HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-21-2003-5bORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 21, 2003
Action Agenda
Item No. ~_~
SUBJECT: Resolutions Endorsing Orange County Transportation Priority List for 2006-2012 TIP
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N)
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Division 7 Resolution Endorsing Priority List for
2006-12 TIP with Draft Priority List and Comments
2. DCHC MPO Resolution Endorsing Priority List for
2006-12 MTIP with Draft Priority List and Comments
3. Bicycle Plan/DCHC 2025 LRTP projects
4. Alternative Highway Projects from Adopted Documents
5. Status of Orange County 2004-2010 Priority List (Div. 7)
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Craig Benedict Ext. 2592
Karen Lincoln Ext. 2594
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough 732-8181
Chapel Hill 968-4501
Durham 688-7331
Mebane (336)227-2031
PURPOSE: To consider endorsing a list of priority transportation projects in Orange County for
the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2006-2012 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) and for the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan TIP (MTIP).
BACKGROUND: Biennially, the North Carolina Board of Transportation (BOT) adopts a multi-
year State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) that specifies needed transportation
improvements across the state. The process starts with local jurisdictions drafting local
transportation priority lists. Federal and state regulations provide for public input into the process.
"The Transportation Improvement Program contains funding information and schedules for the
State Transportation Divisions including Highways, Aviation, Enhancements, Public Transportation,
Rail, Bicycle and Pedestrian, and the Governor's Highway Safety Program", and is the major tool
for implementation of locally adopted transportation plans.
Orange County, over the past five years, has endorsed four planning documents that recommend
options for transportation improvements to address current and future transportation needs:
• A Bicycle Transportation Plan
• Recommendations of the Economic Development Transportation Work Group
• Access Management Awareness Project & Report for Orange Grove Road
• Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC) 2025 Long Range
Transportation Plan
Attachments 1 and 2 contain draft Priority Lists containing options for the Board's consideration and
modification.
Orange County's priority transportation needs list for NCDOT Division 7 has two sections. One
section deals with selected projects within the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning
Organization (DCHC) planning boundary. The second section deals with projects in the remaining
2
portions of Orange County that lie outside of the Durham-Chapel Hill-C:arrboro metropolitan
planning area.
Orange County's transportation priority list for the projects within the Metropolitan Planning Area
(MPA) must be submitted to DCHC in October to allow time for Lead Planning Agency (LPA) staff
to prepare a Draft Regional Priority List for the Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) to review
and endorse in November. The TCC will forward that list to the Transportation Advisory Committee
(TAC) to release for public comment in December. Please refer to the attached DCHC MPO FY
2006-2012 MTIP Development Schedule.
NCDOT Division 7 will hold a TIP Public Input Meeting on October 23, 2003, from 2:00 p.m. to 4:00
p.m. at High Point University, Hayworth Fine Arts Center, 833 Montlieu Avenue, High Point. The
meeting will give citizens and local governments the opportunity to comment and present requests
for transportation projects within all areas of Division 7.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Administration recommends that the Board consider options for
inclusion in the Priority Lists and adopt the resolutions endorsing the desired alternatives.
ATTACHMENT 1 C~~~`~. ° ~02~ ~~ ~ G ~ ' !f 9C'~J
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A RESOLUTION CONCERNING PROJECTS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR INCLUSION IN
THE 2006 - 2012 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM DIVISION 7
PROJECTS IN ORANGE COUNTY
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Board of Transportation, every two years, prepares a
Transportation Improvement Program that identifies transportation projects scheduled for
State and Federal funding over the next seven years; and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Board of Transportation solicits input for identifying
transportation projects of local and regional importance to be included in the FY 2006-2012
Transportation Improvement Program; and
3
WHEREAS, Orange County gives priority to identified safety needs on existing roads
and bridges, to other transportation projects that encourage alternatives to automobile travel,
to projects that minimize adverse impacts on the natural environment and cultural sites, and
to those projects that foster economic development in the designated Economic Development
Districts; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of
Commissioners that:
1. The Board of County Commissioners endorses the attached project priority list of
transportation projects to be considered for inclusion in the FY 2006-2012 Transportation
Improvement Program; and
2. The Board of County Commissioners provides the attached comments concerning local
transportation projects contained in the 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program.
Upon motion of Commissioner ,seconded by Commissioner _
the foregoing resolution was adopted this the day of , 2003
I, Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North
Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the
proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on October 21, 2003, as relates in any way to
the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of said
Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of , 2003.
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
ATTACHMENT 1 Q R A F T 4
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PRIORITY LIST
FOR CONSIDERATION OF FUNDING IN
THE 2006 - 2012 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Our transportation needs list is divided into two sections. The first section deals
with selected projects within the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro metropolitan
planning area. The second section deals with projects in the remaining portions
of Orange County, which lie outside of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
metropolitan planning area.
ORANGE COUNTY PROJECTS WITHIN
THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO
METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREA
1. SR 1006 Orange Grove Road, at Interstate 40: Construct a pedestrian bridge
over I-40. New Grady Brown Elementary and newly constructed Cedar Ridge
High School are located on New Grady Brown School Raad which has
access from Orange Grove Road south of I-40. The schools are within
walking and cycling distance from residential areas north of I-40. Bicyclists
and pedestrian must share the roadway with motor vehicles crossing the
narrow two-lane bridge that carries Orange Grove Road over Interstate 40.
The bridge is too narrow to accommodate a pedestrian walkway. Lack of an
adequate pedestrian crossing presents an unsafe environment for students to
walk to the schools.
2. U-2805: Homestead Road (SR 1777) Improvements: Improve Homestead
Road from SR 1834, High School Road, to NC 86. This project should
include bicycle and pedestrian facilities. There are three schools in the
vicinity of Homestead Road: Chapel Hill High School, Smith Middle School
and Seawell Elementary School. Many students live within walking distance
and cycling distance to Chapel Hill High School and must walk or cycle along
Homestead Road, and cross the road daily. Provision of sidewalks is of
utmost importance for the safety of students and other pedestrians who use
this corridor. Provision of bicycle facilities is, likewise, necessary for the
safety of students and others.
This project should also include appropriate safety improvements to the
intersection of Homestead Road with High School Road and the intersection
of Homestead Road with Seawell School Road. Both of those intersections
are near public schools.
3. NC 86, Bicycle Lanes: Construct bicycle lanes (4-foot paved shoulders) from
Chapel Hill (Whitfield Road) to Hillsborough (US 70 Business). This project
will extend bicycle lanes on Airport Road (NC86) in Chapel Hill to US 70
Business in Hillsborough. Bicycle lanes have recently been completed along
NC 86 from UNC to Whitfield Road (SR 1731) in Orange County. NC 86 from
ATTACHMENT 1 D R A F T
5
Chapel Hill to Hillsborough is experiencing increasing numbers of bicyclists
using this route and there are also two schools along this route. This route is
listed as priority I of the primary bicycle routes proposed in the Orange
County Bicycle Transportation Plan adopted April 6, 1999. This project is
listed in the 2002-2008 TIP, as an incidental bicycle need. Orange County
requests that bicycle lanes be constructed as an independent project, and, if
necessary, programmed in phases.
4. Old NC 86 (SR 1009) Bicycle Lanes: Construct bicycle lanes (4-foot paved
shoulders) from Carrboro (Eubanks Road) to Hillsborough (I-40). This
project, from the Carrboro Transition area (Hickory Forest Road) to Lafayette
Drive, is priority 6 of the primary bicycle routes listed in the Orange County
Bicycle Transportation Plan, and would extend bicycle accommodations
requested in TIP Project R-2825 to Carrboro, where its Transportation
Advisory Committee has also established bicycle routes on Old NC 86 as a
transportation priority connection between proposed biicycle facilities along
Old Fayetteville Road, Homestead Road and Eubanks Road.
The feasibility study for TIP Project R-2825, improvements to South Churton
Street, recommends afour-lane divided section for Old NC 86 (S. Churton
St.) from I-40 to Lafayette Drive. That study also anticipates accommodations
for bicycles (wide outside lanes) from I-40 to I-85. This project would connect
bicycle facilities proposed in the South Churton Street project to Carrboro.
Carrboro's Transportation Advisory Committee has recommended bicycle
lanes along Old NC 86 in two separate requests for Carrboro's Priority List for
the 2006-2012 TIP:
• from Old Fayetteville Road to Homestead Road; and
• from Homestead Road to Eubanks Road.
5. R-2825 Improvements to South Churton Street: Develop congestion
management, limited access, aesthetic and capacity improvements between
US 70 Business and Interstate 40. The portion between Interstates 40 and
85 will conform to the design criteria of the Economic Development District
Design Manual (4-lane divided section with bike and pedestrian
improvements). The feasibility study completed in February 2002
recommends a 4-lane divided, with 16-foot median, curb and gutter cross
section for the entire corridor from I-40 to Eno River. Orange County stresses
the need to study improvements within the current right-of-way for the
segment north of Interstate 85. Improved capacity through widening is not
the County's first choice because of significant constraints between Interstate
85 and US 70 Business and the proximity of the historic district north of the
project limits. Orange County requests that, where conditions do not prevent
the addition of frontage roads, the feasibility study include the addition of
frontage roads with limited access from the corridor.
ATTACHMENT 1 D R A F T
6
6. US 70 Bypass Widening: Widen, from the Orange/Durham County Line to
the US 70 - I-85 Connector east of Efland, US 70 Bypass to a four-lane
divided section with bike and pedestrian improvements. This project should
be phased to address traffic counts and existing congestion. Orange County
requests that this project be identified as a need and included in the 2006-
2012 STI P.
7. NC 86 (North of Hillsborough) Improvements: Widen NC 86, from US 70
Bypass north of Hillsborough to SR 1332, Coleman Loop (Coleman Loop also
being the intersection area of the planned connector between NC 86 and NC
57), to four lanes with intersection improvements at US 70 Bypass. NC 86 is
the major north-south route through Orange County. NC 57 converges into
US 86 just north of US 70 Bypass. The segment of NC 86 between NC 57
and US 70 is congested, rendering a high accident location at the intersection
of US 70 Bypass at NC 86. Development pressures in this area will
exacerbate traffic congestion and accident proliferation.
ORANGE COUNTY PROJECTS OUTSIDE
THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO
METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREA
1) Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) Widening: Widen from US 70 to West Ten Road
(SR 1144) to a multilane facility. This stretch of roadway borders the western
boundary of the I-85/Buckhorn Road Economic Development District EDD).
This area is the focus of a growing problem of traffic backing up on the
northbound exit ramps of I-85 caused by northbound traffic exiting I-85 onto
southbound Buckhorn Road and turning left into a nonconforming business
use just south of the interchange. With increased interest in extending water
and sewer and reconsidering proposed uses within the EDD, improvements
to the transportation system to support plans for that district are necessary to
attract the desired planned development.
2) Park and Ride Lot in the Buckhorn Economic Development District: Orange
County requests a park and ride facility (from the adopted Orange County
Economic Development District Design Manual) be funded in the Community
Transportation Improvement Plan for Orange Public Transportation. This
project is clearly justified, as it would provide an opportunity for coordination
of public transportation efforts between two growing regions in North Carolina,
the Triad and Triangle.
ATTACHMENT 1 7
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
COMMENTS REGARDING THE
2004 -2010 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
1. Comments on Project U-3808 Elizabeth Bradv Road Extension
A. The Orange County Board of Commissioners is pleased that bicycle and
pedestrian facilities have been included in the Elizabeth Brady Road Extension
project connecting US 70 Business with US 70 Bypass. The Board requests that
the 2004- 2010 DCHC Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program use
the following alignment and cross section for the project.
1. An alignment that has the least impact on the Eno River, the natural
environment and cultural sites.
2. An alignment that does not cross the Eno River, but is aligned along the ridge
south of the river (if that alignment has the least impact on the natural
environment and cultural sites). This recommendation is in accordance with
the Economic Development District Transportation Work Group priority order
by preference of options to be studied for environmental analysis.
3. A road configuration of two lanes with right-of-way reserved for four lanes
(four lanes if necessary).
The Board further stresses that it does not endorse the alternative for this project
that proposes a western bypass of Hillsborough with an interchange at I-40/I-85
that would impact the critical area of the Upper Eno Watershed.
B. An Economic Development District (EDD) Transportation Work Group made up
of Orange County and Town of Hillsborough elected officials, planning staff,
developers and community groups was established to address transportation
issues regarding the Hillsborough area EDD. That group's recommendations
and comments regarding the planning and design of this project were submitted
on December 3, 2001, as part of Orange County's Transportation Priority List for
Consideration of Funding in the 2004 -2010 Transportation Improvement
Program.
2. Comments On Other Tip Projects Initiated By NCDOT
A. I-3306 Section A' widening of I-40 to six lanes from I-85 in Orange County to NC
147 (Buck Dean Freeway) in Durham County.
Project planning and design for this facility in Orange County is in progress and
construction in Durham County is underway. Orange County is opposed to any
widening of I-40 through Orange County unless there is a commitment by
NCDOT to provide HOV and/or dedicated bus lanes. Transportation modeling
studies indicate that the existing four-lane section from I-85 to NC 86 may be
adequate to handle projected future traffic, but HOV lanes, along with widening to
a six-lane section for general traffic, will be needed to help alleviate congestion
from NC 86 to Wake County.
ATTACHMENT 1
8
Orange County requests that, if funding cannot be secured through other
transportation programs, this project include widening the bridge on Orange
Grove Road over I-40 to provide safe access for bicycle and pedestrian traffic
over the interstate as recommended in the Orange Grove Road Study recently
executed by a joint committee made up of Orange County and Town of
Hillsborough Commissioners and staff from Orange County and Hillsborough
Planning Departments, Orange County Economic Development Department, and
NCDOT.
Orange County also requests that NCDOT landscape interchanges for this
project in an aesthetic manner.
B. I-305: widening of I-85 to six lanes and reco
at Hillsborough to Durham County Line
I-40
Orange County is opposed to any widening of I-85 through Orange County
unless there is a commitment by NCDOT to provide HOV and/or dedicated bus
lanes.
Orange County requests that its staff be allowed to participate in the planning of
the facility. The County is specifically interested in the following infrastructure
improvements as they relate to the I-85/US 70 Economic Development District:
1. Erosion Control Measures -Orange County requests that permanent erosion
control measures be included in the project.
2. Landscaping of Interchanges -Orange County requests that NCDOT
landscape all reconstructed interchanges in an aesthetic manner.
3. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities -Orange County requests that its staff be
allowed to participate in the determination of where and what type of facilities
are to be included in this project. Among the features requested for inclusion
are sidewalks and bike lanes (see the Regional Bicycle Plan for Durham and
Orange Counties) along roads where interchange improvements are required
and adequate guardrails on overpasses.
4. Wildlife Corridor Under I-85 (in the vicinity of US70 Interchange) -Orange
County requests that its staff be allowed to participate during the planning
stage and that this issue be brought to the attention of the NCDOT Staff
Biologist. Constructing this wildlife corridor is one of the recommendations
presented in the "The New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan:
Proposals for Linking Duke Forest and Eno River State Park." Orange
County also requests that NCDOT consult county staff in designing the
interchange at US 70 to provide a pedestrian trail under I-85 linking New
Hope Creek and the Eno River (New Hope Rustic Woodland Trail proposed
as an element of the Lands Legacy Program).
ATTACHMENT 1
9
5. Intersection of Pleasant Green Road (SR 1567) & Mt Herman Church Road
SR 1713 - NCDOT Division 7 Traffic Engineers have recommended that this
intersection be included as a part of I-305 because of its proximity to the I-
85/US 70 interchange. The entire intersection should be realigned so that
Pleasant Green Road intersects US 70 at a 90-degree angle.
6. US 70 from NC 751 to University Station Road (SR 1712) - Due to the needs
of the Pleasant Green Road\US 70 intersection, Orange County requests that
US 70, from NC 751 to University Station Road, be upgraded to provide for a
suitable transition from/to I-85. An example of the need for this project is the
intersection of US 70 with Old No.10 (SR 1715), which currently operates at
level of service "F".
7. Mt Herman Church Road (SR 1713) -Preliminary plans by the Planning &
Environmental Branch, Division of Highways of NCDOT indicate that this road
may be relocated as part of I-305. Orange County requests that this road be
designed with 12' wide travel lanes and 4' wide bicycle lanes for a total paved
width of 32'.
8. Old NC 10 (SR 1710) -Preliminary plans by the Planning & Environmental
Branch, Division of Highways of NCDOT indicate that this road may also be
relocated as part of I-305. Orange County requests that this road be
designed with 12' wide travel lanes and 4' wide bicycle lanes for a total paved
width of 32'.
9. NC 86 - NCDOT has expressed concern that the width (2-lane) of the NC 86
overpass is inadequate for increased traffic volumes that would result from
proposed development in the adjacent Economic Development District.
Orange County requests that the NC 86 overpass be widened.
ATTACHMENT 2 ~~~~ ~" ~ °~[~M~~OO~ 10
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
A RESOLUTION CONCERNING PROJECTS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR INCLUSION IN
THE 2006 - 2012 DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Board of Transportation and the Durham-Chapel Hill-
Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), every two years, prepares a
Transportation Improvement Program that identifies transportation projects scheduled for
State and Federal funding over the next seven years; and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Board of Transportation and the MPO solicits input for
identifying transportation projects of local and regional importance to be included in the FY
2006-2012 Transportation Improvement Program; and
WHEREAS, Orange County, as a member of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
Metropolitan Planning Organization, will continue to work with the Transportation Advisory
Committee (DCHC TAC) to develop a complete list of project priorities for the portion of
Orange County that lies inside the urbanized area boundary; and
WHEREAS, Orange County gives priority to identified safety needs on existing roads
and bridges, to other transportation projects that encourage alternatives to automobile travel,
to projects that minimize adverse impacts on the natural environment and cultural sites, and
to those projects that foster economic development in the designated Economic Development
Districts; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of
Commissioners that:
1. The Board of County Commissioners endorses the attached priority list of transportation
projects to be considered for inclusion in the FY 2006-2012 Transportation Improvement
Program; and
2. The Board of County Commissioners provides the attached comments concerning local
transportation projects contained in the 2004-2010 DCHC Metropolitan Transportation
Improvement Program.
Upon motion of Commissioner ,seconded by Commissioner
the foregoing resolution was adopted this the day of , 2003
I, Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North
Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the
proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on October 21, 2003, as relates in any way to
the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of said
Board.
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said County, this day of , 2003.
Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
ATTACHMENT 2 [~ R A F T 11
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PRIORITY LIST
FOR CONSIDERATION OF FUNDING IN
THE 2006 - 2012 DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZION
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
SR 1006 Orange Grove Road at Interstate 40: Construct a pedestrian bridge
over I-40. New Grady Brown Elementary and newly constructed Cedar Ridge
High School are located on New Grady Brown School Road which has
access from Orange Grove Road south of I-40. The schools are within
walking and cycling distance from residential areas north of I-40. Bicyclists
and pedestrian must share the roadway with motor vehicles crossing the
narrow two-lane bridge that carries Orange Grove Road over Interstate 40.
The bridge is too narrow to accommodate a pedestrian walkway. Lack of an
adequate pedestrian crossing presents an unsafe environment for students to
walk to the schools.
2. U-2805: Homestead Road (SR 1777) Improvements: Improve Homestead
Road from SR 1834, High School Road, to NC 86. This project should
include bicycle and pedestrian facilities. There are three schools in the
vicinity of Homestead Road: Chapel Hill High School, Smith Middle School
and Seawell Elementary School. Many students live within walking distance
and cycling distance to Chapel Hill High School and must walk or cycle along
Homestead Road, and cross the road daily. Provision of sidewalks is of
utmost importance for the safety of students and other pedestrians who use
this corridor. Provision of bicycle facilities is, likewise, necessary for the
safety of students and others.
This project should also include appropriate safety improvements to the
intersection of Homestead Road with High School Road and the intersection
of Homestead Road with Seawell School Road. Both of those intersections
are near public schools.
3. NC 86, Bicycle Lanes: Construct bicycle lanes (4-foot paved shoulders) from
Chapel Hill (Whitfield Road) to Hillsborough (US 70 Business). This project
will extend bicycle lanes on Airport Road (NC86) in Chapel Hill to US 70
Business in Hillsborough. Bicycle lanes have recently been completed along
NC 86 from UNC to Whitfield Road (SR 1731) in Orange County. NC 86 from
Chapel Hill to Hillsborough is experiencing increasing numbers of bicyclists
using this route and there are also two schools along this route. This route is
listed as priority I of the primary bicycle routes proposed in the Orange
County Bicycle Transportation Plan adopted April 6, 1999. This project is
listed in the 2002-2008 TIP, as an incidental bicycle need. Orange County
requests that bicycle lanes be constructed as an independent project, and, if
necessary, programmed in phases.
ATTACHMENT 2 Q R A F T
12
4. Old NC 86 (SR 1009) Bicycle Lanes: Construct bicycle lanes (4-foot paved
shoulders) from Carrboro (Eubanks Road) to Hillsborough (I-40). This
project, from the Carrboro Transition area (Hickory Forest Road) to Lafayette
Drive, is priority 6 of the primary bicycle routes listed in the Orange County
Bicycle Transportation Plan, and would extend bicycle accommodations
requested in TIP Project R-2825 to Carrboro, where its Transportation
Advisory Committee has also established bicycle routes on Old NC 86 as a
transportation priority connection between proposed bicycle facilities along
Old Fayetteville Road, Homestead Road and Eubanks Raad.
The feasibility study for TIP Project R-2825, improvements to South Churton
Street, recommends afour-lane divided section for Old NC 86 (S. Churton
St.) from I-40 to Lafayette Drive. That study also anticipates accommodations
for bicycles (wide outside lanes) from I-40 to I-85. This project would connect
bicycle facilities proposed in the South Churton Street project to Carrboro.
Carrboro's Transportation Advisory Committee has recommended bicycle
lanes along Old NC 86 in two separate requests for Carrboro's Priority List for
the 2006-2012 TI P:
• from Old Fayetteville Road to Homestead Road; and
• from Homestead Road to Eubanks Road.
5. R-2825 Improvements to South Churton Street: Develop congestion
management, limited access, aesthetic and capacity improvements between
US 70 Business and Interstate 40. The portion between Interstates 40 and
85 will conform to the design criteria of the Economic Development District
Design Manual (4-lane divided section with bike and pedestrian
improvements). The feasibility study completed in February 2002
recommends a 4-lane divided, with 16-foot median, curb and gutter cross
section for the entire corridor from I-40 to Eno River. Orange County stresses
the need to study improvements within the current right-of-way for the
segment north of Interstate 85. Improved capacity through widening is not
the County's first choice because of significant constraints between Interstate
85 and US 70 Business and the proximity of the historic district north of the
project limits. Orange County requests that, where conditions do not prevent
the addition of frontage roads, the feasibility study include the addition of
frontage roads with limited access from the corridor.
6. US 70 Bypass Widening: Widen, from the Orange/Durham County Line to
the US 70 - I-85 Connector east of Efland, US 70 Bypass to a four-lane
divided section with bike and pedestrian improvements. This project should
be phased to address traffic counts and existing congestion. Orange County
requests that this project be identified as a need and included in the 2006-
2012 STI P.
ATTACHMENT 2 D R A F T
13
7. NC 86 (North of Hillsborough) Improvements: Widen NC 86, from US 70
Bypass north of Hillsborough to SR 1332, Coleman Loop (Coleman Loop also
being the intersection area of the planned connector between NC 86 and NC
57), to four lanes with intersection improvements at US 70 Bypass. NC 86 is
the major north-south route through Orange County. NC 57 converges into
US 86 just north of US 70 Bypass. The segment of NC 86 between NC 57
and US 70 is congested, rendering a high accident location at the intersection
of US 70 Bypass at NC 86. Development pressures in this area will
exacerbate traffic congestion and accident proliferation.
ATTACHMENT 2
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
COMMENTS REGARDING THE
2004 -2010 DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZION
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
1. Comments on Project U-3808, Elizabeth Brady Road Extension
14
A. The Orange County Board of Commissioners is pleased that bicycle and
pedestrian facilities have been included in the Elizabeth Brady Road Extension
project connecting US 70 Business with US 70 Bypass. The Board requests that
the 2004- 2010 DCHC Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program use
the following alignment and cross section for the project.
1. An alignment that has the least impact on the Eno River, the natural
environment and cultural sites.
2. An alignment that does not cross the Eno River, but is aligned along the ridge
south of the river (if that alignment has the least. impact on the natural
environment and cultural sites). This recommendation is in accordance with
the Economic Development District Transportation Work Group priority order
by preference of options to be studied for environmental analysis.
3. A road configuration of two lanes with right-of-way reserved for four lanes
(four lanes if necessary).
The Board further stresses that it does not endorse the alternative for this project
that proposes a western bypass of Hillsborough with an interchange at I-40/I-85
that would impact the critical area of the Upper Eno Watershed.
B. An Economic Development District (EDD) Transportation Work Group made up
of Orange County and Town of Hillsborough elected officials, planning staff,
developers and community groups was established to address transportation
issues regarding the Hillsborough area EDD. That group's recommendations
and comments regarding the planning and design of this project were submitted
on December 3, 2001, as part of Orange County's Transportation Priority List for
Consideration of Funding in the 2004 -2010 Transportation Improvement
Pro ram.
2. Comments On Other Tip Projects Initiated By NCDOT
A. I-3306 Section A' widening of I-40 to six lanes from I-85 in Orange County to NC
147 (Buck Dean Freeway) in Durham County.
Project planning and design for this facility in Orange County is in progress and
construction in Durham County is underway. Orange County is opposed to any
widening of I-40 through Orange County unless there is a commitment by
NCDOT to provide HOV and/or dedicated bus lanes. Transportation modeling
studies indicate that the existing four-lane section from I-85 to NC 86 may be
adequate to handle projected future traffic, but HOV lanes, along with widening to
ATTACHMENT 2 15
a six-lane section for general traffic, will be needed to help alleviate congestion
from NC 86 to Wake County.
Orange County requests that, if funding cannot be secured through other
transportation programs, this project include widening the bridge on Orange
Grove Road over I-40 to provide safe access for bicycle and pedestrian traffic
over the interstate as recommended in the Orange Grove Road Study recently
executed by a joint committee made up of Orange County and Town of
Hillsborough Commissioners and staff from Orange County and Hillsborough
Planning Departments, Orange County Economic Development Department, and
NCDOT.
Orange County also requests that NCDOT landscape interchanges for this
project in an aesthetic manner.
B. I-305' widening of I-85 to six lanes and reconstruction of interchanges from
at Hillsborouah to Durham County Line
Orange County is opposed to any widening of I-85 through Orange County
unless there is a commitment by NCDOT to provide HOV and/or dedicated bus
lanes.
Orange County requests that its staff be allowed to participate in the planning of
the facility. The County is specifically interested in the following infrastructure
improvements as they relate to the I-85/US 70 Economic Development District:
1. Erosion Control Measures -Orange County requests that permanent erosion
control measures be included in the project.
2. Landscaping of Interchanges -Orange County requests that NCDOT
landscape all reconstructed interchanges in an aesthetic manner.
3. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities -Orange County requests that its staff be
allowed to participate in the determination of where and what type of facilities
are to be included in this project. Among the features requested for inclusion
are sidewalks and bike lanes (see the Regional Bicycle Plan for Durham and
Orange Counties) along roads where interchange improvements are required
and adequate guardrails on overpasses.
4. Wildlife Corridor Under I-85 (in the vicinity of US70 Interchange) -Orange
County requests that its staff be allowed to participate during the planning
stage and that this issue be brought to the attention of the NCDOT Staff
Biologist. Constructing this wildlife corridor is one of the recommendations
presented in the "The New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan:
Proposals for Linking Duke Forest and Eno River State Park." Orange
County also requests that NCDOT consult county staff in designing the
interchange at US 70 to provide a pedestrian trail under I-85 linking New
ATTACHMENT 2 16
Hope Creek and the Eno River (New Hope Rustic Woodland Trail proposed
as an element of the Lands Legacy Program).
5. Intersection of Pleasant Green Road SR 1567 & Mt Herman Church Road
SR 1713 - NCDOT Division 7 Traffic Engineers have recommended that this
intersection be included as a part of I-305 because of its proximity to the I-
85/US 70 interchange. The entire intersection should be realigned so that
Pleasant Green Road intersects US 70 at a 90-degree angle.
6. US 70 from NC 751 to University Station Road (SR 1712) -Due to the needs
of the Pleasant Green Road\US 70 intersection, Orange County requests that
US 70, from NC 751 to University Station Road, be upgraded to provide for a
suitable transition from/to I-85. An example of the need for this project is the
intersection of US 70 with Old No.10 (SR 1715), which currently operates at
level of service "F".
7. Mt Herman Church Road (SR 1713) -Preliminary plans by the Planning &
Environmental Branch, Division of Highways of NCDOT indicate that this road
may be relocated as part of I-305. Orange County requests that this road be
designed with 12' wide travel lanes and 4' wide bicycle lanes for a total paved
width of 32'.
8. Old NC 10 (SR 1710) -Preliminary plans by the Planning & Environmental
Branch, Division of Highways of NCDOT indicate that this road may also be
relocated as part of I-305. Orange County requests that this road be
designed with 12' wide travel lanes and 4' wide bicycle lanes for a total paved
width of 32'.
9. NC 86 - NCDOT has expressed concern that the width (2-lane) of the NC 86
overpass is inadequate for increased traffic volumes that would result from
proposed development in the adjacent Economic Development District.
Orange County requests that the NC 86 overpass be widened.
z
O
w
zq
L.L
O
w
2
O
H
W
d
Z
J Q
U~
~~
m Z
~O
0 ~
UO
Z ~-
Q Q
~ ~
I-
J
Ow
~U
Q
~U
~ oD
O
a
z
w
NZ
LL
Z
O
N
O
N
U
W
H
c
c~
a ~
C
O
~~
o ~
Qo
N (0
C
~ Q
>+ ~
U ~
m N
~, U
~ U
~m
0
U~
L
O.O
^^L
I..L
O
O
~ ~ o
O O V
U ~ _
~ ~ LL ~ N
0 (/~ L
Q
~ '~"~ ~ O O
(B r
~ ~
~ ++ _
C _
C
~ U ~
w ~ ~
cv o
U o
U
~
O
ti w
O ~
U
C =
=
O w
I~
M ~.
O B
L E
L
CO ~ ~ I` ~
~
Z
~ ~
Q t
U ~
cA ~
U ~
U ~
U
~ ~
~ ~
c ~ ~ ~
~
J
~ L
~
N
O N ~
J
L ~
~~ Y
(~
~ _ ~
~ O W i
o
LL p
~ ~ i
O ~
c
~ ~ ~ N
C
~
~ W
~
~ ~
~ W
L
~ ~
W
U ~ w U mo w =
Q
O
O
O
O =
cA
~ ~
~ =
2 c~
U ~
~ U
Z =
2 c~
U ~
U
~ .~
~~
~
o
~
c
~ ~
~
O
~
I
~ N ~ i
O ~ ~ 0 ~ ~
N ~
~~n L ~ ~ I..1_ .
U
Z /J O C (~ ~
/
L.{.. L N
'O
O ~ ~
~ ~ N
O O
~ -p
~ O
L.I.. E
i
o ~ 0 0 .~ ~ a~'i U
~ °
~~n O w ~ co -
~ ~
~ ~ ~~ 11~ I~ 0 0 N 00
~
~ ~
~o
`- o
o M
ti M
r~ U
Z ~
ag o
o
O
~ ~
U I~
U I~
~cI~ ~
~ ~
~ !-
~
-
° r
~ ~
~
z z ~~ c1) cn cn -
O cn cn
ca
E
'>=
d r ~ ~ M ~ In CO I` 00
N N
ATTACHMENT 3
17
ATTACHMENT 3
18
z
0
U
w
C~
Z
Q
O
W
2
I-
O
W ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~
wza o
ego
}ago
mz~ ~
~O ac
W1-~~
0~ ~~
J ~ H ~
U O N >,
Z ~ ~ U
ZZ.~?00
J ~ m
L
a ~, rr O
C 'i
ZW ~d
~VU~
~U ~o
Om caU
a O ~
~ ~
Z ~
Q O
W
Z
Z
0
N
O
N
2
W
2
O
o
U
z -
O
i
c~
~ a
L
L
~
U
~
O
w
v
~
^
r
O
`-
~
~
0
U
Z
-v
O
~
o
~
~
-
c~
~:
~
N
0
r'
~
~
~
o
~
~
-
c~
~
~
N
0
~
~
~
^
~
o
~
o
~
..~
~
~
V
z
c
°
o
U
c
~
~
a
~
wo,
O
~
~
U
-~
~
M
~
~
~
O
~
U
z
.
~
~
o
L
U
-~
~
N~
c'.
~
a•
~
O
U
~
~
~
L
U
a
o
~
N
~_
N
a~
~
0
~ O
~
U c
.~
~
L C
~
m °- U _
~ ca
0
~ o
O
~ ao
~
o ~ o o Q
LL U c
(a ~ ~
~~ p
O
~, ~ I- I- a~i c ro ~
.~
~ .r
~ 3
J w
L w
L
U
~ crs
~ w
~ c --
~ ~
U U
0
0
~ rn
O rn
7 ^
N
~
C
p H o
Oa'
E
E
U
U
~ O
o O
o
M
o
ff O
o
°~
N
L N
L O
f~ Z Z
"'~ ~
~/
LL ~
N ~
N ~
~/
LL ~
~/
LL ~
G9
~ .n
(n ~ L
L O
0
0
~
0
0
~ =
= =
_
~
~
~ _
=
UU
~ ^ ~ ^ ~ ~ J O O N ~ ~ ~
^ M ~M ~°
~ ~ ~ C
N o ~-°~ Ica
ti 'O tf~ ~ M
r .-. ~
.~ N M L
~ fn O~
~
. 0 O (6 O
~
~ ~ O
O
~ ~ ~~O -~p"0 ~
M ~
~ O'p .
~.~.~ ~ O
~ O (n ~ fn O (0 p ~ ~ ~ O (0 O L ~ O
~ c ~ "O ~'p ~M~ N ~ ~Cp c ar 7 ~U
L ~
N U
~ O
~' \
~ CO (~ O
/~ ~
O ~ ~ ~^ ~ VJ c
(B ~, O N O ~L U)C~0-o ff i ~ O c~ O Y'pp)~ M L O
to .O ca O c~ O C ~'~ ~~U to c ca =_~ ~
fnJ p O~ ~ ~U~
~ 3 cn a~ ~ L
~ v °~~ ° ~ ~ _
'S~cfl ~~~ o ~c0 c
°
`
o E ~ m~ 3 3
J ~
N U ° o QL
~ ~U 3 0
~ ~ ~°
~ E a~~U
0 p ~
o
o
fq~-
~ ~ U ~ dfA Z c
p (n c O ~
u.. 2 ~ (n ~~ ~ ~ Y
oO COU I`oO M ~ N 0 00 O ~L N,~ ~ O OQ(n ~tU~ (p
' N~ O
~ ~ ~ c CO~ N CO m OL Na (pU C'`~LLJ ~U N.-• ~ O 0~
( ~•~m
r ~ r
l
' r
r r !
~ ~ r ~ ~
T N \
~ ~ U~ r
O ~
N ~N
/
1.1. ~ ma
/ fi
/
I.L 1.1.
nc~
c ma
/
LL
u~ ~N
/
I..L
c~
~ N
LL ~
c
~z ~
/
1.1. (~ ~ °
c
~ /~
`~ ~
°
~ ~
~° ~/
~
LL
~
°~ ~N/
I..f. ~ O ~
°~
~ /
/
LL ~ ~
~~~
~ cn cn= ~ i i
~iUC~ ~ ~ OU
ATTACHMENT 4
Alternative Highway Projects From Adopted Documents
19
The tables on pages 19 - 21 list highway improvement alternatives for the
Transportation Priority List. These projects are recommended in the EDD
Transportation Work Group Recommendations, the Access Management Awareness
Project & Report for Orange Grove Road, or the DCHC MPO 2025 Long Range
Transportation Plan. The list contains one project (Homestead Road widening) in the
planning jurisdiction of Chapel Hill because that project has been in past Orange County
Priority Lists.
Stars in columns for each document indicate inclusion of the project in that plan or
study. There is also a column that indicates if the project is included in the current
2004-2010 TIP.
The following documents are included after the tables of highway alternatives:
• Economic Development Transportation Work Group Recommendations;
• Joint Orange Grove Road Work Group Recommendations; and
• Orange County Highway Projects included in the DCHC 2025 Long Range
Transportation Plan.
ATTACHMENT 4
~ T
L
~~
O '~ t ~ ~ L L ~
C
O L
O
O
O
O
p
O
O ~
O ~ O
O O
~ ~
~
O
~•
C ._ O O ~
p ~ O
O 0
O ~ cU
O N ~
p~ ~ p
'C U
fn ~ ~ ~Q
to ~~
N ~
N ~ C
~ f0 O N
~ - ~ N
-
C .
~ L ~
~ N
~ ~
L ~
O = ~
L -
O =
_
- L
= O _
L -
O = __
_ _
_
^^
LL ~ 2 =
~oafoad dll 6ui}six3 ~ ~ ~ ~
J1bJ0 ~ ~ ~ ~
suoi~epuawwooa~ •dnoa~
~~o/N uoi~e~aodsueal ad3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ dlb~ SZOZ CHCa ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
U
W ~-%
W N
p o ~
a ° w
~
I~
t.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CV U ~ ~
Q ° c4
cn
o 0
~ ~, o
• Z cv
~
a~
~. ° ~-
c~ o o ~
a~ °
o
~ ~~ o o m~ O o n
2 c6 ~ r- ~ ~ -° (A v a~
~ ~ O O
~_ 'O N
~ fA
N~ c
O ca
O .,
~
F-
Q C
~ °o ~
a~ N
E w~' O
~ U ~ •
~
U ~ O ) .~ O v7 ti V fa
W ~ N ~ O O `N- ~ c6 ~
~
J ~~
C C
~ r
~ Q
E O_
>+ fn T
m ~
~ ~
(lf m
O
Q ~
... O fn +.
N "~ +r
(B O
L 00 .O I~
o°
~ °'
p o
~ c~ co
O ~ a~~
c _ ti
'n m
ao
c~
~ ~
~ °
> o
~ aim
ao L
~~ :~ ~
~,~ U
Z U
Z
~°0 00 ~ ~
U Erg
~ u) o ~ ~
• c ~
o r- r- ~ o ~
o c~ ~,
o to cn ° ~ •`" o
3 `~ E ~ ~ = a°i
•
w~ '-' `~ ~° ~ 2 ° ° ~ ~ E
^o
~~ o
~ c
o ~
m v °
cZ ~
a~ °~
~ ~ m
~ ° a'
°ia
c > ° ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ° ~ ~ v
p
,~ O O ~ ~ >' ~ w ~ U ~ N 4
'_-
~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ ?. ~ U ~ N O
~
C O
N
~
~
M
~ N O m M Q
_
~ ~ 'p
U M
~ ~
•O ~
~ ~ N
~
~ M O
~
~ ~ M'
i
D! m
O ~= ~
0 N~
O
~ +r
~ v-
O m U~ ,
C
~ ti •U 0
0 O
(a
O
d U
N N E ~ v7 C
•f6 U
O U) ,~ :
a~ ~~ Z uj L E
~ 'p O N N .-. O O O `~ -p O ~ O
a°0~~.~ wm ~ E_~ ~c°n ~ ~~ ~.~ Q~
20
ATTACHMENT 4
21
~ ~
~
~~
~
L ~
~
_
- o ~ o
o
' ~ _
= U ~
O ~
O ~
O U
~ O
~
~
~ N
~ ~ ~
~ ~
N
~
N ~
~ ` ~ ~
~~ U O 2 2 2 O
~oafoad dll 6ui~six~ ~
J1bJ0
suoi}epuawuaooa~ ~dnaC
~~oM uoi}e~aodsueal aa~ ~ ~ ~
dl2~l SZOZ CHCa ~ ~
N ~ Y
_
°
O c~ z E
L ~ +~
~ r. ~
~
°~ o ~ N
~ ~
_ M U
~ o
~
~ ~
O U ~ ~ N
v N ~ W p ~
~
^ 'o U o ~ ~
Z N
~~
~` Q U N (6 (~6
~ _
o o c
c o
-°
o
o `
U~
~
~
fa U
O C
N
N ~
~
O N
~ ~. Q
tq f6
'~ -p L.
O '~ '~
W (6
~ - fv6 ~ ca
OL O u- rn O
~ ~'
N ~ ~ O
N V C C ~ ~ .N.~ ~
~ ~
m ~ «-~
~ 3
~ C C7
O
_
Q
'~ ~
~ (9
~
~ O ~ O
- N O U
a
i
'> ti ~
a~ ~ ~ oV
~ ~
~
~~ o
c~
O L
~
'
o
N j~
~~ U ~~ o cO
~U ~° ~3 °~
~
`. Z Q
~ L
~ O U
~ ~
In
Q
C
O ~ ~
> ~ (~ ~
C
~
N ~'
~ ~~ N I
~
O ~~ CO ~ O L ~ ~
U
~.
a
~~ oo
U U ~
Z W ~
~ cv N
~~
Q_ 'v c
O ct ~
N ~ ~~
.
O
~ do -a Xo°' ~ ~
LE
a ~ ~ ~ W ~ to W fA co
U
W
d
a
W
F-
Z
w
H
J
Q
ATTACHMENT 4
22
c rn o o rn o0 o rn ~
o
' ~ U U c ~ ~U ~ ~ ~
~
~ O O O O O O O
O O
~ O
p~ O O O
O O O O
_ ~
` ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
N .Q ~
~ O ~
N ~
~ ~
~
(B
0_~ = O O 2 2 20 2 2 2
~oafoad dll 6ui~six3
~12iJOf
suoi~epuawwooa~ •dnoa~
~~oM uoi~e~odsueal aa~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
d12~~ 9ZOZ CHCd ~ ~
"-'
~
U ~
o ~
~
Z ~ ~ ~ ~ V Z ~ ~
~ ~ ~ c ~ Z a ~ ~
o c ~ •v O o
c~ 00 ~ a .` O o C7 s
.~ ~ c ca c !~ a~ c ~ U
00 0~ c ~~ • =
U ~ U ~° ~
•c~ ~ 3
o X O 3
_ _ a~ rn
t :n Q `- ~ = O U ~ v Z
•~
O=
~~
?J„
OL
Z .r
~
~
O
~ °' a 3 ~ o ° °
~
o a
i
c i
wZ i ~
a
ccn
~
~ •~' O
~L O
4- ~ o
a~ ~
~ -
~
c c ~
o O ca
a
a~ m ~.
o o c
c >; o
O U
O _
~...
O ul L (Q
.-• p c
~ ~
O L C
~ O O
. O O
`~ O
Q X
N
Q t O ~ ~ N N O
~ ~ O
+•' U
U N
X N
U Q ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~ (p N ~ N ~ ~ ~ C
•~ ~ D X ~ V O ~ ~ to ~ O O ~ O
~
f6 O
N ~
i r'
O
~ r'
~' p
~
U N +~
~ > U
~ ~
U `-
O
to
U L
~ (Q v
~ O ~ ~ O ~ ~ C U •yC-.-.. ~ ~ C ~ N
•o
O N ~~ N 'O = N O O m O O
~ N U O c
a
~ O Qc
~ O 0 ~ 3
~ N ~
.«, a>
.` ~
O ~ c
c ~ r
~ 000 U
~ o c Q ~ Z ~ p •'-' N ~ •L O
U ~...
L r ~~~ i :''' ~ ~' N O O p N L j ~
c ~ ~pU ~~ ~~ •o Z~ ~~ 3~ ~c c7~
~o
~ U ~ ~ V~ o oZ c.g c
~
c ° ~
o~ ~ ca ~
3 a~ c
>c w .c a~
~ ~ ~°
O> c ~
°~ •> co
c v c ~
i
a
c a>
~
_~Z
o o
U cacn
~, c~
.c
~ o
L
c
~ ~
DU La~
~~ ~
t
O
-a ~ O p
~ ~ (n (6 ~
C~ oo (~
O
•. ~ Z
3 ~ C
~ c
X o +
.. O
o v ~ z
a o o
~ -c C.)
~ L ~ -a ~
'
~U
Zc
~
o a~
~
-~o ~
U ~-
J~ o a~
E
o a Z ~ u
i
a U~
Z o
Z L ca~
Q f6 J
-
3 U ~O N
-
te cn
- ~
- c•~ c
3 v NLL 0
v oL a co v rn~ m oY m~
~ ~
s o x~ o ~ti X c Xw ~ a~i o ~Z o 3 i o
a~ ~
~ a woo U~.- w ~ w~ w ~ ~ UoOO U° U ~ «
H
U
w
d
Q
2
C~
w
Q
Z
w
J
a
ATTACHMENT 4 23
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION WORKGROUP
RECOMMENDATIONS
Notes from Transportation Work Group retreat
Hillsborough House Inn
August 18, 2001
Recommendations from the group
Comments to NCDOT regarding Elizabeth Brady Road
(note, the group did not re-vote after additional alternatives were offered):
The seven options being studied in priority order by what is preferred by the work group:
1. Elizabeth Brady alignment 3, which does not cross the river, goes across ridge (IF this is the
least impact to the river)
2. Elizabeth Brady alignment 2 (averts racetrack, crosses river)
3. (original) Elizabeth Brady alignment 1
4. Lawrence Road (with 86 connector) -but different function from above
5. Western bypass
6. No build
7. Widen Churton St. from 70 business to 70 bypass
Additional comments:
- Expand the DOT study area to the entire 50-year water and sewer boundary from the town plan
- Have DOT continue with its existing list of options
- Add the consultant's current study area boundary as a 8th alternative, adjusted as needed and
using existing roads where possible
- Design the Elizabeth Brady road extension to minimize the impact on the Eno River, even if it
reduces mobility
- Treat Elizabeth Brady Rd. as a local road, not a bypass
- Treat Lawrence Rd. option as having a different function from Elizabeth Brady, to move through
traffic around, not through, downtown
- Develop a new interchange of I-85 east of Lawrence Rd. to create possible bypass alternative
- Do other non-road fixes on Churton Street to address congestion & safety, too
Other Recommendations- All include bike and pedestrian features (not in priority order)
Amend current plans:
1. Amend Western Bypass to begin near US 70 connector from I-85 and delete King Edward
Road extension from plan.
Extend existing roads:
2. Extend Lawrence Rd. south and west to connect with NC86 at the Old/New 86 connector
3. Extend Palmers Grove Church Road south to new interchange on 185 and continue south to
connect with New Hope Church Rd.
4. Extend NC 86 west at Churton Street to run parallel with railroad and connect to Eno Street at
Nash Street
5. Extend Orange Grove Road east to US 70 business
6. Extend JJ Freeland Memorial Drive east to Valley Forge Road
7. Realign and extend Old NC 10 to connect the access road through Hampton Pointe & cross
railroad to provide access to Beckett's Ridge and through to Oakdale Drive
ATTACHMENT 4 24
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION WORKGROUP
RECOMMENDATIONS
New road alignments:
8. Connect NC86, South Churton & Oakdale through the Corbin Downs & Gateway Oaks
properties, extend east to New Hope Church Rd
9. Create north/south connector connecting the extension of Old 10 with the road above in the
Corbin Downs Project
10. Connect Lafayette Drive with north/south Corbin Downs connector
11. Create a north/south connector, through Collins property, connecting Orange Grove Road and
JJ Freeland extensions
Other improvements:
12.Align Eno Mountain Road & Mayo Street
13.Widen 70 bypass (in town plan but not in state TIP)
14.Add turn arrows to existing signalized locations, especially downtown
15. Add right turn lane onto Mayo Street for south bound traffic
16. Add right turn lane onto Oakdale Drive for south bound traffic
17. Provide longer turn lanes accessing Orange High School Road
18. Improve lane configuration at the I-85/Churton Street interchange
19.Add turn lanes and pedestrian facilities at NC86/US70 Bypass intersection
20.Widen NC 86 between US 70 Bypass and NC57 and add bike and ped features
21. Straighten and make turn lane improvements along Efland Cedar Grove Rd., and make more
direct connection to I-85
Policy recommendations:
• Encourage County to provide park & ride for employees
• Consider policy about road widening similar to Carrboro's -nothing greater than 3
lanes in town
• Set up a standing joint town/county committee to address transportation issues.
Issues for another day
Non-road improvements needed
ATTACHMENT 4 25
JOINT ORANGE GROVE ROAD WORK GROUP RECOMENDATIONS
PHASE II
Orange Grove Road Case Study (Excerpts)
III. Road Connectivity
Access management in the Orange Grove Road corridor includes recommendations for
new roadway connections from Orange Grove Road to other major roads in the area as
new development takes place. Arrows outlined in white on Map 1. Orange Grove Parcels
show potential access points for construction of new roads in the corridor to help manage
congestion by limiting the points of access to the corridor. The arrows also indicate where
extensions of existing subdivision roads can be used to connect with proposed access
points and provide a road network within the area between Churton Street, Orange Grove
Road, Interstate 85 and Oakdale Drive. The proposed access points can be used as a
guide for the design of future development proposals.
This plan recommends that the Town pursue the realignment of Eno Mountain Road to
align with the intersection of Mayo Street at Orange Grove Road to resolve traffic conflicts
caused by the close proximity of the intersections of two urban major thoroughfares with
another urban major thoroughfare. That intersection would potentially warrant a traffic
light.
The plan also recommends the extension of Orange Grove Road from Churton Street to
US 70 Business. That connection would provide an alternative access to the US 70
Business/NC 86 corridor and alleviate congestion on Churton Street. The connection
would also provide a more direct route to Eno Mountain and western Hillsborough from the
US 70 Business corridor.
VII. Recommendations
The Joint Orange Grove Road Transportation Group recommends the following actions to
alleviate unsafe conditions and to manage potential congestion from future development in
the Orange Grove Road corridor. The recommendations address five basic issues: 1.
obtaining funding for improvements to enhance safety for all modes of traffic; 2. providing
pedestrian facilities (sidewalks) in the corridor; 3. implementation of recommendations into
local plans and regulations; 4. recommendations for future studies; and 5. distribute the
report to community groups for comments.
1. Pursue funding to implement recommendations in this study.
The Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), Spot Safety funds and Small Urban
Funds are potential funding sources for roadway improvements. Small Urban Funds
may be used for projects within 1-mile outside city limits. Both Small Urban and Spot
Safety funding sources are subject to the discretion of the Division's Board of
Transportation (BOT) member, and are generally requested for projects in the
$50,000 to $200,000 range. The local jurisdiction(s) must request those funds from
the BOT member. Transportation Improvement Program, in general, is used to fund
projects that cost $300,000 or more. There are also some contingency funds that may
be requested through the area's representatives to the State legislature.
ATTACHMENT 4 26
JOINT ORANGE GROVE ROAD WORK GROUP RECOMENDATIONS
The local jurisdictions should pursue funding to advance the following improvements
in the Orange Grove Road corridor.
1.1 Pursue funding to widen the bridge on Orange Grove Road over Interstate 40
to include bicycle and pedestrian facilities. North Carolina Department of
Transportation estimates the cost to add bicycle and pedestrian facilities to the
bridge is approximately $750,000.
1.2 Pursue funding and work with NCDOT to install a crosswalk with a flashing
light to warn vehicles of the pedestrian crossing at the bus driveway entrance
at Cedar Ridge High School.
1.3 Pursue funding and work with NCDOT to investigate installing a traffic light at
the intersection of Oakdale Drive and Orange Grove Road, and to provide right
.turn lanes on both Oakdale Drive and Orange Grove Road to assist traffic flow
through the intersection.
2. Provide pedestrian facilities along Orange Grove Road.
2.1 Research actual right-of-way along Orange Grove Road throughout the
corridor study area through land records and pursue feasibility of obtaining
the recommended 80' right-of-way through dedication or acquiring
easements.
2.2 Investigate installing sidewalks along the north side of Orange Grove Road in
the corridor study area including determining the feasibility of construction
with respect to changes in elevation along the road and with respect to cost.
2.3 After technical report has been received by both the Hillsborough Town
Board and the Orange County Board of Commissioners, if the data indicates
that construction of a sidewalk on the north side of Orange Grove Road is not
financially feasible, pursue widening Orange Grove Road to 12' lanes with, at
a minimum, 4' paved shoulders and preferably with 6' or 8' paved shoulders
to allow for a shared bicycle/pedestrian facility.
2.4 Coordinate with the School Board to pursue installation of sidewalks along
Orange Grove Road adjacent to the school property, along New Grady
Brown School Road and from the proposed crosswalk on New Grady Brown
School Road to the Grady Brown School and to Cedar Ridge High School.
3. Implement recommendations into local plans and regulations.
3.1 Include recommendations in this study in the development of Multi-modal
Transportation Plans for Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough.
3.2 Adopt recommended cross section for Orange Grove Road into Orange
County and Town of Hillsborough zoning ordinances and subdivision
regulations.
ATTACHMENT 4 27
JOINT ORANGE GROVE ROAD WORK GROUP RECOMENDATIONS
3.3 Amend each jurisdictions respective land use regulations to support and/or
implement recommendations in this study including a provision that any
development having ingress/egress off Orange Grove Road in the study area
either construct its fair share of recommended improvements or provide
payment in lieu of for such improvements.
3.4 Support TIP Project R2825, South Churton Street improvements, by
continuing to assign a high priority to that project as a transportation need in
the biennial update of the TIP.
4. The following items are recommended for Future Studies.
4.1 Work with the business community through the Economic Development
Commission and the Orange County/Hillsborough Chamber of Commerce to
implement the recommendations in the Feasibility Study for South Churton
Street concerning Daniel Boone Village and to develop access management
for other businesses in the South Churton Street corridor.
4.2 Pursue a future study for the Oakdale Drive corridor.
5. Distribute Orange Grove Road Study and Access Management Plan to
community groups for comments.
ATTACHMENT 4
N~
6L
N
O
N
U
2
w
L2
f
Z
H
w
N~
li
`~}
/`/\
~_
V
L_
r
Z
O
w
Z
O
~+
C
m
C
C
...~
W
c~
y
H
as
t~
Q
N
0
N
0
a
0
Uyy
`V
~`n
VJ.I
x
O
a
U
U
A
a ~
~:
~ L C c c i ~ N ~ d N ~
~ C C
> C
> y
0
b
~ y
'O y
'O d
> N
Y~ 'O 4J
b y
y N
b 'O .~ b ~
b N
'G 'L7 b
f~ to ,
a` a .
w a w w a .
+
~ ~ w ~ w w a` w w w w w
•
O O
~ 0~ O
O O
O ~
O ~
O v'i
O O
O Vi
O vi
O 'n
O ~
O N
O N
O O
O O
O ~
O C
O ~
O Vi
O
Q d N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
4"
O
,OD C C N y N y y N y N
~d ~
W CI1 U O O y
~
~ fA
N
~" y
N
~"~ O ~
Y' GJ
~" N
~" O ~
~ N
~"~ O O ~
~^ N
~"~ ~
/' N
~"
Ci
~
V y
p
U
~
O
U
~
.O
~:
w, . ~
Cd
O ~-
O
V
~
cd
.O. cd
U
aS
a N
U _
O
C. id
V C
O
U
~~'
U
+~+
`~
U
+~+
`"
O
C C~
4?
cC
O
U
~ ??
cd
. G. id
U
cd
LL id
U i,
c6
G. ctl
~ U
cd
G. i6
U ~-
y
L' CQ
Gzr V y
.O
~U y
L~
~U O
.
C ~Vy
~4 O
C U
~~ C V
~Q ^?
A
.'7- U O U
0.~ C V
0.~ C U
'3,~ ~
L
.'7U ,,,
aU+
.O. ~
.-_. ,
A p
.'7~- U 'D p
~U .= NVy
O.. a: C U
0.~.~ C d
W ~ G UUy
O.Q
G
y Y
i Oq
C bA
G bA
C bA
C bD
C bA
C ~ by
C b0
C bA
C bD
C
y
O O
d L' +"~ 'C
d 'C
N 'C
V 'C
V 'C
~ 'C
~ O
bA
' ~C
N .a
N C
N G
N
o a. ~ 3 3 3 3 ~ 3 ~ ~ a 3 '~ '0 3 ~ a v 'fl '~
a` ~ E °' °' °' °' 3 °' 3 3 3 °' 3 3 °' a 3 3 3 3
a+
O O
~n N
l~ O
O O
O O
d' O
O OM
O~ O
O ~
N O
O O
O ~
l~ O
O O
7
V O O M M ~ O ~ '- ~ M O vi O ~ r 7 O
O O ~--~
~," O~
i O N
O O ~O N
c+l ~
.-~ N
i N ~ O
D\ ~
7 ~ N
N
w ~ ~ m v
i ~ N ~ N ~ ~
~"~ b9 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69
Z m
~~ O O l~ N O O O O t~ ~ O ~ O O ~ N O N
~ ~~ N N ~ M ~ 7 O~ [~ 7 ~--~ vi M N o0 1~ O 7
C O C O N n ~ O O
U
O F~
~
Q I.n
O
~ Ir
O F.
O
~ 1-i
~
~ 1-i
~ Ln
~
~ I.n
~ V
0 1-~
~ Ir
0
O
O
Z V y o0
o O~
o
a, y
~ O
o cn
~ ~
o
~ U
> NO
~
.7
>
fil
N
.~
Nl
N M
M o
M
'4. N
F a a ~ ~ w ~ ~ a ~
ra ~ V
~ h ~
a ~ ._
C~
C~ ~
^~ ~ b
~ ~
~
p~ `/ a
~
Cv
~
~ tO
~^ ld
C~
C~C
q~ 'C
~ ~ b
~ ~
~ 'O
~ ~
' b
p~
L L ~ cd cC ~ '~ ~ '~ ~ td ~ .0 cd ~ ~ ^d ~ cd ~ c~ cC ~ b 9 ~
~ c3
a U C/1 N N ~ 'O 7 b M N N 4'.. U M M N ~O W ~O W N N ~O 'O 7 'b V 'O 7 b
~~' o ~' O ~ 3 ad
~' ~
3 3 ~ ~ ~ ~
.
i1C L y N N N ~ ~ N ~ c
S
`- '-' N c
a
i
~ N c
a
i
~ N N c cd
W V Vl N N N N 7 ~'. V ~". N 7 N N N
U ~ ~ ~ b ~ a ~ ~ b 0
~ Uc
z ° U ~ U ~ °'
~ O
U ~ ~ ~
~v
°' ~ N
z ~ o~ z
o
Lcq
U
~ F-
~
° 3 U
z
~ .a ~ 2! c
• .o ° U b
~ x ~ ° L O
,~ p ~ a
y
~ ,' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O _ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o
i z U ~ C z
y
• w d ~
~ ti ~ z V .~ ~ V7 z V O O U
c
d [/~ vii y ~ 0
L ~ ~ O 'b ~ ~ ~ ~~ O
O U ~ 'b O o0 7 .~
a ~ U O 'O ~ a V1
a o~ a o~ x~ ~ oQ c
aw x ox x wQ xx ooa x
a
.~ ~ o o ~
~ x w U ~ b
~ a
' ~
U o ~O
0.~. O
~
o~
o
~ ~
A v
~ .o
m ~ ao b
b b
~ a
3 w
~ ~
O _ y .~
a._ ~ ~
~ = U a ~ ~ o ° ~> ~ i ~ o w
0)
• _' ° .O Q x ~ ~ v aNi ~ O x o ~ ~ ~ ~
L
a ~ O
G] U R. O
W U L'
U '^~
W ti
W ~
w .-. cy
x w O
x O
x O N
x E ono ~
.a ~ U U U U
O
Z
b
n ~ ~ oo M
M ~i
M ~
M D\
M N
V M
'7 ~
7 ~
~/1 O
l~ ~
1~ ~
r r
[~
4.W
d
28
c9
4.
c
O
.~
0
a
y
C
W
a~
m
c
0
J
t(')
N
O
N
0
a
U
U
D
N~~y
LL
N
O
N
U
2
D
W
2
H
~Z
VJ
U
W
/~
LL
2
2
Z
O
w
Z
ATTACHMENT
a ~ ~ ~=
~~ ~ ~
• ~ ~
Y
N
~
L 4 N
iO ~ p
iO N
Cd N ~ p
Cd lO N ~ ` cO
ld %d iO
:
GL V] a~ C
W Ll. a~ ..
W P,
0,
V] a~
W
Q, ai
W a~
W v
k+ a~
W a~
W C. c~
W ,
p"
•
~ t#
E N ~
O O
O O
O O
O O
O ~--~
O N
O O
O ~
O ^-~
O ~
O ~
O O
O
~, O~ N N N N N N N N N N N N N
C
!~'
o
e +r
~~~
'
i
i
o
o
i
o
i
~
~
o
o
~
o
r%~ v
OG ~ >- >^ ~ ~ >- ~-
R
C ~.
d, ., ~
' c°
`
'~ ~
'
a ...ia a. ~
'~=
' °
ad' a ,a ,. ~
ci c .. ~
'ci ~
~ 3 ., . ~
0 ., .'~
0 '= .'
o ~ o
~ v
rn
c ~
fs.U o
5°'
~~ o
c0
~~ a~
c
d
~^
~U o
~°'
~~ v
°°'
a~ :
c
~
.`~U G°'
0.~ g~
0..~ ~°'
~w c0
~~ ~"
~~ =C
~d ~o
~U
^o
d i
G
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
~
C
•
O O
L F+
p G~
.O
~
.C
b
~
.~
b
.C
b
~
~~
v
~~
~
•~
a
~
~
p
v
y
3
a~ E
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
z a
i
.+
~
O
o
N o
0o
D\
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
°~ 0
~n
N 0
oo
~ 0
O
~
O
~
o
O
O
U vi ~ v, o ~o v c ~ ao '^ ° o
~
~ ~
~ lp V1 01 ~O M
M h
D\ V
O M
~ h
~ V1
~vj
+
+
O
~O ~ On
M M
M O
M 7
N N
N
O
°~
.-.
7
~ O
h
F vj 69 69 s5 69 vj 65 69 ss 69 69 6A 69
sy
~~ O O O O O 7 D\ O O O M O O
~ o0 1~ h ~ h V'1 t~ D\ 00 00 N ~D M
E O O O O N h N N O
~.
° ~
~ ~
~ ~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
o
U O O O O O O O O O O O O O
~ ~
U
.D ~
~ ~
.>.
~ pp~~ ~ pp~,,
c
Z v~
N vl
N y
id M
o00
N l~
o00
V ~O
~ y
~ o0
7 o
0
MV
~ N N > N ~° N D\ M > M M
F cG x a. ~ ~ ~ a ~ a x w
d y ~ N N
'O N~
° N N~
R N N N
~° N~
'O N N
~°
O N~
~ ~ ~
b p d
~° p C?
a
'
O O u
L ~
> ~ ~
-
> ~ ~
=
> ~ ~
> ~
> c^
d
> ~
> ~ ~
C ~ ~
> ro c
d
.-•
y
L
a U V1 7 'O 7 'O N V 'O N ~ b ~O 'O 7 b V 'O vi ^, 'C 7 b N N
b0
C
O ~ O ,~
~ ~
~
~
ai
~
y v cr3 ~ 3 ~ ~
~ O ~ ~ 'o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a3i
~
W U V] -
N
N ~
N _
7
7 'C
N
N
N
N
Z
O
[~ O V
v1
O N
~
~
~ ~ U
z v,
~• .~
U o
~ o k
~
~ ~ 'o ° cn vvi o .~ ~o
~ n' U
m
E Q
~ °
.r fx
W .o
~ C~
0 ~
.= O
C v
~
~
~ b
~
_ T
~
~
Ca ~
O
~
O ~
a0i
~ c0
~
Q
~
o
U ~ ~
0o
0
W _
'-
~
2
~
~ y ° ~ ° + °
~
• ,°+
O ~ . ~ N 3 ~ ~ ~ CC v~ ~
O bCq ~
cC 0~0 0~0 ~
z a
O 0~0
L V cwd 7 ~ a`tli O C..) cC .-. U U O U, U
ti
o ~
o_
=
c G7
~ k
W C
O
'b
~ ~
O
~ ~ ~
t
V
~ ~
7 y
y
~ ~
4 '
<O '~
c0 T T
~p
o0 ~p
0o
v~ y p U .-.
O ,
O T [~ Q '~ ~
., a U v ,~
~ v~
~ W ., E E
. z z a ~ ~ ~ _ _ o
y°.
a 9
o '~
o y
~ _
E
~ O
~
~ V1
~ Vl
~ C/1
~ N
3 N
3 N
3 N
3
~
z
oNO
omo
a
OM,
rn M
o ~O
0 [~
0 y ~ ~ h
_ O'O
w
29
C
f6
~..
C
O
a
N
C
N
m
rn
c
f6
C
J
N
O
N
I
O
a
~~
ATTACHMENT 5 30
STATUS OF PROJECTS IN 2004-2010 TIP PRIORITY LIST"
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PRIORITY LIST
FOR CONSIDERATION OF FUNDING IN
THE 2004 - 2010 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Orange County would like to give priority to identified safety needs on existing
roads and bridges, to other transportation projects which foster alternatives to
automobile travel, and to projects that minimize adverse impacts on the natural
environment and cultural sites. The County also endorses environmentally
responsible construction of all transportation projects. Finally, the County
supports adequate maintenance for existing transportation facilities.
Our transportation needs list is divided into two sections. The first section deals
with selected projects within the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro metropolitan
planning area. The second section deals with projects in the remaining portions
of Orange County, which lie outside of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
metropolitan planning area.
ORANGE COUNTY PROJECTS WITHIN
THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO
METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREA
As a member of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning
Organization, Orange County will continue to work with the Transportation
Advisory Committee (DCHC TAC) to develop a complete list of project priorities
for the portion of Orange County that lies inside the urbanized area boundary.
However, there are selected projects in Orange County that we would like to
address now because they have been the subjects of discussions between the
TAC and the Department of Transportation or because there are other special
concerns.
REQUESTED PROJECTS
1) U-3808, Elizabeth Brady Road Extension: Construct a facility, with bicycle
and pedestrian amenities, connecting US 70 Business and US 70 Bypass
on an alignment that has least impact on the Eno River, the natural
environment and cultural sites. This project creates a parallel route to the
highly congested Churton Street corridor (NC 86 & US 70 Business). This
route will be used to re-route heavy truck and through traffic out of the
downtown/historic district.
An Economic Development District (EDD) Transportation Work Group
made up of Orange County and Town of Hillsborough elected officials,
planning staff, developers and community groups was established to
address transportation issues regarding the Hillsborough area EDD. That
group's recommendations and comments regarding this project are also
attached for consideration in planning and design of this project.
ATTACHMENT 5 31
STATUS OF PROJECTS IN 2004-2010 TIP PRIORITY LIST
Status: The DCHC 2001 Regional Priority List (for the 2004 - 2010
MTIP) lists this project as number 10. NCDOT completed the
Statement of Purpose and Need in August 2402, and is in the
process of executing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
the project. The anticipated schedule for planning and completing
thn FIC is nivan hs~lnw
Com Teton of Alternatives Anal sis A~ ust 2003
Draft EIS Au ust 2004
Public Hearin an Pro'ect Location and Desi n Se tember 2004
Final EIS March 2005
Record of Decision Ma 2005
Final Desi n Be in FY 2005
2) NC 86, Bicycle Lanes: Construct bicycle lanes (4-foot paved shoulders)
from Chapel Hill (Whitfield Road) to Hillsborough (US 70 Business). This
project will extend bicycle lanes on Airport Road (NC86) in Chapel Hill to
US 70 Business in Hillsborough. Bicycle lanes have recently been
completed along NC 86 from UNC to Whitfield Road (SR 1731) in Orange
County. NC 86 from Chapel Hill to Hillsborough is experiencing increasing
numbers of bicyclists using this route and there are also two schools along
this route. This route is listed as priority I of the primary bicycle routes
proposed in the Orange County Bicycle Transportation Plan adopted April
6, 1999. This project is listed in the 2002-2008 TIP, as an incidental
bicycle need. Orange County requests that bicycle lanes be constructed
as an independent project, and, if necessary, programmed in phases.
Status: The DCHC 2001 Regional Priority List lists this project as
number 12. The project was not included in the State's 2004 - 2010
Transportation Improvement Program. The BOCC, in April of this
year, requested 4' paved shoulders on NC 86 from US 70 Alternate
(Business) To Whitfield Road (SR 1730) as a bicycle project in the NC
Moving Ahead! program. NC Moving Aheadl includes a project for
this portion of NC 86 to install guardrail, widen, construct turn lanes,
and resurface.
3) R-2825 Improvements to South Churton Street: Develop congestion
management, limited access, aesthetic and capacity improvements
between US 70 Business and Interstate 40. The portion between
Interstates 40 and 85 will conform to the design criteria of the Economic
Development District Design Manual (4-lane divided section with bike and
pedestrian improvements). The feasibility study should explore a variety
of improvements within the current right-of-way for the segment north of
Interstate 85. Improved capacity through widening is not the first choice
because of significant constraints between Interstate 85 and US 70
Business and the proximity of the historic district north of the project limits.
ATTACHMENT 5 32
STATUS OF PROJECTS IN 2004-2010 TIP PRIORITY LIST'
Orange County requests that, where conditions do not prevent the
addition of frontage roads, the feasibility study include the addition of
frontage roads with limited access from the corridor.
Status: The DCHC 2001 Regional Priority List lists this project as
priority 11. The feasibility study reevaluation, the first step in the
planning and design process for the project, was completed in
February 2002. That study recommends a 4-lane divided curb and
gutfer section for the entire corridor from 1-40 to the Eno River. The
2004 - 2010 TIP lists the project as an "unfunded" project.
4) US 70 Bypass Widening: Widen, from the Orange/Durham County Line to
the US 70 - I-85 Connector east of Efland, US 70 Bypass to a four-lane
divided section with bike and pedestrian improvements. This project
should be phased to address traffic counts and existing congestion.
Orange County requests that this project be identified as a need and
included in the 2004-2010 STIP.
Status: This project did not score sufficient project criteria points to
be assigned a priority number in the DCHC 2001 Regional Priority
List. That list ranked projects having 60 or more project criteria
points. The US 70 Bypass widening project scored 45, and was
included in the priority list along with other projects that scored less
than 60 that were not assigned a priority number. The project is
included in the DCHC 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan as an
improvement that is expected to be in place by 2025. The Plan
scales the improvements back from the US 70/1-85 Connector to NC
86 north of Hillsborough because projected VMT from the Triangle
Regional Model did not indicate the need to widen the facility beyond
NC 86 and the LRTP trimmed unnecessary projects to meet financial
constraints.
NCDOT is using Senate Bill 1005 money to install 2-foot shoulders
and resurface US 70 from the Durham County line to Palmers Grove
Road. NCDOT anticipates completion by mid to late September of
this year. NC Moving Ahead! includes two projects for US 70 that
will widen, resurface, construct turn lanes, install guardrail and
concrete islands from Palmers Grove Church Road to Alamance
County.
5) NC 86 (North of Hillsborough) Improvements: Widen, from US 70 Bypass
north of Hillsborough to SR 1332 (Coleman Loop, also being the
intersection area of the planned connector between NC 86 and NC
57), NC 86 to four lanes with intersection improvements at US 70 Bypass.
NC 86 is the major north-south route through Orange County. NC 57
converges into US 86 just north of US 70 Bypass. The segment of NC 86
between NC 57 and US 70 is congested, rendering a high accident
ATTACHMENT 5 33
STATUS OF PROJECTS IN 2004-2010 TIP PRIORITY LIST'
location at the intersection of US 70 Bypass at NC 86. Development
pressures in this area will exacerbate traffic congestion and accident
proliferation.
Status; (The bold italic print in the above paragraph was not in the
document submitted in December 2001, but is recommended to be
added to the description.) This project scored 50 project criteria
points, which was not high enough to be assigned a priority number
in the DCHC 2001 Regional Priority List. Orange County
recommended intersection improvements south of US 70 Bypass to
extend the northbound right turn lane on North Churton Street as a
North Carolina Moving Ahead! project. District Engineer Mike Mills
agreed to scope the project as a potential second year project.
6) R-3438 Hillsborough Western Bypass: Construct a two-lane facility
connecting US 70 with NC 86 North and Stroud's Creek Lane, using a
portion of SR 1332 (Coleman Loop) right-of-way. This project will create a
connection between NC 57, NC 86 north of Hillsboraugh and US 70 west
of Hillsborough to create an alternate for traffic seeking I-40/I-85 from the
north of Hillsborough. By providing a direct connection to the interstate
corridor without using NC 86 through Hillsborough, the project will help
alleviate traffic congestion on Churton Street through the historic
downtown area. A portion of Stroud's Creek Lane accessing NC 57 has
been constructed with private funds. A 0.3-mile (approx.) segment is
needed to complete the connection between NC 57 and NC 86.
Status: This project scored 40 project criteria points, which was not
high enough to be assigned a priority number in the DCHC 2001
Regional Priority List. The 2004 - 2010 TIP lists this project as an
"unfunded" project. Orange County, when submitting comments
regarding the Draft 2004 - 2010 TIP, omitted this project from the
section titled "Projects Requested by Orange County'
OTHER REQUESTS AND COMMENTS
1) U-3808 Elizabeth Brady Road Extension: Comments from the Economic
Development District (EDD) Transportation Work Group:
The EDD Transportation Work Group has recommended that NCDOT should
continue its study of seven options to reduce traffic congestion and improve
the Level of Service in Hillsborough's central business district and to improve
safety along Churton Street and NC 86. The Work Group prioritized the
seven options in order of preference:
1. Elizabeth Brady alignment 3, which does not cross the river, goes across
ridge (IF this is the least impact to the river)
2. Elizabeth Brady alignment 2 (averts racetrack, crosses river)
3. (original) Elizabeth Brady alignment 1
ATTACHMENT 5
STATUS OF PROJECTS IN 2004-2010 TIP PRIORITY LIST
4. Lawrence Road (with 86 connector) -but different function from above
5. Western bypass
6. No build
7. Widen Churton St. from 70 business to 70 bypass
34
The EDD Transportation Work Group has also recommended that Elizabeth
Brady Road Extension should be treated as a local road, not a bypass. The
location of Elizabeth Brady Road is not adequate for a bypass. NCDOT
should extend the study area for a bypass to include the Hillsborough 50-Year
Water and Sewer Boundary. One option for a bypass would follow the study
area boundary for project U-3808, using existing roads where possible and
with an interchange on I-85 east of Lawrence Road. Also, please refer to the
attached EDD Transportation Work Group recommendations and comments.
2) I-3306 Section A• widening of I-40 to six lanes from I-85 in Orange County to
NC 147 (Buck Dean Freeway) in Durham County -Orange County requests
that I-3306 Section A and I-3306 Section B be divided into two separate
projects and programmed separately in the TIP.
Project planning and design for this facility is in progress. Orange County
requests that the development of the Major Investment Study and
Environmental Impact Statement for this project include assurance that the
project will not have detrimental land use impacts to the Orange County
Comprehensive Plan. Orange County is opposed to any widening of I-40
through Orange County unless there is a commitment by NCDOT to provide
HOV and/or dedicated bus lanes. Orange County also requests that NCDOT
landscape interchanges for this project in an aesthetic manner.
COMMENTS ON OTHER TIP PROJECTS INITIATED BY NCDOT
1) (-305• widening of I-85 to six lanes and reconstruction of interchanges from I-
40 at Hillsborough to Durham County Line: Orange County is opposed to any
widening of I-85 through Orange County unless there is a commitment by
NCDOT to provide HOV and/or dedicated bus lanes.
Status: The 2004 = 2010 TIP lists the following schedule for this
ro'ect:
PLANNING FFY 04
DESIGN FFY06
RIGHT-OF-WAY FFY 08 -POST YEARS
CONSTRUCTION FFY 10 -POST YEARS
Note that a recommendation has been made to address park and ride
locations for future transit, and comment `j)" has been added to the
following as a possible infrastructure improvement relative to this
project. Park and ride facilities are normally considered as transit
ATTACHMENT 5 35
STATUS OF PROJECTS IN 2004-2010 TIP PRIORITY LIST
projects, not within the purview of interstate projects. Station area
locations should also be addressed in Orange County's land use plan
and related transportation plan.
Even though this project remains an "UNFUNDED PROJECT" Orange
County requests that its staff be allowed to participate in the planning of the
facility. The County is specifically interested in the following infrastructure
improvements as they relate to the I-85/US 70 Economic Development
District:
a) Erosion Control Measures -Orange County requests that permanent
erosion control measures be included in the project.
b} Landscaging of Interchanges -Orange County requests that NCDOT
landscape all reconstructed interchanges in an aesthetic manner.
c) Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities -Orange County requests that its
staff be allowed to participate in the determination of where and what
type of facilities are to be included in this project. Among the features
requested for inclusion are sidewalks and bike lanes (see the Regional
Bicycle Plan for Durham and Orange Counties) along roads where
interchange improvements are required and adequate guardrails on
overpasses.
d) Wildlife Corridor Under I-135 (in the vicinity of US70 Interchange) -
Orange County requests that ~s staff be allowed to participate during
the planning stage and that this issue be brought to the attention of the
NCDOT Sfiaff Biologist, Constructing this wildlife corridor is one of the
recommendations presented in the "The New Hope Corridor Open
Space Master Plan: Proposals for Linking Duke Forest and Eno River
State Park." Orange County also requests that NCDOT consult county
staff in designing the interchange at US 70 to provide a pedestrian trail
under I-85 linking New Hope Creek and the Eno River (New Hope
Rustic Woodland Trail proposed as an element. of the Lands Legacy
Program).
e) Intersection of Pleasant Green Road (SR 1567 ~& Mt Herman Church
Road (SR 1713} - NGDOT Division 7 Traffic Engineers have
recommended that this intersection be included as a part of I-305
because of its proximity to the I-85/US 70 interchange. The entire
intersection should be realigned so that Pleasant Green Road
intersects US 70 at a 90-degree angle.
f) US 70 from NC 751. to University Station Road (SR 1712) -Due fio the
needs of the Pleasant Green Road\US 70 intersection, Orange County
requests that US 70, from NC 751 to University Station Road, be
ATTACHMENT 5 36
STATUS OF PROJECTS IN 2004-2010 TIP PRIORITY LIST
upgraded to provide for a suitable transition from/to I-85. An example
of the need for this project is the intersection of US 70 with Old No.10
(SR 1715} that is currently operating at level of service "F".
g} Mt Herman Church Road (SR 1713) -Preliminary plans by the
Planning & Environmental Branch, Division of Highways of NCDOT
indicate that this road may be relocated as part of 1-305. Orange
County requests that this road be designed with 12' wide travel lanes
and 4' wide bicycle lanes for a total paved width of 32'.
h} Old NC 10 (SR 1710) - Preliminary plans by the Planning &
Environmental Branch, Division of Highways of NCDOT indicate that
this road may also be relocated as part of I-305. Orange County
requests that this road be designed with 12' wide travel lanes and 4'
wide bicycle lanes for a total paved width of 32'.
i} NC $6 - NCDOT has expressed concern that the width (2-lane} of the
NC 86 overpass is inadequate for increased traffic volumes that would
result from proposed development in the adjacent Economic
Development District, Orange County requests that the NC 86
overpass be widened..
j} Park and Ride Station -Planning ahead for the use of rail as a
viable alternative mass transit opportunity, a park and ride station
could be incorporated into the intersection area of University
Station and Mf. Herman Church Road. This location would
eventually permit access to Durham and Chapel Hill by rail or, in
the interim, a bus system.
2} R-2530 DURHAM NORTHWEST LOOP ENO DRIVE :new multi-lane route,
from I-35 in Orange County to I-85 in Durham County -Orange County is
strongly opposed to having this facility within Orange County and is also very
concerned about the environmental impacts to the Eno River State Park.
Orange County requests that this facility be on a location outside of Orange
County,
Status. The N.C. General Assembly, on June 3Q, 2tJ43, raged the State
Budget for 2QQ3-20Q5 to include an amendment to the Highway Trust
Fund Act that makes T projects eligible for Highway Trust Funds as part
of the Durham Northern Lovp. The 7 projects replace the originally
proposed alignment. The current alignment does not extend west of US
5Q1, and does not abut nor intrude into Eno River State Park<
ATTACHMENT 5 37
STATUS OF PROJECTS IN 2004-2010 TIP PRIORITY LIST
ORANGE COUNTY PROJECTS OUTSIDE
THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO
METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREA
Orange County would like to give priority to identified safety needs on existing
roads and bridges, to other transportation projects which foster alternatives to
automobile travel, and to projects that minimize adverse impacts on the natural
environment and cultural sites. The County also endorses environmentally
responsible construction of all transportation projects. Finally, the County
supports adequate maintenance for existing transportation facilities.
1} Park and Ride Lot in the Buckhorn Economic Development District:
Orange County requests a park and ride facility (from the adopted Orange
County Economic Development District Design Manual} be funded in the
Community Transportation Improvement Program for Orange Public
Transportation. This project is clearly justified, as it would provide an
opportunity for coordination of public transportation efforts between two
growing regions in North Carolina, the Triad and Triangle.
Status: Orange County Commissioners, at their meeting on August
19, will consider awarding a contract to Wilbur Smith Associates to
conduct an update of the Community Transportation Improvement
Plan. The Steering Team for that endeavor should discuss park and
ride lots, in general and the one proposed for the Buckhorn EDD in
particular, as part of the CTIP. The CTIP is a 5-year plan and may not
perceive the need for the park and ride lot within that time frame.
(Does OPT plan to extend service to that area in that time frame?)
However, park and ride lots should be considered in updates to fhe
transportation section of the Land Use Plan and in conjunction with
any proposed development within the EDD.