HomeMy Public PortalAbout08-24-20 Agenda Work Session
Interim Town Clerk/Human Resources Technician Sarah Kimrey
101 E. Orange St., PO Box 429, Hillsborough, NC 27278
919-296-9443 | sarah.kimrey@hillsboroughnc.gov
www.hillsboroughnc.gov | @HillsboroughGov
Board of Commissioners Agenda | 1 of 1
Agenda
Board of Commissioners Work Session (Remote)
7 p.m. Aug. 24, 2020
Town of Hillsborough YouTube channel
Due to current public health concerns, the Board of Commissioners is conducting its work session remotely on
Aug. 24, 2020 utilizing Zoom. Members of the Board of Commissioners will be participating in the meeting
remotely. Members of the public will be able to view and listen to the meeting via live streaming video on the
Town of Hillsborough YouTube channel.
Compliance with the American with Disabilities Act interpreter services and/or special sound equipment is
available on request. If you are disabled and need assistance with reasonable accommodations, call the Town
Clerk’s Office at 919-296-9443.
Please use the bookmark feature to navigate and view the item attachments.
1. Opening of the workshop
2. Agenda changes and approval
3. Items for decision — consent agenda
A. Classification and pay plan amendments – addition of senior police officer and master police officer
classifications
B. Miscellaneous budget amendments and transfers
4. In-depth discussions and topics
A. Eno Mountain Road to NC 86 road study discussion
B. Discussion of cross-section and timing for second access point to Collins Ridge along James J. Freeland
Memorial Drive
5. Other business
6. Committee updates and reports
7. Adjournment
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: Aug. 24, 2020
Department: Administration/HR
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing:
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
3.A
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Interim Human Resources Director Haley Bizzell
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Classification and pay plan amendments – addition of senior police officer and master police officer classifications
Attachment(s):
1.FY2020-21 Classification and Pay Plan
Brief Summary:
Adding senior police officer and master police officer job classifications to the town’s classification and pay plan will
enable the Police Department to implement a proposed update to the department’s career progression system. The
redesigned system will provide employees in the department with additional career advancement opportunities,
support succession planning and aid in developing the department’s future leaders. The current career progression
system was developed to offer opportunities in the absence of promotional job openings. It has been a good career
progression path for those who do not want to be supervisors but has resulted in a loss of opportunity to develop
future supervisors.
The career progression system update includes providing two different paths, a supervisory path and a non-
supervisory path. The progression for the non-supervisory path mirrors the current career progression structure, three
advancement opportunities with salary increases and specific requirements that must be met at each step over a six-
year period. This would allow an officer to advance to officer 1st class with a 2.5% salary increase after 18 months, to
a senior officer (corporal under current system) with a 2.5% salary increase after 3 years and to a master officer
(senior corporal under current system) with a 2.5% salary increase after 6 years. The supervisory track would allow
an officer 1st class to be promoted to a corporal position after three years with a 5% increase, senior officers have the
opportunity to be promoted to the corporal position with a 2.5% increase and master officers would be considered a
lateral transfer to the corporal position with no increase. The corporal position under the updated career progression
system will have supervisory responsibilities. This will give employees the experience needed to be eligible to be
promoted to a sergeant.
Action Requested:
Approve the addition of the senior police officer and master police officer job classifications.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
See above.
Financial Impacts:
Salary adjustments will need to be made to ensure internal equity for the employees who have been promoted into a
sergeant position since the initial career progression system was implemented. Funds are available in the approved
FY2020-21 budget. The career progression redesign does not impose a financial impact in the long run.
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
Approve the addition of the senior police officer and master police officer classification which in turn will allow the
Police Department to implement a more efficient and effective career progression system.
Town of Hillsborough
FY 2020-21 Classification and Pay Plan
Classes by Salary Grades
Salary
Grade Minimum Midpoint Maximum
FLSA
Status
Class
Code Classification
1 31,209 40,571 49,934 N 0100 CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE
1 31,209 40,571 49,934 N 0101 METER SERVICES TECHNICIAN
1 31,209 40,571 49,934 N 0102 UTILITY MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN I
2 32,769 42,600 52,431 N 0204 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE TECHNICIAN
2 32,769 42,600 52,431 N 0205 ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SPECIALIST
2 32,769 42,600 52,431 N 0206 EQUIPMENT OPERATOR I
2 32,769 42,600 52,431 N 0207 UTILITY MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN II
2 32,769 42,600 52,431 N 0208 LEAD CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE
3 34,408 44,730 55,052 N 0304 EQUIPMENT OPERATOR II
3 34,408 44,730 55,052 N 0305 SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SPECIALIST
3 34,408 44,730 55,052 N 0306 UTILITY BILLING SPECIALIST
3 34,408 44,730 55,052 N 0307 UTILITY MAINTENANCE TECHNICIAN III
3 34,408 44,730 55,052 N 0308 WASTEWATER PLANT OPERATOR I
3 34,408 44,730 55,052 N 0309 WATER PLANT OPERATOR I
4 36,128 46,967 57,805 N 0403 CREW LEADER/EQUIPMENT OPERATOR III
4 36,128 46,967 57,805 N 0404 BUDGET TECHNICIAN
4 36,128 46,967 57,805 N 0405 PLANNING TECHNICIAN
4 36,128 46,967 57,805 N 0406 UTILITY SYSTEMS MECHANIC I
4 36,128 46,967 57,805 N 0407 WASTEWATER PLANT OPERATOR II
4 36,128 46,967 57,805 N 0408 WATER PLANT OPERATOR II
4 36,128 46,967 57,805 N 0409 PLANT MAINTENANCE MECHANIC I
5 37,934 49,315 60,695 N 0507 ACCOUNTING TECHNICIAN
5 37,934 49,315 60,695 N 0508 HR TECHNICIAN/DEPUTY TOWN CLERK
5 37,934 49,315 60,695 N 0509 UTILITY SYSTEMS MECHANIC II
5 37,934 49,315 60,695 N 0510 PLANT MAINTENANCE MECHANIC II
6 39,831 51,781 63,730 N 0608 LABORATORY TECHNICIAN/WATER PLANT OPERATOR III
6 39,831 51,781 63,730 N 0609 UTILITY SYSTEMS MECHANIC III
6 39,831 51,781 63,730 N 0610 WASTEWATER LABORATORY SUPERVISOR
6 39,831 51,781 63,730 N 0611 WASTEWATER PLANT OPERATOR III
6 39,831 51,781 63,730 N 0612 WATER PLANT OPERATOR III
6 39,831 51,781 63,730 N 0613 PLANT MAINTENANCE MECHANIC III
7 41,823 54,370 66,916 N 0708 BACKFLOW/FOG SPECIALIST
7 41,823 54,370 66,916 N 0709 FIRE INSPECTOR
7 41,823 54,370 66,916 N 0711 FLEET MECHANIC
7 41,823 54,370 66,916 N 0710 UTILITIES ANALYST
8 43,914 57,088 70,262 N 0804 METER SERVICES SUPERVISOR
8 43,914 57,088 70,262 N 0805 POLICE OFFICER/POLICE OFFICER FIRST CLASS
8 43,914 57,088 70,262 N 0806 PUBLIC INFORMATION SPECIALIST
8 43,914 57,088 70,262 N 0807 STORMWATER PROGRAM COORDINATOR
9 46,110 59,942 73,775 N 0908 CHIEF WASTEWATER PLANT OPERATOR
9 46,110 59,942 73,775 N 0909 CHIEF WATER PLANT OPERATOR
9 46,110 59,942 73,775 E 0910 FINANCIAL ANALYST
9 46,110 59,942 73,775 E 0911 MANAGEMENT ANALYST
9 46,110 59,942 73,775 E 0912 PLANNER
9 46,110 59,942 73,775 N 0913 UTILITIES INSPECTOR
9 46,110 59,942 73,775 N 0914 SENIOR POLICE OFFICER
10 48,415 62,940 77,464 E 1012 BILLING & COLLECTION SUPERVISOR
10 48,415 62,940 77,464 E 1013 HUMAN RESOURCES ANALYST
10 48,415 62,940 77,464 N 1014 POLICE CORPORAL/POLICE SENIOR CORPORAL
10 48,415 62,940 77,464 E 1015 PUBLIC WORKS SUPERVISOR
10 48,415 62,940 77,464 E 1016 WEB DEVELOPER/ASSISTANT PIO
Effective: 7/1/20
Amended: 8/24/20
Town of Hillsborough
FY 2020-21 Classification and Pay Plan
Classes by Salary Grades
10 48,415 62,940 77,464 N 1017 LEAD UTILITIES INSPECTOR
10 48,415 62,940 77,464 N 1019 MASTER POLICE OFFICER
11 50,836 66,087 81,337 E 1106 PURCHASING MANAGER
11 50,836 66,087 81,337 E 1107 UTILITY MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR
11 50,836 66,087 81,337 E 1108 UTILITY SYSTEM SUPERVISOR
12 53,378 69,391 85,404 E 1210 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLANNER
12 53,378 69,391 85,404 E 1211 FLEET MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR
12 53,378 69,391 85,404 N 1212 POLICE SERGEANT
12 53,378 69,391 85,404 E 1213 SENIOR PLANNER
13 56,047 72,860 89,674
14 58,849 76,504 94,158 E 1404 FIRE MARSHAL/EMERGENCY MGMT COORDINATOR
14 58,849 76,504 94,158 E 1405 POLICE LIEUTENANT
14 58,849 76,504 94,158 E 1406 PUBLIC SPACE MANAGER
14 58,849 76,504 94,158 E 1407 SAFETY & RISK MANAGER
14 58,849 76,504 94,158 E 1408 STORMWATER & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES MANAGER
15 61,791 80,329 98,866 E 1507 UTILITY SYSTEM SUPERINTENDENT
15 61,791 80,329 98,866 E 1508 WASTEWATER PLANT SUPERINTENDENT
15 61,791 80,329 98,866 E 1509 WATER PLANT SUPERINTENDENT
16 64,881 84,345 103,809 E 1603 ASSISTANT TO THE TOWN MANAGER/DEPUTY BUDGET DIRECTOR
16 64,881 84,345 103,809 E 1604 IT MANAGER
17 68,125 88,562 109,000 E 1701 PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
18 71,531 92,990 114,450
19 75,108 97,640 120,172 E 1902 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
20 78,863 102,522 126,181 E 2002 BUDGET DIRECTOR
20 78,863 102,522 126,181 E 2003 HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR/TOWN CLERK
21 82,806 107,648 132,490
22 86,947 113,031 139,114
23 91,294 118,682 146,070 E 2300 CHIEF OF POLICE
23 91,294 118,682 146,070 E 2301 FINANCE DIRECTOR
23 91,294 118,682 146,070 E 2302 UTILITIES DIRECTOR
24 95,859 124,616 153,374 E 2400 ASSISTANT TOWN MANAGER/PLANNING DIRECTOR
Effective: 7/1/20
Amended: 8/24/20
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: Aug. 24, 2020
Department: Administration - Budget
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing: __________________________
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
3.B
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Bradford, Budget Director
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Miscellaneous budget amendments and transfers
Attachment(s):
1. Description and explanation for budget amendments and transfers
Brief Summary:
To adjust budgeted revenues and expenditures where needed due to changes that have occurred since budget
adoption.
Action Requested:
Consider approving budget amendments and transfers.
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
N/A
Financial Impacts:
As indicated by each budget amendment.
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
To approve the attached list of budget amendments.
BUDGET CHANGES REPORT
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
FY 2020-2021
DATES: 08/24/2020 TO 08/24/2020
REFERENCE NUMBER DATE BUDGET CHANGE BUDGET
ORIGINAL BUDGET AMENDEDCHANGE
USER
10-10-4200-5300-080 TRAINING/CONF./CONV.
08/24/2020 28,645.00 -629.00To cover NeoGov renewal 20172 28,016.00EBRADFORD
10-10-4200-5300-113 LICENSE FEES
08/24/2020 14,852.00 629.00To cover NeoGov renewal 20173 15,481.00EBRADFORD
30-80-7240-5300-111 TELEPHONE-METER READING
08/24/2020 5,445.00 827.00To cover 3 cell phones 20174 6,272.00EBRADFORD
30-80-7240-5300-570 MISCELLANEOUS
08/24/2020 1,000.00 -827.00To cover 3 cell phones 20175 173.00EBRADFORD
30-80-8220-5300-160 MAINTENANCE - EQUIPMENT
08/24/2020 65,710.00 29,159.00To rebuild WWTP influent step screen 20171 94,869.00EBRADFORD
30-80-9990-5300-000 CONTINGENCY
08/24/2020 300,000.00 -29,159.00To rebuild WWTP influent step screen 20170 266,788.00EBRADFORD
0.00
JPrivuznak 3:26:40PM08/18/2020
fl142r03
Page 1 of 1
Admin.
Admin.
Billing &
Collections
Billing &
Collections
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
Contingency
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: Aug. 24, 2020
Department: Planning
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing:
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
4.A
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Trueblood, Public Space Manager
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Eno Mountain Road to NC 86 road study discussion
Attachment(s):
1.Slides as handouts
2.Study without appendices
Brief Summary:
The town contracted with VHB Associates, traffic engineering firm, to study the potential to connect Eno Mountain
Road with NC 86 to address the need for an improved vehicle network south of the Eno River.
Action Requested:
Discussion and direction
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
The attached presentation provides a history of how we’ve gotten to this point. This most recent study was completed
at the end of June and partially funded by the MPO. This year also includes funding to take a deeper dive on a couple
of options, if any of the results from the first study are appealing to the board to address the vehicular network
between the river and I-85.
The study is a high-level look at barriers and opportunities, not a detailed engineering study. This area is rich with
challenges: interstate, railroad, creeks, existing development, proposed development, overhead power lines,
topography, and the list continues. Staff wants to know whether any of the options are worth pursuing further.
The results of this study time directly into the next agenda item in that one of the recommended routes for a new road
would go through Daniel Boone and Collins Ridge, impacting the design of this proposed second connection and the
development plan for Collins Ridge. Staff believes strongly that addressing this portion of our vehicle network is one
of the most important decisions the board will make.
Financial Impacts:
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
8/19/2020
1
Eno Mtn Rd/NC 86
Connector Study
Town of Hillsborough
August 2020
Project Study Area
1
2
8/19/2020
2
Previous Studies
Elizabeth Brady Road
Sustainable Cities
Eno Mtn Realignment
Orange Grove Realignment
Elizabeth Brady Road Extension (2009)
3
4
8/19/2020
3
Sustainable Cities Design Academy (2014)
Eno Mountain Road Realignment (2014)
5
6
8/19/2020
4
U‐5848 Orange Grove Road Extension (2019)
Project Study Area
7
8
8/19/2020
5
Constraints
Purpose and need statement: The project serves to improve connectivity in southern Hillsborough between NC 86
and I‐85 as well as providing a grade‐separated railroad crossing within the study area.
•Review existing plans
•Review planned and proposed developments
•Environmental review
•Multimodal facilities
•Corridor travel demand modelling (Streetlight)
•Origin‐destination estimates (Streetlight)
•Traffic volumes (AADT, 2019, Forecast data)
•Level of Service
•Operational Analysis
•Safety (Crash Rates)
Analysis
9
10
8/19/2020
6
Findings
•Congestion mitigation is needed at key intersections
•Traffic flow can be improved with additional routes
•Local roads are needed for local traffic
•Multimodal system is incomplete
•Safety can be improved
•Complete streets cross section
•Shared use path for bicyclists
Alignments
11
12
8/19/2020
7
Alignments
Alignments
13
14
8/19/2020
8
Alignments
Impacts
15
16
8/19/2020
9
Alternative Estimate
Alternative A $1,182,000
Alternative B $5,162,000
Alternative C $10,132,000
Alternative D $13,859,000
Alternative E $33,636,000
Alternative F $6,445,000
Costs
Staff Recommendations
West side:
•Alternative A: submitted for Spot 6
East side:
•Reconsider purpose and need
statement to expand scope in a
Phase 2 feasibility study
Questions for the Town Board
1. What problems are we trying to
solve?
2. Are we willing to accept any impacts
to adjacent properties?
17
18
Corridor Study
Eno Mtn Rd/NC 86
Connector Study - Hillsborough, NC
PREPARED FOR
Town of Hillsborough, NC
105 E. Corbin St.
Hillsborough, NC 27278
919.732.1270
PREPARED BY
VHB Engineering NC, P.C.
Venture 1
940 Main Campus Drive
Raleigh, NC 27606
919.829.0328
June 2020
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Project Description and History .................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Related Past and Current Studies ................................................................................................. 2
1.2.1 Town of Hillsborough Vision 2030: Transportation .............................................................. 2
1.2.2 Town of Hillsborough Community Connectivity Plan ........................................................... 4
1.2.3 Town of Hillsborough Parks and Recreation Master Plan .................................................... 4
1.2.4 Hillsborough Rail Station Small Area Plan ............................................................................. 4
1.2.5 I‐85 Crossing Memorandum ................................................................................................. 4
1.2.6 1.2.7 NCTN and Strategic Transportation Corridors Framework .......................................... 4
1.2.7 Hillsborough‐Orange County Strategic Growth Plan ............................................................ 4
1.2.8 Area NCDOT STIP Projects ..................................................................................................... 5
1.2.9 Proposed Private Development ............................................................................................ 5
1.1 Project Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................ 6
2.0 Existing (2019) Conditions ................................................................................................................ 7
2.1 General Project Surroundings ....................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Roadway Network ......................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Environmental Resource Review .................................................................................................. 7
2.4 Multimodal Facilities ..................................................................................................................... 9
2.4.1 Transit Service ....................................................................................................................... 9
2.4.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ........................................................................................... 9
2.5 Corridor Travel Demand Modeling and Characteristics ................................................................ 9
2.5.1 Historic Traffic Volumes (AADTs) ........................................................................................ 15
2.5.2 Existing (2019) Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................... 15
2.6 Existing Traffic Operations and Quality of Service ...................................................................... 17
2.6.1 Level of Service ................................................................................................................... 17
2.6.2 Operational Analysis ........................................................................................................... 17
2.7 Safety .......................................................................................................................................... 18
2.8 Identified Network Deficiencies .................................................................................................. 21
3.0 Alternative Development ................................................................................................................ 23
3.1 Project Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 23
3.1.1 Eno Mountain Road/Orange Grove Road Realignment ...................................................... 23
3.1.2 NC 86 Connection ............................................................................................................... 23
3.1.3 Complete Streets Concepts ................................................................................................. 24
3.2 Railroad Crossing Options ........................................................................................................... 24
3.2.1 Future Track Plans ............................................................................................................... 25
3.2.2 Location Selection ............................................................................................................... 25
3.2.3 Coordination ....................................................................................................................... 25
3.3 Alignment Alternatives ............................................................................................................... 25
3.3.1 Typical Section .................................................................................................................... 25
3.3.2 Eno Mountain Road Realignment ....................................................................................... 29
3.3.3 NC 86 Connector ................................................................................................................. 29
4.0 Future Year (2045) Conditions ........................................................................................................ 34
4.1 Travel Demand Modeling ............................................................................................................ 34
4.2 Design Year (2045) No‐Build Conditions ..................................................................................... 34
4.3 Design Year (2045) Build Alternative A – Traffic Analysis ........................................................... 35
4.4 Design Year (2045) Build Alternative B – Traffic Analysis ........................................................... 36
4.5 Design Year (2045) Build Alternative C – Traffic Analysis ........................................................... 36
4.6 Design Year (2045) Build Alternative D – Traffic Analysis ........................................................... 36
4.7 Design Year (2045) Build Alternative E – Traffic Analysis ........................................................... 36
4.8 Design Year (2045) Build Alternative F – Traffic Analysis ........................................................... 37
5.0 Opinion of Probable Cost ................................................................................................................ 38
5.1 Construction Cost Estimates ....................................................................................................... 38
5.1 Right‐of‐Way Cost Estimates ...................................................................................................... 38
6.0 Study Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 39
6.1 Eno Mountain Road/Orange Grove Road Realignment .............................................................. 39
6.2 NC 86 Connector ......................................................................................................................... 39
List of Figures
Figure 1 Project Vicinity ............................................................................................................................. 3
Figure 2 Environmental Screening Map ..................................................................................................... 8
Figure 3 StreetLight Traffic Distribution for S Churton Zone Trips ........................................................... 11
Figure 4 StreetLight Traffic Distribution for East Zone Trips .................................................................... 12
Figure 5 StreetLight Traffic Distribution for S Churton Zone Trips Using US 70 Business ........................ 13
Figure 6 StreetLight Traffic Distribution for S Churton Zone Trips Using I‐85.......................................... 14
Figure 7 StreetLight Origin‐Destination Estimate for Orange Grove Road .............................................. 15
Figure 8 Proposed Roadway Typical Sections .......................................................................................... 27
Figure 9 Proposed Structure Typical Sections .......................................................................................... 28
Figure 10 Alternatives A‐F Centerlines ....................................................................................................... 30
List of Tables
Table 1: Study Intersection Data Sources ................................................................................................ 16
Table 2: Level of Service Description for Intersections ............................................................................ 17
Table 3: S Churton Street from I‐85 North Exit to US 70 Bus Crash Rate ................................................ 18
Table 4: Crash Severity Summary ............................................................................................................. 18
Table 5: Crashes by Location (S Churton Street) ...................................................................................... 19
Table 6: Orange Grove Rd from Eno Mountain Rd to S Churton St Crash Rates .................................... 20
Table 7: Crash Severity Summary ............................................................................................................. 20
Table 8: Crashes by Location (Orange Grove Road) ................................................................................. 20
Table 9: NC 86 from I‐85 North Exit Ramp to US 70 Bus Crash Rates ...................................................... 21
Table 10: Crash Severity Summary ............................................................................................................ 21
Table 11: Crashes by Location (NC 86) ....................................................................................................... 21
Appendices
Appendix A Traffic Forecasts, Streetlight, and Count Data
Appendix B Traffic Capacity Figures and Summary Tables
Appendix C Traffic Signal Plans
Appendix D Cost Estimates
2
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Project Description and History
The area south of downtown Hillsborough roughly bounded by Eno Mountain Road, NC 86, and
I-85 is primed to experience substantial growth with the pending Collins Ridge residential
development and mixed-use redevelopment of the nearby Daniel Boone site. Even without the
traffic generated by these two sites, increasing traffic has worsened congestion on the
surrounding road system. A lack of network continuity forces inefficient, out-of-direction route
choices on vehicles traveling to and through the study area. East-west and north-south traffic
must both share some of the same road segments. As a result, heavy conflicting turn movements
create bottlenecks at critical intersections, imposing excessive delays and long backups on drivers,
especially during peak travel periods. The project area is shown in Figure 1.
Utilities, terrain, environmentally sensitive areas, and existing or proposed development have, to
date, hindered construction of additional direct east-west and north-south connections in the
study area. More substantial physical barriers include:
The Eno River
Cates Creek
The North Carolina Railroad corridor
I-85
Resco Products quarry
Several parks, including Exchange Club Park and Occoneechee Mountain State Park
These constraints also impede pedestrian and bicycle access, while also making transit and freight
routing less efficient.
The purpose of this corridor study is to identify and evaluate new opportunities to increase
connectivity and network efficiency in this area specifically addressing the east-west connection
from S Churton Street to NC 86 and the offset intersections of Eno Mountain Road and Mayo
Street as they intersect with S Churton Street.
1.2 Related Past and Current Studies
This section summarizes relevant planning and policy efforts, focusing on the most recent
transportation-related plans, and on those specific elements that affect the Eno Mountain Road
and NC 86 Connector Study, or which could be affected by it.
1.2.1 Town of Hillsborough Vision 2030: Transportation
Hillsborough Vision 2030 was adopted March 9, 2015 with the focus on a continued effort
to improve the congestion along Hillsborough’s arterial road network, specifically
S Churton Street. Past alternative routes have resulted in unacceptable cost to benefit
ratios.
ElizabethBradyRd£¤US-70 BUS
£¤US-70 BUS
¾¾NC-86
M ills t o n e D rB ecketts Ridge DrSBel
l
vueAveMurdoc kRdJaMaxDrPRESTWOODDRJonesAveBOTAN
WAYCollins AveQ U I NCY COTTAGERD
E n o S t
CatesCreekPkwyMeadowlands D rAllenRuffinAve
RhondaRdExchangeParkLnF a r i b a u l t L n
W M ar garet L n
BaycourtTrlCheshireDrCampgroundLoop
SummitDrL e a h D r
HamptonPointeBlvd
Woodbu
ry D rValleyForgeRdVirginiaCat esRd
OrangeMobileHome
EstatesEl
i
za
b
e
t
hBr
adyRdCollins Ridge
Daniel
Boone
Village
Elfins
Pond
Eno Mountain Road/ NC 8 6 Corr idor Study
7/17/2020Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map
Orange CountyPrepared by: VHB Prepared for: Town of HillsboroughI
§¨¦I-85 §¨¦I-85
UV86
£¤70
£¤70
Date: July 2020
Study Area
Planned Deve lopment
Ra ilroad
0 1,0 00 2,0 00500
Fee t
4
1.2.2 Town of Hillsborough Community Connectivity Plan
The town of Hillsborough’s Community Connectivity Plan was published June 2009 and
last updated March 2017 in junction with the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Within
the study area, a sidewalk along Eno Mountain Road is recommended to boost
connectivity and pedestrian safety. In addition, there are plans for sidewalk, crosswalk and
bike lane improvements to S Churton Street.
1.2.3 Town of Hillsborough Parks and Recreation Master Plan
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan, adopted in June 2007 and last updated March
2014, spells out several recommendations that include encouraging bicycle and
pedestrian routes along Hillsborough’s major transportation networks.
1.2.4 Hillsborough Rail Station Small Area Plan
The Hillsborough Rail Station Small Area Plan, published in September 2010, opens up the
possibility for a commuter rail and Amtrak station along with space for governmental and
civic uses. These will better serve the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County while also
complementing the proposed multi-purpose commercial and residential land
development just south of the study area, known as the Collins Property.
1.2.5 I-85 Crossing Memorandum
The I-85 Crossing Memorandum, published on January 28, 2016, was created to advise a
solution to potential pedestrian congestion along S Churton Street. This congestion was
found to only be significant in warranting an I-85 grade-separated pedestrian crossing if
the Cates Creek Greenway were to be completed. The most beneficial location of this
potential grade-separated pedestrian crossing was recommended to be a connection to
Beckett’s Ridge Drive.
1.2.6 1.2.7 NCTN and Strategic Transportation Corridors Framework
The North Carolina Transportation Network and Strategic Transportation Corridors
Framework, last updated June 11, 2019, highlights the key multi-model transportation
networks and nodes that are vital to achieve the department of North Carolina
Transportation Network ‘s (NCTN) goals: System Connectivity, Mobility, and Economic
Prosperity. With reference to the Durham, Orange, Wake and Chatham Counties Strategic
Transportation Corridors (STC) Map, the North Carolina Railroad along with I-40 and I-85
interstate systems have been recognized as vital STC routes. Improvements in
connectivity to Interstates and highways like I-40 and US 70 are being recommended in
this report.
1.2.7 Hillsborough-Orange County Strategic Growth Plan
The Hillsborough-Orange County Strategic Growth Plan, adopted on December 1, 2006,
highlights the necessity of reducing current and future congestion along S Churton Street
through means of zoning.
5
1.2.8 Area NCDOT STIP Projects
U-5848
U-5848 was intended to address a new east-west connector in the same general vicinity
addressed in this study. That project resulted in multiple alternatives that connected
Orange Grove Road to US 70 Business and on option that carried to NC 86 at Valley
Forge Road. Ultimately, the study did not yield a connector that was acceptable to the
Town of Hillsborough for implementation.
U-5845
U-5845 is set to widen SR 1009 (S Churton Street) from I-40 to Eno River to a multi-lane
roadway including bike and ped recommendations with a budget of $15 million through
Build NC Bonds. Construction was set to begin 2025 until the Project Suspension Report
of March 12, 2020 was released. U-5845 has been suspended until further notice and is
not projected to be let within the next 5 years. DCHC MPO has set an MTP number of 87
to this project.
I-5967
I-5967 is planned to improve the interchange at SR 1009 (S Churton Street) and I-85 with
a budget of $21.7 million. According to the 2020-2029 STIP (updated October 3, 2019)
construction was set to begin in 2025. However, with the Project Suspension Report
released March 12, 2020, I-5967 has been suspended until further notice and is not
projected to be let within the next 5 years. DCHC MPO has set an MTP number of 650 to
this project, in the 2035 horizon year.
I-5984
I-5984 is planned to improve the interchange at NC 86 and I-85 with a budget of $25.1
million. According to the 2020-2029 STIP (updated October 3, 2019) construction was set
to begin in 2026. However, with the Project Suspension Report released March 12, 2020,
I-5984 has been suspended until further notice and is not projected to be let within the
next 5 years. DCHC MPO has set an MTP number of 646 to this project, in the 2035
horizon year.
1.2.9 Proposed Private Development
Elfin’s Pond
Elfin’s Pond is a residential development that is currently under construction south of Eno
Mountain Road at 1901 Orange Grove Road. All phases except Phase 2 have been
permitted and are working toward completion. This residential development will consist
of townhomes and an amenity center once completed.
Collins Ridge
Collins Ridge is a 100-acre residential development that will contain about 1,038
dwellings of houses, townhomes, and apartment units. This site is located just east of
Orange Grove Road and S Churton Street and stretches to north of I-85. The updated
6
Phase 1 has an approved Special Use Permit. Construction drawings are approved for a
portion of this phase with final plat recordation anticipated shortly. Additionally, Part B of
Phase 1 is anticipated for construction drawing submittal very soon.
Daniel Boone Village
Draft redevelopment plans are underway for the overhaul of Daniel Boone Village, which
would replace the now vacant shopping area with a mixed-use development. The
conceptual plan that has been formally shared with the town shows 16 four-story
buildings with a total of 224,000 square feet of ground-floor commercial space,
structured parking on the second floor and two upper stories with residential units.
Five outparcels also are also included in the plan including space for two hotels. A new
road could connect the Collins Ridge development behind Daniel Boone Village with
S Churton Street at its intersection with Mayo Street.
1.1 Project Purpose and Need
The project serves to improve connectivity in southern Hillsborough between NC 86 and I-85 as
well as providing a grade-separated railroad crossing within the study area.
7
2.0 Existing (2019) Conditions
2.1 General Project Surroundings
The project is located on the southern side of Hillsborough, NC, south of the Eno River. The land
uses within the project vicinity are primarily commercial and residential (under development).
Cameron Park Elementary School is located roughly 1 mile from the northern end of the study
area. There are commercial developments along S Churton Street and more industrial uses in the
eastern project area, including along Valley Forge Road and Cornerstone Court.
2.2 Roadway Network
The roadway network consists primarily of two-lane undivided roadways. Of the seven study
intersections, four are signalized intersections and three are unsignalized intersections.
2.3 Environmental Resource Review
A desktop review of available GIS data was conducted to help guide the development of
alternatives with regard to existing resources in the project area. Figure 2 illustrates the resources
in the project area.
Natural Resources
Natural resources in the project area are mainly limited to hydrological features, including streams
and ponds. Of specific interest is Cates Creek which runs north-south through the project vicinity,
just east of the railroad tracks. There are no identified concerns with natural heritage areas,
floodplain issues, or undisturbed species habitats. During later phases of planning and design, a
full natural resource review should be conducted to verify these conclusions based on field data.
Community Resources
There are a number of community based resources in the vicinity of the project to be aware of,
such as proximity to numerous parks, historical sites as designated by the State Historic
Preservation Office, and local churches and schools; however, none are expected to be directly
affected by the proposed project, regardless of alternative. In fact, proximity to these resources
without projected impacts makes this area even more attractive for a new connector as that will
increase connectivity to and among these community resources. The exception to this is the
potential to impact planned residential units that are a part of the Collins Ridge development
plans.
ElizabethBradyRd§¨¦I 85N §¨¦I 85 N§¨¦I 85 S §¨¦I 85 S
M ills t o n e D rMurdoc kRdJaMaxDrT
h
o
masBurke D r QUIN C Y COTTAGE RD
DanielBooneSt
BOTA
N
WAYO akhurstTrlEno St
CatesCreekPkwyMea
d
owlands DrExchangeParkLn
RhondaRdCardinalDr
Becketts RidgeDr
F a r i b a u l t L n
BaycourtTrlCheshireDr
Flin tR id g eAp tsSummitDrCam p g ro
undLoopLeah Dr
HamptonPointeBlvd
V irginiaCatesRd
Woodbu
ry D rValleyForgeRdElizabethBradyRdCollins RidgeDaniel
Boone
Village
Elfins Pond
Eno Mountain Road/ NC 86 Corridor Study
6/24/2020Figure 2: Environmental Screening MapScale
Orange CountyPrepared by: VHB Prepared for: Town of HillsboroughI01,000 2,000Feet
§¨¦I-85
§¨¦I-85
UV86
£¤70
£¤70
Date: June 2020
Greenways
Shared Use Path
Pedestrian Facilities
Bicycle Facilities
Planned Development
North Carolina Parks
!¸Gas Station
cG Hazardous Waste Site
Brownfield Boundary
ñ Government Office
IC Hospital/Polyclinic
#*Museum
î Place of Worship
IIIn School
3Q Waste Water
Treatment Plant
!(National Register
^_NC Study List - District
#*Determined Eligible
National Register -
Boundary
Study List - Boundary
Local Historic District
Boundary
Hydrological Feature
Railroad
9
Potential for Ground Contamination
There are multiple instances of likely underground storage tanks within the project vicinity. While
these may pose no fatal flaw threat to the project, further investigations should be completed
during later stages of planning and design, and before any project related property acquisition, to
confirm this.
2.4 Multimodal Facilities
2.4.1 Transit Service
An existing rail line for freight and passengers crosses under S Churton Street (SR 1009) in
the northwest section of the study area, through the future Collins Ridge and Daniel
Boone developments, and under I-85 in the southeast section of the study area.
Additionally, the Orange County Public Transportation Hillsborough Circulator bus serves
the western portion of the study area along Churton Street (SR 1009) and Mayo Street.
2.4.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
The Town of Hillsborough envisions multimodal connectivity throughout the Town as
shown in several of the related past plans and studies. Their commitment to this is
apparent in an outstanding set of east- west greenway connections.
Existing and Planned Greenways
Existing nearby greenway facilities include the Hillsborough Riverwalk and Orange County
Park trail systems, which run along the north side of the Eno River about one-half mile
from the northern end of the study area. Parking is available to the public on either side
of S Churton Street (SR 1009) for greenway access.
According to the 2017 Hillsborough Community Connectivity Plan update, the future two-
mile North/South Greenway is proposed to run through the center of the study area and
the proposed Collins Ridge and Daniel Boone Village developments. It will connect
neighborhoods below I-85 to downtown Hillsborough. The exact alignment of this
greenway is dependent on a future feasibility study.
On‐Road Facilities
Few sidewalk facilities are available along the major roadways in the project vicinity.
Sidewalks are available bordering the Elfin’s Pond residential development along Orange
Grove Road and Eno Mountain Road.
2.5 Corridor Travel Demand Modeling and Characteristics
StreetLight Insights data, an on-demand mobility analytics platform, was used to identify
vehicular travel patterns within the study area. StreetLight data relies on anonymized location
records obtained from smartphones and navigation devices in connected cars and trucks. These
records can be analyzed to estimate travel patterns and characteristics, including trip origins,
destinations and route selections across a range of dates and times. Approximately 25% of
10
vehicles are typically captured in the StreetLight data; NCDOT AADT data from the corresponding
time period were used to expand the StreetLight volumes to represent AADTs.
For the purposes of this study, traffic volumes were analyzed for a range of morning and
afternoon peak hours (7 AM, 8 AM, 4 PM, and 5 PM) on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays
during April, May, September, and October of 2018. Results were used to help estimate:
Turning movement proportions for locations without recent count data
Directional distributions of traffic to/from locations within the study area
The magnitude of traffic diversion off US 70 Business and I-85 resulting from a new
connection between S Churton Street and NC 86
Turning movements were estimated for the intersections at NC 86 and Valley Forge and at NC 86
and Cornerstone Court.
For the directional distribution analysis, three internal zones were defined as shown in Figure 3: S
Churton, East, and West. Nine “gateways” or external stations were also defined to establish a
cordon capturing all trips entering or leaving the study area. Figure 3 depicts the percentage
distribution of trips to/from the S Churton Zone. Figure 4 depicts the percentage distribution of
trips to/from the East Zone. These are the trips most affected by the proposed connection
between S Churton Street and NC 86.
Special “middle filters” on US 70 Business and I-85 were used to determine which StreetLight trips
were likely to shift off of these facilities and onto the proposed east-west connector. Figures 5
and 6 indicate the distribution of traffic to/from the S Churton Zone via either US 70 Business or I-
85, respectively.
Figure 7 is a schematic representation of the offset intersections of Eno Mountain Road and Mayo
Street with Orange Grove Road. An origin-destination analysis of StreetLight data was used to
estimate the distribution of trips though these intersections.
ElizabethBradyRdD im m o c k s M illR d N Nash StOrange Grove Rd
Latimer St
EnoMountain
RdWestHi
l
l
AveNOldNC10
R iversideD rS tM a ry s R d
WestHillAveSOakdale Dr SChurtonStNew GradyBrown
SchoolRd
W King S t
Tus c ar ora DrNOcconeecheeSt
M illstoneD rSBel
l
vueAveMurd o ckRdJaMaxDr PRESTWOODDRJonesAveCollins AveQUIN C Y COTTAGERD
Eno St
CatesCreekPkwyMeadowlan d s D rLakeshoreDrAllenRuffinAveBarracksRdBecketts
R
i
dgeDrHayesStN Cameron StN Wake StExchangeParkLnW Queen St
W Tryon St
Cheshire D rFaribault Ln
TimbersDr
W Union S t
W Margaret Ln
Mur
r
ayStIvy Dr
Woodbury
D
rLeahDr
HamptonPointeBlvdValley Forge RdOrangeMobile
H
omeEstatesV ir g in ia C a tesRdEl
i
za
b
e
t
h
BradyRdChurton Zone
West Zone
East Zone
Eno Mountain Road/ NC 86 Corridor Study
6/24/2020Scale
Orange CountyI01,000 2,000Feet
§¨¦I-85
§¨¦I-85
UV86
£¤70
£¤70
Figure 3: StreetLight Traffic Distribution for Churton Zone TripsPrepared by: VHB Prepared for: Town of Hillsborough
28%
<1%
<1%
<1%
10%
<1%
19%
4%9.5%
11%17.5%
100%
Date: June 2020
ElizabethBradyRdD im m o c k s M illR d N Nash StOrange Grove Rd
Latimer St
EnoMountain
RdWestHi
l
l
AveNOldNC10
R iversideD rS tM a ry s R d
WestHillAveSOakdale Dr SChurtonStNew GradyBrown
SchoolRd
W King S t
Tus c ar ora DrNOcconeecheeSt
M illstoneD rSBel
l
vueAveMurd o ckRdJaMaxDr PRESTWOODDRJonesAveCollins AveQUIN C Y COTTAGERD
Eno St
CatesCreekPkwyMeadowlan d s D rLakeshoreDrAllenRuffinAveBarracksRdBecketts
R
i
dgeDrHayesStN Cameron StN Wake StExchangeParkLnW Queen St
W Tryon St
Cheshire D rFaribault Ln
TimbersDr
W Union S t
W Margaret Ln
Mur
r
ayStIvy Dr
Woodbury
D
rLeahDr
HamptonPointeBlvdValley Forge RdOrangeMobile
H
omeEstatesV ir g in ia C a tesRdEl
i
za
b
e
t
h
BradyRdChurton Zone
West Zone
East Zone
Eno Mountain Road/ NC 86 Corridor Study
6/24/2020Scale
Orange CountyI01,000 2,000Feet
§¨¦I-85
§¨¦I-85
UV86
£¤70
£¤70
FIgure 4: StreetLight Traffic Distributionfor East Zone TripsPrepared by: VHB Prepared for: Town of Hillsborough
<1%
<1%100%
17.5%20%
9%
12%4%
3%
3%
27%
Date: June 2020
ElizabethBradyRdD im m o c k s M illR d N Nash StOrange Grove Rd
Latimer St
EnoMountainRdWestHi
l
l
AveNOldNC10
R iversideD rS tM a ry s R d
WestHillAveSOakdale Dr SChurtonStNew GradyBrown
SchoolRd
W King S t
Tus c ar ora DrNOcconeecheeSt
M illstoneD rSBel
l
vueAveMurd o ckRdJaMaxDr PRESTWOODDRJonesAveCollins AveQUIN C Y COTTAGERD
Eno St
CatesCreekPkwyMeadowlan d s D rLakeshoreDrAllenRuffinAveBarracksRdBecketts
R
i
dgeDrHayesStN Cameron StN Wake StExchangeParkLnW Queen St
W Tryon St
Cheshire D rFaribault Ln
TimbersDr
W Union S t
W Margaret Ln
Mur
r
ayStIvy Dr
Woodbury
D
rLeahDr
HamptonPointeBlvdValley Forge RdOrangeMobile
H
omeEstatesV ir g in ia C a tesRdEl
i
za
b
e
t
h
BradyRdChurton Zone
East Zone
Eno Mountain Road/ NC 86 Corridor Study
6/24/2020Scale
Orange CountyI01,000 2,000Feet
§¨¦I-85
§¨¦I-85
UV86
£¤70
£¤7015%51%
4%
30%
100%
Figure 5: StreetLight Traffic Distribution forChurton Zone Trips Using US 70 BusPrepared by: VHB Prepared for: Town of HIllsboroughDate: June 2020
ElizabethBradyRdD im m o c k s M illR d N Nash StOrange Grove Rd
Latimer St
EnoMountainRdWestHi
l
l
AveNOldNC10
R iversideD rS tM a ry s R d
WestHillAveSOakdale Dr SChurtonStNew GradyBrown
SchoolRd
W King S t
Tus c ar ora DrNOcconeecheeSt
M illstoneD rSBel
l
vueAveMurd o ckRdJaMaxDr PRESTWOODDRJonesAveCollins AveQUIN C Y COTTAGERD
Eno St
CatesCreekPkwyMeadowlan d s D rLakeshoreDrAllenRuffinAveBarracksRdBecketts
R
i
dgeDrHayesStN Cameron StN Wake StExchangeParkLnW Queen St
W Tryon St
Cheshire D rFaribault Ln
TimbersDr
W Union S t
W Margaret Ln
Mur
r
ayStIvy Dr
Woodbury
D
rLeahDr
HamptonPointeBlvdValley Forge RdOrangeMobile
H
omeEstatesV ir g in ia C a tesRdEl
i
za
b
e
t
h
BradyRdChurton Zone
East Zone
Eno Mountain Road/ NC 86 Corridor Study
6/24/2020Scale
Orange CountyI01,000 2,000Feet
§¨¦I-85
§¨¦I-85
UV86
£¤70
£¤70
Figure 6: StreetLight Traffic Distribution forChurton Zone Trips Using I-85Prepared by: VHB Prepared for: Town of Hillsborough
100%
3%
3%
42%52%
Date: June 2020
15
Figure 7 StreetLight Origin‐Destination Estimate for Orange Grove Road
2.5.1 Historic Traffic Volumes (AADTs)
NCDOT publishes Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes for all of the major
roadways within the project study are. Per NCDOT, the 2018 AADT along US 70 Business
was 6,800 vehicles per day (vpd) east of NC 86 and 8,600 vpd east of S Churton Street.
The 2018 AADT along NC 86 was 9,800 vpd south of US 70 Business. The 2017 AADT
along S Churton Street was 16,000 vpd south of US 70 Business and the 2018 AADT along
S Churton Street was 25,000 vpd north of I-85. The 2017 AADT along Mayo Street was
5,100 vpd east of Orange Grove Road. The 2016 AADT along Orange Grove Road was
4,100 vpd west of Old S Churton Street and the 2017 AADT was 8,600 vpd south of Mayo
Street. The 2017 AADT along Eno Mountain Road was 4,500 vpd west of Orange Grove
Road.
2.5.2 Existing (2019) Traffic Volumes
Peak hour intersection volumes were generally derived from available Project-Level
Forecasts, if available. If forecasts were not available, recent historic turning movements
or StreetLight data were used. Due to school closures and travel restrictions related to
COVID-19, no new turning movement counts were conducted for this project.
The specific forecasts used in this study were for NCDOT STIP Project No. U-5845 forecast
(completed in 2017), and for NCDOT STIP Project No. I-0305, I-5967, I-5983, and I-5984
16
(completed in June 2019). The Triangle Regional Model (TRMv6), the calibrated and
officially adopted TransCAD model used to forecast base year and future year traffic
volumes on the Triangle’s major roadways, was the primary tool used to develop those
forecasts. Appendix A contains the forecasts, traffic count and StreetLight data used for
this study.
Table 1 summarizes the data source utilized for each study area intersection.
Table 1: Study Intersection Data Sources
ID Intersection Turning Movement Data
Source
1 Orange Grove Road at Mayo Street (Unsignalized) U‐5848 Forecast
2 Orange Grove Road at Eno Mountain Road
(Unsignalized) U‐5848 Forecast
3 S Churton Street at US 70 Business (Signalized) U‐5848 Forecast
4 S Churton Street at Orange Grove Road
(Signalized) U‐5848 Forecast
5 S Churton Street at Mayo Street (Signalized)
2018 Turning Movement
Count
6 S Churton Street at I‐85 Westbound Ramps
(Signalized)
I‐0305, I‐5967, I‐5983, and I‐
5984 Forecast
7 S Churton Street at I‐85 Eastbound Ramps
(Signalized)
I‐0305, I‐5967, I‐5983, and I‐
5984 Forecast
8 NC 86/Elizabeth Brady Road at US 70 Business
(Signalized) U‐5848 Forecast
9 NC 86 at Valley Forge Road (Unsignalized) StreetLight Data (turns only)
10 NC 86 at Cornerstone Court (Unsignalized) StreetLight Data (turns only)
11 NC 86 at I‐85 Westbound Ramps (Signalized)
I‐0305, I‐5967, I‐5983, and I‐
5984 Forecast
12 NC 86 at I‐85 Eastbound Ramps (Signalized)
I‐0305, I‐5967, I‐5983, and I‐
5984 Forecast
Daily traffic volumes contained in the forecast were converted to AM and PM peak hour
volumes using the Intersection Analysis Utility (IAU). The U-5848 2016 base year volumes
were grown to 2019 volumes by applying the forecasted compound annual growth rate
(CAGR). Similarly, volumes from the I-0305, I-5967, I-5983, and I-5984 forecast were
grown to 2019 using its forecasted growth rate. In addition, some balancing adjustments
were made to reduce volume discrepancies between closely-spaced intersections. The
resulting peak hour turning movement counts are contained in Appendix B.
17
2.6 Existing Traffic Operations and Quality of Service
2.6.1 Level of Service
Peak hour level of service (LOS) measures the adequacy of the intersection geometrics
and traffic controls of an intersection or approach for the given turning volumes. Levels of
service range from A through F, based on the average control delay experienced by
vehicles traveling through the intersection during the peak hour. Control delay represents
the portion of total delay attributed to traffic control devices (e.g., signals or stop signs).
The engineering profession generally accepts LOS D as an acceptable operating condition
for signalized intersections in urban areas and LOS C for rural areas.
At unsignalized intersections, LOS E is generally considered acceptable only if the side
street encounters delay. Nevertheless, side streets sometimes function at LOS F during
peak traffic periods; however, the traffic volumes often do not warrant a traffic signal to
assist side street traffic. Table 2 provides a general description of various levels of service
categories and delay ranges.
Table 2: Level of Service Description for Intersections
Level of Service Description Signalized
Intersection
Unsignalized
Intersection
A Little or no delay < 10 sec. < 10 sec.
B Short traffic delay 10‐20 sec. 10‐15 sec.
C Average traffic delay 20‐35 sec. 15‐25 sec.
D Long traffic delay 35‐55 sec. 25‐35 sec.
E Very long traffic delay 55‐80 sec. 35‐50 sec.
F Unacceptable delay > 80 sec. > 50 sec.
2.6.2 Operational Analysis
Peak hour level of service (LOS) analyses were conducted based on current roadway
geometrics. Appendix B contains the Base Year (2019) No-Build lane configuration and
traffic control figure. Signal phasing data was obtained from the signal plans, which are
provided in Appendix C.
Under current conditions, all evaluated signalized intersections and most unsignalized
approaches operate at acceptable overall LOS during peak travel periods. The exception
is the stop-controlled Eno Mountain Road approach at Orange Grove Road, which
operates at LOS E during the AM peak hour. However, there are approaches that operate
at LOS D or worse at study area intersections. This indicates that the current network is
approaching capacity and the addition of traffic in the future, from ambient growth and
planned developments, would likely cause the existing system to degrade to
unacceptable operations. A summary results table and figures related to these
conclusions can be found in Appendix B.
18
2.7 Safety
Five-year crash data (04/01/2015 – 03/31/2020) was obtained from the NCDOT Traffic
Engineering Accident Analysis System (TEAAS) along three corridors. Note that crashes within the
mileposts specified were grouped together. As a result, crashes reported just upstream or
downstream of a specific location were grouped together and included as crashes attributed to
that intersection or location of interest.
The crash rates for S Churton Street (SR 1009) from the I-85 North Exit Ramps to US 70 Alternate
are reported in Table 3. The total, non-fatal injury, night, and wet crash rates all exceed the critical
and statewide crash rates. There were no fatal crashes during this study period.
Table 4 displays the total number of crashes by severity type observed along this corridor. The
predominant crash severity was property damage only crashes (77%) with the next highest being
Class C crashes (17%). There were two Class A pedestrian crash at the unsignalized intersection of
S Churton St at Daniel Boone Street and another at the unsignalized intersection of S Churton
Street at John Earl Street. There was a Class B bicyclist crash along S Churton Street approximately
0.03 miles south of US 70 Business.
Table 5 shows crashes by type and location. The intersection with the highest amount of crashes
(33) over the five-year period was at the signalized intersection of S Churton Street at Mayo
Street. The intersection with the next highest amount of crashes (19) was at the unsignalized
intersection of S Churton Street at John Earl Street.
Table 3: S Churton Street from I‐85 North Exit to US 70 Bus Crash Rate
(04/01/2015 – 03/31/2020)
Table 4: Crash Severity Summary
Rate Crashes Crashes per 100 MVM
Statewide Crash Rate1 Critical Crash Rate2
Total 212 581.14 226.62 268.99
Fatal 00.00 0 1.37
Non-Fatal Injury 48 131.58 62.01 84.83
Night 30 82.24 59.76 82.19
Wet 47 128.84 27.06 42.60
12015-2017 statewide crash rate for Rural NC Routes that are 2 lanes with a continuous left turn lane
2Based on the statewide crash rate (95% level of confidence)
Severity Summary Crashes %
Fatal Crashes 0 0%
Class A Crashes 2 1%
Class B Crashes 9 4%
Class C Crashes 37 17%
Property Damage Only 164 77%
19
Table 5: Crashes by Location (S Churton Street)
The crash rates for Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) from Eno Mountain Road (SR 1148) to
S Churton Street (SR 1009) are reported in Table 6. The total, non-fatal injury, night, and wet crash
rates all exceed the critical and statewide crash rates. There were no fatal crashes during this
study period.
Table 7 displays the total number of crashes by severity type observed along this corridor
throughout the study area. The predominant crash severity was property damage only crashes
(80%) with the next highest being Class B crashes (11%).
Table 8 shows the intersection with the highest amount of crashes (11) over the five-year period
was at the unsignalized intersection of Orange Grove Road at Mayo Street (SR 1192). The
intersection with the next highest amount of crashes (7) was at the unsignalized intersection of
Orange Grove Road at Eno Mountain Road (SR 1148).
Intersection/Location From MP To MP Angle
Fixed
Object Left Turn Ran Off
Road Rear End Right Turn Sideswipe Other Total
S Churton St @ US 70 Alt/US 70 Bus/NC 86 0.00 0.00 1 0 2 0 7 0 2 0 12
S Churton St @ 0.03 miles south of US 70 Bus 0.02 0.05 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 8
S Churton St @ RR Overpass 0.070.09000030003
S Churton St @ CBS Auto 0.150.20000030003
S Churton St @ First National Bank 0.220.25000071008
S Churton St @ Bunce Buildings Lot 0.28 0.31 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 7
S Churton St @ Gro Smart Pet Store 0.320.3620211210018
S Churton St @ Boone Square St 0.46 0.47 4 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 8
S Churton St @ Rebecca Dr 0.50 0.53 4 0 4 0 6 1 1 0 16
S Churton St @ John Earl St 0.55 0.58 6 0 8 0 4 0 0 1 19
S Churton St @ Bojangles/J Cleaners 0.61 0.64 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 1 6
S Churton St @ Windmill St 0.670.70100050006
S Churton St @ SR 1192/James J Freeland/Mayo St 0.76 0.79 5 0 6 0 18 3 1 033
S Churton St @ Dogwood/Old Dogwood St 0.80 0.83 5 0 2 0 6 0 3 0 16
S Churton St @ Daniel Boone St 0.850.892011511213
S Churton St @ Hardees/Shell 0.900.9220221101018
S Churton St @ I‐85 SB Couplet 0.960.96010000001
S Churton St @ I‐85 Overpass 0.981.00000020002
S Churton St @ I‐85 NB Couplet 1.011.042020902015
34 1 31 5 116 8 11 6 212Total Crashes by Type:
20
Table 6: Orange Grove Road (SR 1006) from Eno Mountain Road (SR 1148) to S Churton Street (SR
1009) Crash Rates (04/01/2015 – 03/31/2020)
Table 7: Crash Severity Summary
Table 8: Crashes by Location (Orange Grove Road)
The crash rates for NC 86 from the I-85 North Exit Ramp to US 70 Alternate are reported in Table
9. The total, non-fatal injury, night, and wet crash rates all exceed the critical and statewide crash
rates. There were no fatal crashes during this study period.
Table 10 displays the total number of crashes by severity type observed along this corridor
throughout the study area. The predominant crash severity was property damage only crashes
(63%) with the next highest being Class C crashes (28%).
Table 11 shows the intersection with the highest amount of crashes (23) over the five-year period
was at the unsignalized intersection of NC 86 at the southernmost BP driveway. The intersection
with the next highest amount of crashes (14) was at the signalized intersection of NC 86 at the
I-85 northbound couplet.
Rate Crashes Crashes per 100 MVM
Statewide Crash Rate1 Critical Crash Rate2
Total 35 730.69 237.1 363.27
Fatal 0 0.00 2.48 24.75
Non-Fatal Injury 7 146.14 69.34 142.37
Night 9 187.89 100.16 185.82
Wet 6 125.26 39.01 96.39
12015-2017 statewide crash rate for Rural Secondary Routes that are 2 lanes undivided
2Based on the statewide crash rate (95% level of confidence)
Severity Summary Crashes %
Fatal Crashes 0 0%
Class A Crashes 0 0%
Class B Crashes 4 11%
Class C Crashes 3 9%
Property Damage Only 28 80%
Intersection/Location From MP To MP Angle
Fixed
Object Left Turn Ran Off
Road Rear End Right Turn Sideswipe Other Total
Orange Grove Rd @ SR 1009 (Churton St) 0.01 0.02 1 0 0 000102
Orange Grove Rd @ Exchange Park Ln 0.040.04003010004
Orange Grove Rd @ 1 mile west of Exchange Park Ln 0.08 0.14 0 0 1 1 0 0 002
Orange Grove Rd @ Curve 0.200.20010100002
Orange Grove Rd @ Dvwy 0.260.28010100103
Orange Grove Rd @ Mayo St Channelized Right Turn 0.340.37100110014
Orange Grove Rd @ SR 1192/Mayo St 0.38 0.40 4 1 2 1010211
Orange Grove Rd @ SR 1148/Eno Mountain Rd 0.48 0.49 2 0 2 020017
8385412435Total Crashes by Type:
21
Table 9: NC 86 from I‐85 North Exit Ramp to US 70 Bus Crash Rates
(04/01/2015 – 03/31/2020)
Table 10: Crash Severity Summary
Table 11: Crashes by Location (NC 86)
2.8 Identified Network Deficiencies
After review of the existing travel demand patterns, traffic conditions, and overall network
connectivity for vehicle, pedestrians and bicyclists, the following deficiencies have been identified:
Congestion exists at the existing Orange Grove Road intersections with Eno Mountain
Road and Mayo Street. Current operations are approaching capacity and these
intersections are likely to fail in the future with no improvements.
Local traffic puts pressure on I-85 and US 70 Business to make east-west connections. A
connector from S Churton Street to NC 86 would alleviate this pressure, with greater
benefit seen the further south (towards I-85) the connector is located.
Rate Crashes Crashes per 100 MVM
Statewide Crash Rate1 Critical Crash Rate2
Total 71 532.23 181.73 246.19
Fatal 0 0.00 2.16 12.53
Non-Fatal Injury 26 194.90 56.54 94.15
Night 17 127.44 67.22 107.89
Wet 9 67.47 28.41 56.16
12015-2017 statewide crash rate for Rural NC Routes that are 2 lanes undivided
2Based on the statewide crash rate (95% level of confidence)
Severity Summary Crashes %
Fatal Crashes 0 0%
Class A Crashes 0 0%
Class B Crashes 6 8%
Class C Crashes 20 28%
Property Damage Only 45 63%
Intersection/Location From MP To MP Angle Left Turn
Ran Off
Road Rear End Sideswipe Other Total
NC 86 @ I‐85 NB Couplet 12.21 12.26 1 3 0 9 1 0 14
NC 86 @ I‐85/670059 12.31 12.31 0 0 0 4 1 0 5
NC 86 @ I‐85 SB Couplet 12.32 12.32 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
NC 86 @ BP Dvwy 12.36 12.38 1 4 0 18 0 0 23
NC 86 @ BP Dvwy 12.39 12.41 1 2 0 7 1 0 11
NC 86 @ Service Shop 12.45 12.45 0 1 0 1 0 0 2
NC 86 @ Cornerstone Ct 12.56 12.60 0 1 1 0 1 1 4
NC 86 @ Valley Forge Rd 12.77 12.78 0 0 1 2 0 0 3
NC 86 @ US 70 Alt/US 70 Bus/Elizabeth Brady Rd 12.85 12.86 2 1 1 3 1 0 8
5 12 3 44 5 2 71Total Crashes by Type:
22
Integrating multimodal facilities into roadway projects is a priority for the Town of
Hillsborough. However, the proposed project would not complete any major connections
to other surrounding trails, greenways or parks. The primary multi-use facilities are in
place, or planned, along the Eno River. With that said, the proposed project should
incorporate multimodal facilities to encourage future larger scale connections and to not
preclude any future expansions of greenway systems in the area. The multimodal facilities
along the NC 86 collector would be compatible with the planned North/South Greenway,
creating a link between east-west and north-south facilities.
Along S Churton Street, the predominate crash type identified during the evaluated
period was rear end crashes (116 of 212, 55%). This is indicative of general congestion
and stop-and-go traffic. By alleviating congestion, it is expected that this crash type
would decrease.
These deficiencies were used to establish the project objectives discussed in Section 3.0 and guide
the overall alternative development process.
23
3.0 Alternative Development
3.1 Project Objectives
3.1.1 Eno Mountain Road/Orange Grove Road Realignment
Eno Mountain Road and Mayo Street intersect Orange Grove Road as offset intersections,
approximately 500 feet apart. Existing traffic operations show that these intersections are
approaching their capacity under the current traffic control. Future year projections show
failing levels of service during multiple peak hours at these intersections (see Section 4.4
and 4.5 for technical details). An efficient connection between these two intersecting
roadways is important as a convenient access for new developments in the area. By
including improvements to this area as part of the larger NC 86 Connector study, the
investment in the new location connector will be more protected since the built project
will be a complete connector from NC 86 into West Hillsborough.
3.1.2 NC 86 Connection
One main objective of this project is to establish a new east-west connection between
S Churton Street and NC 86. Currently, this connection can only be made via US 70
Business to the north or I-85 to the south. With existing and planned developments
expected to increase demand for this east-west movement, finding the best alternative to
make a local connection is key to effective movement within the southern Hillsborough
area. As discussed in Section 1.2.8, U-5848 was a previous study aimed at determining a
connector of this nature, but it did not yield an alternative that was acceptable to the
Town of Hillsborough due to negative impacts. This study focuses on the feasibility and
benefits of a connector further south than those presented in the U-5848 study. By
moving the connection south toward I-85, it is expected that the new roadway would
capture more of the local trips originating from or destined for the Collins Ridge
development, future Daniel Boone Village, and existing commercial developments on the
southern end of S Churton Street, near the I-85 interchange. In addition, a more southern
alignment is more attractive for local traffic traveling between Eno Mountain Road and
NC 86 than a more northern option. Chapter 4.0 will provide additional technical details
related to the projected travel demand shifts expected from this proposed connection. By
creating better connectivity through the project vicinity, the route becomes an important
collector that will serve many users.
There are a number of physical constraints affecting the location of the connector. This
facility would require a crossing of the North Carolina Railroad track that runs north-
south between S Churton Street and NC 86. There is a planned project to realign the
tracks in this area; however, the schedule for this realignment is unknown at this time.
Section 3.2 will provide additional details on the track realignment project, crossing
location options, and coordination with NCDOT Rail Division.
Additionally, the new location roadway will require a crossing of Cates Creek, which
essentially runs parallel to the railroad tracks in the vicinity of this project. Currently, the
only existing crossing of this creek is along Valley Forge Road, providing access to the
24
Builders FirstSource business. The existing crossing has a history of washout failures, with
the most recent occurring in June 2020. Due to this recent washout, the Town of
Hillsborough is faced with a decision point on the ultimate fix for this crossing location.
Funding of both the immediate need as well as a long-term plan for the connector must
be considered.
There is also a Duke Energy transmission line traversing the study area, northwest to
southeast. At least two transmission towers in the vicinity of the proposed alignments
must be considered when evaluating each alternative. Coordination with Duke Energy
resulted in considerations to remember as the crossing alternatives are further refined:
Crossing of the transmission easement must be at least 30 degrees to the
roadway centerline;
Any construction limits or ROW encroachments must be at least 25 feet off of
tower structures; and,
4:1 slopes are required for all cut/fill within the easement.
Finally, there are constraints related to acquisition of property that must be considered
when evaluating each alternative. The area between S Churton Street and NC 86 will be
built out in phases into a residential, Collins Ridge. That development is currently
constructing its first phase, which is a mix of single-family homes and townhomes along
with a north south collector through the neighborhood, with access to S Churton Street at
Orange Grove Road. It is highly likely that the preferred alternative will affect planned
units in Collins Ridge Phase 1; coordination with that developer will be important upon
adoption of a preferred alignment. There are other potential private property impacts
also to be considered, including impacts to the commercial developments west of NC 86,
along Cornerstone Court and Valley Forge Road.
3.1.3 Complete Streets Concepts
For each project segment --especially the NC 86 Connector -- the preferred alternative
should incorporate elements of the recently adopted NCDOT Complete Streets Policy.
Hillsborough is an active community and any new infrastructure should reflect that
character. When these concepts are included in project planning, a fully connected
network for all users, not just vehicles, will emerge as new facilities are built and existing
roads are upgraded.
For the NC 86 Connector, including elements of Complete Streets will primarily provide
facilities for future residents of Collins Ridge to have multimodal connection to S Churton
Street and the redeveloped Daniel Boone Village. The larger network of greenways and
bike trails throughout Hillsborough is focused north of the study area, following the Eno
River. However, by including sidewalks and shared-use paths as part of the project
design, there is opportunity for future multimodal connections to be made through South
Hillsborough, such as the planned North/South Greenway previously mentioned. By
adhering to the Complete Streets concepts, the roadway will be inviting to all users; it will
not only be safe and attractive, but it will function efficiently.
3.2 Railroad Crossing Options
25
3.2.1 Future Track Plans
NCDOT has plans to realign the railroad tracks through the project vicinity. The
realignment will slightly flatten the existing horizontal curve in the tracks, shifting the
tracks slightly west. Plans have been developed in coordination between the NCDOT Rail
Division and the U-5845 (S Churton Street Improvements) project teams. All alternatives
developed for this study assume the future track realignment has been completed. All
structures traversing the rail corridor account for additional future tracks (four total) and
provide a minimum of 24’-3” vertical clearance as required.
There is a spur track that breaks off of the mainline track that serves the Builders
FirstSource business. As the spur track breaks away from the mainline, it significantly
drops to a lower elevation than the mainline. The spur track is to remain in place per the
track realignment project.
3.2.2 Location Selection
The project design team evaluated the terrain along the railroad corridor, focusing on the
areas most likely to be in the proximity of a constructible horizontal alignment. As part of
this evaluation, the grading plans submitted with the Collins Ridge Development
construction plans were used, along with the proposed track alignment discussed in
Section 3.2.1.
3.2.3 Coordination
The NCDOT Rail Division provided the latest future track realignment plans which have
been incorporated into the alternatives’ analysis. Considerations for the mainline track
alignment and future tracks include providing adequate horizontal (25’-0” from center of
track) and vertical (24’-3”) clearances, as well as providing 23’ vertical clearance at the
spur track. In general, a bridge over the existing tracks is more favorable in the eyes of rail
operators for a grade separated crossing.
3.3 Alignment Alternatives
3.3.1 Typical Section
Based on conversations with the town and considering design constraints, the typical
section along the corridor is shown in Figures 8 and 9. Throughout the entire corridor
there will be 6’ sidewalk on the south side and a 10’ shared-use path (SUP) on the north
side. Additionally, the portion of the corridor from S Churton Street to the beginning of
Collins Ridge will most likely consist of 11’ lanes, a 17.5’ landscaped median, on-street
parking, and curb-and-gutter. The portion of the corridor along Collins Ridge will consist
of 11’ lanes, the median tapering down to an undivided section, on- street parking, and
curb-and-gutter. The industrial portion of the corridor from the end of the Collins Ridge
to the end of the alignment will consist of 11’ lanes with curb-and-gutter.
Based on the alternative selected for the improvement of Orange Grove Road at Eno
Mountain Road and Mayo Street, the typical section for this area could vary (see Section
3.3.2 for alternative descriptions). If improvements include only traffic control upgrades
26
(such as stop-controlled converted to roundabouts) the typical section is expected to
reflect what is present today: a two-lane, undivided roadway with no sidewalk, bike lanes,
or shared-use path. If a new location alignment is selected, then at a minimum right-of-
way should be acquired to accommodate the preferred alignment for the new location
connector west of S Churton Street. Should funding not be available to build the ultimate
cross section at the time of the initial project, improvements can be made to Orange
Grove Road at Eno Mountain Road and Mayo Street that allow for future multimodal
connections. This is especially true for the Mayo Street, which is not proposed to have a
change in alignment as part of this project. A future multimodal project could address the
continuation of the multimodal facilities beyond S Churton Street.
I Eno Mountain Road/ NC 86 Corridor Study
Orange County
Figure 8: Typical Sections
Prepared by: VHB Prepared for: Town of HillsboroughNot to Scale ElizabethBradyRdDate: June 2020
Typical Section 1A - S. Churton Street to Collins Ridge (Street E6); with parking
Typical Section 2A - Collins Ridge (Street E6) to Collins Ridge (Collector 1); with parking
Typical Section 2 - Collins Ridge (Connector 1) to NC 86; without parking
I Eno Mountain Road/ NC 86 Corridor Study
Orange County
Figure 9: Proposed StructureTypical SectionsPrepared by: VHB Prepared for: Town of HillsboroughNot to Scale ElizabethBradyRdDate: June 2020
Bridge Typical Section
Tunnel Typcial Section
29
3.3.2 Eno Mountain Road Realignment
Two alternatives, Alternative A and Alternative B, were developed to address the
connectivity and flow of traffic in the vicinity of the intersections of Eno Mountain Road
and Mayo Street with Orange Grove Road. These alignment alternatives are shown in
Figure 10.
Alternative A
Alternative A includes the construction of 2 roundabouts, one at the intersection of
Orange Grove Road at Eno Mountain Road and the other at Orange Grove Road and
Mayo Street. Traffic signals in place of the roundabouts were also considered and
evaluated; however, the roundabouts provide slightly better operations results. These
roundabouts would each have three approaches and would operate as an “offset T”
intersection set. The use of roundabouts as a traffic control would relieve the left-turning
traffic onto Orange Grove Road at both intersections by providing continuous movement
through the system. Additionally, this alternative allows the utilization of the existing
roadways with no substantial realignments. There would be some property impacts at the
roundabout locations to accommodate a slightly larger footprint than a conventional
intersection, but it is not expected that this would result in any full parcel acquisitions.
Alternative B
Alternative B includes realignment of Eno Mountain Road to tie to existing Mayo Street at
Orange Grove Road. In this option, Eno Mountain road would depart its existing
alignment just south of Elfin Pond Boulevard, traverse approximately five private parcels
and tie to Mayo Street, resulting in a traditional four-leg intersection.
3.3.3 NC 86 Connector
Four alternatives were evaluated for the NC 86 Connector, which will link S Churton Street
to NC 86 on new location. Each alternative is discussed below. Alternatives C, D and E all
share an alignment from S Churton Street through the Collins Ridge development. They
begin to differentiate in how they traverse the sensitive areas, including the railroad right-
of-way, the Duke-Energy transmission easement, and Cates Creek. The feasibility of
crossing these three physical constraints must be considered when determining the
preferred alignment. These alignment alternatives are shown in Figure 12.
For Alternatives C, D and E, consideration was given to the potential of providing access
to the Builders FirstSource parcel from the proposed alignment. The intent of this access
would be to address the long-term needs for crossing Cates Creek via Valley Forge Road,
which provides the only current access to this business. As mentioned earlier, there is an
immediate need to address the washout issue at this crossing. However, due to the
terrain and locations of proposed structures, there is no potential to access that parcel
ElizabethBradyRdOra n g e G ro v e R d
EnoMountainRd
SChurtonStMa
y
o
S
t
Tu s c a r o ra Dr
Meadowland sDrM ills to neDrMur doc k RdELFINB
LV
D JaMaxDrThoma
sBu rk e Dr
DanielBooneSt
CatesCreekPkwyBOT
ANWAYRhondaRdCardinalDr QUINC Y C O TTAGE RD
C h eshir e DrBaycourtTrl
John E a r l S t
Flin tR id g e A p tsCa m p gro
undLoopB ec k et ts Ridge Dr
Woodbur
y Dr
L e a h D r
HamptonPointeBlvdExchangeParkLnValleyForgeRd
Eno Mountain Road/ NC 8 6 Corr idor Study
7/20/2020Scale
Orange County
0 1,000 2,000Feet
§¨¦I-85
§¨¦I-85
UV86
£¤70
£¤70
Legend
Alignment A
Alignment B
Alignment C
Alignment D
Alignment E
Alignments C/D/E
Alignment F
Figure 10: Alternatives A - F C enterlines
Prepared by: VHB Prepared for: Town of Hillsborough
Date: June 2020I
31
from any of the proposed alignments; access to that business will need to be maintained
via existing Valley Forge Road and a permanent solution to the washout concern should
be considered by the Town.
Both Alternatives C and D cross the railroad in the vicinity of a rail spur that serves
Builders First Source. If one of these alternatives is selected, it may be required to rebuild
the spur as a back-in spur on the south side of the property. The need for this should be
confirmed as preliminary designs progress and determination can be made on whether
required clearances could be met given the spur’s current alignment.
Alternative C
This Alternative originates at Mayo Street and terminates at NC 86 at a new intersection
between Cornerstone Court and I-85. The alignment follows the planned east-west
collector location through Collins Ridge, approaching the railroad easement at a near
perpendicular crossing. Alternative C includes crossing the railroad and Cates Creek with
a bridge structure and then dipping down under the transmission lines and returning to
existing grade near the cul-de-sac on Cornerstone Court before extending to NC 86 via a
new alignment. The proposed grade at the transmission lines includes an increase of
about 16’ from the existing grade and may require coordination with Duke Energy.
From a traffic perspective, this alternative draws a notable amount of local traffic from
I-85 and US 70 Business. This is due to its southerly location, which is attractive to those
using the short segment of I-85 between S Churton Street and NC 86 for local connection
as well as those future users within Collins Ridge. This alternative provides multiple
benefits such as reducing trip lengths and overall vehicle miles traveled within the
network.
This alternative would impact several private properties, including planned units of Collins
Ridge, Builders FirstSource, and Cunningham Collision Center, at a minimum. It would
also pass through the existing location of multiple Southern States propane storage
tanks, located off Cornerstone Court.
The proposed bridge in this alternative would span both the railroad and Cates Creek and
would be approximately 575 feet in length with structural walls on both approaches. The
roadway, however, is expected to be above existing grade as it crosses the Duke-Energy
transmission easement. Thus, meeting clearance minimums for the transmission lines is
possible, however, could require raising the existing lines.
Alternative D
This alternative is very similar to Alternative C; however, its approach to the railroad skews
slightly southward. The bridge structure would only span the railroad; Cates Creek would
be crossed by a large box culvert built into the structural walls on the approach to the
bridge. The structural walls on this alternative are likely to carry into the transmission
easement, with the proposed future elevation of the roadway being higher than the
existing terrain in that easement. The horizontal alignment of this alternative curves
northward after crossing Cates Creek and ties into existing Cornerstone Court,
terminating at the existing NC 86 intersection.
32
Similar to Alternative C, there are notable shifts in traffic to this facility from existing
patterns using US 70 Business and I-85. There are also similar concerns regarding
property impacts; however, the impact to businesses along Cornerstone Court would be
slightly less than those in Alternative C.
Alternative E
Alternative E also follows the main alignment through Collins Ridge. However, this
alternative proposes a tunnel for a majority of the roadway that passes under the railroad,
skewing the roadway north and tying to existing Valley Forge Road. The tunnel would
either need to continue further east, or a bridge may be constructed to support the rail
spur. While a tunnel under the railroad is not often the most desirable option due to
maintenance, drainage and constructability concerns, in this case it should be considered
due to the potential benefits this alternative could provide.
From a traffic operations perspective, this less convenient alternative does not provide as
much benefit as more direct options connecting further south along NC 86; however,
some traffic making the local connection between S Churton Street and NC 86 still shifts
off I-85.
The primary benefits of this alternative are in the usage of existing Valley Forge Road at
its western end. This alternative would tie to Valley Forge Road west of the existing
crossings of the utility easement as well as Cates Creek. This would allow the Town to
focus on a long-term fix for Valley Forge as it crosses Cates Creek and there would be
minimal concern of conflicts in the transmission easement due to the slightly expanded
roadway cross section that would include a sidewalk and shared-use path.
While this alternative still impacts planned units in Collins Ridge, the impacts to the
properties in the Valley Forge Road and Cornerstone Court area are minimized.
Alternative F
Alternative F reflects a previously studied alternative from the U-5848 project. While this
alternative was not found to be acceptable by the Town initially, it is important to review
its benefits and drawbacks in contrast to the newly developed southern alternatives. This
alignment begins at S Churton Street, aligned with Orange Grove Road and follows a
collector on the north side of Collins Ridge, diverging from that to continue east as the
neighborhood road turns south. It then crosses the railroad with a bridge and ultimately
ties to Valley Forge Road terminating at NC 86.
From a traffic standpoint, this alternative diverts less traffic from US 70 Business or I-85
than the southerly options. This magnitude of this traffic shift should be an important
factor in gaining traction with NCDOT for prioritization of the project for future funding.
While the alternative would provide an additional east-west connection, it may not yield
sufficient traffic benefits to warrant the cost and impacts of the project, specifically the
construction of a bridge over the rail line. Additionally, this alignment is disjointed from
the Eno Mountain Road and May Street intersections with Orange Grove Road, which
detracts from overall connectivity across the entire south side of Hillsborough.
33
As part of the previous studies, effort was made to minimize property impacts with this
alignment, including effects on Collins Ridge. However, without some impact to that
development, the road would not ultimately serve the needs of its residents.
34
4.0 Future Year (2045) Conditions
4.1 Travel Demand Modeling
The Triangle Regional Travel Demand model (TRMv6) was used to help estimate long-term
changes in the magnitude and distribution of traffic in the study area, as well as potential impacts
of the proposed S Churton Street – NC 86 connection. TRMv6’s 2018 and 2045 MTP scenarios
were used in this evaluation. Several modifications were needed to more accurately reflect
existing and anticipated conditions.
Centroid connectors for the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) representing the area bounded by
S Churton Street, NC 86, I-85, and US 70 Business were revised to allow trips to load more
realistically onto the surrounding network, and to provide a more accurate comparison
between Build and No Build scenarios.
The northern alignment of the proposed connector (an eastward extension of Orange
Grove Rd to US 70 Business) was removed.
A proposed southern connection across I-85 was eliminated.
An eastward extension of Mayo Street to NC 86 (in the vicinity of Cornerstone Ct) was
coded in the network as a 35-mph 2-lane facility to represent the Build scenario.
Employment and population estimates for this TAZ were also reviewed to ensure consistency with
the anticipated development.
Model volumes provided by TRMv6 were not used directly as forecasts. Rather, the percent
change in assigned traffic between 2018 and 2045 was calculated for each link in the Build and
No Build scenarios. The resulting growth rate was applied to the balanced 2018 traffic volumes
determined from actual traffic count data. This established a basic growth rate. Initial results were
refined based on forecasts from other relevant roadway projects and TIAs, StreetLight traffic
distributions, and standard smoothing and balancing processes.
4.2 Design Year (2045) No-Build Conditions
The Design Year (2045) No-Build scenario analyzes future 2045 conditions without the Eno
Mountain Road or NC 86 Connector in place. The scenario does incorporate several planned site
developments and planned NCDOT roadway improvements within the study area. The following
developments were assumed to be open and the associated traffic volumes were specifically
added to the study intersection network:
Collins Ridge Development: Large residential development located between S Churton St
(SR 1009) and the railroad line within the study area. The development will consist of
1,038 dwellings of various types.
Elfins Pond: Residential development located at the western quadrant of the Eno
Mountain Road and Orange Grove Road intersection. The development will consist of 126
townhomes.
35
Daniel Boone Village: Mixed-use development located along the east side of S Churton St
(SR 1009), across from Mayo Street. The development plan has not been finalized and
may consist of approximately 400 residential units, two hotels, and general office and
retail uses.
The traffic projections for the first two sites were obtained from their respective traffic impact
analysis studies. Traffic for the Daniel Boone Village was estimated based on their conceptual site
plan and using rates published in the Institute of Traffic Engineering (ITE) Trip Generation Manual,
10th Edition.
The planned NCDOT projects that are expected to be completed by 2045 are as follows:
U-5845: S Churton St (SR 1009) Widening
I-5967: I-85 at S Churton St (SR 1009) Interchange Improvements
I-5984: I-85 at NC 86 Interchange Improvements
NC 86 Widening (MTP Project 80)
Specific lane configurations and storage lengths were obtained from the project’s design
drawings if available. Storage lengths are designed to accommodate anticipated traffic growth.
Peak hour level of service analyses were conducted based on current roadway geometrics. Signal
phasing data was obtained from signal plans provided in Appendix C.
The volumes for the Design Year (2045) No-Build scenario were developed based on U-5845,
I-0305, I-5967, I-5983, and I-5984 forecasts, and from available traffic impact analysis data. The
Design Year (2045) No-Build peak hour turning movement volumes and Design Year (2045)
No-Build lane configurations and traffic control figures can be found in Appendix B.
Both unsignalized intersections studied along Orange Grove Road operate at a LOS F during both
peak periods. In addition, the S Churton Street at US 70 Business intersection and S Churton
Street at Mayo Street intersections both operate at LOS E during both peaks. Though the U-5845
project adds an additional through lane along S Churton Street, high levels of delay remain,
particularly at the Mayo Street intersection, which serves as a primary point of access to the
Collins Ridge and Daniel Boone developments. A summary table of these results can be found in
Appendix B.
4.3 Design Year (2045) Build Alternative A – Traffic Analysis
Alternative A includes spot improvements at the Orange Grove Road/ Mayo Street and Orange
Grove Road /Eno Mountain Road intersections. The intersections would remain as “offset Ts”,
however a roundabout design would give equal priority to side street traffic movements. This
would result in less delay for the side streets than a stop-controlled intersection and would avoid
the cost and impacts of a full realignment. For comparison purposes, results under signalized
control were also evaluated; the intersections operate at acceptable levels under either
roundabout or signalized intersection configurations. However, single-lane roundabouts tend to
have less severe crashes than stop -controlled and signalized intersections due to slower speeds
and the elimination of left-turns and crossing movements. Appendix B includes the associated
figures and summary tables associated with this evaluation scenario.
36
4.4 Design Year (2045) Build Alternative B – Traffic Analysis
Alternative B includes the realignment of Eno Mountain Road to connect to Orange Grove Road
across from Mayo Street. This realignment creates a single, four-legged intersection. Traffic
travelling between Eno Mountain Road and S Churton Street would have a direct route across
Orange Grove Road, rather than making two turns to travel along this path. For comparison
purposes, results under both roundabout and signalized traffic control scenarios were evaluated;
the intersection operates at acceptable levels under either roundabout or signalized intersection
configurations. However, single-lane roundabouts tend to have less severe crashes than stop
controlled and signalized intersections due to slower speeds and the elimination of left-turns and
crossing movements. Appendix B includes the associated figures and summary tables associated
with this evaluation scenario.
4.5 Design Year (2045) Build Alternative C – Traffic Analysis
Alternative C includes the NC 86 Connector as a new location facility connecting S Churton Street
at Mayo Street to NC 86 south of Cornerstone Court. The new connection results in the
redistribution of vehicular traffic in the area, resulting in less pressure on S Churton Street, US 70
Business, I-85 and its associated interchanges. Signalization and additional turn lanes at the
eastern terminus of the facility are required to accommodate the additional travel demand.
This version of the NC 86 connector improves operations along S Churton Street and also shows
slight improvement to the overall operations at the I-85 ramps at both interchanges. The new
signalized intersection along NC 86 at the connector operates at a LOS B in the AM and LOS C in
the PM. Appendix B includes the associated figures and summary tables associated with this
evaluation scenario.
4.6 Design Year (2045) Build Alternative D – Traffic Analysis
Alternative D includes the NC 86 Connector as a new location facility connecting S Churton Street
at Mayo Street to NC 86 via Cornerstone Court. The new connection results in a redistribution of
vehicular traffic in the area, resulting in less pressure on S Churton Street US 70 Business, I-85,
and its associated interchanges. Signalization and additional turn lanes at the NC 86 at
Cornerstone Court intersection are required to accommodate the additional travel demand.
Just as in Alternative C, this version of the NC 86 connector improves operations along S Churton
Street and also shows slight improvement to the overall operations at the I-85 ramps at both
interchanges. The NC 86 at Cornerstone Court intersection operates at a LOS B in the AM and
LOS C in the PM. Appendix B includes the associated figures and summary tables associated with
this evaluation scenario.
4.7 Design Year (2045) Build Alternative E – Traffic Analysis
Alternative E includes the NC 86 Connector as a new location facility connecting S Churton Street
at Mayo Street to NC 86 via Valley Forge Road. The new connection results in the redistribution of
vehicular traffic in the area, resulting in less pressure on S Churton Street US 70 Business, I-85,
and its associated interchanges. Signalization and additional turn lanes at NC 86 at Valley Forge
Road intersection are required to accommodate the additional travel demand.
37
As with the previously discussed “southern connection alternatives,” the NC 86 connector results
in improved operations along S Churton St (SR 1009). Because the connector is further north
along NC 86 than Alternatives C and D, the improvement at the interchange ramps is more minor;
however, there is still improvement noted. The intersection of NC 86 and Valley Forge Road
operates at a LOS B in the AM and LOS C in the PM. Appendix B includes the associated figures
and summary tables associated with this evaluation scenario.
4.8 Design Year (2045) Build Alternative F – Traffic Analysis
Alternative F includes the NC 86 Connector as a new location facility extending between
S Churton Street, aligned across from Orange Grove Road to NC 86 via Valley Forge Road. The
new connection redistributes some vehicular traffic in the area; however, since this alignment is
further north and farther from the I-85 interchanges, it does not provide as much diversion of
traffic from I-85 to the connector as Alternatives C, D and E. Therefore, less benefit is seen along
S Churton Street, US 70 Business, I-85, and its associated interchanges. Signalization and
additional turn lanes at the NC 86 at Valley Forge Road intersection are required to accommodate
the additional travel demand. This alternative also realigns the northern end of NC 86 to form a
new T-intersection with US 70 Business. As a T-intersection, there is a slight improvement in
operations due to the reduced number of signal phases from the elimination of the Elizabeth
Brady Road phase. This alternative does result in very close signal spacing between Valley Forge
Road and US 70 Business, which are only separated by approximately 300 feet and is not ideal for
operations.
Appendix B includes the associated figures and summary tables associated with this evaluation
scenario.
38
5.0 Opinion of Probable Cost
5.1 Construction Cost Estimates
For the purposes of comparing between alternatives, planning level construction cost estimates
were developed for each. These estimates account for construction quantities based on 2020
dollars. The construction estimates do not include contingencies or mobilization estimates.
Additional detail on these estimates, including line item costs and quantities, can be found in
Appendix D.
Table 12: Estimated Construction Costs
Alternative Construction Cost
Eno Mountain Road/Orange Grove Road Realignment
Alternative A $1,000,000
Alternative B $4,000,000
NC 86 Connector
Alternative C $7,200,000
Alternative D $11,000,000
Alternative E $32,800,000
Alternative F $4,500,000
5.1 Right-of-Way Cost Estimates
For the purposes of comparing between alternatives, planning level constructions right-of-way
estimates were developed for each. These estimates are based on tax assessed parcel values per
Orange County GIS. The estimates are based on the percentage of each parcel expected to be
acquired. If a structure was impacted, the entirety of the parcel was assumed to be acquired. A
detailed right-of-way estimate should be conducted in later stages of planning and design;
however, this estimate provides a relative comparison between alternatives. Alternatives C and D
do not account for the value added by of the Collins Ridge development. Alternative E (tunnel
option) assumes no right-of-way is required for land above the tunnel. Additional detail on these
estimates can be found in Appendix D.
Table 13: Estimated Right‐of‐Way Costs
Alternative Construction Cost
Eno Mountain Road/Orange Grove Road Realignment
Alternative A $182,000
Alternative B $1,162,000
NC 86 Connector
Alternative C $2,932,000
Alternative D $2,859,000
Alternative E $836,000
Alternative F $1,945,000
39
6.0 Study Conclusions and Recommendations
6.1 Eno Mountain Road/Orange Grove Road Realignment
Alternative A is recommended for implementation to address the Eno Mountain Road at Orange
Grove Road concerns. This alternative provides the most effective traffic capacity improvements
with minimal impacts to surrounding parcels and resources. Between a roundabout and signalized
version of this Alternative, the roundabouts provide better operations by reducing conflicts,
moderating speeds, and giving equal priority to all approaches and their heavy turn movements,
as opposed to favoring the main line (Orange Grove Road). The impact of construction may be
slightly higher at the intersections themselves, but the need for turn lanes extending back from
the intersection are negated.
6.2 NC 86 Connector
The process of developing a solution for a new east-west connector in this area has its own
history and complexities. This study has identified feasible options that address needs of the
immediate roadway network; however, there is additional study needed to further develop those
alternatives to determine more accurate cost implications and constructability, specifically for the
connection alternatives to the south (Alternatives C, D and E). That connection area involves a very
complex integration of the railroad, power transmission easements, and a creek prone to
flooding. This crossing point, however, provides the overall traffic benefit to justify the project by
relieving pressure from both S Churton Street and I-85 and its interchanges. The most likely
solution in this area should include a bridge over the railroad, rather than a tunnel underneath,
but would require a very large, long structure. If this southern connector option is pursued,
additional coordination with the I-5984 project team is necessary due to potential impacts on the
proposed I-85 ramp intersection improvements. That reconfiguration could change the location
of the connector tie to NC 86, diminishing traffic benefits as its location moves farther north.
Also under evaluation is the northern connection option, extending Orange Grove Road along the
northern border of the Collins Ridge development and terminating at NC 86. As evaluated under
the current and previous scopes of the project, this option is only looked at as a local connector
between S Churton Street and NC 86. As previously documented, these endpoints do not allow
for a design concept that creates an effective connection while also providing enough travel
benefits to justify the project. To address this, additional scope should be considered to evaluate
the impacts of extending the connector even further east, to US 70 Business east of NC 86. This
could allow for the relocation of US 70 Business to the new connector, and it may address larger
network problems than the current options.
This expansion of the study would include evaluation of additional intersections, including:
S Churton Street at US 70 Business
US 70 Business at US 70
The options for developing this east-west connector have the potential to address two network
needs. The first is the need for an efficient local connection between S Churton Street and NC 86.
At this smaller scale, a connection in the south of the study area and through the middle of
40
Collins Ridge yields an optimal solution. If the Town would rather focus the connector on a larger
network concern--addressing growth to the east of the study area and how that area connects to
downtown Hillsborough--then a northern connector that potentially realigns US 70 Business
would be a better fit.
At this time, the needs and benefits associated with the larger network connectivity alternative
have not been fully evaluated. As such, before a decision can be made on which purpose this
connector should serve, additional study should be done on the northern connector option,
expanding the study area to evaluate the larger network area from both traffic and land use
perspectives. With the purpose, benefits, and drawbacks of each connector purpose defined, the
Town will be equipped to make a more informed decision on the future of this connection.
Board of Commissioners
Agenda Abstract Form
Meeting Date: Aug. 24, 2020
Department: Planning
Public Hearing: Yes No
Date of Public Hearing:
For Clerk’s Use Only AGENDA ITEM #
4.B
Consent
Agenda
Regular
Agenda
Closed
Session
PRESENTER/INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret A. Hauth, Planning Director/Assistant Town Manager
ITEM TO BE CONSIDERED
Subject:
Discussion of cross-section and timing for second access point to Collins Ridge along James J. Freeland Memorial
Drive
Attachment(s):
1. Narrative and preliminary plan
Brief Summary:
The Collins Ridge developer has submitted construction drawings for the second access point to Collins Ridge along
James J. Freeland Memorial Drive. While the “due date” of this improvement is well documented, the details have not
yet been established. Staff is looking for guidance about the acceptable level of improvement.
Action Requested:
Discussion and direction
ISSUE OVERVIEW
Background Information & Issue Summary:
James J. Freeland Memorial Drive is an existing private road constructed without public right of way in the Daniel
Boone tract. It has been used for general public access for many years. The ownership entities for Collins Ridge and
Daniel Boone are independent Limited Liability Companies (which is common), but they share the same mailing
address and registered agent. This close relationship eases the ability for Collins Ridge to build and dedicate a public
road through the Daniel Boone parcel.
The Master Plan for Collins Ridge requires that “the second permanent access must be constructed and available for
use prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the 451st dwelling unit within Collins Ridge.” The master
plan requires the submittal of construction drawings to the town for the road construction. The attached plans are
what the town has received. Staff is requesting guidance to aid the review. This is the same process we used in
Waterstone, although there were no external town road improvements for Waterstone.
The same paragraph excerpted above indicates “irrevocable legal right to provide a second permanent vehicular and
pedestrian access point in a location acceptable to the town’s consulting traffic/transportation consultant and to
NCDOT, connecting the main north-south “spine” road on Collins Ridge Master Plan property to Churton Street” was
to be provided prior to the first Collins Ridge SUP. The town received the offer to purchase the Boone tract in
satisfaction of this requirement. The underlined portion indicates the intent for the road to accommodate pedestrians
and vehicles.
There is no document setting the desired cross-section for James J. Freeland Memorial Drive. The submitted plans
show a ditch cross-section rather than curb and gutter. They are proposing two travel lanes, with bike lanes and no
sidewalk. From the applicant’s standpoint that is reasonable because they know development is coming to the Daniel
Boone property. The alignment of the road may change. The needed capacity of the road may change. It’s hard to
estimate what storm drainage network will be needed to accommodate that growth. These are all questions that
impact the cross-section and construction quality and cost of the proposed road. In many circumstances, the needs
of the road can reasonably be assigned to the redevelopment of Daniel Boone rather than to Collins Ridge. However,
the town doesn’t know when that development is coming and for how long the residents of Collins Ridge would not
have sidewalk access out to Churton Street. If an interim improvement is acceptable, we need a clear way to
document that the improvement is interim and that the eventual developers of the Daniel Boone lands will be
responsible for any needed improvements. This clarity was less than clear in Waterstone and took significant staff
time to resolve.
As noted in the previous item, this corridor may be a desirable route to create a connection to NC 86 in the future.
Does that potential play into what is required now?
Financial Impacts:
Staff Recommendations/Comments:
RAQ‐18000 DANIEL BOONE CENTER
2905 Meridian Parkway, Durham, NC 27713 / 919. 361. 5000 creating experiences through experience
August 18, 2020
Mr. Chip Pickard
Criteria Development
9794 Timber Circle Suite A
Daphne, AL 36527
RE: Freeland Memorial Drive Extension – Boone Center
Dear Chip,
Per your request, please find the attached proposed cross section we are proposing for the intermediate
construction of the connector from the Western property line of Collins Ridge to the existing roadway stub near the
previous restaurant about 200’ East of Churton Street. I have included the typical section from Collins Ridge and the
section for the intermediate design through the Boone Center. The below notes describe the reason for the
proposed intermediate design.
> The section proposed matches both the travel lanes and bike lanes currently shown in the Connector 2 typical
section included within the existing approved Collins Ridge subdivision.
> We have proposed strip pavement with side ditches that would allow for widening in either direction without
removing/relocating curb and gutter. This design allows for flexibility in the horizontal configuration once a
commercial development is proposed.
> At this time we are offsetting the new roadway impervious area by removing existing impervious areas in the
Boone Center and creating a net‐decrease in Built Upon Area, which meets both State and local stormwater
management standards. By utilizing vegetated side ditches there will be an opportunity for some infiltration
and use of check dams to slow the surface water runoff.
> Once a development is proposed for the Boone Center, permanent stormwater facilities will be provided by
the commercial development and the roadway runoff will be tied to that system.
I hope this helps explain our design thoughts for this extension.
Sincerely,
MCADAMS
Brad Rhinehalt, PE
Senior Project Manager, Residential
STREETC8(45'PUBLICR/W,25'B-B)STREETC5(45'PUBLICR/W,25'B-B)STREETC4(45'PUBLICR/W,25'B-B)STREETC2(45'PUBLICR/W,25'B-B)STREETC3(45'PUBLICR/W,25'B-B)STREETC3(45'PUBLICR/W,25'B-B)STREETC6(45'PUBLICR/W,25'B-B)EXISTINGCONNECTOR2(69'PUBLICR/W)CONNECTOR2(82'PUBLICR/W)CONNECTOR2(69'PUBLICR/W)STREETC1(45'PUBLICR/W,25'B-B)SCHURTONSTREET(VARIABLEWIDTHR/W)EXISTINGPROJECT NO. CDL-18020FILENAME CDL18020-1B-OAS1CHECKED BY .DRAWN BY .SCALE 1" = 100'DATE 06. 22. 2020N0. DATEx:\Projects\CDL\cdl-18020\Land\construction drawings\Phase 1B\current drawings\construction drawings\CDL18020-1B-OAS1.DWG, 6/18/2020 7:30:08 PM, LukeCOLLINS RIDGE - PHASE 1BCONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS258 ORANGE GROVE STREETHILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINACOLLINS RIDGE LANDCO, LLC9794 TIMBER CIRCLE, SUITE ADAPHNE, ALABAMA 36527PHONE: 251. 979. 6627FINAL DRAWING - NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTIONOVERALL SITE PLANGRAPHIC SCALE050 100 2001 inch = 100 ft.PHASE1BPHASE1AP HA SE 1A
P H A S E1B
POD D18.79 AC(FUTURE DEVELOPMENT)CASA3.75 ACSEDIMENT BASIN 1A(BY URBAN DESIGN PARTNERS)Tie In PointsProperty LineFREELANDMEMORIAL DRIVE
10' TRAVEL LANE5'BIKE LANE69' PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYRIGHT-OF-WAYRIGHT-OF-WAY35' B-BCL2.0%3:1MAX.3:1MAX.2.5'5.0'6.0'2.5' 5.0' 6.0'10' TRAVEL LANE3:1MAX.3:1MAX.5'BIKE LANE30" STANDARD CURBAND GUTTER5' CONCRETESIDEWALK5' CONCRETESIDEWALK30" STANDARD CURBAND GUTTER6.0'6.0'1.0'1.0'10' TRAVEL LANE5'BIKE LANE69' PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYRIGHT-OF-WAYRIGHT-OF-WAY30' B-BCL2.0%PAVEMENT SECTION1.5" S9.5B SURFACE COURSE1.5" S9.5B INITIAL COURSE8" ABC4.0'TYPICAL SECTIONCONNECTOR 2 WITHOUT CURB & GUTTER(69' R/W, 35' B-B)4.5'1.5'3:1MAX.2:1MAX.10' TRAVEL LANE5'BIKE LANE2.0%4.0'4.5'1.5'3:1MAX.2:1MAX.PAVEMENT SECTION1.5" S9.5B SURFACE COURSE1.5" S9.5B INITIAL COURSE8" ABC2.0%8.0%8.0%3:13:1TYPICAL SECTIONCONNECTOR 2 WITHOUT PARKING(69' R/W, 47' B-B)TYPICAL SECTION THROUGH BOONE CENTERTYPICAL SECTION THROUGH COLLINS RIDGE35'30'Edge-Edge)