Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
OUTboard Meeting June 3, 2026
AGENDA Orange County Parks and Recreation Council And Orange United Transportation Board June 3, 2026 6:30 p.m. Bonnie B. Davis Environment and Agricultural Center Board Room 1020 US 70 West Hillsborough, NC Time Item Title 6:30 I. Call to Order 6:30 II. Introductions 6:40 III. Plan Overviews a. Orange County Trails Plan b. Orange County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 7:00 IV. Discussion on Overlaps and Potential Gaps 7:30 V. Next Steps a. BOCC Presentation G E c O 2 y r fi. W Z b i ... Q Q r - ��� :tom V" p` ` "Ill ' PEDES1R � � r �/�► of �{ i L .,3 6`� I n.ptr;C g' a ORANGE COUNTY, NC !,1 f r �y ti C 4 .r I C n • x �1 ORANGE JNo Our People.Your Succe5s. TRIANGLE WEST COUNTY Page 2-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 3 9 AcKnowleldgme'nts • 0 ABOUT THIS STUDY............................................................................................ PAGE 10 ' PROJECT GOALS... .. . ................................................................................... PAGE 14 • This plan was made possible through the collaboration and dedication of many PROCESS AND TI ................................................................................ PAGE 15 individuals and organizations who care deeply about making Orange County a safer, more accessible,and more connected place to walk and bike.We thank the residents, . Ll • • community members,and stakeholders who shared their insights,experiences,and • hopes for the future of mobility in Orange County. UNDE&,BI T VEL NEEDS PAGE 18 • WORK PAGE 26 WALKNG,AND SAFETY TODAY............................................................. PAGE 34 Orange County, Stantec Consulting WhitersRavenel EYT AWAYS................................................................................................. PAGE42 CH.1 North Carolina Services Inc. OVERVIEW OF ENGAGEMENT PROCESS ........................................................... PAGE 46 ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES.................................................................................. PAGE47 KEYTHEMES....................................................................................................... PAGE58 NETWORKCHAPTER 4: • • APPROACH TO NETWORK DEVELOPMENT......................................................... PAGE 62 FACILITY DESIGN GUIDANCE ............................................................................ PAGE 64 NETWORK FRAMEWORK.................................................................................... PAGE 72 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION.................................................................................. PAGE 74 CONCEPT DESIGNS............................................................................................ PAGE 80 CHAPTER 5: IMPLEMENTATION POLICY AND PROGRAMMING............................................................................. PAGE 92 NEXTSTEPS...................................................................................................... PAGE100 ©2025 by Orange County,NC,and Stantec Consu Se es, Inc.All Images,Graphics,and Text were created by Stantec or used with permission unless otherwise note production Permitted with Credit in Print. Page 4-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Page 5 D D INTR DUCTION ..................................................................................................................................................................................... Orange County is growing and changing, and so are the ways people get around. This Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is This Chapter will cover: Whether walkingthl, biking to b tok about helping people c it where they o school, go a park, or catching aus work, more go safely, �mf� �7bly,and About This Study le are looking for safer and more convenient ways to travel without relying �ord¢ably,safely, t, ' ?ar not. Project Goals on a car. But in many parts of the county, sidewalks are missing, roads feel It focuses on practic 1411 , unsafe for biking, and bus stops are hard to reach on foot. like better sidr ,aiti ths Process and Timeline crossings,can mr a r- nected bike ro+'t s-the car hake a real r_ "-renc. 'n everyuay life. CIioK here,to navigate T between chapters . CH.2 N y � M ♦ y .^ ♦ _.��,,, CH.5 ♦ - ws`e e.,:ry seas '� - � .ar 4 Of 40 - - � � _ law , Page 6-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 7 Building on Past Work This plan isn't starting from scratch.Over the past 15 years,Orange County has worked on several plans and initiatives to support biking and walking,from local greenway projects to countywide transportation and parks planning. This plan brings those past efforts together in one place. It uses updated data,community input,and on-the-ground knowledge to focus on what's missing,what's possible,and what matters most to residents. ii on in 11 I iiliiilrrrn� r _ rrrr r; AL r ,A 0 CHe l Figure 1-A:Orange County Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Timeline Graphic Figure 1-A:Orange County Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Timeline Graphic(continued) GS�TPa SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL Strategic Action Plan20310 I tc 7 1C 030 Comprehensive P ComprehensiveTrensportationPlaO coax ,xo r x" , p4' e V - soar ®c0 °4° C `/3 laso""Po °`rA lar°vc` mxr Orange County GTS Durham-Chapel H,II Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Orgamration � nxopMhwamM.la mu Comprexensive Tra No enmper 30t) Orange County 2030 Orange County Safe Routes to School Orange County Parks S Central Pine RPO(CPRPO) Triangle West Transportation Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Strategic Action Plan Recreation Master Plan Bicycle S Pedestrian Planning Organization Transportation Plan 2030 PlanningFramework (TPO)Comprehensive Transportation Plan i Recognized the importance Includes&nte Launched programs aimed Recommended the Introduces bicycle and pedestrian Recommended a combination of of multimodal transportation ria at improving pedestrian and expansion of greenways and infrastructure goals and objectives separate bicycle and pedestrian and identified bicycle and cider rovide bicycle access to schools, multiuse trails to improve for the CPRPO region and accommodations constructed parallel pedestrian infrastructure as ackgrounor this emphasizing safety and recreational access and recommended a new approach for to the Durham-Orange Light Rail key priorities. pl education programs for multimodal connectivity. bicycle and pedestrian project funding corridor from Chapel Hill to Durham. students. prioritization. Page 8-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle S Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 9 eoe eoe CHA Figure 1-A:Orange County Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Timeline Graphic(continued) Figure 1-A:Orange County Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning Timeline Graphic(continued) i - r orange County Trails Plan .. I Transportati � Safety Plan OrangeiC.unty ans tio .�. W • o•�� i Safe Poutes to o�`o ZeTriangle West Transportation ro Dea[hs School • • ate Planning Organization VISION ZERO ACTION PLAN NCDOT Complete Burlington-Graham MPO Orange County Vision Burlington-Graham Orange County Safe Orange County Orange County Triangle West TPO Streets Policy (BGMPO)Comprehensive Zero and Compete MPO Transportation Routes to School Update Transportation Trails Plan Vision Zero Action Plan Transportation Plan licy Safety Plan Multimodal Plan Update Established statewide Integrated updated my endorsed The BG MPO Safety Plan Expanded programs Established a Currently developing a Sets goal to eliminate guidance requiring local bike and pedes VI Zero principles identifies NC 54 and eastern aimed at improving comprehensive vision for long-term strategy for traffic deaths by 2050; jurisdictions to design streets recommen ns, to reduce pedestrian Orange County as high-risk pedestrian and bicycle multimodal transportation, expanding the County's identifies high-injury that accommodate all users, aligned wi egional nd cyclist fatalities and areas and prioritizes safety access to schools, setting the stage for this trail system,enhancing corridors and proven influencing local projects. mobility S. improve roadway safety upgrades in disadvantaged emphasizing safety and Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan pedestrian and bike safety countermeasures for vulnerable users. communities. education programs for by highlighting network friendly corridors. for Orange County. students. gaps and investment needs. Page 10-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle S Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 11 PERSON ABOUT THIS STUDY Figurel-B:Study Area Map This plan builds on the 2024 Orange County 1 1 Transportation Multimodal Plan, which looked at big- Study Area 1 1 picture transportation needs for the whole county. Municipalities not I 1 0 included in this I 1 planning effort While that plan included biking and walking,it didn't dig into the details of where Railroad Track I 1s�� 1 so 57 1 bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure are missing or what needs to be built first, UNC Co-G 86 4t�jt� 1 especially in unincorporated parts of the county that are outside the main towns. Trail - r ork Littl,6e , 1 This plan will provide Orange County and its partners with a current list of prioritized I 1 projects and tools to identify: - 1 1 Key la 1 I 1 gaps and opportunities . . connect walkingand 1 MEBANE -. • sidewalks, • • - • schools, 1 ; I Eno River G 1 1. - i HILLSBOROU State Park 1 CH.1 • • bike facilities across the parks, • • transit 70 County I 1 r�r 9-\J �O if ALAMANCE ® 7° • JIM • • I — rs, scxoo�sus �+ 1 sc t 1 J 1 f Duke ForesWhat projects should How local p licie, and t Z 1 N • - first based on safety, funding can sup, ort these 1 } 0�0Q, benefit, • • need projects m • • • • 1c, 1 M 5a CARRBORO CHAPEL HILL 1 D U R H A M sa 1 Miles O 0 1 2 — — . _ _ r- Source:(Orange County,2025) C H A T H A M Page 12-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 13 The Need for a Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Orange County has made steady progress in expanding sidewalks,bike lanes,and multi-use paths, reflecting a strong local With a focus on these needs,this plan commitment to improving how people move throughout the community. Like man rural areas,however,the ability to build Four main reasons this tt now: helps Orange Count take further p 9 P P 9 Y Y Y p 9 Y and connect this infrastructure is shaped by roadway ownership,state policies,and coordination across multiple agencies. steps toward a more complete, connected transportation system- As a result,the existing network continues to have missing links,safety challenges,and opportunities to strengthen one that gives people more choices to connections to key destinations such as schools,parks,and transit stops.This plan focuses on identifying those move around,no matter where they opportunities and providing a clear path forward for continued progress. FILLING THE GAPS*: live or how they get around. Some areas lack continuous At the same time,more people are looking for alternative ways to get around.Whether it's a child walking to school,a teen connectikeske een biking to work,or an older adult navigating a busy roadway,the need for safe and reliable options continues to grow. existing faciy GROWTH &DEVELOPMENT• destinatio tmore diffic As Orange County grows,so does ely. the need for roads and paths that i9ftbwork for everyone,not just drivers. I �� �'_ • � `� 11/111 CHANGING HABITS: . More people want to walk SAFETY CONCERNS: or bike as part of daily life Some roads and crossings feel CH.1 -for health,convenience, dangerous,especially in areas • • • • • or saving money. 1 with high crash rates or no I I III ' I I I I I I I III•I I I 1 sidewalks or bike lanes. (AIM _ 1 1 � D *Note:"Gaps"refer to missing or incomplete connections within the pedestrian and bicycle network.While this plan identifies needs across the broader system,Orange County's role is focused on coordinating and advancing improvements along corridors and projects within its influence,in partnership with municipalities and state agencies. Page 14-Orange County,NC I Bicycled.Pedestrian Plan Bicycle S Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 15 PROJECT GOALS PROCESS MELINE The Orange County Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan is built This plan isn' ' um nt. It's a process and a set around three main goals: of tool nd th o munity is a key part of it. Goal #1 Goal #2 Goal #3 The Orange County Bicyc nd Pedestrian Plan was developed over the course of 2024-2025 through a multi-step process that included data analysis,community Make Walking Build a More Improve Access input,and collaboration with local and regional partners. and Biking Safer Connected Network for Everyone phic below shows the key phases of the planning process-from kickoff thr ublic engagement,draft recommendations,and final adoption. Everyone should be able to move A sidewalk or bike lane isn't much use Not all residents of Orange County around safely,whether walking, if it starts and stops without warning. have had the same level of investment biking,or rolling. But many roads in People need continuous,reliable in infrastructure. In some places,the the County are still designed with cars routes that connect key destinations only way to get around is by car,if you in mind,not people.This plan works such as residential areas,centers of have one.Other residents deal with to reduce crashes and create safe, employment and commerce,and unsafe conditions that make walking ig - nning Process people-first roads. recreation with schools and transit. or biking feel out of reach. NING TESTINGry CH.IWinter 2024 - 2025 Spring 2025 People need continuous, ■o■■■■m■n■ "'...■■■■ ■M■NNEMEME monsoon ■■■ reliable routes Ado.. O O � �, Plan,Policy�Kickoff Project Online Existing conditions Program review Website survey cond' \ ■■...■..■• ■■■■■■..■...■■ ■............■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ monogamous i a \ Interactive Community Focus Group Public Issues Vision Pop-up Events Discussions Workshop REFINING - DOCUMENTING =_ I , I - - -- ' Summer 2025 — Q Fall 2025 - Spring 2026 I - \ Network PolicyImplementation �Program Plan Funding i \ recommendations recommendations Strategy [Everyone should be able to \ In some places,the only way to get I � move around safely _ around is by car-if you have one ■.■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■.■■■ ■ I \ man an O ■........■ \\ Prioritization process Public Priorities& Integration Report \ Workshop Projects with partners Development Adoption I I ` I ` Page 16-Orange County,NCI Bicycle Pedestrian Plan " 1 P 7 a{ tom•;,. r[ A CHAPTER2 •� EXISTING x ' a CONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................................................................................... - - ....... _ .. In many parts of Orange County, especially outside More people are choosing to walk `.- '•� y f x ' r`'` `,•� the towns and residential areas, walking or biking and bike,whether for exercise, recreation,getting to work or school, r h r• `,t = �� '�t1 . often means using the shoulder of a road with no or simply enjoying the outdoors.This sidewalk, bike lane, or safe place to cross. In some chapter examines the current state cases, people walk along roadside ditches or swales of the road system in Orange County, LW `ti z as a workaround where no dedicated space is including where people are already p walking and biking,the nature of available. Most of these roads were built for cars, at those trips,and where small changes ,:��w-°;�.'; �� � ��� ,�4• ��' y a time when very few people were expected to walk could have significant impact. '4=` or bike along them. Today, however, conditions are -CH.2 changing. This Chapter will cover: Understanding Travel Ne. �• r=;1':' ";3-` - ; • The Road Network �r • Walking,Biking,an[ Safr yl - Today • What Lec. red CH.5 \ \- • \ Intersection at Old NC 10 and Mt Hermon Church Rd showing bike signage. Page 18-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 19 PERSON UNDERSTANDING TRAVEL NEEDS ' ' " - �- - - - - - - - Orange County is a mix of farmland, towns, rural communities, and growing suburban neighborhoods. Each area looks and functions differently; some have Name I �• 1 walkable roads and trails, while others feature Ion stretches of road designed - Burlington g g lGraham MPO only for cars. These differences matter when thinking about how people move _ Central Pines I 1 and how to plan for safer walking and biking. - RPO _ Triangle West I 571 1 1 TPO 86 / 1 ! 1 The Planning Landscape 17L." Study Area I 1 no Municip Planning for transportation here Triangle West Transportation Because these agencies cover includ in 01" 1 —��� 1 also involves multiple layers of Planning Organization(TWTPO) different parts of the County, pl i rt /� _ � coordination.Three different regional transportation priorities vary across ton-Graham Metropolitan 1 V r organizations share responsibility Burl in g p regions.This plan helps bring those Organization(BGMPO)Planning Org for long-range transportation perspectives together,serving as a I MEBANE 1 planning,project prioritization,and local guide that supports broader Central Pines Rural Planning , j � � 1 coordination with the North Carolina Organization(CPRPO) regional coordination and future I' HILLSBOROUGH CH.1! 70 Department of Transportation funding. I �1 1 (NCDOT): I r i•� '� f,. 1 �7 r I ea - � ALAMANCE I \ � �•� - � - �!' ' - i 46/ I 751 86 1 r•il[ MF XICANp I �� . G /., 1 L( MF%Ic NR[$TAUR } 1_ NT - '- _-- 928 9002 AMOK W CARRBORO 1 / 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 / — CHAPEL HILL 1 D U R H A M 1 1 86 1 54 1 I 1 I O � Miles O - - - — � 1 Source:(NCDOT,2025) CHATHAM Page 20-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 21 Figure 2-13: • • Cover Map Land Cover(NLCD A2024) �� 1 Different Places, Different Conditions Barren Land I ap y� s . �.�.3 ,. ,•. 1 d J'; , f ��► ' Cultivated Crops I �4w• �� This Ian focuses on unincorporated areas of Orange p p 9 Developed 1 ►157, - County, conditions for walking and biking differ 197 I �^L573, 1 Y g g Forest 1 significantly from those in the Count s towns. These areas Herbaceou 9 Y Y are generally more rural with longer distances between _ Open Water _ Pasture �► '''~ >- r; �� ✓ 1 destinations, higher vehicle speeds, and roadways that were not originallydesi designed to accommodate people Shrub cr 9 P P 1 walking or biking. and t rea IM�A nicipalities not NE In many locations,there are Even in these conditions, people Rather than applying town-based luded in this ,� r limited or no dedicated facilities continue to walk and bike;whether design standards,this plan focuses anning effort 1� _ �o HILLSB=ROU�G 1 cH.i such as sidewalks, bike lanes, or to reach nearby services, access on identifying targeted, context- safe crossing points. Shoulders a park, or for recreation. Because sensitive improvements that can r: ► - 1 w , may be narrow or inconsistent, of these patterns, improving enhance safety and access I and people often rely on informal safety and connectivity in corridors and in areas wh t 1� space along the roadway to travel unincorporated areas requires County can play a role. A L A M A N C E 14 1 between nearby destinations. a different approach than in more compact or suburban g6 1 environments. ••• • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • ou1 ,, • DURHAM u y�, 15 1 Miles _ t � , O 0 1 2 Source:(USGS Annual National Land Cover Database,2024) - CHATHAM Page 22-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle S Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 23 Figure 2-C:Demographics Infographic Who lives here? 9 POPULATION SNAPSHOT 146k RACE Based on data from the While most residents in Orange At the same time,nearly one in three Total Population(up 12%since 2010) County use a car for daily travel, residents walk for exercise,and A �� 72.1% White Orange County Fact 10.9% Black or African American walking and biking are important over 11%bike on roads.This shows a 41 Book (2024) and ESRI 2 . r modes for many,whether for growing interest in outdoor mobility w - 7.8% Asian Business Analyst (2025), recreation,exercise,commuting,or for health and quality of life. sJ li Popul elow �� ' r 5.6% Two or more races Orange Count is home accessing nearby destinations. Nearly f 15.4% 3.5% Other ■ g y 12%of households have no vehicle, Together,these trends highlight the to a diverse population and 13%of residents live below need for safe,connected routes that ,� Population 65 above youngthe overt line,meaningactive support both essential and lifestyle- population: p y based travel,particularly in rural and • INCOME families, working adults, transportation may not be a choice 61.5% Median Household Income Population Living in Poverty suburban areas where infrastructure but a necessity. of Orange ty's ulation \1 $6k Orange Count 13.3% Orange Count retirees, and students. is s arse and tar eted investments `© g y g y p 9 Growth fr e ulation These needs are especially critical in key corridors and connections can 65&ab 66k North Carolina 13.1% North Carolina Around one in four residents is for school-aged children(26%of improve safety and comfort. under age 20.About 37%of the the population),older adults(15%), population lives in rural areas,where and those living in areas with limited getting around without a car can be access to transit or services,who are challenging due to distances,limited more likely to rely on walking,biking, 36.70% 63.3% CH.1 infrastructure,and fewer public or others for daily travel and may transportation,bike and pedestrian face greater challenges navigating Rural Population Urban Population options. unsafe or incomplete infrastructure. Moot Participated in Bicycling on Road 4 ODE OF TRAVEL TC%Aj-, Ilk CH.5 Participated in To help identify areas with 6 Drove ne l Jogging • greater barriers • transportation I , • . access, NCDOT has developed a Participated in 21.7% rom Home 7.0% Ca ooled Transportation . . ' - - While this tool • - • 8 , 4.7% Public Transportation many inputs, can ••• - ` 3.3% Walked grant applications • • prioritization 31% Oth �PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLEdecisions at the state level. ACTIVITY IN 2025 IN 12,00ywj SOURCES:ORANGE COUNTY* AWMseholcls with no Vehicle* • Orange • Page 24-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 25 PERSON Where Are People Going? Figure 2-D:Key Destinations •• This plan focuses on helping people get where they need to go—safely and Whether it's a student walking to " " — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — comfortably—whether or not they drive. Many destinations like schools,parks, class,an older adult heading to an medical centers,and transit stops are spread across both towns and rural parts appointment,or a family out for a Schools, I 1 of the County. Even in places without sidewalks or bike lanes,people are walking weekend ride,these trips are already Q Daycares& 1 and biking today. happening,and small improvements Libraries 1 1 could make them safer and easier. Q Parks& Recreation I Q QPark and Ride I 1 5\ ,57 1 This plan prioritizes connections to: Community se Q Cultural Facili QQ 1 I • Medical . . Groceries& 1 Q SI9th Fork L/Z tl 1 including UNC Hospitals HillsboroughConveni Q Q e�Qil, 1 • • - •• • ' • • Q Hos it & �r 1 p 1 Cli I Pa "`""" cr n 1�MEBANE9 Q 1 G rnment I .19g0 Eno River State 1 T � Of es I ��� Park .. y 70 ���.� CH.1 tud Area Iw Q +ILLSBOROUGH 70 1 Municipalities not 4 Q ''� 9 !Jer 0 included in this 0 ■ ' planning effort Transit hubs,such . Durham - 1 C�, p Tech Park-and-Ride and proposed 9Q Q Amtrak stations. 91 1 75, I 0 1 s` ALAMANCE I 00 Duke Forest t L 1 }' o N 86 1 ,6co i 1� 1 n 1 Q = M CHAPEL HILL 1 D U R H A M d y 1 1 [54], vl 1 CARRBORO ,s 1 e / 1 ' I Miles � � t — i Q � 0 1 2 i Source:Consolidated from(NCDOT,2025),(OpenStreetMap,2025),(Orange County,2025),&(Stantec,2025) CHATHAM Page 26-Orange County,NC I Bicycled.Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 27 PERSON THE ROAD NETWORK Roadway Responsibilities Map All public roads in the unincorporated areas of Because of this,most improvements for walking and biking in Roadway Responsibility 1 Orange County are maintained by the North unincorporated areas will require NCDOT Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), 1 1 coordination with NCDOT. Private NCDOT also maintains some roads within Understanding who owns and I 1 incorporated towns, while others are maintained by maintains a roadway is an important r " Study Area I ,57 1 first step in determining what types of I 57 1 the towns themselves. improvements are feasible and how Municipalities o - 1 ® they can be implemented. included in t se/planning effo 1 y 1 ✓ �1 NCDOT's Key Priorities for Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements I 1 iMEBANE � I, HILL40ROU,GH a -1 CH.1� JV77 � I;r,�D 70 T, 11 wx Focus safety projects on shorter Consider the unique characteristics of Prioritize projects that expand 1 1 segments,intersections,and bridging rural roads and destinations,including access to transportation,co gaps instead of undertaking long access to trails and distances between resources,recreation,and to A L A M A N C E I ® 70 1 sidewalk projects. destinations. 775NCDOTmaintains r � •. . . . _ miles ... in Orange County. l 1 Review existing policies,plans,cost- Determine maintenance requirements Rights-o y wi s,utilities, I 1 sharing guidelines,and evaluation and roles for existing and proposed and prepan urate cost methodologies to guide project facilities. estimates may pose a challenge to I 1 feasibility. constructability. I 1 Key Resources I 5 ` CARRBORO CHAPEL HILL � •C Safe Routes to School1 • Vision - • _ 86 54 • ••• •• 1 Plan L-Safety Action 1 NCDOT Project Delivery • - '- • .D � Miles / - —K aft - - - - - ,- 1 I O Source:(NCDOT,2024) CHATHAM Page 28-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 29 Road Types and Design Speeds •--• •• Orange County's road system includes Even on local and collector roads, 1 r a mix of local roads,rural highways, speeds can be high. In fact: - I 1 Speed Limits and regional corridors.About 77% I 1 of roads in the County are classified Approximately 42%of roads in - • • • - 50-65 MPH I 1 as local, meaning they carry less the County have a posted speed ...- - 45 MPH 1 �1 a threshold at 1 1 traffic and often serve neighborhoods limit over 40 mph; • - • - - • • - 40 MPH or rural homes.These roads may which walking and biking become •--• ••• 20-35 MPH 1 r5 7 �y 1 • • • \�� 1 feel quieter, but they can also lack significantly less comfortable • • - • -• 1 sidewalks or shoulders,and their and more dangerous.On roads r Study Area s6, 1 without shoulders,crosswalks, ' • •- ' ' 1 narrowness can limit options for safe Municipaliti 1 or designated space for people • •• • •• _• 1 Ki walking or biking,especially in more 0 1 outside vehicles,even a short •-- included i is • • • • planni rural settings. walk or bike trip can feel risky. . _ � � 0 0 � _ � 1 The rest include major and minor _ _ • _ 1 { Over 1,500 miles of roads in collectors,which connect local roads 1 1 the County are considered to larger arterials.These roads often • • • • - • • 1 �. 1 "bikeable"based on width and • • • • • 1 run past schools, parks,or small connectivity; but many of these _ • • • i MEBANE connec G�1 town centers,making them criticali roads lack pavement markings I• j• HILLSBOROUGH -1 CH.1 , links for everyday travel and strong 70 candidates for pedestrian and bicycle signage,or other safety features. •• _ • • • i _ _ 1 �; While they may be physically wide • ••• improvements.At the top of the • - 1 road hierarchy are arterial roads, enough to ride on,they often do . 1 _ _ not feel safe or inviting for most _ _ . freeways,and interstates,which users • • •• • • A L A M A N C E ® 70 1 carry the highest traffic volumes • fee • and speeds.These are essential _ I ` .• for regional movement, but they're - 7 ` 751 generally not designed for walking or I _ / 1 biking,and often lack safe crossings • • r` 1 or shoulders. - -• r: '%`• 1 • 1 1 ------------ ------------------ K 1 1 1 54 CARRBORO CHAPEL HILL 1 D U R H A M 86 54 ' ' • �"� 15 1 j� 1 �. �. - � Miles — O 0 1 2 � � — •. � 46 ..� Source:(NCDOT,2024) CHATHAM Page 30-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 31 The diagram below illustrates how different roadway types serve different transportation functions and user groups. User comfort levels shown are illustrative and intended for ing oses. Facility selection should also consider traffic Understanding this relationship helps explain why facility needs vary across Orange County and why some corridors may volume,surrounding land uses,nearby destinations,pub in d c rridor-specific conditions. require greater separation from traffic than others. r"NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS & LOCAL ROADS RURAL COLLECTORS & MINOR ARTERIA.I... 'INCIF ,L ARTERIALS & REGIONAL CORRIDORS Local roads typically carry low traffic volumes and often Collector roads,both major and minor,link local streets to larger arterial At the top of the road network are arterials,freeways,and interstates,which handle serve residential neighborhoods or rural areas;while they routes and often pass by schools,parks,or small town centers,making the highest traffic volumes and speeds;while vital for regional mobility,they are may feel quieter,they can lack sidewalks or shoulders,and them important for daily travel and strong opportunities for pedestrian generally not designed for walking or biking and often lack safe crossings or their narrow design can make walking or biking less safe, and bicycle improvements. adequate shoulders. especially in rural settings. Urban Setting ��' Rural Setting Minor Collector Minor Arterials Major Arterials Regional Corridors I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 CH.1 L�V g --------- -- - ------ ------ ---------- ------ ------- ----- --- ------------- ------------- --------------- ------ - - - - - - - - - -------------- -------------- ----- SW Parkin Sharrow Sharrow Sharrow Travel Lane Media ravel Lane Bike SW SW Bike Travel Lane Travel Lane Median/ Travel Lane Travel Lane 4-5' 8' 10-11, 10-11, 4-5' 1 n Lane 10-11, Lane 4-5' 4-5' Lane 11-12' 11-12' Turn Lane 11-12' 11-12' 11' 8' 8' 12' TYPICALSPEED: WALKING/ BIKING COMFORT AWALKING/ BIKING COMFORT WALKING/ BIKING COMFORT • • • • • • • • • • • ' • • • • • • • • • • TYPICAL ALcu ® © TYPIC co © �SERS: G TYPICAL Motor Experienced Motor Service Motor Large Cyclists Pedestrians p Buses Vehicles/ Buses Vehicles Cyclists Vehicles Vehicles Trucks Trucks TYPICAL CATEGORIES OF BIKE/PED FACILIT TYPICAL CATEGORIES OF BIKE/PED FACILITY: TYPICAL CATEGORIES OF BIKE/PED FACILITY: Sidewalks, shared roadway Sidewalks, sidepaths, separated bicycle facilities, Sidepaths, separated bicycle facilities, crossing improvements paved shoulders enhanced crossings Page 32-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 33 User Comfort and Level of Traffic Stress NMI y � _ t. Road type and speed shape how it One tool commonly used to conditions across Orange County. feels,and how safe it is,to walk or evaluate user comfort is Level Many rural roads in unincorporated bike.On slower,quieter roads with of Traffic Stress(LTS). LTS helps areas were identified as higher stress `" � • few vehicles,it may be fine for people transportation agencies understand environments due to factors such as: :. • • • • to walk or ride a bike even without how comfortable a roadway may feel _ Higher vehicle speeds, a formal sidewalk or bike lane. But for different types of riders based on faster roads,especially those with roadway speed,traffic volume,and , Narrow shoulders, V` J • . . . - high traffic volumes or wide lanes, separation from vehicle traffic. require more infrastructure to make 45 Limited separation from traffic, - - • • -SHARE THe LTS model categorizes facilities HE RDAD people feel comfortable and safe. and •• •• • • ' At 40 miles per hour or more,even a on a scale from LTS 1(comfortable - - minor collision can have life-altering for all users)to LTS 4(comfortable > Longer crossing distances. only for highly experienced riders). consequences. q This does not mean every Roadways with lower speeds and The Federal Highway Administration greater separation from traffic road requires the same type of :- (FHWA)has found that the chance are generally considered lower infrastructure. Instead,it highlights of a pedestrian dying in a crash stress and more comfortable for a the importance of selecting • - • • • - increases dramatically as vehicle wider range of users. Higher-speed improvements appropriate to the • _ speed increases,from 10%at 25 mph roads with narrow shoulders or little roadway context and the people CH.I to 75%at 50 mph or above(FHWA separation from traffic are generally expected to use the corridor. In Safety Effects of Speed). considered higher stress and are some locations,shoulder widening typically comfortable only for more or crossing improvements may That is why separation from traffic— experienced riders. meaningfully improve comfor, like wider shoulders,sidewalks,or and safety. In others,sidepat sidepaths—is often essential for As part of this plan,previously separated facilities may be m LU safety,especially where people are developed LTS mapping from the appropriate. ms walking or biking near fast-moving Triangle West TPO was reviewed r F vehicles. to better understand bicycling Table 2-A:Facility Types by Comfort Level (LTS)and Intended Users- 1 Facility Type LTS Level Comfort Rating Intended Users " ALL9WE6 USE Of • �� - FULL LANE _ *M Sidepath LTS 1 Very High I users,including children,seniors,and people — obility impairments Sidewalk LTS 1 Very High de ns of all ages and abilities Buffered Bicycle Lane LTS 1-2 High %idenr5clults and less-experienced riders Standard Bicycle Lane LTS 2-3 Moderate gulTr riders who are comfortable with traffic (unbuffered) Paved Shoulder(rural) LTS 3-4 to dera M11111119xperienced bicyclists only Shared Lane/Sharrow LTS 4 jF1 Low Strong and fearless bicyclists only • Page 34-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 35 NERSON WALKING, BIKING, AND SAFETY TODAY - - - - - - - - Walking and biking are possible throughout Orange County, but conditions 1 1 vary depending on location. In towns like Mebane, Hillsborough, Carrboro, and Existing Sidewalk 1 1 Chapel Hill, the sidewalk and bikeway networks are more developed, and some Existing Bicycle 1 1 roads are designed to support walking and biking more comfortably. Facility I Am Existing Shared I 157 1 Use Path 53 1 Current Conditions r-' Study Area I se soUt' 1 ork V\ttle��v e� 1 Municipaliti 1 1 In unincorporated areas outside town 0 included is 1 limits, infrastructure is often limited planni 1 or disconnected.Sidewalks are rare I� 1 along rural and suburban roads, 1 and marked bikeways are sparse. Even where routes are designated p 1 MEBANE as"bikeable,"high speeds, narrow ,,��,� a ; I � 6 Eno River 1 shoulders,and rumble strips make , ,x _ �� it JJ 1 HILLS'B``O�ROUGH State Park 1 CH.I many of them feel unsafe. Certain sections of NC 86 and NC Q 0 er 54 are classified as bikeways,but 1 _ oi�� they lack signage, lane markings, ALAMANCE 1 • 70 or comfortable space for riders. � 1 Many County roads have no sidewalk or safe place to walk, • . 1 86 1 and people must travel along the 1 1 � 1 shoulder or on the edge of the 1 roadway. i 1 `�rs Despite these conditions, people 1 p p p 1 Duke Forest are walking and biking all over the `Q�y County—for errands,for recreation, 1 1�/-YOb and for getting to work or school. 1 0o NoCD t I �� These trips are already happening, STOP TR,\[KS I 1 even in places where infrastructure is 1 15 1 minimal or absent. 544 ,CARRBORO CHAPEL HILL 1 D U R H A M XX��Ri� � 86 1 i y' OMiles t - - i— _ — - - _ ' 0 1 2 — 1 Source:(Orange County,2024) CHATHAM Page 36-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 37 PERSON Where Crashes Are Happening Figure 2-G:Fatal • • Severe Injury Crashes •• Crash data helps identify the parts Unlike people traveling in vehicles, These conditions are especially " � — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — of the transportation system that pedestrians and bicyclists have little challenging for: i ,X 1 present the greatest risk to people physical protection in a crash,making Fatal and Severe Injury(KA) X 1 walking and biking. Between 2007 roadway design,speed management, > Children walking to school, Crashes involving 1 and 2022,there were 710 reported and separation from traffic important > Pedestrians and Bicyclists 1 1 Older adults traveling to clinics to (2007-2022) I 1 crashes in Orange County involving a factors in reducing the likelihood of medical needs or transit stops, 1 • 1 person walking or biking. severe injuries and fatalities. Pedestrian Fatal 1 i57 X Injury(K) 1 > Families using the road for X 57 1 These resulted in: While many crashes occurred in recreation,and 1 X sOUt 1 more developed areas,nearly 86 1 > 41 fatalities,of which 34 were X Bicycle Fat 'Ork Vitt/e�Ne, half of the fatal and severe injury People without access to a Injury(K) 1 pedestrians and 7 were cyclists, crashes(48 out of 102)took place in vehicle. ! 1 and unincorporated and rural parts of the Pedes 1 Count Although Orange County does not • Sus ed I X & ! > 61 severe injuries,of which 44 y r 1 own or maintain most roadways in S u I Y( were pedestrians and 17 were This highlights an important unincorporated areas,understanding le I - ! 1 1 cyclists. reality: people are walking and us tedJVF I X 1 biking in these areas,even when occu rio jury(A) This means that roughly one in every � A 1 # dedicated infrastructure is limited pla (QMEBANE X HILLSBOROUGH • Wven pedestrian-involved crashes Cra s involving 1 CH.I r or absent. In many cases,residents nee ans and Bicyclists �{ 1 'rsult&l in a fatality or serious injury. Y must travel along roadways to coordina De y(2007-2022) ( ®� !' Eno River phis reflects the vulnerability of 1 �,x • 1 reach schools,parks,transit stops, regional partners, q State Park pe ple walking or biking,particularly Sparse I lr !per on roads with hig r vehicle speeds community destinations,or nearby funding opportunities tha . �X✓•! ! �o ��4 a limited separ�from traffic. neighborhoods. bicyand pedestrian impr Dense ! 1 "Ito I r r 1 Study Area X 11 Municipalities not 1 From 2007 to 2022, there 0 included in this 86 planning effort • O 1 • - 1 a bicycle or pedestrian x / I crash in Orange County 1 _ ALAMANCE ' h FDorest would - • • • '� I o X • 1 yo � 1 or serious injury. ohm 41P I.X9 I- ZZ- 1 [4 CHAPEL HILL 1 D U R H A M 1 y X erV ` 86 54 1 tX 15 1 J 1 CARRBOROAwl. N 1 J � I O � Miles � � — i— _ _ — _ — X O X ' III I �I Source N DOT 20 7-2 22 SN D T 2 14-2 23 CHATHAM Page 38-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 39 PERSON A Safer Path Forward -• - • - • •• ••- Orange County has already taken and serious injuries:the Triangle West areas east of Mebane as priority — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — steps to address transportation TPO Vision Zero Plan(2025)and the corridors based on their crash history. 1 I 1 safety. In October 2022,the Burlington-Graham Transportation Regional High Injury , 1 Orange County Board of County Safety Plan(2022). These corridors often serve important Network(HIN),All Modes I 1 Commissioners adopted a Vision Zero regional travel functions and � HIN Corridors 1 1 resolution,committing to eliminating These plans use tools such as the High carry higher volumes of traffic at 1 Injury Network(HIN)to identify the higher speeds.Without dedicated r Study Area traffic-related fatalities and serious 1 r5, 1 injuries by 2050. small percentage of roadways where infrastructure such as sidewalks, Municipalities n t 1 5� " 1 a large share of severe crashes occur. safe crossings,or separated bicycle included in 86 1 Different parts of Orange County are The Triangle West TPO Vision Zero facilities,they can present significant planning of t 1 served by two Metropolitan Planning Plan(2025)identified corridors like challenges for people walking and , 1 Organizations(MPOs):the Triangle NC 86 South,Old Fayetteville Road, biking. 1 West Transportation Planning and US 70 East. 1 Organization in the eastern portion These efforts reflect a growing 1 of the County,and the Burlington- Although these corridors represent commitment to improving safety. 1 y 1 just 10%of roadway miles,they This plan builds on that foundation 1 0 Graham Metropolitan Planning account for nearly 60%of severe by focusing on targeted,context- Organization in the western portion. and fatal crashes within the TPO's sensitive improvements in MEBANE Eno River 1 Each MPO has developed a regional boundaries.Similarly,the Burlingto k,- 1 HILLSBOROUGH State Park 1 CH.1 US,O w � Marys transportation safety plan focused Graham MPO Transportation Safe#y� �� 70 1 on reducing traffic-related fatalities Plan(2022)identifies NC 54 and rural 1 r� ALAMANCE 1 �,<° v 70 r 86 ld NC 10 �5' 1 � 1 1 Duke 1 Forest 1 2 Us y i 1 DairylenaR 1 *� J I �� '-•- • • • - [541 Nos41y CHAPEL HILL 1 DURHAM � 1 i • - - • •• • • • • 86 54 1 1- f -- - - • -• • • • • • • i�y1.6 CARRBORO 1 Fe 1 oves O I 111111[= Miles I 0 1 2 � � � � - - � �°1 C En Source:(TWTPO,2025)&(Toole Design,2025) CHATHAM Page 40-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 41 11 Planned Improvements - - •- -• = a6it A number of bicycle and pedestrian While this analysis provides a useful " — — — — — — — improvements have already been starting point,it does not fully account I ♦♦•♦■ ■■ own identified across Orange County for all implementation considerations, Planned Bicycle ® ♦ •■an • ♦ ♦■+ through previous planning efforts.The such as long-term maintenance, Facility I ♦♦� • •a♦ : ♦♦♦♦ ♦ ; map on the following page reflects feasibility,or the strength of Planned Bicycle I • '♦♦ ♦�♦♦ e • ♦�# 1 the full set of projects included in the connections to key destinations. and Pedestrian I ♦- + ■ ♦ • ' ♦♦ p J Y I ■ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ■ ♦ ♦ ♦1 2024 Orange County Transportation Facility 1 ■ : ♦.y♦ r 1516 7 ♦ ♦ 1 Multimodal Plan(TMP),and is As a result,some projects shown on Planned ♦ • ■ �♦■•""■■ ■■iO • so 1 ♦ • ■ ♦• .•a �s7'♦�♦■a 1 this map may appear in locations . ■ ■ Pedestrian ■ ♦♦ �� . • .■• ■. ♦ • shown here to provide context on Facility •♦ ••■ ■■ ■♦ a♦ �.■•♦ s6 ■ ♦■,-♦ ■ ♦♦ • 1 that are more rural in nature or ♦- 0 + the breadth of ideas that have been • ■ + ♦ a•♦ no+■■■�+ � 1 where immediate connections are not Planned Trai considered across the County. I ♦ ■ an ♦ ♦♦ ♦► 1 clearly established.This reflects the �♦• • ♦••' ♦ ♦'• r 1 Stud ♦♦ + ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ 1 It is important to note that these conceptual and long-range nature y ♦♦ •♦ ♦ L• •••• ♦♦ 1 projects were not developed as part of the TMP,which aimed to identify �� M c 1' s n 1 • ♦j ♦♦ ♦ •• • ♦♦♦ ♦♦ �l 1 • ♦ � ■ ■ ♦♦ ♦ ♦, ♦♦ ♦ , 1 of this plan,and their inclusion on this opportunities broadly across the uded th' 1 : ♦♦♦ ♦��. ►+ ■ ♦♦♦ : ■ : 1 map does not indicate that they have County rather than define a near- p ng e 1 • ♦ ♦♦ ♦•a��: : ♦1 been approved,funded,or prioritized term,implementable program. 1 MEBANE �■� ♦♦ �♦ •�•` •• ■ ♦♦ 1 for implementation. Rather,they • ♦.■ ♦• J1 ♦ ■ Eno River ■, .w1 This plan builds on that foundation by 1 ■ • ♦�♦r■'� ' State Park ' represent a comprehensive inventory HILLSBOROUGH . ♦ ♦ 1 CH.1 of potential improvements compiled taking a more focused approach.The • ��♦♦ • ♦ ••�� ♦•••■•♦• 1 TMP projects are reviewed alongside 44.1■_� a+ ♦ ■ through prior studies. I777 ••■ ■•� ,,� S�: ♦� • ♦ 1 current conditions,safety analysis, I �• b • ♦ • ■ �.•a 1 Through the TMP process,over 140 and community input to better • ♦♦ 4 ■� •� 1 bicycle and pedestrian projects were understand where improvements ' I •♦ • ♦• 4 • �a �' o♦�'V, 7o r♦ ■ ALAMANCE I'i ♦ ♦• �• • ■ �♦ • �•�.•� identified, ranging from sidewalks are most needed,most feasible,and 1� ♦♦ ■ ♦. 140 ►� �.�♦` and on-road bicycle facilities to most likely to provide meaningful 1 ■ `+ • '■ i♦�-�1 sidepaths and off-road trails.These connections.The recommendations 1:a`••♦♦ : �� : IF` 86,♦♦ a ♦, 7s� projects were evaluated using factors presented in Chapters 4 and 5 reflect . ■ ♦ ■ �,♦ ♦+ ♦��♦ ♦♦ ♦ 0 .,�♦a 1 such as safety conditions,including that refinement process and are 1 •♦ ■♦♦ ■ .♦►• f♦���■ 4♦■ ♦ . ■ a■�♦�+ w ♦ ♦ ■ ■ ■ bicycle and pedestrian crash severity, intended to represent a more realistic 1 ♦ ♦�•♦♦� :� : :� ♦��t�-■ ♦■♦ i 1 proximity to destinations and and prioritized path forward for I • i • • a a�• ■ .• �f•'•a i♦ ♦�.1 services,and surrounding population unincorporated Orange County. I •�♦ ` : ♦a ♦ *•a♦ •♦• •%M'Duke Forest�!♦1 and employment. I •♦ ■ ♦♦• IF ♦♦•�► . ■ . •■■I ♦♦ • ••■ ■`a•♦• CHAPEL HILL 1 DURHAM a54 ♦ • ■ ■ ♦ 86 O '�•a■+♦■+■ ■ r�� ■++•• ♦ ♦ f�CARRBORO Updated $1.*,00,0of version of this O . ♦ recommendations Miles ♦♦ i ♦ • j • ♦♦ "♦ ' • • with new is on •• • - 67. Source:(Orange County,2024) CHATHAM Page 42-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 43 KEY TAKEAWAYS e People biKing Serve for worK, Roads errands Many Typesi and local of Trips corme,otions Travel .a _rns CH.1 st roads in unincorporated Orange County were designed primarily for vehicles,but today they serve many - Already ifferent types of trips. People walk, bike,and access nearby destinations along these same corridors,often Mulfimodal without dedicated space or separation from traffic. Improving safety and comfort recluries approaches that Adults with strollers off en reflect how these roads are actually used today. walKing for daily needs F Safety Risks Are rpp" -7 - . Preventable L: People in Orange County are already walking and biking for erran hoo, recreation,and health.These trips happen on both urban sidewalks and rural shoulders. Pla in ounty's jurisdiction has opportunity to better recognize how people move today and where sma a co make those trips safer. Between 2007 and 2022,41 people were killed and 61 severely injured while walking or biking in Orange County. This plan focuses on walking and biking within the roa net rk hile recognizing that off-road trails Nearly half of these crashes(48 out of 102)occurred in unincorporated areas.This plan focuses on identifying are also an important part of the broader sys an oun advancing a separate Trails Plan,which the most important locations for improvements—places where better infrastructure can prevent harm and complements this effort by expanding recr onal a ff- d connections across the County. support everyday travel. Page 44-Orange County,NC I Bicycle S Pedestrian Plan Page 45 CHAPTER 40 ENGAGEMENT ..................................................................................................................................................................................... Planning is not just about data. It's about people— This chapter captures what we heard, how they move, what they value, and what stands what it means,and how it guided the in their way. From rural roads to activity centers, direction of the plan. the voices of Orange County residents shaped This Chapter will cover: this plan at every step. Through surveys, maps, . Overview of Engagement pop-up events, workshops, and listening sessions, Process community members shared stories of daily • Engagement Activities commutes, missed connections, and the simple desire to feel safe walking or biking in the places Key Themes they call home. CH. / ♦ CH.4 / CH.5 / / / ��. - - - - - - - - _ _ �1\ ,,rlaw ,,� INS Page 46-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 47 OVERVIEW OF ENGAGEMENT PROCESS ENGAGEM TIVITIES The public engagement process was designed to be clear, inclusive, and flexible. Using a mix of online tools, in-person events, and targeted conversations this Project Website plan gathered input from community members, stakeholders, and system users across Orange County. The Orange County Bike Ped Plan a e alternative for those to the online survey and interactive website served as a central hub unab a to attend in-person meetings map. It also shared announcements for information,offering residents and helped extend outreach across about upcoming engagement events Across all engagement activities,the These interactions reflect a range County,input was gathered from an easy way to sta d and the County.The project website and included draft documents project received over 600 points of of perspectives and experiences, people who live,work,and travel participate in the ocess hosted background information on and project updates as the work participation,including responses though participants were not throughout the County.This broader from anywhere. It 'ded the plan and its goals,along with links progressed. to an online survey,contributions to tracked individually and may include perspective is important,as travel an interactive map,attendance at repeat participation across multiple patterns and safety conditions extend stakeholder listening sessions and activities.While this plan focuses on across jurisdictional boundaries, community events,and participation unincorporated areas of Orange particularly along key corridors. in two public workshops. CH.1 • • : • ■ ' ■ a • • ' • BICYCLE ONLINE SURVEY SESSION . . PEDESTRIAN PLAN OPENS Welcome!We're glad you're hLre! Project OveMew OPENSINTERACTIVE MAP LOS o - OMARCH 27-MARCH • O • • • • • • 'HOLDER TOOLS LAUNCH rEN, `7 CLOSE • O COMMUNITY -_ •• HILLSBOROUGH 13,2025 WORKSHOP AKEFORD LIBRARY COMPLEX ♦ ' C • ' • Figure 3-A:Engagement Process S Page 48-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 49 Figure 3-13:Online Survey Summary Infographic Online Survey What We Learned Why do you usually walk ow far do you usually travel on... > Trip Purpose: Most people walk biking,or using a wheelchair, or bike? i trip? a walking trip? An online survey was conducted or bike for exercise,leisure,or underscoring how real and between October 2024 to July 2025 to enjoy nature,with frequent personal safety concerns are in Tc #1 Exercise 33% 48% to better understand how people destinations including Brumley the County. 0 m es or more(>- 1 hour) 1-2 miles(-20-40 minutes) o experience walking and biking in Nature Preserve,Eno River State , I # Enjoy Nature/Weat Recreation/Traveling These responses reveal a clear story: 0 Orange County.The survey was Park,and nearby greenways. 27% 25% People in Orange County want to walk �i � #3 to/from Park g 2-5 miles (� 12-30 minutes) 1/2 -1 mile(�10-20 minutes) designed to be quick and accessible, > Distance Patterns:A third(31 of and bike more,and many already do, taking less than 10 minutes to 91)of bike trips reported were despite the barriers.They are looking complete,and was distributed over 10 miles,and nearly half(45 for safer,more comfortable places through the project website,County How sually get How would you describe your level of of 91)of walking trips were 1-2 to ride and walk,especially in rural communication channels,partner aroun a n day? bike comfort? miles,further supporting that areas where speed limits,shoulder organizations,and in-person recreation and longer leisure width,and road conditions make engagement events. 79% 1 6% 36% 30% 24% travel are the primary reasons active travel feel risky. behind most trips,rather than Perso I hi e Walk Highly Somewhat Interested but A total of 91 responses were received. Confident Confident Concerned While this represents a relatively small commuting. sample size and is not intended to Mode Share:While 79%of g be statistically representative of the - p� County's population,the responses respondents rely primarily on « ti �- .� O fF5 someone who lives , -� CH.1 cars,l3/regularly bike,and 6/ ��.- �.. provide useful insight into common walk. Notably,1 in 5 reported rurally but warts to walK, experiences,concerns,and travel using active modes frequently there are very limited areas patterns among people who chose to despite limited infrastructure. where it Is both safe and participate. Respondents were not individual) tracked and participation pleasarri-to walK." y p p Crash Experience: in 4 people was open to anyone with a connection (26%)said they had been Have you ever been in a crash How safe do you feel What are the main reasons you - survey resp while walking, biking,or using traveling in Orange County choose NOT to walk or bike to Orange County. involved in a crash while walking, a wheelchair? (outside of towns/cities)? somewhere? 26% 42% #1 Concerned for safety Feel unsafe or very Missing or disconnected � unsafe walking #2 bike or pedestrian exercise Minnis Borland store corner Rd. D (:arolina Mill �' Greenway �j„ p e facilities SpeedwayRiverwalk � time. 60�NO . Feel unsafe or very nfa Farms Bike: Eno 74% unsafe biking jLM #3 Poor quality or West -town faster hazardous conditions Forest me. Mt. area. range fun. Hill. r�01 L� stW state Race east Land • nature Where do you (or would you)i;V� mile Chape � DC Dike Y Y What three things would make you want to N e i g h bO rh OO d ride run ' �N local prefer to ride a bike? walk and bike more around Orange County? Trail i I Rd) I • �+ i t ra !l S �, Off the street,on separated 1 e y close road � p � More Greenwa s or I 74 Street ° ° #1 bike paths or shared-use paths #1 Side Paths 11sbo h Waiir,carrboro !F-a ub f.oads Glen 7 More sidewalks/ Filling in Dr. a 1AJ01,k iJrOVe � #2 On greenways or local trails #2 gaps rm11I11111 the a s between sidewalks wn Pa-rk " Franklin �, arks County path Irr fit• home find o o � #3 On the street,either in shared J101 #3 p Bolin scho ral grocery drive areas- walking lanes or bike lanes Intersection Improvements etc. CaCY1puS places. library Mary' reen Lake ry N ral errands Weaver Page 50-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle S Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 51 Ll Interactive Online Map Figure 3-C:Online Interactive Map Summary THILLSBOROUGH 9 9?9 A\To gather location-specific input an individuals who live,work,or travel > Missing connections between — — � O �,-interactive map was made available throughout Orange County. neighborhoods,schools,and through the project website from shops were common.Several Online Interactive Map pC�p� Eno More than half of the points included Results ?��Pr stare Park October 2024 to July 2025.This tool people described how nearby L allowed people to drop pins and share writFen descriptions.While the data destinations are functionally Q Barrier is not intended to be statistically comments about places they walk or inaccessible. V` O Destination representative,it ofFers important Q I �p bike,barriers they experience,and it insight into recurring locations of Regional connectivity came up Safety safety concerns they encounter. Y 1 9 b 0 concern and commonly experienced often. Residents want safer ways J This map received a total of 418 point challenges. to travel between Hillsborough, Other `6 v, i Duke Forest contributions,including: Carrboro,and Chapel Hill,as well r- -' Study Area 1 '� What We Heard as improved access to parks and > 209 key destinations, natural areas such as Brumley Result Density Q Q7 ; > High-speed corridors such Forest and Duke Forest Korstian Sp s > 98 safety concerns, as Route 54, NC 86,and Old I 1. Division. 1 > 90 barriers,and se Fayetteville Road were flagged Q rp Q Q 1 repeatedly. People noted the lack Participants also shared specific uni lities notQ� 17 Q > 21 other comments. of sidewalks,shoulders,and safe infrastructure ideas—such 0 i luded in this MEBANE a �+ A Eno River 1 crossings. as roundabouts,separated nning effort IR- HILL5BOR0`G`�, StatePerkO 1 CH.I These contributions represented 1• � �: individual inputs rather than unique paths,and shoulder widening— P� q 70 v•• p q Narrow roads with rumble strips, I""'� Q' `� 1Q c�� 1 especially along Old 86, QrV �� 1 The tool was designed blind curves,or no shoulders were 1 participants. g Homestead Road,and Dai land O "1 C �� O��Q •••O / r to be open and anonymous,and frequently mentioned as unsafe Road. 1 Q Q Q 40t _0o4` O�4? oi\Je participants were not tracked for biking. I �0, V� �� 1 individually.As a result,contributions A L A M A N C E , may include perspectives from I Q Q 9 n O a1 $\ Q C 1 Q Q�� QG? Q�/ �, 1 1 Q Q A Q Q QQ 1 1 OQ n 1 "There's no way I'd biKe or ange M le and I Q 0 Q Duke F)est A2 waIK here I'd love to but its "No shoulder or biKe lane ♦+I o ' avegood 1 %� O �oZZ- very dangerous" connects residential area to way o to library" Q Q 00 yO�o� Churton Grove shops 1 iQj Q Q 1 ) 1 (0 0 O r�� 1 "WOUI d love to "/III of[Route] 54 0 J " 1 s4 CARRBORO (CHAPEL HILL 1 visit more if acts as a wall to Th ion of NC 86 between ti 1 C►O CD' p 1 pion and Phelps is a very high �� 1 Q n OO 1 better biKirlg people on either si Ri��r 0 86, r�•'sa, o f " tr ffic corridor for cyclists 0 ,5 ,1 trails connecting on the northern routes in the 1 �V 1 to d owrltown" Q 0 COS county. O � Miles t � � _ _ _ 418 Total Responses Source:(Stantec Interactive Online Map,2025) CHATHAM Page 52-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle S Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 53 Stakeholder Listening Sessions Community Pop-Up Event To supplement broad public input > Community-based organizations feels safe.Cyclists highlighted scenic To reach residents in person,the Particip s em d the need for There was strong support for with more focused discussion,the rural routes but noted dangerous project team hosted a pop-up event d 'on,speed reduction, greenways, but residents want project team conducted a series of > Bicycle clubs and experienced pinch points,while community groups on December 7,2024,at the Orange and se ati rom traffic, them to connect to schools,stores, virtual stakeholder focus groups local riders raised concerns about food access, County Library in Hillsborough. Held especiall in corridors such as 70A, and services, not just parks and between March 27 and April 4,2025. An additional session with NCDOT school access,and transit stops that early in the process,the event focused urto reet,and Lawrence Road. trails.The idea of Orange County Four sessions were held with 10 staff took place on May 16,2025,to are unreachable on foot. on identifying destinations, barriers, M id they avoid biking due to as a connected region came up participants, representing a mix of discuss coordination needs and design and ideas for making it safer to walk fear of speeding vehicles and a lack repeatedly,with people wanting to perspectives from: Stakeholders called for small, or bike. of shoulders. travel safely between Hillsborough, considerations on state roads. incremental improvements(lighting, Chapel Hill,and Durham. > Local government and agency Participants shared a clear message: crossings,shoulders),stronger staff walking,biking,and transit access are coordination with NCDOT,and L %40 Parks and recreation not working well for many residents, more focus on daily needs,not just Key Takeawa departments especially along rural corridors and recreational travel. near schools. People walk and bike > Orange County Schools because they have to,not because it r avior Rural roads feel Greenways People want an ee re need to connect secure bike Keys ma o oncerns everydayunsafe for walking Takeaways to y j and biking parking and better destinations connections I CH.1 Project team interacting with pop-up event participants. H.3 Safety is a top concern,especially Connectivity gaps isolate Many areas still lack basiAIIIIIk'n — along rural roads and highways. communities and reduce mobility. and biking infrastructur �fTT I �Ell Ell Ell � m m Ell Ell ID ■ - 7 I r 11] m ` 1 Planning must center on daily needs, Transit stops are often not accessible Small improvements like crossings, food,school,work,and health care. by foot or bike. shoulders,or lighting can have big impacts. J. What We Heard z « " cy�ie qn "M wife has given we need to require u strips on 86give "Crossing the Eno w9ysre `�peae y "There's a sidewalK... sidewalKs, notjust only about eight g » �i�hits i �ire35 rigs up cycling due to the 9 River is a barrier. Sher oq�s ph traffio on 70A.i want and then itjust ends." recommend them." in es of fiat surface." fhe;n SPee�ys h9Ve to contribute to the ` heeds o9s�`rU�Yhen public good and maKe SeP9r�e�ephys�9i/y ride and wal place,to t' -+ Nt— LF .� Page 54-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle S Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 55 Public Worksh ops Key Takeaways Workshop #1 - Carrboro What We Hear-0 Open Hous.0k Participants emphasized that safety Speed and driver Person fet Se aration p p Y continue is linke road from vehicles is s�•� The first public workshop was held p y y behavior con is shaped not only b infrastructure essential to make p p to undermine design,v •lity, but also b drivers speed and people feel safe ;;== � _,-...d f on Thursday,March 13,2025,at Y p perceived safety and mainte p p the Drakeford Library Complex attentiveness. Many suggested speed walking or biking in Carrboro.Co-hosted with the cameras,education campaigns,and Regional Safety Action Plan,the enforcement as tools to shift driver event welcomed about 25 people for behavior. Roads like Dairyland, Jjl an interactive open house featuring Old 86,and Calvander Road were ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ �' �N`" multiple feedback stations. flagged for poor visibility,narrow Rural routes shoulders,and unsafe speeds. need inve Small, near- Communities want ,R At the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan in shout term projects to see education, ' station,residents were invited to: Some noted that paved shoulders resur ing, are a priority for enforcement, and would benefit more confident riders, c residents engineering work ; -� Contribute to a graffiti wall with together ` ' 9 but wouldn't be enough to attract in tr ure g , prompts including,"What makes novice cyclists or families.There was m you feel unsafe while walking or strong interest in funding small,local t % "p• CH.1 biking?"and"I would feel safer if improvements such as crossings, ' I only..." •• lighting,roundabouts,and shoulder 11. �'� x'S widening. 'I d;� ;riy > Mark destinations and barriers on a large regional map > Share ideas about roadway 1 PLEDGE TO DO MY PART FOR � SAFER STREETS _ T - JON I d d b Leh•cl « e--pee s ov Roun o - _ with feet dangerous help eair„trgffic." - separation• sift r r _ it � -- -��:� i•-._ ��- l Y�� _ _ Page 56-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 57 Workshop #2 - What We Heard �/ , , "'" Key Takeaways Chapel Hill Open House % Participants expressed strong The second public workshop was held support for incorporating bicycle Most supported policies: b on Wednesday,September 24,2025, and pedestrian connections into new at Orange County Waste&Recycling development. Many emphasized ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ • • ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ ■ • • ■ ■ • • ■ ■ ■ ■ • • ■ ■ • • ■ Administrative Office in Chapel Hill. aligning development codes with Proactive community plans,using multimodal Require bicycle Align dev m Utilize multimodal multimodal Co-hosted with the Orange County y p g g cross-sections and pedestrian Trails Plan,the event welcomed cross-sections to guide infrastructure code with planning and about a dozen participants for an design,and applying consistent land Connections community define new development comy plans infrastructure consistent land use interactive open house featuring use updates to support a connected plan updates multiple feedback stations. network.Overall,participants conveyed that bike and pedestrian At the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan facilities should be a standard part of station,residents were invited to: growth,not added later. I Preferred fund' pp hes: > View and comment on regional On funding,participants favored t tee ■ ■ • • • • • • • • ■ ■ • • • • • • • • manommensm maps showcasing facility proactive approaches,and suggested Bond referendum Very little support recommendations for all projects creative options such as reallocating y Dedicate local acceptable if for"business as and the 10 projects advanced to toll road funds or exploring a local is revenue sources p g tied to specific usual"funding concept development penny tax,underscoring support for to bike/ped transportation through existing a well-funded network in Orange pport improvements needs budgets CH.I > Share ideas about policies and funding and mark on a sliding County. scale what their preferences were Second public workshop participants interacting with project boards illustrating plan recommendations and analysis. CH.3 a� NA u I - - ` II I 1: i A Page 58-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 59 Most residents who walk or bike K EY T H E M ES today do so for recreation or exercise. But many said they would use these rF • Throughout the planning process, residents across Orange County shared modes more often an thoughtful, place-based input on what makes it easier—or harder—to for errands,work,or school if it were safe • • walk, bike, and roll in their communities. While feedback came through and convenient to do so. for daily . _ y' many different formats, several themes emerged consistently. Connectivity to everyday destinations is key. Participant ed inted to lower-cost Speeding,aggressive driving,and fixes that I mented quickly— failure to yield were major concerns F Safety is 1 thing e be r li ing,curb ramps, across all engagement activities. ? ssi sign and repaved shoulders. People want to see education,policy . _ biggest Th ty f changes are highly visible and enforcement,and trafFic-calming barrier build munity trust in the process. strategies that make roads feel Driver more respectful for everyone. behavior CH.1 Residents described near-misses, and speed unsafe crossings,and roads wherSmall1 ` •re major they simply cannot safely wal r improvements ° ° • bike. Many said they want to _ ke a big more by foot or bike, but don' • protected,especially alo I pOct corridors with high spe a separation from tra , A \ Sidewalks end abruptly.Trails Residents described Orange County are isolated.Shoulders are as one connected place.They narrow or blocked. People want to be able to travel safely emphasized the need for a L - between Mebane, Hillsborough, V�i� 000, connected network of ? Carrboro,Chapel Hill,and beyond. sidewalks,greenways, This requires coordinated and bike facilities that infrastructure and aFV link homes to schools, frastructureJJ broader vision of what In Regional stores,and transit— is limited or am a walkable,bikeable is not just parks. disconnected County looks like. M important Ads Page 60-Orange County,NC I Bicycle S Pedestrian Plan CHAPTER :1 NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................................................... This chapter presents the recommended Facility types were evaluated using bicycle and pedestrian network framework for NCDOT and FHWA guidance, unincorporated Orange County. The framework including CTP-compatible categories, , Complete Streets methodology, builds on the Transportation Multimodal roadway conditions,and user Plan (TM N and refines that project universe comfort.The chapter then identifies y using roadway context, public input, safety priority projects,organizes them by implementation typology,and considerations, and coordination with related presents concept-level designs for planning efforts, including the Orange County selected corridors to support future Trails Plan. coordination,funding,and pro' development. This Chapter will cover: • Approach to Network • Development , Facility Desig, 'ui _ Re ,mmeno, 'Ne, -)rk Ft rework Projec, '-io�' zation � 6 Concept Designs I � r� Page 62-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 63 APPROACH TO NETWORK DEVELOPMENT Network Development Metho Orange County plays an important role in planning, coordination, and The bicycle and pedestrian network u clude conditions and anticipated user support for walking and biking improvements across unincorporated areas presented in this plan was developed comfort.Corridors with higher by building upon the project universe NC T p estrian and bicycle vehicle speeds or traffic volumes may of the County. Most public roads in these areas are maintained by NCDOT, identified in the Orange County activ estimates, require greater separation between making coordination with its policies, design guidance, and project delivery Transportation Multimodal Plan age annual daily traffic people and traffic,while lower-speed processes an important consideration throughout this plan. (TMP),and other related plans ADT)volumes, roadways may be more compatible discussed in Chapters 1 and 2.To Posted speed limits, with shoulder-based or shared > avoid duplication w' h e range roadway approaches. County Trails Pla r d off-road Crash patterns,and greenway and trail ido e � This plan fills in the key missing Recurring concerns identified details by specifying facility types for The recommended network conditions vary significantly across with NCDOT Comprehensive excluded from t ri ne ork through the engagement process. analysis pres e is pier each corridor and providing maps, . framework focuses on improving unincorporated Orange County, Transportation Plan(CTP)categories Steering Committee feedback also tables,and concept designs that safety,strengthening connectivity, recommendations were developed to support future coordination, Rather cre in n entirely new helped guide how facility types were reflect current design guidance,public and supporting more comfortable using a context-sensitive approach project development,and integration or a pla g team evaluated applied across different roadway input,and coordination with County walking and biking conditions where rather than applying the same into regional transportation planning an e TMP project list using environments. and NCDOT partners.The result is feasible and appropriate to the facility types uniformly across all efforts.The following section explains a comb Lion of roadway context, a focused and implementable set of surrounding roadway and land corridors. Recommendations were how the network was developed and afety siderations,transportation This process helped identify where bicycle and pedestrian improvements use context.Given that roadway also developed to remain compatible how facility types were evaluated. different facility types may be more CH.7 akeholder coordination,and across unincorporated Orange pu c input. appropriate based on roadway County. k. r « ��• • HILLSBOROUGH + Duk .; Fores, .• s ! F. fir• �1. /1 1 Data Inputs Refine Facility Types Final Bicycle and > Tranportation Multimodal > Remove Greenway and Pedestrian Network _ - Plan(2024)Project List Trail projectsAw- Facility types specified i > AADT volumes > Upgrade or downgrade per corridor > Seed limits facilities based on public , Informed by design _ P g 2 r > Land use and/or nearby and stakeholder input guidance and destinations stakeholder review Page 64-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 65 FACILITY DESIGN GUIDANCE Understanding Facility Types a Needs The bicycle and pedestrian facility recommendations in this plan The following table(Table 4-A)summarize nin vel sions,scale and typical operating characteristics for were informed by guidance from the Federal Highway Administration the facility types included in this plan.T ear a create understanding about frequent characteristics,and are not intended to represent final en eying des requirements. Final project development will require engineering (FHWA), NCDOT, and related transportation planning frameworks used analysis,coordination with NCDOT or p e road ners,and consideration of site specific factors such as right-of-way, throughout North Carolina. drainage,utilities, maintenance,and road raints.Where possible,this plan applies the same terminology and facility classification logic used in the NCDOT's TP to support seamless integration. . . - . . '-.- - - 1101611 .. - These include guidance found in the NCDOT Roadway Design Manual,Complete Streets Planning and Design Guidelines, Facility escription Typical Typical Typical Application in and the agency's adopted Complete Streets Project Evaluation Methodology.Similarly, FHWA provides nationally Category Minimum Desirable Unincorporated Orange County recognized guidance on selecting and designing bikeways through its 2019 Bikeway Selection Guide(See Figure 4-B). Width Width Sidepath rated facility shared 8 feet 10-14 feet Often appropriate along higher- by ople walking and (constrained) speed corridors where additional Figure 4-B:Recommended Bikeway Types Based on Facility types,categories that define Traffic how bicycle and pedestrian facilities ng,typically located separation from traffic is needed. Volume.Source: FHWA,2019 adjacent to or independent are represented in regional and from a roadway. statewide transportation plans,were 10k selected based on their consistency 15Side A pedestrian facility 4 feet 5 feet or wider Often appropriate near schools, CH.1 with selected bass Comprehensive separated from vehicle (residential) (residential) parks,transit stops,community travel lanes(additional facilities,and areas with existing or 9k Transportation Plan(CTP) 5 feet 8-10 feet ■■■■■ width may s neededtrian activity is anticipated pedestrian activity. categories.These are essentialwhere pedesti f r (commercial/ (commercial/ Separated gk coordination with the Metrop higher). higher activity higher activity Sharedor Transportation Plan(MTP),t areas) areas) 7k MENEM State Transportation Improve Buffered A bicycle lane with 5 feet(bike 6 feet(bike May be appropriate where Program(STIP),and the is Bicycle Lane additional painted lane)+2 feet lane)+3-4 feet additional user comfort is desired 6k Prioritization Office of T ns ion separation from vehicle (buffer) (buffer) but full separation is not feasible. (SPOT)scoring pro traffic. 0900000 Bicycle Lane A designated on-road 5 feet 6-7 feet May be appropriate on lower- 5k Rather t in a same space for bicyclists. (excluding speed or moderate-volume (Buffer Pref.) RdMMMMMM facili pe acro IIc 'dors, gutter pan) corridors where roadway 4kthe re mendati s in this plan conditions support on-road bicycle ■■■■■■ reflect th ryin adway and land travel. 3k 10000use conditio nd throughout Paved A paved area adjacent 4 feet Wider on Commonly applicable in rural unincorporated Orange County. Shoulder to the travel lane that higher-speed contexts where separated facilities 2k Shared Lane Often,lower-density rural corridors can provide additional roads may not be feasible in the near or Bike may be more compatible with operating space for term. • , ■■1 k Boulevard oulder-based or shared roadway bicyclists. approaches,while corridors with Crossing Improvements such as Varies* Varies* Important near schools, parks, 0 higher activity levels may warrant Improvement marked crosswalks, transit stops,trail crossings,and 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 0 5 facilities that provide additional refuge islands,visibility other destinations where people separation between people and enhancements,or signal need to cross higher-speed roads. traffic. upgrades. *Dimensions depend on roadway geometry and traffic conditions(refer to NCDOT Std.848.06 for dimensions). Page 66-Orange County,INC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,INC-Page 67 Selecting an appropriate bicycle or pedestrian facility involves more than matching roadway dimensions to design guidance.While factors such as traffic volume,speed,and surrounding land use help determine what may be feasible,they do not fully capture how comfortable a facility may feel to different users.As as result,many transportation agencies also consider the level of separation from traffic and the types of users a facility is intended to serve when evaluating facility options. � � • � Figure 4-C illustrates how the facility types included in this plan generally relate to user comfort,separation from vehicle traffic,and the range of users they are intended to 1 1 1 1 accommodate. 1 • tot t 0 pm 1 I Associated Comfort Level:LTS 1 �► I Prefer facilities with a high degree of separation from traffic and may be uncomfortable riding or walking near moving vehicles. CH.1 1 1 — — — — — — — — - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Associated Comfort Level:LTS 2 • Comfortable using dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities but generally prefer some separation from traffic. ` 0 Associated Comfort Level:LTS 3 Frequently cycle for recreation or transportation and are typically comfortabl • riding in designated bicycle facilities adjacent to traffic. 1 — — — — — — — — - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - - - - - - - - - Associated Comfort Level:LTS 4 r-e Comfortable riding in a wider range of roadway environ s, i ding locations with limited separation from traffic. INMI `1 0 � •a 0 NOTE: This graphic is intended as a planning-le uide, nsistent with FHWA's Bikeway Selection Guide, NCDOT guidance, *Sidewalks primarily serve pedestrians and are shown here to illustrate pedestrian comfort and accessibility. Sidepaths and refinded based on exisiting conditions analyse In in Chapter 2. accommodate both people walking and cycling. Page 68-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 69 Applying NCDOT Complete Streets Guidance in Orange County The Complete Streets Activity Estimation is one input with' &1op valuation process that also considers factors such as safety concerns,network connectivity,access to desti tid plans,public input,and local priorities.This distinction is particularly important in rural communi The previous section introduced user This is particularly relevant in conditions,and an activity estimation comfort and separation from traffic unincorporated Orange County, score)to help guide what types of as important considerations when where NCDOT owns and maintains facilities may be appropriate in selecting bicycle and pedestrian (as seen in Chapter 2).As a result, different settings. NCDOT publishes facilities. However,user comfort is NCDOT policies,design guidance, this activity estimation as a statewide Municipal Boundaries only one lens through which facility and project evaluation methodologies map that classifies areas as High, e + fr Find address or place needs are evaluated. are important considerations when Medium, Low,or Intermittent/None Hl-- t identifying bicycle and pedestrian based on underlying density and — — — — As part of its Complete Streets policy, improvements and advancing connectivity variables.This map can -y —s------------ ------i__—_---_---_—_----_---------_-- hr herlake _ — NCDOT uses a formal evaluation Count Bound 'r projects toward implementation. be viewed here: NCDOT Complete .. Y an I t methodology to help determine Streets Activity Estimation Map. ( Rougemon[ when pedestrian and bicycle facilities In simple terms,this methodology '-c'u''t-r' b°c ! r ? should be considered as part of is a screening tool,not a"yes/no" Importantly, NCDOT's methodology is transportation projects as shown in rulebook.It combines multiple inputs intended to inform decision-making, the diagram on Figure 4-D below. (including land use context,roadway not replace it. � NC Ca plete Streets Activi Estimation 2026 j + GI"I. Figure 4-113:Complete -- Project Process. • - NCDOT, • High Medium �'�. ,- ;•� Gordan Oak Low 1.Initial Screening and Data Input 2.Transportation Need Determination 3.Facility Type Selection Intermittent/None r ',.•• I.n • Review for inclusion in qualifying plan • Estimate Bicyclist/Pedestrian/Transit • Refine demand estimation �� . • ^; .,t� -- ? " i 7 •Complete multimodal network connectivity review Demand: •Refine facility based on de •Assess for alternative review process • Demand methodology, •Review other design a •Observed demand,or Lower-densityI ,y- • Future land use areas f i • (� may generate fewer i trips overall,but they often contain critical -Sugar Rldge + —______ _ destinations such ? as schools, arks, 'y p Orange R_ ' community centers, 5 transit stops,and 0 connections between i 5 ?ia� municipalities. O In these settings, j as 1 i •err; the absence of ? , infrastructure may �} Lakewdods`. �• - �._ �� 4.s� ;, +.� r suppress walking and 1 . �- �, n'�' ;► 4.Impact Assessment 5.Final Analysis biking activity rather •Comprehensive cost ana •Evaluate cost and schedule impacts than indicate a lack of •Environmental risk an e u ac •Potential alternative facility selection •Cost proxies when se cost no wn •Documentation of recommendation need. -------- ---------1 I.NakeCcunty,Esri,TomTom,Garmin,SafeGraph,METIMASA,USGS,EPA, NPS,USDA, USFWS NCDOTGII`Unit TI Page 70-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 71 As a result,facilities identified through adopted plans(like this Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan)and supported by local NCDOT's guidance also connects roadway conditions and nd Is to facility selection(See Table 4-C).The table data and community input may remain strong candidates for implementation even when activity estimation scores are should be viewed as a planning guide rather than a pre s pti da d. It illustrates the types of facilities that may relatively low.This plan uses NCDOT's screening framework as a starting point,and then applies local needs(safety be appropriate under different roadway and activit nit' s, final recommendations should also consider user history, key destinations,missing connections,and public input)to identify where targeted improvements are appropriate comfort,safety needs,network connectivit sti n ac ublic input,and local planning priorities. even in lower-density contexts. Most recommendations in this plan fa hin the o dium demand contexts shown below. However,several In Orange County, most unincorporated areas fall within NCDOT's low-or medium-demand contexts(See Table corridors were recommended for enh d faciliti ecause they address documented safety concerns,close important 4-B).These classifications should not be interpreted as meaning that rural areas do not warrant pedestrian or bicycle network gaps,improve access to key des t ions respond to recurring community-identified needs. improvements. Instead,they help inform which types of facilities may be most appropriate based on context type. Context General Characteristics Population Employment Zero-Vehicle Demand Annual Average Daily Traffic(AADT)*&Roadway Type Type Density Density Households(per Level (per square mile) (per square mile) square mile) Va (2-3 lanes) >_6,000 AADT(2-3 lanes) 4-Lane Divided or>4 Lanes High(Urban) Higher-density areas with concentrated 751+ 501+ 427+ Highalks(both sides); Wide sidewalks(both sides); Sidepaths or separated bicycle activity,destinations,employment,andDemaicycle lanes or separated or buffered bicycle lanes with wide sidewalks(both pedestrian demand. lanes sides) Sidewalks(1-2 sides);buffered Sidewalks(1-2 sides);buffered or Buffered bicycle lanes and Medium Areas with moderate activity levels, 251-750 101-500 215-426 Dem bicycle lanes or shared roadway standard bicycle lanes sidewalks(1-2 sides) (Suburban) suburban development patterns,schools, parks,or growing corridors. approach CH.I Low(Rural Lower-density rural areas with dispersed 101-250 11-100 10-214 emand Sidewalk on one side;paved Sidewalk on one side;paved shoulder Town) destinations and lower overall activity shoulder or shared roadway levels. Intermittent Intermittent Areas with very limited surrounding activity <_100 <_10 <10 /None Shared roadway or no facility /None or development. Source:Adapted from the NCDOT Complete Streets Project Evaluation Methodology, Table 3-Facility Selection Matrix / *AADT is a standard measure used to estimate the typical number of vehicles that travel on a road segment Source:NCDOT Complete Streets Project Evaluation Methodology, Table 1-Demand Estimation 1/ariab/es each day over the course of a year. While much of unincorporated Orange County falls within NCDOT's Low or Medium demand contexts,t e cla AWflects ons Many corridors identified in this plan serve important community functions despite their rural context.Schools,parks, should be interpreted carefully.The activity estimation methodology is calculated at a broad g hi le a community facilities,transit connections,and municipal boundaries often generate localized walking and biking activity v r II veloament patterns rather th nth n iti n fin ivi m nt that may not be fully reflected in countywide density measures. For this r ^ ritlg t er estimation alongside corridor-specific factors such as safety history, net ,. public input. . K 'r -. - - - - C I - - - I"- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Page 72-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 73 PERSON NETWORK FRAMEWORK The recommended bicycle and pedestrian network builds upon I •. .g■ the multimodal project universe previously identified through the Proposed Bicycle and ; ■`♦ :♦ ; :- '• 'a ' Pedestrian Projects 9 ■ ♦♦ Transportation Multimodal Plan (TMP). This plan focused on refining the Sidepatn I ,=■ '♦ �`.� .� �`.'♦ 1 existing TMP network by evaluating what types of bicycle and pedestrian ; ♦: �• i ,57 67 ♦♦'.• �j • • I facilities may be most appropriate under different roadway conditions Sidewalk I ■ ; �'� . ♦ . . ■ ♦ ■ •1 Bike Lanes :♦ .� i \• •• " �i• ■ ���i�♦•♦ •♦ ■ 1 across unincorporated Orange County. 1 `•' �♦ ♦ . Paved Sho erIL •r :r ■ r r1 �► ■�86 • ♦ .' :♦♦ +Im•••♦♦ ♦. no Bicycle- 1♦ '1♦ ♦ • ♦ 4 • • As part of this effort,proposed corridors by recommended facility project development,coordination O Pedestri dge • ♦�: ■■ ,♦♦ �♦ ♦ ♦�' . ♦,Q♦ 1 greenway and trail corridors were type,such as sidepaths,sidewalks, with NCDOT,and implementation r ♦ ♦♦ ♦ �♦ i �•♦ ♦ i ♦ ♦• 1 removed from the primary network bicycle lanes,paved shoulders, planning by identifying facility types &nd j I :�;.: : : ♦, :: . ♦■•■' ♦♦ ; 1 analysis because those facilities and other multimodal treatments that may be appropriate for each of I^� ♦ ♦ ♦ •■♦ .• ••; : .♦ �♦ : 1 are being addressed separately (See Table 4-D). In most cases,the corridor based on current conditions in this ■mom '•effort ,"■■•■• ♦♦ ♦ • . •� ♦ • 1 through the Orange County Trails underlying corridor recommendations and available information. I MEBANE "■' '♦♦ .• ♦ ■ ! Plan.The remaining roadway were carried forward from the TMP, I ♦ ♦� ■ • Eno River ■ ■ 1 1 Figure 4-E illustrates the overall ♦ •. �• State Park 1 CH.7 corridors were then reviewed using while the recommended facility types I 70 ■ ♦ •• .-•,.� •♦ • • the methodologies described earlier were further evaluated and refined recommended network framework I�_- �'_' „♦ HILL�SBOROUGH in this chapter,including roadway through this planning process. by facility type. Because the network I : :� % ■:i4�♦• . ••` •ft �■ - includes a large number of potential I ., ■ 1 ♦ • ♦ ■�1 context,traffic conditions,safety �' � . , � ♦ �ii� ♦ The purpose of this network projects,a separate prioritiz I • • ♦ ■_ ♦ — ♦�;�♦ ...� considerations,NCDOT guidance, ♦,♦ • •♦�' A• ■♦ •♦% 70 ♦ 1 framework is to provide a planning- process was undertaken to h I ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ *♦ public input,and anticipated use A LA M A N C E �♦ ♦ ♦♦ ■ 6 ♦ ■ ♦ � 1 level inventory of potential bicycle identify corridors that may w I .! ■ • ■� s ♦,�`��w' comfort. ♦ ♦ ■ . . and pedestrian improvements across additional study,funding t,o I i ♦ • • • •♦!� ■�• � ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ � • �.i ■ 1 w � 751 This process resulted in a refined unincorporated Orange County. implementation consid do e :' ♦ice♦ ■ ♦♦ ■ Was �♦ ■' � network framework that classifies It is intended to support future near term. I ♦ ♦• • ♦� �'• j ♦♦■ 1 ♦ '■♦•♦����■ ■ � � • ■• Duke ♦` 1 ♦•v #'• ♦ • ■ ♦ Forest 1 Facility Type Role in the Network Pr is Total Mileage ■ 00 �;r 4.'• :•,• ��� �: n •• ' ' ': Sidepaths Provide greater separation from traffic along higher-speed 22 Pro 63.2 miles I • ■ ♦ ' s6 '' ♦ •, corridors and strengthen regional connectivity. I ! ■ ■ 1 Sidewalks Improve short-distance walking access near schools,parks, 28 Projects 23.2 miles ' ♦ • ♦r . transit stops,and community destinations. , • ♦ ■ ` 1 _ ♦ 75 1 Bicycle Lanes Improve on-road bicycle connectivity along or th 22 Projects 50.7 miles ; ' `:'' • r�:: �.� CHAPEL HILL 1 D U R H A M appropriate roadway conditions. 6 [54 1 Paved Shoulders Provide additional operating space for alo ural 61 Projects 215.9 miles ♦ _ 1 roadways and support recreational an a vel. 1 •.• . •• `��♦ ` 1 . . .•. • . . .�. . . .• ♦♦ CARRBORO 1 • - numbers Bicycle-Pedestrian Remove barriers and improve saf ossin ss major 1 Project <1 mile , : • 1shown on this map Bridge corridors and obstacles. ♦♦Ocorrespond _� Miles — — +_ � � ♦ Full project tab/es organized by facility type provide pp ndixA. 2 — — — — ® • • - list in 1 Appendix A. N/ CHATHAM Page 74-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 75 u 57 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION ' • -• = - • '-•- • ' 0 - While the Network Framework identifies a broad range of potential 70 I� bicycle and pedestrian improvements, not all projects are likely to Prioritized Bicycle and ` Pedestrian Projects I Duk' HILLSBOROUGH advance at the same pace. To help inform future implementation I Fo e5t Sidepath efforts, a prioritization process was used to identify projects that may I �� offer particularly strong opportunities to improve safety, connectivity, - ' Sidewalk i � � Vf 'a 0 access, and overall community benefit. Bike Lanes ;. 1 61 Paved Sho&er17n Study AreaThe prioritization framework builds adjusting the weighting of the connectivity,access to destinations,upon the methodology originally scoring criteria to place greater feasibility,and community benefit. Munic' it established through the TMP,which emphasis on recreational value and Rather than establishing a strict 0 inc d i is evaluated projects based on factors regional connectivity.Although these implementation sequence,the ping or I 1 such as safety,connectivity,demand, adjustments influenced how some resulting Prioritized Projects are cost,and overall benefit.As part of projects performed,the overall group intended to represent corridors that I 1 MEBANE ��� Eno River.` 1 this plan,a dedicated Prioritization of higher-scoring projects remained may warrant additional consideration I ��� 1 Work Group(PWG)reconvened generally consistent with the original for funding,project development, State Park CH.7 9 Y9•P j P I 70 '••�f I 1 to review the TMP framework and TMP findings. partnership opportunities,or future I ".66 f.: y 1 evaluate whether refinements were implementation efForts. P' —i • V�� 1 appropriate for this effort. Using this refined scoring framework, I Q HILLSBOROUGH � projects from the broader Network Figure 4-F illustrates the geo 1 1 ��"` �• 1 The PWG met twice during the Framework were evaluated to identify distribution of these Prioritiz I ��;�'y'•sw• ii 1 I m�� summer of 2025 and ultimately a focused group of corridors that Projects across unincorporate A LA M A N C E 70 recommended retaining the overall demonstrated strong potential across Orange County. as TMP methodology while slightly multiple categories,including safety, ci Duke I J� Forest 1 I Bs 1 I I 1 sa CARRBORO CHAPEL HILL 1 DURHAM 1 - � 1 O1111[::= Miles -- next table • projects L a • zoomed in maps CHATHAM Poplar Ridge Page 76-Orange County,NC I Bicycle d.Pedestrian Plan Ix • .- fl all, Occoneechee US Occoneechee Mountain Table 4-E summarizes the Prioritized Projects identified through this process. Projects are organized by recommendedrea ' lf Club facility type to illustrate the range of improvements represented within the prioritized group. Projects that were further 0, advanced into concept-level design development are identified with an asterisk(�). ` .._ Piney • - r '00900 • • Project ID Route From To Length Sidepath Projects BP-423 Holman Dr/School Rd NC 86 School Business Garage 0.54 mi Seven ' rn Hills Rd Farms BP-424 Trail connection Walgreens Orange Middle School 0.33 mi ..r BP-417 Trail connection Patriots Pointe Timbers Drive 0.17 mi Prioritized Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects Sidewalk Projects Sidepath BP-406* Oakdale Dr Morgan Rd to Old NC 86 Orange Grove Rd to 0.98 mi •■■ Sidewalk ro,, Turner End Dr Bike L Pave ulders BP-429* Orange Middle School Orange Middle School Orange High School Rd 0.15 mi entrance 1'�Iip not inc in BP-439 Timber St Orange Grove Rd Termini 0.38 mi plan ettor BP-408 Rencher St West of NC 57 Eastern street terminus 0.47 mi ..rr CH.1 BP-438* New Grady Brown School Dimmocks Mill Rd Grady Brown School 0.54 mi Rd Entrance BP-437* US 70 Redman Xing Ashwick Dr 0.95ills BP-428 Gwen Rd Orange High School Rd US 70 0.74 BP-419 Benton Dr NC 86 AL Stanback Middle 0.11 MLss BP-422 Strouds Creek Rd Tumbling Brook Ln Pathways Elementary entrance •. •,BP-433 Fuller Rd US 70 Tinnin Rd 0.31 Ri BP-435 Tinnin Rd US 70 Termini 6 mi Bicycle Lanes and Sidewalk Projects Gregg St Efland • illpond BP-345* US 70 Alt S Churton St Morelanda DrN OF 0.68 mi 57 Global "A Bu BP-432 Arbor Ln New Grady Brown School Termini 0.33 mi - - ' ry Rd ■■�■■■■ •�l�. Paved Shoulder and Sidewalk Projects IL Wilkerson 437 Forres BP-410* Orange High School Rd Harold Latta Dr 70 0.71 mi 433 - i St BP-322* INCA, Acres 86 Hillsborough north Sou of New Hope 3.42 mi ill town limit urch Rd IIIIL`Projects advanced into concept-level design developmentolrifd l in this chapter. 74 0 28Mebane O Hillsborough Mile �� O Mile 0 0.25 0.5 0 0.25 0.5 Page 78-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 79 Priority Projects Typologies Table 4-F: Project Ty•• •• - Matrix Moonshots : - While the Prioritized Projects — identified in the previous section Projects with high potential iM_ I m b)stg Some priority projects may be achievable through smaller-scale improvements or Projects that demonstrate both strong community incremental corridor upgrades that build upon existing roadway conditions. represent corridors with strong implementation challenges. se oire benefits and favorable implementation conditions. DesignSource:Rural potential to improve safety, substantial funding,interagenc r , right- These are often strong candidates for near-term connectivity,and access,not all of-way acquisition,or phased deli ies. advancement due to their ability to deliver meaningful projects are equally positioned for improvements with relatively low barriers. implementation.Some projects may be relative) straightforward to BP-40 BP-428: BP-433: y g Oakd Gwen Rd Fuller Rd BP-423: BP-438: BP-437: advance,while others may require (Sid (Sidewalk) (Sidewalk) Holman Dr New Grady US 70 /School Rd Brown (Sidewalk) � substantial funding,coordination, School Rd right-of-way acquisition, (Sidepath) (Sidewalk) environmental review,or phased delivery strategies. -4 BP-345: To better understand these T ' d US 70 Alt BP-419: BP-422: Bike Lanes (Bike Lanes S Benton Dr Strouds �r differences,the Prioritized Projects Sidewalk) Sidewalk) (Sidewalk) Creek Rd were evaluated through an additional (Sidewalk) implementation lens that considered CH.I both potential community impact and overall feasibility(Table 4-17).This ? I&,= assessment helps distinguish between projects that may be achievabLow-Hanging in the near term and projects at Projects that currently face a combination of Projects that may be easier to implement due to could require longer-term pla implementation challenges and more limited lower complexity,smaller scale,or favorable existing partnership building,or mo o systemwide benefits.These may still be beneficial conditions.These projects can help build momentum implementation efforts. but are less competitive and should be revisited if and address localized needs. Projects were grou into ur circumstances change. general ty es. BP-429: BP-410: BP-424: BP-417: BP-439: Orange Orange High > Bets, Middle School School Rd Trail Trail Timber St Paved Shoulder (Sidewalk) ( Low- gin uit, Connection Connection (Sidewalk) &Sidewalk) t (Sidepath) (Sidepath) L Moonsho ,and 2 0 > Low Priority. 3 0 BP-408: BP-432: , + Rencher St Arbor Ln Ili These typologies are intended to a (Sidewalk) (Bike Lanes S pport implementation planning by 0. Sidewalk) - helping Orange County understand — H. the relative opportunities and 4- challenges associated with different projects. a Potential Feasibility(Low to High) ,tag - it Page 80-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 81 s� CONCEPT DESIGNS ' ' ' To support future implementation of the recommended bicycle and I Duke HILLSBOROUGH o pedestrian network, this plan includes concept-level designs for selected Concept Design I Forest Locations corridors across unincorporated Orange County. i •.`■` Sidepath Sidewalk 1 •p i• Bike Lanes ■.... •■,�� •��� The concept design projects were These concepts serve as feasibility- review,right-of-way constraints, 86 ' Paved Sho er •o selected to represent a variety of level examples that demonstrate utility coordination,environmental ■•/� roadway contexts,facility types, how planning recommendations review,funding availability,and r n Study Area 1 and implementation considerations may advance into future project coordination with NCDOT and other found throughout unincorporated development.They illustrate a project partners. Munic' liti tMr in i is 1 Orange County. Most were drawn range of potential approaches for ning for I 1 from the Prioritized Projects identified improving safety,comfort,and Table 4-G summarizes the concept 1411 •. locations included in this through the evaluation process,while connectivity across rural,suburban, designI f plan. Detailed concept sheets are additional locations were selected and community-oriented corridors. I MEBANE 1 provided in the pages that follow,with b '0 • Eno River• based on recurring public feedback I R� State Park 1 CH.I Recommendations shown in these additional concept materials included l► • and their ability to illustrate common I .� ■a 70 design challenges and opportunities. .■� f concepts remain subject to future in Appendix C. I a 1 engineering analysis,drainage 1 �7 gOROUGI'I �� 1 1 1 0� 1 ALAMANCE See Figure# Project ID Route From To th 1 �� �■� — psi ■ c Figure 4-H BP-406 Oakdale Dr Morgan Rd to Old NC 86 Orange Grove Rd t 8 �++ ♦ �!�� �je 1 Turner End Dr • m• 0 1 Figure 4-1 BP-345 US 70 Alt S Churton St Morel 0.68 mi : ����G Duke 1 ■ J� Forest 1 Appendix C BP-429 Orange Middle Orange Middle School Or High Sch I Rd 0.15 mi I • School entrance 1 • 86 1 ■ 1 Figure 4-J BP-410 Orange High Harold Latta Dr US 70 0.70 mi School Rd • I � 1 Appendix C BP-438 New Grady Brown Dimmocks Mill Rd Grady Brown School 0.54 mi 1 1 School Entrance 1 1 Appendix C BP-437 US 70 Redman Xing Ashwick Dr 0.95 mi 1 sa CARRBORO CHAPEL HILL 1 D U R H A M Appendix C BP-322 NC 86 Hillsborough th own South of New Hope 3.42 mi i is f limit Church Rd sa 1 Figure 4-K BP-340 S. Old NC 86 1-40 10North of Oak Ridge Rd 0.82 mi 1 BP-341 f Concept design projects were selected to repr a t taci/ity types,roadway contexts,and imp/ementation 0001= Miles 1� 1 considerations.Inclusion in this section shou4ffot be inte as a separate prioritization ranking. O 0 1 2 ` N/ CHATHAM Occoneechee Mountain State Page 82-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan .. Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Orange Natural Area xr Oakdale Drive Project ID: Feasibility Considerations: - -=- ' C�a�.�'� 'l BP-406 NCDOT Complete Streets Location: p —� .• � - - -� �,-,��� 'e. ' Oakdale Dr,from Morgan Rd to Posted Speed:35 mph Activity Estimation: Medium Old NC 86,and from Turner End Me Dr to Orange Grove Rd -o Vehicles Per Day:4,700 _ Right-of-Way:Varies Project Description: 60 feet-70 feet Existing two-lane roadway • '' '6 _ �, � through a residential area. Functional Classification: Existing Favement Width: • Project will provide a new Minor Collector 22 feet sidewalk to connect to an existingsection near Old NC . .anning-Level Cost 86 that currently terminates Crash History:N/A Estimate- $2,200,000* abruptly. . Recommended Facility Type: *Cost estimates were developed using internal estimating tools in 2025 Sidewalks(5 feet concrete) dollars and do not include utility relocations or right-of-way acquisitions. • ' ■ �'' ' ■ ■ ■ ■ / / Hill41 sborou h 1 • SW Verge Travel Lane T4*.1 Verge SW 5' 4' 11' 4' 51 Existing Pave 3 22' SIEMENS n7='MEM, •. .. - � O US Feet •- -- • • .- • - • • •• • •• • • -• • • •• 0 250 500 E Tryon St Cameron Park - • ' Elementary icycle Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 85 Eno River Nickel Public House Seven Hearths House Hughes US 70 Alternate Colonial Inn Old Orange Aead� W County Courthouse Hillsborough Boar. �f ���� •• " Electioi. r d O R�'erNq a -• • --• • •.• m e + W co BP-345 p L BP 34 S ora Dr O AO 5 —� r '�.aa. ;a 4 1 ,• ,�� t y- Y.YF«t e �7 f�Y ''" }-'k'�4 =t ':s s+ t. (/� 2 ' C CH.2 3rf EN �: u �� y {s; x py 5 yJi s \ r •• • • TO CH.3 r{,. x`` .�.?. 'l' 1 �..,,.. 1� nj t ri P ,2 f� .y"x � e-l � Ma'�.� ,1i�`- a^^ •`•f$'a,u} i'0'. �: - ^ E 1' k. e - •.tea ` `:> / / / f IT .1 4 • ® ® r GS,, w •. . . CH.5 � �' First Horizon �,9 �m / The Dog House Q-a - — . e 0001, Apr �h do Ca Figure 4-I:Pr----ed h dering r US 70 Alt O � ti Page 86-Orange County,NC Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Orange let Orange High School Road Project ID: Feasibility Considerations: ~' - • BP-410 Location: NCDOT Complete Streets �, - • • - Posted Speed:40 mph Activity Estimation: �. Orange High School Rd,from .. � ,�' •�� Harold Latta Dr to US 70 Medium .. .� Project Description: ■� m Vehicles Per Day:1,600 Right-of-Way:100' Existing two-lane rural roadway providing access to Orange �� - !.1 '✓a Middle School and Orange High Functional Classification: Existing Pavement Width: School. In need of multimodal Local 22 feet ng High School improvements to support safe r. t• it 's ', `�� .r + 1 walking and biking to school. .-panning-Level Cost - • Crash History.N/A ► }� • �. 1,v ,. Recommended Facility Type: Estimate: $1,200,000* r -� ., • Paved Shoulders(4 feet)and Sidewalks(5 feet concrete) ' ' • ` ` *Cost estimates were developed using internal estimating tools in 2025 �• j �'` CH.1 dollars and do not include utility relocations or right-of-way acquisitions. � rs ` f * Orange Middle School ■� Hillsborough Christian 70 Academy Paved Paved 5W Verge &ulder: Travel Lane Tr an L houlder: Verge SW a ° � 5' 4' 4'* 11' 11 4' * 4' 5' l �o ° 0 Hillsborou h Existing Pave ° 22` C� n�1-�Q -• - - nAk - ® US Feet , �� 1:. 'S0 500 y >j, Orange County,NC Bicycle Pedestrian Plan '(r I Bicycle S Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 89 Jacobs Seven Molls S Farms S wdfe� Garland Acres — ne pr End Rcl -� 10 UNC Hospitals Hillsborough Campus Old NC 86 ,,� Project ID: Feasibility Considerations: 01- 4 ��►: �e ,neriRd se Location: .��. • e0t _ A L�Stanback °�° Posted Speed:45 mphcA I;. Middle School Old NC 86,from Eubanks Rd to Activity Estimation:Low • and Medium -� 110 ' MVehicles Per Day:Varies Right-of-Way:Varies `r V 40 Project Description: �I . • • • • • . • • • r; R a o New.Hope Existingtwo-laneroadway a � � Elementary serving as a key - ` o School between ..of a separated facility to Crash History:2023 Hill and Hillsborough. In need 22 feet Major Collector AW provide safe walking and biking 1 , C�o-L • •• st accommodations.The project ) • 8(Severe), • (Severe) • • • I New Hope received public c \ and - of the most pFarns Rd Walnut Cove frequently •- -• needs. *Cost • were developed using internal estimating •• • Bor/a- h dollars and do not include utility relocations or right-of-way acquisitions. k Recommended Facility Type. Hideaway y y •, y)1iI �� Estates cH.2 Sidepath(10 feet wide on the east side of Old NC 86) A �tjlur Minnis Rd (, t ' 22 • Pavement , CH.4 r �. d E Freedom'\t� a+N 4 i 1 " - thur MinniO�a -r..•• { r .' r" Y /1'i ' O X 4- Hoot owl HiPIT ;o A-it BP_340 Manor Hill o 0 �. a '•� Iy, 40 110 K _ - - _ f _ Z Alk. � w Figure 4-K:P� -used. m Vie�. ..,r OId NC 86 - <Miles4 Eubank Rd Eubanks -. r3 O • 0.25 • °y �h t O t Eubanks Rd i r Ford Rd Twin Creeks ' Park Q _ Page 90-Orange County,NC I Bicycle S Pedestrian Plan or f e r4 CHAPTE � ' � IMPLEMENImATION ..................................................................................................................................................................................... Turning the Orange County Bicycle and The strategies in this chapter are Pedestrian Plan into action will require intended to help the County align "' adopted plans,strengthen internal supportive policies, clear programming, and review processes,and position coordinated next steps. This chapter focuses on priority projects for future funding Sri the tools Orange County can use to move from and design advancement. • recommendations to implementation, including ,This Chapter will cover: updates to development review, GIS tracking, • land use coordination, and project delivery Policy and Programming processes. Because many recommendations Next Steps and Implementation will require coordination with NCDOT, MPOs, Actions municipalities, developers, and regional partners, implementation will depend on more than project ► 7t`H.2 lists alone. - t CH.4 i CH.5 \ \ • .- Bicycle S Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 93 ■ ■ ■ ■ . Align the UDO with Current and Future . • - . • - - • - • - - Planning Efforts ` • • • ` • • • • • • • ' ' • • • • • • • • Updating the Unified Development • - - • • - • - • - - - • - • • • • • • • - - • Ordinance(UDO)regularly to reflect adopted plans,including the forthcoming Orange County Trails Plan,Complete Street. -ir A Vision Zero policies and corric rs s; -s can help ensure consistency, A elimi. -tr gaps within the bicycl- +rail,. A pedestrian networks. De' clop, shou.-i be required+- p,Jvi a or _�e bicycle, • - pedest -i,and • 0 acilities that will _ ie i. ')uild out the network. Refer nce Example rf ,County,VA requires sic1twalks and trails consistent with Separated facilities provide additional comfort and safety along higher-speed rural corridors where many users may not feel its Countywide Trails Plan.When CH.2 comfortable biking near traffic. construction is not feasible,developers - - may provide proportionate fee-in-lieu contributions to fund nearby segments. By comparison,Orange County,NC r does not currently have a formal fee-in-lieu mechanism specifically for CH.4 Example from Fairfax County of sidewalk project in front of new developments. + � rZZ bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure. Source:Strong Towns(2021) Aii - I - - - CH.5 - " ' - �.� "�.- *Y yy` f _ - •• - ,.alb wZ'�iV +�.- Example of pedestrian improvements with a sidewalk on the left and a shared-use - path on the right.Source:Fairfax County,VA(2020) 1 � - • - ' • • • : - Update the Comprehensive L fan as the Network Evolves As new bicycle and pedestrian t__,rdinated improve long-term regional •• - • • ••• • • •- - •• 6 o •- -• -• •• facilities are built or permitted,the decisit- ma, q over time. network continuity? • - - - - • • •-•- -• Comprehensive Land Use Plan(CLUP, - • -• - •- •• - - - •• •- should be reviewed and updated to Key QF astions 4. What project types or reflect these changes. development activities should • 1. ,the CLUP,UDO,subdivision automatically trigger inter- Because implementation will occur regulations,and transportation jurisdictional coordination Maintaining an accurate GIS inventory helps • _ _ • • _ _ _ across multiple jurisdic+ions,roadway policies collectively support the related to bicycle and pedestrian identify gaps and track development-related authorities,and dr AoF ent County's long-term multimodal connectivity? infrastructure delivery.Source:NCDOT • . -• •- "• •• -• - - processes,maintai, -,a c, nected goals? - �• •• and consistent mult.m. 'al nee .rk 5. How can Orange County, ••• -• • • • • 2. Where do jurisdictional will require one .,�. -oor� �ation � municipalities, NCDOT,and " boundaries,roadwayhi .- - ••- _ _ _ ••• among Oran e Cr in, municipalities, ownership, regional partners beater a •• among yid rep ona, partners development patterns,or coordinate project timing, A _ • • - •• differing design standards create funding,and design expectations +4 - Hugh. 7ular p.ject review, or inconsistencies in the • - •-•- _ _ polio . ant,and�ign� coordination of gaps to support a more seamless . - • -• •• • • investments. bicycle and pedestrian network? regional multimodal network over planner �fnt and • . . - -. Aligninc he CLUP,UDO,and 3. Where would greater consistency time? . .. , n� _)rtation policies with the in multimodal design standards - Count s adopted multimodal goals (continued on following page) • • - Y� P 9 or development requirements 9 P 9 as ... -. ••- - •- - p - i� �� ������������� • •r , �k \ CH.4 CH.5 _ n r � I MaiV �� h 11 � ''■ jilt i I - '?v- - .- - ' -- or New developments can offer an opportunity to align land use and transportation goals.This example illustrates how sidewalks can be CAD-based cross sections like these help document final alig, ,vents and dimensions required for bike/ped infrastructure. integrated into site design when guided by updated land use plans and policies.It reflects the type of coordination that future CLUP Source:Walk/Bike Nashville updates can support. Page 96-Orange County,NC I Bicycle S Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 97 Require Bicycle and Pedestria ions > Use rezoning,subdivision on All Development Plans ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ • • ■ ■ ■ review, roadway projects, Evaluate whether existing utility work,annexation roadway standards, Site plans should clearly demonstrat Implementation Notes e planning,and capital subdivision regulations,and how proposed development connects II Conduct a biennial improvement planning as development requirements to the existing and planned bicycle audit of the CLUP,UDO, coordination triggers for support the County's and pedestrian network.This includes network maps,and multimodal connectivity adopted multimodal goals mapping existing and planned bicycle, related municipal plans to review. and long-term network pedestrian,transit,an trail facilities evaluate multimodal olic connectivity. adjacent to and n t e,as well p Y Coordinate regularly with alignment. as identifying s w itions municipalities, NCDOT, ea?_ Maintain a live GIS database MPO/RPO partners,and and network nea h onn of permitted,funded,and developers to improve approximatel ir e of the network continuity and project area constructed bicycle and pedestrian facilities to encourage compatible Requir icycl edestrian monitor network buildout multimodal design do hould be based on and identify gaps. approaches across the re m ations identified jurisdictions. in this P ,adopted municipal _ F, T t ns ation and greenway plans, CH.1 T plans,and other adopted '` ' corridor,small area,or land use plans. Example of Buffered Sidewalk that replaced worn paths(Before condition CH.2 ° � (2022) Priority should be given to projects _ that close network gaps,extend _ existing facilities,improve access ry across barriers,or provide direct — I connections to nearby destinations 4 and activity centers. ► ' " BLIFFER ZONE VISUAL AND AUDITORY L ` �J GROSWALK SJONAL LIGHTING Reference Example ; ACCESSIBLE i Anne Arundel County,MD's Bicycle ' SIDEWALKS and Pedestrian Transportation TEXIFURED J TRANSMOPQ ... A Assessment(BPTA)process requires a pre-submittal scoping meeting,a one-mile network map,integration ` ;, - exhibits,proposed improvements �+ 4 worksheet,and cost estimates with ` ,DIRECTIONAL CURB CUT* _ fee-in-lieu options where direct t4� At N DIETE BL ----_ construction is not feasible. shown in this image).Source:Anne Arundel County's BPTA Manual Example of Buffered Sidewalk that replaced worn paths(After condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. .. .. . .. . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . Page 98-Orange County,NC I Bicycle S Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 99 (continued from previous .. . Continue Evaluating and Imple i Adopted Plans and Policies Determining Required Connections Orange County has a strong Bicycle and pedestrian connections > Identified network gaps, In rural areas,recommendations may foundation of adopted plans that a^ ' should be evaluated based on missing sidewalk segments, focus on paved shoulders,shared-use support biking and walking. Ongoing both the project frontage and the unsafe crossings,or barriers to paths,intersection improvements,or implementation should treat these ONE WAY b surrounding network context. County connectivity. targeted safety enhancements rather and municipal staff should consider: than continuous urban sidewalk plans as part of a unified policy Opportunities to connect 44 stack coordinatingpriorities and networks. identifying conflicts earl to keep > Existing and planned bicycle, adjacent subdivisions,commercial y g y p projects aligned an r ck. pedestrian,greenway,and transit centers,schools,parks,and trail In areas planned for future growth, facilities within approximately systems. annexation,redevelopment,or higher Key Plans t0 n it - 1 one-third mile of the site. development intensity,projects I > Anticipated future growth areas should anticipate future multimodal Transport ul dal Plan 3"5 > Nearby destinations and activity identified in adopted land use and network needs and construct facilities centers,including schools, transportation plans. Com t ets Vision Zero i consistent with the long-term planned — parks,libraries,transit stops, context and adopted trans ortation Po s commercial areas,civic buildings, > Whether the project is located p p -- - employment centers,and within a rural,suburban,or vision. iT residential neighborhoods. urbanizing context. > Saf outes to School Plan � nsit Plan � - `• " ' `: Access Management Plans and v Y ces , k f corridor studies Prioritize connections Implementation Notes that s , ` close documented gaps in Add aBicycle/Pedestrian � the bicycle and pedestrian y •- °' � `�s'- zip�.�' "'`•�" �`> ��`� �y� '"i ,���';"� �~' v A'` � Implementation Notes } � Context Sheet to site plan J network. requirements. Add a consistency check Require developments box to internal review formsAIN L d kiF Require apre-submitFal in planned growth areas (e.g.,conflict t r ,align,or � �. checklist and scoping to construct facilities t - modify) �!i meeting for larger projects. compatible with the long- term multimodal vision for When conflicts arise, a > Standar +z` Sta ndardize tothe m I ate p sfc y 0cor ridor r ;.�i d 0 r s 0 r policy area. � document a short p y cost estimates and fee-in- resolution memo and lieu contributions. \ adjust maps or the UDO r "� Coordinate review with accordingly s adopted County,municipal, ...E ...,, _., I �` and NCDOTtransportati I r� on HIVF y Plans. _ 'A'� � � ` �„�, , •� � i,_. Bike �a `... 4 as - ,�„- �h`e Wegoeseia cige�a• � z , Page 100-Orange County,NC I Bicycle S Pedestrian Plan NEXT STEPS t Suggested po• i ie ude: transportation decision-making i.;*-so processes. To build momentum and lay the groundwork di ligibi nd com iv s for standalone > Encouraging funding programs for long-term implementation, Orange _ .� bicycle pe estrian projects that better support multimodal County should begin with short-term • "`` y" ithin t STI process. access in planned growth and actions that deliver visible results. Targeting redevelopment areas. > In sing consideration of smaller, quick-turnaround grants such as ti safety,connectivity,public The County should continue the Transportation Alternatives Program - health,and access to schools, coordinating with municipalities, (TAP), Safe Routes to School (SRTS), and parks,transit,and community MPOs,regional partners, NCDOT, destinations within project scoring and peer communities across North American Association of Retired Persons criteria. Carolina to advance transportation (HARP) or America Walks Community funding approaches that better > Allowing smaller multimodal Challenge s` programs can help advance high- reflect local mobility,safety,access, projects to compete more impact Best Bet" projects and demonstrate effectively against large roadway and quality-of-life goals. early success. capacity projects. Additional local funding and - implementation strategies may > Providing greater flexibility include: for local match requirements CH.1 � G and cost-sharing for smaller > Transportation utility fees. These efforts can be paired with bundling bike and pedestrian F jurisdictions. projects into larger roadway,safety,or park improvements to Special assessment districts. stay competitive in federal and state funding cycles. Launching Supporting bundled corridor - and network-based bicycle and Corridor sponsorships and a pilot public-private partnership along a high-visibility _ -- partnerships. corridor or near a school can also signal local commitment pedestrian improvements rather than isolated segments. and showcase how sidewalk delivery or corridor sponsorships Public-private partnerships. can act as both funding sources and match contributions. > Improving funding pathways Dedicated maintenance and for retrofit, maintenance,and operations funding programs. Over the long term,Orange County will need to pursue projects that may � gap-closure p ro j Y structural funding reforms that extend beyond one-time not qualify as major capital > Coordinated grant development capital construction projects.This includes advocating -. expansions. and local match strategies. at the state level for adjustments to North Carolina's Strategic Transportation Investments(STI)law and project Expanding regional > Multi-year capital and prioritization process to better support bicycle and pedestrian representation and coordination maintenance programming. safety improvements,smaller-scale multimodal projects, opportunities within and transportation investments in rural and urbanizing 0 communities that may not score competitively under existing congestion and vehicle-volume metrics. r " ';i Page 102-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle S Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 103 Operations and maintenance must also be addressed alongside capital ,f T _ '7 investment to keep sidewalks, Time ion Action Re a at Responsible Party Example Tools/Notes Hor trails,crossings,and bikeways safe, - fA 4 functional,and attractive over time. ' Pursue small,quick<uild TAP,Safe Routes to This includes pavement maintenance, ` I - turnaround grants ing County staff with School,AARP Community vegetation management, lighting, t OWNS momentum municipal partners Challenge,America accessibility improvements, Walks debris removal, resurfacing,and Tf I ■ Bundle bicycle and County staff with Combine with replacement of aging infrastructure. J - - pedestrian projects into Project NCDOT Division and resurfacing,Safe Streets _ la rg r roadway,safety,or municipalities for All,or PARTF projects By aligning grant strategies,local 312 stments funding sources, maintenance = — 321 - '� County staff Sidewalk delivery responsibilities,and long-term P pu ivate rt hi on a high- Funding with developers, in development implementation priorities,Orange �` _ P g g 'lit rridor businesses,and agreements,corridor County can build a more resilient and partner agencies sponsorships sustainable bicycle and pedestrian i off Carrboro to County staff with Advance to 30%design; network that supports residents of all sborough Route(Old NC MPO, NCDOT, bundle with roadway ages and abilities. Project - 86)Multi-Use Trail initiative consultants, improvements;pursue Short rm (Planning and early design) developers competitive grants 0-2 rs) Establish a Complete CH.1 Streets project review County staff with Resurfacing retrofit process for resurfacing Policy NCDOT Division 7 checklist;interagency and roadway improvement and municipalities coordination review Q projects f Launch a Countywide " County staff with Crossing Improvement Program NCDOT MPOs RRFBs,refuge islands, , , 4 Program focused on high- lighting, HSIP funding municipalities E _ injury corridors and schools Develop a Quick-Build/ County staff with Temporary striping,flex Demonstration Project Program municipal and posts,curb extensions, t� �Ra max ` s - �- Program community partners pilot projects %M - ����' "I � „�•` 1 .. f ,,,, � County public works Establish annual bicycle and Shoulder sweeping, .,. with NCDOT Division �� ' ._ E , pedestrian maintenance Operations vegetation management, v 7 and partner `! priorities pavement repair tracking agencies .. "� (Table continues on the following page) n FiF F r� - y Page 104-Orange County,NC I Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan Bicycle&Pedestrian Plan I Orange County,NC-Page 105 y.-. -.�....-�..-...� •• Time Recommendation Time Re a at Action Responsible Party Example Tools/Notes Action Responsible Party Example Tools/Notes Horizon Develop a standardized Area County Shoulder sweeping, Horizon Advocate for STI refo County elected Lobby to adjust STI funding toolkit for local Funding vegetation management, administrative, and expanded MPN-CY officials,statewide law; pursue regional match pavement repair tracking finance,and partner eligibility coalitions representation agencies Explore recurring local County administrative Transportation utility County staff with funding and infrastructure unding and finance staff with fees,special assessment Strengthen coordination Joint applications, MPOs(TWTPO, financing tools partner agencies districts with MPOs and neighboring Coordination shared match strategies, BGMPO,CPRPO)and counties regional eligibility Scal lic-private County staff with Rail Trail model; regional partners rt ips and naming Funding private sector and corridor branding and Embed bike/ped priorities County staff with Treat bicycle and r institutional partners sponsorships in the CIP and development Policy municipal and legal pedestrian projects as Long-term be ngoing funding Maintenance funds, code partners core infrastructure County public works (5+years) a ions and Operations developer cost-sharing, Medium- Update subdivision and Sidewalk requirements, a ance and partner agencies utility fees term development ordinances County staff with trail easements, (2-5 years) Policy Lain and update to require connectivity and municipal partners multimodal cross- County staff with Annual reporting bicycle and pedestrian multimodal infrastructure sections network priorities and Planning MPO and municipal dashboard; project Conduct ADA accessibility County staff with ADA Transition Plan performance metrics partners tracking database audits and prioritize Planning municipalities and updates;curb ramp Continue implementation of CH.i upgrades transit providers inventory County, Coordinated grant countywide trail and active Develop Safe Routes to School districts, School travel plans; transportation network Project municipalities, MPOs,partners applications;phased School Priority Areas and Program municipalities,County crossing improvement ; connections and regional partners network expansion implementation packages staff,and NCDOT SRTS funding Improve first/last-mile County staff with Shared-use paths, bicycle and pedestrian Project transit providers and parking,transit sto access to transit municipalities accessibility (Table conti s on follo age) r '""� '% Nab �'. •' �C ' x. 't- ✓ - Y '�fi rr. �'::r�`: a s .x_ � d4�";ri' ���� � `,ska ems' ��.�' � r,.•ti r �, ea ., .� �& �.4t+'�� ekktYk•v U.PH .,_ .,. emu.. e Lvd•x� 11 � CA wvsriv.iv.0a* r ' h.r.,y......'��•.Po��'��'��it�+'4�f4�N�-�e.� s 71 GRANGE COUNTY, NC BICYCL PEDEST . . ,.I,: PLA Ah - L h Y: PER50N Figural-A:Study Area Mop -- _s_ D Study Area Municipalities not i r ��� �T OF THIS PLAN ® cl� tilla , - - tannin effort J Railroad Track CL - . `'ark0ftkn'Zy��,-w" t Z �f — Q 1 Formalize a cohesive and actionable strategy for multimodal design, C _-f _� rina7. development, and implementation for MEB NE� 4 _._ HILL566ROUGH + cF Z the unincorporated areas of Orange GRAHAM w County 0. AMRNCE = + i } Align and integrate into regional r transportation plans aURHAM ° MTP update - DCHC MPO ; f � -t LLIHAPEL HELL�� • MTP update - BC MPO � � CAR RBOR`4 Z �,: � - ry 0 CTP update - TARPO Z r ]' Kies 4 1 2 CHATHAM 2 Source:(Orange Courity,2025) C .,. WhyNow? . J • Growth and Development: As Orange 11 Z mhi- County grows, so does the need for ry, roads and paths that work for everyone, �, �! { w not just drivers. 0 w • Safety Concerns: Some roads and crossings feel dangerous, especially in w areas with high crash rates or no sidewalks or bike lanes. U - m • Filling the Gaps: Some areas lack continuous connections between existing ' ° facilities and key destinations, making it V ev w more difficult to walk or bike safely. ° z Q o • Changing Habits: More people want to walk or bike as part of daily life - for health, convenience, or saving money. 3 Goa 1 ##1 Goa l #2 Goal #3 Make Walking Build a More ImproveAccess z and Biking Safer Connected Network for Everyone Q J a People need conti nuous, { Z f ti reliable routes imp CO W W # � -rt o- r) r t 1 Z L I � I w I 1 �• I t m I I 1 I I + W I * r O I f I ~1 Q Everyone should be able to �� � s ' In Yome places the only rvoy to get � {' ry move around safely * _ r � Oround is by car -if you have one � O 4 4 I � I 1k 4 I 4 w uldin�PriiQle praftG z Engagement Overview z 0WOO i � c 600+ presider w w participated in nine distinct Pnary i �ursoi;enfii,a , _ phN+area-anit>a ;. engagement activities, including an online survey, } interactive ma stakeholder listening sessions, community events, and two public workshops.ry R O r�5 5 F 0 61l 6 4 n j�7 Q i [p {` C. J■ ... 4 • ��� _ a © r any- 4 ®stantee orange county Rityole&Pedeatrlan Plan:Home Eryagemerrt Resuumea ep'1i'y rj F4ure 3-C;Online Internctive Map Ski mmary S NILLSB{7R`GH a ORANGE BICYCLE Online Interactive Map Q } 1PEDESTRIAN PLAN y Ca z � �estinatidn � _�� .. •� . Q �. Safety W- Other Y`ik%f Z r -1 Study Aree . Q Result Rensity y ry - _ Sparse I t F Dense - I o � Municipalities not ncEudedinthis IMEBANE 1.. r LLI - Eno pleriningeffOFt FA� HILLaxBOROUGH' a �`•n D State PHfi4 + z All It 4 or 0 "•' w 0 RLAMANCE �0 ! v r m 90 f. G 9 99 p r Z Wlyie Yar Feadbck lmpoaan[? f This project webpage connects III-Orange County resitlwts.business `T Oand fee Ftforasuccessfulsplm a endfles nere nary biryrJeand h ti �' � U aeaeat a°Pro;aettmakeya.�omm�ntybette.,` f � Q \- *- 1 There are marry ways far you and yourreigbbars to get inwived fM1mrgdout I - t.I..I the galaRi.Click on ENGRGENEM tab[o team about upcomirg ewrHx rVo I Y Z G Pi CARROORO CHAPS HILL it Community Engagemen[Image pit-, l r Let's Talk! f ■ 5 oeyo„nave qwi[M1 the prolac[manager,N'nNtlr TrreIX,a[n orangecyncgw or(g191245-200) Ml miles 4 � 2 y 1 VistoEgem pgo [ ~ f Total Responses 6 °ap nght?0 4 st Sauce (Stantec Interactive Online Map,2025) ..---,_ CHATHAM STAKEHOLDER FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... KEY TAKEAWAYS t Safety is a top concern— especially Pl'% Connectivity gaps isolate communities along rural roads and highways. and reduce mobility. Many areas still lack basic walking and Planning must center daily needs— biking infrastructure. food, school, work, health care. 00 Transit stops are often not accessible by l+ " Small improvements like crossings, vl foot or bike. shoulders, or lighting can have big impacts. . � g g g p WHAT WE HEARD... "People walk because „ they have to—not Transportation is a "There's a sidewalk... because they want to." barrier to everything." and then it just ends." -We need to require "Rumble strips on 86 give sidewalks, not just bikers only about eight "Crossing the Eno .. inches of flat surface." River is a barrier." recommend them. r 7 A. What We Heard J a- • High-speed corridors such as Route 54, Regional connectivity came up often . Of NC 86, and Old Fayetteville Road were Residents want safer ways to travel co Ui w flagged repeatedly. People noted the between Hillsborough, Carrboro, and 0 lack of sidewalks, shoulders, and safe Chapel Hill, as well as improved access crossings. to parks and natural areas such as w Narrow roads with rumble strips, blind Brumley Forest and Duke Forest Korstian curves, or no shoulders were frequently Division. } mentioned as unsafefor biking. Participants also shared specific z Missing connections between infrastructure ideas such as ° neighborhoods, schools, and shops were roundabouts, separated paths and Ui common. Several people described how shoulder widening especially along nearby destinations are functionally Old 86, Homestead Road, and Dairyland 0 inaccessible. Road. Where You Are Where You Want to Be z -j -----------------------------' I ;• -* q; _ Existing Sidewalk I I Proposed Bicycle and 1 •. ��•��• �� � • •••• - f 1 Pedestrian Projects I ••® ••r • •� • • •.� +Y Z Existing BicycleSide I °9 Q alin Facility •1 1 , ♦ • .a SIgo �• I ! ■w Sidewalk 1 • +♦ •• , ® , l! _ Existing Shared 1 /s7i f 1 ■ • ♦Z , ♦ + ItT,�! • ♦I ry 1 Is.Path I111 • ••LTA • , _`+ • 6r Bike Lanes I , r• • r•►w • ♦ •.• • ■ IL r i Study Area i ur�'nork L�tfle Q-wP f Paved Shoulders '' +�••... +•• �•'+�® ti.• •r r•••+®'•••• �'• il'!1 W Munidpalltias not 1 f Bicycle- 1+ ' • ■■ter• . r•, ♦ I © included in this ( ! Pedestrian Bridge I •, •♦•• �• •+•+ fi`ii r•wy •4 1 planning effort I •-.• �• ♦ , ♦ • • 'r. • W II I r Study Area I i�•a� '•• .• ••.� e� r r: . ♦•• 1 ] I Municipalities not I ■ • • +.� • ,• ��• . t! 1 © included in this I + �+ ' • • •• ! Z IMEBANE Q I planning effort IMEBANB '""■e, +••• •r• +I 6 I.no Riven 1 I ♦ `... :r . Eno River '+• I Q u HILLS BOROUGH '.sate Park I m ■ rt State Park W I�, I I� _ y�� p r 'HUSBOROUGH i U Ai.AMAN('F i 'o I ALAMANCF I,� •♦ ••• • •• •• ✓`r f a Z I ! I ri • ■ • +• Duke•'! h1)ke 1:olc9t 2 I' • !• ■ .� � + � ■+r •ems•++ i,l•r.IM C . Im I I Pc' 1• • •..• I W I V s + • T •• ' s I Z CARRBORO CHAPEL HILL f DURHAM 1 • '.• ., CHAPEL HILL I DURHAM f 1 1 ' .-•'w• - I O ! f !,. .•.:. r• RRBORO ,! O 1©Mlles — O w�Mlles , _— _f• _ 0.0 +r o f 2 -- o f 2 — ---- _ _--I CHATHAM CHATHAM 9 z Network DevelopmentZ Q J 0- 0 . Z • Data Inputs ' - • CO • Transportation Multimodal (2024) Project list w LU • AADT Volumes • Speed Limits w • Land use and/or nearby destinations J } • Refine Facility Types U • Remove Greenway and Trail Projects • Upgrade/Downgrand facilities based on Z stakeholder input 0 w • Finalize Network Z Facility Types specified per corridor Q 0 • Informed b design guidance and Network Y g stakeholder review 10 • ® Y IN909k, owns Y-11- Proposed Bicycle Network qW . � �• ; � . . . Bike Lanes 1 •,[49 , •'.; . . �•� Proposed Bicycle Paved Shoulders j ;♦ + O Bicycle-Pedestrian 1 �® •• •`•• • s� ■ Bridge .' �+ . ...t• .s + Network •Z r 1 Study Area Ipti• ,r`-'t ®�'■••-Lp ' -•'♦ ■■ • Q 1' IM • : all a J Municipalities not ' . ♦•� • +••. ; �OEM z ® included in this EM •�+� '•. .' +♦ planning effort • • ++ ; :* m+•�+; ' • Bicycle Laes: Improve on-road bicycle ID Park 1 r�+•v. Si ■ •� *1 I- connectivity along corridors with ANE ;•' ''�,; uj appropriate roadway conditions. i ..�� '�� : r Lu 1- • HILLSBOROUGH , • GRAHAM 1 Paved Shoulders: Provide additional � ` ALAMANCE w operating space for bicycle along rural •. : °� . -.. } CM roadways and support recreation and ; j•, ;' m, regional travel ; ,;.•.�,- : ,.ii■m., EM } M# 8 # 86 E z 1,..• .r�+ Q s1 -J L D • • v • ° 1®. + ® � ® - 1 DURHAM • • • ♦ �� CHAPEL HILL ' Lu 1 +•.s'N,•-- ■-0..SCARRBORO Q Q z 1 l� Bicycle 22 50.7 milesry `� - :•a `�ci ° Lanes •. Paved 61 215.9 miles Shoulder O Miles 0 1 2 r u A 7 U A M Proposed Pedestrian Network 1 ; .• 1 1 � 1 SUP 1 �9 • • • Proposed Pedestrian •• • Sidewalk 1 ---. ••-- 1 5 O Bicycle-Pedestrian z Network •---- . Bridge , • • s - J —-1 Study Area , • ♦ , • Municipalities not 1 - � � •• , z included in this 1 - • •• 1 Shared Use Path: Provides greater planning effort •, ,. 1 Q COseparation from traffic along higher- Park&Ride M EBANE }� speed corridors and strengthens _ HILLSBOROUGH regional connectivity. GRAHAM ' •• • ' z Q ALAMANCE ' . • ' w Sidewalks: Improve short-distance 1 .�' } walking access near schools, parks, transit stops, and community ; '•• ; } destinations z CARRBORO U ' 1 DURHAM U I CHAPEL HILL uJ , . 5` .r. ^�. z Shared Use 22 63.2 miles �� o ��C'; ° Path Sidewalks 28 23.2 miles O11110= Miles 0 1 2 - _ - Roadway Responsibility ! ! NCDCT , a� ! Private , • � ! Implementation Realities Study Area y ! Municipalities not IS; I Z 0 included in this I ss• ! Q planning effort � M II Al I z Q • Most priority corridors fall under ;,„FBANE = LU NCDOT jurisdiction ,+^ HILLSBOROUGH LLI I o '! • The current funding environment ! I w creates significant challenges for ALAMANCF I standalone bicycle and pedestrian } Y p investments. m ! • Near-term progress will depend on r aligning recommendations with ! w planned roadway, safety, and 15 GARRBORO CHAPEL HILL I infrastructure projects. I'll ; � o I I I O. MINIM= Miles 0 1 2 + + + + + -- - - - - - - - -I TMP Evaluation Methodology Z J Z Q Density Population and CO Employment within 1/2 w Combine the weights obtained through survey mile 0 - . o- School Access Number of schools within 12mile • Separate Projects Based on Types Q _ • Points of Interest (POI) Number of civic, w Access commercial, community, } Finalize the parameters weightage for each cultural, institutional, - project type retail and religious points within 1/2 mile • Collect, clean, and organize data Recreational Spaces Number of parks within 1/2 o _ • Access mile Access to Bus Stops Number of bus stops Calculate Metrics within 1/2 mile z Q Network Gaps Ration of walk distance ry 0_ • o between the endpoints of the project before and after the build (for projects less than 1 mile) 14 ProjectlD koute From To Length Sldepath Pro]ectt BP-423 H ol me n Dr/Sc h col Rd NC86 School Business Garage 0.54mi Rd z BP-424 Trail connection Walg teens Orange M I Idle School 0.33 mi Q BP-417 I Trail connection PatrTots PoTnte Timbers DrTve 0.17 mi Sidewalk Projecfs Q BP-406* Oakdale Dr Morgan Rd to Old NC 86 Orange Grave Rd to 0.98 nti Turner End Dr ~ BP-429* Oran a Middle School Orange Orange High School Rd 0.15 mi Co9 n51 9 9 w entrance 0 w BP-439 Timber St Orange Grave Rd Termini 0.38 mi a BP-408 Renrher St Writ of NC 57 Eastern street terminus 0.47 mi 0 z BP-438* New Grady Brown School Dimmocks MTII Rd Grady Brown School 0.54 rnT Q Rd Entrance w BP-437* US 70 Redman}Grog Ashwick Dr 0.95 MT O BP-428 Gwen Rd Orange High School Rd US 70 0.74 mi } v BP-419 Benton Dr NC86 ALStonback Middle 0.11 mi BP-422 Strands Creak Rd Tumbling Brook Ln Pathways Elementary 0.13 mi } entrance z BP-433 Fuller Rd US 70 Tinnin Rd 0.31 mi O BP-435 Tinnin lid L S 70 Termini 0.46mi U w Bkyele Llano#and Sidewalk Pn*K (3 BP-345* US 70 Alt 5 Churton St Morelando Dr 0.66 mi z - BP-432 ArborLn New Grady Brown School Termini 0.33mi ry Rd O Ppvad Shoulder and Sidewalk Projects Aa or BP-410' Orange High School Ind Harald Latta Dr US 70 0.71 mi BP-322" N C 86 Hillsborough northern South of Nlew Hope 3.42 nti town limit Church Rd 15 *Projects advanced btfo coneapf-lavaaJdas*development descrlbad War M Mis chagpter. Projects with high potential impact bvt low feasibility. Projects that scored high in both impact and These often require major funding.Interagency feasibility.These are strong candidates for near- coordination.or policy shifts, term implementation due to their ability to deliver m a et and Feasibilit 0 meaningful improvements with relatively low barriers. BP- BP-345: z 406: US 70 Q Oakdale Alt 6CT-k- BP-438:J Dr 423: BP-437: CL man Grady US 70 Dr/ Brown z School Rd School Rd� Q • Framework helps distinguish near- ��wen BPS 33: ud Rd �� w term opportunities from longer-term =nW Sty investments. sp uds Dr CreekR;d � ■ . o r NC 86 z ALL projects remain important long- J JRd Q w term opportunities and should be m M M } revisited as conditions, partnerships, Low Priority U or funding evolve. Projects with lower impact and lower feasibility. Projects with high feasibility but lower relative These may still be beneficial but are less con,pe-i*ive impact.These can be implemented quickly to show } and should be revisited if circumstances change. progress o-meet localized needs. H • Intended to support strategic BP-439: BP- 8P-+424: BP-429: BP-410: decision-making when time and Timber 5t Rencherhar Trail Orange orange Connection Middle High LU resources are limited. ° 5t School 5chooli2d z `r J v BP-417: BP-432: O E Trail Arbor p Connection Ln C C a a. Potential Feasibility(Low to High) 16 ' Neu Concept Design J z � ' �:�range High School Rd " ■ +' 0 w +1 o_ z - w U i > ��+ ON z Paved Paved SW Verge =Shoulder Travel Lane Travel Lane Shoulder Verge SW U 5' 4' 4'* 11' 11' 4'* 4' 5' NC151"CONCRETE Existing Pavement w 22' C7 z PAVED*Rumble strips are added along the edge of the paved shoulder to alert drivers who drift out of the travel lane and provide additional separation from people biking. Li � - 7 ;� y ou yry { J 5' E SIEEWALK� ~ 22'EXISTING PAv�MENT • yt F ' Concept Design r� Z � • Q T�q err z 1 Q Oakdale ' N LU 0 + ` � I t LLJ J V OOV LU CO mm + _ Z SW Verge Travel Lane Travel Lane Verge SW C " v 5' 4' 11' 11' V 5' ' w Existing Pavement AA 22' z a70, 0 I � US Foe# 4 254 500 PolicyHighlights J Q Align the Unified Development Ordinance -} (UDO) with adopted transportation, trails, ' . Cn LLI Complete Streets, and Vision Zero plans to LLI support long-term network continuity. •� k+• F e y i' �` k • Require new development to contribute on- {} y . r - �, v• .. w site bicycle, pedestrian, and trail infrastructure L r_. t,that advances the countywide network. i M Bundle projects strategically to improve competitiveness for state and federal funding 0 opportunities. - U • Advocate for long-term structural funding - reforms, including adjustments to North o Carolina's STI process and expanded regional representation. Funding Highlights • Bicycle and pedestrian projects faceLA Q significant funding constraints under current state and federal transportation programs. p p g - w Cn • Orange County will need to bundle projects a - strategically to improve competitiveness for Q programs such as Safe Streets for All, Safe w Routes to School, and Transportation J + } Alternatives. U • Local funding sources will be critical to z advancing implementation and providing matching funds for grants. O U • The plan identifies supplemental funding tools + z Q o Tourism-related bicycle and pedestrian investments may be eligible for occupancy tax funding where projects support visitor activity. a ev IWO z Next Steps J • • Q ❑ Integrate bicycle and pedestrian improvements into future roadway, w redevelopment, utility, and resurfacing a projects. • Q ❑ Preserve future multimodal corridors and w connections as growth and development t�1 J occur. _ •+ , • . ; } ❑ Strengthen coordination among Orange . ' County, municipalities, North Carolina , o Department of Transportation, and regional partners. �rs ' z ❑ Continue building toward a safer, more Q o connected, and more accessible countywide network over time. " Si Z PROJECT TEAM Q N16 J d Z Q —-- w ORANGE COUNTY Sta ntec � NORTH CAROLINA IL Z Sarah Williamson, Interim Transportation Katy Shackelford, Project Manager Katy.Shackleford@stantec.com Director sawilliamson@orangecountync.gov 540.835.7542 e 919.245.20102 U co H Z TRIANGLE WEST .. ° °°`°°rt°"°�°'°�°`� °`_°"°° W i t h e rs Rave n e t U lip. Our People.Your Success. w Madeline Galliano, Project Administrator Q mgalliano@dchcmpo.org Daniel Rauh, Engagement Lead Of ° 919.503.4120 drauh@withersravenel.com withersravenel.com 919.238.0416 23 C7J Happy F *Ield A 1 .I .. ,-�- WithersRavenel �� TRIANGLE WEST ® Stantec 1� ORANGE COUNTY _� T—porfafian Plnnni� 0rgMmf- our People.Your Success. NORTH CAROLINA NONlw IrWA � � � tRil-05'. uv Y•`, / • � .v.4 �� � •'9 tk: t ti i ..As if ,.�, ;1}'.�7-'1Y� : 1 p •r ` ^. its*• 'qo al s . rye 4 026 vi �jc,%• yr _ t ��. _.-� - __ \ .\� -.L. \ 'F3 _ 4 3 1- ' \ iF gyp E�t� f +7 Vb• y y 2n' RANGE COON DepartmentojEnviramment, Agriculture ParksBRecreation 2 a ��; Acknowledgments THANK YOU to the local residents, community leaders, partner agencies, and staff who contributed their insights and time throughout the development of the Orange County Trails Plan. Their thoughtful participation ensured this plan reflects the values, needs, and aspirations of the County and community alike. STEERING COMMITTEE Orange County Parks&Recreation Council Natalie Ziemba (Chair) Louise Flinn (Co-Chair) Logan Cason Gregory Husketh Alissa Martucci Maggie Moriarty Allen Parker GiGi Rashdi Chloe Reid (Youth delegate) PW Trevor Robinson Navya Sharma (Youth delegate) Xilong Zhao ORANGE COUNTY Department of Environment,Agriculture, Parks, and Recreation(DEAPR) David Stancil, Director Marabeth Carr, Landscape Architect Kalani Allen, Communications Manager Abby Mattingly,Administrative Support CONSULTANTS Gensler —Strategy, Engagement, Plan Development Surface 678 — Existing Conditions&Site Visit Support 2 1 Draft Orange County Trails Plan . River - Park Table of Contents 01 INTRODUCTION 06 Project Overview 08 Process & Schedule 09 Vision & Goals 10 Why a Connected Trail Network? 02 EXISTING CONDITIONS 14 Site Visit Observations, Opportunities & Challenges 16 Previous Plans & Initiatives 03 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT 24 Engagement & Outreach Overview 26 Visioning Process 30 Draft Trail Network Engagement 34 Steering Committee Meetings 35 How Public Input Shaped the Plan OE EVALUATION & RECOMMENDATIONS 38 Guiding Principles 39 Statewide & Regional Context 40 Proposed Trail Network 42 Segment One-Pagers 68 Trail Segment Prioritization 05 IMPLEMENTATION 72 Project Phasing 75 Partnerships & Funding Opportunities 78 Implementation Plan Of APPENDIX Types of Trails B Site Visit Notes C Public Engagement Documentation D Trail Segment Prioritization Documentation E Cost Estimate Draft Orange County Trails Plan 3 C y r 'k i E 1 K n r"o u t on -� i /r Orange County's trails are more than just recreation amen ar r .f an essential infrastructure that ,r rsupoorts safe mobility, access to nature, and the health and cohesion of communities across a mix of rural, suburban, end {; . urban c"texts. Consolidating many previous efforts into a singlecomprpehensive plan ensures that investments are ` .� coordinated,,Aquitable, and aligned with,countywide,goals. �- T This section outlines the purpose.of the Qrange County t ,Trails"Plan and describes the counly'"s`physical setting, ; planning context, and community-driven vision. r . a` Y r '• - ' �+,� _ �-.-• F � s�,a� .� :�.� 1 Syr;:.-.,, 4 Draft Orange County{Traraiills Plan t� r f T I � \� F- P/fir':. •%� �� � -�+LF - _ i� � � r� " _ r� 4 n j7t -`•', ti t a��'p \. •I- _ � � r - •- �- Ll � r ? ' \'1 VP xti 1 i ti' I 1 3 \1 4 y` t_ ,` r - •Tay `�~ � - _1.'i r - � � �` ' � µ r Pictured_E.no River State Park ' ti Draft Orange County Trails Plan 5 4 4 Project Overview The Orange County Trails Plan (OCTP) provides a The plan is intended to support consistent, coordinated approach for connecting residents to long-term investment, giving the County and the daily destinations that matter most—from parks its partners a common reference point for and natural areas, to schools and libraries, to town evaluating opportunities, coordinating across centers and transit. It combines a physical network jurisdictions, and pursuing grants. It also provides concept with policy guidance for prioritizing, clarity for residents and landowners by showing funding, and delivering projects.The OCTP how individual trail concepts fit into a larger, consolidates years of planning work into a single comprehensive network of connectivity. guide, aligning what we learned from fieldwork, GIS analysis, and public engagement across Most importantly, the Trails Plan reflects what multiple touchpoints. community members said they value: This plan also establishes a shared framework • Safe places to walk and bike; Access to nature close to home; for how Orange County will approach trail • planning moving forward. By identifying the • Connections between towns and rural areas; most meaningful destinations to connect and the • And progress toward completing the conditions that shape where trails can and should Mountains to Sea Trail (MST). go, the plan creates a clear foundation for future BUILDING ON PRIOR PLANNING decisions. It clarifies what types of trails fit best indifferent parts of the county, the principles to Previous local plans and initiatives have follow to ensure users feel safe and welcomed provided strong starting points for the Trails on trails, and how to balance access with the Plan. By bringing them together,the Trails Plan protection of natural resources. aligns previous efforts with current community priorities and ensures network continuity across jurisdictions.The following previous and ongoing plans have been considered in depth,with findings ". outlined in Section 02: Existing Conditions. Chapel Hill Greenways Master Plan (2013) Orange County 2030 Parks & Recreation (: Master Plan (2014) Orange County Mountains to Sea Trail (2018) Eno-New Hope Connectivity Plan (2021) • Carrboro Connects Comprehensive Plan (2022) • NCDOT Great Trails State Plan (2022) • Orange County Land Use Plan 2050 (2023- 2026) • Orange County Strategic Plan FY2025-2029 (2024) Everywhere-to-Everywhere Greenways Feasibility Study (2025-2026) Orange County Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan View of a Blackwood Farm Park picnic shelter and open green (2025-2026) space,observed during the Trails Plan fieldwork • J Branch Rail Trail Feasibility Study (2025-2026) 6 Draft Orange County Trails Plan STUDY AREA SNAPSHOT This study focuses on the whole of Orange County, whose land pattern mixes rural farmland, forests, and the towns of Hillsborough, Carrboro, and Chapel Hill and the City of Mebane. Major travel corridors (e.g., 1-40, 1-85, US-70, NC-54, NC-86) and extensive waterways (e.g., Eno River, Seven Mile Creek) define both opportunity and constraint for trail positioning. As part of this effort, existing municipal trail systems in Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, and Mebane were reviewed; however, the plan is primarily focused on unincorporated areas and the regional connections that link these town networks together.The distribution of parks and nature preserves anchors many potential trailheads and connection opportunities both within the county and beyond to neighboring Durham and Alamance Counties. Additional details about the study area can be found in Section 02: Existing Conditions. .0 o,M ME ANE -. •... • HILL RO nr O 0 i i -- Base map of Orange County, NC showing major towns/cities and park facilities Draft Orange County Trails Plan 7 Process & Schedule The Trails Plan process consisted of six tasks between January 2025 and March 2026. TASK 1 TASK 4 Community Outreach& Public Engagement Priority Corridors: Site Assessment&Cost January— November 2025 Estimate The project launched with a kick-off meeting, a April 2025 — March 2026 public-facing webpage, and FAQs. This task also Field visits assessed feasibility and on-the-ground included newsletters, public workshops, online conditions along likely trail corridors, including surveys, and pop-up events.Together, these crossings, structures, and potential right-of-way activities established the community's priorities needs. and created an accessible entry point for ongoing involvement. TASK 5 Plan Alignment&Coordination TASK 2 August 2025 — March 2026 Project Steering Committee& Reporting The project team coordinated with the County's March 2025 —April 2026 Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan to align goals and The Parks & Recreation Council (PRC) served as network assumptions across efforts.This task the steering committee, meeting at key milestones also covered internal County department and to review materials, refine engagement activities, inter-agency coordination and preparation for and guide plan development.This task also Board presentations, ensuring consistency as included an informational item for the Board of recommendations moved toward decision points. County Commissioners to share progress and gather feedback on the plan. TASK 6 Orange County Trails Plan TASK 3 October 2025 —March 2026 GIS Mapping&Analysis Findings from engagement and analysis were March 2025 —January 2026 synthesized into guiding principles, the draft The team reviewed previous plans and analyzed connected county trail network, and corridor existing trails, land use, and environmental recommendations.These elements are reflected conditions to identify opportunities, constraints, throughout the evaluation, recommendations, and and potential corridors.This work produced the implementation sections of the report. proposed county trail network map in Section 04. JAN. I FEB. I MAR. I APR. I MAY I JUNE JULY AUG. I SEPT. I OCT. I NOV. I DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. TASK III I Survey I ! I I I I I I I I I I 1 I Kick-off I I Website I FAQs IWorkshopsl I I IWorkshopsl Pop-ups I I I TASK 2 PRC PRC PRC I PRC BOCC Update BOCC Update I I I I TASK 3 I I Data Gathering Map Development I I I I I TASK4 I I Cost Estimate TASKS Partner Bike/Ped Partner Coordination Alignment Coordination TASK 6 I IDrafting of Segmentslr-- Drafting&Refinement of Trails Plan Draft Complete 8 Draft Orange County Trails Plan Vision & Goals At the first steering committee meeting in March Fl- 2025, members of the Orange County Parks and Recreation Council (PRQ shared their perspectives on opportunities and goals for the Trails Plan Project Goals project. This discussion formed the basis of the project goals listed to the right, which focus on Spark themes of engagement, connectivity, and equity— connected all of which were highlighted by community county members during visioning. ith equitable, inclusive, and engaging Additional conversations with the steering outreach . • committee, discussions with project leadership, inputs gathered from the vision workshops, and survey data were all synthesized to develop the 02 Develop a Trails Plan that Orange County Trails Plan vision statement below. reflects _ community's vision • aligns with other county • municipality Vision Statement efforts, • Pedestrian Orange County will be a place where a safe, inclusive network of trails connects 03 Create a comprehensive people of all ages and abilities network of connectivity to each other, to nature, and between points of to the places they love.These interest including work, trails will make it easy to travel home, school, commerce, by foot or bike rather than car, and public encourage healthy movement, strengthen our communities, 04 . excellent and foster equitable access to recreation the natural beauty that defines parks opportunities . . • - the Piedmont region. population, . - rural areas of the county. The co-created vision and goals provided a "north star" throughout the planning process and, 0.5 Identifyexisting they serve as the foundation for the connections to complete the proposed trail network, guiding principles, and Mountains to Sea Trail (MST) implementation recommendations. segment in Orange Draft Orange County Trails Plan 9 Why a Connected Trail Network? The Trails Plan presents an opportunity to develop MULTI-MODAL TRANSPORTATION a highly connected trail system across Orange Trails provide affordable and sustainable County, which brings a variety of benefits to the alternatives for reaching key points of interest like local community. The proposed network (detailed schools, libraries, parks, and community facilities in Section 04: Evaluation & Recommendations) that residents use each day. By expanding the trail aims to improve residents' health, strengthen network, Orange County can not only become a the local economy, enhance multi-modal better, healthier place to live but also progress transportation, and preserve the natural resources toward its transportation goals of improving multi- that set Orange County apart as a desirable place modal access, reducing reliance on motorized to live, work, and visit. vehicles, and creating safer connections for residents in rural and more urban areas alike.',' HEALTH&WELLBEING Trails can play a key role in improving both ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIF physical health and wellbeing, reducing stress Thoughtfully designed trail networks help protect and improving quality of life by providing places sensitive ecosystems and landscapes by directing to exercise and engage with nature. Communities foot and bicycle traffic to dedicated corridors, that have access to safe, accessible routes while still allowing people to experience natural between parks and recreation facilities tend to areas. Trails can also support cleaner air and have higher physical activity levels and better water by reducing short car trips and offering health outcomes.',' With a connected county trail nearby, nature-based recreation opportunities.' network, these opportunities can be extended Regional partners like the Eno River Association more broadly to residents of all ages and abilities. and Triangle Land Conservancy—which conserves tens of thousands of acres of land and hosts a large number of preserve visitors each year— demonstrate that access and environmental protection go hand-in-hand.4 People,SOURCES 1 CDC Healthy Places - Parks, Trails, and Health 4 2 CDC Active • Triangle3 Orange County - Strategic Plan - Multi-Modal Transportation Goals Land Conservancy Chapel5 North Carolina Outdoor Economy Office 6 NC State ITRE - 'Bridging the Gap'American Tobacco Trail Economic Impact Study 7 Visit 1 •rs Spending in Orange County, ForestPictured:Brumley 10 Draft Orange County ECONOMIC VITALITY Trails contribute directly to the local economy by supporting small businesses, attracting spending, and creating jobs. In North Carolina, outdoor Benefits Glance recreation generated $16.2 billion in value and supported more than 145,000jobs in 2023.1 Local Impr• - s health studies have shown that completing missing links wellbeing in trail systems can significantly increase use C23 and by and visitor spending-in the case of the American expanding Tobacco Trail, connecting the corridor via a bridge accessible places led to a 133% increase in annual trail use and to • - active $3.7 million in new local spending.'A connected network in Orange County positions local businesses to benefit from similar activity. 0 Offers LOCAL TOURISM L�� cost, multi-modal V transportation By connecting visitors to parks, preserves, towns, and cultural destinations, trails can enhance the for residents tourist experience in Orange County. In 2024, across rural and visitors spent $280.04 million locally, supporting town approximately 2,039 jobs and generating $19.25 million in state and local tax revenue.' Strengthening the county's trail system can help Connects people reinforce Orange County's appeal as a place to visit and explore outdoor amenities year-round. with nature while protecting sensitive ecosystems © Supports local economythrough 00H increased trail use and visitor spending DO!J county tax base AWL Strengthens the through tourism d outdoor Orangerecreation Draft . tr. ~ �+ ,►. ii6 bf r + y �v k ice• ! t / s rxr v%r ;�tly�e rp}� ,� �, r �. i! 1 �ry'�Y' � V fj.rx �", � ;1�'/ '7 Q�re�� br; ' ice: i } , r`e� ` 7P it i' • !A Z �'"'•� T 'e0 , lo: " *y•' r„ f�i ` V� F��tiy9l ¢{ ,:' 9 ,-;y � i °`� y, d ,�f �. �t`Vr#:r��r6� ,t+3::ti •f° ~� 1�pi' RE f: ....- 4'1 / �'• fj��,"-� 0 ��; ( ?�' 1� ��J k, °,^�w'• �-e��e 4 _�f�..rg4 -�? s r M: rG����� �} '��'�' �_�'��'• a y .Ply �.► r/1 �. .."�- ,, �.. '� :•' �t � i RR �/Pf`"�W ♦ •�•� F S, f) 1 � . 67 1 y� �N:ar- ,rri¢ Q ,�`��.A pt�,�`''-L-� r ,, zng ui y +.�s''s y..•� 1�,J I�� J �L1 �6�r�A-!1'A• 'Y IJr� � �� 4 h kk MUM �r} •� s]A4Af` e ' '� �I ��!� �� •ter" ��` �'�i �j i � - '��f� i �r a �'�° �'` , p„•��•f. �� v�����r6 ..3 f.� t 1 ! y �. ! ;° 'TY n'�:+':1 , ' i•IL"` �f 'S �'� '�p�''•ati.*a� a 3, I•iS stiVW ff ��!'�! p Yt: a s• '�_ 7 {9' - a s 3M -.t .� °'13 R,. '�;r ., ►� ±3 k I ,�• w}' p '+� Tiff �" /° -.- ' y \ �, a�f A; y+�,pl . +•rrw`6 i�'�~ZL:r1 .'e"•�1, ' '� .�3r 3,5� `Z `, �y''' 3A" Pr`7y L Ca: r tr r .1 r' ! y 4 r,r +� �" -`x'ir , 1!r"1.l•.2•i`,'� 'A �flF9r�yai ••l.i� ..r '+ +�, + r-r" y / t r•/i! 1' 1 'i. ,7h:;: 4`yl��`, '�I�• 1 ��{'¢� .y�!Mv ,, ��i►. .1� Y Ff r i. d i('i! ( 'p y 4� 1 f ` r • f .3 �l1oT i' +�'S�" *rIJ R+ 41'. LI'„ ;���#�li •/ ! . aQ• �` i�P¢r °i a vy, Y ya1 r+• �I ! {(.Fi�•1+ i r � ma's `, _ y• ,r. / �- ,�' �' .• _ r 2�__ kP,��!`�' � It c` r ` �� E� .[i�'�� �st� 34g ' •- C'�� � -_- _ ..- ��.-fr .�' /:.. � .�.ter, �`�,:.�� _� Unoerstanding the,landscal e; iarastructu're, andpianning l _ ;- context oflC�range County is critical in�shag a trail network . '•,� , , '�,_ `� that is meaningfu.i-and achievable. THi§-ougyss.mix of rural, "-natural, and town environments creat.6s•uniqueopportunitips and constraints that influence how traihcan�ie connected and Y' designed to serve re�Ments-best. � J = _ '� t This section provides a higli,levqfoverview of t e"conditions that':,.,-' inform the Trails Plan, brim-Q ether-early field observations and insights gathered thrdu&fe's arckof past and ongoing planning efforts. These factors heed clarify where trails are 'feasibl today, f f n _where a _sr ain and where new connections f g P _ - - '-can,offer the greatest ber efi ., - -• = *. f ape•' t�; fair `-:i " _ r ,NSA •e'" ��I �• - '.r 1'�i=`��� _ �yrr�.F;.^•�j=:"Y �; �• ..._ --- A.s a-- Ir �-Z, ,yam irr �.�-• iti�°"'e:,'''�,�J: �� . rLA.�-' raj . ,�•.-ri �_ - - �'�-- r3 `EraftOrangKounty Trails Plan ,rniyma v. r.. _:!� •� �� rah ,� ;� ,,jy �i�,,�� `� .� �•.� �+►� - ,-1'-:- �y — `� t ",...xr�; f d c pie - a.. / t S-Y J 1 / ��.' •..yam �.. _ a —`� ems=. 1�1� iV 11/d Qd j�\J•' 1 1 v �i`-r ►f,���` �0.'� y"rA.�jY� i �e za_. i � i .i, ,��:.-s"� �,. .f 1 ti tr�ylYrr • j4'"_$}Iy � l�.a � - • . �] Tr{��i i � t,- � t'�-•� r f. -- a � - / { ` '/ I A^ ,•.�.2r '��.i [' � •` 1� _ Lam=1l� � . F^. ', ,. ,�,:. + r.I+ /, - `` i [ (J r �+-'\, ,rr' - Sty ,,�, ••V t +• _ `rl '�;_ •I• �` r} "� �, _ 4 t �_ _ =a � ILL � I ' t� 14. ate Pe 3 y� ,tom IN f S .�'�,, F � 3! �-`� '� 1� t �St�'•�* 'e'�k,-V,,� sue° •y- i sx� 1 ,mil ��fi r.� '�'��.- .��!" "G' P,�R _ ��.. P,Ytturr`d:�old�Park e /p ��tj5��rt�cr�1•l Site Visit Observations Field work across Orange County revealed a landscape defined by rural areas, wooded waterway corridors, and the more developed towns like Hillsborough, Mebane, Carrboro, and Chapel Hill. Long distances between key parks and recreation destinations—along with limited safe pedestrian and cycling infrastructure—highlight the need for a more connected county trail system. LANDSCAPE CHARACTER TRAIL DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES Much of the county maintains a distinctly Natural &Transportation Corridors:The county's rural feel, characterized by open farmland, hydrology and roadway network provide natural cross- rolling topography, and narrow two-lane county alignments for trail routing. These include creek roads. Residential development in these corridors, reservoirs, and major east-west and north- rural areas is predominantly large-lot, south state roads. very low-density, and relatively scattered compared to the more compact patterns Publicly Owned or Held Land: Orange County already found in the municipal and urban areas owns or holds easements on several parcels and that are served by public water and actively coordinates with partners such as OWASA, sewer utilities. Town centers provide Eno River Association, and Triangle Land Conservancy, destinations and existing trailheads, but opening doors for trail development and connections. they are separated by rural areas that Linking Parks&Nature Preserves: Opportunities exist require careful planning to connect. to connect areas like Little River Regional Park, Cedar Grove Park, and the Hillsborough Riverwalk—among NATURAL ASSETS many others—through nature trails or road routes. Orange County contains abundant waterways, creeks, lakes, and reservoirs— KEY CONSTRAINTS including the Eno River and Seven Mile • Private Property: Large stretches of potential Creek—which anchor several beloved corridors pass adjacent to or through private land, trails today and present opportunities requiring careful coordination and a community- for expansion. These waterways provide centered design process. scenic value and important natural habitats. Proposed trails should be Community Support: Some residents may have designed to protect these areas and concerns about proximity, privacy, or corridor respect the topographic and hydrologic alignment. To ensure community support, engagement conditions. should be frequent and transparent as trail development progresses. RECREATION & PARK SYSTEM . NCDOT Right-of-Way: Road-adjacent trail segments Parks are geographically distributed must comply with NCDOT right-of-ways widths, access throughout the county in alignment with controls, and roadside design standards. This will the adopted 2030 Parks & Recreation influence feasibility and design along state-maintained Master Plan, with plans for new parks roads. underway. These existing and planned parks create a strong foundation fora Infrastructure Gaps: Limited parking and restroom connected trail system. facilities, along with site constraints near reservoirs (e.g., Cane Creek) pose near-term challenges. • Distance Between Destinations: Long distances between destinations, combined with limited crossing or amenity options and road safety issues, can make connections challenging. 14 Draft Orange County Trails Plan as ..Y '41 J d 2 Days of Exploration To i d Plan Trails d T rounras an recommendations ,'� � � g �«�1\ *' ". s. in existing conditions,the team ► .� t = � I '� >�_`� conducted two days of field visits organized around the following four -_ priority corridors: Chapel Hill to Hillsborough - West to East MST entrances Little River to Cedar Grove Eno River State Park to Future Park Day 1 focused south of 1-40/1-85, with travel from Chapel Hill toward Hillsborough. Day 2 focused north of 1-40/1-85 covering Mebane Cedar ` Grove, and the Eno River State Park. ; rospect i _ — c lid Caldwell Ced — t �� �,•, Meban Heather Glen �Efland b h er oroug _ arkEno— IE � a -� • Eubanks Calva Chapel Hill ey ' Dogwood Blands Y Acresd 501 f The four priority paths visited during the site `s assessments illustrate how the team evaluated conditions along key corridors in northern and I'I southern Orange County. k ^. Previous Plans & Initiatives The Trails Plan aggregates insights from a variety of previous plans and aligns with ongoing initiatives across Orange County to ensure consistency and reflection of community input and planning efforts that paved the way for this study. The table below summarizes the relevant findings from key studies, including the corridors that have been envisioned, destinations that should be linked, and the expectations for access and design that have already been established. RELATED STUDY RELEVANT FINDINGS FORTHETRAILS PLAN Chapel Hill Greenways The plan establishes a framework of stream corridors, man-made Master Plan corridors, and connector trails as the foundation for a complete, Adopted May2013 inter-linked greenway system; it also emphasizes sidewalks and bike lanes as essential connectors when trails cannot be linked together off-road. • There are --28 miles of suitable corridors for trails within —38 miles of protected open space, positioned as ideal spaces for long-term regional and local connectivity. • Corridor recommendations prioritize the Bolin, Booker, Morgan/ Fan, Little, Dry, North, and Carolina North systems as Chapel Hill's principal cross-town and cross-jurisdictional connectors, requiring boardwalks, underpasses, or easements for continuity. • The plan outlines regional linkage opportunities to Carrboro, Orange County, Durham, UNC/downtown Chapel Hill, and the American Tobacco Trail as part of a larger regional and statewide network. • There is a clear prioritization framework (including connectivity, transportation function, equity, school access, and regional links) and list of critical roadways where grade separation and enhanced crossing are essential for creating a safe and continuous trail system. Orange County Parks& • The plan identifies multiple park and public open space projects, Recreation Master Plan some of which have not yet been developed as of 2025 (e.g., 2030 Northeast District Park, McGowan Creek Access Area, Millhouse Adopted November2014 Road Park,Twin Creeks Park, Bingham District Park) that should be considered when aligning proposed trail segments. • Community survey results showed that walking/hiking/nature trails and greenways are among the most desired future recreation facilities in Orange County. 16 Draft Orange County Trails Plan RELATED STUDY RELEVANT FINDINGS FORTHE TRAILS PLAN • One of the plan's major recommendations is to build additional trails and create connections between parks, preserves, and open spaces including potential links to Duke Forest and Eno River State Park along with existing municipal greenway systems, which could be made possible through joint funding opportunities. • The plan encourages a detailed master plan for the Mountains to Sea Trail (MST) to identify a route across the county and ensure it does not become a gap in the statewide trail system. • Public input in focus groups encourages opening some future planned park properties for limited interim use (such as nature trails with signage) before full park development occurs. • Trail design guidance emphasizes sustainable construction practices, clear wayfinding, appropriate trailhead amenities, and equitable access for all residents. Orange County • Orange County has an approved, adopted MST route map that Mountains to Sea Trail the Trails Plan should reflect. (MST) Adopted January 2018 • The approved MST route runs southwest to northeast from the Haw River near Saxaphahaw (Alamance County) to Seven Mile Creek Nature Area, to Hillsborough Riverwalk, to Eno River State Park before entering Durham County. • Completed sections of the MST in Orange County include 3.2 miles on the Hillsborough Riverwalk, 3.9 miles within Eno River State Park, and a section in the Seven Mile Creek Natural Area with the Friends of MST providing interim road-route connections for through-hikers. • The County maintains an MST hub page with the adopted map and progress reports to guide alignment and coordination. Carrboro Connects • The plan commits to equitable multi-modal access, expanding Comprehensive Plan safe walking, biking, and transit opportunities with priority for Adopted June2022 BIPOC, lower-income, and differently-a bledresidents. • A priority corridors map targets near-term improvements like protected lanes, crossings, and traffic-calming strategies on several main Carrboro roads including Estes Drive, Hillsborough Road,Jones Ferry Road, NC-54, N. and S. Greensboro Roads, among many others. Draft Orange County Trails Plan 17 RELATED STUDY RELEVANT FINDINGS FORTHE TRAILS PLAN • The Town of Carrboro's priorities include protecting terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, encouraging responsible development, and providing citizens with access to nature. • Greenways (especially along Jones Creek and Morgan Creek) are identified as core network elements to close connectivity gaps and deliver stormwater and climate benefits. • Land use and mobility are linked by compact density nodes and mixed-use spaces along key corridors to create 15-minute neighborhoods and reduce vehicle reliance. NCDOT Great Trails • The plan defines a statewide shared-use path network connecting State Plan all 100 counties to major destinations for transportation, 2022 recreation, health, tourism, and economic prosperity. • There are five network planning principles—coherence, attractiveness, directness, safety, and comfort—with user-oriented design guiding prioritization where trade-offs may be required. • Proposed segments, alternates, and gaps make up the entire Great Trails State network; in the draft state, there are 580 existing miles, 3,645 miles proposed, 1,471 miles of alternates, and 851 miles of gaps intended to be refined or closed locally. • Long-distance systems like the Mountains to Sea Trail (MST) and East Coast Greenway, along with regional plans, are key inputs for route selection and coordination. • A "no new deficiencies" policy is proposed to ensure the Great Trails State network can be used safely and reliably by all NC trail users, with a consistent and predictable experience regardless of new projects and developments. • The combination of public support (demonstrated through 11,000+ survey responses) and projected economic returns position trails to be a catalyst for North Carolina's outdoor recreation economy. Orange County Land • The project's core vision is to 1) cultivate sustainable Use Plan 2050 development by protecting critical watersheds, open spaces, and 2023-2026, Ongoing working lands, 2) expand attainable housing and employment, and 3) implement sustainable transportation systems that include greenways and bicycle/pedestrian connectivity. 18 Draft Orange County Trails Plan RELATED STUDY RELEVANT FINDINGS FORTHE TRAILS PLAN • A multi-channel engagement approach including in-person workshops and digital feedback opportunities has been successful for capturing a wide range of perspectives. • Community engagement findings consistently emphasize access to parks, open spaces, and greenways as a top countywide priority; there is also significant community interest in balancing increased access with preservation of environmentally-sensitive areas and multi-modal connectivity. • Multiple growth patterns were tested through the project, identifying opportunities to cluster growth in nodes/crossroads, preserve waterway and habitat corridors, and use greenways to connect mixed-use areas with rural community hubs. • Trail investment is reinforced as a tool for conservation, mobility choice, and equitable access in rural and urban areas. • As the plan continues to evolve through ongoing engagement and move toward adoption, the Trails Plan recommendations should remain aligned. Orange County Strategic The County identifies Environmental Protection and Climate Plan FY2025-FY2029 Action as a strategic priority, placing particular emphasis on Adopted 2024 the protection of natural resources and climate-responsive investments; this directly supports greenway corridors that preserve open space and reduce carbon emissions. • The Healthy Community priority calls for expanded access to physical activity and the outdoors for all ages and abilities, with the goal of improving wellbeing and recreation opportunities. • The Multi-modal Transportation priority seeks a safe network of connectivity for walking, biking, rollerskating, and public transit—where greenways and trails can play a key role in a non- motorized mobility network. • By investing in assets that strengthen community vitality, including trails that can increase jobs and support tourism in the area, the County is looking for a diverse and vibrant economy. • The Strategic Plan's guiding principles—which include communication and awareness, inclusivity and engagement, and partnership and collaboration (among others)—reinforce the importance of equitable, community-driven trail development. Draft Orange County Trails Plan 19 RELATED STUDY RELEVANT FINDINGS FORTHE TRAILS PLAN Orange County Bicycle The current draft Bike/Ped plan builds upon the 2024 Multi- & Pedestrian Plan modal Transportation Plan and establishes the County's first 2024-2026, Ongoing comprehensive vision for a safer, more equitable walking and rolling network focused on health, safety, and accessibility across all communities. • It identifies a countywide transportation network and recommends connections within and between communities, which the Trails Plan can use to target corridors that complement on-road links where demand and safety needs are highest. • Projects, programs, and policies are all prioritized to guide near- term and long-term improvements, signaling where investment is most feasible for trail corridors to align with key nodes. • The public engagement approach, which includes workshops, an online survey, and a digital map tool, is designed to pinpoint location-specific gaps for people traveling by bike or foot; the Trails Plan can use this to validate priority trail segments and trailhead locations. • The Bike/Ped plan intends to integrate bicycle and pedestrian priorities into regional planning efforts and county decision- making to create consistency in connectivity. NOTE:To ensure alignment between the two plans and avoid mixed messaging, the Trails Plan team met multiple times with the Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan team to compare draft networks, share maps, and confirm which nature trail and road routes complement one another. Representatives of the Bike/Ped Plan also attended the Trails Plan workshop on September 24, 2025 so participants could see how the two plans relate and reinforce one another. Chapel Hill Everywhere- • E2E plans over 25 miles of transportation greenway to give 57% to-Everywhere(E2E) of residents access to a greenway within 1/4-mile of where they Greenways Feasibility live. Study 2025-2026, Ongoing • A USDOT RAISE grant is funding a two-year feasibility study to analyze routes and alternatives, produce segment-level cost estimates, and deliver an implementation plan. • E2E is a pillar of the Chapel Hill Complete Community Strategy, connecting homes to daily destinations and integrating with local transit and planned development. 20 Draft Orange County Trails Plan RELATED STUDY RELEVANT FINDINGS FORTHE TRAILS PLAN J Branch Rail Corridor • The study evaluates converting approximately 10.8 miles of Feasibility Study the active J Branch (UNC CoGen) rail line into a multi-modal 2025-2026, Ongoing corridor, assessing feasibility for a multi-use greenway and whether an adjacent transit component is appropriate. • The corridor would link downtown Carrboro through the western portion of Chapel Hill and on to east-central Orange County, building on existing bicycle/pedestrian routes, transit, and streets to provide additional travel and recreation options. • This is a multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional initiative to proactively plan for the corridor's highest and best reuse as UNC transitions away from coal. NOTE:The CoGen/J Branch corridor is included as a proposed segment in the Trails Plan (more details are available in Section 04: Evaluation & Recommendations). The Trails Plan will track this feasibility study's route and public input to align recommendations. In addition to the ten plans/studies summarized in-depth, the Trails Plan acknowledges several other local initiatives that inform connectivity, safety, land use, and implementation. These were not studied in detail, but they were reviewed and remain part of the broader planning context: • Orange County Climate Action Plan (2023) • NC Moves 2050 - Long Range Transportation Plan (2018-2021) Orange County State of the Environment (2019) Orange County Transit Plan (2022) • Orange County Master Aging Plan (2022) • Blackwood Farm Park Master Plan (2023) • Little River Regional Park & Natural Area Master Plan (2021) • Town of Hillsborough Comprehensive Sustainability Plan 2030 (2023) • Town of Chapel Hill 2013-2022 Comprehensive Parks Plan (2013) • Town of Chapel Hill Map of Bike Facilities & Greenways (2019) • Town of Carrboro Recreation & Parks Comprehensive Master Plan (2006) • Bolin Creek Greenway Master Plan (2009) • Morgan Creek Greenway Master Plan (2010) • City of Mebane Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan (2024) View of the J Branch Rail Corridor tracks . City of Mebane 2014-2024 Recreation & Parks Comprehensive and landscape,observed during the Master Plan Trails Plan fieldwork Draft Orange County Trails Plan 21 .pt-1%-/ • L.J1 I %-41 SM4d La 14-W 1 1 %A I r IM V►r.0 L0` 1 • IN 1%./ . -1. . . r. , , ash 0c B��te t, � � t0 e 9A-f-y ►af� I I �i \jj rL \j, 1"]'. .:, • `1. err i • • war . .• � �'L� • • MAP L/ 00 sex vie . � Ce�l��.Cs•►�r�e ►_-''� �e + 5�°�E*kAl U L.,& CAe fX wA a� tj Cr 4-- 2k ) e- \Ax(\ 7C�� k 1, .� Ae+-5 C�1�.a; � � E �+ie�- T Inl 4,r-iv 07 ",R, ,P pF e UOD av* rj VL STO P Pictured:Visioning Worksh.. . /,rR)rafftt Engagement & Outreach Overview PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT MULTICHANNEL OUTREACH Bringing communities together through a Public engagement was accompanied by a multi- thoughtful, inclusive engagement process is a channel outreach approach designed to get the critical ingredient for success in any planning word out to as many Orange County residents as process. This approach ensures that the voices, possible, including: needs, and aspirations of residents across Orange County are reflected directly in the planning Informational project web page with Trails Plan outcomes. It allows residents to actively playa details, a roadmap, FAQs, and other resources part in shaping the future of their community, • Trails Plan e-newsletters sharing project ultimately giving future generations access to an updates, engagement recaps, and upcoming improved, equitable, and resilient trail system that events; distributed to an email list of 123 can be used and enjoyed for decades to come. community subscribers To understand residents' hopes for the future Social media campaign (Instagram, Facebook, of trail connectivity, a public engagement and and X) outreach effort for the Trails Plan was launched Promotional workshop graphics on digital in January 2025. The intent of this engagement displays around county facilities process was to inform, educate, and invite community members to collaborate on a vision Printed flyers posted at Orange County parks, for the Trails Plan, provide input on priorities, and community centers (Cedar Grove, Efland share feedback every step of the way. The project Cheeks, and RENA/Rogers Road), and other provided opportunities for both in-person and key points of interest; also distributed through virtual participation (described on page 25) to Chapel Hill Carrboro City School System allow the community to contribute in whatever (CHCCS) format was most accessible to them. Digital advertisements in existing Orange The following pages detail the findings from County publications/newsletters each engagement activity, and additional documentation and meeting notes are included in Orange County Appendix C. Trails Plan Community Workshops What? T—open house style workshops designed to gather community feedback on the draft Orange County Tmils Pla, Orange County Whena Where? Trails Plan loin us for the event that works best with tI e;`e.g,he ork,h.ph.n.dg°a"ny Community Workshops g p° Wednesday,septe.ber 24 1 6:00-8:00 PM Drznge cou"ty Sohn Wartecenter Help us understand the community's 1207 Eubanks Rd Chapel HiB,NC 27516 vision for countywide trail connectivity. Sunday,September 28 2:00-4:00 PM Bonnie B.Davis Envimnmente Agrlcultunl Center ;' ------------- ------------- 1030 U5 70,NIIlsborougM1. -------------- Who? Wednesday,May 21 IfyOu utiliz Orange County 6:00-9:00 PM greenways, Trails Plan spaces.we p Community Workshops I'"° ------------------------------------------------------- 5hareyourfeedbacksndhelpusrefinethe Join us! ar /' draft Orange County Trails Plan. n00ar 0 s..z ae.orvi.n Wetlnesd�y P'ld SuMaaSept.26 bolt rn: •�"••� -.00 PM "dv <n.axxll.rv<nstr xllxewwyxxcznre Join us! .axpa�a.,..6a 0 a Examples of promotional materials developed to advertise workshops through multiple outreach channels 24 Draft Orange County Trails Plan 4 March, April,June, September Steering Committee Meetings May 18 &21 Vision Workshop Attendees 62 72July 15 -August 22 Vision Survey Respondents September 24 & 28 Draft Network Workshop Attendees 18 76October 12 & 16 Pop-Up Event Participants October 13 - November 9 65 Draft Network Survey Respondents Visioning Process Community members gathered at the Orange County Solid Waste Center on May 18 and the Bonnie B. Davis Environment&Agricultural Center on May 21 to share their perspectives on the Trails Plan vision through a variety of interactive exercises. The vision workshops were then replicated as an anonymous online survey to reach as many residents as possible; this survey was open from July 15 to August 22. Since these engagements asked the same questions, they were synthesized together into the following key findings. WHO WE REACHED Orange County Residents 96% of the workshop and survey participants were Orange County residents, with 4% living outside the county limits. Non-residents expressed interest in the Trails Plan because they utilize Orange County's parks, trails, and open spaces. Length of Residency The majority of participants reported they have lived in Orange County for 10 to 20 years or longer, but there was representation across the entire spectrum from new to lifelong residents. — <1yr , „ 1-2 yrs - 2-5 yrs 5-7 yrs - 7-10 yrs 10-20 yrs _ 20+yrs Whole life Workshop participants draw the priority connections that 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 align with their goals for the Trails Plan. NUMBER OF RESPONSES Townships Represented Residents from all seven townships participated in We heard... the visioning process,with the top three townships being Hillsborough, Chapel Hill, and Bingham. Local trails are the single HILLSBOROUGH most important recreational 45°i° CHAPELHILL Z7°/, CHAPEL HILL opportunity for attending to 91 BINGHAM my physical and mental health, 40L 8% ENO ordering my daily routine, 107 5% CEDARGROVE communing with my dog, and RESIDENTS 3% CHEEKS connecting to nature. LITTLE RIVER —Survey Participant 26 Draft Orange County Trails Plan CONNECTING POINTS OF INTEREST PRIORITY CONNECTIONS Creating a trail network that connects key points At the workshops, participants drew lines on a map of interest was identified as a main project goal of Orange County to represent the connections at the beginning of the planning process. To that would bring their vision and goals for the understand which public spaces the community Trails Plan to life.These drawings were overlaid considers "points of interest,"workshop and with one another to create a composite map of survey participants were asked to identify nature priority connections, shown in the map below. and outdoor spaces, organizations and institutions, and gathering spaces in Orange County that they Popular routes indicate a desire to increase are most proud of. A wide variety of responses connectivity between densely populated towns- were provided and are mapped on the right, with which also contain many points of interest the top five answers in each category listed below. identified by the community-with significant overlapping of connections between Mebane, Nature and Outdoor Spaces Hillsborough, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro. Other • Hillsborough Riverwalk (64 votes) drawings show desired connections to nature • Occoneechee Mountain State Natural Area(31 votes) and outdoor spaces in more rural parts of the • Blackwood Farm Park (29 votes) county. The MST segment in Orange County • Brumley Nature Preserve (29 votes) was highlighted by many participants as well, • Eno River State Park(29 votes) confirming the connection as a Trails Plan priority. Q Organizations and Institutions • Orange County Public Library(47 votes) - 0 • Triangle Land Conservancy(40 votes) • Chapel Hill Public Library(28 votes) ti • Eno River Farmers Market(25 votes) fir. • Orange County Sportsplex (23 votes) l � Q Gathering Spaces • Weaver Street Market (65 votes) _ �f • Eno River Brewing (26 votes) p • Wooden Nickel Pub (20 votes) cwo • Cup-a-Joe, Hillsborough (20 votes) - • Hillsborough BBQ Company(19 votes) Many of the nature and outdoor spaces were also identified as locations for future improvements. Participants noted that updated facilities or 0 amenities and increased connectivity to these 0®. locations could enhance the user experience. Completing the Mountains to Sea Trail (MST) route in Orange County was also mentioned °� 0 frequently. Finally, participants identified the -- ----- top organizations, institutions, and gathering spaces they would like to reach by trail network The community's points of interest are shown on the county in the future; local restaurants, markets, schools, map using color-coded markers; priority connections recreation facilities, and libraries were among the drawn by the community are represented by a navy blue top responses. composite overlay. Draft Orange County Trails Plan 27 Visioning Process (cont.) CURRENT USE OF PARKS&TRAILS Eno River State Park, Little River Regional Park, The project team was interested in understanding Confluence Natural Area, Brumley Nature the current use of parks and trails, including Preserve, Blackwood Farm Park, and Carolina which spaces are being used and what types North Forest among many other highly-utilized of activities are occurring at each. Visioning parks and trails. participants mapped their current use by first identifying the Orange County parks and trails they visit today, then voting on the activities they Current Use of Parks&Trails do there which were sorted into four categories: =.°aec°i°re°°edd°!,r°mark°°I"ma"'.park,anduail=...°°gh°°rlhe.°°myyo°°,e today 3.Use colorcoded sticky notes ro wri!e the activities you do at each park/trail,IM1en place it on the map next to your dots . recreation and fitness, relaxation and reflection, tee.fy°°hike there oseaye°°w e°taod wRt1lkl on ay llow sticky,refertothe key for more¢amplesp ,r socializing and gathering, and connecting with tt M nature. A total of 522 votes were received across •„ the four activity categories; the breakdown is provided below. 36% Recreation& Fitness • Walking(73 votes) • Hiking (60 votes) ` • Biking (26 votes) • Sports (20 votes) Other activity or unspecified (67 votes) { h � 25%Socializing&Gathering ` • Meet-ups with friends (57 votes) r, • Family outings (38 votes) • Community events (30 votes) • Playing (19 votes) • Other activity or unspecified (25 votes) _— 20%Connecting with Nature A workshop participant reviews the map of current use of • Wildlife observation (50 votes) parks and trails,indicated by color-coded dots and sticky Birdwatching (31 votes) notes. Usage reported through the survey was tracked by the • Clean-up events (10 votes) project team digitally. • Gardening (3 votes) • Other activity or unspecified (42 votes) 19% Relaxation& Reflection We heard... • Sitting quietly / enjoying nature (51 votes) • Picnics (30 votes) As the area continues to • Reading orjournaling(16 votes) develop, it is so important • Yoga or meditation (10 votes) to keep adding to the • Other activity or unspecified (19 votes) natural and wild land that is Hot spots emerged at Hillsborough Riverwalk, protected for public use. Occoneechee Mountain State Natural Area, —Survey Participant Historic Occoneechee Speedway Trail, Gold Park, 28 Draft Orange County Trails Plan . o.. Building a Foundation The key findings • -• • pages R ^ to • • • - •• _ responses to "Vision Mad-Lib" prompts below about L goals, • or • project outcomes—were used as the basis for creating the Trails Plan vision statement and ` guiding principles. `yam > TOP GOALS 1. Create more parks, open spaces 2. Connectpoints of • • Choosing from a pre-selected set of aspirational imagery, school, -tc.) throughout the county workshop participants visualize their hopes and goals for the 3. Increase access to outdoor s•. - for Trails Plan. broader population 4. Complete the • • Sea Trail ASPIRATIONAL DESIGN FEATURES Orange County The final visioning exercise presented participants 5. Connect . urban, with a set of 40 parks, trails, and transportation suburban) throughout - county images from around the Piedmont region; community members each selected 1-2 images PRIORITY that best represented their aspirational vision 1. All ages, fromyouth . seniors for the future of the county trail network and 2. Pedestrians explained why the image(s) stood out to them. Bikers3. 4. .- Themes of user safety, mobility, natural beauty, andPublic. accessibility quickly became apparent. According to participants' explanations, the most popular images were selected because they represented 1. Networkof • the following features: 2. Connectionto nature 3. Safety • Clear separation between car, bike, and . Healthy movement pedestrian lanes 5. Inclusive design Lighting, signage and markings for safety and wayfinding purposes IDEAL OUTCOMES • Use of trails for transportation/commuting 1. Preservationof natural beauty • A mix of unpaved surfaces for hiking in experience . bikers and forested areas and accessible, paved trails and pedestrians bridges for pedestrians and cyclists 3. Reduceddependency • Inclusive furniture and/or shelter in more . Healthier community (physical • urban areas to rest, reflect, and appreciate mental wellbeing) natural surroundings 5. Supportfor , . future - • Integration with the existing landscape • Protection of native plants and wildlife Draft Orange County Trails Plan 29 Draft Trail Network Engagement After refining the Trails Plan vision, goals, guiding principles (described on page 38), and draft trail network based on the visioning process, two open-house workshops were hosted to invite community feedback. Participants attended in-person at the Bonnie B. Davis Environment &Agricultural Center on September 24 and the Orange County Solid Waste Center on September 28 to evaluate the guiding principles, react to the proposed connected county trail network, and vote in a segment prioritization exercise. To reach additional residents throughout the county, project leadership from DEAPR shared selected materials at two October pop-up events and created an online survey to replicate the activities. Because all three engagement formats asked the same questions, the results were synthesized together into the following key findings. WHO WE REACHED GUIDING PRINCIPLES EVALUATION Participation by Format Community members began by reviewing each Providing the second round of public engagement of the six draft guiding principles in two ways: 1) in three formats—workshops, survey, and pop-up assessing how well the proposed network reflects events—proved to be effective in capturing a range each principle and 2) selecting the one segment of voices across Orange County. Collectively, these that best represents it. Participants generally formats provided a fuller picture of countywide agreed that the nature trail segments best aligned priorities than any single method could have with wellness, access, and local character while done on its own. Out of 159 total participants, 94 road routes require intentional design features to shared their feedback in-person (18 across the two meet safety expectations. workshop sessions and 76 at the pop-ups), while 65 participated virtually through the survey. The majority of respondents felt the proposed trail network reflects all six guiding principles, 48% POP-UP EVENTS with particularly high alignment for Cultivate 41% ONLINESURVEY Community Wellness, Expand Travel Options, and 11% WORKSHOPS Reflect Local Character. Lower alignment scores 0AA1 mainly reflected concerns about safety on routes near roadways and questions about equitable 159 access across the county. Scores are represented in PARTICIPANTS the chart below. Reflect Local Character Advance Access &Equity Prioritize User Safety i Expand Travel Options ¢k Cultivate Community T Wellness Design for Longevity PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS ■ NETWORK DOES NOT REFLECTTHE PRINCIPLES ■Workshop participants engage with a series of posters about NETWORK SOMEWHAT REFLECTSTHE PRINCIPLES the draft trail network. NETWORK STRONGLY REFLECTSTHE PRINCIPLES 30 Draft Orange County Trails Plan Themes for each principle, along with the top- aligned segments selected by participants, are summarized below. We heard... g Reflect Local Character 96 Being able to travel on Top segment: Carrboro to Hillsborough (Road foot or bicycle from route via Old NC 86) Hillsborough to Chapel Hill • Rural landscapes, creek corridors, preserves would be a game changer. • Conservation and protected natural areas • Sensitivity near private rural homes and creeks —Survey Participant t Advance Access& Equity Top segment: UNC Campus to University Station (Rail to Trail via NCRR CoGen Line) DRAFTTRAIL NETWORK FEEDBACK • Convenient access for rural residents Participants also had the opportunity to provide • Connections to historically underserved areas feedback on the proposed draft trail network, • Inclusive for all ages and abilities which was shown on a map during the workshops, at pop up events, and in the survey. Feedback 0 Prioritize user safety centered on the following three themes: Top segment: UNC Campus to University Station (Rail to Trail via NCRR CoGen Line) What Excited People • Separation from traffic / no shoulder-walking Strong support for MST continuity and • Protected crossings completing the missing links • Lighting, call boxes, and visibility Enthusiasm for town connectivity, especially • Etiquette, rules, or shared-use norms Chapel Hill and Carrboro to Hillsborough • Interest in longer, quiet, nature-based routes A Expand Travel Options Appreciation for linking existing community Top segment: Carrboro to Hillsborough (Road points of interest route via Old NC 86) • Town-to-town connectivity Common Questions • Low stress, non-motorized mobility options . Will road routes be side paths, bike lanes, or • Emphasis on separated, comfortable routes separated greenways? • Will the network coordinate with the Bicycle & CQ7 Cultivate Community Wellness Pedestrian Plan and neighboring county plans? Top segment: Seven Mile Creek Natural Area to How will safety be handled on active rail Hillsborough Riverwalk (Nature trail) corridors, major roadways, and crossings? • Immersion in nature and quiet settings What surface materials, lighting, and • Mental health and stress-reduction benefits wayfinding strategies will be used? • Preference for nature trails over road routes • Support for walking, running, and gathering Key Concerns • Safety on roads without separation from traffic Design for Longevity Potential impacts to creeks and native plants Top segment: Carrboro to Hillsborough (Road Privacy and proximity concerns along certain route via Old NC 86) corridors • Drainage, flooding, and erosion concerns Long-term trail maintenance needs • Durable materials and sustainable maintenance Draft Orange County Trails Plan 31 Draft Trail Network Engagement (cont.) TRAIL SEGMENT PRIORITIZATION Based on input gathered to date—including conversations with the steering committee, site visit findings, discussions with project leadership,feedback on the countywide vision, and five key initial evaluation criteria—the Trails Plan project team placed each of the trail segments in a draft order of priority in preparation for this round of engagement. At the workshops and pop-up events, participants used color-coded dots to vote on whether Possible Traii Segment Prioritization The U proposed trail segments have been placed in a draft order of priority Voting LW d segments should be higher(green dot) lower(red basedoninPormationreceivedro date. •Sh-ldwiththis pft,itpriodry � .u:«°mrede°tamanareya°rtnaagnis°n the erafterderafpri«Iry. •snowdbeMgnerpe°ruy dot), or remain in place (blue dot) on the draft you an alsolikky— itn`omme"ts on the post`'to the right. •Should be'o' priority priority list. In the online survey, respondents dragged segments into a 1-12 ranking. Because P b UNC4mpusto CRRCsge SLi.,) 00000 (Rail to Trail via NCRR Cogen Line) • •• Chapel Hill WHillsborough •N•• the engagement sessions used the same activity, I (NCRRCogenU.toC.-CreekParkAl NC 86 and Waterston,Dr) the combined results offer a clear picture of which MST-Alamance Ow yto Sewn Mile •••• 1 Cmk Natural Arw •• segments are valued most by the community. The (Natur,trail) MST-EnoRl—Std*ParkWDurWa •••••• following results represent a strong preference Natpr<trall) ���•• • for nature trails over road routes, a desire for safe 4 Hlllid—ghR'vennikNalunlAnalo ��0 (Nat—mil) and separated routes on higher-speed roads, and CedmGrov<ParktoKingsHlgh-yPark •••••••• (NaNr<trail via Eno River) support for improving regional connectivity and MST-Alamance 0oFintyto8even Mlle • completing MST gaps. �' (Road Houle)'" • LRrh RlwrParkto Cedar Grow Park • Q (Newt,trail via Northeast Park and lln Qualities of Top Ranking Trails M baeFarm, •• Mebanalo Nln,kaato •••• ••• }7 Oaoroutevla USTDh)West HIIIAw/ • MST connections °°°°° "eeM°°°`°'°' (R..d Rlwr d.N Cedar Grove Park •• • Rail to trail concept 9u� (Road route via Northeast Park and Breeze Farm) • Long, continuous nature trails CaWWWChapl Hill to Hills_91, ••• (Road route via Old NC 86) •••••••• ••• ffi Lake Michael Park to Panther 11-1, ••••••• Lowest Nature Preserve to Hillsborough Qualities of Low Ranking Trails p^o^b (Road rourevi,Lebanon Rd) • Road-adjacent routes • Perceived as less scenic Dot voting results from in-person participants who shared • Unclear separation from traffic their priorities for the 12 proposed segments MST-Eno River State Park to Durham(Nature trail) 4.26 Seven Mile Creek Natural Area to Hillsborough Riverwalk(Nature trail) 4.28 UNC Campus to University Station(Rail to Trail via NCRR CoGen Line) 4.48 MST-Alamance County to Seven Mile Creek Natural Area(Nature trail) 4.81 Chapel Hill to Hillsborough(Road route via NC 86&Waterstone Dr) 5.03 Carrboro to Hillsborough(Road route via Old NC 86) 6.11 Cedar Grove Park to Kings Highway Park(Nature Trail via Eno River) 6.17 Mebane to Hillsborough(Road route via US-70 to West Hill Ave/Occoneechee Mtn) 7.17 MST-Alamance County to Seven Mile Creek Natural Area(Road route) 7.83 Little River Park to Cedar Grove Park(Nature trail via Northeast Park&Breeze Farm) 7.87 Little River Park to Cedar Grove Park(Road route via Northeast Park&Breeze Farm) =9.59 Lake Michael Park to Panther Branch Nature Preserve(Road route via Lebanon Rd) M10.38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Top AVERAGE SEGMENT RANKING(SURVEY) Lowest priority priority 32 Draft Orange County Trails Plan Applying Key Takeaways This second round of public engagement provided the clarity the project team needed to transform a broader vision and draft network concept into a more solidified recommendation for a connected county - - trail network, as well as understand what it should deliver in order to be successful. Community members helped confirm _ — the types of connections that are most — meaningful in their day-to-day lives, highlight where design decisions will likely " matter most for meeting user expectations, and offered valuable insights about comfort, a safety,visibility, and access based on their lived experiences.This input allowed the proposed network and evaluation process to be refined into an ideal experience for trail ? users across Orange County. - PLAN ADJUSTMENTS BASED ON y ENGAGEMENT FEEDBACK • Added a new alternate nature trail option between Mebane to Hillsborough along the Duke Energy transmission easement to align with community preferences for quiet, scenic routes • Re-numbered the trail segments for clarity in the number of proposed trails _ and distinction between alternates Refined primary segment priorities to • reflect all three sources: initial order of • priority developed by the project team, ' workshop and pop-up dot voting results, • and survey rankings • - Provided clearer expectations for • - separation and crossings on road routes Included recommendations for lighting and wayfinding strategies that would enhance user safety • • Steering Committee Meetings The existing Orange County Parks and Recreation Council was leveraged as the Trails Plan steering committee. In these monthly meetings, the group offered guidance for the engagement and outreach process and provided feedback on project progress. For detailed notes from these meetings, see Appendix C. MEETING#1 MEETING#4 Project Kick-off Draft Plan Review&Workshop Planning March 5, 2025 September 3, 2025 The first steering committee meeting introduced At the fourth meeting, the team reported on committee members to the Trails Plan project and recent progress-including the vision survey, the role the council would play throughout. Prior coordination with the Bicycle & Pedestrian to the meeting, a short survey was distributed to Plan, and draft language for the vision, goals, the committee with the following prompts: and guiding principles.They then reviewed • What are the main opportunities presented by the proposed Trails Plan report contents and the Orange County Trails Plan project? the steering committee provided input on the • What challenges might we anticipate as part of September workshop format. this project? • Please share goals you have for the Trails Plan. Community Engagement Research DuHng pmjettstart-up,our team reviewed a—ely Drina..enla—including previously adopted plans and past outreach effodi. A,we proceed with community engagement for the Talk Plan,we will build upon what we have learned, The team facilitated a discussion about the including ale key nkea-aye. opportunities, challenges, and goals gathered - awI� �.mlwnbe m�rcas�vlwxw,tnewvmy.ewwu" through the survey.They also shared key takeaways from community engagement research, ..°°,� '^gene^o^^^• Survey Summary the project roadmap, and an initial agenda for the Opportunities B Challenges ir _________________________________„___________________-____-_____ vision workshops. ^°°'°'°° ^°"°°g� xengegementwah hi—I lly uevlgating IWawnemnipane arQuienon merpiml Mpopuletlons wah a.a�boosaecao w mKeewbpmen ,on MEETING#2 ooW nm wnry a ' u^ mnguDmmentumanem nglmvad tmeMw�xm,msw nau«cos, ream rati.-wmrex a:weet and Orzogec ounry Prove Pmc ° w` Vision Workshop Planning mmm. na.exllx,I.: mmm.Nry April2, 2025 Visioning Stations ' After a brief summary of the site visits to parks, "gGt'°"':R'nkingCadraft-ofes •Participants rank,rid.,setof priorirytrail corridors In order of importance open spaces, and trails throughout the county, SapaH kipan[srremew popular parks/community the steering committee and project team built a sa pa,da'ry`°t000"sthatw'°._ •op,,o atle.u,outdoorrecmation :` upon a draft outline of the May Vision Workshops Build,nitithier roader population •sailaa neannier commnnny and brainstormed activities for visioning stations �rn-twiulti-mpdalkeyI Current Use hParks&Trails [ivity between key � Partieipams marked which we....wnma.... ...................... questions for arrival posters, and questions for the OOne hlu,.ndtaiI ey<t.day theydo thergsuch as. ' exit feedback survey. „^ MEETING#3 - 4- Engagement Findings Report-Out Trails Plan Report:Proposed Table of Contents LA. June 4, 2025 OL lntrodudlon OaGuiding Nlat Recomm<ndatlons Sv°"a Protect Overview,Process,B Xhedule P.paeg Princlples •VlslonB t- Proposed Troll Network The third meeting focused on findings from the Tall an,% Trzllty EahatI,,Pager •Troll BeneFl[s PHOHly Evaluation CrllerlaB Xorecard 03:Ealsting<ondltlons 06:Implementation 3 engagement process to date particularly from glte Velt Summary Protect Phasing Pra,IP Studles8lnlHatives Partnershlp,8 ,ding Opp A,,Itles Oppthe vision workshops, and the steering committee :"bil,unitlasBChallenges •Impke.,11.ion Plan -E,g llc Engagement 06:Appendla •St..I C—litaeeach Overview Proleet goadm e shared recommendations for future engagement S!°°ring Committee Meatii Summary Park,EngagementD Meting N,ee, • D,ft Workshop pun H,ySummary Parks91-Council Meeting Noes •DreR Trails Plan Open Houu Summary Cost Es[Ima[e events. A look ahead to the remainder of the year was also reviewed. Selected presentation slides from the four steering committee meetings 34 Draft Orange County Trails Plan How Public Input Shaped the Plan Public input played a central role in shaping the Trails Plan. Insights from the visioning process—especially the recurring themes of safety, access to nature, connectivity between towns, and accessibility for all ages—were translated directly into the plan's vision statement and guiding principles,which now serve as the foundation for evaluating proposed trail segments and the implementation approach.The priority connections drawn by visioning participants, paired with the key community destinations they identified, created clear clusters of parks, preserves,facilities, and gathering spaces, and informed how the proposed connected county trail network is organized to make connections meaningful. Feedback gathered during the fall open houses and draft network survey guided refinements to trail segments and helped confirm which corridors had the most community support.The survey also provided the most comprehensive dataset for prioritization; its rankings were weighted most heavily in the segment scoring framework, ensuring that top projects reflect both public preference and technical feasibility (see Section 04: Evaluation & Recommendations for more details on this scoring process. Together,the draft network, guiding principles, and prioritized segment list represent a comprehensive synthesis of what residents said they value and what existing conditions make possible, creating an Orange County Trails Plan grounded in the community vision. Inputs Inputs Inputs Inputs What we heard What we heard What we heard What we heard ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . r r Insights Insights What it means&why it matters What it means &why it matters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 GuidingPrinciplesHow it connects O r Trails Plan What it looks like Draft Orange County Trails Plan 35 •�4� r - -� r ' 8 � li and Vu fool -- • • M 41, 40 AlAl lountaiCrepk ra; 1. A w 1 r " IMM r ioning Workshop- u Draft Orange County Trails Plan 37 Guiding Principles These six guiding principles for the Orange County Trails Plan reflect recurring themes that arose during public engagement, discussions with the steering committee, and alignment with project leadership. 4V REFLECT LOCAL CHARACTER ADVANCE ACCESS&EQUITY Trails should seamlessly integrate into the All Orange County residents—regardless of age, surrounding landscape and reflect the unique ability, income, or location—deserve safe and identity of each community they pass through— convenient access to outdoor exploration.The from rural to urban and everything in between—to trail network should prioritize connectivity to foster a stronger sense of identity and place across historically underserved areas, promote inclusion, Orange County. and ensure diverse community needs are met. O a ��A PRIORITIZE USER SAFETY EXPAND TRAVEL OPTIONS Safety is essential for encouraging trail use. To be effective, the trail network should provide Thoughtful trail design with universal access, viable alternatives to vehicle transportation and adequate visibility, clear wayfinding, and safe encourage more active modes of travel, like biking crossings should be at the forefront to keep or walking, by connecting key points of interest pedestrians and cyclists safe and comfortable. across the county. 1 � - L CULTIVATE COMMUNITY WELLNESS DESIGN FOR LONGEVITY The trail network should help build a happier, Trails should be designed and constructed using healthier community by supporting physical best practices that promote long-term resilience, activity, mental health, and social well-being ease of maintenance, and adaptability, allowing through opportunities for recreation, relaxation, the network to evolve as the county grows and and connection with nature. community priorities change over time. 38 1 Draft Orange County Trails Plan Statewide & Regional Context As Orange County advances its vision for a connected trail network, it is important to understand these recommendations within the broader context of the systems that surround and shape it. At the statewide level, North Carolina's State Trails System (as shown in the map below) links various landscapes through a network of 14 trails, each of which is composed of multiple segments that are managed by federal, state, or local government agencies, nonprofit organizations, or private landowners!The Mountains to Sea Trail is part of this system, spanning west to east across Orange County, making it a critical priority for many community members and a significant component of the Trails Plan. At the regional scale, government councils and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) across the Piedmont region are working with the NC Trails Program to expand greenways and multi-modal corridors across the county.These statewide and regional efforts provide the momentum and context for the proposed Orange County Trails Plan, which is designed to respond to local community needs. OR vat,. ��� ,�� R�� RSn � ss,�,�`��rpi��t��'�`r�J;_ r ,,. a e ._ �;i.. ,_<� '� ,. - `�.'-;�, "•x _. '$nR ds�,' F g C a if YY 'pt��m • s?z -,a o :_r tie h Yr 37 irPiJ ITT :p.r 1 a #1 f ! _ .li�0^d . ones Elk knob ytoner.—rpilot -.. Occoneechee y `�\ Mountain Moun'tam Mountain ^Medoc Mountain 1.t;\ .GcaeA'ssoro Haw.,, � .%*R ne dezvous ��• •River,'•®* Eno River Grandfather;% Mountain iWlnston r * �* Mount Mountains ;�, Salem '•i Falls Lake • ,-i,,,., —� Jockey's Mitchell � *William B. Rocky Mount - Ridge *—'s •y'' Jordan Un stead *Pettigr w� Lake* •- * Lake'* • :' ', I. ----J'ames ;-_*South!. Lake m Raleigh ...• ®Asheville ---f. Mountains Norman t Raven Greenville ;y se`C'reek i Chimney -^'e: ,`, s Rock •y Morrow Rock; Goldsboro ® '" ♦f Mountain 1 ;V41 * * Charlotte *' Carvers Cliffs of -` Gorges C•rowele�s * Creek M the Neuse mou �•}•+«� We th 1 - 'ountain W6od5 ayote�ille Jacksonville - Jones Lake*', m *.�`-*F.oJf'Maeon *Singletary Ham�ockb ake Beach Lurn�ber* CrJ River *Lake '2ror Waccamaw *Caylina Beach __ ,i Fort Fisher SOURCES: 8 North Carolina State Parks - State Trails System Draft Orange County Trails Plan 39 Proposed Trail Network The proposed trail network, mapped on page 41, PROPOSED SEGMENTS WITH ALTERNATES represents the synthesis of community priorities, UNC Campus to University Station feasibility analysis, and the guiding principles O (Rail to Trail via NCRR CoGen Line) established earlier in this section. It includes a balanced system of nature trails, rail-to-trail Chapel Hill to Hillsborough opportunities, and shared-use paths along roads O (Road route via NC 86 &Waterstone Dr that link parks, preserves,towns, schools, natural to Cates Creek Park) areas, and regional trail systems.These segments create the foundation of a connected county Carrboro to Hillsborough mobility network that expands access, strengthens © (Road route via Old NC 86) town-to-town connectivity, and advances completion of the Mountains to Sea Trail (MST). MST-Alamance County to Seven Mile Creek Natural Area (Road route) A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH 4B MST-Alamance County to Seven Mile Implementing shared-use paths alongside Creek Natural Area (Nature trail) state-maintained roads will require a new, MST-Seven Mile Creek Natural Area collaborative partnership framework with O to Hillsborough Riverwalk (Nature NCDOT.While NCDOT regularly coordinates trail) on roadway improvements, sidepaths introduce additional considerations related Mebane to Hillsborough to right-of-way, design standards, safety, and 6A (Road route via US-70) access management. The Orange County Trails Plan identifies these needs early so proposed segments can advance through 6B Mebane to Kings Highway Park (Nature trail via Duke Energy coordinated feasibility and design. transmission easement) Lake Michael Park to Panther Branch Some corridors include both primary and alternate Natural Area alignment options. Primary routes reflect the (Road route via Lebanon Rd) most feasible and publicly supported concepts Cedar Grove Park to Kings Highway based on current conditions. Alternate routes offer O park(Nature Trail via Eno River) additional connectivity options—such as quieter nature-based alignments or different road-adjacent Little River Park to Cedar Grove Park pathways—that may become viable through future ' ' (Nature trail via Northeast Park& partnerships, easements, or development changes. Breeze Farm) Multiple segments of the network directly support completion of the MST, reflecting one of the Little River Park to Cedar Grove Park strongest community priorities that emerged throughout the planning process. (Road route via Northeast Park & Breeze Farm) The following pages describe each trail segment O MST- Eno River State Park to Durham in more detail including context, trail type, and (Nature trail) alignment considerations. 40 Draft Orange County Trails Plan Draft Orange County Trails Plan J i. Pa* m` V,N HILLSBOROUGH^• • '�!..> '°"°' -0` tom •akkma. o' O _........ tnrv.A• � •s el:( 1 Ero River� � RMa Park �\ `� —�`.� \ 1.,]I `��i ..'• '.y a „�_� i/ �`_., w � ` o MAP LEGEND County Line _� // �� �° -y • Parks - l 1© w iO dlow Rrck Highways — v � 0 Interstates r Streets Railroads l Streams cHAP Lakes Wetlands <. Public&Conserved Land 4� Towns/Cities 4 CARRsoR0 r Elementary Schools � Middle Schools dVe M High Schools f Colleges/Universities - C Existing Trail Segment — — Proposed Road Route Proposed Nature Trail See facing pages for segment- *The green shading represents publicly owned or conservation-managed lands included specific mileage and details. in the County's GIS datasets. Differences in shading are a result of mapping software complexities and do not represent any meaningful differences in the land. Draft Orange County Trails Plan 1 41 ED UNC Campus to University Station Segment 1 anticipates future conversion of a portion of the J Branch (Co-Gen) rail corridor into a separated shared-use path linking UNC/central Chapel Hill to the University Station area. PROJECT OVERVIEW Relevant Community Needs: Location Safer route between campus and transit that Along the J Branch rail corridor serving UNC's avoids high-speed roads cogeneration plant, extending from campus • Direct access to jobs, classes, healthcare, and toward University Station; endpoints to be refined services by the ongoing feasibility study and coordination • All-ages facility with frequent access points with the railroad near neighborhoods • Potential mixed use node at terminus near Old Key Connections NC 10 • UNC academic/medical areas • Greene Tract Required Structures&Crossings: • Blackwood Station • At-grade road crossings and upgraded signals • Brumley Forest Nature Preserve • Short bridges/culverts at existing drainage • University Station structures • Chapel Hill & Carrboro trail systems • Signed neighborhood spur connections to reduce trespass pressure on rail property Total Length —10.8 miles (planning length) Potential Constructability Challenges: • Railroad ownership/operations and clearances Trail Type Narrow bench and embankment sections • Rail-to-trail shared-use path (paved, separated) needing walls or fencing and potential rail Hydrology at low points; coordinating with • 10 ft typical width UNC and NCRR on access control ALIGNMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN Environmental Protection ✓ Supports mode shift by replacing short vehicle trips & Climate Action with a fully separated rail-trail corridor Promotes daily walking/rolling access between Healthy Community ✓ UNC, neighborhoods, and transit Housing for All Indirect Benefit Improves non-auto access between student housing, neighborhoods,jobs, and services Provides a high-value, low-stress route connecting Multi-modal Transportation ✓ UNC transit, greenways, and regional paths Public Education/ ✓ Links UNC campuses with community destinations Learning Community through a safe, predictable corridor Diverse &Vibrant Economy ✓ Strengthens access to activity centers and supports local spending by trail users 42 Draft Orange County Trails Plan Kings Eno River • Highway IState Park Park Riv rw Ik S eedwa Ito We . coral P r MST.y,� ♦y�' �• •`P^ ��e Occoneechee Mountain Cates 15 Creek Park 555y5 N S' O i111to 1 C sr.4�4N-ii-ty pBrumley } ° Forest • b Nature iPreserve a Blackwood Duke Forest Farm Park 86 pia %o4 o �y C Z wo Q g t� A r Hollow Rock r Nature Park L w S� Jones Creek Greenwa • Greene • Twin Creeks Tract y District Park MAP LEGEND t (] County Line • Parks ® O Highways t} Interstates ® ® — Streets ® »» Railroads Streams UNC Lakes Cogeneration Wetlands Plant Public&Conserved Land Towns/Cities J CARRBORO i& Elementary Schools 1. i& Middle Schools ® High Schools ® Colleges/Universities UNC Chapel — Existing Trail Segment Hill University — — Proposed Road Route Lake � �\ �� •• Proposed Nature Trail Draft Orange County Trails Plan 1 43 ED Chapel Hill to Hillsborough Segment 2 creates a separated sidepath along NC-86 and Waterstone Drive, linking Chapel Hill to the rail-trail corridor (Segment 1) and continuing north to tie into the Town of Hillsborough's existing greenway system. PROJECT OVERVIEW Relevant Community Needs: Location High-speed corridor alternative with protected Along NC-86 from the Chapel Hill area toward crossings Hillsborough, connecting into town via Waterstone • Reliable town-to-town route for daily trips Drive; exact endpoints to be confirmed through • Safe access to schools and parks without inter-agency coordination shoulder-walking Key Connections Required Structures&Crossings: • Cates Creek Park and Town of Hillsborough Enhanced crossings at Mt. Sinai, 1-40 ramps, greenways system and Waterstone Dr. • Blackwood Farm Park Median refuges/curb ramps where warranted • Schools, libraries, and community assets along Ditch/drainage adjustments at steeper the corridor segments • Links to local trail/greenway systems and regional routes Potential Constructability Challenges: • Space constraints along segments with Total Length ditches/slopes and many driveways —5 miles (planning length) • Sight distance at curves/creek bottoms • Utility relocations in tight sections Trail Type • Shared-use path (paved, separated) • 10 ft typical width ALIGNMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN Environmental Protection ✓ Enables car-free travel along a high-speed corridor & Climate Action with drainage considerations adjacent to streams Healthy Community Improves daily access to schools, parks, libraries, and town centers Housing for All Indirect Benefit Serves a mix of rural homes and higher-density neighborhoods near Waterstone Creates a continuous town-to-town connection Multi-modal Transportation ✓ where walking/rolling is currently unsafe Public Education/ ✓ Enhances access to nearby schools, libraries, and Learning Community learning destinations along NC-86 Diverse &Vibrant Economy ✓ Improves visibility and access to small businesses on both ends of the corridor 44 Draft Orange County Trails Plan Panther Branch Natural Area OW Nat M51"�� state Pam natal 4rp tad/ fro pat O i Kings Eno River • Highway 4 State Park Park Riv rw Ik S eedwa t e .. eat iv J Seven .-...� ���awraI Pt Mile MST. . �r ��e Occoneechee Creek s on in Natural ; Mounta Area • Cates Creek Park d fll to76 f� p Brumley f ^^ ° Forest • 1oo Nature u g Preserve e `�'�Q Blackwood a� Duke Forest Farm Park 8e, to , �P af0 a ` � y �o 0 « R $ c, MAP LEGEND v 0 County Line • Parks O Highways Interstates i Jones Creek — Streets Greenway Railroads ✓ �' Streams J • Greene Lakes Twin Creeks Tract Wetlands District Park ; Public&Conserved Land t Towns/Cities ® Elementary Schools t& Middle Schools CHAPEL HIL 6 High Schools ® ® ® Colleges/Universities — Existing Trail Segment s - - Proposed Road Route r UNC Proposed Nature Trail fnnanPratinn I Draft Orange County Trails Plan 1 45 © Carrboro to Hillsborough Segment 3 establishes a separated sidepath on Old NC-86 to improve safety and route legibility between Carrboro and Hillsborough. PROJECT OVERVIEW Relevant Community Needs: Location Shoulder-limited corridor replacement with Along Old NC 86 from UNC Chapel Hill University consistent separation Lake, through the Carrboro greenways system • Comfortable link for rural residents into town north toward Hillsborough; exact endpoints to be services confirmed through inter-agency coordination • Lower-stress option than on-road riding/ walking Key Connections • UNC Chapel Hill University Lake Required Structures&Crossings: • Libba Cotten Bikeway and other Carrboro trails • At-grade road crossings with enhanced • Jones Creek Greenway/Bolin Creek Greenway treatments at major intersections • Cates Creek Park • Driveway tie-ins and drainage in ditch-lined • Hillsborough Riverwalk (existing segment) segments • Spot walls/guardrail offsets on steep side slopes Total Length -16 miles (planning length) Potential ConstructabilityChallenges: • Curvaceous roadway with limited roadside Trail Type space, creating a tight potential sidepath • Shared-use path (paved, separated) corridor • 10 ft typical width High driveway density, mailbox clusters, and access management • Rolling grades with sidepath cross-slope/ retaining needs in spots ALIGNMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN Environmental Protection ✓ Reduces reliance on vehicle trips along a narrow & Climate Action rural roadway with limited shoulders Provides consistent separation for walkers/cyclists Healthy Community ✓ where roadway conditions currently limit activity Housing for All Indirect Benefit Connects dispersed rural homes to Carrboro/ Hillsborough services without requiring a car Establishes a predictable, legible regional route for Multi-modal Transportation ✓ town-to-town connectivity Public Education/ ✓ Supports safer access to schools and libraries in Learning Community both towns Diverse &Vibrant Economy ✓ Links activity centers and supports local business visitation 46 Draft Orange County Trails Plan / -W HILLSBOR Ju I J Kings 1 �Eno River • �-1 aaseMe Highway ....... Park " Riverwalk State Park .. S eedwa w )• Seven MST.S atural.P�e r Mile � a�b� •, \ Creek e�Pn�Je Cre Occoneechee Natural Mountain Area •� Cates „ Creek • ParkS • ill to !� • N or \�l S Brumley —t b ° Forest / • Nature ' - • �� i A Preserve da o B oo lackwd Duke F ? . Farm Park III `iok s �o c �o Q r ° ,©' Hollow Rock Nature Park Jones Creek Greenwa b • Greene Twin Creeks Tract MAP LEGEND District Park � 0 County Line r • Parks O Highways t} Interstates CHAPEL HILL — Streets L »» Railroads Streams t Lakes UNC Wetlands Cogeneration Public&Conserved Land Plant Towns/Cities ® Elementary Schools i& Middle Schools ® High Schools ® Colleges/Universities — Existing Trail Segment UNC Chapel — — Proposed Road Route Hill University Proposed Nature Trail Lake � Draft Orange County Trails Plan 1 47 O MST - Alamance County to Seven Mile Creek Natural Area Segment 4A (alternate 1 of 2) provides a road route corridor for the Mountains to Sea Trail between Alamance County and Seven Mile Creek Natural Area, using separation where feasible. This segment and 4B merge from Buckhorn Road south, consistent with the adopted MST route. PROJECT OVERVIEW Relevant Community Needs: Location Continuous wayfinding for through-hikers and Along local roads between the Alamance and local users Orange County line and Seven Mile Creek Natural Safer shoulder-free segments Area, with some of the route off-road south of Daytime visibility improvements Buckhorn Road; alignment to be finalized with Reliable MST routing until nature alignment is NCDOT/County/MST partners secured Key Connections Required Structures&Crossings: • Alamance County/West MST entrance Driveway/ditch work on narrow two-lane roads • Rural residential clusters Enhanced crossings at county road nodes • Seven Mile Creek Natural Area Potential Constructability Challenges: Total Length Many rural owners who have varying comfort —16 miles (planning length) with roadside paths • Limited shade/exposure in farm stretches Trail Type• Shared-use path (paved, separated) or natural Narrow shoulders along some of the roads • surface trail (gravel/aggregate); TBD • 10 ft typical width; 3-4 ft width south of merge point ALIGNMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN Environmental Protection ✓ Uses existing roadways to minimize disturbance & Climate Action where off-road routes are constrained Offers steady, predictable access for MST users and Healthy Community ✓ rural residents Housing for All Indirect Benefit Provides a safe non-auto option in areas with limited amenities Maintains MST continuity across county lines via a Multi-modal Transportation ✓ legible roadside route Public Education/ ✓ Enhances access to local nature-based learning via Learning Community MST signage and links Diverse &Vibrant Economy ✓ Can direct MST users toward rural businesses and agritourism nodes 48 Draft Orange County Trails Plan • A e Perry Hills ne Mini Park Efland Cheeks • tOHills bor u ;• Community Park E Mebane to in 8�°aY Park(Nature tr ali v'a Duke E °e1SY trap Kings • easem a Highway Park Ri Soccer.com Center ato, Rive Seven ....... ^lateral P� Msr, a ¢� Milek t se�•n. cre Occoneechee CreNatural Mountain ' A I Area �e oaa�o � a Q :• A •i w ar �oa N� ,moo 0� a •� • o oo ! a MAP LEGEND 0 County Line �. • Parks .. ,. O Highways Canes Creek t} Interstates Reservoir — Streets »» Railroads Streams Msr Trail Lakes start Wetlands Public&Conserved Land Towns/Cities ® Elementary Schools i& Middle Schools ® High Schools ® Colleges/Universities — Existing Trail Segment — — Proposed Road Route Proposed Nature Trail Draft Orange County Trails Plan 1 49 46 MST - Alamance County to Seven Mile Creek Natural Area Segment 4B (alternate 2 of 2) delivers a natural surface MST route from the Alamance County line to Seven Mile Creek Natural Area, focusing on quiet, waterway-adjacent landscapes where possible.This segment and 4A merge from Buckhorn Road south, consistent with the adopted MST route. PROJECT OVERVIEW Relevant Community Needs: Location Low-impact, nature-based MST experience From the Alamance and Orange County line to away from traffic Seven Mile Creek Natural Area via creek and Continuous wayfinding for through-hikers and stream corridors and large parcels; this route was local users adopted in 2018 as the official MST route through Access points that disperse parking/loading this area. near private lands Key Connections Required Structures&Crossings: • Alamance County/West MST entrance Multiple short boardwalks at wet areas • Seven Mile Creek Simple trailheads with trail rules • Large private holdings and parcels Potential Constructability Challenges: Total Length Large consolidated ownerships (fewer but —16 miles (planning length) deeper negotiations) • OWASA groundwater parcels nearby - no Trail Type trailheads on OWASA lands, need to use • Natural-surface trail (gravel/aggregate) adjacent properties • 8 ft typical width; 3-4 ft width south of merge Landowner concerns about the trail in some point portions of the segment ALIGNMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN Environmental Protection ✓ Follows creek and conservation corridors with & Climate Action low-impact tread and stewardship practices Provides restorative, quiet MST access away from Healthy Community ✓ major roads Housing for All Indirect Benefit Connects rural homes to conserved lands without requiring car travel Advances state-designated MST off-road continuity Multi-modal Transportation ✓ across the county Public Education/ ✓ Offers environmental learning opportunities Learning Community through access to diverse habitats Diverse &Vibrant Economy ✓ Attracts statewide trail users who support rural businesses and tourism 50 Draft Orange County Trails Plan • A e Perry Hills ne Mini Park Efland Cheeks • tOHills bor u ;• Community Park E Mebane to in 8�°aY Park(Nature tr ali v'a Duke E °e1SY trap Kings • easem a Highway Park Ri Soccer.com Center ato, Rive Seven ....... ^lateral P� Msr, a ¢� Milek t se�•n. cre Occoneechee CreNatural Mountain ' A I Area �e oaa�o � a Q :• A •i w ar �oa N� ,moo 0� a •� • o oo ! a MAP LEGEND 0 County Line �. • Parks .. ,. O Highways Canes Creek t} Interstates Reservoir — Streets »» Railroads Streams Msr Trail Lakes start Wetlands Public&Conserved Land Towns/Cities ® Elementary Schools i& Middle Schools ® High Schools ® Colleges/Universities — Existing Trail Segment — — Proposed Road Route Proposed Nature Trail Draft Orange County Trails Plan I 51 O MST - Seven Mile Creels Natural Area to Hillsborough Riverwalk Segment 5 creates a natural-surface trail linking Seven Mile Creek Natural Area through the Occoneechee Mountain State Natural Area, into the Hillsborough Riverwalk trail system. PROJECT OVERVIEW Relevant Community Needs: Location Quiet approach to town for walkers, runners, From Seven Mile Creek Natural Area east toward and MST users alike Riverwalk/Gold Park, following creek corridors and Alternative to roadway travel into downtown conserved landscapes destinations Key Connections Required Structures&Crossings: • Hillsborough Riverwalk Multiple elevated crossings/boardwalks at • Gold Park flood-prone spots • Occoneechee Mountain State Natural Area Wayfinding, rules, and stewardship signage at • Downtown destinations access points • Nearby neighborhoods and open spaces Potential Constructability Challenges: Total Length Sensitive, thoughtful floodplain trail design —3 miles (planning length) Adjacent private lands needing early coordination for access/privacy buffers Trail Type Limited parking capacity at some natural areas • Natural-surface trail (gravel/aggregate) • 8 ft typical width ALIGNMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN Environmental Protection ✓ Uses a floodplain-appropriate nature trail design & Climate Action with raised tread where needed Enables quiet, nature-based access directly into Healthy Community ✓ Hillsborough's greenway system Housing for All Indirect Benefit Serves nearby rural homes with a non-auto option into town amenities Extends off-road connections into Hillsborough Multi-modal Transportation ✓ Riverwalk and downtown Public Education/ ✓ Supports environmental learning via creek-adjacent Learning Community habitat access Diverse &Vibrant Economy ✓ Draws visitors and residents into downtown Hillsborough and local businesses 52 Draft Orange County Trails Plan f v Confluence Future Natural Area Northeast District Park Panther t Branch rant We (Roadroutevia ba on C Natural Area Perry Hills Mini Park Efland Cheeks , • Community Park M a,Park(Nato re trail via Duke En _ "'••••...•, a Kings I �SY tran easera: Highway • Park _ S eedwa r ® Soccer.com Center • .. 0t Seven ......� •��acural Pin Mile MST.yer:..�e Creek '0n Occoneechee Natural '� Mountain Area Cates too�� Creek Park Q d i •O ill to S I e MAP LEGEND 2 ,'` w 0 County Line co • Parks u o°moo •,,•�a°� c Blackwoo O Highways co ;ea m Farm Par t} Interstates •° �� — Streets MS*1 P ..eo d »» Railroads Streams o' P Lakes Wetlands . a Public&Conserved Land ./; S Towns/Cities e Elementary Schools n e Middle Schools e High Schools ® Colleges/Universities • — Existing Trail Segment Jones Creek Greenway Proposed Road Route \ Proposed Nature Trail n 1 Draft Orange County Trails Plan 1 53 CT Mebane to Hillsborough Segment 6A (alternate 1 of 3) establishes a separated sidepath along portions of US-70 to connect Mebane and Hillsborough with a consistent corridor. This segment is envisioned to tie into the Mebane sidewalks system along US-70 (East Center Street). PROJECT OVERVIEW Relevant Community Needs: Location Reliable city-to-town connectivity Along US-70 from Mebane east toward Safer mobility beside a high-speed roadway Hillsborough, tying into West Hill Ave / Frequent, visible crossings to reach jobs, Occoneechee Mountain and Riverwalk; exact schools, services alignment and endpoints to be confirmed through inter-agency and NCDOT coordination Required Structures&Crossings: • At-grade crossings with enhanced treatments Key Connections at major intersections • City of Mebane and Town of Hillsborough Median refuges/curb ramps where warranted • Perry Hills Mini Park Drainage and ditch modifications to maintain • Efland Cheeks Community Park separation and accessibility • Hillsborough Riverwalk • Schools and commercial areas along US-70 Potential Constructability Challenges: • NCDOT coordination for sidepath within/ Total Length adjacent to US-70 right-of-way —9 miles (planning length) Long distances between safe crossings • Space constraints due to utilities, slopes, and Trail Type driveway frequency • Shared-use path (paved, separated) or natural Coordination with the Town of Hillsborough on surface trail (gravel/aggregate); TBD internal connections to Riverwalk via roads and • 10 ft typical width sidewalks ALIGNMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN Environmental Protection ✓ Shifts short highway trips to a separated sidepath & Climate Action on US-70 Supports daily walking/rolling along a high-visibility Healthy Community ✓ corridor Housing for All Indirect Benefit Provides access from neighborhoods to jobs, schools, and parks Delivers a major city-to-town connection with safer Multi-modal Transportation ✓ intersection treatments Public Education/ ✓ Improves non-auto access to schools and library Learning Community destinations Diverse &Vibrant Economy ✓ Links Mebane/Hillsborough points of interest and supports local spending, potentially in two counties 54 Draft Orange County Trails Plan ;J 04�ay PA(NatureTra ' = Breeze "oo Farm Y { A . L VW Confluence Natural Area • i P Panther t ran, Branch Lake u I Are (Road route via on O Natural Michael Area Park ye Perry Hills a°e Mini Park Efland Cheeks to ills - . �roe Community Park : re v% U E Mebane to Kin gsgh Hi !�- •gyp) aY�Park(fYatu trail v aOuk� — ^� w EnerBYtra`.s Kings ^mission easement) Highway ' -_ -- Park Soccer.com Center w • • at jyeC i aural P�° Seven ... . a rnr"s ; ._•.� �� I Mile Occoneechee Creek on Mountain Natural roue ; MAP LEGEND T 0 County Line • Parks O Highways ,e l t} Interstates V • — Streets e Railroads QStreams `° `° Lakes • a `c.° • yea Wetlands a° • Public&Conserved Land Towns/Cities ° ® Elementary Schools I& Middle Schools c�a ® High Schools a ® Colleges/Universities — Existing Trail Segment — — Proposed Road Route l r Proposed Nature Trail Draft Orange County Trails Plan 1 55 [§JMebane to Kings Highway Park Segment 6B (alternate 2 of 3) delivers a natural-surface trail within/adjacent to the Duke Energy transmission easement, creating a quiet access between Mebane to Kings Highway Park. PROJECT OVERVIEW Relevant Community Needs: Location Quiet, low-impact off-road option parallel to From Mebane toward the Town of Hillsborough's road network Kings Highway Park, along a Duke Energy • Recreation facility access without a car transmission corridor and through wooded areas • Predictable routing through a long, continuous and open utility clearings adjacent to residential utility corridor spaces; exact alignment and endpoints to be confirmed through inter-agency and utility partner Required Structures&Crossings: coordination Localized boardwalks or elevated tread in low, wet areas (e.g., crossing at the Eno River) Key Connections • Sightline management and vegetation clearing • Residential areas in the City of Mebane within the utility corridor • Kings Highway Park • Wayfinding at access points and transitions into residential areas Total Length -8 miles (planning length) Potential Constructability Challenges: • Transmission clear-zone requirements and Trail Type potential need for switchbacks • Natural-surface trail (gravel/aggregate) • Privacy considerations near adjacent homes • 8 ft typical width where the corridor narrows • Coordination with Duke Energy and approval on potential use of transmission line corridor • Compliance with utility owner conditions ALIGNMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN Environmental Protection ✓ Reuses a utility corridor to reduce new land & Climate Action disturbance Provides quiet, restorative, off-road access to Kings Healthy Community ✓ Highway Park Housing for All Indirect Benefit Serves nearby neighborhoods with a low-impact nature route Offers an off-road alternative parallel to regional Multi-modal Transportation ✓ roadways Public Education/ ✓ Supports informal learning through access to Learning Community natural areas Diverse &Vibrant Economy ✓ Encourages park visitation and local recreation- based spending S6 Draft Orange County Trails Plan ;J 04�ay PA(NatureTra ' = Breeze "oo Farm Y { A . L VW Confluence Natural Area • i P Panther t ran, Branch Lake u I Are (Road route via on O Natural Michael Area Park ye Perry Hills a°e Mini Park Efland Cheeks to ills - . �roe Community Park : re v% U E Mebane to Kin gsgh Hi !�- •gyp) aY�Park(fYatu trail v aOuk� — ^� w EnerBYtra`.s Kings ^mission easement) Highway ' -_ -- Park Soccer.com Center w • • at jyeC i aural P�° Seven ... . a rnr"s ; ._•.� �� I Mile Occoneechee Creek on Mountain Natural roue ; MAP LEGEND T 0 County Line • Parks O Highways ,e l t} Interstates V • — Streets e Railroads QStreams `° `° Lakes • a `c.° • yea Wetlands a° • Public&Conserved Land Towns/Cities ° ® Elementary Schools I& Middle Schools c�a ® High Schools a ® Colleges/Universities — Existing Trail Segment — — Proposed Road Route l r Proposed Nature Trail Draft Orange County Trails Plan 1 57 m Lake Michael Park to Panther Branch Natural Area Segment 6C (alternate 3 of 3) provides a separated sidepath along Lebanon Road, linking Lake Michael Park with the Eno River Association's Panther Branch Natural Area and nearby neighborhoods. PROJECT OVERVIEW Relevant Community Needs: Location • Safer, low-stress park-to-preserve access Along Lebanon Rd between Lake Michael Park and • Non-auto connections for nearby residents Panther Branch Nature Preserve; exact endpoints • Legible route on a corridor with limited to be confirmed through inter-agency coordination shoulders and roadside constraints Key Connections Required Structures&Crossings: • Lake Michael Park Enhanced at-grade crossings at key • Panther Branch Natural Area intersections • Residential neighborhoods along Lebanon Rd Culvert extensions and ditch regrading to maintain separation Total Length Drainage improvements along roadside —6 miles (planning length) Potential ConstructabilityChallenges: Trail Type NCDOT coordination adjacent to Lebanon Rd • Space constraints created by utilities, slopes, • Shared-use path (paved, separated) and driveway density • 10 ft typical width Drainage and floodplain considerations near • small streams • Coordination with the City of Mebane on west terminus at Lake Michael ALIGNMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN Environmental Protection ✓ Reduces short car trips and encourages non-auto & Climate Action travel to parks and preserves Offers a family-friendly sidepath linking two key Healthy Community ✓ recreation spaces Housing for All Indirect Benefit Expands access for residents along Lebanon Road to recreation and nature Multi-modal Transportation ✓ Provides predictable, separated travel where shoulders are narrow Public Education/ ✓ Supports outdoor learning at both Lake Michael Learning Community and Panther Branch Diverse &Vibrant Economy ✓ Strengthens recreation visitation that benefits local businesses 58 Draft Orange County Trails Plan ;J 04�ay PA(NatureTra ' = Breeze "oo Farm Y { A . L VW Confluence Natural Area • i P Panther t ran, Branch Lake u I Are (Road route via on O Natural Michael Area Park ye Perry Hills a°e Mini Park Efland Cheeks to ills - . �roe Community Park : re v% U E Mebane to Kin gsgh Hi !�- •gyp) aY�Park(fYatu trail v aOuk� — ^� w EnerBYtra`.s Kings ^mission easement) Highway ' -_ -- Park Soccer.com Center w • • at jyeC i aural P�° Seven ... . a rnr"s ; ._•.� �� I Mile Occoneechee Creek on Mountain Natural roue ; MAP LEGEND T 0 County Line • Parks O Highways ,e l t} Interstates V • — Streets e Railroads QStreams `° `° Lakes • a `c.° • yea Wetlands a° • Public&Conserved Land Towns/Cities ° ® Elementary Schools I& Middle Schools c�a ® High Schools a ® Colleges/Universities — Existing Trail Segment — — Proposed Road Route l r Proposed Nature Trail Draft Orange County Trails Plan 1 59 (1:1 Cedar Grove Park to Kings Highway Park Segment 7 creates a natural-surface trail linking Cedar Grove Park to Kings Highway Park, following a mix of roadway and stream corridors near the Eno River to provide a quiet, natural connection between parks. PROJECT OVERVIEW Relevant Community Needs: Location • Access to parks for residents near Cedar Grove From Cedar Grove Park west,then south toward and eastern Cheeks Township Kings Highway Park, using waterways and wooded • Off-road option where roadway expansion is corridors near the West Fork Eno River and not feasible roadways near Cedar Grove Park; exact end points • Shaded, restorative trail experience near the to be confirmed during design West Fork of the Eno Reservoir Key Connections Required Structures&Crossings: • Cedar Grove Park Boardwalks/elevated tread near wet areas or • Kings Highway Park tributaries and reservoir • West Fork of the Eno Reservoir Drainage improvements and sustainable slopes • Confluence of the Eno Nature Preserve in forested areas • Panther Branch Natural Area Wayfinding to guide users between facilities • Duke Forest Rural neighborhoods along the corridor Potential ConstructabilityGhallenges: • Waterway sensitivity and potential permitting Total Length Limited parking capacity, especially at Kings —13 miles (planning length) Highway Park and reservoir • Multi-parcel easement needs across properties Trail Type Coordination with Duke Forest, Eno River • Natural-surface trail (gravel/aggregate) Association, and Town of Hillsborough on • 8 ft typical width access and connections ALIGNMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN Environmental Protection ✓ Follows wooded corridors near streams with & Climate Action low-impact tread Connects two park anchors with a shaded, Healthy Community ✓ restorative trail Housing for All Indirect Benefit Improves access for rural residents to nearby recreation facilities Offers an off-road option where roadway expansion Multi-modal Transportation ✓ is limited Public Education/ ✓ Enables nature-based learning and park Learning Community programming access Diverse &Vibrant Economy ✓ Supports visitation to park facilities and community spaces near Cedar Grove Park 60 Draft Orange County Trails Plan L� Cedar Grove Park LI o ive to�e (NatoreTr 4 °ark .P Y c Breeze �P a, Farm �a� ktoc atu e Y . o^off v Confluence Natural Area Nl Dis J P t Panther rant Branch IAre (Roadroutevia ba op O Natural 0 Area Perry Hills le to Mini Park Efland Cheeks `141fiftsbor u • ,, Community Park to " i. KingsHi4ig♦K,a a '70) MAP LEGEND Y a rk(Nature 0 County Line Energy.... Kings • Parks easem: Highway Park Riv rw Ik O Highways Soccer.com t} Interstates Center �° • r+''ie — Streets ., at ive t • Loral P`j� »» Railroads Seven .......ti �.�a v Mile ••Msr.se`��y`e Occoneechee Streams Creek "" Natural Mountain Lakes Area ® Wetlands arpOte Public&Conserved Land % Towns/Cities a Q ® Elementary Schools 3 i& Middle Schools ® High Schools d e Colleges/Universities — Existing Trail Segment aa — — Proposed Road Route .� •mil° i Proposed Nature Trail Draft Orange County Trails Plan 61 Little River Park to Cedar Grove Park Segment 8A (alternate 1 of 2) creates a nature trail connecting Little River Regional Park and Natural Area to Cedar Grove Park, linking two key recreation anchors in northern Orange County. PROJECT OVERVIEW Relevant Community Needs: Location • Nature-based access between two parks From Little River Regional Park and Natural • Conservation-aligned routing where paved Area south/southeast toward Cedar Grove Park, options are inappropriate generally following wooded corridors, existing • Reliable off-road alternative to rural road travel conservation lands, and connections near the County's future Northeast District Park and the Required Structures&Crossings: WC Breeze Farm Incubator; exact end points to be Boardwalks/elevated tread at wet/stream areas confirmed during design Sustainable grades in hilly or wooded sections • Wayfinding through forested/open-space Key Connections transitions • Little River Regional Park and Natural Area Potential Constructability Challenges: • Cedar Grove Park • Strict conservation easements at Little River; • Breeze Farm and nearby rural neighborhoods limited room for expansion or paved facilities • Future Northeast District Park • Park isolation, requiring careful access planning and trailhead placement Total Length Multiple rural parcel negotiations and creek �14 miles (planning length) area permitting needs Trail Type • Natural-surface trail (gravel/aggregate) • 8 ft typical width ALIGNMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN Environmental Protection ✓ Respects strict conservation easements and & Climate Action sensitive creek corridors Provides a peaceful, off-road link between two Healthy Community ✓ recreation anchors Housing for All Indirect Benefit Expands access for rural homes lacking nearby parks and recreation facilities Offers a nature-based alternative to longer roadside Multi-modal Transportation ✓ travel Public Education/ ✓ Connects users to varied forest and wetland Learning Community habitats Diverse &Vibrant Economy ✓ Supports local recreation-driven visitation to nearby community spaces 62 Draft Orange County Trails Plan Cedar Grove Park U o ive A„ 'Dark to ce Little a� River Breeze Regional F PD Park J �r� ` e` k to C a Goo P a�kf atu P..D ® � a ay Future ice Northeast rea District Park MAP LEGEND 0 County Line • Parks Panther Branch O Highways Natural Interstates Area Streets Railroads Streams Lakes �• R�ve��, kNatyr Wetlands MS rate Par `Oaf errdl �roo°` O Public&Conserved Land Towns/Cities gs Way - Eno River � r Elementary Schools Riverwalk State Park rk ( t Middle Schools S eedwa High Schools • Colleges/Universities .��atiural P� ' — Existing Trail Segment sr.S `\e Occoneechee — — Proposed Road Route an Mountain Proposed Nature Trail Draft Orange County Trails Plan 1 63 m Little River Park to Cedar Grove Park Segment 8B (alternate 2 of 2) establishes a sidepath along existing roads between Little River Regional Park and Natural Area and Cedar Grove Park, offering connectivity where conservation limits off-road trails. PROJECT OVERVIEW Relevant Community Needs: Location • Predictable,year-round travel route Along roadway corridors linking Little River • Safer walking/rolling conditions along narrow Regional Park and Cedar Grove Park, routed near rural roads Northeast Park and Breeze Farm; exact end points • Access to parks and community destinations to be confirmed during design especially near Cedar Grove Park Key Connections Required Structures&Crossings: • Little River Regional Park and Natural Area At-grade crossings at key intersections with • Cedar Grove Park enhanced safety treatments • Breeze Farm and nearby rural neighborhoods Driveway/ditch modifications to maintain • Future Northeast District Park separation • Drainage improvements along roadside swales Total Length Potential Constructability Challenges: —14 miles (planning length) • Nature trail (Segment 8A) preference—which emerged through engagement—despite Trail Type constraints near areas like Confluence of the Eno • 10 ft typical width • • Shared-use path (natural surface, separated) Variable roadside conditions• Privacy considerations in rural residential segments • Likely to take many years to secure the needed trail corridor ALIGNMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN Environmental Protection ✓ Uses existing roads where off-road routes face & Climate Action conservation limits Expands predictable, year-round access to parks Healthy Community ✓ and community destinations Housing for All Indirect Benefit Connects rural neighborhoods with local facilities without requiring a car Provides safer travel along narrow roads with Multi-modal Transportation ✓ limited shoulders Public Education/ ✓ Links to future Northeast District Park for learning Learning Community and recreation Diverse &Vibrant Economy ✓ Enhances access to local farms, venues, and community destinations 64 Draft Orange County Trails Plan Cedar Grove Park U o ive A„ 'Dark to ce Little a� River Breeze Regional F PD Park J �r� ` e` k to C a Goo P a�kf atu P..D ® � a ay Future ice Northeast rea District Park MAP LEGEND 0 County Line • Parks Panther Branch O Highways Natural Interstates Area Streets Railroads Streams Lakes �• R�ve��, kNatyr Wetlands MS rate Par `Oaf errdl �roo°` O Public&Conserved Land Towns/Cities gs Way - Eno River � r Elementary Schools Riverwalk State Park rk ( t Middle Schools S eedwa High Schools • Colleges/Universities .��atiural P� ' — Existing Trail Segment sr.S `\e Occoneechee — — Proposed Road Route an Mountain Proposed Nature Trail Draft Orange County Trails Plan 1 65 O MST - Eno River State Park to Durham Segment 9 extends the Mountains to Sea Trail east from new sections of Eno River State Park near Occoneechee Speedway toward Durham on a natural-surface alignment, using creek corridors and utility easements where feasible. PROJECT OVERVIEW Relevant Community Needs: Location • Quiet MST experience away from roadways From existing trails near Occoneechee Speedway Reliable off-road connection to Durham County east/northeast toward the Durham line, using creek Clear wayfinding at dispersed access points alignments and feasible utility easements through Eno River State Park to create a continuous MST Required Structures&Crossings: approach; exact alignment and endpoints to be Short boardwalks/elevated tread at flood-prone confirmed through inter-agency coordination sections • Safety and wayfinding signage at trailheads Key Connections Vegetation management along utility corridors • Eno River State Park trailheads (Pleasant Green, Potential Constructability Challenges: Fews Ford) • Switchback needs on transmission corridor slopes • Trails connecting to Hillsborough Riverwalk • Flood-prone segments requiring careful design • Rural neighborhoods • Limited facilities at some trailheads • Durham County MST system Privacy buffers near Pleasant Green residences Total Length • Pleasant Green Road bridge replacement —12 miles (planning length) NOTE: This trail will be located almost exclusively within Eno River State Park. NC State Parks and Trail Type the Eno River Association will serve as lead entities • Natural-surface trail (gravel/aggregate) for design and construction, with coordination and • 3-5 ft typical width support from Friends of the MST. ALIGNMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY STRATEGIC PLAN Environmental Protection ✓ Reuses creek corridors and utility easements for & Climate Action low-impact MST routing Delivers a quiet, scenic MST experience for hikers, Healthy Community ✓ walkers, and runners Housing for All Indirect Benefit Offers rural neighborhoods access to nature and nearby trailheads Extends MST across county lines, tying into regional Multi-modal Transportation ✓ trail planning Public Education/ ✓ Supports environmental education via state-park Learning Community trailheads at Pleasant Green and Fews Ford Diverse &Vibrant Economy ✓ Draws users from within and beyond Orange County who support recreation, parks, and local destinations 66 Draft Orange County Trails Plan ay Future Northeast District Park PP o Ripe Nat msi State Pam ratol hro tp. I Eno River • S eedwa State Park ¢ato mural Pt 1 Occoneechee r Mountain Cates Creek Park ■ m 0 ill to G N B+' S MAP LEGEND A Brumley t »« 0 County Line ° Forest • • Parks v Nature zg Preserve �� O Highways c Blackwood ay� Duke Forest C3 Interstates �m Farm Park ,n°• Streets Railroads r° o Streams do ° � Lakes O iN� Wetlands y -.o o Public&Conserved Land Q Towns/Cities ® Elementary Schools ® Middle Schools '© Hollow Rock ® High Schools Nature Parkj ® Colleges/Universities ' — Existing Trail Segment ' Jones Creek ♦ — — Proposed Road Route Greenway I Proposed Nature Trail Draft Orange County Trails Plan 1 67 Trail Segment Prioritization Prioritizing each • • their considerations • r -r to create a alternates, where applicable) • Orange County transparent, repeatable prioritized • der. turn a long wish list into a realistic, buildable .••-r or existing segments phase for • - • Prioritization directs receive new information -.g., feasibility updates, time • resources to the segments that deliver new public r rawards), the same the most impactby • •. r •r can be • update the ranking so MST links), strengthening connections • existing •- • • the public can see how community destinations, • advancing projects order evolves. Additional • r about the that are most feasible to design and fund. • process is avail. r - in Appendix data-driven ranking also builds trust as it allows the community to see howr • How Priorities Were Set The team combined professional research and analysis with community input to rank trail segments in a way that reflects what residents value and what can be delivered. Prioritization followed a four step process: 01 ANALYST SCORING Each segment was scored against five criteria on a scale from 1-5. • Local Need: Improves access for residents with the fewest existing options • Cost Efficiency: Value relative to planning-level cost • Connectivity to Existing Places: Links to parks, trails, schools, libraries, transit, etc. • Alignment with Guiding Principles: Safety, access & equity, wellness, local character, longevity, travel options • Level of Community Support: Strength of support or concern observed during engagement 02 PUBLIC INPUT The community reacted to the draft order of priority (based on analyst scores) in two formats. • Dot Voting: Participants indicated whether each segment should move up (green dot), stay (blue dot), or move down (red dot) in the priority list. • Online Survey Ranking: Every respondent ranked all segments from highest to lowest priority. 03 COMPARISON Because the three inputs used different scales, scores were normalized to a common 0-100 scale then weighted by depth and completeness of the data so no single source dominated. • Online Survey Rankings: 50% (most complete dataset; everyone ranked every segment) • Dot Voting: 30% (strong qualitative signal from engaged participants) • Initial Analyst Score: 20%(keeps feasibility and principles in view without overpowering community input) 04 COMBINED PRIORITIZATION SCORE The weighted values were summed to create one Combined Prioritization Score per segment. That score was used to produce the final sequence for design and funding, detailed on page 69. 68 Draft Orange County Trails Plan The list on the left represents the Combined Prioritization Score for all proposed trail Priority Order of Segments segments. Please note that while there were no ties in O MST- Eno River State Park to Durham the scores as of March 2026, o (Nature trail) any tied scores in the future a should be broken first by a OChapel Hill to Hillsborough (Road route via higher local need, then by 2 NC 86 & Waterstone Dr to Cates Creel< Parl<) connectivity, and finally by cost efficiency. OMST-Seven Mile Creek Natural Area to Hillsborough Riverwalk (Nature trail) 4B MST-Alamance County to Seven Mile Creek Natural Area (Nature trail) OUNC Campus to University Station . : .. -. . - (Rail to Trail via NCRR CoGen Line) - •.• - - •- .• ElCarrboro to Hillsborough (Road route via Old NC 86) • • OCedar Grove Park to Kings Highway Park . . . -. . • (Nature Trail via Eno River) . •• . • • - 6B Mebane to Kings Highway Park* (Nature - trail via Dul<e Energy transmission easement) . . • - .- 6A Mebane to Hillsborough (Road route via US- •. . -. • • . . 70 to West Hill Ave/Occoneechee Mtn) • OMST-Alamance County to Seven Mile Creek • - - • - • Natural Area (Road route) OLittle River Park to Cedar Grove Park (Nature trail via Northeast Parl< & Breeze Farm) Lake Michael Park to Panther Branch a Natural Area (Road route via Lebanon Rd) N uj U Little River Park to Cedar Grove Park J (Road route via Northeast Park & Breeze Farm) 41.1AA, MM4%, W A 4 WES OrW P 14� M Twill S V1 Y4 01 rko, t A 15 7 4. IN, vx 4. �;�on Implein!enta 4 A vision for trail connectivity in Orzinge County can only become reality if there is a practical path forward. Implementation bridges ideA with construction by first identifying partnerships and resources, then detailing the steps required to bring trail projects to life while maintaining coordination across jurisdictions and agencies. This section outliries how Orange County can advance the,Tra' ils Plant hrpffgh jA- pl!�ascollaboration, and funding strat It offe ida, coordinated action so the County can-,-- '01 d netted trail-network over time. %A A- 44, 711FIR 70-- Draft Orange County Trails Plan �9.'_r '�. ,.i�.:+s.l•"4'^ �.�� r�'• "i./8..a� t R r.�f 3, ..� i ram`" v�- .� +' Y .. jr •e _ fya a � _L ..,7� .-7 � 'P��• ;.. •t• Yam, r r �:� - - O+ �. " V IF IA I 016 Av :ram 4 "` . • , _ ' ,.•fir 'a. _ r r f _ .` � � `� � ,+ i. #. � a I d r 4^ •� j• ,' .fix I v y • `' � _ - _�lh �, - - E`er ! \\ � •�, ._ .• 'f�_ �YY Iv 410 R 11 T Y. r �..�• r •. • Pictured:Historic e hee Speedway Trail- fr Orange County Traits Plan 71 �r - _ _ .�• .. ,� a �. Project Phasing Building a connected county trail network requires a phased approach that balances readiness,funding opportunities, and community impact. Since each corridor will require more detailed feasibility and funding coordination, the timeline for implementation may be extended. The framework described below provides a practical roadmap for advancing Orange County Trails Plan projects over time and reflects best practices from statewide and regional trail initiatives in North Carolina.9,10 Orange County's trail network can advance through three phases: near-term (1-5 years), mid-term (5-10 years), and long-term (10 years or more). These categories recognize that some segments can progress quickly through existing partnerships, partial connections, and data, while others require additional coordination, environmental review, and/or substantial landowner outreach. PHASE 1 PHASE 2 Near-Term Opportunities(1-5 years) Mid-Term Opportunities(5-10 years) In the early years, Orange County can focus on Once early studies are complete and partnerships the projects that are most feasible in the short are in place, Orange County can begin advancing term due to existing partner relationships, simpler and delivering more complex trail projects. State design needs, or strong community support. Phase and regional plans often use this middle window to 1 is also an opportunity to secure state and federal deliver long connections, town-to-town segments, funding and build capacity for implementation.10,11 and projects involving multiple agencies or jurisdictions.' The following activities are well-suited for Phase 1, especially for establishing consistent project The following work may be included in Phase 2. By delivery in future years: the end of this phase,the County and community Completing feasibility studies for the highest can expect to see meaningful improvements to • ranked segments on page 6911 connectivity and enhanced daily use. • Proceeding with full design and engineering • Initiating environmental studies, emergency for segments with established access or clear access opportunities, and preliminary right-of feasibility way/easement conversations Strengthening coordination with key partners Beginning construction of longer or • more complex trail corridors that require (municipalities, NCDOT, OWASA,Triangle coordination with multiple landowners or Land Conservancy, NC State Parks, Eno River Association, Duke Forest, Friends of the MST) utility providers Beginning interdepartmental coordination with Pursuing easements or land acquisition along • DEAPR, Planning, and the County Attorney's waterways and proposed links in MST routes Office on future processes for accepting and Implementing segments that tie directly into maintaining trail dedications associated with roadway projects, utility upgrades, or regional development approvals transportation efforts • Submitting applications to state and federal Building signature segments that anchor the funding programs listed on page 76 evolving county network • Constructing shorter, lower-complexity trail segments where design is straightforward • Enhancing existing facilities with wayfinding, signage, and small scale safety improvements 72 Draft Orange County Trails Plan PHASE 3 Long-Term Opportunities(10 years or more) The final phase focuses on the trail segments First 12 Months: that require the most time, coordination, and/ or funding to become a reality. Statewide trail Recommended projects frequently place these on the long-term timeline due to extensive permitting, thoughtful To build early momentum, Orange County landowner engagement, or investments in can begin with the following focused action infrastructure required.' items that lay the groundwork f• design, coordination, and funding across the priority The following activities are realistic for Phase 3, trail segments: with the goal of completing the broader Trails Plan r all vision of recreational and functional connectivity Confirmsegment ' in within Orange County. corridors ' ' = •. • • inter-agency • Moving forward with trails in sensitive coordination and with the :• environmental areas where permitting, st estimates elevated structures, or floodplain solutions are Update planning-level ' needed or ''justments (based on feedback). • Coordinating on and delivering regional r the projects that connect Orange County tofeasibility ' neighboring counties and larger-scale, top-rankedil = statewide trail systems Initiate early landowner • Completing segments that are dependent on along feasibleil and MST future development, roadway reconstruction, connections. or major infrastructure improvements 0 Convene quarterly coordination • Adding access points and trailhead meetingstownsith ' key '' enhancements that are best delivered once the 0 Prepare grant , competitive foundational trail network is in place programs. roadway. Align trail timing with resurfacing, utility work, and park / expansion projects. 11 Z Begin developing an operations and maintenance •iapproachfor new trail segments. SOURCES Qfi + •dq bYf PwPlanning Annual 10 North ^" •• 2024 Carolina 11 D• •• al.f^ Planning & Studies NZ— Tree-lined, paved surface trail at Gold Park,observed during Trails Plan fieldwork Draft Orange County Trails Plan 1 73 Project Phasing (cont.) The table below shows how each proposed segment fits into the near-, mid-, and long-term phases. Recommended Rationale a Phase 1 UNC Campus to University Station Rail permissions, crossings, Phase 2 and UNC energy decisions (Rail to Trail via NCRR CoGen Line) increase complexity Chapel Hill to Hillsborough (CoGen to Cates Major road corridor needs 2 Creek Park via NC 86 &Waterstone Dr) Phase 2 coordinated design Carrboro to Hillsborough Many driveways and narrow 3 (Road route via Old NC 86) Phase 2 roadway edges to resolve MST-Alamance County to Seven Mile Creek Road-based MST requires 4A Natural Area (Road route) Phase 1 multi-party coordination MST-Alamance County to Seven Mile Creek Adopted MST route; 4B Natural Area (Nature trail) Phase 2* feasible early segment MST-Seven Mile Creek Natural Area to Strong community support 5 Hillsborough Riverwalk (Nature trail) Phase 1 and clear connection Mebane to Hillsborough (Road route via US- High-speed roadway that 6A 70 to West Hill Ave/Occoneechee Mtn) Phase 2 needs safety upgrades 6B Mebane to Kings Highway Park(Nature trail Phase 3 Utility corridor constraints via Duke Energy transmission easement) require longer timeline 6C Lake Michael Park to Panther Branch Phase 2 Straightforward roadside Natural Area (Road route via Lebanon Rd) improvements expected Cedar Grove Park to Kings Highway Park Park-to-park link with (Nature Trail via Eno River) Phase 2 moderate constraints Little River Park to Cedar Grove Park Conservation limits delay 8A (Nature trail via Northeast Park& Breeze Farm) Phase 3 near- or mid-term work Little River Park to Cedar Grove Park Feasible road route with 8B (Road route via Northeast Park& Breeze Farm) Phase 2 manageable challenges 9 MST- Eno River State Park to Durham Phase 1 High priority MST (Nature trail) connection opportunity *The portion of Segment 4B south of Buckhorn Road,where it merges with 74 Craft Orange County Trails Plan Segment 4A,will advance in Phase 1 due to ongoing MST development efforts. Partnerships With a phased roadmap in place,the next step is understanding who can help advance projects and how they can be funded. The most effective trail systems are built through coordinated efforts between counties, municipalities, state agencies, regional conservancies, and utility partners—each contributing distinct capabilities, relationships, and resources.9,11 In Orange County, partnerships support land access, stewardship, inter-agency coordination, and competitive funding while helping new trails integrate with parl<s, roadways, water resources, and conservation priorities across jurisdictional boundaries. The following partners will play I<ey roles in delivering both near-term and long-term segments in the Orange County Trails Plan. COUNTY LEADERSHIP NC State Parks/NC Trails Program: Provides • Orange County DEAPR: Provides project guidance for natural-surface trails, MST management, stewardship of county resources, routing, and state-level technical,funding, and coordination with other departments, and implementation support.9,10 operations and maintenance oversight. NCDOT: Offers technical support, corridor • Other County Departments: Transportation, planning, multi-modal guidance, and Planning, and the County Attorney's Office coordinates shared-use path feasibility within support development-related reviews and roadway rights-of-way.11 Discussions will be coordination. critical for coordinating potential road routes. • Orange County Sheriffs Office and REGIONAL&CONSERVATION PARTNERS Emergency Services: Support safety planning Triangle Land Conservancy(TLC):Coordinates for crossings, access points, and emergency access and alignment near conservation lands response considerations along trails. and supports nature-based trail stewardship. MUNICIPAL PARTNERS OWASA: Manages water-supply lands where • Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, trailheads or access must be carefully sited; Hillsborough,and City of Mebane: Critical provides guidance for protection of sensitive for town-to-town and greenway system water resources. connections, rights-of-way integration, and Duke Forest: Manages forest lands where public engagement within town limits. coordination may be needed for trail interfaces or access points. • Eno River Association: Supports coordination for trails within the Eno River Basin. Partnership Benefits Friends of the MST: Ensures alignment Speeds up project delivery consistency, signage standards, and through coordinated efforts long-distance connectivity for statewide MST routing.' OBoosts funding success with unified, multi-partner applications UTILITY PARTNERS • Duke Energy: Manages transmission Expands access options easements where trails may be feasible with via shared land and easements design accommodations and clear-zone requirements. Supports long-term trail upkeep through shared stewardship Additional private utilities may assist with siting, relocations, or corridor coordination. Draft Orange County Trails Plan 75 Funding Opportunities Trail implementation relies on a mix of federal, state, local, and partnership-driven funding streams. North Carolina's trail funding options include both dedicated statewide programs and competitive national grants administered through state agencies.lo,ll FEDERAL SOURCES LOCAL SOURCES • Rebuilding American Infrastructure with County capital improvement funding (CIP) Sustainability& Equity(RAISE): Supports • Municipal bond programs and greenway transformative multi-modal projects. allocations • Transportation Alternatives(TA): • Public works or parks allocations tied to Administered through NCDOT and MPOs to fund shared-use paths,trail crossings, and roadway or park expansion safety improvements. PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS • Congestion Mitigation&Air Quality Other sources within the community, such as the (CMAQ): Eligible for bicycle/pedestrian examples listed below, may be able to provide facilities that reduce vehicle emissions. sponsorship, land access, and/or volunteer labor to support trail development. STATE SOURCES • Conservancies • Parks and Recreation Trust Fund(PARTF): • Non-profit partners Supports park access, greenways, and • Corporate sponsors recreation facilities across local governments. • Local businesses/employers • Recreational Trails Program (RTP): • Healthcare institutions Provides planning and construction grants • Philanthropic foundations for natural-surface and shared-use trails, • Trails friends groups administered by NC State Parks.10 • Complete the Trails Program (CTP): Supports state trail segments and connections to statewide trail corridors such as MST.lo u.. is ♦ - - %l3 �. _ ��- � North Carolina Statt Park ..m.. T.,. -- wx J n * F„ Natural surface trail and informational signage indicating arrival at Eno River State Park,observed during Trails Plan fieldwork 76 Draft Orange County Trails Plan Pictured: Little River Regional Park Draft Orange County Trails Plan 77 Implementation Plan The implementation plan outlines how Trails Plan STEP1 segments can move forward from concept to Maintain an Active Project Pipeline construction. It builds on the phasing framework, To ensure continuous progress is made, the prioritization process, and partnerships identified County should keep multiple segments in various on page 75 to ensure investments are strategic, stages of development.This may include preparing fundable, and aligned with statewide trail segment-level feasibility studies for top priority planning practices. Implementation in Orange corridors, evaluating emergency access and County will be an iterative, multi-year process. response considerations, advancing environmental Each step contributes to a consistent timeline studies and early engineering to minimize risk, and of trail projects advancing through feasibility, leveraging concurrent roadway or utility projects environmental review, design,funding, and to incorporate sidepaths or crossings.10 delivery.1,10,11 STEP 2 Trail implementation in North Carolina is also Coordinate Across Departments&jurisdictions shaped by applicable state statutes governing Regular coordination meetings between Orange public access, easements, liability, and greenway County DEAPR, Planning,Transportation, and development. These statutes guide how local public safety agencies, as well as municipal governments like Orange County acquire land partners and NCDOT, will help align timelines, rights and coordinate trail corridors, and will be share data, and integrate trail work into capital foundational during future feasibility, design, and projects and permitting windows. permitting phases. STEP 3 Together,the eight implementation steps Continue Community Engagement provide a clear path to begin delivering a safe, Sustain concise, accessible engagement at key connected trail network across Orange County. milestones (feasibility, design, pre-construction) to ensure segments reflect user needs, using a mix of in-person and virtual methods from Section 03 to prioritize rural residents and historically underserved communities. Engagement efforts should also be attentive to social justice and equity considerations, particularly around access, comfort, and safety for all trail users. STEP 4 Engage Landowners& Partners Early Secure relationships with landowners,TLC, OWASA, and private utilities to identify feasible alignments, reduce acquisition needs, and build trust. Early engagement helps avoid delays in the design, permitting, and construction processes. STEP 5 Strengthen Grant Readiness Federal and state trail programs increasingly reward projects that arrive with strong documentation, cost estimates, partnership 78 Draft Orange County Trails Plan agreements, and demonstrated community benefit. This may include maintaining updated planning-level cost estimates, preparing standard Issues for Further Study grant materials (maps, benefit narratives, letters of support), and aligning timing with various As trail _• ments move into feasibility and funding sources' cycles.10 Most state and federal design, several topics _• i _ deeper trail programs also require a local financial match, evaluation, policy development, • which should be planned for during early project cross-departmental coordination: budgeting. Wayfincling& User Experience: STEP6 Develop • •. • • Integrate Trails into Capital & Development branding, " • •. • Cycles • • , • �• • • Some segments can advance more quickly when -• _ • • improve • • digital coordinated with other scheduled improvement projects like road resurfacing, water/sewer clarity for county trail network users. upgrades, park expansions, or new development.11 Sustainable Trail Design: •_ ntify Coordination with other ongoing NCDOT planning opportunities to incorporate design best efforts can also position road route segments to practices for erosion control, material move forward when roadway projects are already nd minimizing environmental slated for design or construction. Aligning these impacts especially timelines can reduce costs and accelerate delivery. corridors. STEP 7 Build Long-Term Operations&Maintenance Implementation Capacity: Assess (O&M)Capacity _,ff roles, capacity,• needed tond any additional support.•• • _ Trails require predictable and reliable stewardship. • _ project delivery . • ongoing' rm A long-term O&M framework may include shared Trails coordination. maintenance agreements with municipalities, conservancies, and trail support organizations 0 Transit Connections: Explore ways (e.g., Friends of the MST), as well as adoption to strengthen trail links to key transit programs, volunteer stewardship partnerships, and stops •. ility investments, annual O&M budgeting for new trail connections. •p•rting multi-modal access. SItrss 0 Accessibility Definition: Clarify Monitor Progress& Update Priorities • applies t• Implementation should adapt as new information specific segments and determine becomes available. A short annual review between where D; _ i _ trail design DEAPR, municipal partners, NCDOT, and the Orange County Parks & Recreation Council could be used to update phasing, incorporate new ExploreBRT Coordination: whether opportunities, and adjust priorities as conditions Bus Rapid • •• rs create change. The Trails Plan itself should also be opportunities forshared-use paths or revisited periodically to reflect completed projects, alternative trail connections. emerging needs, and changes in local or regional priorities. Draft Orange County Trails Plan 1 79 '?�1' A+ N• 7 y '�`,'F �' '' y malt. ftt„'1 #ass � OR, _..rti+ C - J f �! a' •i � s} wj k it 'W.7 TAT p,:ta` .7A •r4'i:.iit}=e± ") ��,`va� ,� :fir k � � _ •�:Id �1� -. gar t{r'• p , "�- a� t �a 53 >r .g ' lip Do 4 Al Sk ,71 io - vl!►�y'Y!A. �� '� 3 } ter• x��,ti'! -�T'•- ... �F`,}� ,� •. � i''.t`".1` '�:.� � °irk ri, "yam,� • F -� • rl 4S ] y'. n *'yNn .y1�i� a,^y �1 �1' ti Si a h4 f rr A I Types o ihili' 7 ; ` B I Site VisifNbtes =':� -� a rrx,�S.• ', `� • . C I Public Engagement Docum tati'on� _ , _ r- •; D I Trail Segment Prioritizatio Documentation r E I Cost Estimate r � } p.'+..� Yam'+-( p�• +�' 3 ZV -tow T ,i '�i..-. .. 7 f. �. .- ��� -P':s.: -• v�lF`�art ti• 1M r 4��� )�j��.,; ♦ ~is �:� �I - _..- �"-r; , t;.,� _ - ,fl. _- � _ ,�T'T-lam-•'��5, 4 • � .� '..�'� - Yam'*{'•' {•- �<<r��J - �r,- ��r._ +L�_�•- �•� •fir �-:•�'y ``c F y� r• L �rc,r �,E.d�rlY' '-T•c 'ti y,`r• ••tea "I x - -- � - ""•'.�•�•_r - __ _ ,� . = T . if ~: =80 -Draft Orange CoUnty Trails Plan L1� 1 e; 4 g tla i .1 A �• - - .l p,er 1 \ ``,q!�i'•a� c' TI[- , 1. � � �V r 1` ,1 i -"•,`. .. l - ' hl et A. �yt �,141 �T �_ �� st .•• f','Sfsa � �,N r - ''�^-- -- m. ,r -' - ' ,. - .' rs•[M - - 4 -ter ON 3511 _� f 1.1'�� ;r'r* _,,..ate - - �• ,�-�a _ .:• �� `\ -i-e t - `^'�_ :- f � fir,'ji''�',f.,+.s�� u(,:~ �.r•c �< '� _ `"SAY - '"�- 'f ` � �' \ "��a..�+ra w `�"� F .R"Pr ��� w'#.Yy:�.�i'- � ,'�• 1- � :,;w yt �� r c'f't ^'• �.J�L Vr�:�r_t! � c .'4Y't, ��~ I` }' r, :h ��'�w M a \^, t' r 'v �A�y. r�+-AFL+� T•1 f-' �.{�}s(: gip.. _ ��' 1- - �e.TM' - * ..,;�� i-r'Y:.+.'��!`. /M1_ ���•a--v�l�� •;�, y,'�J ram.- r,it y _a"' ��-." r,Y ��k �'�. J 1 '/ -�` 'V• �` '�`.. r �•����' �t+_,A� .1-41�why' '�' •;-1` _ � .�• `� t -fir\�1 ��. y`•a+4. �r�� � � � �• �}^•�`� ttt f'. _.' — � _ �...ti.f,1 ��Y�.� •'_r',�`•tea:'`ti i� 1� '� �11 1 �1 -�.� .� � _ ' Pictured:Hlstor'rc Occo' �'•pj�. Y. - .ram \` _ }TRl�Jr ta•-`9'yl��f. �.`'� �:� :, �� .� � a