HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-30-1999 - 11
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 30, 1999
Action Agenda
Item No.
SUBJECT: CORBIN DOWNS TRAFFIC/NCDOT REPORT
FISCAL IMPACT
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Report Craig Benedict, Director Ext. 2592
TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough
732 -8181
Chapel Hill
968 -4501
Durham
688 -7331
Mebane
336 - 227 -2031
PURPOSE: To present the preliminary traffic report from NCDOT on Corbin Downs.
BACKGROUND: TRANSPORTATION The preliminary review by NCDOT was completed on
September 9, 1999 which was one day after our joint meeting. NCDOT analysis was based on the
original Hillsborough Place proposal which had more residential and less office. Even without the
inclusion of the additional traffic generated by the change to Corbin Downs and an increase in office and
retail development, NCDOT's comments were extensive and preliminary. An abridged version follows:
Old 86 - South Access
• Recommends a complete Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) to include I -40 /Old 86 interchange
• Suggest a multi -lane divided highway with a minimum of 1000 feet between median openings
• Recommends the alignment of the existing west side Old 86 service road with new project
• Recommends developer to do multilane from project access to I -40
Old 86 — North Access at Lafayette Drive
• Concurs with locational alignments
• Recommends full intersection length including all right and left turn lanes
Other
• Concern about internal project road connector between Old and New 86 being inadequate for NCDOT
standards based on only two lanes and closely spaced median breaks
• Recommend the I- 85/Old 86 interchange be included in the TIA
As of this letter date, the developer has forwarded a revised analysis for NCDOT review in Raleigh.
Orange County planning staff agrees with all prior NCDOT recommendations dated 9/9/99and where
NCDOT has limitations on their authority to ask for transportation improvements, both Orange County
and Hillsborough can require an augmented design and construction.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: A preliminary fiscal impact statistical report is attached. The tables note
expenditures (Table 1) and revenues (Table 2).
The calculations are basic since the information, service populations and budget are in the formative
stages of development. Non - residential fiscal impacts have never been generated previously and my
office is in the process of receiving input from all departments on the impacts of non - residential activity.
A model could then be more appropriately developed. Irrespective of the basal nature of the tables and
calculations, the numbers do show that development in most cases is not a revenue windfall.
The Town of Hillsborough analysis showed a deficit in early years with an eventual surplus in later years
which is primarily due to their provision of water and sewer. Hillsborough administration (as noted in
their fiscal report and presentation) and I will clearly add our disclaimers to the varied assumptions that
are made in this analysis. I believe property values are high and the feasibility of the scales of non-
residential development is questionable; both of which could distort revenue projections higher.
.,RECOMMENDATION(S): Receive as a report.
V
2
V)
1. Community Maintenance Total
2. General Administration Total
3. Taxation and Records Total
4. Community Planning Total
5. Human Service Total
Social Services Total
Health Total
Other (Aging, Library,
P &R, etc.)
6. Public Safety Total
7. Public Works Total
8. Education Total
9. Non - Departmental Total
Total Expenditures
Expenditures
1999 -00 Manager
Recommendation
$ 1,139,006
$ 3,584,887
$ 2,305,096
$ 2,099,527
$22,112,944
$12,280,575
$ 4,757,088
$ 5,075,281
Underline = applicable service population
TABLE 1. EXPENDITURES
Percentage Per Capita @ 110,000
1.13
3.56
2.29
2.09
21.98
12.20
4.73
5.04
10.35
32.59
20.96
$19.09
201.03
$111.64
$43.25
$46.14
Per Capita @ 45,000
$25.31
$79.66
$51.22
46.66
$491.40
$272.90
$105.71
$112.78
NOTE
25a /o'
10V
Per Capita
Serv. Pop. Mix
$10.35
$32.59
$20.96
$11.67
$201.03
$ 8,992,764
8.94
$81.75
$199.84
65a/o' $129.89
$ 3,431,552
3.41
$31.20
12626
$76.26
$36,580,779
36.35 _
$322.55
$812.91
$812.91
$20,374,947
20.25
$185.23
$452.78
40e /a' $185.23
$100,621,502
100
$914.74
$2,236.03
$1,293.49
1-25% Share of County (item is Services) costs relates to building inspection servicm .
coordination with regional transportation planning and economic development associated
services.
t-65% Share of County (Item 6 Services) costs relates to partial Sheriff impacts, and complete
EMS impacts-
'F-405% Share of County non -dept costs relates to partial impacts to outside agency funding, debt service
(schools, countywide buildings, etc.).
° -109% Share of County for the availability of day time services such as library, bus, parks & ree
Per Capita Non -
Resident
11.67
11.28
99.92
122.87
Resident Population
Type
NO. PPH
TOTAL
Single Family
180 x 3.5 =
630
Town house
91 x 2.5 =
228
MF Apts
40 x 2.0 =
920
Assisted Living
100 x 1.0 =
100
Retirement
60 x 1.0 =
60
TOTAL
1,938
Subtotal Cost to provide Services to Resident Pop = (1,293.49 x 1,938) _ $2,506,784.00
Non - Resident Population
Trips/Day
Employees 4,632
9,264
Patrons 13,052
26,103
TOTAL 17,684
35,367
(17,694 _ 4)
= 4,421 x $122.87 = $543,208.27
GT $3,049,992.27
TABLE 2.
REVENUE
1999 -00 Manager Recommendation Percentage
A.
Total Property Tax
$64,872,798
B.
Total Sales tax
$13,948,795
C.
Total Licenses and permits
$ 907,900
D.
Total intergovernmental
$11,677,669
E.
Total Charges Service
$ 4,938,837
F.
Total Miscellaneous
$ 4,275,503
G.
Total Revenue
$100,621,502
$243,000,000
.917
$ 2,228,310 A 64.47%
479,206 B 13.86%
345.635 X 10.00%
$ 6,053,151 (Mix of C,D,E,F)
64.47
13.86
.90
11.61
4.91
4.25
100.00
L1
0
4i1
STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
September 9, 1999
ORANGE COUNTY
Margaret A. Hauth, Planning Director
Town of Hillsborough
- P. O. Box 429
Hillsborough, NC 27278
Subject: Proposed Hillsborough Assemblage Access onto NC 86, SR 1009
Dear Ms. Hauth:
>
s
DAVID McCOY
SECRETARY
Per your request, a preliminary review of the above mentioned subject was reviewed by the
Congestion Management Section of NCDOT in Raleigh. Attached for your files is a copy of
their recommendations and comments. In addition and for your information, I am attaching two
memos from Orange County which have been received since your July 12`h letter.
Due to the traffic associated with the subject, we are concerned with Congestion Management's
recommendation for a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). I would recommend that you require a
TIA from the developer and allow us to review the site again with more detailed information.
If you have any further questions or comments, please contact Michael Venable, Assistant
District Engineer, at 336 -570 -6833.
atta.
TJD:MSV:kww
cc: J. W. Watkins, P.E.
Vance Barham
Gary Faulkner
grange County
Sincerely,
T� D
T. J. Dyer, P.E.
DISTRICT ENGINEER
P. O. Box 766, Graham, NC 27253 -0766
- -cam IV,4.
ECE
y SEP 21999
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORT, �� 10: 1
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS • itn 01"4
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA'DI T i . �' � `:
James B. Hunt Jr. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611 -5201 David McCoy
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
August 26, 1999
MEMORANDUM
In reply refer to
File No. SC -99 -123
TO: T.J. Dyer, P.E., District Engineer
(Attention: M. Venable)
FROM: G.C. Faulkner, Design Review Engineer
Congestion Management Section
SUBJECT: Proposed Hillsborough Assemblage Access onto NC 86, SR 1009
Orange County
Per your request, the Access Review Squad of the NCDOT Traffic Engineering Branch has
completed a preliminary review of the subject site. Based on our analysis of the site plan and the
submitted portion of the TIA performed by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. with consideration
to its impacts on the adjacent traffic facilities, we offer the following comments:
Background
SR 1006 (Old NC 86) is a two -lane major thoroughfare with a 1997 ADT value of 13,700
vehicles per day. NC 86 is a two -lane major thoroughfare, with a 1997 ADT of 11,500 vehicles
per day and a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour. SR 1224 is a service road which connects
to Old NC 86 from the west approximately 1,400 feet north of the westbound ramp terminal of
the I -40 / Old NC 86 interchange.
Proposed Development
The multi -use development is proposed to be located between NC 86 and Old NC 86, north of
I -40, and is proposed to include single - family homes, townhouses, apartments, a hotel, an
assisted living community, a day care facility, a fire station, and extensive retail and office
development. Requested access to the site is includes a full movement access connection onto
Old NC 86 opposite Lafayette Drive, a full movement access onto Old NC 86 between the I -40 /
Old NC 86 interchange and SR 1224, and a full movement access onto NC 86.
T.J. Dyer
August 26, 1999
Page 2
Thoroughfare Plan
The 1997 Transportation Plan for the Town of Hillsborough indicates the need for NC 86 and
Old NC 86 to be widened to multi -lane facilities within the project vicinity.
Trip Generation
Based on the methodology of the ITE Trip Generation Manual (6th Edition), the proposed
development is expected to generate approximately 35,367 trips per average weekday. The
breakdown of entering and exiting traffic at peak hours is listed below.
PEAK HOUR ENTER EXIT
AM 1,450 835
PM 1,520 2,008
Observations/Recommendations
Given the magnitude of this development and its proximity to I -40 and I -85, we recommend a
complete Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) be performed which identifies current land use proposals
within the site, and addresses the capacity of the 1 -40 / Old NC 86 interchange as it stands to be
affected by the proposed development. Given the limited information available addressing land
use, the location of the proposed driveway connections, and the lane geometry of these
connections, it should be noted that the following traffic related comments are preliminary.
Old NC 86 Access, Southern Drive
• Given the high traffic volumes expected on Old NC 86 and the function of Old NC 86 as a
major north -south connector between I -40 and the Town of Hillsborough, it appears a multi-
lane divided type facil- is apprgriate for Old NC 86 in the vicinity of the project. In d
to provide full movement access onto Old NC 86 it will be necessary to comply with the
current Median Crossover Guidelines (June, 1998), should a divided type facility be
implemented. With a 55 mile per hour speed limit posting, a minimum of 1,500 feet is
required between median openings; with a 45 mile per hour speed limit posting, a minimum
of 1,000 feet is required between median openings. This criterion should be considered when
determining the final location of the proposed driveway connection onto Old NC 86.
• We recommend the existing service road located approximately 1,400 feet north of the I -40 /
Old NC 86 interchange and the proposed driveway be aligned.
• Given the high traffic volumes associated with the site and its southernmost access
connection, a multilane facility should be constructed (as a minimum) between the southern
I -40 / Old NC 86 ramp terminal and the main development entrance.
Old NC 86 Access, Northern Drive
• We concur with the proposed location of the driveway located opposite Lafayette Drive.
• We recommend providing a northbound right -turn lane on Old NC 86 to remove turning
vehicles from the through movement.
• We concur with the proposed southbound left -turn lane on Old NC 86.
7
T.J. Dyer
August 26, 1999 $
Page 3
NC 86 Access
We concur with the proposed southbound right -turn lane and northbound left -turn lane at this
driveway.
Other
• The traffic information provided did not address any traffic impacts this development will
have on the critical I-40 / Old NC 86 interchange area. We strongly recommend traffic
impacts to this interchange be determined and addressed before any access connections to
this development are considered.
We have concerns with the proposed new internal road connecting NC 86 to Old NC 86
through the site. This new facility would function as a major connector between these roads
and is expected to serve a significant volume of traffic not associated with the proposed
development. It appears from the current development sketch plan that this new road is
proposed as a two -lane divided facility with many closely spaced median breaks, which could
pose operational and safety problems. If the developer anticipates adding or petitioning for
addition to the State System, all roads should be designed and constructed in conformance
with the current North Carolina Department of Transportation design and construction
guidelines.
We also have concerns with the impact this development will have on the I -85 / Old NC 86
interchange. Although there is considerable distance between this interchange and the
northernmost development driveway, much of the traffic entering and exiting the site is
expected to utilize the I -85 / Old NC 86 interchange. Consideration should be given to
including capacity analysis for this interchange as part of the recommended TIA.
Closing
In addition to the above recommendations, reference should also be made to the information
included in the General Recommendations Attachment. If we can provide further assistance.
please contact G.C. Faulkner or myself at 250 -4151.
GCF/RWS/MAD:md
Attachment
cc: J.W. Watkins, P.E. (Attention: V.E. Barham)
J.F. Permar, P.E.
T.A. Peoples, P.E. (Attention: E.Y. Stafford P.E.)
T.M. Hopkins, P.E.
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ATTACHMENT
(For SC 99 -123 / Hillsborough Assemblage)
Adequate horizontal and vertical sight distances should be reserved at all proposed entrances.
Foliage that interferes with sight distance should be cut back to protect lines of sight. The
District Engineer should determine if all drainage facilities are adequate. Curb cuts and curb
ramps should be constructed in conformance with the Guidelines for Curb Cuts and Curb
Ramps for Handicapped Persons, if applicable.
The developer may be required to obtain an approved encroachment agreement covering
proposed work within the state right -of -way. If this is the case, the encroachment should be
cross referenced to this review.
All street and driveway entrances onto state system roadways should be controlled with
appropriate traffic control devices, including but not limited to, stop, yield, directional, regulatory,
and advisory signs and pavement markings. All traffic control devices shall conform to the
requirements set forth in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Final pavement
marking and signing plans should be submitted to the Division Traffic Engineer for approval prior
to the installation of any signs and /or pavement markings.
A recommended width of 40 foot (face to face) should be used at each drive. It is also
recommended that 30 foot (minimum) radii be used at each drive to accommodate any service
or truck traffic that may visit the site.
If the developer anticipates adding or petitioning for addition to the State System, all
roads /streets should be designed and constructed in conformance with the current North
Carolina Department of Transportation design and construction guidelines.
All "outparcels" or "excluded areas" should be served internally with no additional access onto
abutting roadways. The developer should convey this condition in any lease or sell agreements.
As required by the "Policy on Street and Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways" manual
the applicant is responsible for identifying all right -of -way and /or control -of- access limits and for
including this information on all submittals. Failure to accurately disclose R/W and C/A limits
could result in the denial or closure of access points.
Adequate Right -Of -Way for widening and Sight Distance triangles should be reserved.
Consideration should be given to the possible future need for signalization and the associated
span poles, controller and pad, and guy wires.
Where possible opposite side drives should be aligned to prevent the operational and safety
problems caused by offset drives.
Any additional development, either within this site or adjacent to this site, that intends on using
this development's access will require an updated driveway permit and re- evaluation of
geometric and traffic control needs.
fa
All widening should include appropriate transitional and deceleration tapers. Recommended
turn lane and transitional treatments are shown on page 54 (Figure 28) of the "Policy on Street
and Driveway Access to North Carolina Highways."
E S`
4•
G 16 1999
N. C. DEPT. Of TR0,,SFORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS' 7th DIV
DISTRICT I : C"nHAM �, .._...
1- 40/01d N.C.Highway as District ;w Other than 1-40, only
one road has been included an the Orange County and
H hborough Thoroughfare Plans - Old N.C.Highway 86.
Classified as an arterial street, Old N.C.Highway s6 is
currently capable of handing 10,000 vehicles per day and had
an average daisy traffic volume of 8,300 vehicles per day in
1986. By the year 2005, traffic on the road is expected to
reach 19,600 vehicles per day.
With traffic volumes expected to exceed the capacity of the
road, the Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan calls for the widening
of Old N.C.Highway s6. The proposed cross section for
widening is a.four -lane facility, with sidewalks and two travel
tans in either direction, plus a center turn lane. To accampfish
the widening, the right - of-way would also have to be
expanded from 60 feet to so feet.
100' ROW
Travel lanes. Travel lanes
t s' 12'
1 1
-s' Sidewalk -4s' Sidewalk
4' Bike lane I 2W Landscape Mediae 4' Bike lane
Pr�oasrdl�acP�lxir crassseefAOVllfar-
O.ddncc. kgo Rather than utilize the five -lame facility proposed in the
HMsbcrough Thoroughfare Plan, a different crass section is
'Amerx><� 1- 17 -St3 - desired. To provide an attractive entranceway into
Hi bborough and to prevent the strip commercialicross-traffic
turning movements associated With Churton Street, the crass
Section would be changed to provide a landscape median
instead of a center turn lane. Turn lanes would only be available
at designated access points. These points were identified on
the schematic plans presented in section 2. 1, Development
Areas.
In addition to the landscape median, the outside lane would be
widened from 12 feet to 16 feet to accommodate bike lanes
Etarr m c Deveftrwnt &rftts Desirt MarxW Pape 3.3. 10
r
on either side. Old N.C.Highway 86 is recommended as a
bicycle route in the Regional Bicycle Plan for Durham and
Orange Counties, and the provision of bike lanes through the
Economic Development District would provide opportunities
for recreation as well as travel to work. To accommodate
these improvements, the right- of-way for Old N.C.Highway
86 would have to be widened from 6o feet to 100 feet.
11- 85N.S.Highway 70 District: In the 1- 85 /U.S.Highway 70
area, U.S. Highway 70 has been classified as an arterial road,
and Old N.C.Highway 1 o, Mount Herman Church Road,
Pleasant Green Road, and N.C. Highway 751 as collector
roads. Specific deficiency analysis data is not available in the
Durham - Chapel Hill- Carrboro (DCHC) Thoroughfare Plan
other than to note that U.S.Highway 70 will be over capacity
by the year 2000.
As noted in section 2.1, Development Areas, Mount Herman
Church Road is being realigned as part of the 1-85 widening. A
24 -10ot pavement in a 60 -foot right- of-way is proposed.
However, as was the case with Old N.C. Highway 86, Mount
Herman Church Road has been recommended as a bicycle
route in the Regional Bicycle Plan for Durham and Orange
Counties. The addition of four feet to each side, resulting in a
32 400t pavement, will assure that bike lanes are provided as
part of the improvements.
The same condition exists with Old N.C. Highway 10 and
9 Y
Pleasant Green Road. Both roads have 20 -foot pavements in
6o -foot rights -af -way, and both roads are part of the bicycle
system recommended in the Regional Bicycle Plan: The
preferred cross - section for these roads is a 24 -foot roadway
with a four -foot bike lane on each side.
19 As part of the 1 -85 widening project, improvements will be
made to U.S. Highway 70 at the interchange; e.g., expansion
to a four -lane divided facility, including two 12 -foot travel
lanes in either direction. Given the deficiency noted for U.S.
Highway 70 by the year 2000 and the proposed Eno Drive
extension, the preferred cross - section for that road is an
extension of the four -lane divided facility.
Econorn►ic DevekpmntDistricts Deson M&vja( Pape 3J. rl
13
1- 40101d NC 66 District*
The 1- 40101d N.C. 85 Economic Development District
encompasses all four corners of a major interstate interchange
south of Hillsborough. The area consists of 724 acres,
distributed among the principal land use categories in the
schematic plan as follows:
Primary Development Area
Primary t
d
Primary 11
115 Acres
Primary Overlay
24 Acres
Secondary Development Area
109 Acres
Open Space Area
207 Acres
Rights -of :Way
92 Acres
• 0
• r
•
1'
13
1- 40101d NC 66 District*
The 1- 40101d N.C. 85 Economic Development District
encompasses all four corners of a major interstate interchange
south of Hillsborough. The area consists of 724 acres,
distributed among the principal land use categories in the
schematic plan as follows:
Primary Development Area
Primary t
200 Acres
Primary 11
115 Acres
Primary Overlay
24 Acres
Secondary Development Area
109 Acres
Open Space Area
207 Acres
Rights -of :Way
92 Acres
The district is characterized by widely scattered single - family
residential development, consisting of low - density subdivisions
and a mobile home park. Two subdivisions which adjoin the
district, Stagecoach'Run and Cornwallis Hills, deserve special
attention.
Lots in Stagecoach Run average approximately one -and-
one- half acres in size. Because of the low- density of the
subdivision, a Secondary Development Area has been
designated adjacent to its boundaries where residential
densities are limited to two dwelling units per acre. Areas
within which this density limit applies have been identified on
the schematic plan with an "R -2" designation.
f- W /0&/YC.ff0way 86 The Secondary Development Area has been extended around
Ecaraarnx Am Pr Iq rner t the full circumference of the district except where it abuts
Cates Creek, the northern boundary of the district. The
floodplain and the steep slopes bordering Cates Creek and its
tributaries allow. a Primary I Development Area to be located
adjacent to Cornwallis Hills, a moderate - density subdivision
with densities of three dwelling units per acre.
Because this "natural buffer" may not be sufficient to eliminate
land use impacts such as noise, site plans must include
mitigation devices for this purpose. Criteria for the
'Arrmended r-17-St5 preservation of the floodplain as well as other natural features
"Armnde+d s -2s -95 are discussed in section 32 - Landscape Design.
Ecotaomk Deve# rent Disftts Desk rr M&xW Page 2. r. s
14-
Techniques for reducing noise levels are highlighted in 2.4 -
Environmental Factors.
The northern portion of the district includes a "finger -like"
projection along the west side of Old NC Highway 86,
extending from Cates Creek to Oakdale Drive. Because of its
proximity to existing single-family homes in the Cornwallis Hills
Subdivision, that portion of the district has been designated
as a Primary Overlay Area. Manufacturing and wholesale trade
uses are not permitted, and retail uses are allowed only after
approval of a Speciar Use Permit. While hours of operation
are limited, the landscape -to- building ratios are the same as
required in the Primary I Development Area."
AcCe33 to the four quadrants of this district is generally
available from Old N.C. Highway 86 or by- ray -of service
roads paralleling 1 -40. Primary I Development Areas on the
north side of 1 -40 are focused on these thoroughfares
because they link directly with 1 -40 and provide the most
efficient means of moving people, goods, and services in and
out of the area. Nevertheless, because of the potential for
strip commercial development, access is limited to certain
locations. These access points as well as a collector road
system and transit access point are identified on the schematic
plan for the district. Standards for intersection and roadway
design are explained in greater detail in section 3.3,
Circulation & Parking.
To the south of 1-40, a Primary II Development Area has been
designated adjacent to the interstate highway and its
Intersection with Old N.C. Highway 86. While the range of
permitted uses is similar to that of the Primary I Development
Area., retail uses are limited, and higher landscape -to- building
ratios are required. These ratios and their application are
explained in detail in section 2.3 - Land Use Intensity.
"Aiwrxtd s -29-SS Two significant resources existing within the boundaries of the
district include a bottomland hardwood forest bordering Cates
Creek and the remnants of the "New Chapel Hill Road". The
old roadway, illustrated on George Tate's I SS t map of the
Econw* Devedopinent Districts Desj7n Marxjaf Pave 2.1.7
■
0
No
SIC
f�T /US.Hg�a4tray Mt.
Eca�a�r� G�+�k��anx��Ocsti�xf
'AmenoW 10 -a -94
IS
county, is also shown on the USGS quadrangle map of the
area. The forest, identified in the Inventory of Natural Areas
and Wildlife Habitats as Site *Eo7, is located an the west side
of Old N.C.86 where it intersects with Cates Creek. Rather
than eliminating such features from design consideration, they
should be recognized and used as a focal point for the
development. Criteria for this purpose are discussed in
section 32 - Landscape Design.
1- 8$IU.S. Highway 70 District
The I- es /U.S. Highway 70 Economic Development District
extends almost two miles along either side of I -s s and is
located in the Lower Eno River Watershed. Like the
I- es /Buckhorn Road District, land uses are subject to
watershed protection standards governing impervious surface
and the control of storrnwater.Impervious surface limits and
standards for detention basin construction and maintenance
are discussed further in section 2.3 - Land Use Intensity and
Appendix C - Wet Detention Basin Standards, respectively.
This District is distinguished by many existing uses, ranging
from single - family and mobile home park developments to
small -scale service and commercial operations. Although
existing development is scattered and vacant land is
available, in -fill development will characterize new growth in
the area. Acreage in the schematic plan is distributed among
the three principal land use categories as follows:
Primary Development Area 297 Acres
Secondary Development Area 100 Acres
Open Space Area 1 ss Acres
Rights- of-Way so Acres
Rhodes Creek is the major drainageway in the District, flowing
in a northerly direction to the Eno River. Its floodpfain is
extensive in places and could limit development in some
locations. In addition, steeper slopes adjacent to Rhodes
Creek and its tributaries could be somewhat restrictive for
development. Overall, though, the gently rolling topography of
the District poses no problems.
Access to all sites is generally available from U.S. Highway 70,
but steep slopes adjacent to some portions of the roadway
Eca ?arrik Devekpwrnent Districts Desi7n /►4&wjd PVe 2.1.9
0
INN
to
'�'• .. r..I�w
:—
(4 p6xe-E
Ja
�u lie 1%anc�
Ala C)w
4m(& P,*rec-r
C( U c;
A/C )>�T )v- t
Y
awn of A11,51-ofozyh
AKOo7 7 <AMcI AZ-xS x-rYA:,,.
De,qN;4-E: 6CUN S`
1P;W r Ar
5r Dr (z
17
570 -l..P3-3
J -X, V -W /of PXf N4
x -Z S�2
1rd
Orange County JUL 2 1 0%
Planning & Inspections Depart n DES OF TSPORTATI&
P.O. Box 8181 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS a Ah Div
D iICI I - GR:�# ANT
Hillsborough, NC 2 72 78
Mime: (919) 732 -8181 or 967 -9251, x2575
Frtx: (919) 644 -3002 Alt
MINIM$$:7_��I 111u I
TO: Tommy Dyer, P.E., District Engineer, NCDOT
FROM: Eddie Kirk, Planner II '', ;,/,
DATE: July 15, 1999
SUBJECT: Hillsborough Assemblage (AKA Hillsborough Place) located off SR 1009
near I -40 in Hillsborough
The Orange County Planning Staff appreciates your notification letter of July 13, 1999
regarding future NCDOT review of the proposed Hillsborough Assemblage project off
SR 1009. The Planning Staff previously received a copy of the initial proposal and
provided the attached preliminary comments to the Orange County Manager. One
section of these comments related to traffic and the transportation issues that would be
associated with a proposal of this size.
The Orange County Planning Staff would like to meet with you and Mr. Faulkner and the
Town of Hillsborough at your convenience to discuss the proposal and any issues or
concerns relating to transportation and improvements needed regarding the project.
Please give me a call to possibly discuss a time we can meet regarding the project. I can
be reached at 732 -8181, extension 2582.
xc: Craig N. Benedict, Orange County Planning Director
Gary Faulkner, Traffic Engineering, NCDOT (Raleigh)
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 19
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
MEMORANDUM
TO: JOHN LINK, COUNTY MANAGER
FROM: CRAIG BENEDICT, PLANNING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: HILLSBOROUGH PLACE
DATE: JUNE 24, 1999
JUL 2 1 S9
N. C. DEPT. Of TRAMPOR•T910 " .
DIVISION OF HIGHW AYS a17th G+,,
DISTRICT 1
The development proposal, including traffic generation and phasing, is listed on
Attachment 1 & 2 with a location and development plan on Map 1.
The project is a 342 -acre parcel at the northeast quadrant of Old 86/1 -40 to be developed
as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) which is a mixed -use proposal. This memo will
accent the primary issue areas.
• TRAFFIC Page 2
• ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DESIGN & MTC GUIDELINES Page 3
• PUBLIC SERVICE IMPACTS Page 4
(Schools, parks, police, fire, EMS, etc.)
• ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES /OPEN SPACE/LANDSCAPE ASPECTS Page 5
• DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Page 5
• MISCELLANEOUS Page 5
TRAFFIC '20
This project is the linchpin of the important I- 85/1 -40 triangle. After reviewing the
submitted site plan for the proposed new Hillsborough Place development the Orange
County Planning Department recommends the following items be addressed regarding
Transportation issues:
OLD NC 86
• A four lane divided cross - section with turn lanes should be provided along Old NC 86
for a distance 300 feet north of the Lafayette Drive/NW Project Drive entrance to
Interstate 40. The application does not show if ownership is in place for the NW
Project Drive.
• Signalintion should be required at the Hillsborough Place Parkway Intersection and
the Lafayette Drive/NW Project Drive Intersection on Old NC 86.
• Right and Left turn lanes should be provided on NW Project Drive at the Intersection
with Old NC 86. A left turn lane should be provided on Hillsborough P1ace'Parkway
at the Intersection with Old NC 86.
• Access points along Old NC 86 should be limited. The access drive directly north of
Hillsborough Place Parkway onto Old NC 86 should be closed and traffic diverted
back to Hillsborough Place Parkway or the entrance drive to the north.
NC 86
• An improved cross - section with turn lanes should be provided along NC 86 for
distance 300 feet north and 300 feet south of the Intersection of Hillsborough Place
Parkway and NC 86.
• A left turn lane should be provided on Hillsborough Place Parkway at the Intersection
with NC 86.
• Signalimtion should be required at the Hillsborough Place Parkway and NC 86
Intersection.
INTERNAL
• Access points along Hillsborough Place Parkway and NW Project Drive should be
limited and located directly across from each other. Left and right turn lanes should
be considered at these intersections since the roadways are only a two lane divided
section.
• Stubouts should be considered for the lot directly south of the proposed Hotel and the
undeveloped lot directly south of NW Project Drive. Also, another stubout should be
considered in the east to northeast quadrant of the project which could eventually
provide another connection to NC 86.
• Park and Ride lots should be indicated and Transit stops shown.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
• The proposed Hillsborough Bypass should be constructed in a timely manner.
• Churton Street/ Old 86 expansion should be accelerated to match construction with
this project.
• Consider future connectivity to a potential rail station north of this project.
7
■
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
21
The intent of I-40 /Old NC 86 district is to create a Business Park setting.
Outparcels are discouraged including freestanding service stations, restaurants, and retail
buildings for this district. Dine -in restaurants and retail uses within consolidated
buildings is permitted.
• 100 -foot buffer around district required by the EDD. There appears to be a
section along Old 86 that does not adhere to the 100 -feet requirement.
• Architectural features that screen rooftops from Interstate 40 and Old 86. There is
a grade difference between 1-40 and this site.
• No air conditioners/compressors to be visible from Interstate 40 or placed on
rooftops without screening.
• Solid waste/recycling containers to be screened.
• Stormwater management plan to be submitted? Method of control?
• Management of construction and land clearing, debris should be specified. Where
will excess debris be trucked.
• Is an existing water tank available to handle water usage? If not, where will one
be built?
• Is the property proposed to be subdivided and lots sold off? What maximum
impervious surface coverage will be allowed on each lot?
• What types of materials (metal, brick, stucco, etc.) are to be used within the
project? What will be in place to guarantee adherence to percentages?
• Retain existing trees on individual lots. According to the submitted plans the
single- family development destroys virtually all existing trees stands with the
exception of buffers.
• Signs within the development are required to be architecturally consistent with the
buildings. Maximum size= 75 square feet. Maximum height = 12 feet.
Maximum number of freestanding signs per site =1. Maximum number all signs
= 3. Maximum square footage of all signs per site = 200 square feet.
Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District
Purpose: To protect and enhance those natural and environmental features which
constitute important physical, aesthetic, recreational an economic assets through
the provision for special controls of public and private development along major
transportation corridors.
• Service areas (i.e. truck loading spaces and dumpsters) shall be screened to block
visibility from 1-40.
• Double aesthetic fronts on all buildings visible from I-40.
a
�''1� .� 4# 1.3..:aK i.#.�+� �t�3PW ,.�•.,.- �� Y �� � �b��� -�l:'� R�q , -)
��r., w} ,�„r�""+ =" .� ,h � R�.' -�"' -mod"''`-- ?'�'��r� '+, .�'' y _ S::
;a i _
,_� r
_� . 'jai^ r- ° ....:
X23
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES /OPEN SPACE/LANDSCAPE
The project is within the Neuse River Watershed basin. The project has relatively higher
elevations and serves as a head waters area near a basin divide with little or no permanent
streams. The site is completely forested with; pine forest, pine/hardwoods mix forest,
hardwood forest. There are no major environmentally sensitive areas noted at this time.
The open space plan attempts to preserve small areas of forest but because of the large
impervious requirements of non - residential development and development elevation
changes, limited areas of forest are preserved in the concept plan.
The landscape plans including entry features and streetscapes are well designed. The
internal roadway corridors create a consistent theme to assist in their overall architectural
design concept.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Physical design features to unify the development and to create compatibility with
neighboring areas.
1. Most of the southern portion of Hillsborough Place (about 2/3 of project) lies in the I-
40/ Old 86 EDD. Majority of parcels abutting this portion of the project are presently
undeveloped, thus Hillsborough Place will set tone/strongly influence future
development on abutting properties. Recommend strict adherence to EDD Design
Manual, particularly:
• Section 3.1- Architectural Design (special attention to unified design concept)
• Section 3.2 - Landscape Design (with special attention to land use buffers).
2. Northern portion of Hillsborough Place is predominantly residential and abuts
existing or future residential development. Recommend strict adherence to Article 12
of Zoning Ordinance (Landscaping and Buffer Requirements).
MISCELLANEOUS
Erosion Control: A project of this scale and use should develop a high intensity erosion
control program including full use of phasing and BMP's.
Review Process: A project of this scale would, under most growth management
guidelines, be considered a'Development of Regional Impact' (DRI). The impact affect
more than one jurisdiction and accordingly should be reviewed jointly with full input
from affected parties which include the county, school district and transportation MPO's.
Annexation: An annexation feasibility study should be conducted which relates to the
timing and ability for all affected parties to adequately service the area with essential
public services.
Building Permit Review and Inspection: Presently there is not enough building
division staff and fee structure to accommodate this project.
gAcraig\hi1place \6- 24 -99 \dg
Mr. Charies M. Elam, May 26, 1999, Page 2
C � � IGmley -Horn : •
and Associates, Inc.
Table 1
ITE Traffic Generation
(Vehicles)
ITE
24 Hour
AM Peak
PM Peak
Code
Land Use
In
Out
In
Out
In
Out
210
180 Single Family
890
890
34
102
117
66
Homes
220
600 Apartments
1,865
1,865
48
253
230
113
230
'275 Townhouses
769
769
19
.95
95
47
250
60 Horne Retirement
58
58
4
5
8
6
Community
252
100 Home Congregate
108
108
4
2
10
7
Care Facility
310 '
200 Room Hotel
892
892
73
53
62
64
565
4,000 SF Day. Care
159
159
27
24
24
.27
710
335,000 SF Office
1,679
1,679
430
59
77
378
770
500 000 SF Business
3,060
3,060
589
112
148
496
Park
820
400,000 SF Shopping
8,311
8,311
223
142
752
815
Center
Total New Trips
17,791
17,791
1,451
847
1,523
27019
Table 1 shows that under full development, the Hillsborough Assemblage project
will potentially have 17,791 trips to the site and 17,791 'trips away from the site
on an average day
Access to the development will consist of two driveways along Old NC 86 and
one driveway along NC 86. All of these driveways are proposed to have full
movement access.
The proposed generated trips were assigned to the surrounding roadway network.
The directional distribution and assignment was based on existing peak -hour
turning movements as well as a review of the land uses and population densities
in the area and the surrounding roadway network. The directional distribution is
as follows:
38% to /from the north on Old NC 86
■
41% to /from the south on Old NC 86
■ 10% to /from the north on NC 86
■
PHASING SCHEDULE l
lHASING
H I L L S B O R O U G H PLACE P
Pa planning purposes iTilLbmuugh
.' H
Place has been whatfuted for
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT d
development over the wit six y=%
HILLSBOROUGH. NORTH CAROLINA a
although it b reasonable to
:aidcipota that soma pwaah,
those P
PREPARED BY: ELAM TODD d- AMBRO81. PA r
remain p�tilyyu devtio e
2 E 0 NOTTINGHAM DRIVE d
deselopmeot timelable has been
C A R Y, N O R T H CAROLINA e
established in two phases with a
umber ofpwcels going Under I
I
caoahuction at the was time. It should 1
11
rIs$ l YEAR t Y206 f Y■ R 4 Ildll!. Y868 @ >L2@81
soTV►1 tsls 2ele test tut 2uq ses4 test b
bemtcd did development
d@lelopment may not neoeswfily
6n in helots w
A $INDLE -FAM ILT 74.0 129 UNIT* @. 0 f
O 10WNNOUiE1 $2.0 2rf UNIT$ 10 2f 2f 'lf ff /s
PATIO NOME, 11 t0 20 !0 2i 2 17
C ASSIST NO LIVING 10.4 its UNIT* - let
D RETIREMENT 10.0 of UNIT, so
E DAYCARE 4.f 1
F RETAIL 2 8.r 200 fol 00. FT. tosses fells sates
G RETAIL 26.1 269,191 Os-. FT. legal - at$$# losses-
If OFFICE 17's 20e 0@f 00. FT. I losses 1000@•
1 A R MEN i 26.4 380 UNIT, 200
J PUBLIC *AFETY *TA. 2.9
K O FIC FLNX *PACE 41.1 921 ,119 00 FT , logf1@@—I losses 191996 tofave losses
L AP RTMENT$ 22.0 see UNIT* fa@
IN OFFICE 11.4 125 foe 80. FT.— Mot foes@ 29909
R HOTEL 1.2 lot ROOM*
vuuWse w 006 phase
on the ma Phase begias.
PHASE L•
A thong demand Is andelpated for
both single - family detached and
s604imilf attached waits, elsaw
homing, and a Number of ma&
bmiiy horsing Units daring the first
1bur yam Abu during phase an
will be a sums demnd he diffived
type of oon4aideaW Uses a
@bows in Am phasing wbednle.
PHASE H: 9 1
The seomd phase will air. we
coEdmred building pr6aaily Is trail,
office, attached, cl uter units and
aingie-filmily homing. I)t is "COW
that tha Hillabotwlgh Place Hoalenad
will completed Sewer hunk Noes and
wain distribution, linen will be
coDshucled b serve Phfse 11
d-dopmatpuctiL
to
PHASING SCHEDULE 20
vuuWse w 006 phase
on the ma Phase begias.
PHASE L•
A thong demand Is andelpated for
both single - family detached and
s604imilf attached waits, elsaw
homing, and a Number of ma&
bmiiy horsing Units daring the first
1bur yam Abu during phase an
will be a sums demnd he diffived
type of oon4aideaW Uses a
@bows in Am phasing wbednle.
PHASE H: 9 1
The seomd phase will air. we
coEdmred building pr6aaily Is trail,
office, attached, cl uter units and
aingie-filmily homing. I)t is "COW
that tha Hillabotwlgh Place Hoalenad
will completed Sewer hunk Noes and
wain distribution, linen will be
coDshucled b serve Phfse 11
d-dopmatpuctiL
to
PHASING SCHEDULE 20
wain distribution, linen will be
coDshucled b serve Phfse 11
d-dopmatpuctiL
to
PHASING SCHEDULE 20
,.. _ .Z:..,iK_`iK+a",. ^.Pig
__1� ,+1. _ .S1GCV�y�i Tf
FUNCTIONAL AREA
1. Community Maintenance
2. General Administration
3. Taxation and Records
4. Community Planning
5. Human Services
Social Services
SERVICES 217
Commissioners, Courts, Elections, Soil and Water
County Manager, Budget Office, Personnel, Finance,
Purchasing, Central Services, Rents and Insurance, Information
Systems
Register of Deeds, Land Records, Tax Assessor, Tax Collector
Planning, Economic Resource Cons., Economic Development,
Arts Commission
Public Assistance, Administration, Children/Family Services,
Work First, Subsidy, Long Term Care Screening, Other
Assistance Programs, Skills Development Center, Veterans
Services
Health Management Services & Vital Records, Dental Health, Personal
Health, Environmental Health, Animal Control
Cooperative Extension +
Recreation & Parks
Orange Public Transportation
Human Rights & Relations
Library
Child Support
Mental Health
Aging
6. Public Safety
Sheriff
EMS
7. Public Works
8. Education
9. Non - Departmental
gAeddie\services\9- 23 -99 \dg
Administration, Community Based Services, Elder Care
Program, RSVP
Administration, Fire Services, Telecommunications, Medical
Services Treatment
Buildings & Grounds, Motor Pool, Sanitation
Current Expense, Recurring Capital
Outside Agencies, Miscellaneous, Debt Service, Transfers to
other Funds
1
�vl
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DAVID McCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
September 16, 1999
MEMORANDUM
To: Gary Faulkner, Traffic Engineering, Raleigh
- From: Tommy J. Dyer, P. E., District Engineer, Graham
Date: September 16, 1999
Subject: Hillsborough Assemblage located off SR 1009 near I -40 in Hillsborough
Attached, please find a copy of the developer's revised Traffic Impact Analysis. The Town of Hillsborough has
requested NCDOT to perform a second review on the subject site.
zi
This office respectfully requests your review of the subject (SC -99 -123). Please review the attached information for
compliance to NCDOT Standards and inform this office of any additional information, design standards, and
modifications that your office needs completed before you could recommend approving the proposed subject.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Michael Venable at (336) 570 -6833.
Attachment
cc:-15range County Planning Department
Hillsborough
Vance Barham
P. O. Box 766 Graham, NC 27253 -0766
A
a
-4Q'ditional 7,ta
nSponation final
Yszs
f 6
�II 14N �FOF
1 s bo
Ilillsbo-,.Ugh, bl age
PrePared.for.
Ela
® zn, T odd & d �Ambrosi, P
KimleY -Horn and Associates,
ate Inc, 1999
Kimle
Y Hom
Engineering Planning an4, and Associates, Inc.
En�ironmenta/ Consultants
2I
� ❑Kimley -Horn
and Associates, Inc.
September 1, 1999
Ms. Margaret Hauth
Director of Planning
Town of Hillsborough
101 E. Orange Street
P.O. Box 429
Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278
Re: Additional Transportation Analyses
For Proposed Hillsborough Assemblage
Hillsborough, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Hauth:
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. completed the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
for the proposed Hillsborough Assemblage mixed use development in May 1999.
This letter is intended to provide you with the additional analyses of the
surrounding roadway network as requested. These additional analyses
summarize the traffic generation, distribution and assignment of project traffic
and the roadway improvements.
Background Data
The proposed Hillsborough Assemblage site is located in the northeast quadrant
of the Interstate 40 West and the Old NC 86 interchange in Hillsborough, North
Carolina. The proposed development consists of 180 single - family homes, 275
townhouses, 100 assisted living units, a 60 -unit retirement community, a 4,000
Square Foot (SF) daycare, 400,000 SF of retail space, 835,000 SF of office space,
600 apartments, a 200 -room hotel and a fire station.
The study area for this additional traffic analysis includes the following
intersections:
• Old NC 86 and the I -40 Eastbound Ramps
• Old NC 86 and the I -40 Westbound Ramps
• Old NC 86 and the I -85 Northbound Ramps
• Old NC 86 and the 1 -85 Southbound Ramps
• Old NC 86 and Oakdale Drive
• Old NC 86 and Cardinal Drive
The proposed development is located in the southern section of Hillsborough and
is well served by existing thoroughfares. These thoroughfares include NC 86 to
the east, which provides direct access to both Hillsborough and Chapel Hill and
■
TEL 919 677 2000
FAX 919 677 2050
30
■
P.O. Box 33068
Raleigh, North Carolina
27636.3068
Kimley -Horn Ms. Margaret Hauth, September 1, 1999, Page 2 `3
and Associates, Inc.
Old NC 86 to the west, which provides direct access to I -40 and I -85. The
surrounding land use is primarily residential.
Traffic Generation
The traffic generation potential of the proposed site was determined using the
traffic generation rates published in Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation
Engineers, Sixth Edition, 1997). Table l summarizes the estimated traffic
generation for the proposed development.
Table 1
ITE Traffic Generation
(Vehicles)
ITE
Code
Land Use
24
Hour
AM Peak
PM Peak
In
Out
In
Out
In
Out
210
180 Single Family
Homes
890
890
34
102
117
66
220
600 Apartments
1,965
1,865
48
253
230
113
230
275 Townhouses
769
769
19
95
95
47
250
60 Home Retirement
Community
58
58
4
5
8
6
252
100 Home Congregate
Care Facility
108
108
4
2
10
7
310
200 Room Hotel
892
892
73
53
62
64
565
4,000 SF Day Care
159
159
27
24
24
27
710
335,000 SF Office
1,679
1,679
430
59
77
378
770
500,000 SF Business
Park
3,060
3,060
589
112
148
496
820
400,000 SF Shopping
Center
8,311
8,311
223
142
752
815
Total New Trips
17,791
17,791
1,451
847
1,523
2,019
Table 1 shows that under full development, the Hillsborough Assemblage
development will potentially have 17,791 trips to the site and 17,791 trips away
from the site on an average weekday.
Traffic Distribution /Assignment
Access to the development will consist of three driveways along Old NC 86 and
one driveway along NC 86. All of these driveways are proposed to have full
movement access, except the middle drive on Old NC 86, which is proposed to
be a right -in /right -out drive.
The proposed generated trips were assigned to the surrounding roadway network.
The directional distribution and assignment was based on existing peak -hour
turning movements as well as a review of the land uses and population densities
C�I1
Ms. Margaret Hauth, September 1, 1999, Page 3
Kimley -Horn
and Associates, Inc.
in the area and the surrounding roadway network. The directional distribution is
as follows:
■ 38% to /from the north on Old NC 86
28% to /from the east on I -85 N
5% to /from the west on 1 -85 S
5% to /from the north on Old NC 85
■ 41 % to /from the south on Old NC 86
31 % to /from the east on I-40 E
5% to /from the west on I-40 W
5% to from the south on Old NC 86
■ 10% to /from the north on NC 86
■ 10% to /from the south on NC 86
■ 1 % o to /from the west on Lafayette Drive
Capacity Analyses
Kimley -Horn and Associates performed;peak -hour turning movement counts at
the following intersections:
■ Old NC 86 and the I -40 Westbound Ramps = count performed by Kimley-
Horn on July 28 and 29, 1999
■ Old NC 86 and the I-40 Eastbound Ramps — count performed by Kimley -
Horn on July 29 and 30, 1999
■ Old NC 86 and the I -85 Southbound Ramps — count performed by Kimley -
Horn on August 3, 1999
■ Old NC 86 and the I -85 Northbound Ramps — count performed by Kimley -
Horn on August 4, 1999
• Old NC 86 and Oakdale Drive — count performed by Kimley -Horn on
August 23 and 24, 1999
• Old NC 86 and Cardinal Drive — count performed by Kimley -Horn on
August 23 and 24, 1999
The existing AM and PM peak -hour traffic volumes are shown in Figure 1.
Capacity analyses were performed for the existing AM and PM peak -hour
conditions using methodologies contained in the Highway Capacity Manual
(TRB Special Report 209, 1994) and are summarized in Table 2.
32
Ms. Margaret Hauth, September 1, 1999, Page 4 33
Kimley -Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Table 2
Existing (1999) Level -of- Service Summary
AM Peak
PM Peak
Intersection
LOS (Delay)
LOS (Delay)
Old NC 86 / I -40 Eastbound Ramps*
Short Delays for
Short Delays for
Left Turns
Left Turns
Old NC 86 /1-40 Westbound Ramps*
Short Delays for
Short Delays for
Left Turns
Left Turns
Old NC 86 / I -85 Northbound Ramps'
Long Delays for
Long Delays for
Left Turns
I Left Turns
Old NC 86 / I -85 Southbound Ramps'
Short Delays for
Long Delays for
Left Turns
Left Turns
Old NC 86 / Oakdale Drive
C (17.1)
B (10.4),
Old NC 86 /Cardinal Drive
B (7.0)
B (5.2)
- unsignaiizea
The existing traffic volumes were then increased to reflect historical growth due
to usage and non - specific growth throughout the area. The 1999 base year traffic
volumes were increased by 3.0 percent per year for six years to reflect the 2005
anticipated background traffic volumes.
To obtain total 2005 build -out traffic volumes the development traffic was added
to the existing and background traffic volumes. The AM and PM peak -hour
turning movements for the studied intersections were then calculated and
analyzed for the 2005 build -out year. Figures 2 and 3 show the projected AM
and PM peak -hour traffic volumes respectively with the proposed site for the
year 2005.
Roadway Improvements
The following roadway improvements were identified to bring the roadway
network up to an acceptable Level -of- Service.
• Old NC 86 will need to be widened to a four -lane section with turn lanes
from I -40 to I -85. This improvement is consistent with the current
thoroughfare plan.
• The interchange of I -40 and Old NC 86 will require ramp widening,
signalization and turn lane additions.
• The interchange of I -85 and Old NC 86 will also require ramp widening,
signalization and turn lane additions.
Figure 4 shows the roadway improvements that will be needed to accommodate
the year 2005 total traffic volumes while Table 3 summarizes the Level -of-
Service at each of the studied intersections.
r=FJ Kimley -Horn Ms. Margaret Hauth, September !, 1999, Page 5 3 tL
and Associates, Inc.
Table 3
Projected (2005) Level -of- Service Summary
with Development and Roadway Improvements
Intersection
AM Peak
LOS (Delay)
PM Peak
LOS (Delay)
Old NC 86 /1-40 Eastbound Ramps
B (12.9)
B (13.3)
Old NC 86 /1-40 Westbound Ramps*
Short Delays for
Left Turns
Moderate Delays
for Left Turns
Old NC 86 /1-85 Northbound Ramps
B (8.5)
B (11.1)
Old NC 86 /1-85 Southbound Ramps
C (21.0)
D (30.9)
Old NC 86 / Oakdale Drive
C (17.1)
B (10.8)
Old NC 86 / Cardinal Drive
B (6.1)
A (4.1)
* - Unsignalized
We appreciate the opportunity to assist you on this project. If you have any
questions or require additional information, please call me at (919) 677 -2062.
Very truly yours,
KIMLEY -HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. �������� " "��•.,,,��
i SEAL ! s
R. Michael Horn, P.E. 14510
Vice President `
r '•
•
RMH:jmc �i,,41 C H AEA ,�.•`��
011286.10
OW NC "
1.85
3b gg
F
=� Hillsborough Assemblage AM (PM) FIGURE
KRB*Hom and Assodales, Ion. Traffic Impact Analysis Existing Volumes
rmaloaM Arrsll {r�ur�rasi�rwO /rr.�rsarlrr�rri ron1o11+n11brY9 rlOrArO a.a ■rc�mrtrWwYprw�srrur Rw�MrOrrY4�CrtuermrWwnmwnm rs�r4ic
-95
Z
a�
� N411 In-
-
m IM
fills m In
poll pll74
I
nn poll
P4 fiw
Im Pull
M M
J
ora.r." .
eegend
*
pq1N„ — �
M
mfim
xx
1Nn10M
pal s.. T.M.
fill n10o1 m1
m full m
pall T.W brft
a uT °,
a1m pll.
o.►a.l. wiw
dam 1141 1141
pitimn--o-
*
I
MN m
m 4% 4
M mN m
P1418
1" nrA P321
M pill PM
a, on 4
i fi1 pan pan
1 �r
m m m
mM
1.71rT.n.om.
m (11-1
nrl Mies
114 (114 o —►
sl 'I"
.
poll m 101
u 477 0
M pool nm
PSI (Alai P741
m.
P69IP491
mnp1N
_ 7a0 70
•
i 34 (100112101
4
r 34 (all 17001
1
078 34
100) (4001
6141 14341
4
pm
Im
pq
is 14" fill)
♦
nm nn
341
M poll
1.40
Hillsborough Assemblage protected (ZOOS) AM Peak FIGURE
Traffic Impact Analysis
IQmieyHom and Associates, Inc. Hour Traffic Volumes 2
r laver nor rr r a7n0 r a ®rmme a.a u r.a�ea a 0nq a nma. m w r nmrt rrt r 0m r wa o w nw0e. w7 a r w�rl nao0 a w mnn wme 0rw rm4s r ieuraol n reap r wmm ac nn n rpa urn w an4eu r rmOK s
37
OM11Cai
1 -85
P324 pal
820 1N
Mt PI n 1 r
004(ma' an 117
(004 15")
110001[•111
11+7) [120+1
M tarn
147 aia
o„rin.l Odw
P4](0)14 --1 m aea
(0) 11M
na0111"01 psi 111[1157{]
M (am P)
12D all a 71 MPN
e.lpid. n a J ♦ 4 411 (po) -
n 1mt
ilia] M,1.'
1171 M la --a, t ,.
PN for s7 '7 as ua :
(a) Pan rol
Pa1It+701 Pl
nn P0P:q i+ an
,I P%
! ,O.r.rr a.l.. P1al
Pal PI 1101 1101 01
1.71ma%nrai
sn.
16+111101
n0»PI0"
y 70 (+1 +) M741 ..
w ("51111051
li IN
1. tea I+Talnaa+l
r72�r�
1� :e 1 ,
rol nas)
.01117+1
.40-
nom. i
Z
aI
Legend
>a - bdsftg Mu. lapl(lr.wd TralRa
PM, Sea Tram
i1p11 Told Trd&
M) P
i )) 30 � 1301 101 0-� tis h
n�u n
C1=n Hillsboro=Assemblage Projected (2005) PM Pegk FIGURE 10miey M end Associates, Ina Traffic Hour Traffic Volumes 3
101..ec mrp... r airs r am mrp rrp, a r amp®. may. arm. ro r m aea imm r m r.r r r ra. m r r rnso aar ■ r �� oar rpm ream r ar.. a roar r m.0 pr ar ..mp are. a.sam r rm.r R
0
39
39
g
1.85
Legend
Existing Laneoge
1 Recommended Loneage
e Recommended Signal
G:n Hillsborough Assemblage Roadway IGURE
IfmleyHom and Assodates, loo. Traffic Impact Analysis Improvements 4
r 000ret �e ae n rmn r s raen ou x v emra o xra x eaoer er r r s®[ irat r ar r r,e a r mace. er a r rru r.ex n r emwv reel wme rcre r •wr a erere r eemnt K rn u rer nnn m serer r eem� ex
4-r
HCS: Uhsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g 8640EPE.HCO Page l
---------- - - - - -- -------------------
Kimley -Horn & Associates
Streets: (N -S) Old NC 86 (E-W)-I-40 E Ramps
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst..... .............. JMC
Date of Analysis.......... 8/2/99
Other Information ......... PM Peak - Existing Conditions
Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Stop /Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC' s ( o )
SU /RV's ( %)
CV' s ( o )
PCE's
0 1 < 0
N
222 24
.9 .9
0
1 1 0
N
257 196
.9 .9
0
1.10
1 0 1
10 25
.9 .9
0
1.10 1.1011
Adjustment Factors
0 0 0
Vehicle
Critical
Follow -up
Maneuver
Gap ( tg)
Time ( t f )
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Left Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic-.Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
4.6.50
3.40
�z
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g 8640EAE.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
WB
EB
------------------------------------------------------ ?-
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
192
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
Flow
'1107
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
Queue
1107
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
0.96
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 2: LT from Major Street
SE
NB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
256
Movement
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1294
(pcph) (sec /veh)
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1294
(sec /veh)
--- - - - - --
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
0.64
- - - - --
216
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
WB
----
EB
- - - - --
-------------------------------------------- _•
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
854
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
339
Major LT, Minor TH.
6.9
EB R
Impedance Factor:
1107
0_64
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
A
0.64
Capacity Adjustment Factor
470
1294
due to Impeding Movements
1.9
0.64
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
--------------------------------------------------
216
- - - - --
Intersection Performance Summary
Intersection Delay = 2.4 sec /veh
Avg.
950
Flow
Move
Shared Total
Queue
Approach
Rate-'
Cap
Cap Delay
Length
LOS
Delay
Movement
(pcph)
(pcph)
(pcph) (sec /veh)
(veh)
- - - - --
- - - --
(sec /veh)
--- - - - - --
-- - - - - --
EB L
- - - - --
14
- - - - --
216
- - - - -- - - - - - --
17.8
-
0.1
C
6.9
EB R
45
1107
3.4
0.0
A
SE L
470
1294
4.4
1.9
A
3.0
Intersection Delay = 2.4 sec /veh
�-3
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g 8640WAE.HCO Page l
Kimley -Horn & Associates
-----------------------------------
Streets: (N -S) Old NC 86 (E -W) I -40 W Ramps
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ............. .. JMC
Date of Analysis.......... 8/2/99
Other Information ......... AM Peak - Existing Conditions
-Two- way ,Stop - controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L I T R
No. Lanes
Stop /Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC' s M.)
SU /RV's (%)
CV' s W.
PCE's
1 1 0
N
32 173
.9 .9
0
1.10
0 1 < 0
N
543 16
.9 .9
0
Adjustment Factors
1 0 1
14 162
.9 .9
0
1.10 1.10
Vehicle
Critical
Follow -up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic-Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor-Road
6.50
3.40
Intersection Performance Summary
44
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g
8640EPE.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC
Intersection
Shared Total
Step.1: RT from Minor Street
I'm
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
Rate-,
218
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
Length
1074
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
Movement
1074
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
(pcph) (sec /veh)
0.97
Step 2: LT from Major Street
SB
NB
Conflicting Flows: .(vph)
274
13.1
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1269
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1269
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
0.75
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
3.5
764
' Potential. Capacity: (pcph)
?
382
Major LT, Minor TH
.1269
3.8
Impedance Factor:
A
0.75
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
0.75
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.75
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
287
Intersection Performance Summary
Intersection Delay =
1.6 sec /veh
Avg.
95%
Flow_
Move
Shared Total
Queue
Approach
Rate-,
Cap
Cap Delay-,:
Length
LOS
Delay
Movement
(pcph)
(pcph)
(pcph) (sec /veh)
(veh)
(sec /veh)
EB L
12
287
13.1
0.0
C
6.2
EB R
31
1074
3.5
0.0
A
SB L
315
.1269
3.8
1.1
A
2.1
Intersection Delay =
1.6 sec /veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g 8640WPE.HCO Page
-- - - - - -- -------- - - - - --
Kimley -Horn & Associates
---- - - - - -- -------------------- -------
Streets: (N -S) Old NC 86 (E -W) I -40 W Ramps
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst........... ...... JMC
Date of Analysis.......... 8/2/99
Other Information ......... PM Peak - Existing Conditions
Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 < 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Stop /Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MCIS (a)
SU /RV's (?6)
CV' S M)
)
PCE's
N
42 190
.9 .9
0
1.10
iS
Adjustment Factors
60 449
.9 .9
0
1.10 1.10
Vehicle
Critical
Follow -up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic -Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor -Road
6.50
3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g 8640WAE.HC0 Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
192
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1107
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1107
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
0.82
Step 2: LT from Major Street
SB
NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
621
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
867
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
867
Prob. of Queue-Free-State:
0.95
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
840
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
345
Major LT. Minor TH
Impedance. Factor:
0.95
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
0.9,5
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.95
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
329
Intersection
Performance Summary
Avg.
95%
Flow_ Move Shared
Total
Queue
Approach
Rate-; Cap Cap
Delay
` Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcgh)(sec
/veh) (veh)
(sec /veh)
WB L 18 329
11.6
.0.0 C
4.6
WB R 198 1107
4.0
0.7 A
NB L 40 867
4.4
0.0 A
0.7
Intersection Delay
=
1.0 sec /veh
Intersection Delay = 3'.4 sec /veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1g. 864OWPE.HC0 Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
211
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1082
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1082
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
0.49
Step 2: LT from Major Street
SB
NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
451
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
1045
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
1045
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
0.95
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
-
WB
EB
--- - - - - -- - -- - - - -- - - - - -
Conflicting Flows: (vph).
-- ----------------------
702
Potential Capacity': (pcph)
415
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
0.9
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
0.95
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.95
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
394
Intersection
Performance Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow-.• Move Shared
Total. Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
Delay Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec
/veh) (veh)
(sec /veh)
WB L 74 394
11.2 0.8 C
7.3
WB R 549 1082
6.7 3.3 B
NB L 52 1045
3.6 0.0 A
0.7
Intersection Delay = 3'.4 sec /veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g 85N86AME.HCO . Page 1
Kimley -Horn & Associates
Streets: (N -S) Old NC 86 (E -W) I -85 NB Ramp
Major Street Direction .. NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ................... JMC
Date of Analysis.......... 8/9/99
Other Information ......... AM Peak - Existing Conditions
Two -way Stop- controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes 0 1 < 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
Stop /Yield N N
Volumes 377 303 221 654 102 59
PHF .9 .9 .9 .9 .9 .9
Grade 0 0 0
MC' s 0 )
SU /RV's M)
)' _
CV's (01).
PCE's 1.10 1.10 1.10
0
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Critical
Follow -up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic .Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
6.50
3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g 85N86PME.HC0 Page
Kimley -Horn & Associates
Streets: (N -S) Old NC 86 (E -W) I -85 NB Ramp
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ................... JMC
Date of Analysis.... ..... 8/9/99
Other Information PM Peak - Existing Conditions
Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
0
1 <
0
1 1
0
1
0 1
0 0 0
Stop /Yield
N
N
Volumes
737
95
156 687
76
47
PHF
.9
.9
.9 .9
.9
.9
Grade
0
0
0
MC' s (% )
SU /RV's (%)
CV,s �o)
PCE's
1.10
1.10
1.10
Adjustment
Factors
Vehicle
Critical
Follow -up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
Left Turn Major
Road
5.00
2.'10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic -Minor
Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor'Road
.6.50
3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g 85N86AME.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street WB EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
727
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
593
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
593
Prob. of Queue -Free State:.
0.88
Step 2: LT from Major Street
SB
NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
756
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
748
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
748
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
0.64
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
1560
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
132
Major LT,,Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
0.64
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
.
0.64
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.64
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
84 -
Intersection
Performance Summary
Avg,
950
Flow_ Move Shared
Total
Queue
Approach
Rate -` Cap Cap
Delay-
Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)
(sec /veh)
(veh)
- - -- - - - --
(sec /veh)
--- - - - - --
-- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - --
EB L 124 84
- - - - - --
*
- - -
24.6 F
646.8
EB R 73 593
6.9
0.4 B
SB L 271 748
7.5
1.9 B
1.9
Intersection Delay
=
61.7 sec /veh
* The calculated value was greater than 999.9.
5f
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g 85S86AME.HC0 Page 1
------------------
Kimley -Horn & Associates
--------- - - - - -- -------------------- -_____
Streets: (N -S) Old NC 86 (E -W) I -85 SB Ramp
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed.. 60 (min)
Analyst ................... JMC
Date of Analysis......... 8/9/99
Other Information ......,.'AM Peak - Existing Conditions
Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Stop /Yield
Volumes.
PHF
Grade
MC' s (% )
SU /RV's ( %)
CV's (O )
PCE" s -
1 1 0
N
41 438
.9 .9
0
1.10
0 1 < 0
N
789 46
.9 .9
0
Adjustment Factors
1 0 1
86 139
.9 .9
0
.1.10 1.10
Vehicle
Critical
Follow -up
Maneuver
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
..6.50
3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections
Release 2.1g
85N86PME.HC0 Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
--------------------------------------------------------
Step l: RT from Minor Street
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
763
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
569
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
569
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
0.90
Step 2: LT from Major Street
SB
NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
925
-
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
621
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
621
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
0.69
--------------------------------------------------------
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
WB
EB
- ------------- - - - - -- - --
-----------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
1808
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
95
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
0,69
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
0:69
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.69
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
66
Intersection
Performance Summary
Avg. 1 95%
Flow Move Shared
Total Queue
Approach
Rate -'• Cap Cap
Delay ,. Length
LOS Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)
(sec /veh) (veh)
(sec /veh)
EB L 92 66
921.5 17.8
F
572.1
EB R 57 569
7.0 0.3
B
SB L 190 621
8.3 1.5
B 1.5
Intersection Delay
= 39.9 sec
/veh
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4g 08 -25 -1999 53
Kimley -Horn & Associates
--- - - - - -- ------------ - - - - -- ------------------ -_____
Streets: (E -W) Cardinal Drive (N -S) Old NC 86
Analyst: JMC File Name: 86CDAME.HC9
Area Type: Other 8 -25 -99 AM Peak
Comment: Existing Conditions
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Volumes
PHF or PK15
Lane W (ft)'i
Grade
0
Heavy Veh
Parking
Bus Stops
Con. Peds
Ped Button
Arr Type.
RTOR Vols
Lost Time
Prop. Share
Prop. Prot.
Phase Combir
1
0 1
124
17
0.90
0.90
12.0
12.0
0
0
2
2
N
N
0
Right
0
(YIN)
N
3
.3
0
3.00
3.00
iat ion
1 2
0 0 0
0
Signal Operatic
3 4
1
1 0
12
653
0.90
0'.90
12.0
12.0
0
0
2
2
N
N
0
Right
0
(YIN)
N
.: 3
3
0
3.00
3.00
,ns
8
5
0 1
< 0
589
61
0.90
0.90
12.0
0
2
2
N N
Thru
0
Right
0
(YIN) N
3
Right
0
3.00
3.00.
6 7
8
EB Left
*
NB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
*
Right
Peds
Peds
WB Left
SB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
NB Right
EB Right
SB Right
WB Right
Green
11.0A
Green 7.OA
84.OA
Yellow /AR
6.0
Yellow /AR 6.0
6.0
Cycle Length:
120 secs
Phase combination order: #1 #5
#6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group:
Adj Sat
v/c
g/C
Approach:
Mvmts
Cap
Flow
Ratio
Ratio Delay
LOS
Delay LOS
EB L
206
1770
0.668
0.117 38.3
D
36.5 D
R
356
1583
0.053
0.225 23.6
C
NB L
291
1770
0.045
0.833 1.7
A
1.9 A
T
1552
1863
0.468
0.833 1.9
A
SB TR
1198
1653
0.603
0.725 5.8
B
5.8 B
Intersection
Delay =
7.0 sec /veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time /Cycle,
-----------------------------------------------------------------
L
= 9.0
sec Critical v /c(x) =
0.565
- - - - --
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g 85S86AME.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 1: RT from Minor Street
WB
EB
--------------------------------------------------------
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
487
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
784
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
784
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
0.78
Step 2: LT from Major Street
SB
NB
Conflicting Flows: -(vph)
928
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
619
Movement Capacity: (pcph).
619
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
- -
0.92
-EB
Step 4: LT from Minor Street-------
--------------------------------
------
WB-------
-
-
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
1436
it c h
ac ( ).
Potential .Ca P y' (pcph)
6
156
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
0.42
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
0.92
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to Impeding Movements
0.92
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
143
Intersection
Performance Summary
Avg.
95%
Flow- Move Shared
Total
Queue
Approach
Rate'. Cap Cap
Delay
`. Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec
/veh) (veh)
(sec /veh)
WB L 106 143
88.6
6.1 F
37.5
WB R 169 784
5.9
0.9 B
NB L. 51 619
6.3
0.2 B
0.5
Intersection Delay = 5.7 sec /veh
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4g 08 -24 -1999 55
Kimley -Horn & Associates
Streets: (E -W) Oakdale Drive (N -S) Old NC 86
Analyst: JMC File Name: 860DAME.HC9
Area Type: Other 8 -24 -99 AM Peak
Comment: Existing Conditions
Eastbound--1 Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Volumes
PHF or PK15
Lane W (ft)
Grade
Heavy Veh
Parking
Bus Stops
Con. Peds
Ped Button,
Arr Type
RTOR Vols
Lost Time
Prop. Share
Prop. Prot.
Phase Combi
n
0 > 1 < 0
186 19. 95
0.90 0.90 0.90
12.0
0
2 2 2
N N
0
0
(YIN) N -
3
0
3.00 3.00 3.00
ation 1 2
0 >
1 < 0
12
4
26
0.90
0.90
0.901
0.9.0
12.0
12.0
Thru
0
0
2
2
2
N
N
N
Right
0
0'
0
(YIN)
N
N
3
3
0
�.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
Signal
Operatic
3
4
5
1
1 <
0
27
412
1
0.90
0'.90
0.9.0
12.0
12.0
Thru
0
2
2
2
N
N
Right
0'
0
(YIN)
N
.• 3
3
0
3.00
3.00
3.00
ins
7
8
5
1
1
< 0
18
527
52
0.90
0.90
0.90
12.0
12.0
Thru
0
2
2
2
N
N
Right
0
0
(YIN)
N
3
3
0
3.00
3.00
3.00
6
7
8
EB
Left
*
NB Left
Thru
*
Thru
Right
*
Right
Peds
Peds
WB
Left
*
SB Left
Thru
*
Thru
Right
*
Right
Peds
Peds
NB
Right
EB Right
SB
Right
WB Right
Green
34.OA
Green 7.OA
61.0A
Yellow
/AR
6.0
Yellow /AR 6.0
6.0
Cycle
Length:
120
secs Phase
combination
order: #1 #5'
#6
Intersection
Performance
Summary
Lane Group:
Adj Sat
v/c
g/C
Approach:
Mvmts
Cap
Flow
Ratio
Ratio Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
EB
LTR
418
1355
0.799
0.308 31.8
D
31.8
D
WB
LTR
364
1182
0.126
0.308 19.3
C
19.3
C.
NB
L
215
1770
0.140
0.642 8.1
B
11.3
B
TR
993
1862
0.462
0.533 11.5
B
SB
L
304
1770,
0.066
0.642 6.1
B
13.9
B
TR
980
1838
0.657
0.533 14.1
B
Intersection
Delay =
17.1 sec /veh Intersection
LOS
= C
Lost
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Time /Cycle, L
= 9.0
sec Critical
v /c(x) =
0.664
- -
- - --
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4g. 08 -25 -1999, Sd
Kimley -Horn & Associates
Streets: (E -W) Cardinal Drive (N -S) Old NC 86
Analyst: JMC File Name: 86CDPME.HC9
Area Type: Other 8 -25 -99 PM Peak
Comment: Existing Conditions
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Volumes
PHF or PK15
Lane W (ft)
Grade
o Heavy Veh
Parking
Bus Stops
Con. Peds
Ped Button
Arr Type
RTOR Vols
Lost Time
Prop. Share
Prop Prot.
Phase Combi
l 0
1
79
12
0.90
0.90
12.0
12.0
0
2
2
N N
Thru
0.
Right
0
(YIN) N
3
3
.O.
3.00
3.00
nation 1
2
0 0 0
0
Signal Operatic
3 1 4
1 1 0
18 677
0.90 01.90
12.012.0
0
2 2
N N
0
0
(YIN) N
3 3
3.00 3.00
-------- - - - - --
)ns
5
U 1 <
0
553
123
0.90
0.90
12.0
0
2
2
N N
Thru
0
Right
0
(YIN) 14
3
Right
0
3.00
3.00
6 7
8
EB Left
*
NB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
*
Right
Peds
Peds
WB Left
SB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
NB Right
EB Right
SB Right
WB Right
Green
7.OA
Green 7.OA
88.OA
Yellow /AR
6.0
Yellow /AR 6.0
6.0
Cycle Length:
120 secs
Phase
combination order: #1 #5
#6
Intersection
Performance Summary
Lane Group:
Adj Sat
v/c
g/C
Approach:
Mvmts
Cap
Flow
Ratio
Ratio Delay
LOS
Delay LOS
EB L
147
1770
0.597
0.083 38.8
D
37.1 D
R
303
1583
0.043
0.192 25.5
D
NB L
301
1770
0.066
0.867 1.2
A
1.3 A
T
1614
1863
0.466
0.867 1.3
A
SB TR
1237
1631
0.607
0.758 4.8
A
4.8 A
Intersection
Delay =
5.2 sec /veh Intersection
LOS = B
Lost Time /Cycle,
-----------------------------------------------------------------
L
= 9.0
sec Critical v /c(x) =
0.564
- - - - --
S7
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g 85S86PME.HCO Page 1
------- - - - - -- ----------------------- ____________
Kimley -Horn & Associates
Streets: (N -S) Old NC 86 (E -W) I -85 SB Ramp
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst ................... JMC
Date of Analysis.......... 8/9/99
Other Information ......... PM Peak - Existing Conditions
Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No Lanes 1 1 0 0 1 < 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Stop /Yield N _ N
Volumes 47 766 653 131 190 390
PHF .9 .9 9 .9 .9 9
Grade 0 0 0
MC's M
SU /RV's (o)
CV's (%)
PCE's 1.10 .1.10 1.10
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Critical
Follow -up
Maneuver
-------------------------------------_----------------------------_-
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic-Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor Road
.6.50
3.40
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4g 08-24-1999 St
Kimley -Horn & Associates
Streets: (E -W) Oakdale Drive (N -S) Old NC 86
Analyst: JMC File Name: 860DPME.HC9
Area Type: Other 8 -24 -99 PM Peak
Comment: Existing Conditions
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Volumes
PHF or PK15
Lane W (ft)
Grade
Heavy Veh
Parking .
Bus Stops
Con. Peds
Ped Button
Arr Type
RTOR Vols
Lost Time
Prop. Share
Prop. Prot.
Phase Combiz
0 >
1 <
0
92
11
42
0.90
0.90
0.90
12.0
12.0
0
Thru
2
2
2
N
N
0
0
(YIN)
N
3
3,
Peds
0
3.00
3.00
3.00
cation
1
2
0 > 1 < 0
9 9 30
0.90 0.900.90
12.0
0
2 2 2
N N
0
0
(YIN) N ,
3
0
3.00 3.00 3.00
Signal Operatic
3 4
1 1 < 0
71 554 2
0.90 0.90 0.90
12.0 12.0
0
2 2 2
N N
0
0
(YIN) N
3 3
3.00.3.00 3.00
Ms
5
1
1 <
0
21
428
109
0.90
0.90
0.90
12.0
12.0
0
Thru
2
2
2
N
N
0
0
(YIN)
N
3
3
Peds
0
3.00
3.00
3.00
6
7
8
EB Left
*
NB Left
Thru
*
Thru
Right
*
Right
Peds
Peds
WB Left
*
SB Left
Thru
*
Thru
Right
*
Right
Peds
Peds
NB Right
EB Right
SB Right
WB Right
Green
18.OA
Green 7.OA
77.OA
Yellow /AR
6.0
Yellow /AR 6.0
6.0
Cycle Length:
120 secs
Phase
combination order: #1 #5
#6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection
Performance Summary
Lane Group:
Adj Sat
v/c
I g/C
Approach:
Mvmts
Cap
Flow
Ratio
Ratio Delay
LOS
Delay
LOS
EB LTR
226
1294
0.711
0.175 36.9
D
36.9
D
WB LTR
246
1406
0.215
0.175 27.5
D
27.5
D
NB L
268
1770
0.295
0.775 3.9
A
6.4
B
TR
1241
1862
0.498
0.667 6.7
B
SB L
265
1770
0.087
0.775 3.3
A
6.6
B
TR
1204
1806
0.496
0.667 6.7
B
Intersection
Delay =
10.4 sec /veh Intersection
LOS
= B
Lost Time /Cycle, L
= 9.0
sec Critical
v /c(x) =
0.542
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Vezsion 2.4E 08-02-I999
40
KiouIel,-Horn & Associates
=======================================================================
Streets: (}]-VV) I-40 IC Ramp (N-S) Old 0C 86
Analyst: JMC ` File Name: 8640EA5I,BC9
8-2-99 �� Peak
Type: Ottzer
Comment: 2005 vvitlz Improvements
=======================================================================
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T Il L T Il L T R L T Il
|--_- ---- ----|---- ---- ----|---- ---- ----|---- ---- ----
No Lanes
Volumes
Grade
Parking
Bus Stops
Con. Peds,
Ped Button
Arr Type
Lost Time
Prop. Share
Prop. Prot.
I
Phase C mbir
* 0
I
8 7
44
0.90
0.90
12.0
12'D
O
�
D
2
2
N
N
+
O
2
O
(YIN) J
D
3'
]
*
O �
�
]'OO
3'OO
'--------------
'
u
u
_ u
|
O
---------------
'
Signal Operatic
3 4 | |
L <v
303
45
0.90
O'9O
12,O
O'gO
O
12.0
2
2
N N
D
`
+
D
2
O
(YIN) N
D
3
Right
*
D
3'OO
3'OD
,
+------------�
)ns
- -
J
Peds
z
J-
w
722
2 49
NB Left
0.90
O'gO
T1hru
12.0
12.D
D
`
+
� 2
2
D
D
Right
*
O
Pedo
O
({/0)
J
Peds
�
3
3
WB Left
O
|'DO
| | .
3'OO
'--_----_---_-
5
7
-
'
8
EB Left
*
NB Left
T1hru
Thru
+
Right
Right
*
Pedo
Peds
WB Left
.
*
Tlzzu
Thru
Right
Right
eeoo
.
reds
NB Right
.
EB Right
SB Right
W13 Right
Green
7.OA
Green 38.OA
27.OA
Yellow/AR _
6.0
�-
Yellow/AR 6.0
6 ' O
Cycle h;
90 oeoo
Phase
combination order: #I #5
#6
----------------------------_----------_------_--------------_-------_-
Intersection
Performance Summary
Lane Group:
Ad] Gat
v/ c
g/C
;
Approach:
Mvmto
Cap
Flow
Ratio
Ratio Delay
LOS
Delay LOS
----- ---
-----
EB I,
----
197
-------
I770
-----
0.493
----- -----
0'I11 35.9
---
D
25.2 I}
ll
176
1583
0'279
0.111 23.9
C
BQ3 TR
548
1644
0.706
0'333 I9'8
C
19.8 C
SB I^
16I2
3539
0.5I2
0'456 11.5
B
8.9 B
T
1532
I863
0'I8I
0'822 1.1
A
�
Intersection
Delay =
12.9 oeo/veh Intersection
LOS = B
L-oot Time/Cycle, I,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
= 3'0
sec critical
`r/o(x) =
0.582
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4g 08 -02- ,1999,
Kimley -Horn & Associates bl
------------------ - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --
Streets: (E -W) I -40 E Ramp (N -S) Old NC 86
Analyst.: JMC - File Name: 8640EP5I.HC9
Area Type: Other 8 -2 -99 PM Peak
Comment: 2005 with Improvements
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R I L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Volumes
PHF or PK15
Lane W (ft)
Grade
Heavy Veh
Parking
Bus Stops
Con. Peds
Red Button
Arr Type
RTOR Vols
Lost Time
Prop. Share
Prop. Prot.
Phase Combii
1
0 1
88
30
0.90
0.90
12.0
12.0
0
0
2
2
N
N
0
2
0',
(YIN)
N
3
Right
0'
3.00
3.00
cation
1 2
0 0 0
0
Signal. Operatic
3 4
0 1 <
0
341
29
0'.90
0.90
12.0
0.90
0
12.0
2
2
N N
0
0
2
0
(YIN) N
N
3
Right
0
3.00
3.00
ins
(YIN)
5
Peds
2
1
0
933
335
NB Left
0.90
0.90
Thru
12.0
12.0
0
2
2
*
N
N
Right
0
Peds
0
(YIN)
N
Peds
3
3
WB Left
0
3.00
3.00
6
7
8
EB Left
*
NB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
*
Right
Peds
Peds
WB Left
SB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
NB Right
EB Right
SB Right
WB Right
Green
7.OA
Green 38.OA
27.OA
Yellow /AR
6.0
Yellow /AR 6.0
6.0
Cycle Length:
90 secs
Phase
combination
order: #1.#5
#6
Intersection
Performance
Summary
Lane Group:
Adj Sat
v/c
g/C
Approach:
Mvmts
Cap
Flow
Ratio
Ratio Delay
LOS
Delay LOS
EB L
197
1770
0.498
0.111 26.0
D
25.4 D
R
176
1583
0.188
0.111 23.5
C
NB TR
552
1657
0.744
0.333 20.9
C
20.9 C
SB L
1612
3539
0.662
0.456 13.1
B
10.0 B
T
1532
1863
0.243
0.822 1.2
A
Intersection
Delay =
13.3 sec /veh Intersection
LOS = B
Lost Time /Cycle, L
-----------------------------------------------------------------
= 9.0
sec Critical
v /c(x) =
0.672
- - - - --
b�•
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g 8640WA5I.HC0 Page 1
Kimley -Horn & Associates
- -- -- ------- - - - - --
Streets: (N -S) Old NC 86 (E -W) I -40 W Ramps
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst....... ......... JMC
Date of Analysis.......... 8/2/99
Other Information ......... AM Peak. - 2005 with Improvements
Two -way Stop- controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Stop /Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC' s (% )
SU /RV's (.°s)
CV's (%)
PCE I s
1 1 0
N
38 353
.9 .9
0
1.10
0 2 < 0
N
953 61
.9 .9
0
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Critical
Follow -up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (t f )
Left Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic -Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor'Road
6.50
3.40
43
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g 8640WA5I.HC0 Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC Intersection
Step 2: LT from Major Street
SB
NB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
1127
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
498
Movement Capacity : - (pcph)
498
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
0.91
Step 4: LT from Minor Street
WB
EB
Conflicting Flows: (vph)
1493
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
145
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
0.91
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
0.91
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to-Impeding Movements
0.91
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
132
Intersection
PerformanceSummary
Avg. 950
Flow. Move Shared
Total Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
Delay Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)(sec
/veh) (veh)
(sec /veh)
WB L 21 132
32.4 0.6 E
32.4
NB L 46'- 498
8.0 0.3 B
0.8
Intersection Delay
= 0.6 sec /veh
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g 8640WP5I.HCO Page 1
Kimley -Horn & Associates
- - - - - -- ------- - - - - --
Streets (N -S) Old NC 86 (E -W) I -40 W Ramps
Major Street Direction.... NS
Length of Time Analyzed... 60 (min)
Analyst....... ....... JMC
Date of Analysis.......... 8/2/99
Other Information ......... PM Peak —2005 with Improvements
Two -way Stop - controlled Intersection
Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Stop /Yield
Volumes
PHF
Grade
MC's C0
SU /RV's,'( %)
CV' s 00
}
PCE' s
1 1 0
N
50 379
.9 .9
0
1.10
0 2 < 0
N
1196 116
.9 .9
0
Adjustment Factors
Vehicle
Critical
Follow -up
Maneuver
Gap (tg)
Time (tf)
Left Turn Major Road
5.00
2.10
Right Turn Minor Road
5.50
2.60
Through Traffic-Minor Road
6.00
3.30
Left Turn Minor'Road
6.50
3.40
HCS: Unsignalized Intersections Release 2.1g
' 864OWPSI.HCO Page 2
Worksheet for TWSC
Intersection
-------------------------------------------------------
Step 2: LT from Major Street
SB
NB
Conflicting Flows: ( vph)---------------------
- - - - -- -1458
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
346
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
346
Prob. of Queue -Free State:
0.82
Step 4 LT from Minor Street
-----------------------
WB
Eg
.Conflicting Flows:. (vph) -------------
1806------- - -
- - --
Potential Capacity: (pcph)
95
Major LT, Minor TH
Impedance Factor:
0.82
Adjusted Impedance Factor:
0.82
Capacity Adjustment Factor
due to-Impeding Movements
0.82
Movement Capacity: (pcph)
78
Intersection
Performance °Summary
Avg. 95%
Flow Move Shared Total Queue
Approach
Rate Cap Cap
Delay Length LOS
Delay
Movement (pcph) (pcph) (pcph)
(sec /veh) (veh)
(sec /veh)
WB L 88 78
- - - - - - - - - -
488.7 12.7 F
- - - - - - - - - -
488.7
NB L 62 " . 346
12. 7 .. 0.7 C
1.5
Intersection Delay _ 19.8 sec /veh
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4g 08 -31 -1999 bG
Kimley -Horn & Associates
Streets: (E -W) I -85 NB (N -S) Old NC 86
Analyst: JMC File Name: 85N86AMI.HC9
Area Type: Other 8 -9 -99 AM Peak
Comment: 2005
--------------------- - - - - -- ------- - - - - --
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Volumes
PHF or PK15I
Lane W (ft)
Grade
Heavy Veh
Parking
Bus Stops
Con. Peds
Ped Button
Arr Type
RTOR Vols
Lost Time
Prop. Share
Prop. Prot.
Phase Combii
1
0 1
122
141
0.90
0.90
12.0
12.0
Right
0
2
2
N
N
0
2
0
(YIN)
N
3
3'
0
3.00
3.00
cation
1 2
N
*
0 0 0
0
Signal Operatil
3 4
NB
0 1 1
535 600
0'.90 0.90
12.0 12.0
0
2 2
N N
0
0
(YIN) N
3 31
0I
3.0.0 3.00
ins
5
Left
1
2
0
264
1261
Thru
0.90
0.90
Right
12.0
12.0
0
2
2
N
N
Peds
0
WE Left
0
(YIN)
N
SB Left
3
3
Thru
0
3.00
3.00
6
7
8
EB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
*
Right
Peds
Peds
WE Left
SB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
NB Right
*
EB Right
SB Right
WB Right
Green
12.OA
Green 14.OA
76.OA
Yellow /AR
6.0
Yellow /AR 6.0
6.0
Cycle Length:
120 secs
Phase
combination order: #1 #5
#6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection
Performance Summary
Lane Group:
Adj Sat
v/c
g/C
Approach:
Mvmts
Cap
Flow
Ratio
Ratio Delay
LOS
Delay LOS
- - - --
EB L
- - --
221
- - - - - --
1770
- - - --
0.615
0.125 35.7
D
41.2 E
R
198
1583
0.793
0.125 46.0
E
NB T
1226
1863
0.484
0.658 6.9
B
4.7 A
R
1280
1583
0.521
0.808 2.8
A
SB L
370
1770
0.792
0.825 24.2
C
5.7 B
T
3074
3725
0.479
0.825 2.1
A
Intersection
Delay =
8.5 sec /veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time /Cycle,
L
= 6.0
sec Critical v /c(x) =
0.593
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4g 08 -31. -1999 6n
Kimley -Horn & Associates
--------------- - - - - -- --------------- - - - --
Streets: (E -W) I -85 NB (N -S) Old NC 86
Analyst: JMC File Name: 85N86PMI.HC9
Area Type: Other 8 -9 -99 PM Peak
Comment: 2005
Eastbound. Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Volumes
PHF or PK15
Lane W (ft)
Grade
Heavy Veh
Parking
Bus Stops
Con. Peds
Ped Button
Arr Type
RTOR Vols
Lost Time
Prop. Share
Prop. Prot.
Phase Combi
n
1 0 l
91 133
0.90 0.90
12.0 12.0
0
2 2
N N
0
0
(YIN) N
3 3
0
3.00 3.00
•-------------- -
ation 1 2
0 0 0
0
i
Signal Operatic
3 4
1082 679
0:90 0.90
12.0 12.0
0
2 2
N N
0
0
(YIN) N
3 3
0
3..00 3.00
>ns
5
1 2 0
186 1322
0.90 0.90
12.0 12.-0
0
2 2
N N
0
0
(YIN) N
3 3
0
.3.00 3.00
6 7 8
EB Left * NB Left
Thru Thru
Right * Right
Peds Peds
WB Left SB Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds
NB Right * EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 10.OA Green 9.OA 83.OA
Yellow /AR 6.0 Yellow /AR 6.0 6.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
- - - -- - - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - -- - - - -- - --
EB L 192 1770 0.527 0.108 34.8 D 47.9 E
R 172 1583 0.863 0.108 56.9 E
NB T 1335 1.863 0.900 0.717 15.0 B 10.0 B
R 1346 1583 0.560 0.850 2.1 A
SB L 239 1770 0.866 0.842 45.9 E 7.0 B
T 3136 3725 0.492 0.842 1.8 A
Intersection Delay = 11.1 sec /veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time /Cycle, L = . 9.0 sec Critical v /c(x) = 0.907
----------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
0 0 0
0
i
Signal Operatic
3 4
1082 679
0:90 0.90
12.0 12.0
0
2 2
N N
0
0
(YIN) N
3 3
0
3..00 3.00
>ns
5
1 2 0
186 1322
0.90 0.90
12.0 12.-0
0
2 2
N N
0
0
(YIN) N
3 3
0
.3.00 3.00
6 7 8
EB Left * NB Left
Thru Thru
Right * Right
Peds Peds
WB Left SB Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds
NB Right * EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 10.OA Green 9.OA 83.OA
Yellow /AR 6.0 Yellow /AR 6.0 6.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
- - - -- - - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - -- - - - -- - --
EB L 192 1770 0.527 0.108 34.8 D 47.9 E
R 172 1583 0.863 0.108 56.9 E
NB T 1335 1.863 0.900 0.717 15.0 B 10.0 B
R 1346 1583 0.560 0.850 2.1 A
SB L 239 1770 0.866 0.842 45.9 E 7.0 B
T 3136 3725 0.492 0.842 1.8 A
Intersection Delay = 11.1 sec /veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time /Cycle, L = . 9.0 sec Critical v /c(x) = 0.907
----------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
EB Left * NB Left
Thru Thru
Right * Right
Peds Peds
WB Left SB Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds
NB Right * EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 10.OA Green 9.OA 83.OA
Yellow /AR 6.0 Yellow /AR 6.0 6.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
- - - -- - - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - -- - - - -- - --
EB L 192 1770 0.527 0.108 34.8 D 47.9 E
R 172 1583 0.863 0.108 56.9 E
NB T 1335 1.863 0.900 0.717 15.0 B 10.0 B
R 1346 1583 0.560 0.850 2.1 A
SB L 239 1770 0.866 0.842 45.9 E 7.0 B
T 3136 3725 0.492 0.842 1.8 A
Intersection Delay = 11.1 sec /veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time /Cycle, L = . 9.0 sec Critical v /c(x) = 0.907
----------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4g 08 -30 -1999 Lg
Kimley -Horn & Associates
Streets: (E -W) I -85 SB (N -S) Old NC 86
Analyst: JMC File Name: 85S86AMI.HC9
Area Type: Other 8 -9 -99 AM Peak
Comment: 2005
------------------------------------
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Volumes
PHF or PK15
Lane W (ft)
Grade
Heavy Veh
Parking
Bus Stops
Con. Peds
Ped Button
Arr Type
RTOR Vols
Lost Time
Prop. Share
Prop. Prot.
Phase Combii
0 0 0
0
iat ion 1 2
2
0 1
510
166
0.90
0.90
12.0
12.0
0
0
2
2
N
N
0
Right
0
(YIN)
N
3
3
0
3.00
X3.00
Signal
Operatic
3
4
1
1 0
91
566
0.90
0'.90
12.0
12.0
0
0
2
2
N
N
0
Right
0
(YIN)
N
- 3
3._
0
3.00
3.00
,ns
8
5
0 1
1
1015
55
0:90
0.90
12.0
12.0
0
2
2
N N
Thru
0
Right
0
(YIN) N
3
3
0
3.00
'3.00
6 7"
8
EB Left
NB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
WE Left
*
SB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
*
Right
Peds
Peds
NB Right
EB Right
SB Right
*
WE Right
Green
20.OA
Green 7.OA
75.OA
Yellow /AR
6.0
Yellow /AR 6.0,
6.0
Cycle Length:
120 secs
Phase
combination
order: #1 #5
#6
----------------------------------------------.-----------------------
Intersection
Performance.
Summary
Lane Group:
Adj Sat
v/c
g/C
Approach:
Mvmts
Cap
Flow
Ratio
Ratio Delay
LOS
Delay LOS
WE L
678
3539
0.861
0.192 38.0
D
36.4 D
R
303
1583
0.606
0.192 31.1
D
NB L
210-
1770
0.481
0.758 20.5
C
5.9 B
T
1413
1863
0.445
0.758 3.6
A
SB T
1211"
1863
0.932
0.650 21.3
C
20.3 C
R
1372
1583
0.044
0.867 0.7
A
Intersection
Delay =
21.0 sec /veh Intersection
LOS = C
Lost Time /Cycle, L
-----------------------------------------------------------------
= 9.0
sec Critical
v /c(x) =
0.895
- - - - --
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY
Version 2.4g 08 -30 -1999 �q
Kimley -Horn &
Associates
Streets: (E -W) I -85 SB
(N -S) Old NC 86
Analyst: JMC
File Name: 85S86PMI.HC9
Area Type: Other
8 -9 -99 PM Peak
Comment: 2005
Eastbound
Westbound Northbound
Southbound
L T R
L T
R
L T R
L
T
R
No. Lanes
0 0 0
2 0
1
1 1 0
0
1
1
Volumes
653
466
157 1016
856
156
PHF or PK15
0.90
0.90
0.90 01.90
0.90
0.90
Lane W (ft)
12.0
12.0
12.0 12.0
12.0
12.0
Grade
0
0
0
Heavy Veh
2
2
2 2
2
2
Parking
N N
N N
N
N
'Bus Stops
0
0
0
Con. Peds
0
0
0
0
Ped Button
(YIN) N
(YIN) N
(YIN)
N
Arr Type
3
3
.. 3 3
3
3
RTOR Vols
0
0
0
Lost Time
3.00
t.00
3.00 3.00
3.00
3.00
Prop. Share
Prop. Prot.
r
Signal Operations
Phase Combination 1 2
3 4
5 6
7
8
EB Left
NB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
WB Left *
SB Left
Thru
Thru
Right *
Right
Peds
Peds
NB Right
EB Right
SB Right *
WB Right
Green 25.OA
Green 7.OA 70.OA
Yellow /AR 6.0
Yellow /AR 6.0 6.0__
-.
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase
combination order: #1 #5 #6
Intersection
Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat
v/c
g/C
Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow
Ratio
Ratio Delay LOS
Delay
LOS
WB L 826 3539
0.906
0.233 38.6 D
41.5
E
R 541 1583
0.958
0.342 45.8 E
NB L 210 1770
0.829
0.717 39.1 D
35.4
D
T 1133 1863
0.996
0.608 34.8 D
SB T 1133 1863
0.839
0.608 16.2 C
13.8
B
R 1372 1583
0.126
0.867 0.8 A
Intersection
Delay = 30.9 sec /veh Intersection LOS
= D
Lost Time /Cycle, L = 6.0
sec Critical v /c(x) = 0.982
HCM': SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4g 08-24-1999
Kimley-Horn & Associates ID
Streets: (E-W) Oakdale Drive (N-S) Old NC 86
Analyst: JMC File Name: 860DAMSI.HC9
Area Type: Other 8-24-99 AM Peak
Comment: 2005 Conditions with Improvements
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
No. Lanes
Volumes
PHF or PK15
Lane W (ft)
Grade
k Heavy Veh
Parking
Bus Stops
Con. Peds
Ped Button
Arr- Type
RTOR Vols
Lost Time
Prop. Share
Prop. Prot.
Phase Combii
0 >
I <
0
.222
23
113
0.90
0.90
0.90
12.0
12.0
0
Thru
2
2
2
N
N
0
0
(YIN)
N
3
3
Peds
0
3.00
3.00
3.00
----------------
cation
1
2
0 >
1 <
0
14
5
31
0.90
0.90
0.90
12.0
12.0
0
Thru
2
2
2
N
N
0
0
(YIN)
N
3
3
Peds
0
3.00
3.00
3-00
----------------
Signal
Operati(
8
3
4
Thru
1
2 <
0
32
815
1
0.90
0'.90
0.90
12.0
12.0
0
Thru
2
2
2
N
N
0
0
(YIN)
N
3
.3
Peds
0
3.00
3.00
3.00
----------------
)ns
7
8
5
1
2 <
0
21
1180.
62
0.90
0.90
0.90
12.0
12.0
0
Thru
2
2
2_
N
N
0
0
(YIN)
N
3
3
Peds
0
3.00
3.100
3.00
--------------
6
7
8
EB Left
NB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
WB Left
SB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
NB Right
EB Right
SB Right
W13 Right
Green
37.OA,
Green 7.OA
58.OA
Yellow/AR
6.0
Yellow/AR 6.0
6.0
Cycle Length:
120 secs
Phase
combination
order: #1 #5
#6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection
Performance
Summary
Lane Group:
Adj Sat
VIC
g/C
Approach:
Mvmts
Cap
Flow
Ratio
Ratio Delay
LOS.
Delay
-----
LOS
---
-----
EB LTR
----
437
-------
1311
-----
0.913
0.333 41.5
E
41.5
E
WB LTR
381
1143
0.147
0.333 18.1
C
18.1
C
NB L
209
1770
0.172
0.617 10.7
B
12.7
B
TR
1893
3725
0.503
0.508 12.8
B
SB L
234
1770
0.098
0.617 7.1
B
16.7
C
TR
1880
3698
0.771
0.508 16.8
C
Intersection
Delay =
18.8 sec/veh Intersection
LOS
= C
Lost Time/Cycle,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
L
= 9.0
sec Critical
v/c(x) =
0.775
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4g 08-241!'*199.9
Kimley-Horn & Associates
Streets: (E-W) Oakdale Drive (N-S) Old NC 86
Analyst: JMC File Name: 86ODPM5I.HC9
Area Type: Other 8-24-99 PM Peak
Comment: 2005 Conditionswith Improvements
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- I ---- ---- ---- I ---- ---- -----
No. Lanes
Volumes
PHF or PK15
Lane W (ft)
Grade
6 Heavy Veh
Parking
Bus Stops
Con. Peds
Ped Button
Arr Type
RTOR Vols
Lost Time
Prop. Share
Prop. Prot.
Phase Combir
0 > 1 < 0
110 13 50
0.90 0.90 0.90
12.0
0
2 2 2
N N
0
0
(YIN) N
3
b
3.00 3.00 3.00
----------------
ation 1 2
0 >
I <
0
11
11
36
0.90
0.90
0.90
12.0
12.0
0
Thru
2
2
2
N
N
0
0
(YIN)
N -
3
3
Peds
0
3.00
3.00 �.3.00
---------------
Signal.Operatic
---------------
)ns
7
3
4
5
1
2 <
0
85
1430
2
0.90
0.90
0.90
12.0
12.0
0
Thru
2
2
2
N
N
0
0
(YIN)
N
3
3
Peds
0
3.00
3.00
3.00
---------------
)ns
7
8
5
1
2 .
< 0
25
1090
130
0.90
0.90
0.90
12.0
12.0
0
Thru
2
2
2
N
N
0
0
(YIN)
N
3
3
Peds
0
3.00
3.00
3.00
--------------
6
7
8
EB Left
NB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
WB Left
SB Left
Thru
,Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
NB Right
EB Right
SB Right
WB Right
Green
18.OA
Green 7.OA
77.OA
Yellow/AR
6.0-
Yellow/AR 6.0
6.0
Cycle Length:
120 secs
Phase
combination
order: #1 #5
#6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Intersection
Performance
Summary
Lane Group:
Adj sat
VIC
g/C
Approach:
Mvmts
Cap
Flow
Ratio
Ratio Delay
------ -----
LOS
---
Delay
-----
LOS
---
-----
EB LTR
----
213
-------
1219
-----
0.900
0.175 56.3
E
56.3
E
WB LTR
244
1391
0.263
0.175 27.8
D
27.8
D
NB L
255
1770
0.369
0.775 5.6
B
8.2
B
TR
2483
3725
0.673
0.667 8.3
B
SB L
239
1770
0.117
0.775 5.7
B
7.3
B
TR
2444
3666
0.582
0.667 7.3
B
Intersection
Delay =
10.8 sec/veh Intersection LOS
= B
Lost Time/Cycle,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
L
= 9.0
sec Critical
v/c(x) =
0.713
HCM:° SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4g 08 -25 -1999
Kimley -Horn & Associates
-------- - - - - -- -- - - - - --
------- - - - - --
Streets: (E -W) Cardinal Drive (N -S) Old NC 86
Analyst: JMC File Name: 86CDAM5I.HC9
Area Type: Other 8 -25 -99 AM Peak
Comment: 2005 Conditions with Improvements
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L T R L T R
No. Lanes
Volumes
PHF or PK15
Lane W (ft)
Grade
Heavy Veh
Parking
Bus Stops
Con. Peds
Ped Button
Arr Type
RTOR Vols
Lost Time
Prop. Share
Prop. Prot.
Phase Combi
n
1 0 1
148 20
0.90 0.90
12.0 12.0
0
2 2
N N
0
0
(YIN) N
3 3
'0
3.00 3.00
ation 1 2
0 0 0
0
Signal Operatic
3 4
1 2 0
14 1103
0.90 0•.90
12.0 12.0
0
2 2
N N
0
0
(YIN) N
3 3
0I
3.00 3.00
ins
5
0 2 < 0
1254 73
0.90 0.9c
12.0
0.
2 2
N N
0
0
(YIN) N
3
0
3.00 3.00
6 7 8
EB Left * NB Left
Thru Thru
Right * Right
Peds Peds
WB Left SB Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 11.0A Green 7.OA 84.OA
Yellow /AR 6.0 Yellow /AR 6.0 6.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB L 206 1770 0.794 0.117 46.1 E 43.4 E
R 356 1583 0.062 0.225 23.6 C
NB L 270 1770 0.059 0.833 2.9 A 1.7 A
T 3105 3725 0.415 0.833 1.7 A
SB TR 2679 3695 0.578 0.725 5. -3 B 5.3 B
Intersection Delay = 6.1 sec /veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time /Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v /c(x) = 0.563
----------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
0 0 0
0
Signal Operatic
3 4
1 2 0
14 1103
0.90 0•.90
12.0 12.0
0
2 2
N N
0
0
(YIN) N
3 3
0I
3.00 3.00
ins
5
0 2 < 0
1254 73
0.90 0.9c
12.0
0.
2 2
N N
0
0
(YIN) N
3
0
3.00 3.00
6 7 8
EB Left * NB Left
Thru Thru
Right * Right
Peds Peds
WB Left SB Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 11.0A Green 7.OA 84.OA
Yellow /AR 6.0 Yellow /AR 6.0 6.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB L 206 1770 0.794 0.117 46.1 E 43.4 E
R 356 1583 0.062 0.225 23.6 C
NB L 270 1770 0.059 0.833 2.9 A 1.7 A
T 3105 3725 0.415 0.833 1.7 A
SB TR 2679 3695 0.578 0.725 5. -3 B 5.3 B
Intersection Delay = 6.1 sec /veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time /Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v /c(x) = 0.563
----------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
0 2 < 0
1254 73
0.90 0.9c
12.0
0.
2 2
N N
0
0
(YIN) N
3
0
3.00 3.00
6 7 8
EB Left * NB Left
Thru Thru
Right * Right
Peds Peds
WB Left SB Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 11.0A Green 7.OA 84.OA
Yellow /AR 6.0 Yellow /AR 6.0 6.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB L 206 1770 0.794 0.117 46.1 E 43.4 E
R 356 1583 0.062 0.225 23.6 C
NB L 270 1770 0.059 0.833 2.9 A 1.7 A
T 3105 3725 0.415 0.833 1.7 A
SB TR 2679 3695 0.578 0.725 5. -3 B 5.3 B
Intersection Delay = 6.1 sec /veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time /Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v /c(x) = 0.563
----------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
EB Left * NB Left
Thru Thru
Right * Right
Peds Peds
WB Left SB Left
Thru Thru
Right Right
Peds Peds
NB Right EB Right
SB Right WB Right
Green 11.0A Green 7.OA 84.OA
Yellow /AR 6.0 Yellow /AR 6.0 6.0
Cycle Length: 120 secs Phase combination order: #1 #5 #6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane Group: Adj Sat v/c g/C Approach:
Mvmts Cap Flow Ratio Ratio Delay LOS Delay LOS
EB L 206 1770 0.794 0.117 46.1 E 43.4 E
R 356 1583 0.062 0.225 23.6 C
NB L 270 1770 0.059 0.833 2.9 A 1.7 A
T 3105 3725 0.415 0.833 1.7 A
SB TR 2679 3695 0.578 0.725 5. -3 B 5.3 B
Intersection Delay = 6.1 sec /veh Intersection LOS = B
Lost Time /Cycle, L = 9.0 sec Critical v /c(x) = 0.563
----------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
HCM: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION SUMMARY Version 2.4g 08 -25 -1999
Kimley -Horn & Associates
?3
Streets: (E -W) Cardinal Drive (N -S) Old NC 86
Analyst: JMC File Name: 86CDPM5I..HC9
Area Type: Other 8 -25 -99 PM Peak
Comment: 2005 Conditions with Improvements
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
L T R L T R L . T R L T R
- - - - -- - - - -- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - --
No. Lanes
Volumes
PHF or PK15
Lane W (ft)
Grade
Heavy Veh
Parking
Bus Stops
Con. Peds
Ped Button
Arr 'Type
RTOR Vols
Lost Time
Prop. Share
Prop. Prot.
Phase Combir.
1
0 1
94
14
0.90
0.90
12.0
12.0
0
0
2
2
N
N
0
Oi
(YIN)
N
3
3
0
3.00
3.00
Lation
1 2
0 0 0
0
Signal Operatic
3 4
l
2 0
21
1576
0.90
0'.90
12.0
12.0
0
0
.2
2
N
N
0
0
(YIN)
N
.• 3
3
0
3.00
3.00
ins
8
Peds
5
0 2
< 0
1239-
147
0.90
0.90
12.0
0
2
2
N N
0
0
(YIN) N
Right
3
0
3.00
3.00
6 7
8
EB
Left
*
NB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
*
Right
Peds
Peds
WB
Left
SB Left
Thru
Thru
Right
Right
Peds
Peds
NB
Right
EB Right
SB
Right
WB Right
Green
7.OA
Green 7.OA
88.OA
Yellow
/AR
6.0
Yellow /AR 6.0
6.0
Cycle
Length: 120 secs
Phase
combination order: #1 #5
#6
Intersection Performance Summary
Lane
Group:
Adj Sat
v/c
g/C
Approach:
Mvmts
Cap
Flow
Ratio
Ratio Delay
LOS
Delay LOS
EB
L
147
1770
0.705
0.083 44.0
E
41.6 E
R
303
1583
0.053
0.192 25.6
D
NB
L
281
1770
0.082
0.867 2.4
A
1.6 A
T
3229
3725
0.570
0.867 1.5
A
SB
TR
2780
3666
0.582
0.758 4.3
A
4.3 A
Intersection
Delay
=
4.1 sec /veh Intersection
LOS = A
Lost
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Time /Cycle, L
= 6.0 sec
Critical v /c(x) =
0.581
- - - - --
W CC Cc-- ���SScdN
C-64.R I N 4'-'� AU -S
TABLE 1
REVENUE
1999 -00 Manager Recommendation Percentage
A.
Total Property Tax
$64,872,798 64.47
B.
Total Sales tax
$13,948,795 13.86
C.
Total Licenses and permits
$ . 907,900 .90
D.
Total intergovernmental
$11,677,669 11.61
E.
Total Charges Service
$ 4,938,837 4.91
F.
Total Miscellaneous
$ 4,275,503 4.25
G.
Total Revenue
$100,621,502 100
$243,000,000
(Estimated Value of Project)
.00917
(County Tax Rate)
$ 2,228,310
A 64.47% Property Tax
479,206
B 13.86% Sales Tax
345.635
X 10% (Mix of C, D, E, F) Misc. Revenue
$ 3,053,151
88.33% (Less than 100% Because all Revenue Sources
are not Completely applicable)