HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 11-07-19 Item 6-a - NC 54 West Corridor Study - Phase 2 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 7, 2019
Action Agenda
Item No. 6-a
SUBJECT: NC 54 West Corridor Study — Phase 2
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Map — Miles by Jurisdiction Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Planner,
2. Draft Phase 2 Study 919-245-2582
3. Comments and Responses Tom Altieri, Comprehensive Planning
Supervisor, 919-245-2579
Craig Benedict, Planning Director, 919-
245-2592
PURPOSE: To receive a presentation on the NC 54 West Corridor Study from VHB and
provide comments.
BACKGROUND: The NC 54 corridor study was started in September 2017 by the Durham-
Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) and North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT). The study area is from Old Fayetteville Road in
Carrboro west to the 1-85/1-40 interchange in Graham. It includes Burlington-Graham
Metropolitan Planning Organization (BG MPO) and Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization
(TARPO). VHB is the consultant assigned to the study and they completed the final report in
November 2018, with every member jurisdiction participating in the consultant's and MPO's
public process. A copy of the full report is available online at www.nc54west.com/Report. The
final recommendations serve to identify projects for consideration in the future Strategic
Prioritization of Transportation (SPOT) processes.
The NC-54 west corridor covers multiple local jurisdictions and regional transportation planning
agencies. A breakdown of each jurisdiction and agency is provided below and in Attachment 1.
• By local jurisdiction
o Graham 1.7 miles 8% (does not include ETJ)
o Swepsonville 1.2 miles 6% (does not include ETJ)
o Alamance County 7.3 miles 35%
o Orange County 8.6 miles 42%
o Carrboro 1.8 miles 9% (includes ETJ)
Total 20.6 miles 100%
• By MPO/RPO
o BG MPO 10.2 miles 50%
o TARPO 5.8 miles 28%
o DCHC MPO 4.6 miles 22%
Total 20.6 miles 100%
2
The primary recommendation of the study is the widening of NC 54 from NC 119 in Alamance
County to Old Fayetteville Street in Carrboro to four lanes with a median and sidepath for
bicycle and pedestrian travel. The study also recommends installing several roundabouts along
the corridor to improve traffic flow and safety at major intersections. If the MPO Board were to
adopt the study, staff would then implement the recommendations by working with NCDOT to
develop a project for the widening of NC 54, which would include recommending local points for
such a project in SPOT.
On November 1, 2018, the BOCC received a presentation on the NC 54 West Corridor Study
from Orange County Transportation Planning staff, which also included the Orange Unified
Transportation Board's (OUTBoard) comments. All comments were addressed at the November
14, 2018 DCHC MPO Public Hearing.
On February 5, 2019, the BOCC approved NC 54 West as a County Priority for consideration in
DCHC MPO and Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) Strategic Prioritization of
Transportation (SPOT) process. An update on the corridor was provided to BOCC August 3,
2019.
On February 2019, Carrboro - through the DCHC MPO - requested VHB review and confirm
Phase 1 conclusions through a phase 2 study to analyze trends and forecasts, transit
alternatives as mentioned in the final report, widening impact on local roads, and other
improvements not on NC 54. VHB will present the results of the Phase 2 analysis (Attachment
2). The following is a highlight of the findings:
• Trends and forecasts were confirmed through StreetLight data. This is a subscription
based third party cellphone data collection company that assists in the analysis of trips.
• Adopted DCHC MPO Transportation Regional Model was deemed conservative in
comparison to StreetLight.
• It is a supplement to the original Final Report. All recommendations are carried forward,
including bike/ped and transit.
• All transit service providers were actively involved in the process, 3 additional park-and-
ride lots in Orange County have been added to the recommendations.
• Inclusion of a shared use path is optional and subject to NCDOT's new Complete Streets
Policy.
The MPO will consider taking action on the Study on November 13, 2019 following a public
hearing. Transportation planning staff, in coordination with Orange County Community
Relations, issued a public notice of all public meetings on the County website. No comments
were received for Orange County. Two local jurisdictions have taken separate action on the
study:
• Graham City Council — November 6, 2018 — unanimously approved the study
• Carrboro Board of Aldermen — October 15, 2019 — Unconditional rejection of Phase 1
(Old Fayetteville Road to Dodson Crossroads) recommendations.
TARPO and BG MPO are working with local jurisdictions as they address their unique priorities.
Those entities will take action on the study only after local jurisdictions have considered their
portion of it. Orange County has prioritized the corridor to address multimodal, congestion,
safety and mobility for all users. It has also submitted the project - NC-54 Improvements: Widen
NC-54 from Orange Grove Rd to Old Fayetteville Road with multimodal facilities - to TARPO for
SPOT consideration. However, the County has not taken formal action on the study.
3
The County priority cannot be considered for SPOT in DCHC MPO as it is not in the adopted
2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). DCHC MPO must adopt the study in order to
pursue local input points for its portion of the corridor.
OUTBoard Comments - October 16, 2019:
The following comments were provided by the OUTBoard:
• Include more information on technology and/or Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) at
intersections and along the road.
• Include more information on bike/ped safety along the corridor.
• Include more information on how to prevent or manage caterpillering — bumper to bumper
traffic along the road, (e.g. managing speed).
A summary of all comments and responses have been collected (Attachment 3). This includes
Orange County Transportation Planning staff, DCHC MPO Technical Committee, Carrboro
Board of Alderman, Chapel Hill Town Council, and comments from an October 24t" public
meeting in Carrboro.
DCHC MPO Technical Committee (TC) Recommendation - October 23, 2019:
The DCHC MPO TC recommended the DCHC MPO Board receive the study, proceed with
safety improvements along the corridor using information from the study, and that the local
jurisdictions work together with DCHC MPO to identify future roadway improvements.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact associated with this item.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goals are applicable
to this item:
• GOAL: CREATE A SAFE COMMUNITY
The reduction of risks from vehicle/traffic accidents, childhood and senior injuries, gang
activity, substance abuse and domestic violence.
• GOAL: ENSURE ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY
The creation and preservation of infrastructure, policies, programs and funding necessary
for residents to provide shelter, food, clothing and medical care for themselves and their
dependents.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: The following Orange County Environmental Responsibility Goal
impacts are applicable to this item:
ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND WASTE REDUCTION
Initiate policies and programs that: 1) conserve energy; 2) reduce resource consumption;
3) increase the use of recycled and renewable resources; and 4) minimize waste stream
impacts on the environment.
RESULTANT IMPACT ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND AIR QUALITY
Access and where possible mitigate adverse impacts created to the natural resources of
the site and adjoining area. Minimize production of greenhouse gasses.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board:
4
1. Receive the presentation, Draft NC 54 West Study Final Report and Phase 2
(Attachment 1);
2. Discuss as appropriate; and
3. Consider endorsing the DCHC MPO Technical Committee recommendation that the
DCHC MPO Board receive the study, proceed with safety improvements along the
corridor using information from the study, and that the local jurisdictions (including
participation by TARPO) work together with DCHC MPO to identify future roadway
improvements.
West Corridor Stud sw ;
By Local4 urisdiction and MPO/RPO DCHC MPO
4.6 Miles - 22% of corridor
1 IF
(2.8 Miles - 61% Orange County)
s'
{ Grahams r (1.8 Miles - 39% Carrboro)
L} 1J-Miles- 8°/-f,corridorx
(does'not
include ETJ) < z C►arrboro
y� d?J
m . .. J
Swepsonville m o f-C m
1.2 Miles- 6% of corridor Dorange Coun ASIS
( es note � � �� N "� ` ETJ
do
include�ETJ) o`}� `> X
' { z OLD-G RE1 EENSBORO
I
I
Sol -Ne
I
Alamance County
7.3 Mile s-=35% of corridor TARPO
5.8 Miles - 28% of corridor
100% Orange County
BG MPO
10.2 Miles - 50% of corridor
y (83% Alamance County) _
(17% Graham)
R. `Orange County
�N �gTHi 8:6 Miles- 42% of corridor
e-
G�� Carrboro
0-1'-.8 Miles; 99/0 offcorridor
Graham (includes,ETJ'')
I
Type _ N MPO �-
S ` 1 inch=1.6 miles
Ire, 11
RPO
54M. ff. Miles
NC 54 west Corridor Stud -Grange County Planning and Inspections t
y Nishith Trivedi(10/29/2019) :�{
+ Carrboro
Mst ' (including
Crashes 489 156
Miles 8.6 1.8
Crash Rate 56.86 86.67
i Fatal 3* 2
C Fatality Rate 0.35 1.11
s
Serious Injury 14* 3
Serious Injury Rate 1.63 1.67
Minor Injury 53 13
Total Severity Rate 8.14 10.00
Non medical 419 118
Pedestrian 0 1
Cyclist 0 2
* Does not include August 12, 2019 accident
Orange County
I) 8.6 Miles- 41.75% Whole Study '
(82.69% Phase 2 Study_)
I
I
I
I
k
j Carrboro t
ti 1
f,_j 1.8 Mile s---8.74%WhOle Study
J(include+s ETJ)
'r (17 91% Phase 21Study)
•k _ -
HFCL Segments 2012-2016 Carrboro Crashes Orange County Crashes
Importance ♦ Non Medical ♦ Non Medical J
�Critica I(over 30) Severity Severity
�Se do us(10 to 29) .Fatal .Fatal _
_ N
Moderate(under 9) ;'i �, 1 inch=0.92 miles k.
.Serious Injury.Serious Injury " I
4 0.275 ass 11
4M. f/f Miles
QMinor Injury Q Minorinjury -orange County Planning and Inspections
Nishith Trivedi(10/22/2019) t
7
MPO Board 10/9/2019 Item 8
00
■��
/Vhb.
To: DCHC MPO Date: October 1, 2019 Memorandum
Project#: 38587.01
From: Don Bryson Re: NC 54 Supplement
INTRODUCTION
In response to the findings of the NC 54 West Corridor Study,the analyses summarized in this memorandum were
requested to better understand and explain traffic patterns associated with the portion of NC 54 between 1-40 in
Graham and Old Fayetteville Road in Carrboro.Although the focus of the additional analyses is the eastern (Orange
County) end of the corridor,the study area was expanded to provide more regional context, and to more directly
address West Main Street and the NC 54 Bypass to the east.
The analyses in this memorandum address specific questions, supplementing the NC 54 Corridor Study. The NC54
Corridor Study provides more detailed documentation of underlying assumptions,traffic data, analytical
methodology, and findings related to existing conditions, demand forecasts, and evaluation of alternatives.
Some of the major issues addressed in this memorandum include:
• Origins and destinations of traffic using this portion of NC 54
• Traffic forecasts
• Traffic impacts of the proposed widening on other roads
• Transit options, including:
o Park-and-ride lots
o Potential options for UNC-CH and hospital employees
CORRIDOR TRIP ORIGINS AND DESTINATIONS
According to the latest data (2017) available from the NCDOT traffic count program, average annual daily traffic
(AADT) on NC 54 ranged from a high of 23,000 veh/day at the western end of the study area (just east of 1-40 in
Graham)to a low of 6,400 veh/day near the county line (just west of Mebane Oaks Road/Saxapahaw Road). From
that point eastward AADTs increase to a high of 15,000 just west of Old Fayetteville Road,the eastern end of the
study. This pattern indicates that only a portion of the NC 54 traffic at Old Fayetteville Road consists of"through"
trips (defined as vehicles travelling the entire length of the corridor from 1-40 to Old Fayetteville Road). Even if all
6,400 veh/day at the county line were through trips, only 43%of the traffic approaching Old Fayetteville Road could
be defined as trips traveling the entire length of the corridor. Analysis of travel patterns suggests a much lower
percentage; many of these 6,400 trips having origins or destinations along the corridor or intersecting roadways
such as NC 119, Mebane Oaks Road, Orange Grove Road, and Bethel Hickory Grove Church Road. NC 54 collects and
connects traffic between these dispersed trips ends.
The following sections summarize analyses performed to help identify sources of traffic on this portion of NC 54.
Venture 1
940 Main Campus Drive, Suite 500
Raleigh, NC 27606-5217
P 919.829.0328
Page 1 of 12
8
MPO Board 10/9/2019 Item 8
Ref: 38587.01
October 1, 2019
Page 2
NC 54 Travelsheds
Figure 1 represents the approximate extent of the "travelshed"for trips to/from the center of Chapel Hill via the NC
54 West corridor. Trips beginning/ending within the shaded area are more likely to use NC 54 than alternate routes
(especially 1-40)for trips to/from downtown Chapel Hill, based on historically-determined relative travel times for
routes provided by Google Maps. For example, a traveler starting near the northern edge of the shaded area could
drive to downtown Chapel Hill via NC 54 or 1-40 in about the same time. Figure 2 demonstrates the impact of shifting
the destination slightly south, to Southern Village. The added time required to drive all the way through Chapel Hill
results in NC 54 being a shorter route for trips from the northwest (Burlington/Graham). There is a dividing line for
somewhere around the NC 54 Bypass. Figure 3 is a comparable representation for trips to Burlington/Graham.
Note that the relative volume of trips in each of these cases varies, and will change over time.
The key to defining these travelsheds is the difference in relative travel times among alternative routes. Increasing
congestion along 1-40 or NC 86 would be expected to shift this boundary northward and eastward, while more
congestion along NC 54 would constrict the shaded area. Conversely, improvements that reduce relative travel
times would expand a road's travelshed.
Observations
Comparing the travelsheds for the two major locations considered reveals several interesting observations:
• For central Chapel Hill trips, while the travelshed spreads farther north and east, it does not extend beyond
the ends of the corridor.
• A minor shift south to Southern Village yields a travelshed that extends west and north of the Graham end
of the corridor. This helps demonstrate the complex combination of origins and destinations served by the
NC 54 west corridor. Although Chapel Hill is a major destination for trips using the NC 54 Study Area
Corridor, there are dozens of significant trip-end pairs using portions of the corridor, and the relative
volumes of these trips can shift over time in response to local and regional growth and development,
congestion, and roadway improvements.
• For the centralized Burlington/Graham location,while the travelshed is narrower on the northern side, it
extends well beyond the eastern end of the corridor, widening greatly to the south to include portions of
northern Chatham County. This travelshed also applies to destinations north and west of the indicated
location. Growth outside the corridor is a more significant factor in traffic increases in this travel market
than for the downtown Chapel Hill travel market.
• Trips between western Orange County and points east of Chapel Hill (such as Durham and RTP) use this
portion of NC 54 and the Bypass; however, 1-40 is a more attractive option for trips originating farther west,
or even a slight distance north of NC 54 through the study area.
Although this analysis does provide some insights about who is using this portion of NC 54, it has limitations. It does
not reflect route selections of actual travelers, only the estimated minimum travel-time routes based on historical
averages.These travel times are derived from samplings of signals from location-based services, which are subject to
Page 2 of 12
9
MPO Board 10/9/2019 Item 8
Ref: 38587.01
October 1, 2019
Page 3
variation. Furthermore, travelers do not always base their route choices on minimum travel times, even if they have
accurate real-time information and reliable short-range predictions (which is not typically the case). Some drivers
prefer to avoid freeways; others are less comfortable on rural two-lane roads that may require passing. If travel-
time reliability is critical, routes with longer(but more consistent and predictable)travel times may be preferred to
the risk of a long delay. Also,this analysis considers only three very specific—though important—locations. There
are countless other potential locations that would generate different travelsheds.
Streetlight Data
To better understand the origin/destination patterns of traffic on NC 54 west of Carrboro, an analysis was
performed using a Streetlight dataset provided by DCHC.This dataset is comprised of anonymized location
information obtained from personal electronic devices during weekdays (Monday through Thursday) in April, May,
September, and October of 2016-18.The results summarized here are based on a sample of approximately 8,000
devices, representing about 29,000 individual trips.The Streetlight Index sample represents about 23%of the
averaged 2016-2018 AADT on NC 54, based on Index-to-AADT ratios.
The available Streetlight dataset did not include the entire NC 54 West study area (see Figure 4); only the portion of
the corridor east of Orange Grove Road could be analyzed. Figure 5 depicts the associated portion of the corridor in
more detail.
The goal of this analysis was to determine the major origins and destinations of traffic using this segment of NC 54.
In particular, what portion of traffic is passing through the corridor, which intersecting roads contribute the most
traffic, and what traffic is using the NC 54 Bypass versus West Main Street?This analysis can help quantify and
evaluate potential markets for alternative travel options, as well as validating forecast assumptions and confirming
the Triangle Regional Model's accuracy in representing traffic patterns.
It must be emphasized that in the following analyses, percentage drops in traffic refer only to the distribution of
trips passing the defined reference point (indicated by the "100%" label).This does not indicate a reduction in total
traffic (AADT) on NC 54. The exercise traces the destinations of vehicles captured at the reference point as we move
east or west along the corridor away from the reference point. It indicates where these vehicles leave NC 54 and
what portion remain on NC 54 at the end of the analyzed segment.This is not an analysis of traffic passing through
the entire length of the corridor, nor of AADTs.
Eastward Trip Distribution
Figure 6 depicts the eastward distribution of daily vehicle-trips on NC 54 to/from a point just east of Orange Grove
Road. Note that the"100%" label in the figure represents only traffic passing that point on NC 54, in both
directions. This analysis traces the destinations of these trips along the corridor. For simplicity and clarity,we will
discuss eastbound trips; westbound trips are the mirror image of these. The diagram indicates that 83%of these
trips are still on NC 54 just west of Old Fayetteville Road. This 17% drop in volume works out to nearly 2,000
veh/day out of the original 2017 AADT of 11,000 veh/day east of Orange Grove Road. Most of the trips that have
Page 3 of 12
10
MPO Board 10/9/2019 Item 8
Ref: 38587.01
October 1, 2019
Page 4
left the corridor by this point used White Cross Road (7%) and Bethel-Hickory Grove Church Road (4%). The
remaining 6%departed via Dodsons Crossroads, Butler Road, Neville Road, Hatch Road, and various smaller roads
and driveways. (Due to rounding, percentages may not add up precisely.)
Ten percent of traffic drops off at Old Fayetteville Road (8% northbound and 2%southbound), leaving 73%of the
original traffic on NC 54. Another 7%of trips are destined for development in the immediate vicinity of Carrboro
Plaza. The remaining 66% divides between West Main Street(12%) and NC 54 Bypass (54%).This represents an
82%/18% (or 4.5 to 1) split of this traffic between NC 54 Bypass and West Main Street.
For comparison,the analysis was repeated for only the period between 6:00 and 10:00 AM, which includes the
critical AM peak. These results are summarized in Figure 7. The most significant differences are that a higher
proportion of traffic is still on NC 54 just west of Old Fayetteville Road (91%versus 83%), and that most of this
increase continues onto NC 54 Bypass (63%of origin traffic, as opposed to 54% on a daily basis). This results in an
increased share relative to West Main Street (85%/15%, or 5.7 to 1). These differences are consistent with a higher
proportion of commuter traffic to UNC in the morning peak.
Westward Trip Distribution
Similar analyses were performed to estimate the westward distribution of NC 54 traffic to/from West Main Street,
and to/from NC 54 Bypass. Note that the"100%" label in these figures represents only traffic passing those points
(on West Main Street or NC 54 Bypass), in both directions. For simplicity and clarity,we will discuss westbound
trips; eastbound trips are the mirror image of these. Figure 8 depicts the findings of this analysis for traffic on West
Main Street immediately east of NC 54, where the 2017 AADT is 6,400 veh/day. About 44%of this traffic is
associated with destinations in the immediate vicinity of Carrboro Plaza. Another 26% heads east on NC 54 Bypass.
Old Fayetteville Road attracts 6%to the north, and 2%to the south, leaving 22%of the original traffic on NC 54
immediately west of Old Fayetteville Road. Another 9%disperses before Dodsons Crossroads, mainly via Neville
Road (2%) and Bethel-Hickory Grove Church Road (2%).Another 2%each turn off on Dodsons' Crossroads and White
Cross Road, with 10%of the traffic from West Main Street remaining on NC 54 just east of Orange Grove Road. This
translates to a drop of nearly 800 vehicles between Old Fayetteville and Orange Grove Roads.
Figure 9 summarizes the results of a similar analysis for NC 54 Bypass south of West Main Street,where the 2017
AADT is 25,000 veh/day. Ten percent of this traffic diverts east onto West Main Street, and another 30% heads for
destinations in the vicinity of Carrboro Plaza. A substantial 21% heads north via Old Fayetteville Road,with 1%going
south, leaving 38%of the original traffic on NC 54 to the west. Intervening roads and driveways attract another 7%
between Old Fayetteville Road and Dodsons Crossroads. White Cross Road (2.5%) and Dodsons Crossroads (1.5%)
account for most of the remaining reduction, leaving 27%of the original NC 54 Bypass traffic on NC 54 just east of
Orange Grove Road. This represents a decrease of nearly 2,800 vehicles between Old Fayetteville and Orange Grove
Roads.
Page 4 of 12
11
MPO Board 10/9/2019 Item 8
Ref: 38587.01
October 1, 2019
Page 5
Observations
• About 17% of daily traffic on NC 54 just east of Orange Grove Road enters/exits NC 54 between this location
and just west of Old Fayetteville Road.
• During the AM peak, only 9%of traffic on NC 54 just east of Orange Grove Road enters/exits NC 54 between
this location and just west of Old Fayetteville Road.This is consistent with a higher proportion of longer
commuter trips.
• For West Main Street daily traffic, about 12%of traffic enters/exits NC 54 between this just west of Old
Fayetteville Road and just east of Orange Grove Road. For NC 54 Bypass traffic, this figure is about 11%.
• Trips using West Main Street tend to be more local that trips using NC 54 Bypass.
TRAVEL DEMAND MODELS
The NC 54 West corridor study area spans two regional travel demand models. The portion west of the Alamance
County line is represented in the Piedmont Triad Regional Model (PTRM), while the Orange County portion to the
east is part of the Triangle Regional model (TRM v6).
Growth Forecasts
Traffic growth in both models is derived from forecasts of population and employment growth and characteristics,
geographically distributed by traffic analysis zone. Figures 10a-10c and 11a-11c depict TRM and PTRM assumptions
about the distribution and growth of population and employment relative to the NC 54 West study area and the
three travelsheds presented previously.
Because population and employment data available for the two models have different base and design years, values
were extrapolated to obtain consistent values for 2017 and 2045. Also, dot-density plots were used to more
effectively represent the density, magnitude, and distribution of population and employment among traffic analysis
zones (TAZs). Note that each dot represents a number of data points (100 persons; 50 jobs). Dots are randomly
located within each TAZ, and do not represent specific locations.
The socio-economic forecasts in both models were approved and adopted by relevant MPOs and RPOs for use in
transportation planning. Consultation with Alamance and Orange County planning staff did not identify any
problems with the growth assumed in either the TRM and PTRM.
Observations
• Development remains sparse along the middle segment of the corridor, due in large part to environmental
constraints.
• Relative growth is greatest in the western portion of the corridor, both in Alamance County and Mebane,
especially along and west of NC 119. Development includes residential, industrial, and commercial, as well
as newly-approved high school at the corner of NC 54 and NC 119.
Page 5 of 12
12
MPO Board 10/9/2019 Item 8
Ref: 38587.01
October 1, 2019
Page 6
• Growth in the east is concentrated in Chapel Hill, primarily in nodes along NC 86 and US 15/501. Particularly
relevant to this study is the Lloyd Farm development in the northeast quadrant of the NC 54/Old Fayetteville
Road intersection.
TRM Comparison to StreetLight Insight Analysis
A select-link analysis was performed using the Triangle Regional model (TRM v6)to provide a comparison against
the StreetLight analysis described previously for the eastward distribution of trips to/from a point on NC 54 just east
of Orange Grove Road. Because of minor anomalies in the Base Year network loading at the western end of the
corridor, some manual adjustments were necessary, and comparative runs for 2045 Build and No-Build scenarios
were also conducted. The results are summarized in Figure 12. The major differences between the TRM the
StreetLight trip distributions occur at the eastern end of the corridor.Just east of Old Fayetteville Road, both
analyses estimate between 82%and 83%of eastbound trips from just east of Orange Grove Road are still on NC 54.
But the TRM distributes 5%fewer trips north on Old Fayetteville Road, and loses none at Carrboro Plaza.This leaves
77%of the original trips, as opposed to 66%according to StreetLight. More importantly,TRM assigns a far higher
proportion of these trips to West Main Street. TRM has 25%of the initial traffic turning on West Main Street(versus
12%according to StreetLight), and 52%continuing down NC 54 Bypass (versus 54%). This works out to a 68%/32%
(or 2.1 to 1) split between n NC 54 Bypass and West Main Street. The Streetlight analysis yielded a split of 82%/18%
(or 4.5 to 1).
This difference is probably attributable to the fact that regional travel demand models like TRM tend to under-
estimate intersection delay as congestion increases, especially through denser downtown areas. It also appears that
trips to Carrboro Plaza and up Old Fayetteville Road (including McDougal Middle School) are either under-
represented or inaccurately routed.
TRM Comparison of Build (Widen NC 54) and No-Build Scenarios
To estimate the traffic impacts of the proposed widening of NC 54 on traffic patterns,two 2045 TRM networks were
compared. Both have identical socio-economic data and include all transportation improvement projects assumed
in the latest DCHC Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). The only difference is that the Widen NC 54 (Build)
Scenario, a 45-mph 4-lane divided cross-section is assumed for NC 54 between 1-40 in Graham and Old Fayetteville
Road in Carrboro. The No-Build Scenario assumes the existing cross-section is maintained.
After trips were distributed and assigned to the two networks, daily volumes in the No-Build network were
subtracted from the corresponding link volumes in the Build (widen NC 54) network. Results are summarized in
Figure 13. Where traffic volumes are higher in the Build scenario (due to diversion from other routes), links are
shaded red and given bandwidths corresponding to the magnitude of the increase. Where traffic volumes are lower
in the Build scenario, links are shaded blue and assigned bandwidths corresponding to the magnitude of the
decrease. Changes in daily traffic volumes are indicated on representative links. Changes of less than 100
vehicles/day are not represented.Volumes for West Main Street and NC 54 Bypass were adjusted to compensate for
Page 6 of 12
13
MPO Board 10/9/2019 Item 8
Ref: 38587.01
October 1, 2019
Page 7
the model's over-assignment of traffic to West Main Street (discussed above). An 80%/20% (4:1) split between NC
54 Bypass and West Main Street was assumed.
A comparison of the daily volumes from the 2045 Build and No-Build scenarios west of Old Fayetteville Road is
shown in Figure 14 to illustrate the shifts in network traffic assignments associated with the widening, according to
the TRM. Historical volumes and 1%and 1.5%annual volume growth rates are displayed, and the typical capacities
of a 2-lane roadway and a 4-lane divided roadway are indicated to provide context for the road's current and
anticipated performance.
Observations
Volume Increases
• As traffic volumes increase on NC 54, longer segments exceed capacity for longer time periods.Travel times
increase, while also becoming less reliable due to crashes, weather events, and other incidents. In response,
some traffic shifts to alternate routes. When NC 54 is widened, congestion and resulting delays and
variations are reduced, and these trips return to NC 54, which should also reduce crashes.
• The most significant volume shifts are on NC 54. The 2,000 veh/day added between Dodson's Crossroads
and Old Fayetteville Road represent about a 10% increase over the No-Build scenario. The resulting volume
is well within the capacity of the proposed 4-lane divided cross section. Assuming 10%of traffic occurs in the
peak hour, with a 60/40 directional split, this translates into about 200 additional vehicles in the peak hour,
with 120 vehicles (two/minute) added in the peak direction.
• Traffic shifts back onto NC 54 decrease to the west, both on an absolute and a percentage basis.To the east,
about 200 vehicles/day are added to West Main Street, and 1000 to the NC 54 Bypass. About one-third of
these are added to South Columbia Street traffic, half continue on the Bypass, and the remainder are
oriented southward.
• Orange Grove Road and Mebane Oaks Road experience smaller increases from traffic that would have
headed north to 1-40 or used rural roads (such as Arthur-Minnis and Bradshaw Quarry)for east-west trips.
Some of these trips appear to be shifted from Old NC 86/Hillsborough Road, Union Grove Church Road, and
even M.L.K.Jr Boulevard. Minor traffic increases occur on segments of Eubanks, Bethel-Hickory Grove
Church, Butler, and White Cross Roads.
• Both the Build and No-Build scenarios exceed the capacity of the 2-lane existing roadway across a range of
growth rate estimates.
Volume Reductions
• Overall,traffic reductions resulting from the proposed NC 54 widening are more dispersed than the traffic
increases.There is a noticeable reduction in east-west traffic along Arthur-Minnis, Bradshaw Quarry, and
New Hope Church Roads. North-south traffic on Old NC 86/Hillsborough Road and Old Fayetteville Road also
decreases.The most significant decrease is 800 vehicles/day along the segment of Old NC 86 between
Dairyland/Homestead Roads and Old Fayetteville Road. Minor reductions occur on portions of Old
Page 7 of 12
14
MPO Board 10/9/2019 Item 8
Ref: 38587.01
October 1, 2019
Page 8
Greensboro, Dairyland,Albert, and Union Grove Church Roads, as well as M.L.K.Jr Boulevard. Reductions
to 1-40 traffic, although larger in absolute terms, represent less than 1%of average daily traffic.
Other
• Some feedback questioned whether volumes on rural roads such as Arthur-Minnis and Bradshaw Quarry
would actually increase in response to increased congestion on NC 54, given the nature of these roads.
While there is no way to be absolutely certain,these are the findings based on the Triangle Regional Model,
developed and approved by NCDOT and local agencies for use in transportation planning.These findings
appear reasonable in light of relative travel times and distances. However, if future traffic does not divert to
these roads, most of it would remain on NC 54, with a portion shifting to 1-40. In that case,traffic volumes
on NC 54 would be even higher in the No-Build scenario than in our analysis,while volumes in the Build
scenario would be the same. The end result would be a smaller difference in volumes between the Build
and No-Build scenarios.
HISTORICAL TRENDS
Historical trend analysis is not especially useful in forecasting traffic volumes along this segment of NC 54. Attempts
were made to correlate changes in annual average daily traffic (AADT) along the Orange County portion of NC 54 to
population changes in the vicinity of the corridor.The only consistent population estimates available are for
counties, municipalities, and townships from 2009 through 2017.
Figure 15 shows the jurisdictions used for population estimates.These areas are generally too large for the purposes
of this type of analysis, and neither the estimates nor the AADTs appear to be precise enough. Lagged correlations
did not perform significantly better. In aggregate, however, populations and AADTs were generally consistent, with
population growing by 16%and AADTs by 15% between 2009 and 2017 (see Figure 16). Based on TRM and PTRM
forecasts (and consistent with NC OSBM forecasts), populations in these jurisdictions are estimated to increase by
42% between 2017 and 2045.This study forecasts a corresponding 40% increase in traffic on the Orange County
portion of the NC 54 West study corridor(see Figure 17).
Observations
• Although population and traffic volume trends could not be strongly correlated on an annual or time-series
basis, overall growth rate trends are reasonably consistent.
TRANSIT
There is currently no fixed-route transit service along NC 54 west of Old Fayetteville Road.To gain a better
understanding of historical transit service,future transit plans, and anticipated effects of emerging transportation
technologies, interviews were conducted with four transit agencies in the region, with emphasis on fixed-route
service,versus paratransit:
Page 8 of 12
15
MPO Board 10/9/2019 Item 8
Ref: 38587.01
October 1, 2019
Page 9
• Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation (PART)
• Link Transit (Burlington/Alamance County)
• Chapel Hill Transit(CHT)
• GoTriangle
Because of the significant role UNC-CH and UNC Hospitals play in local and regional transit(as well as traffic and
parking), representatives from these institutions were also consulted. Figure 18 depicts transit routes by agency in
the region, as well as locations of relevant existing and proposed park-and-ride lots.
PART
The Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation (PART), offers service on the Alamance Burlington Express
(Route 4) between Alamance County and UNC Hospitals. Route 4 is one of PART's most popular routes due in part to
UNC GoPass holders commuting to campus.This route used to run along NC 54 until late 2013, but the routing
switched to 1-40 due to congestion along NC 54 impacting travel-time reliability and the addition of the Mebane Park
& Ride Lot. One of the determinants PART uses in its route selection is congestion along the proposed corridor.
Congestion along a route can affect travel time reliability and schedule adherence. This is especially critical when
connecting to other transit routes; Route 4 provides a transfer to GoTriangle's ODX route. Another reason for PART's
decision to use 1-40 is to serve Alamance Community College and Mebane Cone Health.
Route 4 continues to grow in ridership, with standing room only during some peak periods runs. Every two years,
PART undertakes a system wide analysis and examines its routes and potential adjustments.According to the FY
2020-2029 STIP, PART will be receiving funds to increase Route 4 frequency.
LINK
While Link Transit does not provide transit service to UNC, it does operate fixed-route service in the northern
portion of the study area.The Orange Route services Graham and crosses the north-western portion of the corridor
on 1-40. The two stops in the corridor's vicinity are a park-and-ride lot (located at Hwy 87 and Crescent Square Drive)
and Alamance Community College.The Orange Route has been one of Link Transit's most productive routes with the
top five stops for the system occurring in Graham. Link Transit would like to expand service further into Graham and
Mebane, but needs additional funding or partnerships to implement expanded service.The northern portion of the
NC 54 corridor has potential to support fixed-route transit with continued increases in residential density and
employment centers, like the Honda Manufacturing plant.
Chapel Hill Transit and UNC
The NC 54 West corridor serves east-west travel to and from UNC Chapel Hill and UNC Hospitals. Figures 19 and 20
show residence locations for UNC-CH and UNC Hospital employees, based on the UNC-CH Development Plan, 2017
TIA Update. (Locations are not precise, but representational.) Figure 21 (also from the UNC-CH Development Plan,
2017 TIA Update) indicates that just under 2,000 employees (or 12.4%of total employment) are in the sector
assigned to the NC 54 West corridor.This number is a rough estimate, however. The travelshed analysis described
Page 9 of 12
16
MPO Board 10/9/2019 Item 8
Ref: 38587.01
October 1, 2019
Page 10
above suggest that many of these employees actually use 1-40, and that some use NC 87. Between 750 and 1450
employee residences are estimated to fall within the travelshed depicted in Figure 1, with most the uncertainty
concentrated in the easternmost end of the travelshed. The potential market for a UNC-oriented transit service
along the NC 54 west corridor falls somewhere in this range.
Park-and-ride lots serving UNC Chapel Hill have long helped reduce demand for on-campus parking, as well as
providing an alternative to reduce personal vehicle use.To help support their fare-free transit system, Chapel Hill
Transit began charging for the use of their park-and-ride lots in 2013. Chapel Hill Transit Park-and-Ride Permits are
available at a daily rate of$2, a monthly rate of$21, or an annual rate of$250. Chapel Hill Transit operates four
park-and-ride locations serving commuters coming from the western portion of the region to campus.Table 1
(below) details the Chapel Hill Transit Park-and-Ride lots, which are also depicted in Figure 18.
While parking demand has fallen for the westernmost park-and-ride lots (Jones Ferry and Carrboro Plaza), demand
has risen for the northern park-and-ride along NC 86 (Eubanks Road) and the southern park-and-ride lot along US
15-501 (Southern Village). While the percent of commuters within each respective corridor is similar, utilization is
not. One key reason appears to be the enhanced service level provided by the NS route compared to those routes
serving the Jones Ferry and Carrboro Plaza.The NS Route operates all day with headways as little as ten minutes
during the peak.This level of service frees commuters from having to plan their journey around a bus schedule.
Commuters have the flexibility to arrive at a park-and-ride at a time of their choosing, knowing the next bus will be
coming shortly.This pattern suggests commuters coming from the west pass by the Carrboro Plaza and Jones Ferry
Park-and-Ride lots in favor of the Southern Village Park-and-Ride (and to a lesser extent,the Eubanks Park-and-Ride)
to take advantage of enhanced transit service.
Table 1: Chapel Hill Transit Park and Ride(data from UNC Chapel Hill Development Plan—TIA Update)
Park-and-Ride Routes Number of Fall 2013 Fall 2015 Fall 2017 %of Total
Lot Served Spaces Utilization Utilization Utilization Commuters
in Corridor
Eubanks Road NS, CRX 400 185 188 216 12.1%
(GoTriangle)
Jones Ferry CM, CW and JFX 443 132 102 86
11.4%
Carrboro Plaza CPX and CW 145 52 30 24
Southern Village NS and V 400 272 260 325 11.7%
Page 10 of 12
17
MPO Board 10/9/2019 Item 8
Ref: 38587.01
October 1, 2019
Page 11
The Town of Chapel Hill is in the process of designing the North-South Bus Rapid Transit.This system will run
between the Eubanks Road Park-and-Ride and the Southern Village Park-and-Ride, providing frequent all-day service
to downtown Chapel Hill and UNC Hospitals. Bus rapid transit(BRT) elements such as dedicated lanes,traffic signal
priority, and high capacity transit vehicles,will further increase level of service and convenience for those choosing
to park-and-ride from Southern Village or Eubanks to ride the North-South BRT. These enhancements will increase
the appeal for those previously using Carrboro Park-and-Ride or the Jones Ferry Park-and-Ride to reroute their trip
to one of the BRT stations for the premium transit service provided by BRT.
The Draft Chapel Hill Transit:Short Range Transit Plan provides short-term recommendations to improve bus
routing and frequency on key routes, while remaining cost neutral.The Plan also lays out a set of unfunded
improvements. Several desirable service upgrades were identified that could not be achieved within the existing
budget. One such improvement was the West NC 54 Route, which would provide new weekday peak-only service
from White Cross along the NC 54 corridor to UNC Chapel Hill. This route adds approximately ten route-miles per
trip, and is proposed to run at 70-minute headways during peak periods only, Monday through Friday, at an
additional annual operating cost of$154,000.
One alternative suggested for a park-and-ride at White Cross could be the Henry Anderson III Community Park in
Carrboro. However, a park-and-ride lot does not appear to be compatible with park operations, given current
parking demands.
Emerging Technologies
Emerging technologies continue to redefine transit and the micro-mobility industry while providing alternatives to
traditional fixed route transit service.Transit companies in the region continue to explore the possibilities of on-
demand service and its potential to best meet the agencies goals at a reduced cost compared to fixed route service.
Beginning in August, GoTriangle is partnering with Uber and Lyft to subsidize Ride Sharing trips up to ten dollars if it
connects with one of the GoTriangle bus routes within the Research Triangle Park. GoDurham's long term transit
vision also includes "on-demand zones" where GoDurham will subsidize ride sharing trips connecting to their transit
service.The on-demand type trips are viewed as being most effective where traditional fixed route service may not
be efficient as well as when the on-demand trip connects with high frequency transit. PART has also tested on-
demand shuttles around Piedmont Triad International Airport but reverted to fixed route shuttles when on-demand
ridership did not meet expectations. On-demand style shuttles are best used when looking to replace a costly, low-
ridership, inefficient route to soften the financial burden while still providing service coverage to an area.
Transit agencies continue to face a constrained funding environment and must make tough decisions on trade-offs.
Extending transit service along NC 54 would provide additional coverage to an area previously unserved and thus
would create the possibility for new trips. However, given limited resources, extending service further west from
Carrboro limits other opportunities, such as providing more frequent service on core routes with higher ridership.
Page 11 of 12
18
MPO Board 10/9/2019 Item 8
Ref: 38587.01
October 1, 2019
Page 12
Observations
• As indicated in Table 1,the current supply of park-and-ride spaces serving traffic from the west (including
the NC 54 West corridor) is underutilized.
• Convenience and frequency of service seem to be significant factors in attracting park-and-ride patrons,
favoring park-and-ride lots along the planned BRT route. This limits traffic reduction benefits along NC 54
west.
• UNC and Chapel Hill Transit support park-and-ride and other transit options in the NC 54 west corridor.
However, low ridership potential and long routes limit the cost-effectiveness of this service relative to other
transit investments.
• Focusing on improvements to higher-demand transit corridors—including BRT—could be a more productive
and cost-effective overall strategy than shifting limited resources to the NC 54 West corridor,given its lower
densities, smaller market, and longer route lengths.
• UNC-CH and UNC Hospital are not planning substantial increases in parking capacity. Travel demand
management (TDM) policies are being implemented to encourage and support a mode shift away from
single-occupant vehicles and towards to transit, biking,walking, and ridesharing. These efforts will be most
productive—and cost-effective—in denser corridors with efficient transit service and/or shorter trip
distances. Limited impacts can be expected in the NC 54 west corridor,given the relatively lower
concentration of trip ends and longer travel distances. Ridesharing and park-and-ride appear to be the most
promising options in this corridor.
• As an important public institution serving the State of North Carolina (and beyond), UNC Hospital must be
accessible to a broad range of patients, visitors, and others.A balance of convenient access by both transit
and automobile must be maintained.
• Although UNC-CH and UNC Hospital are significant contributors to traffic using the NC 54 West corridor,
these trips are only part of the volumes on NC 54. As the region grows,these trips will represent a shrinking
share of NC 54 West traffic. The biggest sources of new traffic on NC 54 West appear to be growth in
Alamance and Chatham Counties, along with overall growth in Orange County.
Page 12 of 12
'I %;a � PO Board 1019�2019 Item 8
57
qq ■ sm I y
70
70
62
¢}� � �•A I• � -may •5 •Y"
S Fh � INes[•Ten 5� 4 I
f. r .
4 — 119
Rd
} LI
Pr T�y(L I J � •�y " j5 WkiKlfeldRd
49
I HER
1 pJtl G[B91ebClo.Rd. k R
15
31
Rd
x
ii ?sh'Rd s4� y s
did �c� `' Y
Derived from relative historical travel times for 8 AM weekday,per Google Maps, CO
Page 1 of 25
`VhbFigure 1: Estimated NC 54 Travelshed for Trips to Chapel Hill �
0 1 2 4 Miles
J 'I sro PO Board 102019 Item 8
mti '[ ' SQL
r.J. Leharon l2d L r
nt.SI
yy�son- � f
i a 70
7n
Si'' s!t+A� �'` r� I INesrTan�'• 4 �
62
f a r � r c 5 } 1 �. •
` `p,C�°-;..'' .1 rl• 1 --1_ l l �f { �S''� -P� EI
114
o~ _87 � �o y r ah( f � t ram `
�� J 49� �
Soda
,�'y
�3° J ARhur M1nn4s Rtl
Y { I
4149
�.b P�p� -� T�L l •'I ��f3d � •�liHRaUd-Rd �
�y
c
\j
4���}_ y� r l IF z_ �atti4B�n.�4 �� +� �•� �� �ti 1�' ,; -
'1J1�
-
.b.A qi.
Esbikv
e f'raenst� �_" 9� � �•� O�°e!}�Yl'Rd' �' � ,s,.7 �{ ���F r,.
�1 � Ole G[`B9��'1ebCllo.Rd. k C }•__R�
C}�wcFi R ,4
'a. 4 pony Rd
x f
4'�
Old
' Derived from relative historical travel times for 8 AM weekday,per Google Maps i 4V��
Page 2 of 25
"WbFigure 2: Estimated NC 54 Travelshed for Trips to Southern Village �
0 1 2 4 Miles
' %;a � PO Board 10�9/2019 Item 8
57
qq ■ sm L I
70
t� 70
S M INes[•Ten 5� 4 I
-
_, 4 87
m �til Rd L I� ,l
51 � iaSL78rRa
A!liwr Mlnnfs.F?d — -
��i
49 �c1� peVrt r
ji
CUwFIOAlg3rea&t
r ' Cue s P
aensyQ'
�. spa
I -
Derived from relative historical travel times for 5 PM weekday,per Google Maps,
r
Page 3 of 25
"'VhbFigure 3: Estimated NC 54 Travelshed for Trips to Burlington
0 1 2 4 Miles
MPO Board 1OH019 Item 8
j I Roxboro Henderson
Oxford
►J I
/-0y1
L/
J
Hittrel!
Stem 15
ossipee
Green Burner
I creedmoor u
Level ►J
Elon \� �o ;wll Frankllnton Louisburg
Haw River
Burlington Mehai
�y HiBstiarough
Graham W I
►i
Alamance Swepsonviller
+� Yovngsvilfe
f •
Durham
Wake Fares!
#� — -.Cyrrb-cro Chapel HIII Rolesville
Fell,
Ell
Morrisville.
I ,
►5i � � 2ebulon
I Raleigh Knightdale
Cary �y Wendell
�213 STD'
t
® Apm
Streetlight Data Coverage Area PlRabom
Project Study Area ��� Garner a a is
\/ Miles
it,. Page 4 of 25
+ hb Figure 4: StreetLight Insight Dataset Coverage
MPO Board 019 Item 8
F1 ��
Teer•S&
Dairy�ar�d-Rd �
Rd
a.
J
a �
54
tw
O i ve.
J , f
L
� r
N
Rd
Old �
—Old Greens Fed• !
, Page 5 of 25
�� Figure 5: NC 54 Corridor Segment for Streetlight Origin-Destination Analysis
0 0.3 0.6 1.2 Miles
1 MPO Board ,{2019 Item 8
Dail Vehicle-Trip Distribution StreetLi ht InSi ht Data '" f
Y p � g g )
Teer•�� -
Dairyiand-Rd �
Home Rd u
<1° 7/
4
64 <1% 1/ ° <1/°' j 8%
° ° 3" s "
7/o
f
Old Greensboro Rd • Average Mon-Thu for Apr,May,Sep,&Oct,2016-18
• Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding
• Blue%s represent trips to/from intersecting roads
• Red%s represent trips to/from minor roads and
driveways along a segment of NC 54
Page 6 of 25
hb Figure 6: Origin-Destination Analysis — NC 54 East of Orange Grove Road
0 0.3 0.6 1.2 Miles
1 MPO Board 019 Item 8
AM Peak Vehicle-Trip Distribution (StreetLi ht InSi ht Data) '" I
Teer•�� -
Dairyiand-Rd �
Home Rd u
�— <1 $oti� 4% .
f <1% �a
1 <1/ '< % 2% o° <1°
54 <1% <1%' j
<1%
3%
' 2 6°° 11% ',sr
el
6 %
Rd
• Average Mon-Thu for Apr,May,Sep,&Oct,2016-18
Old Greensl�nro Rd
� • Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding
• Blue%s represent trips to/from intersecting roads
• Red%s represent trips to/from minor roads and
driveways along a segment of NC 54
Page 7 of 25
hb Figure 7: Origin-Destination Analysis — NC 54 East of Orange Grove Road
0 0.3 0.6 1.2 Miles
1 MPO Board 019 Item 8
Dail Vehicle-Trip Distribution StreetLi ht InSi ht Data '" f
Y p � g g )
Teer•�� -
Dairyiand-Rd �
J luau-% - $
Home Rd u
<1/o r2z F
1%
2%
l N C � 54 ��yafry
2
• Average Mon-Thu for Apr,May,Sep,&Oct,2016-18
Old Greensl�nro Rd
� • Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding
• Blue%s represent trips to/from intersecting roads
r • Red%s represent trips to/from minor roads and
77 oaf driveways along a segment of NC 54
Page 8 of 25
hb Figure 8: Origin-Destination Analysis — West Main St East of NC 54 Bypass
0 0.3 0.6 1.2 Miles
1 MPO Board 019 Item 8
Dail Vehicle-Trip Distribution StreetLi ht InSi ht Data � '" f
Y p � g g )
Niryiand-Rd �
Hom Rd u
° < % $��`� 1% <1% .
<1% 1 % 1°o r
54
<1% 1% ° <1% 2 %
t� Ma
100%
• Average Mon-Thu for Apr,May,Sep,&Oct,2016-18
--Old Greepsbom-Rd f
Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding
• Blue%s represent trips to/from intersecting roads
r • Red%s represent trips to/from minor roads and —
o �f driveways along a segment of NC 54
Page 9 of 25
hb Figure 9: Origin-Destination Analysis —NC 54 Bypass South of West Main St
0 0.3 0.6 1.2 Miles
0/�2 019 Item 8
Figure 10a: TRM & PTRM Population Growth (2013 — 2045) MPO Board 1�oO
it -• a -- •'j57
70
v ' / - _, :. • a■ •aid
119
_ .• _ ,� ', _ •� • ��s� I. .• .max
147
F • 7oj,
�vj +• . f, ", I5, ' } sl' ' _ _ •t. Z b •i _`+i1 I� r— -
• y• •� , {a - 4
'• f`• /� .� .� lr •� } •iti.'' +fir
rm
•'t I , � !'Ll
i k �' • " —
•'�t 'a i�t• >d �
aI z arrow NC 54 West Corridor Study j Alamanre and Orange Counties
B Mile Nopd Buffer
�Pmject C—dor
Population 2011 v 2045 TRM&PTRI I Socio-Ecohomic Data(2013-2045)
t oat=10D Source Info:MCDC1T,VHB,MCQneMap,
• Population 2017 to 2045 A amance County,Orange County
Popu]ation 2017 Page 10 of 25
0�2 019 Item 8
Figure 10b: TRM & PTRM Population Growth (2013 — 2045) MPO Board 1 L��
i �57
• •+ •' _ -091 •• s- 'I . rf ` fir• •ts
TO
• 70
° .. - • _ •• •• , - ' • • !•�� � • 'r • . : .. . +.-aa •aid
+ _ 119
6�•�(J ��'II• • •. • .. 1. •s ,. '� � .�,-� • V't� !�
147
62
4;jj, - irk•• i S� `- •r+l
: . `l• `TJ -i' • ;ram b�• - - -
14.
49
- ,z�� •} may {`-J' - � - � �_r. r ;, ••�r . :i` •-. •� �}},, r 'i.-..
9 1 2 4 W. NC 54 West Corridor Study Alalnance and Orange Counties
5 Mile Nojed Buffer
!((((EPmj.c Comdnr
Population 2011 v 2045 TRM&PTRI I Socio-Ecoroomic Data(2013-2045)
I oat=10D Source Info:MCDC1T,VHB,MCQneMap,
• Population 2017 to 2045 Al amance County,Orange County
Population 2017 Page 11 of 25
��,(2
Figure 10c: TRM & PTRM Population Growth (2013 — 2045) MPO Board 1 019 Item 8
57
tip- *f..�.t�• - -. • *,• • ,9� ��• ' • •. • I~. -- ' s` af�� • • ''
III
�` • 70
l•••
119
' s.
f - •r - -•. f • 54A ` • �• •i ar • •d
r, 3T
147
. 70 ,
62
�,F� -• •;1• �^. ,�, rl�; - - 4 -.fit b�' — �;�� - -
/ ice. r• 411,• •j'r�',. .tea
+� �' jl^ •.l} �I • •. - ��� , • 1 - • ' Yyy \�f� . of
• r Hy • '• ! 1 .i' 1 •• y I'Ll
.r
tti.� � i•`• >d a{
9 1 2 4 Miles NC 54 West Corridor Study Aialnance and Orange Counties
5 Mile Projed Buffer
�Pmj.c Comdnr
Population 2011 v 2045 TRM&PTRM Socio-Eco"mic Data(2013-2045)
t oat=10D Source Info:MCDC1T,VHB,MCQneMap,
• Population 2017 to 2045 A amance County,Orange County
Population 2017 Page 12 of 25
�9/
Figure 11a: TRM & PTRM Employment Growth (2013 — 2045) MPO Board 1 2019 Item 8
,: • - _ f �r ram,
"• _ —� 4 5a1
49
7.
41
70
54
op
61
— f. ■ • /1 � -►asp _ � �� ;�_•� � •
147 .'. ..
�. .. - '-UFO,
.62
xJ.
�� ;
f � r' �� I' If � � � � - •, ice' �- - .. •., �� '�'
---- -- 'Z � fit.. 1� a • � � '�. �-'�rtir +�Y,i1ge!a�
s
. 11 I ] �' - _ � ?�— •• � •mod A
5d0
-•'.
J t z ,.ly
a 1 2 4mau NC 54 West Corridor Study Alamance and orange Counties
5 Mile PrbpdL buffer
�Projeet Corridor
Employment 2017 v 2M TRM&PTRM Socio-Economic Data(2013-2045)
• 1 Dot=50 Source Info:NCDOT,VHB,MConeMap.
• Employment 2017 to 2045 Alamance County.Orange County
Empl%--t2017 Page 13 of 25
�9�2
Figure 11b: TRM & PTRM Employment Growth (2013 — 2045) MPO Board 1 019 Item 8
7} !V4 9 • y
70
vj
54
61
14
70)
. 62 111 • — ' ' I • • • • • • • ��• .aS�. —
J.
�Lr 454
. .. •� • + . ••71'.+ .•
49
1 2 4MUU NC 54 West Corridor Study Alamance and orange Counties
5 Mile PrbpdL[suffer
�Pmjeet Corridor
Employment 2017 v 2045 TRM&PTRM Socio-Ecortomic Data(2013-2045)
• 1 Dot=54 Source Info:NCDOT,VHB,NCOneMap,
• Empioyment 2017 to 2045 Alamance County,Orange County
Empioym ent 2017 Page 14 of 25
MPO Board 1%%2019 Item 8
Figure 11c: TRM & PTRM Employment Growth (2013 — 2045)
1 ~a� /r•l�-'�`"�� f '��n-7 •. J I n. r---J` � `��� •4 t �r•-
119
54
61
147.
.62
-rr I jowl i7.
�
J.
54
• j•• ' . . .
' ■■ f. 540 !.
J t z ',.ly
•
1 2 4MUU NC 54 West Corridor Study Aiamance and orange Counties
5 Mile PrbpdL buffer
�Pmjeet Corridor
Employment 2017 v 2M TRM&PTRM Socio-Economic Data(2013-2045)
• 1 Dot=50 Source Info:NCIDOT,VHB,MConeMap,
• Employment 2017 to 2045 Alamance County,Orange County
Empl%-ent 2017 Page 15 of 25
MPO Board ,{2019 Item 8
Daily Vehicle-Trip Distribution TRM
Teer•lRd
Dairyiar�d-Rd �
J b.M -+ - $
Home���� u
r-r2 2% �a
0 2%
54 <1% <1%' j f
<1% o ~
-7% ir SDIf
2 p/ 25%, ,r
54 f
_ • Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding
Old Greensboro-Rd. 1 • Blue%s represent trips to/from intersecting roads
1 • Red%s represent trips to/from minor roads and
driveways along a segment of NC 54 l—
Page 16 of 25
hb Figure 12: TRM Select Link Analysis — NC 54 East of Orange Grove Road
0 0.3 0.6 1.2 Miles
o
PoSO Board 10/�2019 Item 8
`— a='4�
I o
w +�d Rd t, t
4 O f
O L I -4p0
o - _- -
�yycksRd 't � �
+ rti O
aUn_
O �00
N; 0
rr +150 0
-250
1 -
xti� S � B
ply
-XXX Vehicle/day reduction due to NC 54
widening 0 ��. yO 4
30 ti � � � � 200
+XXX Vehicle/day increase due to NC 54
widening
A
XXX* Manually adjusted to compensate for L
TRM over-assignment to West Main St I -150 +1000* _J OO
NOTE: Only differences>100 veh/day are showni}
Yellow indicates roads in TRM network withLIP
{ 0
<100 veh/day change between Build&No Build
Page'17 of 25
* hb Figure 13: TRM — Daily Traffic Differences between 2045 NC 54 Widened and No-Build Scenarios
MPO Board 1W019 Item 8
35,000 4-Lane Divided Capacity*
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) West of Old Fayetteville
30,000
25,000 _
aue
,,crease to
20,000 -
15,000
2-Lane Capacity*
10,000
5,000
■Historical 1.50%, Growth 01.0%Growth
6
2003 2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043
Page 18 of 25
Figure 14: Relative Impacts of Traffic Shifts due to NC 54 Widening
'APO Board 10/9�2019 Item 8
Haw River JJ II
Township
57
Burlington Cheeks Hillsborough
Township 70 Township Township Eno Township
Melville 70
Township
119 $
sz
Graham °
Township `
54
Coble 87 86
Township
491 Thompson
Towns h i p
Albright
Township
Bingham Chapel Hill
Township Township
54
Patterson
Township Newlin
Township
15
Page 19 of 25
*49°Vh Figure 15: Areas Included in Population-AADT Correlation Analysis
1.16 MPO Board 1 019 Item 8
1.14
+�
•
•
1.12 40
•
Ow
1.10do
•
r
�•
o �
1.08
•
1.06
Ow
do do dW No
1
I
1.04
I
I
I
1.02
I
1.00
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
—Roads Sum —_—Combined Population
Page 20 of 25
Figure 16: Comparison of Historical Population and AADT Aggregations
1.70 MPO Board 1W019 Item 8
1.60 ♦ ♦ ♦•
1.50
1.40
1.20 ;t
1.10
1.00
2009 2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 2039 2044
Roads Sum —Combined Population
Page 21 of 25
Figure 17: Comparison of Aggregated Population and AADT Forecasts
MPO Board 10
1019 Item 8
6 I�1
\I
Green Level
Elon gUrlingtnn Haw River 70 r
Gibson`irille Mebane
Graham Hillsborough
B� IN
Aiamance Swepsonville
O CCarrboro Chapel Hill
i
Park and Ride Lots
aExisting
`f) P.POsed -i
Transit Route
LINK
PART
Chapel Hill Transit
GaTNan9le
Ore nge Co nu hlic Transit 9 2 3 A
Miles
Page 22 of 25
Figure 18: Transit Routes and Park-&-Ride Lots to
• •• t ' 158 Item 8
15
14
, �'•y'• ,K •N1=• •• �f • • { • *�. +/yti' a r•'l'• f'•
t 'a 70
{ a•• r 1T#}. �4 r• # a ice. 14 • #
• a , it = �! .:~ ea�. T 40'r • ,. '
• ••*{• t•: • y ti t y
yam,':. •�• ,« j�,. ti�;• �..•" "* f. •' i
• ,rye f .`� t
.. + 40, �} ; �•�': yr { ' t F C4
• �•. :..+. i�.L!+• F r • +' ,a a,
�(;�""��' S'7��'rA: �y - r'� `�fti i ` •�.,�:� •r - r
64
421
do 40
04
AI
• UNC-CH Employeesdh
• Hospital EmployeesIL
,� • f•Y t }
;1dd Source:UNC-CHDevelopmenpgff67Vjbfl�61pdate
Fhb Figure 19: Regional Distribution of UNC-CH and Hospital Employee Residences (2017)
57 PO hoard 1.{9/,2019 Item 8
r D R r ••. 3' a L 7.6'�i
_ tir' *1.• 7 D
62
87 `54 86
49
IR
It
' � .r 's. fib• �t .�••
.r rN,.4 f
* .. r •tir
15
• UNC-CH Employees
• Hospital Employees R z ;
{r Source:UNC-CH Developmenpfttb M 6f/��pdote
�� Figure 20: Study Area Distribution of UNC-CH and Hospital Employee Residences (2017)
MPO Board 10,{9�2019 Item 8;f
Approach Corridors
i Study Area
Bell Tower
Highway
Employees in Approach
01,993
24.8 939
3 _2,331
0 3,906
1,949
2,058 0 2,058
2,557
- 07,713
' . -,�
1 7,71 I aLel
6%
12.7% 939
1,993 }
Figure 21: Proportion of UNC-CH and Hospital
Employees by Commute Corridor (2017
1 Page 25 925
Source:UNC-CH Development Plan,2017TIA Update
Attachment 3 44
Response
Traffic growth is due to continued development in the area served by NC 54,
Opposes widening—rational—increasing lanes results in more cars on road and regardless of widening. Statistically, recommended cross-section will lower crash
impact on air quality and climate change. rate, a significant benefit separate from mobility or capacity.
This is consistent with recommendations.This recommendation will be made
Make intersection improvements first, add passing lanes second and incorporate more explicit, although specific and appropriate recommendations will be
recent advancements in Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)technologies at developed during project design, given variations in individual location
intersections. characteristics, and the rapid pace of ITS evolution.
"Enhance lighting, pavement marking, and signage as needed to maintain
visibility"—Change "maintain"to "improve" and add "where appropriate". Changes incorporated in final report
Transit improvements are included in corridor recommendations. Funding is a
significant challenge with multiple agencies involved, all of which already have
unmet needs.
BRT investments are planned in urban areas along congested, high-volume
corridors with multiple lanes and multiple established bus routes serving larger,
denser mixed-use development that may be higher priorities.
No examples of plans for adding dedicated bus lanes to a rural 2-lane highway
could be found. Given budgetary constraints, unmet needs on more productive
Provide dedicated transit lane and improve transit service between all providers routes, and relatively low densities and long distances along NC 54, it is difficult
along the corridor, including Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) recommendations. to envision an affordable service that could significantly lower traffic volumes.
Further mention of increased transit service and coordination will be added;
however, given budgetary constraints, unmet needs on more productive routes,
and relatively low densities and long distances along NC 54, it is difficult to
envision an affordable service that could significantly lower traffic volumes.
However, rapidly-evolving technologies and service models could lead to
nonconventional transit services that are more viable in this corridor than
traditional fixed route service. At the same time, advances in connected/
Recommend increased transit and improved coordination among all transit autonomous vehicle (C/AV)technology could also render park-&-ride services
agencies along the corridor. Jobsolete...or at least less attractive.
1of3
Attachment 3 45
Prioritize park and ride lot in the study, including UNC. Park and ride services are noted as options and suggested locations are added.
Widening entire corridor is a good project, and scores well in SPOT, and Widening the entire corridor appears inevitable, due to traffic growth. Certain
therefore should be supported by all three planning organizations sooner rather segments are already experiencing capacity and crash problems and are
than later. probably past due.
Phase I has sections of the corridor that are already failing, and the end of Phase I The recommended timeframe represents the likely earliest opportunity to
is late complete the recommended widening.
What is the benefit to Carrboro Safety and Mobility for all users
Passing lanes were considered and proposed as possible locations, where
currently allowed. However, it is hazardous near driveways and access points. A
3 lane road was considered as one of the alternatives.
To what degree is the inability to pass cars contributing to the capacity of the Reversable lanes were not proposed due to the complexities involved in
whole corridor. managing directional traffic.They are used in special events, airports, but can
What about 3 lanes during different times of the day, (e.g. peak hours)? result in crashes if people do not know how to use them.
The further south you move the star,travel sheds do not change. When moving
What is the consequence on the travelsheds when moving the star further south futher east along 15/501, eventually traffic does go to 1-40.This is already built
or east, especially when at some point traffic moves to 1-40?At what point does into the adopted model.This is because future improvements are counted for in
it move to 1-40? the model.
Phase 1 is Old Fayetteville to Dodson Crossroads, Phase 2 goes to Orange Grove
Can you clarify Phase 1, is it Old Fayetteville to Mebane Oaks?And Phase 2 is? Road
Graham is already a 5 lane section, that is where most of the growth is
happening with sufficient capacity. It is not that far into the future where traffic
brakes down past 119.
One problem PART mentioned for NC-54 is reliablity and safe travel along
corridor. If BRT is sought,the corridor would need to be widened first. If this
Why would Graham east not start early? due to watershed and future area is not going to grow, do you want to invest transit money on it, due to its
development, it seems premature for a 4 lane road from Old Fayetteville Road to already limited funding.
Dodson Crossroads. Phasing is important, 2045 is far out into the future and Even if project were to start now, it would not occur for 10 years. We are not
things can change like transit along the corridor. It may be wise to allow planning for how it is now but how it will be.
Alamance and Graham portion to develop first. Skeptical about the viability of Graham has approved the study and will support improvements along the
the project. 1corriclor.
2of3
Attachment 3 46
NCDOT has implemented some safety improvements along the corridor and one
of the primary motivation for this project is safety.These improvments were to
address safety and are complete. We haven't seen the result in the data of those Intersections will be safer but now we will have longer ques of cars bunched
improvements. together. Uncertain what problems this could cause.
Not in most areas, were there are tigher sections yes there is possiblity.There is
no clarity whether it would be widened to one side or another, but that occurs
in design.There are still questions about the new Complete Street Policy and
looks like there is funding if in locally adopted plans.There is clarity coming out
on the policy and is encouraging.
If this project were to get funded in the STIP, would there be enough right of way Yes, there will be some acquisition.
besides for widening and median? Widening does not produce increased trips as the model shows. Traffic is shifting
But there will be right of way acqusition for the shared use path? due to development. In 2045 we are looking at 50,000 cars/day on the by-pass
Should the corridor get widened, all that induced demand will have to go vs current 30,000. While those are 2045 numbers, the safety issue is now. If we
somewhere-through Carrboro-will we have to widen the by-pass?There are address the safety issues now, it should be adaptable for the future. If it doesn't
safety issues with it too and a safety issue is currently underway. happen, its the same problem.
NC-54 by-pass was outside the scope of the study. Currently there are two
committed STIP FY 2020-2029 that will impact the future demand on NC-54 by-
pass:
Will NC 54 by-pass need to be widened in the future due to more demand on the * U-5304-Capacity Improvements on US-15/501 -widening with transit.
road * U-5774- Upgrade NC-54 East Corridor-widening with transit
NCDOT has approved a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the development.
What about the shops and Lloyd Farm at NC-54 and Old Fayetteville Road? How Developer required traffic mitigation will provide some relief to the increasing
much traffic will that development generate and what will be the impact on the traffic caused by the development, allowing the intersection to function
intersection? Jaclaquetly.
3of3