HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 09-19-23; 6-a - Orange County NC 54 Multimodal Corridor Study 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 19, 2023
Action Agenda
Item No. 6-a
SUBJECT: Orange County NC 54 Multimodal Corridor Study
DEPARTMENT: Orange County Transportation Services (OCTS)
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Final Study Phase 2 Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Director,
2. Excerpt from May 22, 2023 Approved 919-245-2007
OUTBoard Minutes
PURPOSE: To consider approval of the NC 54 Multimodal Corridor Study in Orange County.
BACKGROUND: In Fall 2018, the consultant (VHB) concluded the NC 54 West Multimodal
Corridor Study presenting a thorough existing conditions, environmental and economic analysis
of the corridor, two rounds of public engaging workshops in each of the local jurisdictions and
presented the full report (link). VHB also followed up with a Phase 2 (Attachment 1) report
addressing all the important issues raised throughout the planning process.
The City of Graham approved the study prior to the Phase 2 report while the Burlington-Graham
Metropolitan Planning Organization in collaboration with Alamance County approved the study
in its entirety with phase 2. These entities submitted the western portion of the corridor for the
State's Strategic Prioritization of Transportation (SPOT) 6.0 and will do so again for 7.0. Orange
County received the report, as did the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) and
the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO). Both
regional agencies defer to the County respectively. In Fall 2019, the Town of Carrboro Town
Council unanimously approved a resolution unconditionally opposing the study.
While Orange County continues coordinating and collaborating with all its local and regional
partners along the corridor since the study's completion, traffic on NC 54 has returned to pre-
covid levels, serious injuries and fatalities continue at increasing rate, and development pressure
increase in southern Orange County. Orange County continues to collaborate with the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), which updated its Complete Street Policy and
Implementation Guide in 2019, revamping State highway projects for a more comprehensive
benefit for all users. The State also grants local government the ability to adopt transportations
plans and implement them through Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinances.
State's New Process— Complete Streets (link)
Over the past three years, NCDOT has made significant progress is advancing the policy and
improving its implementation through its Project Delivery Network (PDN). All highway projects
now go through a comprehensive "complete" use assessment. The Comprehensive
Transportation Plan (CTP) is the governing document for the State's new Complete Street Policy
2
and its implementation. Per the new policy, "during the Comprehensive Transportation Planning
process, bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and other multimodal usage shall be presumed to exist
along and across certain corridors." NCDOT recognizes that an individual user is a pedestrian,
bicyclist, transit rider, EV/gas vehicle driver, etc., and often times in the same day. Therefore,
the policy dictates "Consideration of multimodal elements will begin at the inception of the
transportation planning process and the decisions made will be documented."
Local Authorization — UDO and Collector Street Plans
The Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) in section 2.5.3.(V), includes the
requirement that applications for site plans demonstrate compliance with adopted transportation
plans. This may include reserving or dedicating right of way or requiring road construction listed
in locally adopted Transportation Plans or on the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP).
Specific mention is also made in North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) § 136 66.2 and § 136
66.10 regarding the reservation or dedication of right of way based on the concepts shown on
the CTP and locally adopted transportation plans. Orange County currently has three locally
adopted transportation plans:
• Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
• Orange Grove Road Access Management Plan
• Eno Economic Development District Access Management Plan
Approval of NC 54 West Multimodal Corridor Study would be a fourth locally adopted
transportation plan and will demonstrate the County's commitment to multi-mobility, transit
access, and safety of the transportation as an important local priority, followed by the US 70
Multimodal Corridor Study which is anticipated to be completed Fall 2023. It will also
demonstrate to local, regional and state partners that the County, like NCDOT's Complete
Streets, sees the road network as equitable for all travelers, not favoring one over the other, and
acknowledges that a traveler throughout the course of the day will walk one place, ride another,
drive to and from a third, and bike yet another.
Transportation Advisory Service (TAS)
April 2023 —The TAS unanimously recommended approval of NC 54 Multimodal Corridor Study.
Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard)
May 22, 2023 — The OUTBoard voted 4 — 1 in favor of BOCC approving the Study (an excerpt
from the meeting minutes with detail discussion is provided at Attachment 2).
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There are no immediate financial impacts with approval of the Study.
Local approval of the Study allows the County the opportunity to pursue State and Federal
funding for transportation improvements along the corridor. Approval also allows County staff to
utilize the Study in the development review process for the dedication of right-of-way for future
state funded improvements and the construction of bike/ped facilities through enforcement of
County's Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goals are applicable
to this item:
• GOAL: FOSTER A COMMUNITY CULTURE THAT REJECTS OPPRESSION AND
INEQUITY
The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race or color;
religious or philosophical beliefs; sex, gender or sexual orientation; national origin or
3
ethnic background; age; military service; disability; and familial, residential or economic
status.
• 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
impact is 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.
• CLEAN OR AVOIDED TRANSPORTATION
Implement programs that monitor and improve local and regional air quality by: 1)
promoting public transportation options; 2) decreasing dependence on single-occupancy
vehicles, and 3) otherwise minimizing the need for travel.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board approve the NC 54
Multimodal Corridor Study in Orange County.
4
MPO Board 10/9/2019 Item 8
•0r0
\ 0 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, INC 27606-5217
P 919.829.0328
Page 1 of 12
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
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 S4, 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
7
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
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
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.lust 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
MPO Board 10/9/2019 Itemm 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
11
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
12
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
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
14
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
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
- � r va Item 8
J�7 0-1 ,� 4
L m ?� g•Rd`
Rd
Labaw!Rdr- l r r isn
S FM1 k' � tiNesrT�� � I
62 -
. � �y� r'
of
JLS`' C�+l r`� ' ` •f ! Stir
�fff rr � tG
,. f � - � t` 1 ✓'< � �1 � ��anY�Flr,� 1f ,r�i;� �';` ��e`_,��.�-i { � Oti_.. � '�' Q
,�
Not ►At SIG- er �
�. " °ar.-. 7 -- `�` o y P Z �IYwr hAlm�als Rd d Br 11 r
rrl ay / .d` J " 2 I
\.a P, �p� r y T c ( 1 111 ! , !.,4'0 � i 7n' w �
i `- -� s
Rd&rl
p
Hurncr "a$F$
7 I �, dry -— Old GmOmsbarn l �r
- cturch-R&'
m Rd
— 111 r ' r
`7 '�9d��,/�,-�_.--r' � _ �' � 1 � t �--, i 1 • coy � �, ti �""s' `'�. �� ~� '�-:_
Derived from relative historical travel times for 8 AM weekday,per Google Maps
Page 1 of 25
*VhbFigure 1: Estimated NC 54 Travelshed for Trips to Chapel Hill `
!' 0 1 2 4 Miles
va Q Item 8
.Id �\
cf L niRdl-r
T �
70
fU
fit
f � r L a
I1SrI`I�\�. b
'tA f I f j l f`"gpKsb
f s
$7 ( 54ff2r I k c =cs1
y ' y
Rd
1 -
l
`��' `�� �at�.f ' , -� ■ ^ (`; �4,i% I ,a�a� � N�` 4At 51na�'Rd
—8, l + F
86 I
70
P' Y
'3J"Jd Rd
419
t _ ,f / • ,—�� � may.
- , *
J-L °h`MiIP qd r 41 I cl °
r�
Did GraaS/nsbarn.Zy + �y
hllY Rd
rRd
4`� _� �i ^j �'.sh'Fid=�'�.�'� �¢���Jj �+ ,•� f� t � -10
Derived from relative historical travel times for 8 AM weekday,per Google Mapsryrr - s�^
Page 2 of 25
Figure 2: Estimated NC 54 Travelshed for Trips to Southern Village
0 1 2 4 Miles
- � ,, —� P Item 8
R.IdRd
a
LmR
ID OT
Pd i
62
va
o. $T (f�{'J 3 c1
yl�4ela[AI
� ,� _ � _ "�, - .' _' ■ —�// ��.� � �� r ti I Xj y �� $'6 }�L rJ1�86 RfY � -'L
O 4!7hur n[&-F?d f r
> + _
6.
49
dQzPr Ir k
°h`+krlP'gd
..
■
C'"'Hena - g el HNiR d'
7 ' III Rd
1
1H 15
Rd
Derived from relative historical travel times for 5 PM weekday, C -
per Google Maps C�''�� - �' �N�
Page 3 of 25
' Figure 3: Estimated NC 54 Travelshed for Trips to Burlington �
0 1 2 4 Files
MPO Board 109/2019 Item 8
i I Roxboro Henderson
Oxford
\J
/-0y1
1J
LI
CC f4rttrell
I h Stem 15'
Ossipee `r3 I
\I
Green Butner Creedmoor
10,11 Level i i
Elan Haw River 70 ty roll Franklintan Louisburg
Burlington Mef3a
0 Hillsborough
Graham'E, �i✓ I
►i
Alamance Swe nV11114
Youngsvrl3e
Durham
y Wake Forest
�.i ---'rargo Chapel HIII Rolesvllie
i
.18
1 Q9
• tr'toYlls4llle
I , �
►°1l V tr.t {{ Zebulon
I Raleigh Knightdale
Cary Wendell
N21�
Q
Apex CD
Streetlight Data Coverage Area Plusboro
Project Study Area /tet Garner u il +❑
Mil-
Page
Page 4 of 25
hI Figure 4: Streetlight Insight Dataset Coverage
MPO Board2019 Item 8
i
o
Uafryland-Rd
Sr
CA CIA'
6
A L
54
> f
etc
L
+J
7 D y Rd Je
GreerKs lid r
j G
s _{jam
.�y t✓
o
Page 5 of 25
' + ��
Figure 5: NC 54 Corridor Segment for Streetlight Origin-Destination Analysis T
0 0.3 0.6 12 Miles
}` MPO Board ?0912019 Item 8
Daily Vehicle-Trip Distribution (StreetLi ht InSi ht Data) -�
Teel��
G'
Uairyland-Rd
I L 34--�-j
;r c� <1 :'O 4% r ,r
100% if 1% 1% 7/
o_
54 1% <1%
CI
5 - v
r
•CYId GreensboroF2d 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
l �l
fir•
Page 6 of 25
��
Figure 6: Origin-Destination Analysis — NC 54 East of Orange Grove Road
0 0.3 0.6 1.2 Miles
}` MPO Board 2019 Item 8
AM Peak Vehicle-Trip Distribution (StreetLi ht InSi ht Data) -�
Teer
Uairyland-Rd
Sr
s
!rl <1 �j� 4%
100% f <1% <1%96/ <1 - o
54 o <1%
<1%
_3%
w - 64 of f
r
•CYId Greensboro-PW Average Mon-Thu for Apr, May,Sep,&Oct,2016-18
m�
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
l �l
fir•
Page 7 of 25
��
Figure 7: Origin-Destination Analysis — NC 54 East of Orange Grove Road
0 0.3 0.6 1.2 Miles
}` MPO Board 2019 Item 8
r
Daily Vehicle-Trip Distribution (StreetLi ht InSi h % �,-r
Teel��
I
G'
Uairyland-Rd
_
Ioa o
5d 2% ` , <1%- 2°� a 100%
_2%
2`
h ��
r
ti�,� "art
•CYId Greensboro-PW Average Mon-Thu for Apr, May,Sep,&Oct,2016-18
m�
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
fir•
Page 8 of 25
��
Figure 8: Origin-Destination Analysis — West Main St East of NC 54 Bypass
0 0.3 0.6 1.2 Miles
}` MPO Board 9 201 Item 8
r 4
Dail Vehicle-Tri Distribution �StreetLi ht InSi h
Teel UtairDylaandt-Rad)
G'
-
-�
_
< o .�0
27% , �� 1/0 <1% �a
o
� 1r5/o
<1 I 10/ <1%-, +' 38%54 l �
<10/
'2.5% a off' /
1% 000 10%
54
3f
{ 100%
•CYId Greensboro-PW Average Mon-Thu for Apr, May,Sep,&Oct,2016-18
m�
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
fir•
Page 9 of 25
��
Figure 9: Origin-Destination Analysis —NC 54 Bypass South of West Main St
0 0.3 0.6 1.2 Miles
Figure 10a: TRM & PTRM Population Growth (2013 — 2045) MPO Board 10A,019 Item 8
•
49
ID
.I r+'s��•• ; ;'� sir .
i �' • "�
37 I \J• s r•, 147
• 7 7D
�s
a i 2 a Miles NC 54 West Conidor Study Alamance and Orange Counties
5 Mile Project Buffer
!((( F-.*e Corridor
Population 2017 v 2045 TRM&PTRIVI Socia-Economic data(2013-2045)
1 Dot=10a Source Info:MCDOT,VtfB,MConeMap,
• Population 2017 to 2045 Alamance County,Orange County
Papulation 2017 Page 10 of 25
MPO Board 109/2019 Item 8
Figure 10b: TRM & PTRM Population Growth (2013 — 2045) 6
•f
• • + r a el•' • � �- •I • 1111 • S -a
• ' X491
70
's +
61 A
•
• + I • a 147 ,•
• 4,
• .`�� � �- I � ��f'�,• • i � 705
�s
" * fit[' • a , • ' _ r +,
a2 a Miles NC 54 West Corridor Study � Alamance and Orange Counties
5 Mile Preped Buffer
!((( F-.*e Corridor
Population 2017 v 2045 TRM&PTRM Socia-Economic Dana(2013-2045)
1 Dot=100 Source Info:MCDOT,V1f8,MConeMap,
• Population 2017 to 2045 AI amance County,Orange County
Papulation 2017 Page 11 of 25
Figure 10c: TRM & PTRM Population Growth (2013 — 2045) MPO Board 1W
019 Item 8
.
70 *'•;
_
i 544'�; ..
• ,J �8� I \/• r•, 147
�s
a ay • s •
:�
7 �
t
lam% • r
a i 2 a Miles NC 54 West Corridor Study Alamance and Orange Counties
5 Mile Project Buffer
�F-.*t Corridor
Population 2017 v 2045 TRM&PTRM Socio-Economic data(2013-2045)
1 Dot=10a Source Info:MCDOT,VtfB,NConeMap,
• Population 2017 to 2045 Alamance County,Orange County
Papulation 2017 Page 12 of 25
MPO Board 1019/2019 Item 8
Figure 11a: TRM & PTRM Employment Growth (2013 — 2045) 8
• -r• _I � r \ L
4 49
i•
• ��• ` )• •!�_�' a •'�fls •" • a ' �{;r v�•. • •�••• , 17054
,
e
L •rX \� • T+ 747 �: c+•,
/ r V f • • •'��f_• . S -I + • '*1 l;,n,M t , i=•• f�`
R..•
44
c•
49
•
r _r
540
o d, 2 a Mlles INC 34 West Corridor Study Alamance and orange Counties
S Mile Propece Buffer
�ProjPot Corridor
Employment 2017 v 2045 TRMI&PTRM SoHo-Eeortornit Data(2013-2045)
• 1 C10t=50 Source Info:NC60T VHB,NCOneMap.
• Employrn nt2017 to 2045 Alamance County,Orange County
Employment2017 Paye 13 of 25
09,[2019 Item 8
Figure 11b: TRM & PTRM Employment Growth (2013 — 2045) MPO Board 1yy
101104
o
119
' e
54�k\
R/ '� ',.
627
• 74755
. ,+
I • . + • a' S .—a
! i •i
/4�\ ` ry iy �.' # •>;*tea?",
NC 54 West Corridor Study Alamance and Orange Counties
5 Mile Ptbj.0 Buffet
Project Corridor
Employment 2017 v 2445 TRNI&PTRM Socio-Ecortornic Data(2013-2045)
• 1 1)0t=50 Source Info:NCDOT,VHB,MConeMap.
• Empioyment2017102045 Alarnance County.Orange County
Employment 2017 Page 14 of 25
MPO Board 10/9/2019 Item 8
Figure 11c: TRM & PTRM Employment Growth (2013 — 2045) 30
4 49
o
119
" —r• � r
r _ +. • w •fir .a r � 1
t �
� '� '..
Rj c;
•f `� I . 147 .. ,.
r
54
49
' ,«5' • +.�`�.bt X70�'-
//rte: jj :t�w'�, . I w • '.' : t -•�� 's1 •
r•
'sem, •M •i•. �. "�'�. +� '4,.
17
r . ` • + /f ` /�' X40 S-A.
o 2 a Mlles INC 54 West Corridor Study Alamance and Grange Counties
S Mile P—?—t Buffer
Project Corridor
Employment 2017'v 2045 TRMI&PTRM Sotio-Eeortomic Data(2013-2045)
• 1 110t=50 Source Info:NCDOT,VHB,NCOneMap.
• Empbyment2017ui2045 Alamance County.Orange County
Employment 2017 Page 15 of 25
}` MPO Board ?0912019 Item 8
r
� Daily Vehicle-Trip Distribution
� a
Teer
Uairyland-Rd
Sr
FV
40 1
s
2° $�ti 4%
100/.0 f f <1% � v ° 2% �a
o <1/ '�
3au 2%
�4 <1% <1% 3% '
<1%
`' -
w � 54 aJ f
r� `S2/ -
r
•CYId Greensboro F2d Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding 1
o
� Blue/os represent trips to/from intersecting roads
Red%s represent trips to/from minor roads and
n
driveways along a segment of NC 54 f,—
a
Page 16 of 25
��
Figure 12: TRM Select Link Analysis — NC 54 East of Orange Grove Road
0 0.3 0.5 1.2 Miles
IVO Board 10912019 Item 8
VJ
C r o ? I
h
c i -400
I ry�
rr +150 0
yy 1L I h
+
-1 I
vi
Ln
10~ c
L) ' V -250
i
La
+2000 l
-XXX Vehicle/day reduction due to NC 54
widening 300 HO = 4 .e +200
+XXX Vehicle/day increase due to NC 54
widening
, -
XXX* Manually adjusted to compensate for _ }
TRM over-assignment to West Main St -150 +1000*
NOTE: Only differences>100 veh/day are shown
Yellow indicates roads in TRM network with ,1 Ii' kSQQ
<100 veh/day change between Build&No Build
Page If7 of 25
* hb Figure 13: TRM — Daily Traffic Differences between 2045 NC 54 Widened and No-Build Scenarios
MPO Board 10�9�2019 Item 8
35,000 4-Lane Divided Capacity*
Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) West of Old Fayetteville
30,000
25,000
20,000 ___---
__- — -
15,000
2-Lane Capacity*
10,000
5,000
MH torical 1535Growth ■1.0%Growth 91
6
2003 2008 2013 2023 2028 2033 2038 2043
Page 18 of 25
Figure 14: Relative Impacts of Traffic Shifts due to NC 54 Widening
Haw River 4MPO Board 109(2019 Item 8
�
Township [57]
Burington Cheeks Hillsborough
Townshi - 70 Township Township Eno Township
Melville 70
Township
119 $
62
Graham
Township
54
cobte87
ss
Township
49 Thompson
Township
Albright
Township
Bingham Chapel Hill
Township Township
P54
Patterson
Township Newlin
Township
Page 19 of 25
` *' 1_I_ Figure 15: Areas Included in Population-AADT Correlation Analysis
1.16 MPO Board 1Off
m9 6m8
1.14
do
1.12 40 d
d
Op dw_�
�_-
£1
�
/ do
m !za -
>
or
!a6 - OWN
_OpwodO
1&4
�
/
�
�
1.02
� . .
�
1.00
09 20£: 2011 20' 2 2014 2015 2016 2017
-Roads Sum COm Rned Population
Page mya
Figure 1§: Comparison of Historical Population and AADT Aggregations
1.70 MPO Board 1Off
ff019 Item 8
I
f,
I �
I �
I �
1.50
I �
I 1.0�
I �
I �
1.40 ♦ �
I �
� � I
-J
CU I
1.3400 00
—
I
I I
I
I �
I �
I �
I �
1.20 I0
I
I
1.1Q
2O09 2+014 2019 2024 2O29 H144
Roads Sum -Combined Population
Page 21 of 25
Figure 17: Comparison of Aggregated Population and AADT Forecasts
MPO Board 1OW019 Item 8
19. 86 57
Green Level
�a
Non Burlington Haw River JO -
Gibsonville Mebane
Graham H11711sbolugh
fi� �1%
Alamance Swepsonville
M
Carrboro Chapel Hill
Park and Ride Lots
E—ting
1 11 Prop-ad i`l
Transit Route
LINK
PART MilesMilesi�
—Chapel H.II Tra nsn
i Cj Tnanole
Orange Co Putilic Transit 0 ? a
Paq ,22 of 25
Figure 18: Transit Routes and Park-&-Ride Lots �` �0' hb
' • •• r - 158 0 099 Item 8
.+
15
f. < w, • •;,•+ ,• + ."f ,'1 501 +• ` r,
70
t ems• .•_ •y ar •• a .t .!.� y. * • .
, +{ 1 * r 1 aEt�J. ,: 'w k, �8 ! ��• Sill•` 'i, , `
.- . r 1 .�,«f• '+„�•,�. ` J•• fes * i'• w� � ` t+ •
, e •.• Ery *` ��' "�." �, E +�'.� 1 s! — ,
L t• ',+s• s"• +�f� ,t j • 1• f t • 1 • , j.f-.s••a' r • 3r s'
41*
CA
64 •� � ♦ .aw•' ! � � yam► N ��r� ,' L fir• '} '�� + r
15
• UNC-CH Employees V6• 'r,;401
• Hospital Employees • „ f' ' ,
*pry
Source:UNC-CH DevelopmenpWff6 Vj 7,fl�61pdate
hbl Figure 19: Regional Distribution of UNC-CH and Hospital Employee Residences (2017)
PO Board 10/9/2019 Item 8
' 70
119
62
54
87 'V 86
49
,' _ .. :,� • r. sem,ue t ! •3dV •, _>''
• � 'L".�• $« •*i!Aa ori d ♦'� � i�•
• UNC-CH Employees
• Hospital Employees +•' 3 F
�1 Source:UNC-CH DevelopmenpWff6 M70f1�61pdate
hb Figure 20: Study Area Distribution of UNC-CH and Hospital Employee Residences (2017)
MPO Board 10 9 2019 Item 8 !1
Approach Corridors
PP
Study Area
liBell Tower
°
I1'' fJ Highway
Employees in Approach
01,993
24.8 939
3 0 2,331
,F
3,906
13.1% �'0 � 1,949
2,058 2,.058
_. -- 2,557
7,713
t
1,949 ,7 ;
4'.8%,, ,
°
` . 12.7%
1.993 i
Figure 21: Proportion of UNC-CH and Hospital
Employees by Commute Corridor (201925
Page 25
Source:UNC-CH Development Plan,2017 TIA Update
41
APPROVED MINUTES EXCERPT
1 MINUTES
2 ORANGE COUNTY OUTBOARD
3 MAY 22,2023
4
5 AGENDA ITEM S: NC 54 WEST MULTIMODAL CORRIDOR STUDY
6
7 Nish provided a detail presentation on the comprehensive study, including phase 2 and all the issues
8 associated with it. The reason this study is coming back before you is due to increasing development
9 pressures along the corridor and public's need to improve the corridor.
10
11 Randy Marshall: What about the US 70 Study? Why is this study coming back?
12
13 Nish: That study is currently going through the planning process and will be brought before you in the
14 Fall, for action when it is complete.
15
16 Recent developments include the Dollar General proposed at the intersection of White Cross Road and
17 NC 54 along with potential subdivision near Orange Grove Road and NC 54. Staff is presenting the full
18 study, including all the coordination and collaboration going into it and requesting you to recommend
19 the study go from being received to approval.
20
21 Michael Hughes: When was the study done? Why such long time to draft plan between workshops?
22 When was it completed?
23
24 Nish: Early 2018- Iate2019, there were two rounds of extensive public workshops. It took the consultant
25 time to gather all the input from the three meetings from each round of workshops: once collect all the
26 input, and draft the various alternatives and second to present the draft plan and get feedback.
27
28 Amy Cole: How well attended were the workshops?
29
30 Nish: Over 100 people for meeting, even people from Carrboro and Graham came to Orange County's
31 and attending those in the local jurisdictions.
32
33 Amy Cole: While the study recommended widening to 4 lanes, would that have resulted in 4 lane
34 roundabouts, or did they recommend some other roundabouts for the intersections?
35
36 Nish: They did not recommend 4 lane roundabouts in the study, they only recommended for different
37 alternatives at the intersections and preferred the 2 lane roundabouts.
38
39 Michael Hughes: What about superstreets?
40 Nish: They are not safe for bicyclist and pedestrians due to the multiple crossings and potential conflict
41 points they would have to go through to get to where they were going.
42
43 Amy Cole: How would bike/ped be accommodated through the widening and what are the restrictions
44 to them?
45
1
42
APPROVED MINUTES EXCERPT
46 Nish: STI law restricts NCDOT from financially investing in independent bike/ped projects. They are
47 funded locally and go through a very competitive process for federal funds. NCDOT's new complete
48 street policy allows them to fund them as part of highway projects. There are efforts in the NC General
49 Assembly to remove the restrictions on NCDOT.
50
51 Randy Marshal: Isn't the paved shoulder along NC 54 sufficient?
52
53 Nish: Parts of it is, some of it 2', 4' or 6' but it is not consistent through the whole corridor.
54
55 Randy Marshall: Part of NC 54 around Carrboro is already 4 lanes and sidewalks.
56
57 Nish: Yes, that's the NC 54 by-pass around Carrboro.
58
59 Michael Hughes: Was the Phase 2 a different study, or was there another study done on the corridor?
60
61 Nish: No, there was no new or different study. The study was received by Orange County, we are simply
62 trying to get it approved.
63
64 Randy Marshall: What was preventing it from being approved? Was Carrboro involved when it went
65 before the Board?
66
67 Nish: Carrboro, others had already approved it. Yes, Carrboro Mayor presented his points before the
68 County Commissioners when it went before them. Now that Commissioners have toured the corridor,
69 seen the development pressures, they want it brought back to them for consideration and possible
70 approval.
71
72 Randy Marshall: Would they approve it now or do they continue to consider Carrboro, what do they
73 desire now? What about NCDOT?
74
75 Nish: Yes, they have spoken to Carrboro. They are in favor of this study and want to move it forward, as
76 long as we continue coordinating with Carrboro. The state has promised to continue coordinating and
77 working with Carrboro.
78
79 Michael Hughes: Can you explain the rural impact again? Why rural roads increasing in some areas?
80
81 Nish: If NC 54 is not widened, all of southern Orange County rural roads would be red, each with
82 increasing traffic. By widening one road, there is reduction in majority of southern Orange County
83 Roads.
84
85 Other roads like Buckhorn Road are also experiencing their own development pressures, especially in
86 the fringes of urban areas.
87
88 Art Minus: Traffic in Orange County is going to increase anyways.
89
2
43
APPROVED MINUTES EXCERPT
90 Nish: Yes, that is why NCDOT has changed their process and working better to accommodate all modes,
91 including bike/ped, transit, and others, not just the car.
92
93 Randy Marshall: Did these other similar corridors include bike/Ped?
94
95 Nish: Yes
96
97 Nish concluded the presentation with staff requesting OUTBoard recommend BOCC approve the study
98 and continue coordination and collaborating with all its partners along the entire corridor. The TAS met
99 last Friday and recommended approval.
100
101 Art Minus: Would like the corridor to stay rural.
102
103 Amy Cole: Thank you for the detail presentation, it is good to see that bike/ped and transit were
104 included in the study.
105
106 Randy Marshall: yes, the area is going to grow and traffic will increase. We need to think of the bigger
107 picture and make sure everyone is safe getting to their destination.
108
109 Art Minus: I'm still opposed to the widening but do understand the need to address the problems along
110 the corridor. We should not always be accommodating cars.
111
112 Randy Marshall: Understand why we shouldn't widen roads but growth will continue.
113
114 Michael Hughes: I see why we should not widen roads but some areas, carefully studies like these, need
115 a comprehensive improvement this.
116
117 Motion: Randy Marshall Second: Michael Hughes
118 Dissent: Art Minus
119 Vote: 4-1 for Approval
120
121 Nish: When I present this to BOCC, I will present the full discussion including the dissent
122
3