BSHPOResponseLetter...........................................................................................................50
StudyArea2ASHPOResponseLetter...........................................................................................................51
StudyArea2BSHPOResponseLetter...........................................................................................................53
AttachmentC–FormulasandAssumptions..........................................................................................54
Formulas........................................................................................................................................................55
Assumptions......................................................................................................................................................55
BuildoutAnalysisSpreadsheet......................................................................................................................58
AttachmentDͲTrafficVolumeData.....................................................................................................59
1
60
FiguresandTables
Figures
Figure1ͲStudyAreafortheEflandͲBuckhornͲMebaneTransportationReport……………………………………....4
Figure2ͲExistingConditions.........................................................................................................................7
Figure3ͲEnvironmentalFeatures...............................................................................................................8
Figure4ͲFutureLandUseMap..................................................................................................................11
Figure5ͲDevelopmentPodMap................................................................................................................14
Figure6ͲTypicalSection2D......................................................................................................................17
Figure7ͲTypicalSection2A......................................................................................................................19
Figure8ͲTypicalSection3A......................................................................................................................21
Figure9Ͳ2014AADT...................................................................................................................................23
Figure10Ͳ2025AADT................................................................................................................................24
Figure11ͲStudyIntersections...................................................................................................................42
Tables
Table1ͲAnticipatedTrafficGeneratedfromDevelopment......................................................................1ϯ
Table2ͲConstructionCostEstimatesforNewRoads...................................................................................43
Table3ͲConstructionCostEstimatesforUpdatingExistingRoads..............................................................44
2
61
Section1ͲIntroduction
PURPOSEANDBACKGROUND
Theprimarypurposeofthistechnicalreportistodeveloparoadwaynetworktosupportinvestmentin
theEflandͲBuckhornͲMebaneStudyArea,basedonanexaminationofexistingplans,futurelanduse,
environmentalconstraints,culturalandhistoricresources,keytransportationconsiderations,andfuture
developmentpotential.Thedatapresentedinthistechnicalreportwillprovidethebasisandjustification
forrequiringthededicationofrightsͲofͲwayintheEflandͲBuckhornͲMebaneStudyAreaandmayserve
asanappendixtotheupdatedEflandͲBuckhornͲMebaneStudyAreaAccessManagementPlan.
Accessmanagementoftheroadnetworkinthestudyareawillfacilitateaccesstolandfordevelopment,
whilemaintainingthesafetyandefficiencyoftheState’stransportationsystem.Thegoalsofanaccess
managementplanincludecreatingaccesstonewdevelopmentsandensuringthatexistingfacilities
remainoperatingatafunctionallevel.WithinOrangeCounty,theEflandͲBuckhornͲMebaneStudyArea
wasselectedasalocationtoencouragefutureeconomicdevelopmentactivities,basedonitsstrategic
locationalongmajortransportationcorridors.TheEflandͲBuckhornͲMebaneStudyArearunsalongthe
northsideofIͲ40betweenBuckhornRoadandIͲ85/US70ConnectorandalongthesouthsideofIͲ40
fromBenWilsonRoadandMt.WillingRoad.RecentgrowthalongtheIͲ85/40corridorhasresultedinan
averageincreaseoftrafficof3%eachyear;withtheexpectedgrowthofresidentialactivityandoffice,
service,research,commercialandindustrialdevelopmentinthestudyarea,thefuturetrafficis
anticipatedtoalsointensify.AmapoftheprojectstudyareaisshowninFigure1.
ACCESSMANAGEMENT
Accessmanagementisthesystematiccontrolofthelocation,spacing,designandoperationofdriveways,
medianopenings,interchangesandstreetconnectionstoaroadway1.TheFederalHighway
Administration’s(FHWA)officialdefinitionofaccessmanagementis“theprocessthatprovidesaccessto
landdevelopmentwhilesimultaneouslypreservingtheflowoftrafficonthesurroundingsysteminterms
ofsafety,capacity,andspeed.”Bycontrollingtheseaccesspoints,alocalorstategovernmentcan:
Maintaintheoverallsafetyofthetransportationsystem;
Minimizecongestion;
Provideforefficienttrafficflowandpedestriansafety;
Minimizecrashrates;ĂŶĚ
Provideappropriateaccesstoadjacentbusinessproperties.
Ultimately,OrangeCountyseekstodevelopanaccessmanagementplaninordertomaintainthe
functionalityofthetransportationnetworkastheEflandͲBuckhornͲMebaneStudyAreadevelops.
1AccessManagementManual,TransportationResearchBoard,WashingtonD.C.2003
3
62
·
St
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
f
o
r
t
h
e
E
f
l
a
n
d
-
B
u
c
k
h
o
r
n
-
M
e
b
a
n
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
-
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
FO
R
E
S
T
A
VE
OUT
H
E
R
N
D
R
St
u
d
y
A
r
e
a
1 in = 3,400 feet 0 2,000
Pa
r
c
e
l
Feet Orange County Planning and Inspections Brian Carson (12/21/2016)
ES
T
T
E
N
R
TON
RD
O
SELEVENTHST
ARRYRD
CENTER
IN
463
BUSINESSIMPACTS
Addressingtheroadwaynetworkandaccessmanagementissuesduringtheplanninganddevelopment
oflandinthestudyareaandtransportationprojectscanhelpacommunityinvariousways.Customers
areseekingbusinesseswithunblockeddrivewaysandeasyaccesswhilebusinessesareseekingaccessto
signalizedintersectionsandinterconnecteddevelopmentswhichalloweasyaccesstointerstatefacilities.
Havingaplaninplacetoaddresstheneedsofthecommunityiscriticaltotheeconomicprosperityof
theregionandultimatelytotheStateofNorthCarolina.
COMPREHENSIVETRANSPORTATIONPLAN(CTP)
TheNorthCarolinaDepartmentofTransportationandOrangeCountyadoptedtheOrangeCounty
ComprehensiveTransportationPlan(CTP),whichprovidesprojectrecommendationsforruralareasof
thecounty,in2013.TheDurhamͲChapelHillͲCarrboroMPO(DCHCMPO)CTPiscurrentlyunder
developmentandwillbeadoptedin2017.Thisplanaddressedfuturetransportationneedsinthe
urbanizedareas.TheOrangeCountyUnifiedDevelopmentOrdinance(UDO)willbeusedtofurtherfoster
economicdevelopmentintheMebane/BuckhornEconomicDevelopmentDistrict(EDD).
UnderStatelaw(N.C.G.S.§136Ͳ66.2),MetropolitanPlanningOrganizations(MPOs)andmunicipalities
shalldevelopComprehensiveTransportationPlans(CTPs)incooperationwiththeNorthCarolina
DepartmentofTransportation(NCDOT).Formunicipalitiesandcounties,orportionsthereof,located
withinanMPOplanningarea,thedevelopmentofaCTPshallbebytheMPOincooperationwiththe
NCDOT.TheCTPisnotrequiredtobefiscallyconstrainedandnominimumhorizonyearorupdate
timeframesarespecified.TheCTPistheelementoftheMetropolitanTransportationPlan(MTP)that
identifiestransportationneedsbeforefiscalconstraintisapplied.
UnderFederallaw(23U.S.Code§134),MPOsarerequiredtoprepareaMTP.TheMTPisrequiredto
addressthefederalplanningrequirementsin23U.S.C.§134,whichincludebeingfiscallyconstrained,
havingaminimum20yearhorizon,andbeingupdatedevery4yearsinairqualitynonͲattainmentor
maintenanceareas(every5yearsinattainmentareas).
ItisimportanttonotethattheCTP/MTPdoesnotincludeeveryroadonthehighwaysystem.Assuch,in
accordancewithG.S.§136Ͳ66.2,tocomplementtheroadwayelementoftheCTP,municipalitiesand
MPOsmaydevelopacollectorstreetplanand/orincludeadditionalprojectsthatmaybeincludedinthe
transportationplanifreasonableadditionalresourcesbeyondthoseidentifiedinthefinancialplanwere
availabletoassistindevelopingtheroadwaynetwork.TheDepartmentofTransportationmayreview
andprovidecommentsbutisnotrequiredtoprovideapprovalofthecollectorstreetplan.TheCTPand
thelocallyapprovedcollectorstreetplan(s)worktogethertoidentifythefuturetransportationsystem.
ThestreetandhighwayelementsoftheplansdevelopedpursuanttoG.S.§136Ͳ66.2shallserveasthe
planreferencedinG.S.§136Ͳ66.10(a),whichaddressesthereservationanddedicationofrightͲofͲway
underlocalordinances.
LocallyapprovedtransportationplansmaycontainstreetorhighwayrightͲofͲwayalignmentand
dedicationrecommendationsorrequirements,andcollectivelyfunctionasthecollectorstreetplanfor
theMPOormunicipalityasreferencedunderG.S.§136Ͳ66.2.
5
64
TheconceptsshownonaCTPareforplanningpurposesandaresubjecttochange.Theseconceptswillneed
additionalanalysistomeetstateandfederalenvironmentalregulations,todeterminefinallocationsand
designs,andtobefundedforimplementation.TheOrangeCountyUDO,Sections6and7includesthe
requirementsforreservinganddedicatingrightofwayorrequiringconstructionofroadslistedinAccess
ManagementPlansorontheCTP.Specificmentionisalsomadetothededicationofrightofwaybasedon
theconceptsshownontheCTPandlocalcollectorstreetplans,basedonN.C.G.S.
§13666.2and§13666.10.
Section2–ExistingConditions
ENVIRONMENTALFEATURES
Tobeginthetransportationreportdevelopmentprocess,OrangeCounty’senvironmentalcontractor,Pilot
Environmental,Inc.(PEI)conductedpreliminarystudieswithintheStudyArea:Wetlandsdetermination,
threatenedandendangeredspeciesdetermination.Specifically,PEI’sfieldworkanduseofexistingfederal
andstateagencydatadeterminedthepresenceofanystreams,pondsandWetlands,assessmentofpotential
historicproperties/structuresand/orarchaeologicalremains,andobtaininformationregardingfederally
protectedthreatenedandendangeredspeciesthatcouldbelocatedinthearea.Theprojectwasbrokeninto
fourstudyareas:1A,1B,2A,and2B,amapofwhichisshowninAttachmentA.Thepurposeoftheworkwas
todocumentenvironmentallysensitiveareastoassisttheCountyinlongͲrangeplanningandregulating
futureroadnetworksrelatedtodevelopmentproposalsinthearea.Thefutureroadnetworkproposalswill
ultimatelybedevelopedtomitigateimpactsonenvironmentalfeaturesintheStudyArea.Figure2depicts
theExistingConditions,highlightingwaterfeatures,schools,andcemeteries.Figure3contains
EnvironmentalFeaturesincludingendangeredspeciesandelevationcontours.
CULTURALFEATURES
PEIalsoconductedaculturalresourcesinquiryintheStudyArea.Acemeteryandseveralhistoric
structureswerelocated.PEIsubmittedalettertotheStateHistoricPreservationOffice(SHPO)soliciting
commentspertainingtotheStudyArea.CopiesoftheirresponsesareshowninAttachmentB.SHPO
determinedthattheroadnetworkasproposedwillnothaveaneffectonanyofthehistoricstructure,and
additionally,thecemeteryisprotectedinaccordancewithNCGSChapter65.
PortionsoftheStudyAreaalsohaveahighprobabilityforthepresenceofarcheologicalresources.
ArchaeologicaldatawasobtainedbutisnotdepictedonFigure2inordertoprotectsensitiveareas
ofarchaeologicalinterest.
6
65
Existing Conditions
No
t
e
:
T
h
i
s
m
a
p
i
s
f
o
r
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
u
s
e
o
n
l
y
an
d
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
.
4
4
WE
S
T
T
E
N
R
D
I
N
D
U
S
T
R
I
A
L
D
R
MATTRESS F
A
C
T
O
R
Y
R
D
SO
U
T
H
E
R
N
D
R
W
E
S
T
T
E
N
R
D
ROCK QUARRY RD
B
O
W
M
A
N
R
D
BEN WILSON
R
D
SO
U
T
H
E
R
N
R
A
I
L
W
A
Y
I-
8
5
/
4
0
I-
8
5
/
4
0
Legend CemeterykjCemetery Riverines Ponds Wetlands Lakes 4Schools Wetlands Streams Railroad
F
01
0.
5
Mi
l
e
s
§¨¦
§¨¦
§¨¦I-85/40
FO
R
E
S
T
A
V
E
BUCKHORN RD
BUCKHORN
R
D
MT.
W
I
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
US
-
7
0
US-70
US
-
7
0
US
-
7
0
Figure 2766
Le
g
e
n
d
Ri
v
e
r
i
n
e
s
Po
n
d
s
NW
I
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
La
k
e
s
En
d
a
n
g
e
r
e
d
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
t
o
u
r
s
0
0.
5
1 Mi
l
e
s
No
t
e
:
T
h
i
s
m
a
p
i
s
f
o
r
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
u
s
e
o
n
l
y
an
d
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
.
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
F
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
M
a
p
Figure 3
Ar
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
d
a
t
a
i
s
n
o
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
o
n
th
i
s
ma
p
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
a
r
e
a
s
of
ar
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t
.
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
a
r
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
si
t
e
ac
r
e
a
g
e
i
n
t
h
e
s
t
u
d
y
a
r
e
a
w
a
s
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
i
n
o
u
r
an
a
l
y
s
i
s
an
d
w
a
s
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
a
b
l
e
area
ca
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
fo
r
t
h
e
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
o
f
t
r
i
p
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
F
867
EXISTINGROADWAYNETWORK
Theprojectarea(showninFigure1)isapproximately4.25squaremilesboundedonthewestbyBen
WilsonRoad,ontheeastbyTheIͲ85/USͲ70Connector,onthenorthbyUSͲ70,andonthesouthbyWest
TenRoadandBowmanRoad.Thearealiesbetweentwomunicipalities,MebaneandHillsborough.A
descriptionofthetransportationfacilitiesinthegeneralvicinityoftheprojectstudyareaisasfollows:
IͲ40/IͲ85isaneightͲlaneinterstatethatrunsconcurrentlythroughGuilford,Alamance,andOrange
Counties.IͲ40divergesfromIͲ85atexit163southofHillsborough.Thepostedspeedlimitis65mphand
theAADTis98,000vehicles/day.
BenWilsonRoadisatwoͲlanemajorconnectorwhichisaccessedfromtheMebaneOaksRoad
interchangeonIͲ85/40andcarriesmainlyresidentialtraffic.Itwasrecentlyextendedtoactasaservice
roadforemployeesofMorinagaAmericaFoods,Inc.TheextensionofBenWilsonRoadtoMebaneOaks
Roadhasbeenstudied,howeverplanshavenotbeenapprovedandwillnotbediscussedinthisreport.
Thepostedspeedlimitis35mph.
WestTenRoadisatwoͲlanemajorconnectorsouthofIͲ40/IͲ85whichrunsfromMattressFactoryRoad
totheIͲ85Connector.Thepostedspeedlimitis55mph,exceptfora45mphsectionnearGravellyHill
MiddleSchool,andtheAADTis1,800vehicles/day.
MattressFactoryRoadisatwoͲlanemajorconnectorthatisnorthofIͲ40/85whichrunsfromEast
WashingtonStreet(SR1303)toWestTenRoad,intersectingatIͲ40/85.Thepostedspeedlimitis35mph
andtheAADTis2,500vehicles/day.
BuckhornRoadisatwoͲlanemajorconnectorstretchingfromUSͲ70inthenorthtoOrangeGroveRoad
(SR1006)inthesouth.Withinthestudyarea,i.e.fromUSͲ70toWestTenRoad,BuckhornRoadhasa
postedspeedof35mphandtheAADTis2,700vehicles/day.
US70isatwoͲlaneroadclassifiedasanOtherPrincipalArterial,whichprovideseastͲwestaccessacross
OrangeCountyfromIͲ85andDurhamintheeasttoMebaneinthewest.USͲ70representsthenorthern
boundaryofthestudyarea.Thepostedspeedlimitis45mphandtheAADTisbetween3,600and5,300
vehicles/day.
IͲ85/USͲ70ConnectorisafourͲlaneinterstateprovidingaccessbetweenIͲ40/IͲ85andUSͲ70.Afull
accessinterchangeisprovidedatIͲ40/IͲ85,whileapartialaccessinterchangeispresentatUSͲ70.The
partialaccessinterchangerestrictswestboundtravelontoUS70fromtheIͲ85/USͲ70Connectorand
southboundtravelfromUSͲ70ontotheIͲ85/USͲ70Connector.Thepostedspeedlimitis55mphandthe
AADTis4,400vehicles/day.
9
68
Section3–FutureNetwork
FUTURELANDUSEMAP
TheFutureLandUseMap(FLUM)(Figure4)isakeycomponentoftheadoptedOrangeCounty2030
ComprehensivePlan.TheFLUMprovidesguidanceanddirectionregardingfuturelanduseplanningand
developmenteffortsundertakeninthecounty,includingtheStudyArea.TheFLUMdefinesthelocation
ofappropriatelanduseclassificationsthatwouldachieveadesiredpatternofdevelopment,andiscritical
forachievingsustainablegrowth.
ImplementationofthestatedlandusegoalsandobjectivesoftheComprehensivePlanisaccomplished
primarilythroughtheapplicationofzoningdistrictsconsistentwiththeFLUM.Thelanduseclassifications
depictedbytheFLUMprovidethelocationsinthecountywherecertainzoningdistrictsmayormaynot
beappropriate.TheclassificationsdesignatedfortheStudyAreaare:CommercialͲIndustrialTransition;
EconomicDevelopmentTransitionActivityNode;and10ͲYearTransition.Avarietyofzoningdistrictsare
appropriatefortheseclassificationswithspecificsprovidedthroughaLandUseandZoningMatrixthat
isincludedintheComprehensivePlan.Ifaproposedzoningdistrictisnotcompatiblewiththe
classificationscontainedintheMatrix,reͲzoningcannottakeplaceunlesstheFLUMisamended.
ThelanduseclassificationsoftheFLUM,togetherwiththeexistingandprojectedfuturezoningdistricts,
informedabuildͲoutanalysisfortheStudyArea.Theanalysisprovidesanestimationoffuture
development.Itservesasthebasisforestimationsoftheamountofadditionaltrafficthatcouldbe
generatediftheStudyAreawasdevelopedtoitsfullpotential,aswellasservingasatoolforplanning
forfutureimprovementstothetransportationnetwork.
10
69
Me
b
a
n
e
Ef
l
a
n
d
US
7
0
W
B U C K H O R N R D
LEBANON
RD
ECENTERST
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
FRAZ I E R R D
EFLAND CED
A
R
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 GE
C H U R CH RD
*H
Q
H
U
D
O
6
W
X
G
\
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
P
l
a
n
01
,
0
0
0
Fe
e
t
1
i
n
=
3
,
5
0
0
f
e
e
t
.
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
Or
a
n
g
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
a
n
d
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
.
This copy printed July 19, 2016. Map is for reference use only.Contact Planning staff for verification of data.
)L
J
X
U
H
1170
STUDYAREABUILDOUTANALYSIS
AnimportantelementoftheTransportationReportfortheEflandͲBuckhornͲMebaneStudyAreawasthe
preparationofabuildoutanalysis.Thebuildoutanalysisprovidesanestimationoffuture
developmentandhelpsdeterminequantityandlocationoffuturegrowth.Theanalysisutilizedan
OrangeCountyparcelmapwithaGISoverlay,andwasbaseduponanumberofattributes,amongthe
mostimportantbeing:
x Existinglanduses;
x Existingzoning;and
x TheadoptedFutureLandUsePlan
DelineationofDevelopmentPods
Basedprimarilyonacombinationoftheexistingroadnetwork,theexistingZoningMap,andthedesignated
futurelanduse(pertheadoptedLandUsePlan),eighteen(18)developmentpodswerecreatedasabasefor
estimatingfuturetripgenerationforthestudyarea.ThedevelopmentpodsaredepictedinFigure5,and
rangeinsizefrom22acresto362acres.
Thebuildoutanalysisprocessincorporatedanumberofattributes:
x ZoningandFutureLandUsePlandesignationsforthepods.
x Grossacreagesofdevelopmentpods,undevelopedland,currentnonͲresidentialland,current
residentialacreagesincludingsubdivisionsanddevelopment,existingnonͲresidential
development,andotherdevelopedareatobepreserved;
x Documentationofenvironmentalandculturalconstraintsbydevelopableareas;
x EstimationofappropriatelandusesbyITEcodes;
x Considerationofdevelopmentregulationsrestrictingthepercentageofsitedevelopment;
x Provisionofpublicservices(water,sewer);
x Proximityofinterstateinterchanges;
x Proximityofandpotentialaccesstotherailline;
x Potentialimpactoffuturetransit(OPT);and
x Anappliedmarketreductionfactorbasedonlocationandavailablepublicservices.
Theprimaryconcerninthestudyareaintermsofdevelopingafeasiblefutureroadwaynetworkarethe
presenceofstreamsthathaveafiftyͲfootvegetativebufferbasedontheNeuseRiverRiparianBuffer
Rules.Whileroadwaycrossingofstreamsareallowableperthebufferrules,Volkertattemptedto
minimizestreamcrossingsinthedevelopmentofthefutureroadwaynetworkandassumedthatno
developmentwouldtakeplacewithinthestreambuffers.
ThetripgenerationanalysisissummarizedinthespreadsheetprovidedinAttachmentC.Theresultofthe
analysiswastheestimatedbuildableacresperpod.Theanalysisprovidesvaluableestimatedprojections
aboutfuturelandusesanddevelopmentpotential,andservesasthebasisforestimationsoftheamount
ofadditionaltrafficthatcouldbegeneratedifthestudyareawasdevelopedtoitsfullpotential.The
analysisalsoservesasatooltobeusedtoconsiderfutureneedsandimprovementstothetransportation
networkservingtheStudyArea.
12
71
FutureTraffic
Futuretripstoandfromthedevelopmentpodsweredeterminedbycombiningdatafromexisting
transportationimpactanalyses(TIAs)inthevicinity,NCDOTtrafficcounts,andtripgenerationdata,
calculatedbasedonvariouslandusecodesandthebuildableareasofthepods.Theformulasandland
usecodesusedtodeterminethetripdataarealistedinAttachmentC.Theanticipatednumberof
vehiclesgeneratedfromthedevelopmentineachpodinshowninTable1below.
Table1–AnticipatedTrafficGeneratedfromDevelopment
PodArea(acres)
Total
Daily
Traffic
AMPeak
Hour
PMPeak
Hour
186.87,4409861,025
219.12,781338302
381.021,9172,2272,144
4135.240,4324,1143,270
5,619.71,998189203
77.536,9553,4762,865
870.15,088715738
918.117,7361,5341,492
1048.64,336586574
117.14,516468466
124.93925149
1315.2925128124
148.54,896509507
1511.11,010127124
161.87728181
1779.316,2281,9311,770
1824.35,422647614
Note:Pods5and6werecombinedbecausePod5didnothaveanydevelopablearea.Thereareplansforthedevelopmentof
additionalsoccerfieldsattheSoccer.comcenterinPod5whichwilladdanother3vehiclestothepeakhourofPod5/6.
13
72
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
P
o
d
M
a
p
No
t
e
:
T
h
i
s
m
a
p
i
s
f
o
r
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
u
s
e
o
n
l
y
an
d
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
.
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 15
16
17
18
WE
S
T
T
E
N
R
D
I
N
D
U
S
T
R
I
A
L
D
R
MATTRESS F
A
C
T
O
R
Y
R
D
SO
U
T
H
E
R
N
D
R
W
E
S
T
T
E
N
R
D
ROCK QUARRY RD
B
O
W
M
A
N
R
D
BEN WILSON
R
D
I-
8
5
/
4
0
I-
8
5
/
4
0
F
01
0.
5
Mi
l
e
s
Po
d
s
w
e
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
i
n
a
r
e
a
s
o
f
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
f
u
t
u
r
e
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
vo
l
u
m
e
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
s
a
n
d
p
o
d
s
i
z
e
.
5
FO
R
E
S
T
A
V
E
US-70
US
-
7
0
US
-
7
0
US
-
7
0
BUCKHORN RD
BUCKHORN RD
MT.
W
I
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
Figure 5 1473
FUTUREROADWAYNETWORK
Basedontheinformationpresentedinthisreportandtakingintoaccountfunctionalclassification,design
speed,trafficvolumes,characterandcompositionoftrafficandtypeofrightͲofͲway,theroadway
networkonthefollowingpagesisrecommended.NCDOTAnnualAverageDailyTraffic(AADT)counts
wereusedtodeterminethetrafficvolumessurroundingthestudyarea,whiletrafficstudiesforadjacent
streetswerealsousedtoinformthisanalysis.Inrecommendingthesenewfacilities,OrangeCountyused
thefollowingcriteriaasguidelines:
1.Serveallofthefuturedevelopmentareas
2.Keeptrafficoffoftheexistingroadwaynetwork
3.Provideaccesstotheexistinginterchanges
4.Minimizestreamcrossings
5.Avoidhistoricalareas,cemeteries,andarchaeologicalresources
6.Avoidcurrentlydevelopedproperties
7.Avoidwetlands,poorsoil,androck
8.CreatebetterconditionsfornonͲautomobilemodes
RoadswillbeconstructedtothedesignspeedsprovidedforeachcrossͲsection.
15
74
TYPICALSECTIONS
Typicalsectionsfortheproposedstreetswereevaluatedandselectedbasedonananalysisoffuture
trafficvolumes,theNCDOTAverageAnnualDailyTrafficandNCDOT’sRoadwayDesignManual
guideůines͘AllroadsareclassifiedaslocalroadsorminorcollectorsaccordingtoNCDOTFunctional
ClassificationMaps.
A.ForproposedstreetsAͲF1,2and4(seeninfigure6)thecrosssection2Dincludes2lanes
undividedwithpavedshouldersandsidewalks.DuetotheproximityoftheCityofMebane,the
citymayconsiderannexationofsomeadditionalareasatafuturedateandthenwillassumethe
costsofsidewalkconstructionandmaintenance.Anannexationprocesswouldinclude
coordinationwithOrangeCounty.
RoadwayTableforTypicalSection2D
Roadway
Name
Map
Identifier
Roadway
TypeResponsiblePartyProposedCrossͲSection
Type(LineColor)
NewAANewDeveloperBuiltwithSidewalkinROW(FutureMebaneArea)TwoLane,Ditch,Sidewalk
NewBBNewDeveloperBuiltwithSidewalkinROW(FutureMebaneArea)TwoLane,Ditch,Sidewalk
NewCCNewDeveloperBuiltwithSidewalkinROW(FutureMebaneArea)TwoLane,Ditch,Sidewalk
NewEENewDeveloperBuiltwithSidewalkinROW(FutureMebaneArea)TwoLane,Ditch,Sidewalk
NewF1F1NewDeveloperBuiltwithSidewalkinROW(FutureMebaneArea)TwoLane,Ditch,Sidewalk
Bowman2ExistingStateTIPTwoLane,Ditch,Sidewalk
RockQuarry4ExistingStateTIP/DeveloperTwoLane,Ditch,Sidewalk
Wilson9ExistingStateTIPTwoLane,Ditch,Sidewalk
16
75
ItisrecommendedthattheabovemapbeconstructedaccordingtocrossͲsection2D
9
Figure6
17
76
B.ForproposedstreetsF2ͲK,6,and7(seeninfigure7),thecrosssection2Aincludes2lanes
undividedwithpavedshoulders.Astheseroadsarenotanticipatedtofallwithinthejurisdiction
ofanyneighboringcommunityintheforeseeablefuture,nopedestrianamenitiesareincludedin
thisarea.TheCountydoesnotbuildormaintaininfrastructure.
RoadwayTableforTypicalSection2A
Roadway
Name
Map
Identifier
Roadway
TypeResponsiblePartyProposedCrossͲSection
Type(LineColor)
NewF2F2NewDeveloperBuilt(SidewalkBuiltOutsideofROWbyDeveloperperOrdinance)TwoLane,DitchSection
NewGGNewDeveloperBuilt(SidewalkBuiltOutsideofROWbyDeveloperperOrdinance)TwoLane,DitchSection
NewHHNewDeveloperBuilt(SidewalkBuiltOutsideofROWbyDeveloperperOrdinance)TwoLane,DitchSection
NewIINewDeveloperBuilt(SidewalkBuiltOutsideofROWbyDeveloperperOrdinance)TwoLane,DitchSection
NewJJNewDeveloperBuilt(SidewalkBuiltOutsideofROWbyDeveloperperOrdinance)TwoLane,DitchSection
NewKKExistingStateTIPTwoLane,DitchSection
Southern6ExistingNoImprovementPossibleduetoRailRightͲofͲWayTwoLane,DitchSection
Forest7ExistingNoImprovementPossibleduetoRailRightͲofͲWayTwoLane,DitchSection
18
77
ItisrecommendedthattheabovemapbeconstructedaccordingtocrossͲsection2A
Figure7
19
78
C.Forproposedroads1,3,5,and8(seeninfigure8),thecrosssection3Aincludes2laneswitha
twoͲwayleftturnlaneandpavedshoulders.Thecrosssectionsdepictedbythiscrosssection
mayalsoincludesidewalkswiththeproperrightͲofͲwayreservation.
RoadwayTableforTypicalSection3A
Roadway
Name
Map
Identifier
Roadway
TypeResponsiblePartyCurrentCrossͲ
SectionType
ProposedCrossͲSectionType
(LineColor)
BenWilson1ExistingStateTIPTwoLane,DitchThreeLane,Ditch,Sidewalk
WestTen3ExistingStateTIP TwoLane,DitchThreeLane,Ditch,Sidewalk
Buckhorn5ExistingStateTIP TwoLane,DitchThreeLane,Ditch,Sidewalk
MtWilling8ExistingStateTIP TwoLane,DitchThreeLane,Ditch,Sidewalk
20
79
ItisrecommendedthattheabovemapbeconstructedaccordingtocrossͲsection3A
Figure8
21
80
TRAFFICVOLUMEANALYSIS
Afterdevelopingtheproposedroadwaynetwork,Volkertassignedthetrafficvolumesgeneratedas
discussedabovetotheroadwaynetwork.Informationindicatingtheprocessusedtogeneratetraffic
volumesisincludedinAttachmentD.
Fortheareaswithfuturedevelopmentproposed,Volkertassumedthatalltrafficwouldbegoingto/
comingfromtheclosestinterchange,i.e.:trafficonthewestsideofthestudyareawouldbegoingto
theinterchangeatBuckhornRoadandIͲ40andanytrafficontheeastsidewouldbegoingtothe
interchangeatMountWillingRoadandIͲ40.ThePodTrafficvolumesgeneratedinTable1wereadded
tothefuture2025AADTsoftheexistingroadwaynetworkbasedontheƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚaccesspoints.Pod
trafficvolumeswereassignedproportionallytoeachaccesspoint.Volkertassumedthatfiftypercent
oftheprojecttrafficgoingthroughtheinterchangeswouldbeheadedwestboundonIͲ40andthe
otherfiftypercentwouldbeheadedeastbound.
ThesevolumeswereaddedtothevolumesfromtheNCDOTtrafficvolumemapsfortheareatogivea
generalideaofhowmanylaneswouldneedtobecreatedfornewroadsoraddedtoexistingroads.
ThedailytrafficvolumesalongwiththeAMandPMpeakhourtrafficvolumesareprovidedinthe
followingfiguresfortheBuckhornRoad,W.TenRoad,andMt.WillingRoadinterchangeswithIͲ40.
ExistingandfutureAADT’sareshowninfigures9and10respectively.Itshouldbenotedthatafuture
interchangeatMattressFactoryRoadhasbeenproposedbytheBurlingtonͲGrahamMetropolitan
PlanningOrganization(BͲGMPO)andwillsignificantlyimpacttrafficcountsifconstructed.
Recommendationsforthefutureroadnetworkareto2025andmayrequireadditionaltechnical
analysisatthetimeofimplementation.
22
ĂƐĞĚŽŶĨƵƚƵƌĞƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĨŽƌĞĐĂƐƚƐ͕ĂŶŝŶŝƚŝĂůϯͲůĂŶĞĐƌŽƐƐͲƐĞĐƚŝŽŶǁŝůůďĞƐƵĨĨŝĐŝĞŶƚƚŽŚĂŶĚůĞƚƌĂĨĨŝĐŽŶ
ƵĐŬŚŽƌŶZŽĂĚŝŶƚŚĞƐŚŽƌƚƚĞƌŵ͖ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ŝƚǁŝůůůŝŬĞůLJďĞŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJƚŽƌĞƚĂŝŶƌŝŐŚƚͲŽĨͲǁĂLJƚŽĂůůŽǁ
ĨŽƌĂĨŽƵƌͲůĂŶĞǁŝƚŚŵĞĚŝĂŶŽƌĨŝǀĞͲůĂŶĞĐƌŽƐƐͲƐĞĐƚŝŽŶĂƐǁĂƌƌĂŶƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĨƵƚƵƌĞ͘
81
41
0
0
6500
6300
1900
60
0
0
0
11
0
0
17
0
0
150
42
0
0
3
8
0
0
2400
21
0
0
30
0
0
470
6
4
0
98
0
0
0
99000
4
2
0
0
71
0
14
0
0
42
0
7800
3
4
0
0
9
6
0
0
0
2
6
0
33
0
0
42
0
0
29
0
910
10
0
0
8
2
0
11
0
0
4
1
0
460
14
0
0
2
3
0
0
18
0
0
1800
47
0
1600
1300
5000
3
2
0
WE
S
T
T
E
N
R
D
I
N
D
U
S
T
R
I
A
L
D
R
MATTRESS F
A
C
T
O
R
Y
R
D
SO
U
T
H
E
R
N
D
R
W
E
S
T
T
E
N
R
D
ROCK QUARRY RD
B
O
W
M
A
N
R
D
BEN WILS
O
N
R
D
SO
U
T
H
E
R
N
R
A
I
L
W
A
Y
I
-
8
5
/
4
0
I-
8
5
/
4
0
No
t
e
:
T
h
i
s
m
a
p
i
s
f
o
r
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
u
s
e
o
n
l
y
an
d
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
.
01
0.
5
Mi
l
e
s
F
US-70
US
-
7
0
US
-
7
0
US
-
7
0
W
I
L
S
O
N
R
D
BUCKHORN RD
BUCKHORN RD
FO
R
E
S
T
A
V
E
MT. WILLIN
G
R
D
ϮϬϭϰd &ŝŐƵƌĞϵ 2382
:(
6
7
7
(
1
5
'
,
1
'
8
6
7
5
,
$
/
'
5
0$775(66)
$
&
7
2
5
<
5
'
:
(
6
7
7
(
1
5
'
52&.48$55<5'
%
2
:
0
$
1
5
'
%(1:,/6
2
1
5
'
62
8
7
+
(
5
1
5
$
,
/
:
$
<
,
,
$$'7
1R
W
H
7
K
L
V
P
D
S
L
V
I
R
U
S
U
H
V
H
Q
W
D
W
L
R
Q
X
V
H
R
Q
O
\
DQ
G
Q
R
W
W
R
E
H
X
V
H
G
I
R
U
F
R
Q
V
W
U
X
F
W
L
R
Q
S
X
U
S
R
V
H
V
0L
O
H
V
%
:
L
O
V
R
Q
5
G
86
07:,/
/
,
1
*
5
'
62
8
7
+
(
5
1
'
5
%8&.+2
5
1
5
'
86
86
86
)R
U
H
V
W
$
Y
H
%8&.+2515'
)LJXUH
2483
INTERSECTIONANALYSIS
Tocompletetheintersectionanalysis,thetrafficvolumesderivedfromthedevelopmentpodswere
appliedtothestudyintersectionsshowninfigure11.Traveldemandwasprojectedfrom2014Ͳ2025by
thetrendlineanalysismethod.
ThismethodprojectsAnnualAverageDailyTraffic(AADT)basedonhistoricaltrends.Trafficvolumes
overthepast15yearsinthisareahasincreasedat3%annuallyaccordingly.Trafficinthestudy
intersectionswereincreasedtotheyear2025bythatrate.
Boththe2014and2025trafficvolumesattheintersectionsareshowninthefollowingfigures.Cross
sectionsforthe5intersectionsweredeterminedbasedontheestimatedtrafficfromthecapacity
analysis,andcoordinationwithNCDOT.TheLevelofService(LOS)wascalculatedforeachnewand
existingintersectionusingSynchro.LOSisbasedonameasureoftheaveragetimedelayatan
intersectionandrangesfromAtoF,withAhavingtheshortestdelaytimeandFhavingthelongest.
AccordingtoNCDOTLevelofServiceDefinitionsthesixlevelsofservicearedefinedas:
LOSA:Describesprimarilyfreeflowconditions
LOSB:Representsreasonablyfreeflowconditions
LOSC:Providesforstableoperations,butflowsapproachtherangeinwhichsmallincreaseswillcause
substantialdeteriorationinservice
LOSD:Bordersonunstableflow
LOSE:Describesoperationatcapacity
LOSF:Describesforcedorbreakdownflow
ThefiveintersectionsstudiedbyVolkertwere:
1)NewRoadAatBenWilsonRoad
2)NewRoadAatWestTenRoad
3)WestTenRoadatBuckhornRoad
4)NewRoadHatMt.WillingRoad
5)USͲ70/IͲ85Connector
25
84
1)NewRoadAandBenWilsonRoadͲBenWilsonRoadisatwoͲlaneroadwithaspeedlimitof
35mph.ThisroadwaycurrentlyoperatesatLOSCandwouldoperateatLOSAafteradding
turnlanestoaccommodatetheanticipatedtrafficin2025onNewRoadA.
26
85
NewRoadAandBenWilsonRoad
27
86
28
87
2)NewRoadAandWestTenRoad–WestTenRoadisatwoͲlaneroadwithanexistingintersection
atRockQuarryRoad.TheproposedintersectionwithNewRoadAwouldbe1300ftfromthe
intersectionwithRockQuarryRoad.ThisroadwaycurrentlyoperatesatLOSBandwouldoperate
atLOSDafteraddingturnlanestoaccommodatetheanticipatedtrafficin2025oftheNewRoad
A.
29
88
NewroadAandWTenRoad
30
89
31
90
3)WestTenRoadandBuckhornRoadͲWestTenRoadisanexistingtwoͲlaneroadwithaspeed
limitof55mph.BuckhornRoadistwoͲlaneroadwithaspeedlimitof45mph.Thisintersection
currentlyoperatesatLOSFandwouldcontinuetooperateatLOSFafteraddingturnlanesto
accommodatetheanticipatedtrafficin2025.ĂƐĞĚŽŶĨƵƚƵƌĞƚƌĂĨĨŝĐĨŽƌĞĐĂƐƚƐ͕ŝƚǁŝůůŝƚǁŝůůůŝŬĞůLJ
ďĞŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJƚŽƌĞƚĂŝŶĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůƌŝŐŚƚͲŽĨͲǁĂLJƚŽĂůůŽǁĨŽƌĂǁŝĚĞƌŝŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶĐƌŽƐƐͲƐĞĐƚŝŽŶǁŝƚŚ
ĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůůĂŶĞƐ͕ĂƐǁĂƌƌĂŶƚĞĚďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚĞĐŚŶŝĐĂůĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐĂƚƚŚĞƚŝŵĞŽĨŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ͘
32
91
WTenRoadandBuckhornRoad
33
92
34
93
4)NewRoadHandMt.WillingRoadͲMt.WillingRoadisatwoͲlaneroadwithaspeedlimitof45
mph.ThisroadwaycurrentlyoperatesatLOSCandwouldcontinuetooperateatLOSCafter
addingturnlanestoaccommodatetheanticipatedtrafficin2025attheNewRoadH.
35
94
NewRoadHandMt.WillingRoad
36
95
37
96
5)USͲ70/IͲ85Connector–USͲ70isatwoͲlaneroadwithaspeedlimitof50mph.IͲ85Connectorisa
fourͲlanedividedhighwaywithaspeedlimitof55mph.ThiscurrentconfigurationoperatesatLOS
C.Poorconnectivityledtoaninterchangereconfigurationprojectwhichdidnotscorewellenough
toreceivefundinginNCDOT’sprioritizationprocess,andamorecosteffectivealternativewas
requested.NCDOTHighwayDivision7hasstudiedthisintersectiontodeterminewhethera
roundaboutorsignalizationwouldbemoreeffectiveintherealignmentoftheintersectionand
determinedaroundaboutwouldyieldbetterresults.Withtherealignmentandaddedtrafficfor
2025,thisintersectionwouldoperateatLOSD.
2016
38
97
Aconceptualmapofapossibleintersectionimprovementisshownabove.
2025
39
98
US70/IͲ85Connector
40
99
41
100
±00.510.25Miles
ST
U
D
Y
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
)L
J
X
U
H
Le
g
e
n
d
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
R
o
a
d
s
St
u
d
y
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
Ra
i
l
r
o
a
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
a
b
l
e
A
r
e
a
WE
S
T
T
E
N
R
D
I
N
D
U
S
T
R
I
A
L
D
R
MATTRESS F
A
C
T
O
R
Y
R
D
SO
U
T
H
E
R
N
D
R
W
E
S
T
T
E
N
R
D
ROCK QUARRY RD
B
O
W
M
A
N
R
D
BEN WILS
O
N
R
D
SO
U
T
H
E
R
N
R
A
I
L
W
A
Y
I
-
8
5
/
4
0
I-
8
5
/
4
0
US
-
7
0
US
-
7
0
US-70
US
-
7
0
BUCKHORN RD
MT
W
I
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
FO
R
E
S
T
A
V
E
W
I
L
S
O
N
R
D
BUCKHORN RD
42101
Section4–CostAnalysis
CONCEPTUALDESIGN
Volkertrefinedtheroadwaynetworksbasedontheforecastfuturetrafficvolumes.Specificallyturnlanes
wereaddedatkeylocationswithhighturningvolumesandsignalswereassumedtobelocatedatareas
withhighcrossingandturningvolumes.Theconceptualdesigntookallenvironmentalfeaturesinto
considerationandoutlinedthelocationsofplannedroads,takingintoaccountwheretheplannedroads
wouldcrossthewatersources.Theroadsgenerallyavoidallenvironmentalfeatures.Theconceptual
designalsoincludesfrontageroadsasaccessmanagementoptions.
Mostoftheseroadsareintendedtoprovideaccesstotheareasofassumeddevelopment.Others,such
asnewroads,areplacedtoconnectexistingroadstootherexistingroadsinordertoprovidemore
connectionswithinthesystem.Inordertoaccommodatenewtrafficfromthepods,changestoexisting
roadswerealsoproposed.
CONSTRUCTIONCOSTESTIMATE
Usingtheconceptualanalysisdescribedabove,costestimatesweredevelopedforeachnewroadand
forroadwayimprovementstotheexistingroadways.Table2belowdetailsthecostforeachnewroadway
basedontherecommendedtypicalsection.Theoverallcostforconstructingtheapproximately11miles
ofroadwayis$30.9million.
Table2ͲConstructionCostEstimatesforNewRoads
NewRoadTypicalSectionSidewalkLength(mi)CostEstimate
A2DY1.52$4,351,189
B2DY0.69$1,975,653
C2DY1.16$3,321,323
D2DY0.47$1,345,883
E2DY0.37$1,059,139
F12DY0.52$1,488,508
F22AN1.28$3,520,000
G2AN0.23$632,500
H2AN3.99$10,972,500
I2AN0.34$935,500
J2AN0.18$495,000
K2AN0.29$797,500
Total11.04$30,894,260
43
102
Table3detailsthecostforupgradingtheexistingroadwaysdescribedinthisreport.BowmanandRock
QuarryRoadsarealreadytherecommendedtypicalsectionandthereforethecostsshownareforadding
sidewalk.Theoverallcostforupgradingtheseexistingroadwaysis$13.6million.
Table3ͲConstructionCostEstimatesforUpdatingExistingRoads
WidenedRoadTypicalSectionSidewalkLength(mi)Cost
BenWilsonRd3AY0.85$1,672,794
BowmanRd2DY1.42$159,722
WTenRd3AY4.33$8,505,230
RockQuarryRd2DY0.5$56,372
BuckhornRd3AY1.10$2,156,046
MtWillingRd3AY0.55$1,078,023
Total8.75$13,628,190
SouthernandForestRoads,identifiedinthereport,havenorecommendedimprovementsandarenot
shownineithertable.
Section5ͲConclusion
Theprimarypurposeofthistransportationreportistoinformdevelopmentofaroadwaynetworkto
supportinvestmentintheEflandͲBuckhornͲMebaneStudyArea.Thenewroadwaysidentifiedinthis
reporthavebeenlocatedinsuchawayastotakeintoconsiderationenvironmentalfeaturesandcultural
resources.Typicalsectionsforboththenewandexistingroadwaysarerecommendedbasedonthe
anticipatedgrowthofthe18developmentpodsidentifiedbyOrangeCounty.
Fivekeyintersectionswerestudied,forecastingfuturetrafficvolumesintheyear2025.Volkertwasable
torefinetheproposedroadwaynetworks,specificallyaddingturnlanesatkeylocations.ALevelofService
(LOS)ratingwascalculatedforeachintersection.Thetotalcosttoprovidetheidentifiedroadwaynetwork
andassociatedimprovementstoexistingroadsisapproximately$44million.
103
ATTACHMENTA
45
104
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
F
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
M
a
p
No
t
e
:
T
h
i
s
m
a
p
i
s
f
o
r
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
u
s
e
o
n
l
y
an
d
n
o
t
t
o
b
e
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
.
F
01
0.
5
Mi
l
e
s
Le
g
e
n
d
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
A
r
e
a
1
a
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
A
r
e
a
1
b
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
A
r
e
a
2
a
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
A
r
e
a
2
b
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
A
r
e
a
2
c
AT
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
A
46105
TransportationReportfortheEflandBuckhorn
MebaneStudyArea
ATTACHMENTB
47
106
NorthCarolinaDepartmentofCulturalResources
StateHistoricPreservationOffice
RamonaM.Bartos,Administrator
GovernorPatMcCroryOfficeofArchivesandHistory
SecretarySusanKluttzDeputySecretaryKevinCherry
June18,2015
BradleyLuckey
PilotEnvironmental,Inc.
POBox128
Kernersville,NC27285
Re:ConstructRoadNetwork,IͲ40900AcreTract,Efland,PEI1012,OrangeCounty,ER15Ͳ1240
DearMr.Luckey:
ThankyouforyourletterofMay28,2015,transmittinginformationforourreviewconcerningtheabove
project.
Therearenorecordedarchaeologicalsiteswithintheproposedprojectarea,althoughithasneverbeen
systematicallysurveyedforthepresenceofarchaeologicalresources.Theadjacentpropertythathas
beensurveyedcontainsseveralNativeAmericanarchaeologicalsites.Certainportionsofyourproposed
projectareahaveahighprobabilityforthepresenceofsuchresources.Inaddition,theOrangeCounty
soilsurveydated1977showsthelocationofacemeterywithinyourprojectarea.Althoughcemeteries
arenotordinarilyeligibleforinclusionintheNationalRegisterofHistoricPlaces,theyareprotectedby
statestatutes.Ifthecemeteryistobeaffectedbyyourproposedproject,itwillneedtobepreservedor
movedinaccordancewithNCGSChapter65.
IfyourprojectissubjecttoSection106oftheNationalHistoricPreservationAct,werecommendthat
youforwardprojectplanstoussowecandelineatethoseareasthatshouldbesubjectedtoa
comprehensivesurveybyanexperiencedarchaeologistinordertoidentifyandevaluatethesignificance
ofarchaeologicalremainsthatmaybedamagedordestroyedbytheproposeddevelopment.Potential
effectsonunknownresourcesmustbeassessedpriortotheinitiationofconstructionactivities.
Twocopiesoftheresultingarchaeologicalsurveyreport,aswellasonecopyoftheappropriatesite
forms,shouldbeforwardedtousforreviewandcommentassoonastheyareavailableandwellin
advanceofanyconstructionactivities.
Alistofarchaeologicalconsultantswhohaveconductedorexpressedaninterestincontractworkin
NorthCarolinaisavailableatwww.archaeology.ncdcr.gov/ncarch/resource/consultants.htm.The
archaeologistslisted,oranyotherexperiencedarchaeologist,maybecontactedtoconductthe
recommendedsurvey.
Wehavedeterminedthattheprojectasproposedwillnothaveaneffectonanyhistoricstructures.
48
107
TheabovecommentsaremadepursuanttoSection106oftheNationalHistoricPreservationActandthe
AdvisoryCouncilonHistoricPreservation’sRegulationsforCompliancewithSection106codifiedat36CFR
Part800.
Thankyouforyourcooperationandconsideration.Ifyouhavequestionsconcerningtheabove
comment,contactReneeGledhillͲEarley,environmentalreviewcoordinator,at919Ͳ807Ͳ6579or
environmental.review@ncdcr.gov.Inallfuturecommunicationconcerningthisproject,pleasecitethe
abovereferencedtrackingnumber.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
49
108
June18,2015
BradleyLuckeybluckey@pilotenviro.com
PilotEnvironmental,Inc.
POBox128
Kernersville,NC27285
Re:ConstructRoadNetwork,IͲ40,300AcreTract,Efland,OrangeCounty,ER15Ͳ1241
DearMr.Luckey:
ThankyouforyourletterofMay28,2015,concerningtheaboveͲreferencedundertaking.Wehave
reviewedthematerialssubmittedandofferthefollowingcomments.
Therearenoknownarchaeologicalsiteswithintheproposedprojectarea.Basedonourknowledgeofthe
area,itisunlikelythatanyarchaeologicalresourcesthatmaybeeligibleforinclusionintheNational
RegisterofHistoricPlaceswillbeaffectedbytheproject.We,therefore,recommendthatno
archaeologicalinvestigationbeconductedinconnectionwiththisproject.
TheS.C.ForrestIIHouse(OR1409),whichmaybeeligibleforlistingintheNationalRegisterofHistoric
PlacesislocatedonthenorthsideofUS70andwithindirectviewofthethreehundredacretractbeing
consideredforroadconstruction.Inaddition,thereareanumberofsurveyedpropertiesalsolocated
withintheprojectarea.Wewillofferadeterminationofeffectonceadetailedscopeofworkhasbeen
submittedforenvironmentalreview.
TheabovecommentsaremadepursuanttoSection106oftheNationalHistoricPreservationActandthe
AdvisoryCouncilonHistoricPreservation’sRegulationsforCompliancewithSection106codifiedat36CFR
Part800.
Thankyouforyourcooperationandconsideration.Ifyouhavequestionsconcerningtheabovecomment,
contactReneeGledhillͲEarley,environmentalreviewcoordinator,at919Ͳ807Ͳ6579or
environmental.review@ncdcr.gov.Inallfuturecommunicationconcerningthisproject,pleasecitethe
abovereferencedtrackingnumber.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
50
109
July7,2014
DavidS.Brame
PilotEnvironmental,Inc.
POBox128
Kernersville,NC27285
Re:ConstructRoadsona400AcreTract,WilsonRoad/BowmanRoad,Mebane,PEI1012,
OrangeCounty,ER14Ͳ1189
DearMr.Brame:
ThankyouforyourletterofJune3,2014,transmittinginformationforourreviewconcerningtheabove
project.
Therearetwopreviouslyrecordedarchaeologicalsiteswithintheproposedprojectarea.Thesetwosites,
31OR640and31OR641,wererecordedduringasurveyfortheBuckhornͲMebaneEDDPhase2waterand
sewerimprovementsprojectbyOrangeCounty.Thearchaeologicalsurveywasconductedasaresultof
OrangeCountypolicy,notforSection106oftheNationalHistoricPreservationActcompliance,soour
officehasnotyetreceivedacompletecopyoftheresultingreport.
Theinformationwedohaveconcerningthesetwoarchaeologicalsitesindicatesthatonesite,31OR640
containsaburiedculturalhorizonanditmaybeeligibleforinclusionintheNationalRegisterofHistoric
Places.Site31OR641hasbeenrecommendedasnoteligibleandnoadditionalworkisrecommendedby
theconsultant.Themapincludedwithyourrequestforcommentsdidnotindicatetheproposedlocations
fortheroads,soweareunabletodetermineifeithersitewillbeaffected.
IfyourprojectissubjecttoSection106,werecommendthatyouforwardspecificinformationregardingthe
locationsoftheproposedroadsandanyotherplansforthepropertysowemaydetermineeffects.Inthe
meantime,wewillrequestacopyofthearchaeologicalreportfromOrangeCountysowehavecomplete
siteinformation.
Wehavecheckedourmapsandfilesandfindthattherearethreepropertiesintheprojectareathatwere
identifiedina1993Ͳ1994countysurveyofhistoricbuildings.TheyaretheBenWilsonHouse(OR1141),
HeathLogHouse(OR1662)andL.M.RayHouse(OR1663).FromourGIS,theyappeartostillbestanding
andmayhaveoutbuildingsassociatedwiththem.Ifyourprojecthasthepotentialtoaffectthesebuildings,
theirpotentialforNationalRegistereligibilitywillneedtobedetermined.
51
110
TheabovecommentsaremadepursuanttoSection106oftheNationalHistoricPreservationActandthe
AdvisoryCouncilonHistoricPreservation’sRegulationsforCompliancewithSection106codifiedat36CFR
Part800.
Thankyouforyourcooperationandconsideration.Ifyouhavequestionsconcerningtheabove
comment,contactReneeGledhillͲEarley,environmentalreviewcoordinator,at919Ͳ807Ͳ6579or
renee.gledhillͲearley@ncdcr.gov.Inallfuturecommunicationconcerningthisproject,pleasecitethe
abovereferencedtrackingnumber.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
52
111
NorthCarolinaDepartmentofCulturalResources
StateHistoricPreservationOffice
RamonaM.Bartos,Administrator
GovernorPatMcCroryOfficeofArchivesandHistory
SecretarySusanKluttzDeputySecretaryKevinCherry
April21,2015
BradLuckey
PilotEnvironmental,Inc.
POBox128
Kernersville,NC27285
Re:DevelopRoadNetworkforMixedUseSite,ProjectArea2B,BuckhornRoad&WestTenRoad,
Mebane,OrangeCounty,ER15Ͳ0780
DearMr.Luckey:
ThankyouforyourletterofApril6,2015,concerningtheaboveproject.
Wehaveconductedareviewoftheprojectandareawareofnohistoricresourceswhichwouldbeaffected
bytheproject.Therefore,wehavenocommentontheprojectasproposed.
TheabovecommentsaremadepursuanttoSection106oftheNationalHistoricPreservationActandthe
AdvisoryCouncilonHistoricPreservation’sRegulationsforCompliancewithSection106codifiedat36CFR
Part800.
Thankyouforyourcooperationandconsideration.Ifyouhavequestionsconcerningtheabovecomment,
contactReneeGledhillͲEarley,environmentalreviewcoordinator,at919Ͳ807Ͳ6579or
environmental.review@ncdcr.gov.Inallfuturecommunicationconcerningthisproject,pleasecitethe
abovereferencedtrackingnumber.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
53
112
ATTACHMENTC
54
113
Formulas
Pod1DailyTraffic=(Pod1Areain1000sSqFt)*0.5*(RateofDailyTrafficforLUC110)*(FloorArea
Ratio)+(Pod1Areain1000sSqFt)*0.25*(RateofDailyTrafficforLUC140)+(Pod1Areain1000sSq
Ft)*0.25*(RateofDailyTrafficforLUC150)
Otherpodsarecalculatedthesameway
AssumptionsforPodTraffic
xPod1(4996000sqft)
o 50%GeneralLightIndustrial(110)
o 25%Manufacturing(140)
o 25%Warehousing(150)
o Pod2(1198000sqft)
o 100%GeneralLightIndustrial(110)
o Pod3(4265000sqft)
o 47%GeneralLightIndustrial(110)
o 50%Manufacturing(140)
o 3%HighTurnoverSitDownRestaurant(932)
o Pod4(7113000sqft)
o 90%GeneralLightIndustrial(110)
o 8%Warehousing(150)
o 1%FastFoodRestaurantwithDriveThruWindow(934)
o 1%Gasoline/ServiceStationwithConvenienceMarket(945)
xPod5(0sqft)
o None
x Pod6(1032000sqft)
o 100%SingleFamilyDetachedHousing(210)
x Pod7(392000sqft)
o 20%FastFoodRestaurantwithDriveThruWindow(934)
o 25%Gasoline/ServiceStationwithConvenienceMarketandCarWash(946)
6gaspumps
o 55%GeneralLightIndustrial(110)
x Pod8(3803000sqft)
o 50%GeneralLightIndustrial(110)
o 50%Manufacturing(140)
x Pod9(1076000sqft)
o 70%GeneralLightIndustrial(110)
o 2%FastFoodRestaurantwithoutDriveThruWindow(933)
o 15%AutomobileCareCenter(942)
o 13%AutomobilePartsandServiceCenter(943)
x Pod10(2910000sqft)
o 50%GeneralLightIndustrial(110)
55
114
o 25%Manufacturing(140)
o 25%Warehousing(150)
x Pod11(423000sqft)
o 100%GeneralLightIndustrial(110)
x Pod12(292000sqft)
o 100%GeneralLightIndustrial(110)
x Pod13(880000sqft)
o 100%GeneralLightIndustrial(110)
x Pod14(501000sqft)
o 100%GeneralLightIndustrial(110)
x Pod15(662000sqft)
o 100%GeneralLightIndustrial(110)
x Pod16(91000sqft)
o 100%GeneralLightIndustrial(110)
x Pod17(4156000sqft)
o 100%BusinessPark(770)
x Pod18(1446000sqft)
o 100%Warehousing(150)
56
115
Assumptionsfortotaltraffic
3%Increaseintrafficeachyearuntil2025
AssumptionsfromMattressFactoryTrafficPlanningStudy:
x MattressFactoryRoadandIndustrialDrive
o 50%ofcombinedWBLandSBTtrafficintoPod2
o 50%ofcombinedWBLandSBTtrafficintoPod3
o 50%ofcombinedNBTandNBRtrafficoutofPod2
o 50%ofcombinedNBTandNBRtrafficoutofPod3
x AtBuckhornRoadandI40WBRamps:
o 100%ofcombinedNBTandWBRtrafficintoPod7
o 100%ofcombinedSBTandSBRtrafficoutofPod7
x AtBuckhornRoadandI40EBRamps:
o 50%ofcombinedSBTandEBRtrafficintoPod3
o 50%ofcombinedSBTandEBRtrafficintoPod4
o 50%ofcombinedNBTandNBRtrafficoutofPod3
o 50%ofcombinedNBTandNBRtrafficoutofPod4
x Dailytrafficis10timestheaverageoftheAMandPMtraffic
AssumptionsfromBowmanRoadResidentialDevelopmentTIA:
x AtBenWilsonRoadandBowmanRoad
o NBT,NBR,EBT,andEBLareconsideredtrafficintoPod1
o SBT,SBL,SBR,WBT,WBL,andWBRareconsideredtrafficoutofPod1
o Dailytrafficis10timestheaverageoftheAMandPM
trafficAssumptionsfromNCDOTAADT
x AMandPMtrafficareeach10%ofthedailytraffic
x Anytrafficshownontheborderofapodwasassumedtogotothatpod
o Iftrafficisshownatapointonaroadthatborderstwopods,itwassplitevenlybetween
thetwo
57
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
34
3
.
4
1
7
5
.
3
5
2
5
7
.
5
3
3
6
2
.
3
5
1
3
8
.
9
5
1
0
9
.
7
3
2
2
.
0
1
2
4
3
.
1
9
5
5
.
9
6
1
9
2
.
1
2
6
2
.
2
3
5
.
3
2
4
9
.
2
6
6
3
.
2
6
4
9
.
9
1
2
3
.
5
9
1
4
4
.
6
1
7
2
.
7
7
O/
R
M
,
AR
A
R
O
/
R
M
,
R1
ED
B
Ͳ2,
R1
,
PD
H
R
1
E
D
B
Ͳ2E
D
B
Ͳ2,
R1
,
AR
E
D
B
Ͳ2,
R1
E
D
B
Ͳ2,
R1
R
1
,
EC
5
R
1
R
1
,
EC
5
R
1
R
1
,
AR
R1
,
EI
,
NC2,
I2
R
1
,
AR,I1LC1,NC2,R1O/RM,AR,R1AR
Co
m
m
ͲIn
d
Tr
a
n
s
Co
m
m
ͲIn
d
Tr
a
n
s
Co
m
m
ͲIn
d
Tr
a
n
s
Co
m
m
ͲIn
d
Tr
a
n
s
;
Ec
o
n
ͲDe
v
Tr
a
n
s
Ec
o
n
ͲDe
v
Tr
a
n
s
Ec
o
n
ͲDe
v
Tr
a
n
s
,
Ag
r
i
ͲRe
s
10
ͲYe
a
r
Tr
a
n
s
,
Ec
o
n
Ͳ
De
v
Tr
a
n
s
Ec
o
n
ͲDe
v
Tr
a
n
s
,
Co
m
m
ͲIn
d
Tr
a
n
s
10
ͲYe
a
r
Tr
a
n
s
Co
m
m
ͲIn
d
Tr
a
n
s
10
ͲYe
a
r
Tr
a
n
s
10
ͲYe
a
r
Tr
a
n
s
10
ͲYe
a
r
Tr
a
n
s
Co
m
m
ͲInd
Tr
a
n
s
CommͲIndTransCommͲIndTransCommͲIndTransAgriͲRes
12
9
.
4
8
1
7
.
4
1
9
0
.
5
13
1
.
4
3
0
7
5
.
7
2
1
1
.
6
5
1
8
8
.
4
8
8
.
3
7
1
3
4
.
9
4
1
9
.
8
8
1
5
.
7
9
1
8
.
4
9
9
.
1
3
8
.
7
9
7
.
0
9
2
0
.
4
1
0
26
.
7
6
2
.
3
5
3
0
.
7
1
2
8
.
5
1
3
8
.
9
5
0
1
.
8
6
4
9
.
5
7
0
2
5
.
8
7
1
.
3
4
3
.
1
4
0
3
2
.
6
2
1
1
.
0
3
4
.
1
0
0
18
7
.
1
6
5
3
.
5
9
1
3
6
.
2
9
1
0
2
.
4
2
0
3
3
.
9
9
8
.
4
7
5
.
1
2
4
7
.
5
7
3
1
.
3
1
4
1
.
0
3
1
3
.
3
9
3
0
.
7
8
2
1
.
5
3
0
.
0
9
1
2
.
4
1
1
2
4
.
1
9
7
2
.
7
7
54
.
7
1
4
.
3
5
4
1
.
6
4
3
2
.
8
4
1
3
8
.
9
5
1
5
.
4
4
4
.
7
1
4
9
.
8
0
1
.
3
9
2
5
.
8
7
3
9
.
3
3
1
9
.
2
8
0
.
3
1
3
2
.
6
2
1
1
.
0
3
1
8
.
8
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
28
8
.
7
0
7
1
.
0
0
2
1
5
.
8
9
3
2
9
.
5
1
0
.
0
0
9
4
.
2
9
1
7
.
3
0
1
9
3
.
3
9
5
4
.
5
7
1
6
6
.
2
6
2
2
.
8
7
1
6
.
0
4
4
8
.
9
5
3
0
.
6
4
3
8
.
8
8
4
.
7
9
1
4
4
.
6
1
7
2
.
7
7
We
t
l
a
n
d
s
X
X
X
X
Ͳ
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ͳ
XX
X
X
X
X
Se
v
e
r
e
Sl
o
p
e
s
X
Ͳ
XX
Ͳ
XX
X
Ͳ
X
ͲͲ
X
ͲͲͲXX
Co
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
La
n
d
s
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Fl
o
o
d
p
l
a
i
n
s
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
St
r
e
a
m
s
an
d
Re
q
u
i
r
e
d
Bu
f
f
e
r
s
XX
X
X
Ͳ
X
Ͳ
XX
X
X
X
X
ͲXXXX
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
)
ͲͲ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ar
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
X
ͲͲ
X
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ce
m
e
t
e
r
y
X
X
ͲͲ
Ͳ
XX
ͲͲ
X
Ͳ
XX
ͲͲͲͲ
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
Ea
s
e
m
e
n
t
s
X
X
X
X
Ͳ
X
X
X
X
X
X
Ͳ
X
ͲXXXX
To
t
a
l
47
.
5
6
6
.
8
4
4
0
.
0
8
4
9
.
3
2
0
.
0
0
6
.
2
3
1
.
5
2
4
1
.
8
3
5
.
8
0
3
2
.
7
5
3
.
0
1
1
.
6
2
7
.
3
5
0
.
1
1
1
0
.
6
3
1
.
4
0
1
2
.
3
0
1
9
.
4
2
24
1
.
1
5
6
4
.
1
7
1
7
5
.
8
1
2
8
0
.
1
9
1
3
8
.
9
5
8
8
.
0
6
1
5
.
7
7
1
5
1
.
5
6
4
8
.
7
7
1
3
3
.
5
1
1
9
.
8
5
1
4
.
4
1
4
1
.
6
1
3
0
.
5
4
2
8
.
2
5
3
.
3
9
1
3
2
.
3
1
5
3
.
3
5
11
0
,
14
0
,
15
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
,
14
0
,
93
2
11
0
,
15
0
,
93
4
,
94
5
21
0
9
3
4
,
94
6
1
1
0
,
14
0
11
0
,
93
3
,
94
2
,94
3
11
0
,
14
0
,
15
0
11
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
0
7
7
0
1
5
0
0%
0
%
Ͳ5%
Ͳ30
%
N
/
A
Ͳ69
%
Ͳ15
%
Ͳ30
%
Ͳ30
%
Ͳ30
%
Ͳ30
%
Ͳ30
%
Ͳ30
%
Ͳ30
%
Ͳ30%Ͳ30%Ͳ30%Ͳ30%
Ͳ39
%
Ͳ45
%
Ͳ31
%
Ͳ3%
N/
A
0
%
Ͳ21
%
Ͳ3%
Ͳ9%
Ͳ5%
Ͳ12
%
Ͳ15
%
Ͳ10
%
Ͳ25
%
0
%
0
%
1
1
%
0
%
14
7
.
1
3
5
.
3
1
1
2
.
5
1
8
7
.
7
0
.
0
2
7
.
3
1
0
.
1
1
0
1
.
5
2
9
.
8
8
6
.
8
1
1
.
5
7
.
9
2
5
.
0
1
3
.
7
1
9
.
8
2
.
4
1
0
7
.
2
3
7
.
3
Wa
t
e
r
/
S
e
w
e
r
?
Se
w
e
r
W
a
t
e
r
Wa
t
e
r
/
Se
w
e
r
W
a
t
e
r
/Se
w
e
r
Wa
t
e
r
/
Se
w
e
r
W
a
t
e
r
/Se
w
e
r
Wa
t
e
r
/
Se
w
e
r
W
a
t
e
r
Wa
t
e
r
/
Se
w
e
r
N
o
n
e
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
N
oneWater/SewerWater/SewerWater/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
?
ͲͲ
XX
Ͳ
XX
X
ͲͲ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
XXX
In
t
e
r
s
t
a
t
e
Ex
p
o
s
u
r
e
?
X
Ͳ
XX
X
X
X
X
Ͳ
X
ͲͲ
X
ͲXXXͲ
Pr
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
to
Ra
i
l
?
ͲͲ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Fu
t
u
r
e
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
?
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
Ͳ
XX
X
X
ͲͲͲͲ
41
%
4
6
%
2
8
%
2
8
%
N
/
A
2
8
%
2
6
%
3
1
%
3
9
%
4
4
%
3
8
%
3
8
%
3
9
%
3
8
%
4
4
%
2
6
%
2
6
%
3
5
%
86
.
8
1
9
.
1
8
1
.
0
1
3
5
.
2
0
19
.
7
7
.
5
7
0
.
1
1
8
.
1
4
8
.
6
7
.
1
4
.
9
1
5
.
2
8
.
5
1
1
.
1
1
.
8
7
9
.
3
2
4
.
3
IT
E
Tr
i
p
Ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
Co
d
e
s
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
Ͳ
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
Pl
a
n
Po
d
ID
Gr
o
s
s
Ac
r
e
a
g
e
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Zo
n
i
n
g
Fu
t
u
r
e
La
n
d
Us
e
Pl
a
n
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
De
v
.
No
n
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ac
r
e
a
g
e
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
De
v
.
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
Ac
r
e
a
g
e
TO
BE
PR
E
S
E
R
V
E
D
:
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
No
n
ͲRe
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
Gr
o
s
s
Re
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
b
l
e
Ar
e
a
(A
c
r
e
s
)
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
Gr
o
s
s
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
(A
c
r
e
s
)
Un
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
La
n
d
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
ͲFa
m
i
l
y
De
t
a
c
h
e
d
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
)
,
93
2
(H
i
g
h
ͲTu
r
n
o
v
e
r
Si
t
ͲDo
w
n
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
)
,
93
3
(F
a
s
t
ͲFo
o
d
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
wi
t
h
o
u
t
Dr
i
v
e
ͲTh
r
u
Wi
n
d
o
w
)
,
93
4
(F
a
s
t
ͲFo
o
d
Re
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
wi
t
h
Dr
i
v
e
ͲTh
r
u
Wi
n
d
o
w
n
)
,
942(AutomobileCareCenter),943(AutomobilePartsandServic
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
%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
%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
Ͳ
co
u
n
t
i
n
g
)
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
Ac
r
e
a
g
e
of
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Ot
h
e
r
At
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
s
Ma
r
k
e
t
Re
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
Fa
c
t
o
r
Bu
i
l
d
a
b
l
e
Ar
e
a
(A
c
r
e
s
)
5117
ATTACHMENTD
59
118
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
Po
d
D
a
i
l
y
T
o
t
a
l
AMTotalPM
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
1
7
4
4
0
9
8
6
1
0
2
5
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
2
2
7
8
1
3
3
8
3
0
2
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
3
2
1
9
1
7
2
2
2
7
2
1
4
4
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&5
4
0
4
3
2
4
1
1
4
3
2
7
0
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
6
1
9
9
8
1
8
9
2
0
3
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
7
3
6
9
5
5
3
4
7
6
2
8
6
5
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
8
5
0
8
8
7
1
5
7
3
8
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
9
1
7
7
3
6
1
5
3
4
1
4
9
2
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
10
4
3
3
6
5
8
6
5
7
4
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
11
4
5
1
6
4
6
8
4
6
6
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
12
3
9
2
5
1
4
9
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
13
9
2
5
1
2
8
1
2
4
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
14
4
8
9
6
5
0
9
5
0
7
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
15
1
0
1
0
1
2
7
1
2
4
16
1
.
8
78
9
3
47
4
7
1
4
1
1
2
1
3
3
1
0
16
7
7
2
8
1
8
1
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
17
1
6
2
2
8
1
9
3
1
1
7
7
0
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
18
5
4
2
2
6
4
7
6
1
4
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
To
t
a
l
Traffic 60
ΎW
Ž
Ě
Đ
ƌ
Ğ
Ă
Ő
Ğ
Ś
Ă
Ɛ
ď
Ğ
Ğ
Ŷ
Ƶ
Ɛ
Ğ
Ě
ƚ
Ž
Ő
Ğ
Ŷ
Ğ
ƌ
Ă
ƚ
Ğ
ƚ
Ś
Ğ
d
͘
119
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
In
A
M
OutPMPMInPMOut
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
1
6
4
5
3
6
1
6
1
9
9
3
3
2
6
1
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
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
In
A
M
OutPMPMInPMOut
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
1
6
6
4
3
7
1
7
2
0
9
6
3
3
6
3
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
13
8
14
14
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
20
1
5
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
fr
o
m
BowmanRoadResidentialTIA
20
1
6
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
fr
o
m
BowmanRoadResidentialTIA 61120
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
APPENDIX C
Community Meeting
121
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Tuesday, August 28, 2018 Orange County Planning Department hosted a community meeting at Gravely Hill
Middle School Auditorium. An estimated 100 property owners, residents, and businesses attended the meeting
where they received information on the planning process and current analysis of the area. People signed in,
picked up a copy of the agenda, map, survey, explored the boards, saw a brief presentation and spoke with staff.
Here are some key highlights from the meeting:
x People spoke one-on-on with staff regarding specific properties and neighborhoods.
x Some submitted comments in person and through email and filled out a survey.
x NCDOT’s Division Engineer Chuck Edwards attended the meeting to answer any questions.
x Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) Aaron Cain attended.
x Cy Stober, Mebane’s Development Director, also added to address any questions for Mebane.
x People wanted to know more about future sewer and water infrastructure planned for the area.
The following is a collection of all the material, comments, surveys, questions and answers provided during the
community meeting and public review.
122
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Community Meeting
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
August 28, 2018, 4:30 –6:30 pm
Gravelly Hill Middle School Auditorium
4801 W Ten Rd, Efland, NC 27243
What is an Access Management Plan?
Access Management Plans are proposed long-range master plans of possible new roads and
connections to existing roads. These plans promote an orderly, cost effective, efficient and
environmentally sensitive roadway program, which help guide development decisions and investment.
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 over
time.
Purpose:
x Gain information on the current 2011 plan and 2017 Transportation Study
x Provide comments,get answer to your questions, and see next steps
Format:
The meeting is primarily open house with the following agenda:
x 4:30 –5:45 pm –open discussion with staff
x 5:45 –6:15 pm –presentation with question and answer
x 6:15 –6:30 pm –complete surveys and provide comments
How can I participate tonight?
Review the material, ask questions, and provide comments directly to staff, complete survey and leave
with staff.
Next Steps
Orange County Planning Board –September 5, 2018
Orange Unified Transportation Board –September 19, 2018
A formal public hearing on a proposed Access Management Plan will be held by the Board of County
Commissioners later this year, currently targeted for November. You will receive another written notice
about the public hearing closer to the hearing date.
Staff Contact:
Nishith Trivedi, Orange County Planning Department
131 W. Margaret Lane, Suite 201
P.O. Box 8181
Hillsborough, NC 27278
E-mail: ntrivedi@orangecountync.gov Phone: (919) 245-2582
Website:http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/planning_and_inspections/efland-buckhorn-
mebane_access_management_plan/index.php
123
Ef
l
a
n
d
-
B
u
c
k
h
o
r
n
-
M
e
b
a
n
e
A
c
c
e
s
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
124
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
What mode of travel do you use most often?
How long is your commute?
What roads do you use most often?
Do you support the analyzed street network?
If not, what street network do you suggest?
Do you support the analyzed street cross section?
If not, what street cross section do you suggest?
Any additional comments:
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Car Bike
Transit Walk
5 – 15 min 16 – 30 min
31 – 60 min > 1 hour
Yes No
Yes No
125
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
126
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
127
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
128
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
129
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
130
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
131
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
132
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
133
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
134
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
135
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
136
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
137
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
138
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
139
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
140
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
141
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
142
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
143
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
144
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
145
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
146
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
147
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
148
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Questions and Answers
The following questions and answers are paraphrased as the meeting was not recorded.
Question: Will any of the current roads be removed?
Answer: No
Question: So all existing roads will stay?
Answer: Yes
Question: What are you planning around the Preston Loop area?
Answer: Nothing in the subdivision. There will be a 100’ buffer between the residential area and the
surrounding large parcels should future development occur. We also want to make sure a road
network through that development will be sufficient to address the increased traffic brought on
by that new development.
Question: Can you tell us about the sewer and water infrastructure north of I-85 and Buckhorn Road mainly
for several residents there that are not tied to any lines even though we are supposed to?
Answer: There is an agreement in place for that area’s connection to Mebane’s water and sewer.
Question: What about US-70? What are the findings along that road and are there any recommendations
for it?
Answer: While there are no findings in the 2017 Transportation Study, we has staff will be studying this
corridor more in determining what is best needed to ensure safe access along this route. It has
been identified by NCDOT and DCHC MPO as a Strategic Freight Corridor. There are several
intersections identified by staff that may require improvements to address the increasing traffic
especially around Efland-Cedar Grove Road, I-85 connector, and Buckhorn Road. The map will be
updated as more information is collected and appropriate access management solution is
determined.
Question: What is actually going to develop in this area?
Answer: The 2017 Transportation Study, economic development nature of the area and an ever expanding
water and sewer services have primed this area for all manner of residential and non-residential
growth. The 2017 Transportation Study documents future residential, commercial, industrial,
retail, restaurants, business parks and warehouses all along 18 different sections of the area.
Future land use designations allow for commercial-industrial transition, economic development
transition, agriculture-residential, and 10-year transition.
Question: When will all these roads occur?
149
Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
Answer: As development occurs. There is no horizon or set year when this transportation network will be
realized. Even since the 2011 E-B-M AMP, only one road, the one to Morinaga, has actually been
constructed.
Question: Why do you have a road cutting through the residents along Center Street?
Answer: This is part of the planned Turner Street which calls for a 50’ right of way and extends it Ben
Johnston Road. It is the current right of way still in existence passed on from the original owner.
We are studying how to address the growing traffic in the area; especially should the large
property east of the neighborhood be fully developed.
Question: When will Mebane expand into this area with all its growth?
Answer: The western portion of the planning area, to Buckhorn road, is seen as how far the city will grow.
However, the city cannot annex the area on its own. Developers and property owners must
petition to annex into the city due to changes in state law.
150
ORANGE COUNTY
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date:May 16, 2018
Action Agenda
Item No.4.b.
SUBJECT:Bicycle Safety Implementation Subcommittee (BSIS) Report
DEPARTMENT:Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Draft bicycle safety posters
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land
Use Planner, 919-245-2567
PURPOSE:Receive a reporton therecentactivities of the BSIS.
BACKGROUND:On June 5, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) received a
presentation from Planning staff regarding initial activities of the Bicycle Safety Campaign,
reviewedfourvideo public service announcements (PSAs) completed by the Cedar Ridge High
School Videography Club; and recognizedthe Videography students and their instructor.
Campaign initiativesto datehave included:
x The creation of the slogan ‘Ride Safely Drive Safely’ and logo;
x Design and distribution of brochures and posters;
x Social media ads and posts, and radio ads;
x The purchase of branded marketing items(“swag”);
x The purchase of fifteen bicycle safety road signsto be erectedat entry points to the
county and frequently used bicycle routes, and the
x The design and pending launch of the orangecountyncbicyclesafety.com website; in
collaboration with the Community Relations Department.
Current activities include:
x Campaign Posters -Designs for Campaign posters and brochures are being developed
andreviewed and will be developed by the Community Relations Department. Four
different posterswith bicycle safety themes coordinating withthe videos have been
drafted for review, (Attachment 1). Afifth draft poster targeted towards youthmay be
available for review at the OUTBoard meeting.
Next Steps
x Staff and the BSIS will continue to work on:
o The design and production of posters and brochures;
o Website design and launch, and
o Circulation of the video PSAs.
x Attendance at local events will begin this fall.
x The exact date for a Bike Rodeo will be coordinated with the Sheriff’s Department.
151
x Social media ads and posts, and radio ads will be underway later this year.Budgeted
funds will be utilizedfor social media ads on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, print
and/or radio ads (WCHL Radio, News of Orange, etc.). Audio PSAs will be produced by
WCOM Radio.
x Road sign installation will occur thisfall.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:There is no immediate financial impact associated with this item.
Budgeted funds fromare being utilized.
RECOMMENDATION(S):Staffrecommends that the OUTBoard:
1.Receive information;and
2.Provide any comments or direction that the Board might have.
152
Bo
t
h
m
o
t
o
r
i
s
t
s
a
n
d
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
mu
s
t
p
u
l
l
o
v
e
r
a
n
d
s
t
o
p
f
o
r
si
r
e
n
s
a
n
d
l
i
g
h
t
s
!
Fo
r
m
o
r
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,
c
a
l
l
9
1
9
-
2
4
5
-
2
5
6
7
ww
w
.
o
r
a
n
g
e
c
o
u
n
t
y
n
c
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
s
a
f
e
t
y
.
c
o
m
General Statute 20-157(a)
"U
U
B
D
I
N
F
O
U
153
Fo
r
m
o
r
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,
c
a
l
l
9
1
9
-
2
4
5
-
2
5
6
7
ww
w
.
o
r
a
n
g
e
c
o
u
n
t
y
n
c
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
s
a
f
e
t
y
.
c
o
m
Wh
e
n
s
a
f
e
f
o
r
th
e
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
t
o
do
s
o
,
a
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
ca
n
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
pa
s
s
i
n
g
.
154
Fo
r
m
o
r
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,
c
a
l
l
9
1
9
-
2
4
5
-
2
5
6
7
ww
w
.
o
r
a
n
g
e
c
o
u
n
t
y
n
c
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
s
a
f
e
t
y
.
c
o
m
Ri
d
i
n
g
2
a
b
r
e
a
s
t
i
s
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
i
n
N
o
r
t
h
C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
.
I
t
m
a
k
e
s
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
mo
r
e
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
a
n
d
s
h
o
r
t
e
n
s
t
h
e
p
a
s
s
i
n
g
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
n
e
e
d
e
d
.
General Statute 20-150(e)155
Fo
r
m
o
r
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,
c
a
l
l
9
1
9
-
2
4
5
-
2
5
6
7
ww
w
.
o
r
a
n
g
e
c
o
u
n
t
y
n
c
b
i
c
y
c
l
e
s
a
f
e
t
y
.
c
o
m
Wh
e
n
p
a
s
s
i
n
g
a
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
i
n
a
n
o
p
a
s
s
i
n
g
z
o
n
e
,
t
h
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
o
r
o
f
t
h
e
pa
s
s
i
n
g
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
m
u
s
t
a
l
l
o
w
f
o
u
r
f
e
e
t
o
f
s
p
a
c
e
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
l
a
n
e
s
.
4
F
e
e
t
General Statute 20-150(e)156
Contract Number:C203394 Route:I-885, NC-147, NC-98
US-70
Division:5 County:Durham
TIP Number:U-0071
Length:4.009 miles Federal Aid Number:
NCDOT Contact:Cameron D. Richards NCDOT Contact No:(919)835-8200
Location Description:EAST END CONNECTOR FROM NORTH OF NC-98 TO NC-147 (BUCK DEAN
FREEWAY) IN DURHAM.
Contractor Name:DRAGADOS USA INC
Contract Amount:$141,949,500.00 Cost Overrun/Underrun:8.96%
Work Began:02/26/2015 Letting Date:11/18/2014
Original Completion Date:05/10/2020 Revised Completion Date:
Latest Payment Thru:08/22/2018 Scheduled Progress:69.22%
Latest Payment Date:09/05/2018 Actual Progress:70.22%
Contract Number:C203492 Route:SR-2220
Division:5 County:Durham
TIP Number:EB-4707B
Length:1.756 miles Federal Aid Number:STPDA-0505(64)
NCDOT Contact:James M. Nordan, PE NCDOT Contact No:(919)220-4680
Location Description:SR-2220 (OLD CHAPEL HILL ROAD) FROM SR-1113 (POPE ROAD) TO SR-1116
(GARRETT ROAD).
Contractor Name:FSC II LLC DBA FRED SMITH COMPANY
Contract Amount:$7,295,544.75 Cost Overrun/Underrun:5.37%
Work Began:06/26/2017 Letting Date:05/16/2017
Original Completion Date:05/14/2019 Revised Completion Date:
Latest Payment Thru:07/31/2018 Scheduled Progress:59.3%
Latest Payment Date:08/10/2018 Actual Progress:58.72%
Contract Number:C203567 Route:NC-55
Division:5 County:Durham
TIP Number:U-3308
Length:1.134 miles Federal Aid Number:STP-55(20)
NCDOT Contact:James M. Nordan, PE NCDOT Contact No:(919)220-4680
Location Description:NC-55 (ALSTON AVE) FROM NC-147 (BUCK DEAN FREEWAY) TO NORTH OF US-
70BUS/NC-98 (HOLLOWAY ST).
Contractor Name:ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Contract Amount:$39,756,916.81 Cost Overrun/Underrun:2.65%
Work Began:10/05/2016 Letting Date:07/19/2016
Original Completion Date:03/30/2020 Revised Completion Date:07/16/2020
Latest Payment Thru:08/15/2018 Scheduled Progress:38.1%
Latest Payment Date:08/27/2018 Actual Progress:31.36%
Contract Number:C203987 Route:SR-1616
Division:5 County:Durham
TIP Number:B-4943
Length:0.18 miles Federal Aid Number:BRZ-1616(10)
NCDOT Contact:James M. Nordan, PE NCDOT Contact No:(919)220-4680
Location Description:BRIDGE #20 OVER DIAL CREEK ON SR-1616.
Contractor Name:FSC II LLC DBA FRED SMITH COMPANY
Contract Amount:$1,475,475.00 Cost Overrun/Underrun:1.97%
Work Began:05/07/2018 Letting Date:01/16/2018
Original Completion Date:04/30/2019 Revised Completion Date:05/14/2019
Latest Payment Thru:07/31/2018 Scheduled Progress:42%
Latest Payment Date:08/10/2018 Actual Progress:37.4%
Contract Number:C204087 Route:US-70
Division:5 County:Durham
TIP Number:
Length:44.124 miles Federal Aid Number:
NCDOT Contact:Cameron D. Richards NCDOT Contact No:(919)835-8200
Location Description:1 SECTION OF US-70 AND 106 SECTIONS OF SECONDARY ROADS.
Contractor Name:CAROLINA SUNROCK LLC
Contract Amount:$7,054,264.20 Cost Overrun/Underrun:0.21%
Work Began:01/16/2018 Letting Date:09/19/2017
Original Completion Date:11/15/2018 Revised Completion Date:
Latest Payment Thru:04/30/2018 Scheduled Progress:26%
Latest Payment Date:05/08/2018 Actual Progress:23.67%
*UFNB.10310BOE/$%056QEBUFT 157
Contract Number:C204167 Route:-, SR-1118, SR-1407
SR-1811, SR-1966
Division:5 County:Durham
TIP Number:
Length:24.77 miles Federal Aid Number:
NCDOT Contact:James M. Nordan, PE NCDOT Contact No:(919)220-4680
Location Description:51 SECTIONS OF SECONDARY ROADS.
Contractor Name:CAROLINA SUNROCK LLC
Contract Amount:$0.00 Cost Overrun/Underrun:0%
Work Began:08/01/2018 Letting Date:05/15/2018
Original Completion Date:11/30/2019 Revised Completion Date:
Latest Payment Thru:Scheduled Progress:0%
Latest Payment Date:Actual Progress:0%
Contract Number:C204168 Route:-
Division:5 County:Durham
TIP Number:
Length:15.188 miles Federal Aid Number:
NCDOT Contact:Cameron D. Richards NCDOT Contact No:(919)835-8200
Location Description:14 SECTIONS OF SECONDARY ROADS.
Contractor Name:CAROLINA SUNROCK LLC
Contract Amount:$5,334,770.46 Cost Overrun/Underrun:0%
Work Began:07/02/2018 Letting Date:05/15/2018
Original Completion Date:11/30/2019 Revised Completion Date:
Latest Payment Thru:07/31/2018 Scheduled Progress:4%
Latest Payment Date:08/09/2018 Actual Progress:6.8%
Contract Number:DE00173 Route:SR-1104
Division:5 County:Durham
TIP Number:W-5205V
Length:0 miles Federal Aid Number:HSIP-1104(19)
NCDOT Contact:James M. Nordan, PE NCDOT Contact No:(919)220-4680
Location Description:SR 1104/SR 1105 (HERNDON RD) AT SR 1106 (MASSEY CHAPEL/ BARBEE RD) IN
DURHAM COUNTY
Contractor Name:TRIANGLE GRADING & PAVING INC
Contract Amount:$1,046,988.75 Cost Overrun/Underrun:17.95%
Work Began:05/01/2017 Letting Date:11/09/2016
Original Completion Date:08/18/2017 Revised Completion Date:11/05/2017
Latest Payment Thru:08/15/2018 Scheduled Progress:100%
Latest Payment Date:08/21/2018 Actual Progress:82.81%
Contract Number:DE00206 Route:SR-1308
Division:5 County:Durham
TIP Number:
Length:0.23 miles Federal Aid Number:
NCDOT Contact:Cameron D. Richards NCDOT Contact No:(919)835-8200
Location Description:BRIDGE #117 OVER MUD CREEK SR 1308 (CORNWALLIS ROAD)
Contractor Name:DANE CONSTRUCTION INC
Contract Amount:$919,328.69 Cost Overrun/Underrun:3.02%
Work Began:05/09/2018 Letting Date:12/13/2017
Original Completion Date:02/24/2019 Revised Completion Date:
Latest Payment Thru:08/15/2018 Scheduled Progress:67.12%
Latest Payment Date:08/23/2018 Actual Progress:57.08%
Contract Number:DE00228 Route:I-85
Division:5 County:Durham
TIP Number:I-5729
Length:5.61 miles Federal Aid Number:NHPP-0085(013)
NCDOT Contact:James M. Nordan, PE NCDOT Contact No:(919)220-4680
Location Description:I-85 FROM US-15/501 TO EAST OF SR-1827 (MIDLAND TERRACE RD) IN DURHAM
Contractor Name:INTERSTATE IMPROVEMENT INC
Contract Amount:$4,168,265.78 Cost Overrun/Underrun:56.23%
Work Began:03/13/2018 Letting Date:10/11/2017
Original Completion Date:11/01/2018 Revised Completion Date:
Latest Payment Thru:08/22/2018 Scheduled Progress:100%
Latest Payment Date:08/28/2018 Actual Progress:76.06%
Contract Number:DE00248 Route:SR-1637
158
Division:5 County:Durham
TIP Number:
Length:0.18 miles Federal Aid Number:15005.1032011
NCDOT Contact:James M. Nordan, PE NCDOT Contact No:(919)220-4680
Location Description:BRIDGE #72 IN DURHAM COUNTY
Contractor Name:DANE CONSTRUCTION INC
Contract Amount:$1,123,051.10 Cost Overrun/Underrun:0.01%
Work Began:06/14/2018 Letting Date:05/23/2018
Original Completion Date:03/21/2019 Revised Completion Date:
Latest Payment Thru:08/07/2018 Scheduled Progress:28%
Latest Payment Date:08/13/2018 Actual Progress:20.13%
Contract Number:DE00253 Route:-
Division:5 County:Durham
TIP Number:W-5705K
Length:0 miles Federal Aid Number:HSIP-1327(006)
NCDOT Contact:James M. Nordan, PE NCDOT Contact No:(919)220-4680
Location Description:SR 1327 (GREGSON ST) AND LAMOND AVE
Contractor Name:TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES INC
Contract Amount:$0.00 Cost Overrun/Underrun:0%
Work Began:09/01/2018 Letting Date:07/25/2018
Original Completion Date:02/28/2019 Revised Completion Date:
Latest Payment Thru:Scheduled Progress:0%
Latest Payment Date:Actual Progress:0%
Contract Number:DE00255 Route:US-501
Division:5 County:Durham
TIP Number:W-5705C
Length:0 miles Federal Aid Number:HSIP-0501(046)
NCDOT Contact:James M. Nordan, PE NCDOT Contact No:(919)220-4680
Location Description:US 15-501 AT SR 1116 (GARRETT RD) US 15-501 BUS AT WESTGATE DR
Contractor Name:ALS OF NORTH CAROLINA LLC
Contract Amount:$0.00 Cost Overrun/Underrun:0%
Work Began:Letting Date:05/23/2018
Original Completion Date:12/21/2018 Revised Completion Date:
Latest Payment Thru:Scheduled Progress:0%
Latest Payment Date:Actual Progress:0%
159
Le
t
E
s
t
TI
P
S
u
b
N
o
.
Le
t
T
y
p
e
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
R/
W
(
B
)
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
E
s
t
RO
W
E
s
t
Comments
12
/
1
8
U
-
5
7
4
5
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
P
O
C
NC
7
5
1
(
H
O
P
E
V
A
L
L
E
Y
R
O
A
D
)
A
T
S
R
1
1
8
3
(
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
D
R
I
V
E
)
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
I
N
DU
R
H
A
M
.
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
R
O
U
N
D
A
B
O
U
T
.
07
/
1
7
S
T
E
P
H
E
N
R
E
I
D
D
A
V
I
D
S
O
N
$
1
,
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
Utility Agreement needed with City
12
/
1
8
E
B
-
4
7
0
7
A
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
P
O
C
SR
1
8
3
8
/
S
R
2
2
2
0
F
R
O
M
U
S
1
5
/
5
0
1
I
N
O
R
A
N
G
E
C
O
U
N
T
Y
T
O
S
R
1
1
1
3
(
P
O
P
E
R
O
A
D
)
IN
D
U
R
H
A
M
C
O
U
N
T
Y
B
I
C
Y
C
L
E
,
P
E
D
E
S
T
R
I
A
N
A
N
D
T
R
A
N
S
I
T
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
08
/
1
5
B
E
N
J
A
M
I
N
J
.
U
P
S
H
A
W
$2
,
8
4
4
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
5
3
4
,
0
0
0
Utility Agreement needed with OWASA
12
/
1
8
W
-
5
6
0
1
E
M
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
P
O
C
SR
1
1
1
8
(
F
A
Y
E
T
T
E
V
I
L
L
E
R
O
A
D
)
A
T
P
I
L
O
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
A
N
D
C
E
C
I
L
S
T
R
E
E
T
.
S
A
F
E
T
Y
IM
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
.
JO
H
N
E
D
W
A
R
D
S
A
N
D
O
R
$1
4
,
0
0
0
coordinating with the city
01
/
1
9
W
-
5
7
0
5
M
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
P
O
C
I-
4
0
W
E
S
T
B
O
U
N
D
A
T
N
C
1
4
7
S
A
F
E
T
Y
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
(
M
P
:
9
.
3
5
9
-
9
.
3
5
9
)
JO
H
N
E
D
W
A
R
D
S
A
N
D
O
R
$
8
0
,
0
0
0
waiting on final designs
01
/
1
9
W
-
5
7
0
5
U
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
P
O
C
US
7
0
B
U
S
I
N
E
S
S
(
M
O
R
G
A
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
)
A
T
C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
T
H
R
E
A
T
R
E
JO
H
N
E
D
W
A
R
D
S
A
N
D
O
R
$
2
0
,
0
0
0
01
/
1
9
W
-
5
7
0
5
V
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
P
O
C
NC
5
4
A
T
H
U
N
T
I
N
G
R
I
D
G
E
R
O
A
D
JO
H
N
E
D
W
A
R
D
S
A
N
D
O
R
$
8
0
,
0
0
0
04
/
1
9
U
-
5
9
6
8
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
L
e
t
t
i
n
gCI
T
Y
O
F
D
U
R
H
A
M
U
P
G
R
A
D
E
I
T
S
/
S
I
G
N
A
L
S
Y
S
T
E
M
$2
1
,
8
6
5
,
0
0
0
$
7
5
0
,
0
0
0
08
/
1
9
I
-
5
9
9
4
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
D
e
s
i
g
I-
4
0
-
D
U
R
H
A
M
C
O
U
N
T
Y
F
R
O
M
U
S
1
5
/
U
S
5
0
1
T
O
E
A
S
T
O
F
N
C
1
4
7
.
B
R
I
D
G
E
RE
H
A
B
I
L
I
T
A
T
I
O
N
.
M
U
L
T
I
P
L
E
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
S
.
C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
W
I
T
H
I
-
5
9
9
3
.
DO
U
G
L
A
S
R
.
M
C
N
E
A
L
$6
,
6
5
2
,
0
0
0
08
/
1
9
I
-
5
9
9
5
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
D
e
s
i
g
I
-
4
0
-
D
U
R
H
A
M
/
W
A
K
E
C
O
U
N
T
I
E
S
F
R
O
M
E
A
S
T
O
F
N
C
1
4
7
T
O
S
R
3
0
1
5
(
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
BO
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
)
.
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
R
E
H
A
B
I
L
I
T
A
T
I
O
N
.
DO
U
G
L
A
S
R
.
M
C
N
E
A
L
$5
,
2
7
2
,
0
0
0
01
/
2
0
I
-
5
9
9
3
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
D
e
s
i
g
I-
4
0
-
D
U
R
H
A
M
C
O
U
N
T
Y
F
R
O
M
U
S
1
5
/
U
S
5
0
1
T
O
E
A
S
T
O
F
N
C
1
4
7
.
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
RE
H
A
B
I
L
I
T
A
T
I
O
N
.
C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
W
I
T
H
I
-
5
9
9
4
.
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
C
R
E
A
T
E
D
P
E
R
T
H
E
D
R
A
F
T
20
2
0
-
2
0
2
9
S
T
I
P
.
DO
U
G
L
A
S
R
.
M
C
N
E
A
L
$4
,
9
0
0
,
0
0
0
04
/
2
0
U
-
5
7
1
7
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
D
e
s
i
g
US
1
5
/
U
S
5
0
1
@
S
R
1
1
1
6
(
G
A
R
R
E
T
T
R
O
A
D
)
I
N
D
U
R
H
A
M
C
O
N
V
E
R
T
A
T
-
G
R
A
D
E
IN
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
T
O
I
N
T
E
R
C
H
A
N
G
E
04
/
1
9
B
E
N
J
A
M
I
N
J
.
U
P
S
H
A
W
$2
7
,
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
3
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
25% plans approved, VE study completed
05
/
2
0
U
-
5
5
1
6
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
D
e
s
i
g
AT
U
S
5
0
1
(
R
O
X
B
O
R
O
R
O
A
D
)
T
O
S
R
1
4
4
8
(
L
A
T
T
A
R
O
A
D
)
/
S
R
1
6
3
9
(
I
N
F
I
N
I
T
Y
R
O
A
D
)
IN
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
I
N
D
U
R
H
A
M
.
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
.
05
/
1
9
B
E
N
J
A
M
I
N
J
.
U
P
S
H
A
W
$5
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
6
,
3
4
1
,
0
0
0
Public meeting 8/23/2018
06
/
2
0
I
-
5
7
0
7
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
L
e
t
t
i
n
gI-
4
0
-
F
R
O
M
N
C
5
5
(
A
L
S
T
O
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
)
T
O
N
C
1
4
7
(
D
U
R
H
A
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
/
T
R
I
A
N
G
L
E
EX
P
R
E
S
S
W
A
Y
)
I
N
D
U
R
H
A
M
06
/
1
9
$3
,
5
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
2
3
,
0
0
0
06
/
2
0
P
-
5
7
1
7
Ra
l
e
i
g
h
L
e
t
t
i
n
gNO
R
F
O
L
K
S
O
U
T
H
E
R
H
L
I
N
E
C
R
O
S
S
I
N
G
7
3
4
7
42
W
A
T
S
R
1
1
2
1
(
C
O
R
N
W
A
L
L
I
S
R
O
A
D
)
IN
D
U
R
H
A
M
.
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
G
R
A
D
E
S
E
P
A
R
A
T
I
O
N
.
06
/
1
9
$1
0
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
09
/
2
0
W
-
5
7
0
5
S
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
P
O
C
US
1
5
/
5
0
1
A
T
N
C
7
5
1
S
O
U
T
H
B
O
U
N
D
O
N
R
A
M
P
-
E
X
T
E
N
D
R
A
M
P
JO
H
N
E
D
W
A
R
D
S
A
N
D
O
R
$4
6
0
,
0
0
0
12
/
2
0
B
-
5
6
7
4
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
L
e
t
t
i
n
gRE
P
L
A
C
E
B
R
I
D
G
E
8
0
O
V
E
R
S
R
1
3
0
8
I
N
D
U
R
H
A
M
O
N
U
S
1
5
-
5
0
1
N
O
R
T
H
B
O
U
N
D
09
/
1
9
$
2
,
2
0
9
,
0
0
0
$
1
1
0
,
0
0
0
04
/
2
1
W
-
5
7
0
5
T
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
P
O
C
SR
1
8
1
5
/
1
9
1
7
(
M
I
N
E
R
A
L
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
O
A
D
)
A
T
P
L
E
A
S
A
N
T
D
R
I
V
E
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
RO
U
N
D
A
B
O
U
T
04
/
2
0
J
O
H
N
E
D
W
A
R
D
S
A
N
D
O
R
$8
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
8
5
,
0
0
0
01
/
2
2
I
-
6
0
0
0
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
P
O
C
I-
5
4
0
-
D
U
R
H
A
M
/
W
A
K
E
C
O
U
N
T
I
E
S
F
R
O
M
I
-
4
0
I
N
D
U
R
H
A
M
T
O
U
S
1
I
N
R
A
L
E
I
G
H
.
BR
I
D
G
E
P
R
E
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N
/
R
E
H
A
B
I
L
I
T
A
T
I
O
N
.
C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
W
I
T
H
I
-
5
9
9
8
&
I
-
5
9
9
9
.
DO
U
G
L
A
S
R
.
M
C
N
E
A
L
$4
,
5
4
1
,
0
0
0
02
/
2
2
U
-
5
9
3
4
De
s
i
g
n
B
u
i
l
d
LNC
1
4
7
F
R
O
M
I
-
4
0
T
O
F
U
T
U
R
E
I
-
8
8
5
(
E
A
S
T
E
N
D
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
O
R
)
I
N
D
U
R
H
A
M
A
D
D
LA
N
E
S
A
N
D
R
E
H
A
B
I
L
I
T
A
T
E
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
44
6
0
7
$1
7
7
,
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2
,
1
4
8
,
0
0
0
03
/
2
2
U
-
5
7
2
0
A
De
s
i
g
n
B
u
i
l
d
LUS
7
0
(
M
I
A
M
I
B
L
V
D
)
F
R
O
M
L
Y
N
N
R
O
A
D
T
O
S
R
1
9
5
9
(
S
O
U
T
H
M
I
A
M
I
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
/
S
R
18
1
1
(
S
H
E
R
R
O
N
R
O
A
D
)
44
6
3
5
$5
7
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
3
5
,
8
0
0
,
0
0
0
03
/
2
2
U
-
5
7
2
0
B
De
s
i
g
n
B
u
i
l
d
LUS
7
0
(
M
I
A
M
I
B
L
V
D
)
A
T
S
R
1
9
5
9
(
S
O
U
T
H
M
I
A
M
I
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
)
/
S
R
1
8
1
1
(
S
H
E
R
R
O
N
RO
A
D
)
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
44
6
3
5
$2
5
,
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
7
,
3
2
1
,
0
0
0
03
/
2
2
U
-
5
7
2
0
C
De
s
i
g
n
B
u
i
l
d
LUS
7
0
(
M
I
A
M
I
B
L
V
D
)
F
R
O
M
S
R
1
9
5
9
(
S
O
U
T
H
M
I
A
M
I
B
L
V
D
)
/
S
R
1
8
1
1
(
S
H
E
R
R
O
N
RO
A
D
)
T
O
S
R
2
0
9
5
(
P
A
G
E
R
O
A
D
E
X
T
E
N
S
I
O
N
S
)
.
U
P
G
R
A
D
E
T
O
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
L
E
D
-
AC
C
E
S
S
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
Y
A
N
D
C
O
N
V
E
R
T
A
T
-
G
R
A
D
E
I
N
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
T
O
I
N
T
E
R
C
H
A
N
G
E
.
44
6
3
5
$1
1
0
,
8
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
4
0
,
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
01
/
2
3
I
-
5
9
9
8
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
P
O
C
I-
5
4
0
-
D
U
R
H
A
M
/
W
A
K
E
C
O
U
N
T
I
E
S
F
R
O
M
I
-
4
0
I
N
D
U
R
H
A
M
T
O
U
S
7
0
I
N
R
A
L
E
I
G
H
.
PA
V
E
M
E
N
T
R
E
H
A
B
I
L
I
T
A
T
I
O
N
.
C
O
O
R
D
I
N
A
T
E
W
I
T
H
I
-
5
9
9
9
&
I
-
6
0
0
0
.
DO
U
G
L
A
S
R
.
M
C
N
E
A
L
$
3
,
8
0
0
,
0
0
0
NC
D
O
T
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
5
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
S
t
a
t
u
s
160
Le
t
E
s
t
TI
P
S
u
b
N
o
.
Le
t
T
y
p
e
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
R/
W
(
B
)
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
Co
n
E
s
t
RO
W
E
s
t
Comments
NC
D
O
T
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
5
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
S
t
a
t
u
s
02
/
2
3
U
-
6
0
2
1
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
D
e
s
i
g
SR
1
1
1
8
(
F
A
Y
E
T
T
E
V
I
L
L
E
R
O
A
D
)
,
F
R
O
M
W
O
O
D
C
R
O
F
T
P
A
R
K
W
A
Y
T
O
B
A
R
B
E
E
R
O
A
D
IN
D
U
R
H
A
M
.
W
I
D
E
N
T
O
4
-
L
A
N
E
D
I
V
I
D
E
D
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
Y
W
I
T
H
B
I
C
Y
C
L
E
/
P
E
D
E
S
T
R
I
A
N
AC
C
O
M
M
O
D
A
T
I
O
N
S
.
02
/
2
1
B
E
N
J
A
M
I
N
J
.
U
P
S
H
A
W
$1
3
,
7
7
0
,
0
0
0
$
5
,
7
6
9
,
0
0
0
traffic analysis under review
03
/
2
3
U
-
5
9
3
7
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
L
e
t
t
i
n
gNC
1
4
7
D
U
R
H
A
M
F
R
E
E
W
A
Y
,
D
U
R
H
A
M
C
O
U
N
T
Y
F
R
O
M
S
R
1
4
4
5
(
S
O
U
T
H
D
U
K
E
ST
R
E
E
T
)
T
O
B
R
I
G
G
S
A
V
E
N
U
E
I
N
D
U
R
H
A
M
.
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
A
U
L
I
L
I
A
R
Y
L
A
N
E
S
A
N
D
OP
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
.
03
/
2
1
$4
7
,
0
0
1
,
0
0
0
$
1
0
,
2
0
2
,
0
0
0
161
TI
P
/
W
B
S
#
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Le
t
/
S
t
a
r
t
Da
t
e
Co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
Da
t
e
Co
s
t
St
a
t
u
s
Project Lead
SS
-
4
9
0
7
B
S
44
8
9
4
.
2
.
1
44
8
9
4
.
3
.
1
In
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
i
g
n
a
l
a
t
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
on
o
f
U
S
7
0
a
n
d
SR
1
1
1
4
(
B
u
c
k
h
o
r
n
R
o
a
d
)
E
a
s
t
o
f
Me
b
a
n
e
.
5/
3
1
/
2
0
1
7
De
c
.
2
0
1
8
$4
0
,
5
0
0
R
/
W
$4
3
,
2
0
0
C
O
N
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
,
R
/
W
ac
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
,
r
i
g
h
t
o
f
e
n
t
r
y
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
Dawn McPherson
W
-
5
7
0
7
A
44
8
5
3
.
1
.
1
Cu
r
b
r
a
m
p
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
t
t
h
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
:
S
R
20
4
8
(
S
o
u
t
h
R
o
a
d
)
a
t
R
a
l
e
i
g
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
;
S
R
2
0
4
8
(
S
o
u
t
h
Ro
a
d
)
a
t
C
o
u
n
t
r
y
C
l
u
b
R
o
a
d
,
S
R
1
9
0
2
(
M
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
r
i
v
e
)
a
t
Pa
u
l
H
a
r
d
i
n
D
r
i
v
e
,
a
n
d
S
R
1
9
0
2
(
M
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
r
i
v
e
)
a
t
R
i
d
g
e
Ro
a
d
/
S
k
i
p
p
e
r
B
o
w
l
e
s
R
o
a
d
i
n
Ch
a
p
e
l
H
i
l
l
6/
2
1
/
2
0
1
8
A
u
g
.
2
0
1
8
$
8
0
,
0
0
0
Si
g
n
a
l
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
.
R
e
-
l
e
t
a
n
d
a
w
a
r
d
e
d
t
o
Li
t
t
l
e
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
B
u
i
l
d
e
r
s
o
f
C
a
t
a
w
b
a
Co
u
n
t
y
,
I
n
c
.
Chad Reimakoski
R-
5
8
2
1
B
47
0
9
3
.
1
.
3
47
0
9
3
.
2
.
3
47
0
9
3
.
3
.
3
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
t
N
C
5
4
a
n
d
S
R
1
0
0
6
(
O
r
a
n
g
e
Gr
o
v
e
R
o
a
d
)
6/
2
1
/
1
8
F
Y
2
0
1
9
$
8
2
0
,
0
0
0
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
,
R
O
W
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
e
d
,
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
l
e
t
a
n
d
a
w
a
r
d
e
d
t
o
F
r
e
d
Sm
i
t
h
C
o
m
p
a
n
y
Brian Ketner
U-
5
8
4
6
50
2
3
6
.
1
.
1
50
2
3
6
.
2
.
1
50
2
3
6
.
3
.
1
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
a
r
o
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
a
t
S
R
1
7
7
2
(
G
r
e
e
n
s
b
o
r
o
S
t
r
e
e
t
)
an
d
S
R
1
7
8
0
(
E
s
t
e
s
D
r
i
v
e
)
i
n
Ca
r
r
b
o
r
o
.
6/
2
8
/
2
0
1
8
F
Y
2
0
2
0
$
7
7
5
,
0
0
0
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
u
n
d
e
r
w
a
y
,
R
/
W
ce
r
t
i
f
i
e
d
w
i
t
h
d
e
l
a
y
o
f
e
n
t
r
i
e
s
,
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
le
t
a
n
d
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
d
n
o
b
i
d
s
,
R
e
-
l
e
t
TB
D
Chad Reimakoski
U-
5
8
5
4
46
3
8
2
.
1
.
1
46
3
2
8
.
2
.
1
46
3
8
2
.
3
.
1
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
a
r
o
u
n
d
a
b
o
u
t
a
t
S
R
10
0
8
(
M
t
.
C
a
r
m
e
l
C
h
u
r
c
h
Ro
a
d
)
a
n
d
S
R
1
9
1
3
(
B
e
n
n
e
t
t
R
o
a
d
)
i
n
Ch
a
p
e
l
H
i
l
l
6/
2
8
/
2
0
1
8
F
Y
2
0
2
0
$
7
7
5
,
0
0
0
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
u
n
d
e
r
w
a
y
,
R
/
W
ce
r
t
i
f
i
e
d
,
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
l
e
t
a
n
d
a
w
a
r
d
e
d
t
o
Ca
r
o
l
i
n
a
S
u
n
r
o
c
k
,
L
L
C
Chad Reimakoski
47
7
9
8
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
o
f
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
tu
r
n
l
a
n
e
/
s
l
i
p
r
a
m
p
a
n
d
im
p
r
o
v
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
r
a
d
i
u
s
i
n
t
h
e
S
E
q
u
a
d
r
a
n
t
o
f
U
S
7
0
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
/
N
C
8
6
a
t
U
S
7
0
B
y
p
a
s
s
i
n
Hi
l
l
s
b
o
r
o
u
g
h
De
c
.
2
0
1
8
J
u
n
.
2
0
1
9
$1
8
9
,
0
0
0
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
un
d
e
r
w
a
y
-
2
5
%
p
l
a
n
s
u
n
d
e
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
Chad Reimakoski
I-
5
8
2
2
50
4
6
5
.
1
.
1
50
4
6
5
.
3
.
1
Pa
v
e
m
e
n
t
R
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
I
-
4
0
fr
o
m
I
-
8
5
t
o
E
a
s
t
o
f
S
R
17
3
4
(
E
r
w
i
n
R
o
a
d
)
1/
1
5
/
2
0
1
9
F
Y
2
0
2
0
$1
2
,
4
5
0
,
0
0
0
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
Chris Smitherman
U-
5
8
4
7
50
2
3
8
.
1
.
1
50
2
3
8
.
2
.
1
50
2
3
8
.
3
.
1
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
t
SR
1
0
1
0
(
W
e
s
t
F
r
a
n
k
l
i
n
S
t
.
)
an
d
S
R
1
7
7
1
(
M
e
r
r
i
t
t
M
i
l
l
R
d
)
/
S
R
1
9
2
7
(
B
r
e
w
e
r
L
a
n
e
)
i
n
Ch
a
p
e
l
H
i
l
l
/
C
a
r
r
b
o
r
o
.
1/
1
7
/
2
0
1
9
F
Y
2
0
2
0
$
7
7
5
,
0
0
0
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
un
d
e
r
w
a
y
Chris Smitherman
NC
D
O
T
D
I
V
7
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
IN
D
C
H
C
M
P
O
-
U
N
D
E
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
162
TI
P
/
W
B
S
#
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Le
t
/
S
t
a
r
t
Da
t
e
Co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
Da
t
e
Co
s
t
St
a
t
u
s
Project Lead
NC
D
O
T
D
I
V
7
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
IN
D
C
H
C
M
P
O
-
U
N
D
E
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
B-
4
9
6
2
40
1
7
4
.
1
.
1
40
1
7
4
.
2
.
1
40
1
7
4
.
3
.
1
Re
p
l
a
c
e
B
r
i
d
g
e
#
4
6
o
v
e
r
E
n
o
r
i
v
e
r
o
n
U
S
7
0
B
y
p
a
s
s
4
/
1
6
/
2
0
1
9
F
Y
2
0
2
1
$
5
,
8
2
6
,
0
0
0
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
un
d
e
r
w
a
y
,
R
O
W
a
c
q
u
i
s
i
t
i
o
n
un
d
e
r
w
a
y
Kevin Fischer
W
-
5
7
0
7
C
44
8
5
3
.
1
.
3
44
8
5
3
.
3
.
3
47
4
9
0
Re
v
i
s
e
p
a
v
e
m
e
n
t
m
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
a
nd
o
v
e
r
h
e
a
d
l
a
n
e
u
s
e
s
i
g
n
s
f
o
r
re
m
o
v
a
l
o
f
i
n
s
i
d
e
l
a
n
e
d
r
o
p
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
I
-
4
0
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
i
n
v
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
o
f
U
S
1
5
-
5
0
1
i
n
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
.
Re
s
u
r
f
a
c
i
n
g
I
-
4
0
W
B
b
y
u
s
e
o
f
c
o
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
f
u
n
d
s
6/
3
0
/
2
0
1
9
A
u
g
.
2
0
1
9
$
3
9
5
,
0
0
0
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
un
d
e
r
w
a
y
,
r
e
-
l
e
t
d
u
e
t
o
b
i
d
s
ex
c
e
e
d
e
d
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
,
n
e
w
le
t
d
a
t
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
-
t
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
J
u
n
e
20
1
9
Chad Reimakoski
P-
5
7
0
1
46
3
9
5
.
1
.
1
46
3
9
5
.
3
.
1
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
,
P
a
s
s
e
n
g
e
r
R
a
i
l
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
Mi
l
e
p
o
s
t
4
1
.
7
N
o
r
f
o
l
k
S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n
H
-
l
i
n
e
i
n
Hi
l
l
s
b
o
r
o
u
g
h
6/
3
0
/
2
0
2
1
F
Y
2
0
2
2
$
7
,
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
PE
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
7
/
1
/
2
0
2
0
,
Co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
U
-
5
8
4
8
Matthew Simmons
R-
5
8
2
1
A
47
0
9
3
.
1
.
2
47
0
9
3
.
2
.
2
47
0
9
3
.
3
.
2
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
Bi
c
y
c
l
e
/
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
io
n
s
o
n
N
C
5
4
f
r
o
m
S
R
10
0
6
(
O
r
a
n
g
e
G
r
o
v
e
R
o
a
d
)
t
o
S
R
1
1
0
7
/
S
R
1
9
3
7
(
O
l
d
Fa
y
e
t
t
e
v
i
l
l
e
R
o
a
d
)
.
6/
2
1
/
2
0
2
2
FY
2
0
2
4
$3
,
9
2
4
,
0
0
0
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
un
d
e
r
w
a
y
,
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
N
C
5
4
W
e
s
t
C
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
S
t
u
d
y
Jennifer Evans
U-
5
8
4
8
50
2
3
7
.
1
.
1
50
2
3
7
.
2
.
1
50
2
3
7
.
3
.
1
Ex
t
e
n
d
S
R
1
0
0
6
(
O
r
a
n
g
e
G
r
o
v
e
R
o
a
d
)
o
n
n
e
w
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
s
a
n
d
b
i
k
e
l
a
n
e
s
f
r
om
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
S
R
1
0
0
6
(
O
r
a
n
g
e
Gr
o
v
e
R
o
a
d
)
t
o
U
S
7
0
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
i
n
Hi
l
l
s
b
o
r
o
u
g
h
.
3/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
F
Y
2
0
2
5
$
5
,
3
2
6
,
0
0
0
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
un
d
e
r
w
a
y
,
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
P
-
5
7
0
1
an
d
U
-
5
8
4
5
Laura Sutton
I-
3
3
0
6
A
C
34
1
7
8
.
1
.
6
34
1
7
8
.
2
.
5
43
4
1
7
8
.
3
.
9
In
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
t
I
-
4
0
a
n
d
N
C
8
6
i
n
Ch
a
p
e
l
H
i
l
l
3/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
F
Y
2
0
2
5
$
1
6
,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
un
d
e
r
w
a
y
Laura Sutton
I-
5
9
5
9
45
9
1
1
.
1
.
1
45
9
1
1
.
3
.
1
Pa
v
e
m
e
n
t
R
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
I-
8
5
f
r
o
m
W
e
s
t
o
f
S
R
1
0
0
6
(O
r
a
n
g
e
G
r
o
v
e
R
o
a
d
)
t
o
D
u
r
h
a
m
C
o
u
n
t
y
l
i
n
e
11
/
2
1
/
2
0
2
3
F
Y
2
0
2
5
$
1
1
,
1
5
5
,
0
0
0
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
1
0
/
1
0
/
1
7
Chris Smitherman
I-
5
9
6
7
45
9
1
7
.
1
.
1
45
9
1
7
.
2
.
1
45
9
1
7
.
3
.
1
In
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
t
I-
8
5
a
n
d
S
R
1
0
0
9
(
S
o
u
t
h
Ch
u
r
t
o
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
)
i
n
Hi
l
l
s
b
o
r
o
u
g
h
1/
1
6
/
2
0
2
4
F
Y
2
0
2
7
$
2
0
,
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
un
d
e
r
w
a
y
Laura Sutton163
TI
P
/
W
B
S
#
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Le
t
/
S
t
a
r
t
Da
t
e
Co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
Da
t
e
Co
s
t
St
a
t
u
s
Project Lead
NC
D
O
T
D
I
V
7
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
L
O
C
A
T
E
D
IN
D
C
H
C
M
P
O
-
U
N
D
E
R
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
U-
5
8
4
5
50
2
3
5
.
1
.
1
50
2
3
5
.
2
.
1
50
2
3
5
.
3
.
1
W
i
d
e
n
S
R
1
0
0
9
(
S
o
u
t
h
C
h
u
r
t
o
n
S
t
r
ee
t
)
t
o
m
u
l
t
i
-
l
a
n
e
s
f
r
o
m
I
-
40
t
o
E
n
o
R
i
v
e
r
i
n
Hi
l
l
s
b
o
r
o
u
g
h
1/
1
6
/
2
0
2
4
F
Y
2
0
2
7
$
4
9
,
7
5
1
,
0
0
0
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
un
d
e
r
w
a
y
,
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
U
-
5
8
4
8
an
d
I
-
5
9
8
4
Laura Sutton
I-
5
9
8
4
47
5
3
0
.
1
.
1
47
5
3
0
.
2
.
1
47
5
3
0
.
3
.
1
In
t
e
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
t
I
-
8
5
a
n
d
N
C
8
6
i
n
Hi
l
l
s
b
o
r
o
u
g
h
11
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
5
F
Y
2
0
2
7
$
1
6
,
4
8
8
,
0
0
0
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
1
0
/
1
0
/
1
7
,
Co
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
U
-
5
8
4
5
a
n
d
I
-
5
9
5
9
Laura Sutton
U-
6
0
7
1
47
4
9
6
.
1
.
1
47
4
9
6
.
2
.
1
47
4
9
6
.
3
.
1
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
t
NC
5
4
a
n
d
S
R
1
0
0
7
(
O
l
d
Fa
y
e
t
t
e
v
i
l
l
e
R
d
)
i
n
Ca
r
r
b
o
r
o
1/
1
5
/
2
0
2
6
FY
2
0
2
7
$1
,
2
1
6
,
0
0
0
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
un
d
e
r
w
a
y
Jennifer Evans164
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
Nu
m
b
e
r
TI
P
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
En
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
Co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
Da
t
e
Wo
r
k
S
t
a
r
t
Da
t
e
Estimated CompletionProgressScheduleCompletionPercent
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
6
4
0
RE
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
IN
O
R
A
N
G
E
C
O
U
N
T
Y
.
HA
Y
M
E
S
B
R
O
T
H
E
R
S
,
IN
C
.
Lo
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
1
1
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
7
0
9
/
0
2
/
2
0
1
5
1
1
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
7
9
3
.
2
0
8
6
.
9
3
C2
0
3
6
4
1
RE
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
IN
O
R
A
N
G
E
C
O
U
N
T
Y
.
R.
E
.
B
U
R
N
S
&
S
O
N
S
CO
.
,
I
N
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
1
1
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
8
0
6
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
5
0
8
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
8
1
0
0
.
0
0
9
9
.
4
0
C2
0
3
9
4
6
B
-
5
3
4
8
DA
N
E
C
O
N
S
T
RU
C
T
I
O
N
IN
C
Ki
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$9
8
4
,
5
9
6
.
9
8
0
2
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
8
1
2
/
2
7
/
2
0
1
8
0
2
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
8
0
1
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
9
7
2
.
0
0
7
5
.
4
0
C2
0
4
0
2
5
I
-
5
9
5
4
3$
9
(
0
(
1
7
5
(
+
$
%
2
1
,
-4
0
/
I
-
8
5
FR
O
M
E
A
S
T
O
F
N
C
-
5
4
I
N
GR
A
H
A
M
TO
WE
S
T
O
F
S
R
-
1
1
1
4
(
B
U
C
K
H
O
R
N
RD
)
IN
O
R
A
N
*(
&
2
AP
A
C
-
A
T
L
A
N
T
I
C
I
N
C
TH
O
M
P
S
O
N
A
R
T
H
U
R
DI
V
I
S
I
O
N
Ki
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$9
,
6
9
9
,
0
5
3
.
6
8
DG
0
0
3
0
2
P
-
4
4
0
5
K
E
X
T
E
N
D
B
R
Y
D
S
V
I
L
L
E
R
O
A
D
T
O
N
C
86
A
N
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
1
2
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
7
0
9
/
2
9
/
2
0
1
6
1
0
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
8
1
0
0
.
0
0
8
9
.
8
7
DG
0
0
3
2
1
SR
1
0
0
4
(
E
F
L
A
N
D
-
C
E
D
A
R
G
R
O
V
E
R
D
)
C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
S
UN
R
O
C
K
LL
C
Ki
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$1
,
7
1
1
,
1
3
3
.
0
5
0
4
/
0
2
/
2
0
1
8
0
4
/
0
2
/
2
0
1
9
0
4
/
0
2
/
2
0
1
8
0
4
/
0
2
/
2
0
1
9
2
5
.
0
0
4
9
.
8
6
DG
0
0
3
3
2
W
-
56
0
1
I
F
,
GU
A
R
D
R
A
I
L
E
N
D
T
E
R
M
I
N
A
L
UP
G
R
A
D
E
6
NI
C
K
E
L
S
T
O
N
IN
D
U
S
T
R
I
E
S
I
N
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
0
9
/
0
5
/
2
0
1
7
0
5
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
7
0
9
/
0
5
/
2
0
1
8
1
0
0
.
0
0
1
0
0
.
0
0
DG
0
0
3
7
1
5(
6
8
5
)
$
&
(
9
S
E
C
O
N
D
A
R
Y
R
O
A
D
S
C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
S
U
N
R
O
C
K
LL
C
Ki
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$1
,
6
8
8
,
7
5
0
.
3
3
0
7
/
0
5
/
2
0
1
7
1
1
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
8
0
8
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
7
1
1
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
8
4
2
.
4
0
9
2
.
4
3
DG
0
0
3
7
2
R
-
57
8
7
B
$
'
$
&
8
5
%
5
$
0
3
6
IN
B
U
R
L
I
N
G
T
O
N
,
GI
B
S
O
N
V
I
L
L
E
,
G
R
A
H
A
M
,
M
E
B
A
N
E
,1
$
/
$
0
$
1
&
(
&
2
CA
R
R
B
O
R
O
&
CH
A
P
E
L
H
I
L
L
I
N
OR
A
N
G
E
C
O
AT
L
A
N
T
I
C
CO
N
T
R
A
C
T
I
N
G
CO
M
P
A
N
Y
,
I
N
C
.
Ki
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$1
2
8
,
9
1
0
.
0
0
0
7
/
2
4
/
2
0
1
7
0
3
/
2
8
/
2
0
1
9
0
2
/
2
6
/
2
0
1
8
0
3
/
2
8
/
2
0
1
9
4
0
.
9
5
5
4
.
5
2
DG
0
0
3
9
1
5(
3
/
$
&
(
BR
I
D
G
E
#
1
0
4
O
V
E
R
ST
O
N
E
Y
C
R
E
E
K
ON
S
R
1
7
1
2
(U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
RD
)
R.
E
.
B
U
R
N
S
&
S
O
N
S
CO
.
,
I
N
C
.
Ki
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$5
6
1
,
5
6
2
.
0
2
0
1
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
8
1
0
/
2
6
/
2
0
1
8
0
3
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
8
0
5
/
0
2
/
2
0
1
9
4
9
.
2
8
6
0
.
0
2
DG
0
0
3
9
3
5(
6
8
5
)
$
&
(
SR
1
1
0
1
,
S
R
1
1
1
8
,
S
R
11
1
9
,
S
R
1
1
2
4
,
SR
1
1
2
5
,
SR
1
1
2
7
,
S
R
11
2
8
S
R
11
3
0
,
SR
1
1
3
4
,
S
R
1
1
3
5
,
S
R
11
3
7
,
S
R
1
1
4
1
,
SR
1
1
4
3
,
E
T
C
.
RI
L
E
Y
P
A
V
I
N
G
I
N
C
K
i
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$1
,
0
8
4
,
5
2
0
.
4
0
0
4
/
0
2
/
2
0
1
8
1
0
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
8
0
6
/
1
8
/
2
0
1
8
1
0
/
1
2
/
2
0
1
8
2
4
.
0
0
2
5
.
9
8
DG
0
0
3
9
5
5(
3
/
$
&
(
BR
I
D
G
E
#
1
8
9
O
N
S
R
1
1
1
4
(B
U
C
K
H
O
R
N
R
O
A
D
)
O
V
E
R
C
A
N
E
CR
E
E
K
ST
W
O
O
T
E
N
CO
R
P
O
R
A
T
I
O
N
Ki
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$7
2
3
,
9
2
4
.
1
3
0
4
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
8
0
1
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
9
0
5
/
0
7
/
2
0
1
8
0
2
/
0
7
/
2
0
1
9
4
5
.
0
0
2
6
.
4
6
DG
0
0
4
1
3
5(
6
8
5
)
$
&
(
US
7
0
B
U
S
,
S
R
1
0
0
9
,
S
R
11
0
2
,
S
R
11
2
9
,
S
R
1
2
3
9
,
S
R
1
3
5
2
,
S
R
17
1
6
A
N
D
SR
1
8
4
1
CA
R
O
L
I
N
A
S
U
N
R
O
C
K
LL
C
Ki
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$3
,
5
6
2
,
2
3
2
.
6
6
0
5
/
2
8
/
2
0
1
8
1
1
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
9
0
5
/
2
9
/
2
0
1
8
1
1
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
9
2
3
.
0
0
2
4
.
5
3
DG
0
0
4
1
9
5(
6
8
5
)
$
&
(
NC
8
6
$
1
'
17
SE
C
O
N
D
A
R
Y
R
O
A
D
S
CA
R
O
L
I
N
A
S
U
N
R
O
C
K
LL
C
Ki
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$3
,
7
6
4
,
0
0
1
.
6
4
0
5
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
8
1
1
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
9
0
5
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
8
1
1
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
9
2
6
.
0
0
7
.
3
2
DG
0
0
4
2
7
BR
I
D
G
E
#
5
1
O
N
S
R
1
5
3
4
(
M
C
K
E
E
RO
A
D
)
O
V
E
R
B
U
F
F
A
L
O
C
R
E
E
K
NA
T
I
O
N
A
L
B
R
I
D
G
E
BU
I
L
D
E
R
S
L
L
C
Ki
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$5
2
1
,
4
4
3
.
8
2
0
5
/
0
7
/
2
0
1
8
0
3
/
0
4
/
2
0
1
9
DG
0
0
4
3
5
$6
7
5
(
7
5
(
$
7
0
(
1
7
2
1
6(
&
2
1
'
$
5
<
5
2
$
'
6
W
H
I
T
E
H
U
R
S
T
P
A
V
I
N
G
CO
I
N
C
Ki
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$8
4
6
,
3
4
0
.
6
6
0
4
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
9
1
0
/
1
1
/
2
0
1
9
DG
0
0
4
4
5
R
-
5
7
8
7
B
B
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
A
D
A
C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
T
CU
R
B
R
A
M
P
S
A
T
V
A
R
I
O
U
S
IN
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
LI
T
T
L
E
M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N
BU
I
L
D
E
R
S
O
F
CA
T
A
W
B
A
C
O
U
N
T
Y
IN
C
Ki
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$3
1
9
,
3
1
9
.
8
0
0
6
/
2
5
/
2
0
1
8
0
2
/
1
5
/
2
0
2
0
5(
3
/
$
&
(
%
5
,
'
*
(
2
9
(
5
3
+
,
/
6
&5
.
2
1
6
5
2
/
'
*
%
2
5
2
5
'
165
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
Nu
m
b
e
r
TI
P
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
En
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
Co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
Da
t
e
Wo
r
k
S
t
a
r
t
Da
t
e
Estimated CompletionProgressScheduleCompletionPercent
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
.
DG
0
0
4
4
5
W
-
5
7
0
7
A
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
A
D
A
C
O
M
P
L
I
A
N
T
CU
R
B
R
A
M
P
S
A
T
V
A
R
I
O
U
S
IN
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
LI
T
T
L
E
M
O
U
N
T
A
I
N
BU
I
L
D
E
R
S
O
F
CA
T
A
W
B
A
C
O
U
N
T
Y
IN
C
Ki
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$3
1
9
,
3
1
9
.
8
0
0
6
/
2
5
/
2
0
1
8
0
2
/
1
5
/
2
0
2
0
166
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
#
o
r
WB
S
#
o
r
T
I
P
#
De
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
L
e
t
D
a
t
e
Co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
Da
t
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
d
m
i
n
.
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
C
o
s
t
Notes
R-
5
8
2
5
Up
g
r
a
d
e
a
n
d
R
e
a
l
i
g
n
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
1
/
2
2
/
2
0
1
9
T
B
D
T
B
D
Gr
e
g
D
a
v
i
s
(9
1
0
)
9
4
4
-
2
3
4
4
TB
D
Right of Way in progress
C
h
a
t
h
a
m
C
o
u
n
t
y
-
D
C
H
C
M
P
O
-
U
p
c
o
m
i
n
g
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
-
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
8
-
-
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
1
8
Ro
u
t
e
NC
7
5
1
a
t
S
R
1
7
3
1
(O
'
K
e
l
l
y
C
h
a
p
e
l
R
o
a
d
)
167
168
Item 5.b. OUTBoard Members Whose Terms are Ending04.25.18
Orange Unified Transportation Board
Membership and Contact List
Position NAME OF MEMBER
HOME ADDRESS/
TELEPHONE
DATE OF
APPT
REPRESENTATIONEx pertise
or
Specific
Interest
BUSINESS TELEPHONE
E-M AIL
APPT
EXPIRES
1.Alex Castro (Vice Chair)
5915 Morrow MillRoad
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
10/20/2015 Bingham Township N/A alexcastrojr@hotmail.com
(919) 619-1510(Day)
(919) 929-6368(Evening)
9/30/2018
2nd Term
2.David Laudicina
5333 Lucas Farm Lane
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
09/20/2016Cheeks Township
(Serving At-Large)
N/A Laud9876@bellsouth.net
(919) 942-4444 (Day/Evening)
(919) 428-1009 (Cell)
9/30/2019
1st Term
3.Ed Vaughn
412 Lake Orange Road
Hillsborough, NC27278
10/21/14Cedar Grove
Township
N/A eddievee@nc.rr.com
(919) 283-4444(Day/Evening)
9/30/2020
2nd Term
4.Erle Smith
103 Sunset Creek Cir
Chapel Hill NC 27516
10/20/2015 Chapel Hill
Township
N/A Erle@ErleSmith.com
Day Phone: (919) 259-2100
Evening Phone: (919) 929-1596
9/30/2018
1st Term
5.Donna Musson
600 Sinai Circle
Hillsborough, NC 27278
09/20/2016Eno TownshipN/A donna@musson.org
(919) 428-3683 (Cell)
9/30/2019
1st Term
6.Brantley Wells
1314 US HWY 70E
Hillsborough, NC 27278
10/15/2013Hillsborough
Township
N/A wells.l4544@gmail.com
(919) 998-8630
(919) 732-3883 (Work)
(919) 730-2524 (Work Cell)
9/30/2020
2nd Term
7.Ted Triebel
6601 Sirladdinn Lane
Rougemont, NC 27572
10/20/2015 Little River
Township
N/A triebel@mindspring.com
(919) 732-6691(Day/Evening)
9/30/2018
2nd Term
8.Art Menius
4720 Green Riley Rd
Rougemont,NC 27572
10/21/2014At-Large*ED art@artmenius.com
(919) 675-2787(Day/Evening)
(919) 675-2787 (Cell)
9/30/2020
2nd Term
9.Jenn Sykes
210 Collins Ave
Hillsborough, NC 27278
02/07/2017At-Large*P sykes.jennifer@gmail.com
(919) 442-8152
9/30/2020
1st Term
10.Gary Saunders
103 Woodshire Lane
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
10/20/2015 At-Large*EI gary.saunders@ncdenr.gov
(919) 733-1497(Day)
(919) 942-0045(Evening)
9/30/2018
2nd Term
11.Heidi Perry(Chair)
407 Robert Hunt Drive
Carrboro, NC 27510
10/21/2014At-Large*BT heidiperov@gmail.com
(919) 962-0572 (Day)
(919)929-8671 (Home)
(919)618-8199 (Cell)
9/30/2020
2nd Term
12.Dr. Jeff Charles
5904 Treetop Ridge
Durham NC 27705
10/20/2015 At-Large*PAS jmc51@ix.netcom.com
(919) 489-7753
(919) 489-7753
9/30/2018
1st Term
13.Alyson West
901 N Greensboro Apt D
Carrboro, NC27510
09/20/2016At-Large*PT Alyson.west@gmail.com
(503) 734-5299 (Cell)
9/30/2019
1st Term
14.Justin Miller
5505 US 70
Mebane NC 27302
12/13/2016 At-Large PH Justindm8@yahoo.com
919-448-1376 (cell)
9/30/2019
Term
STAFF:
Abigaile Pittman
245-2567
abpittman@orangecountync.gov
*Through the appointment process, the County will attempt to maintain a balance among the OUTBoard’s At-Large membership that
captures as many of the following areas of expertise or specific interests as possible: Bicycle Transportation (BT), Pedestrian Access
and Safety (PAS), Public Transit (PT), Environmental Issues (EI), Economic Development (ED), Planning (P), Public Health (PH)
169