CapitalBlvdFinal-08-09-12

boulevard
Planning & DevelopmentCB
Capital Boulevard
corridor study
capital
report
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
Acknowledgements page i
1.Executive Summary .............................................. .....................................page 1 Planning Process ............................................................................page 2 Vision Themes ................................................................................page 2 Specific Projects .............................................................................page 3 Making it real .................................................................................page 3
2.Introduction ......................................................... .....................................Page 5 Purpose and Scope ........................................................................page 5 Overview of Study Area ....................................................................page 6
3.What We Found.................................................... .....................................page 7 Issues, Opportunities, and Contraints ..................................................page 7 Public Meetings ..............................................................................Page 9
4.The Vision for the Boulevvard ................................. .....................................Page 11 Happy Motoring ..............................................................................Page 12 Transitioning to Transit ......................................................................Page 14 Moving without Fosil Fuels ................................................................Page 16 Greening the Infrastructure ...............................................................Page 18 At Home on Capital Boulevards .........................................................Page 20 Business and Industry ......................................................................Page 22 A Gateway Transformed ...................................................................Page 24
5.Specific Recommendations .................................... .....................................page 27 Roadway Improvements ...................................................................page 27 Greenways, Trails and Open Spaces ...................................................page 38 Transit Services ..............................................................................page 44 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ........................................................page 45 Green Infrastructure .........................................................................page 45 Land Use and Economic Development ...............................................page 46 Future Land Use .............................................................................page 47 Zoning ..........................................................................................page 47
6.Capital Plan and Phasing ........................................ .....................................page 49 Downtown Express ..........................................................................page 50 Valley ............................................................................................page 50 North Boulevard ..............................................................................page 50 Other Projects ................................................................................page 50 Capital Cost Estimates .....................................................................page 51
CONTENT
Appendix A: Paying for it ........................................... .....................................page 53 Value Capture Mechanisms ..............................................................page 53 Government Resources Review .........................................................page 55 Transportation + Infrastructure ..........................................................page 56 Parks + Greenspace .......................................................................page 58 Water Resources Management .........................................................page 60
Appendix B: Pedestrian Bridge Analysis ....................... .....................................page 63 Option 1: Connect Seaboard Station/Peace College to Devereux Meadows property page 64 Option 2: Connect Mordecai/Pilot Mill Community to Five Points Community ..........page 66 Option 3: Connect Five Points Community to Capital Boulevard Corridor ...............page 75 Option 4: Connect Mordecai/Pilot Mill Community to Capital Boulevard Corridor ......page 77 Summary of Options ........................................ .....................................page 83 Potential pedestrian bridge design styles .............................................page 85
Appendix C: Traffic Impact Analysis of Peace Street Bridge Alternatives .................. page 93
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
CITY COUNCIL
• Nancy McFarlane, City of Raleigh Mayor
• Russ Stephenson, Mayor Pro Tem
• Mary Ann Baldwin, Council Member At Large
• Randall Stagner, Council Member, District A
• John Odom, Council Member, District B
• Eugene Weeks, Council Member, District C
• Thomas Crowder, Council Member, District D
• Bonner Gaylord, Council Member, District E
CITY MANAGER
• J. Russell Allen
DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING
• Mitchell Silver, Chief Planning and Development Officer & Director
CITY OF RALEIGH PROJECT TEAM
• Kenneth Bowers AICP, Project Director
• Trisha Hasch, Project Manager
LAND USE, TRANSIT, & TRANSPORTATION
• Martin Stankus, AICP
• Roberta Fox, AIA
• Eric Lamb, PE
• Mike Kennon, PE
• David Eatman
• Fleming El-Amin, AICP
• Bowman Kelly, PE, PTOE
• Jennifer Baldwin
• Oriane LaFargue, Intern
PLANNING + URBAN DESIGN
• Grant Meacci RLA, LEED AP
• Trisha Hasch
• Elizabeth Alley
• Rachel Stark, Associate ASLA
• Dhanya Sandeep
GIS SUPPORT
• Carter Pettibone, AICP
• Stan Wingo
COMMUNICATIONS
• Sharon Felton
• Jorge Gao
• Rhonda Hayes
• Aaron Sheppard
URBAN FORESTRY
• Sally Thigpen
PARKS AND GREENWAYS
• Vic Lebsock
• Ivan Dickey
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
• Mark Senior, PE
• Scott Bryant, PE
PUBLIC WORKS
• Susan Locklear, PE
PUBLIC UTILITIES
• Robert Massengill
POLICE DEPARTMENT
• Captain Andy Lull
• Detective R.J.Pike
• James Kryskowiak
• M.O. K.A. Kratzer
WAKE COUNTY PLANNING
• Sharon Peterson
• Bryan Coates
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
i
SPECIAL THANKS TO PRO BONO CONSULTANT SERVICES:
• Brenan Buckley, PE, BCEE, CDM
• Graham Smith, RLA, ASLA, CLARB, LEED AP, DHM Design
• Richard Adams, PE, Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc.
• Sal Musarra, PE, Kimley-Horn Associates, Inc.
• Larry Zucchino, RLA, ASLA, LEED AP, JDavis Architects (Peace Street Study)
SPECIAL THANKS TO:
• Raleigh City Council
• Raleigh Public Affairs and RTN
• Raleigh Arts Commission
• Raleigh Historic Districts Commission
• North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
• North Carolina Department of Transportation
• North Carolina State Archives
• North Carolina Department of Administration
• North Carolina Department of Corrections
• North Carolina Department of Water Quality
• North Carolina Capital Area MPO
• Triangle Transit
• Bobby Murray Chevrolet
• Greg Hatem, Empire Properties
• Bobby Poole, retired General Real Estate Manager, North Carolina State Property Office
• Mack Paul, Partner, K&L Gates, LLC
• Citizen Advisory Councils
• Mordacai CAC
• East CAC
• North Central CAC
• Five Points CAC
• Business Owners
• Property Owners
• All citizen activists, participants, and public workshop attendees
ii
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
1
The Capital Boulevard Corridor Study presents an ambitious
yet realistic vision for transforming the most-travelled and
least-loved gateway into downtown Raleigh into a showcase
for multimodal transportation and green infrastructure. The final
report focuses on capital projects, in recognition that significant
changes to the physical infrastructure of the corridor, not just
new land use policies, are necessary to achieve meaningful
change. It is also a vision plan, in that these project ideas, while
tested for feasibility, will require future design and engineering
studies to nail down the details. Yet in spite of its visionary na-
ture, implementation of the study recommendations can begin
almost immediately, by shaping pending capital investments in
the corridor that are in the planning stage at the time of writing.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
2
PLANNING PROCESS
The Capital Boulevard Corridor Study has been conducted
with Raleigh’s Department of City Planning serving as lead
agency, assisted by an internal working group consisting of
representatives from the Parks and Recreation department;
the Stormwater Division of the Public Works department;
and the Office of Transportation Planning. Regular meetings
were also held with key County and State agencies, including
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR). .
City staff was assisted throughout the process by a team
of pro bono consulting firms: Kimley Horn Associates
for transportation planning and engineering; CDM for
stormwater and water quality engineering; and DHM Design
for landscape design and pedestrian planning. These firms
graciously donated time and expertise to the effort, and
were essential to developing and testing the design and
engineering feasibility of the plan concepts:
The public process included three major public meetings:
(1) a kickoff workshop to introduce the project and refine the
scope of work; (2) a design workshop to brainstorm concepts
for the corridor; and (3) an open house to present the draft
plan. The initial kick-off meeting attracted 250 attendees. All
subsequent meetings were well attended. Major themes that
emerged from the public process included the need to put
water quality and amenity at the center of the plan; provide
multimodal transportation options in the corridor; and create
public amenities to set the stage for significant reinvestment
in the adjacent land uses. Also noted was the need for a
vision commensurate with scope of the problem, yet still
realistic.
VISION THEMES
The plan for Capital Boulevard is organized around seven
vision themes, which are described briefly below. Each
specific recommendation and project in the plan implements
one or more of these themes.
1. Happy Motoring: Improving the capacity, safety,
function, and aesthetics of Capital Boulevard as a major
automotive route into and out of Downtown. Elements
of this vision include improved access management,
modernized interchanges, median improvements, and a
consistent six-lane configuration for the roadway.
2. Transitioning to Transit: Improving transit access within
the corridor, by providing new routes for bus services,
improving the pedestrian realm, and capitalizing on future
rail investments.
3. Moving without Fossil Fuels: Creating a new network
of greenways and parallel ‘complete streets’ to facilitate
bicycle and pedestrian movements in the corridor,
providing new and better multimodal connections between
existing neighborhoods and Downtown.
4. Greening the Infrastructure: Implementing multiple
projects along the Pigeon House Branch to convert
this degraded and forgotten urban drainage way into
a resource for both recreation and wildlife, making a
significant contribution to meeting the City’s environmental
goals and mandates. Floodplain areas will be cleared
of development and converted into linear open space
amenities. New greenway trails will connect the growing
Downtown with the popular Crabtree Creek trails.
5. At Home on Capital Boulevard: New parks and transit
services will set the stage for portions of the corridor to
make the transition from commercial to residential use,
which will create new neighborhoods and knit together
and improve existing neighborhoods.
6. Business and Industry: Building on the corridor’s
industrial past by allowing a wide variety of commercial
land uses to continue to grow and develop along the
corridor, with an emphasis on unique and flexible spaces.
7. A Gateway Transformed: Leaving its past days as
an eyesore behind, the new Capital Boulevard will
be emblematic of a 21st century city. The character,
function and image of Capital Boulevard will be
completely transformed through a dramatic reordering
and improvement of the physical and natural
infrastructure.
3
• Installing a super street intersection midway between
Wade Avenue and Wake Forest Road to improve access
to adjacent land uses.
• Undertaking a stream bank restoration and flood bench
along the Pigeon House Branch between Wade and
Wake Forest
• Creating a second linear park and greenway trail in the
Pigeon House floodplain between Atlantic Avenue and
Crabtree Boulevard
• Realigning and consolidating Capital Boulevard in this
same area into a six lane highway, with Automotive Way
extended to Crabtree Boulevard to form a parallel access
road on the east side, rebranded as North Person Street
MAKING IT REAL
The projects outlined above are expensive, totaling about
$60 million in preliminary cost estimates. However, because
these projects further so many important objectives, they
can draw from many different sources of funding at the local,
state and federal level, including:
• Federal Highway Administration bridge replacement
funds to carry much of the cost of the interchange
reconstruction
• Water quality and ecosystem enhancement funds for
stream restoration
• FEMA funds, the City’s stormwater fund, and future
parks bonds for floodplain acquisition and restoration
• Public-private partnerships to create some of the
amenities and new street connections in conjunction with
private reinvestment in the corridor
While implementation of the Capital Boulevard plan
is daunting and complex, the benefits far outweigh
the challenges. Through coordinated effort, effective
partnerships, and creativity, Capital Boulevard can have a
future which is far greener, cleaner, and more economically
productive than it is today, creating value that will spread
beyond the confines of the study area to the adjacent
neighborhoods and the City’s rapidly transforming Downtown.
SPECIFIC PROJECTS
The projects that implement the vision are all designed
to work together and achieve multiple aims, regardless of
whether they are considered in isolation as roadway, transit,
or park projects. For example, all the roadway projects
are also intended to facilitate multimodal transportation in
addition to improved traffic flow, and the park projects also
implement water quality goals. The major projects include:
• Redesigning the Peace Street interchange to integrate
with the urban grid by extending Johnson and Harrington
Streets as a quadrant roadway interchange
• Redesigning the Wade Avenue interchange to improve
safety and increase access to the rail yards by creating a
compressed diamond interchange
• Adding a landscaped median to Capital Boulevard south
of Wade Avenue
• Creating a new park and greenway trail straddling a
restored Pigeon House Branch at Devereux Meadows
between Wade and Peace
• Extending West Street north to Wake Forest Road to
create a local access street with bicycle and pedestrian
facilities
• Replacing the interchange at Fairview Road with a
connection to the extended West Street, providing the
Five Points neighborhoods with a pedestrian and bicycle-
friendly connection to Downtown
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
4
CORRIDOR CONCEPT ILLUSTRATION
HAPPY MOTORING MAP
5
1.INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
Capital Boulevard, from the I-440 Beltline to Downtown, is
one of the most visible and important transportation corridors
in Raleigh. Not only is it the primary gateway to the city’s
core, but it offers compelling opportunities for reinvestment,
environmental restoration, open space creation, and mobility
enhancement. By connecting Downtown with an expanding
“midtown” growth center, the successful re-imagining of
Capital Boulevard could catalyze millions of dollars in new
development and associated tax revenue, support job
creation, offer a variety of housing options accessible by
transit, and create unique destinations for the city and region.
Capital Boulevard is a premier location to advance the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and create a vibrant mixed-use corridor
reflecting the direction of a 21st century city.
The Capital Boulevard Corridor Study has been an
in-house effort by the City of Raleigh to craft a vision and
strategy for the revitalization, redevelopment, and renewal
of Capital Boulevard from Downtown to the I-440 Beltline.
The lead agency for the study has been the Department
of City Planning. An intergovernmental working group was
formed with representatives from Wake County and the State
agencies with jurisdiction and land ownership in the Corridor,
and an extensive outreach effort ensured meaningful input
from business interests, property owners, neighbors, and
other interested citizens.
City staff has been assisted throughout the process by a
team of pro bono consulting firms: Kimley-Horn Associates
for transportation planning and engineering; CDM Smith for
stormwater and water quality engineering; and DHM Design
for landscape design and pedestrian planning. These firms
have graciously donated time and expertise to the effort and
have been essential to developing and testing the design and
engineering feasibility of the plan concepts.
HAPPY MOTORING MAP
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
6
The scope of work has followed a traditional planning
trajectory: inventory and analysis, public outreach and
visioning, plan preparation and refinement, and adoption.
However, it also included the following modifications:
• The public and property owners were consulted up front
to define the study area, identify key questions, and
refine the scope.
• The process and interim work products drew an explicit
link between the magnitude of the public investments
contemplated, and the potential for private investment
along the corridor.
• The plan contents work backwards from implementation
to ensure that the recommendations can realistically be
carried forward.
• The workshop-driven public outreach effort was matched
by an intergovernmental “in-reach” strategy involving
multiple meetings with stakeholders in City, County and
State government.
OVERVIEW OF STUDY AREA
The study area extends from Downtown Raleigh to the
I-440 Beltline. Capital Boulevard is part of the US 401
corridor along with the McDowell Dawson one-way pair in
Downtown, and South Saunders Street south of Downtown.
This corridor is classified as a Principal Arterial in the Raleigh
2030 Comprehensive Plan and is the only corridor inside the
Beltline with this designation. Issues considered relevant to
the study area included traffic, access management, transit,
Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR), pedestrians and
bicyclists, water quality, flooding, public sites, greenways,
and private investment. Specifically:
• Of the four major gateway corridors into Downtown
Raleigh, Capital Boulevard is both the most heavily
traveled and the most complex in terms of its design and
function.
• The corridor is flanked by two active rail corridors—
the Norfolk Southern Secondary and CSX S-Line—
complicating access and cross-town connectivity.
• Existing land-use patterns and bridge configurations
provide significant barriers to right-of-way expansion.
• Poor access to adjacent land uses and a substandard
image have kept away the type of retail, service, office,
and multifamily developments that are typically attracted
to high-volume arterial roadways.
• Pedestrian and bicycle accommodations, as well as transit
amenities, are mostly substandard or non-existent.
• North of Atlantic Avenue, a significant amount of land
along Capital Boulevard is located within the 100-year
floodplain. This includes all the property located in the
wide median north of Atlantic Avenue, as well as property
located in the vicinity of Crabtree Creek. Flooding has
been an issue in both areas recently.
• Covered over with multiple culverts and surrounded
by acres of development and pavement with minimal
stormwater control, the Pigeon House Branch has the
most impaired water quality of any waterway in Raleigh.
• Current physical conditions both within the right-of-way
and adjoining private and publicly-owned property are not
conducive to realizing the latent value that resides within
the corridor.
7
for cars to cross the corridor, and fewer still for bicyclists
and pedestrians.
• The vast areas of impervious surfaces close to
streams and tributaries have been built without modern
stormwater controls, promoting erosion and flash
flooding, and degrading water quality. Natural streams
historically have been culverted underground or
converted to urban stormwater conveyance channels.
Pigeon House Branch, Crabtree Creek, and Cemetery
Branch are considered impaired by the NC Division of
Water Quality (DWQ), and there is frequent flooding in
the study area.
• Invasive plant species are prevalent in the corridor and
require labor-intensive hand removal to eradicate.
• Overhead utility wires have stunted natural growth of
large maturing trees.
• Many sewer mains are aging and corroded and in need
of replacement.
• There are many underutilized or obsolete properties,
high vacancy rates, and subpar leasing rates.
• The pervasive heavy industrial zoning no longer
reflects the preferred use pattern along the corridor and
is in conflict with the Land Use element of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan.
2. WHAT WE FOUND
ISSUES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND
CONSTRAINTS
The Issues, Opportunities, and Constraints Report is the
result of a detailed inventory and analysis conducted by City
staff and State and County stakeholders. The report was
informed by input gathered at a public workshop held in June
2010. Additional sources for the inventory included existing
maps, plans and studies; interviews with officials at NCDOT
and elsewhere; and Wake County property records.
Inventory and analysis activities included the following:
general physical elements on the corridor and associated
issues related to transportation; environmental conditions;
utility infrastructure; land use; economic conditions; urban
design and public realm conditions; and historic and
cultural resources. Following is an abbreviated summary of
conclusions expounded on in the Issues, Opportunities, and
Constraints Report:
ISSUES
• The speed and design of the road makes it difficult to
identify or safely access businesses, greenways, or other
assets adjacent to the roadway, in spite of a proliferation
of curb cuts in some sections. Existing access roads
form an incomplete and disconnected system.
• Buildings are not located adjacent to the street but are
separated from the street by extensive parking lots and/
or swales, contributing to a placeless character.
• There are no public parks within the study boundary. A
portion of the greenway is located on the corridor.
• The public realm is hostile to pedestrians and there is
limited sidewalk infrastructure. Unprotected bus stops
are located within a few feet of the traffic corridor and
typically lack benches, shelters, or paved sidewalk
connections.
• Neighborhoods on either side of the study area are
disconnected from each other and from uses within the
corridor. South of Atlantic Avenue, there are few places
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
8
• The corridor planning process provides the venue to
work with local, State, and Federal entities to take
advantage of funding opportunities and technical
assistance to holistically approach economic and
environmental revitalization and restoration. The wide
variety of issues within the study area means that
multiple public benefits can be obtained from projects
and multiple funding sources can be tapped.
• Pending bridge replacement projects provide the
opportunity to redesign existing interchanges to
connect both sides of the corridor, facilitate bicycle
and pedestrian access, and improve traffic safety and
functionality.
• The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
provides funding for the public acquisition of floodplain
lands. This is not only the most direct way to deal with
flood prone properties, but also is a means of creating
new open spaces and amenities in the corridor.
• The City has a Cost Share program that provides 75
percent of the cost of approved stormwater projects.
• Brownfield assessment and cleanup can jump start
revitalization and redevelopment. There are several
available local, State, and Federal tools and incentives.
• Relocating or undergrounding utilities would increase the
available frontage for large street tree plantings.
• National Historic Landmark designations for buildings
along the corridor provide access to rehabilitation
incentives for adaptive reuse. This is an opportunity
to emphasize the historic and cultural resources that
give a community a unique identity and sense of place.
Historic preservation also is a sustainable form of
redevelopment.
OPPORTUNITIES
• There is space to install a highly diverse and sustainable
urban landscape with a goal of providing the resources
necessary for large maturing trees to thrive for 30 years
or more.
• The City is in the process of repairing much of the
watershed, particularly the western portion of Pigeon
House Branch. Opportunities exist to enhance buffers
and revisit landscape classifications in order to protect
and rebuild the waterways. Adequate riparian buffers
would improve water quality and control stormwater
runoff, while providing space for new greenway trails.
• There is an opportunity to modify and even relocate
portions of these two streams provided the existing
stream segments are considered degraded by regulatory
authorities and further provided that any alterations
would result in ecological improvement to the stream
and adjacent riparian buffers. Such modifications might
be integrated into proposed realignments of roadway
corridors or other proposed improvements within the
study area.
• While expensive, numerous smaller stormwater controls
installed throughout the watershed would cumulatively
work to improve water quality. The water quality retrofit
projects currently underway in the city on public and
private property on the corridor can be expanded.
• The new Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), once
adopted, will provide a new set of zoning tools for
implementing the land use recommendations of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan, as potentially amended as a result
of this corridor study.
• Key sites within the study area are underutilized and
many have been privately assembled, setting the stage
for private-sector led redevelopment and reinvestment.
• The combination of zoning, transit investment, and public
realm improvements can help set the stage for new
mixed-use development in appropriate locations.
• Continued residential growth citywide and in the
surrounding neighborhoods provides the opportunity for
a share of that growth to be captured within the study
area.
9
CONSTRAINTS
• Efforts to improve multi-modal accommodations in the
corridor must keep in mind existing traffic volumes and
projections for significant future growth in traffic.
• There are no easy or cost effective short-term solutions
to flooding issues in the study area. Federal and State
stream protections prohibit construction of regional
stormwater controls. Uses that remain in the floodplain
can anticipate damage from future flood events.
• The rail lines and yards create hard edges along the
corridor that are difficult and expensive to cross.
• Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) requires a sealed
corridor. Current at-grade crossings, where vehicular
and train traffic intersect, must be replaced by grade-
separated crossings (e.g. bridge or underpass) or road
closures.
• There is both perceived and probable contamination
along the rail lines and on private properties,
complicating redevelopment.
• Right-of-way is limited in the southern portion of the
corridor. Access lanes would require additional right-of-
way acquisition.
• As “Waters of the US” (i.e., waters protected under
the federal Clean Water Act), all perennial and some
intermittent streams and wetlands fall under State and
Federal jurisdiction.
• The Division of Water Quality regulates 50 foot buffers
along all “Waters of the State,” which complicates
greenway planning and urban development.
• The significant amount of retail competition nearby likely
impacts the potential for significant retail development in
the study area.
PUBLIC MEETINGS
FIRST PUBLIC MEETING
The first public meeting for the Capital Boulevard Corridor
Study—a community workshop—was held on June 24,
2010, and attracted over 250 stakeholders. The workshop’s
purpose was both to confirm the direction for the study, as
well as to gain initial input as to the issues and opportunities
that the study should cover.
Participants were asked to provide their opinions as to
whether the study area boundaries were appropriately drawn,
and whether the specific work tasks in the scope made sense
and were sufficiently comprehensive. Generally, all agreed
that the scope was logical and comprehensive. Suggestions
included a phasing plan, and addressing funding and
incentives for reinvestment. Several topics for inclusion were
suggested including habitat and ecology; crime and public
safety; and sustainability. It also was suggested that adjacent
neighborhoods be included. A complete summary report on
the workshop results is available on the project website in a
separate report.
The following list represents a distillation of the major
themes that emerged from the analysis of the public input.
The list is by no means exhaustive, but it captures the most
important points that the project team needed to keep in mind
as the project moved forward.
■CONNECT THE NEIGHBORHOODS
■BRIDGE THE CANYON
■IMPROVE THE INTERCHANGES
■PUT WATER AT THE CENTER
■DEAL WITH FLOODING
■COMPLETE A GREENWAY
■EMPHASIZE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION
■ATTRACT NEW USES
■HELP EXISTING BUSINESS AND PROPERTY OWNERS
■BE VISIONARY
■BE REALISTIC
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
10
■CREATE A GREENWAY TRAIL FROM CRABTREE CREEK TO
THE NEW WEST STREET EXTENSION.
■CREATE A STREETSCAPE PLAN.
■EXTEND PERSON STREET ALONG WAKE FOREST ROAD
AND AUTOMOTIVE WAY TO CONNECT TO CRABTREE
BOULEVARD.
Following the public design workshop, an internal work
session was held to fine-tune design ideas and map a set of
conceptual solutions.
THIRD PUBLIC MEETING
A third public meeting for the Capital Boulevard Corridor
Study was held on September 29, 2011 and attracted
approximately 125 people. Held at the Progress Energy
Center for the Performing Arts, the meeting’s purpose was
to present the draft plan of the Capital Boulevard Corridor
Study. The meeting was held jointly with NCDOT staff
and consultants, who provided information regarding the
planned bridge replacement projects at Peace Street and
Wade Avenue. The meeting included both an open house
format and a formal presentation followed by a question
and answer session. For the open house portion, City
Planning staff manned stations devoted to each Vision
Theme in the plan. NCDOT staff had separate stations for
the bridge replacement projects, and there was also a station
presenting the results of a parallel visioning effort for Peace
Street. There was broad acceptance of the recommendations
of the Capital Boulevard Corridor Study, with the only
controversy being some disagreement regarding the removal
of the interchange ramps at Fairview Road.
SECOND PUBLIC MEETING
The second public meeting for the Capital Boulevard
Corridor Study—the Public Design Workshop—was held
all day on October 30, 2010. Approximately 50 people
participated in the event.
The Issues, Opportunities, and Constraints Report laid the
foundation for the workshop during which participants had
the opportunity to discuss and map ideas for the corridor. A
presentation kicked off the design workshop and a question
and answer session followed. Two sessions of small-group
design and mapping exercises filled the remainder of the day
during which participants discussed potential improvements
and solutions for the corridor and synthesized ideas into
conceptual plans that incorporated the groups’ best ideas. At
the conclusion of each session, individual groups reported
their recommendations to the group-at-large.
The morning small-group design and mapping exercise
focused on a range of topics that included transportation,
ecology, development, and urban design. The afternoon
small-group design and mapping exercise focused on
developing holistic plans for the corridor. Each group
produced a map that incorporated transportation, ecology,
development, and urban design. Big ideas generated at the
public design workshop encompassed street and interchange
design, green space, historic restoration, and economic
development. Specific ideas follow:
■REPLACE THE PEACE STREET INTERCHANGE; INTEGRATE
IT INTO URBAN GRID.
■CREATE ROOM FOR A REAL MEDIAN BETWEEN PEACE
STREET AND WADE AVENUE.
■RESTORE STREAM AND PARKLAND AT DEVEREUX
MEADOWS.
■REDESIGN THE WADE AVENUE INTERCHANGE.
■EXTEND WEST STREET TO OLD WAKE FOREST ROAD AS
A BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY CORRIDOR.
■TERMINATE FAIRVIEW ROAD AT WEST STREET.
■ESTABLISH A SUPER STREET AT-GRADE INTERSECTION
BETWEEN WADE AND ATLANTIC AVENUES.
■ACQUIRE FLOOD-PRONE PROPERTY NORTH OF ATLANTIC
AVENUE AND CREATE A LINEAR OPEN SPACE.
11
3. THE VISION FOR THE
BOULEVARD
This chapter lays out the broad vision for the future
of Capital Boulevard, using illustrations and evocative
language. It is the role of the next chapter to give the
technocratic version of the specific recommendations that
will implement this vision. The vision starts with the chance
to improve what the Boulevard already is—a heavily travelled
highway. It closes with a vision of a gateway transformed into
a multi-modal corridor featuring linear green spaces and new
land use patterns. The vision themes are:
■HAPPY MOTORING
■TRANSITIONING TO TRANSIT
■MOVING WITHOUT FOSSIL FUELS
■GREENING THE INFRASTRUCTURE
■AT HOME ON CAPITAL BOULEVARD
■BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY
■A GATEWAY TRANSFORMED
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
12
However, while Capital Boulevard moves a lot of cars, it is
not a very good highway from a motorist’s point of view:
• It has substandard lane widths.
• All the interchanges feature obsolete geometry, with
Peace Street and Wade Avenue being the worst.
• There is a proliferation of driveways and curb cuts, often
with an unsafe relationship to interchange ramps.
• While there is too much individual access to adjacent
land uses in some segments of the corridor, in other
places there is inadequate access, particularly between
Fairview and Wake Forest Roads.
• Sight distances are poor in some locations, particularly
near the Fairview Road ramp.
The Capital Boulevard Corridor Study proposes to
resolve all these issues through a combination of capital
improvements that will help traffic move smoothly and safely
along the corridor (see Figure 3.1-Happy Motoring.). These
improvements include:
• Additional right-of-way for the most constrained part of
the Boulevard, normalizing lane widths and replacing a
Jersey barrier with a landscaped median.
• Redesigns for the major interchanges that will improve
vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian access and safety, as
well as aesthetics.
• Consolidation of access along the stretch between
Fairview and Wake Forest Roads into a single access
point allowing northbound and southbound access and
return.
• Creation of a local access street to take local traffic off of
Capital Boulevard and increase access to land uses.
• Consolidation of Capital Boulevard north of Atlantic
Avenue, eliminating the separated one-way pair.
HAPPY MOTORING
In 1974, when Wake County had less than a third the
population it has today, Capital Boulevard carried the
heaviest traffic load in its history—64,000 cars between
Wade Avenue and Peace Street. Since that time, the
Boulevard has stepped down from its pinnacle as the city’s
busiest roadway, but it continues to carry most of the traffic
into and out of Downtown from the north. Moreover, it is
the conclusion of this plan that it should continue to do so.
The alternative routes—Wake Forest Road and Glenwood
Avenue—are also residential streets. To avoid overburdening
the Mordecei and Glenwood/Brooklyn neighborhoods,
Capital Boulevard can and should continue to do the heavy
lifting with regards to traffic.
13
HAPPY MOTORING MAP FIGURE 3.1
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
14
TRANSITIONING TO TRANSIT
Major regional transit investments are programmed for the Capital Boulevard
corridor, with transit stops to be located within the corridor. Consistent with the latest
drafts of the Triangle Regional Transit Program Alternatives Analysis, rail transit stops
and associated TOD opportunities will be located at Whitaker Mill Road and Six Forks
Road, adjacent to Atlantic Avenue. A potential stop is also being explored for Peace
Street, just outside the south end of the study area. The goal of this plan is to fill in and
connect these regional facilities with new opportunities for local transit service up and
down the corridor and into Downtown.
Bus service is not available within the corridor south of Atlantic Avenue, due to
the freeway condition of the corridor and lack of places for a bus to stop and for
passengers to walk. The northern portion of the study area has bus service, but
the pedestrian and passenger facilities are poor to nonexistent. The Corridor Study
proposes that this problem can be solved by utilizing the new parallel facilities—West
Street and the Person Street extension—as transit routes that accommodate sidewalks
and passenger amenities. In the near term, CAT Routes 1 and 2 can use these streets.
In the future, with the development of transit-supportive land use, dedicated services
might be provided. (See Figure 3.2-Transitioning to Transit.)
15
TRANSITIONING TO TRANSIT FIGURE 3.2
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
16
MOVING WITHOUT FOSSIL FUELS
Non-motorized travel modes such as bicycling and walking have no place along
Capital Boulevard today. As with transit, this problem can be effectively solved through
the use of the new parallel local access roadways and the proposed greenway
connections, discussed below. A combination of generous sidewalks, multi-purpose
paths, and greenway trails will provide the opportunity to bicycle and walk the length of
the corridor for business or pleasure.
The Five Points area and neighborhoods such as Georgetown particularly stand to
benefit by the proposed connection of Fairview Road to the extended West Street.
Whereas the freeway-style ramps that exist today only serve motorists, this new
connection will provide safe, convenient and direct automotive, bicycle and pedestrian
access into Downtown and the Glenwood South area. (See Figure 3.3-Moving Without
Fossil Fuels.)
17
MOVING WITHOUT FOSSIL FUELS FIGURE 3.3
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
18
GREENING THE
INFRASTRUCTURE
While there is a surprising amount of greenspace in the corridor today, it is
fragmented and disconnected. The existing greenspaces do not work to address the
major environmental problems within the corridor, which are centered on the Pigeon
House Branch.
The Capital Boulevard Corridor Study proposes to take a “landscape infrastructure”
approach to the problems posed by stormwater runoff and flash flooding, relocating
flood prone uses out of the floodplain to create a network of linear greenspaces that
will improve water quality, provide a place for floodwaters to go, and provide active
and passive recreation opportunities. Key reaches of the Pigeon House Branch will
be transformed from a drainage ditch to a natural, recreational and aesthetic amenity.
(See Figure 3.4-Greening the Infrastructure.)
19
GREENING THE INFRASTRUCTURE FIGURE 3.4
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
20
AT HOME ON CAPITAL
BOULEVARD
Capital Boulevard is no one’s idea of a prime residential address today, and this
will likely remain true for at least a significant portion of the corridor in the future.
However, where new parkland can provide a green buffer between the highway
and adjacent land uses, the opportunity for residential development becomes
much more appealing. This study identifies three locations where future residential
development is likely: alongside the new North Boulevard Park between Crabtree
Boulevard and Atlantic Avenue; near the proposed rail transit stop at Whitaker
Mill Road, and near the proposed rail transit stop near Six Forks Road, where
a significant amount of multifamily housing has been built recently, and where
plans or approvals are in place for more. (See Figure 3.5-At Home on Capital
Boulevard.)
21
AT HOME ON CAPITAL BOULEVARD FIGURE 3.5
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
22
BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY
Historically, Capital Boulevard has been an industrial corridor, and the North
Boulevard area was an early location for highway retail and services. Today, the
corridor is no longer a prime industrial or retail location, yet it remains home to an
eclectic mix of businesses including manufacturing, distribution, wholesaling, and
auto-related services. Many of these uses occupy the flat land of the Crabtree
Creek floodplain. The Capital Boulevard Corridor Study posits that such uses
should continue to be welcome in the study area so long as they remain viable,
and therefore proposes a laissez-faire approach to the bulk of the industrial
property. Existing industrial and commercial zoning and land use classifications
can remain in place for much of this land, but the City should be also be open to
revisiting the preferred land use pattern should market conditions change. Unique
use combinations, including live-work arrangements, are also encouraged.
The poor performance of retail in the study area is related partly to nearby
competition, but also largely due to the poor image of the corridor and the
difficulty in accessing both north- and south-bound traffic streams from a single
location. This issue will be solved through the introduction of new access lanes,
a superstreet between Fairview and Wake Forest Roads, and the consolidation
of the north and southbound lanes in the North Boulevard areas (see Figure
3.6-Business and Industry.)
23
BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY FIGURE 3.6
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
24
A GATEWAY TRANSFORMED
On a typical workday in the future, residents of neighborhoods such as
Georgetown and Woodcrest may start the day with a transit or bicycle commute
to Downtown on the new local streets. Looking to the left or right, they can see
thousands of cars streaming south into Downtown on Capital Boulevard as they
cruise by wooded floodplain areas and landscaped medians. At lunchtime, State
workers stroll down the broad sidewalks of Peace Street to dine outside with a
view of the restored Pigeon House Branch. Hearing a sudden sound, they turn
to watch the 12:35 Acela train from Washington DC swoosh over Peace Street
enroute to Raleigh Union Station. Later that evening, runners and walkers head to
Crabtree Creek through the North Boulevard Park greenway trail as the evening
commute heads north out of town. As night falls, people gather at edgy nightclubs
and galleries located in old industrial buildings near the tracks. Electronic dance
beats mix with the sound of rail cars coupling in the nearby freight yards. As the
last revelers head home, the sound of frogs can be heard along the banks of the
Pigeon House Branch (see Figure 3.7-A Gateway Transformed)
25
A GATEWAY TRANSFORMED FIGURE 3.7
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
26
27
4. SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
The prior chapter laid out the vision for Capital Boulevard
through a set of six vision themes, including a general
description of the capital projects and public actions
necessary to implement each theme. This chapter provides
a more detailed description of the specific recommendations
that implement the vision, organized by traditional functional
topic areas such as roadways and transit. The topic areas
covered are:
■ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
■GREENWAYS AND OPEN SPACES
■TRANSIT SERVICES
■BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
■GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
■LAND USE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ROADWAY
IMPROVEMENTS
Proposed roadway improvements include changes in
alignment to Capital Boulevard, redesigned interchanges and
bridges, and roadway extensions to create new parallel local
access streets. In keeping with the broad scope of this plan,
these roadway projects are designed not just to improve
vehicular flow and safety, but also to improve multi-modal
accessibility and provide better opportunities for new
residential and economic development.
Based on the findings that traffic volumes within the corridor
have shown no growth since 1974, this plan proposes to
keep Capital Boulevard to a consistent six-lane section
throughout the study area, maintaining capacity while
improving flow and safety through improved geometry and
access management.
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
28
on the south side of Peace Street (see Figure 4.2-Peace
Street to Wade Avenue). The biggest appeal of this concept
is the ability to take advantage of the fact that the south
side of Peace Street is uninterrupted by a street intersection
all the way from West Street to Salisbury Street, providing
plenty of opportunity for the cycle track and/or multipurpose
path.
An alternative proposal is a pair of “square loops”
located south of Peace Street, integrating the interchange
infrastructure with the urban street grid. The exit points
would be located at the existing location of Johnson Street.
Southbound traffic exiting for Peace Street would make a
series of right turns, reaching Peace via an extension of
Harrington Street that completes the street grid. People
exiting northbound Capital for Peace would do so south
of Peace Street, providing enhanced access for the land
uses in this location. A ramp from westbound Peace Street
onto northbound Capital Boulevard would be maintained
to accommodate this heavy PM peak hour movement. The
geometry of the loops would naturally slow traffic and the
use of right-angle signalized intersections would improve
pedestrian and bicycle safety. Under both alternatives, Peace
Street would be given a “road diet,” removing an extra lane
under the Capital Boulevard and CSX rail bridges to provide
additional space for pedestrians and bicyclists.
To provide for a pleasant pedestrian experience befitting
a downtown location and set the stage for new residential
and mixed-use development in the area, the Capital
Boulevard bridge needs to be as attractive as possible, and
should not look like a typical highway bridge. Fourteen foot
sidewalks, vertical abutments, the use of retaining walls
rather than slopes, and architectural cladding are among the
recommendations to improve the aesthetics of the bridge and
minimize its footprint.
While both options have merit and greatly improve upon
the existing condition, this report recommends the simpler
square loop option, as it provides better access to a critical
mass of redevelopment opportunities in the West and
Harrington Street areas, adjacent to the already thriving
Glenwood South district. One disadvantage is the property
impact associated with the Harrington Street extension.
However, either option will have significant property
impacts both during the construction phase and for right of
way acquisition. The land that remains in the square loop
AREA 1: DOWNTOWN EXPRESS
Four major and inter-related projects are proposed in
the area stretching south from Fairview Road, which is the
oldest and most heavily used part of the corridor. Two of the
projects are necessary due to the pending replacements
of the Peace Street and Wade Avenue bridges. All should
be seen as part of a package of improvements that need
to be undertaken together in order to function properly.
All improvements are illustrated on Figure 4.1-Roadway
Improvements Map.
PROJECT 1: PEACE STREET INTERCHANGE
The existing interchange at Peace Street is geometrically
substandard. The design of the interchange is unfriendly to
both bicyclists and pedestrians using Peace Street to travel
east and west. One of the heaviest vehicular movements,
from southbound Capital Boulevard onto eastbound Peace
Street, takes place through an unsignalized left turn. The
resulting traffic pattern and parcelization of the surrounding
land is not conducive to redevelopment.
One idea, proposed as part of the Peace Street Vision Plan
prepared by JDavis Architects, is to terminate the ramps at
an elongated “dog bone” roundabout, eliminating left turn
issues. The ramps would remain on the north side, and
bicycles would be accommodated on a two-way cycle track
29
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS FIGURE 4.1
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
30
PEACE STREET TO WADE AVENUE FIGURE 4.2
31
through the interchange can be replaced with a bridge
structure which will better convey flood waters and restore
some measure of floodplain and ecological function.
The alternative to the diamond interchange is to rebuild the
existing “trumpet” interchange, which would leave the existing
access issues unsolved for another generation. It is, however,
cheaper and feasible, meaning the City may have to contribute
the cost difference to make the improved interchange a reality.
PROJECT 3: WEST STREET EXTENSION & FAIRVIEW ROAD INTERCHANGE REMOVAL
These two items are listed together because they should
be viewed as one project: West Street cannot be extended
so long as the Fairview Road ramps are in the way, and
the ramps should not be removed unless West Street can
be extended to preserve a route into downtown and Union
Station from the neighborhoods along Fairview Road,
thereby avoiding traffic impacts on Glenwood Avenue.
A variety of options have been explored for carrying
West Street north of Wade Avenue, including an at-grade
intersection, a bridge, and a bridge with a limited interchange.
The option that appears to provide the best combination of
cost, constructability and traffic movement is a bridge that
carries West Street over Wade Avenue without providing any
connectivity between the two.
For topographic reasons, the bridge would need to be
located near the Norfolk Southern railroad bridge, resulting
in a jog in the roadway. The property impacts of this are
minor north of Wade Avenue, but south of Wade Avenue
a concrete batching plant would be impacted. This plant
option will consist of regularly shaped blocks suitable for
mixed-use redevelopment. Further, by aligning the eastern
leg of the square loop with the driveway into the Jersey
Mike’s shopping plaza, access into and out of the Cotton Mill
condominiums can be greatly improved.
A detailed traffic study of the square loop option is included
as Appendix C of this report. The study indicates that the
square loops provide a significantly better level of service
than the existing interchange, operating at level of service “B”
or better at all times. This study also evaluated the option of
replacing the interchange with an at-grade intersection, which
was rejected due to creating level of service “F” conditions
during the morning and evening peak hours.
PROJECT 2: WADE AVENUE DIAMOND
The Wade Avenue bridge is also scheduled for replacement,
providing a fortunate opportunity to redesign an interchange
with significant geometric and access management issues.
A number of alternative designs have been proposed by
NCDOT. This report recommends a simple, signalized
compact diamond interchange incorporating sidewalks on both
sides of Wade Avenue. This may be a conventional diamond,
or a diverging diamond, with the choice to be determined by
future engineering studies (see Figure 4.3-Wade Avenue
to Atlantic Avenue). The primary downside of the diamond
interchange is that what are now free-flowing movements are
subject to signal control, increasing motorist delay. However,
the benefits are numerous:
• Wade Avenue can be extended to provide access to the
NCDOT rail yard and CSX’s yard and TransFlow freight
operation. Both facilities will gain access to both north- and
south-bound Capital Boulevard that they currently lack.
• Once such access is provided, the existing and
dangerously-located entry points on the northbound merge
onto Capital Boulevard can be eliminated.
• The diamond interchange allows for pedestrians to cross
Capital Boulevard on the Wade Avenue bridge and
gain access to land uses both north and south of Wade
Avenue.
• The overall footprint of the interchange is reduced,
providing more room for development and/or green
infrastructure.
• The existing culverts that route the Pigeon House Branch
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
32
WADE AVENUE TO ATLANTIC AVE AVENUE FIGURE 4.3
33
is one of two concrete plants just north of Downtown, both
served by rail spurs that allow heavy cement and aggregate
to be delivered to these facilities by rail rather than by truck,
a significant benefit for the environment. Further, having
such plants adjacent to Downtown likely lowers the cost of
construction for all manner of buildings and infrastructure that
make use of concrete. For these reasons, significant efforts
should be made to find a solution for bridging West Street
that does not dislocate this plant.
With this extension, Fairview Road can be terminated at
West Street, and the existing ramps onto Capital Boulevard
removed. This will significantly improve access for the
Five Points area in a number of ways while providing other
benefits:
• The existing ramps are useless for bicycles and
pedestrians, but West Street will be designed as a
complete street accommodating all users.
• The ramps only provide access onto southbound, and
from northbound, Capital Boulevard, but West Street will
provide all modes with access both south into Downtown
and north to Wake Forest Road.
• Local traffic headed Downtown will not need to mix with
the heavy through traffic.
• Sightlines will be improved along Capital Boulevard and
the existing curves straightened, improving traffic safety.
• The prominence and visibility of the Time+Light tower
will be greatly improved. The City of Raleigh Arts
CAPITAL BOULEVARD ROAD RENDERING FIGURE 4.4
Commission will be consulted on the future of this
artwork in relationship to this project.
• An expensive piece of infrastructure that serves
only 2,200 cars a day at last count will not have to
be replaced, and can be removed from NCDOT’s
maintenance schedule.
PROJECT 4: CAPITAL BOULEVARD MEDIAN
South of Wade Avenue, the right-of-way for Capital
Boulevard is so constrained that the median has been
shrunk to a narrow Jersey barrier to accommodate six lanes
of traffic. This roadway cross section may be fine for New
Jersey, but it is not appropriate for the City of Oaks.
The replacement of the Peace Street bridge, redesign of
the interchange, and relocation of City facilities at Devereux
Meadows provide the opportunity to repurpose existing
right-of-way and acquire new right-of-way to provide a
more gracious entry into the capital city. Existing land uses
preclude the widening of Capital Boulevard to the east.
Additional right-of-way acquired from the west side can be
used to create a landscaped median from Wade Avenue
south to the Dawson/McDowell split (see Figure 4.4-Capital
Boulevard Road Rendering).
SECTION 2: THE VALLEY
This area stretches north from Fairview Road to Wake
Forest Road and Atlantic Avenue. Capital Boulevard in this
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
34
regarding the preferred alignment should be made with input
from the owner to ensure that the extended street works with
the future development of the property.
A major concern of property owners in this area is the
lack of full movement access from Capital Boulevard.
Their suggested solution is a signalized intersection at
the midpoint. However, this has significant traffic flow
implications. As an alternative, a “super street” intersection
is proposed to provide full movement access while
avoiding traditional left turn movements and maintaining
traffic progression through the area (see Figure 4.5 for
an example of a super street). A super street is akin to
an elongated roundabout that converts left turns into right
turns. Super streets can be designed to accommodate
pedestrian movement, providing a new crossing of Capital
Boulevard where none exists today. This could improve
the transit accessibility of land uses on the east side of
Capital, such as Wake Urban Ministries (see the Bus Transit
recommendations).
SECTION 3: NORTH BOULEVARD
This segment of Capital Boulevard stretches north from
Atlantic Avenue to the I-440 Beltline. The most unusual
area is wide, straight, and flat. Only one roadway project
is proposed for this area, the bulk of the investment being
oriented towards stormwater and greenways.
PROJECT 5: WEST STREET IMPROVEMENTS & VALLEY SUPER STREET
The extended West Street will tie into the existing service
road on the west side of Capital Boulevard. This roadway will
be improved as a complete street with bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure. There are five openings providing access to
and from Capital Boulevard. All but one, located parallel
with an existing bridge over the Pigeon House Branch at the
approximate midpoint of the area, are proposed to be closed
to improve access management and minimize points of
conflict with bicycle and pedestrian movement.
The existing service road terminates at the Raleigh Bonded
Warehouse property. In order to extend West Street to Wake
Forest Road, West Street will need to traverse this property.
A variety of alignments are possible, and the decision
SUPER STREET ON
OCEAN HIGHWAY IN LELAND, NC FIGURE 4.5
Source info:
NCSU News Room, Matt Shipman Jan. 2001 Press Release
‘No Left Turn: ‘Superstreet’
Traffic Design Improves
Travel Time, Safety’
http://news.ncsu.edu/releases/wmshummersuperstreets/
35
The intersection of Wake Forest Road, Atlantic Avenue,
Brookside Avenue, and Automotive Way (which serves at the
on-ramp to northbound Capital Boulevard from Wake Forest
Road) is an ungainly and land-intensive muddle with multiple
vehicular conflict points and poor pedestrian accessibility. A
four-legged roundabout in this location would rationalize the
intersection and provide an attractive urban design element
that would be supportive of investment in adjacent properties.
No right-of-way acquisition would be necessary for this
improvement, which could be undertaken with or without
any of the other projects in this area (see Figure 4.6-Atlantic
Avenue to Crabtree Boulevard).
PROJECT 7: NORTH BOULEVARD CONSOLIDATION
feature of this area is the stretch south of Crabtree Boulevard
where Capital consists of a one-way pair with development
located east, west, and in the middle of the roadway. The
median area is mostly located within a floodplain area and
is subjected to frequent flash flooding. While some of the
projects in this area could stand alone as transportation
improvements, most of them have been conceived as
complements to a long-term vision of converting this
floodprone area into a linear park running from Atlantic
Avenue to Crabtree Boulevard.
PROJECT 6: ATLANTIC AVENUE/BROOKSIDE ROUNDABOUT
ATLANTIC AVENUE TOCRABTREE BOULEVARD FIGURE 4.6
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
36
The project would consolidate the north- and south-bound
lanes of Capital Boulevard into the right-of -way currently
occupied by the southbound lanes. If a four-lane section
were used, this would likely fit within the existing right-of-
way. Six lanes, as proposed, would require right-of-way
acquisition. However, the same properties are required for
the North Boulevard Park, and since there is no significant
traffic benefit of this project, it would only be undertaken in
conjunction with the park improvement. An opportune time
to undertake this realignment would be whenever the two
bridges over Atlantic Avenue are up for replacement, which
should be within the next 10 to 15 years.
PROJECT 8: NORTH PERSON STREET EXTENSION
If Capital Boulevard is consolidated as per Project 7, and a
linear park created in the floodplain, the land uses lining the
east side of northbound Capital Boulevard will still require
roadway access. These upland properties represent some of
the best redevelopment sites within the study area, and this
is the only location where an existing neighborhood street
grid meets the corridor.
Leftover right-of-way from Automotive Way and northbound
Capital Boulevard would be repurposed to create a new
local access street running parallel to Capital Boulevard
and adjacent to the North Boulevard Park. To connect
with Crabtree Valley Avenue, right-of-way acquisition or
dedication would be required in front of the Flea Market Mall
properties. (See Figure 4.7-North Person Redevelopment
Rendering.)
This new street would need a name. Automotive Way does
not fit with image of this new parkside street. Nor can this
street be considered part of Wake Forest Road. Rather, it
is suggested that this street and all of Wake Forest Road
north of Delway Street be renamed North Person Street, to
strengthen the connection with this historic downtown street.
This is sure to be controversial, as it requires an address
change for many residential and non-residential properties,
but is worth exploring with the public.
SIX FORKS ROAD EXTENSION
The extension of Six Forks Road to Capital Boulevard over
Crabtree Creek using portions of the existing alignment of
Hodges Street has been on the City’s Thoroughfare Plan
for some time. This connection will provide new cross town
connectivity and takes on extra importance in light of revised
regional rail plans placing a station at Six Forks Road and
Atlantic Avenue. Six Forks Road should be designed to
provide bicycle, pedestrian, and bus transit access to this
station.
STREET GRID ENHANCEMENTS
A conceptual street grid has been developed for the area
near the proposed Whitaker Mill Road regional rail station.
A new grid of streets in this location is essential to realizing
the full benefits transit-oriented development (TOD) in this
location, as a well-connected street grid is the most important
design feature of walkable mixed-use developments. The
proposed street grid connects the TOD area with Six Forks
Road extension, but avoids new railroad crossings due to
the practical difficulties and expense associated attempting
such connections in this area. This street grid would not
be implemented directly by the City through right-of-way
acquisition or eminent domain, but rather should be created
through the development process as property in this area
redevelops. (See Figure 4.8-Northern Road Extensions and
Street Grid Enhancements.)
GREENWAYS, TRAILS
37
NORTH PERSON REDEVELOPMENT RENDERING FIGURE 4.7
NORTHERN ROAD EXTENSIONS
AND STREET GRID ENHANCEMENTS FIGURE 4.8
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
38
There are a couple of ways to get from Crabtree Boulevard
north to the Crabtree Creek greenway trail. The City owns
a small strip of land along the Pigeon House Branch. North
of this strip is a large privately-owned property, only the
front portion of which is developed, and all of which is either
floodplain or floodway. The City could look to acquire an
easement across the property and then bridge across the
creek to access the trail on the north side. If this is not
feasible, a multi-purpose path on Crabtree Boulevard could
be used to connect with the existing trail entrances north and
south of Crabtree Creek on Raleigh Boulevard. This would
be the easiest and least costly way to make a connection.
(See Figure 4.9-Greenway and Open Space Rendering.)
NORTH BOULEVARD PARK
A signature long-term project proposed in this plan is the
acquisition and demolition of the flood prone properties
located along the Pigeon House Branch between the
northbound and southbound legs of Capital Boulevard
and the creation a new open space nestled between the
consolidated Capital Boulevard and new local access street
tentatively named North Person Street (See Projects 7 and
8 in the prior section). All the land within this new park would
be part of the greenway system. While emphasis would be
given to restoring the creek and natural floodplain functions,
a paved greenway trail should be provided in this area.
The trail would run parallel to the Pigeon House Branch
and terminate at the foot of Atlantic Avenue. (See Figure
4.10-North Boulevard Park.)
There are many active businesses located within the
proposed park area. Some own the property they occupy,
and others lease. To avoid the disruptive displacement of
these uses, the City should acquire the bulk of the land in this
area from willing sellers as property becomes available.
NORTH BOULEVARD TO DEVEREUX MEADOWS PARK: VALLEY MULTI-PURPOSE TRAIL
AND OPEN SPACES
Raleigh’s greenway plan has long called for a new
greenway trail paralleling the Pigeon House Branch
connecting Downtown to Crabtree Creek. However, a
feasible alignment for this greenway trail has never been
proposed, and the concept exists only as a dotted line
on a map. This plan presents a specific recommendation
for how this connection might be achieved by threading a
trail through two new linear greenway open spaces in the
northern and southern ends of the study area, connected via
a multi-purpose path and on-road bicycle lanes in the middle
section. The resulting greenway trail is unconventional but
provides a pedestrian and bicycle route connecting Crabtree
Creek to Peace Street on the northern end of Downtown.
CRABTREE CREEK TO CRABTREE BOULEVARD
39
GREENWAY AND OPEN SPACE RENDERING FIGURE 4.9
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
40
NORTH BOULEVARD PARK FIGURE 4.10
41
Connecting these two park resources requires that the
greenway trail negotiate several highway interchanges
and cross railroads as it follows the Pigeon House Branch
southward. The ability to follow the creek is complicated
by the fact that it swaps sides of Capital Boulevard
twice between Wake Forest Road and Wade Avenue.
Moreover, there is very limited space on the east side
of Capital Boulevard to locate a trail without property
acquisition. Therefore, this plan recommends that the
bulk of the connection be accomplished on the west side
of Capital Boulevard, using the extension of West Street
to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian movement. (See
Figure 4.11-West Street Multi-purpose Trail Rendering.)
How best to negotiate the tangled web of rail, roadways and
ramps that stand between the east side of Atlantic Avenue
and the Raleigh Bonded Warehouses area is a problem that
will require further study. From the North Boulevard Park,
the greenway would use on-street facilities to cross Atlantic
Avenue and proceed under the two Capital Boulevard
Bridges. New right-of way would need to be acquired to
route the greenway under the old Seaboard Railroad bridge
(right-of-way between Atlantic Avenue and the railroad, once
part of Wake Forest Road and US 1, was given away some
time ago, and now public funds will be necessary to buy it
back). The path will have to cross the southern end of Wake
Forest Road, either at grade or via a bridge, in order to follow
the Pigeon House Branch across the front of the Raleigh
Bonded Warehouse property.
Once south of the Wake Forest Road ramps, the trail would
then continue along West Street, either as a multi-purpose
path or as on-street bike lanes and a pedestrian sidewalk,
as space allows. In these configurations, bicyclists and
pedestrians could follow West Street all the way south to the
Devereux Meadows Park and onward to Peace Street.
DEVEREUX MEADOWS PARK
Most of the land between West Street and Capital
Boulevard, Wade Avenue and Peace Street, is City-owned
WEST STREET MULTI-PURPOSE TRAIL RENDERING FIGURE 4.11
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
42
and used by Solid Waste Services and Vehicle Fleet
Services for vehicle storage and service. These uses will
eventually be relocated to the new Remote Operations
Facilities just outside the I-440 Beltline. Much of this land
is in the floodplain of the Pigeon House Branch. Bridge
replacements at Wade Avenue and Peace Street, and the
creation of a normal median for Capital Boulevard, will
result in the narrowing of this strip of land. The resulting
lack of depth, combined with the environmental constraints,
make this area most appropriate not for development, but
for a linear open space combining stream restoration and a
greenway. (See Figure 4.12-Devereux Meadows Park.)
While bike and pedestrian facilities should continue along
West Street, the new park will provide an opportunity to
provide a true greenway trail along the Pigeon House
Branch, subject to potential restrictions regarding
improvements within the stream buffer that will need to be
negotiated with the Division of Water Quality at the North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources.
TRANSIT SERVICES
RAIL TRANSIT
The two major rail investments proposed for the study
area—Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) and regional
light rail—are the subject of two independent study
efforts. SEHSR is currently nearing the end of a Tier II
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that will
hopefully end with a recommended alternative and Record of
Decision sometime in 2012. Regional rail is the subject of an
Alternatives Analysis being conducted by Triangle Transit as
the lead agency.
At the time of writing, NCDOT has released a new
“avoidance alternative” for bringing SEHSR into Downtown
Raleigh that calls for two bridges over Capital Boulevard. The
northern bridge will be relatively short and will run parallel
and between existing bridges for the CSX railroad and the
northbound exit ramp onto Wake Forest Road. The second
bridge will be long and will cut diagonally across Capital
Boulevard and the Devereux Meadows Park. This bridge
Image by Google Maps
43
DEVEREUX MEADOWS PARK FIGURE 4.12
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
44
will be a major new visual impact in the study area, and
will introduce an elevated structure into the proposed park.
It is therefore important that a high-quality and attractive
viaduct structure be designed to serve this purpose. Properly
designed, this piece of infrastructure could serve as a new
gateway element into Downtown Raleigh.
The regional light rail recommended in the recently
completed Alternative Analysis calls for a corridor parallel to
the existing CSX right of way. Stations in or near the study
area include Peace Street, Whitaker Mill Road, and Six
Forks Road. Development at transit-supportive intensities is
encouraged in all three areas, and is reflected in the land use
recommendations. Further, the street network in the station
areas should support multi-modal access to the station,
including pedestrian, bicycle, and bus.
Although not included in the latest regional transit plans, the
concept of an infill light rail station located between Peace
and Whitaker Mill has been explored. A logical location is in
the vicinity of N. Blount/Marshall Streets, where a pedetrian
tunnel under the rail line could be built (See Appendix B).
While current land uses do not support such a station, it
may be worth considering if a critical mass of redevelopment
occurs in this portion of the corridor.
BUS TRANSIT
The two major north-south CAT services within the study
area are Routes 1 and 2, both of which are among the
most-used routes in the CAT system. Route 1 makes stops
along Capital Boulevard north of Atlantic Avenue, where
pedestrian facilities are mostly substandard or non-existent.
Route 2 runs briefly along Capital Boulevard from Peace
Street to Wade Avenue but does not make stops. There is no
bus service on Capital Boulevard south of Atlantic Avenue.
Two route modifications are suggested to respond to the
new local access streets proposed as part of this plan.
The first and easiest would be to route the Route 1 bus
along North Person Street, cutting back over to Capital
Boulevard at Crabtree Boulevard. This would allow for better
pedestrian access to the bus stops. The second would be
to route the Route 2 bus up the new West Street extension.
This recommendation is consistent with the latest draft of
Raleigh’s Short Range Transit Plan, which calls for rerouting
Route 2 up Capital to Wake Forest Road, and serving
Whitaker Mill Road with a new cross-town service by 2015,
Longer term, new or reconfigured bus service on Six Forks
Road could be used to better connect the bus system with
the regional rail line. This bus might reach Six Forks Road
from Downtown via Capital Boulevard and the planned Six
Forks Road extension.
BICYCLE AND
PEDESTRIAN
FACILITIES
Bicyclists and pedestrians are largely absent or poorly
served within the study area today. Capital Boulevard was
designed as a highway with only automobiles in mind,
and few to no provisions were made for any other type of
user, making it a prototypically “incomplete street.” This
plan proposes to solve this problem through a set of road
improvements that provide the location for new pedestrian
and bicycle facilities. This approach completes the corridor
while still preserving the highway function.
The recommended pedestrian facilities, in addition to the
greenways described in a prior section, include the following:
• Sidewalks on all sides of Capital Boulevard north of
Atlantic Avenue and between Downtown and Wade
Avenue.
• Sidewalks running the length of West Street and the
North Person Street extension.
• Sidewalks on both sides of Atlantic Avenue within the
study area.
• Sidewalks along both sides of the Wade Avenue bridge.
• Sidewalks along both sides of the proposed “square
loops” at Peace Street.
• Improved sidewalks and pedestrian crossings along
Peace Street within the study area.
45
Bicycles will be accommodated primarily on greenway
trails as well as on-street bike lanes on West Street
extension and North Person Street extension. Bicycle lanes
are recommended along Atlantic Avenue in the Bicycle
Transportation Plan, but depend upon a future road widening
due to lack of room.
During the public process, the idea of pedestrian bridges
spanning the corridor was repeatedly raised. Appendix B of
this report provides a detailed analysis of this topic. While
such bridges are physically feasible, they would be large
and expensive structures. Given the uncertainty over travel
demand, no specific recommendations for pedestrian bridges
have been made in this study. Bridges should be considered
in conjuction with major redevelopment projects in the
corridor
GREEN
INFRASTRUCTURE
Three major green infrastructure projects are proposed in
this plan:
1. Stream restoration of the Pigeon House Branch
between Peace Street and Wade Avenue in the
Devereux Meadows Park.
2. Stream restoration of the Pigeon House Branch
between Atlantic Avenue and Crabtree Boulevard as
part of the North Boulevard Park.
3. A flood bench along Pigeon House Branch as it runs the
east side of Capital Boulevard between Wade Avenue
and the Wake Forest Road ramps.
In addition to these three headline projects, a number of
smaller enhancements should be pursued within the study
area. These include:
• Innovative stormwater management incorporated into all
the interchange reconfigurations.
• Incorporating stormwater best practices into existing and
proposed median areas to manage and treat stormwater
leaving the roadways and adjacent development.
• Encouraging new development and redevelopment
within the study area to incorporate low-impact design
techniques into site and building plans.
LAND USE AND
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
Land use within the study area today is a muddle. There
is little synergy between the existing uses, and the corridor
does not have a definable land use identity. In the past,
the dominant land uses were highway commercial, light
industrial, and warehousing and distribution. However, the
corridor is no longer ideally suited to any of these uses.
Existing sites lack the size, depth and access demanded by
modern warehousing and large-format retailing. While some
demand remains for light industrial uses, it is not sufficient
to fill up the many large footprint buildings in the study area.
Reinvestment within the corridor requires that different land
uses become viable.
The proposed park, greenway, and complete street
improvements, when implemented, will make Capital
Boulevard a much more livable place, and therefore should
increase its ability to support mixed-use development,
including residential. Already, a significant amount of new
multi-family housing has been built in the vicinity of Six Forks
Road and Atlantic Avenue. A light rail stop at Six Forks Road
will increase the desirability of the location for residential
development and should support the eventual build-out of
this area.
There are two other obvious locations for mixed-use
development. One is the area surrounding the Whitaker Mill
light rail station. Some industrial properties in this location are
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
46
vacant. Others are leased by shorter-term tenants. Parcels
are large, and much of the land is in the hands of a few
property owners. In short, the area presents few barriers to
assembly and redevelopment save for brownfield issues.
The second area is the property fronting on North Person
Street and the North Boulevard Park. The park will provide
an outstanding amenity and a substantial buffer between the
development sites and the busy highway. Like the Whitaker
Mill station area, the most significant parcels are large, and
the owners few. This area is also adjacent to an established
residential neighborhood. Significant residential density
should be successful here
The land use future for the remainder of the study area
is less clear. Sites sandwiched between a busy highway
and an active rail yard do not obviously lend themselves to
residential, office, or hotel use. The ability to do significant
redevelopment in such locations may require the acceptance
of taller buildings that can effectively insulate themselves
from this noisy and smelly environment.
In the meantime, this report recommends a laissez-faire
approach to the land use in much of the remainder of the
study area. The existing stock of older buildings, offering
unique spaces and cheap rents, lend themselves to unique
companies: wholesaling, boutique manufacturing, the
sale of bulk goods and materials, and artist galleries and
studios to mention a few. A wide variety of uses should be
accommodated here, while the land use market sorts itself
out.
FUTURE LAND USE
The Future Land Use Map lays out the 20-year vision for
land use in the corridor study area. Based on the results
of the public process, only a few changes are needed
to the future land uses designated for the area in the
Comprehensive Plan. Areas appropriate for mixed-use
redevelopment are already so designated, while the
remaining light industrial areas are mapped Business and
Commercial Services. One proposed adjustment is to
remap an existing area of Neighborhood Mixed Use at Six
Forks Road and Atlantic Avenue to Community Mixed Use
to better respond to the latest transit plans that call for a
station in this location. Another is to expand the amount
of Business and Commercial Services along the corridor,
to be consistent with the new IX mixed-use zoning district
proposed in Raleigh’s Unified Development Ordinance.
(See Figure 4.13-Future Land Use Map.)
ZONING
Most of the study area is zoned IND-2 Heavy Industrial.
When the UDO is adopted, this zoning will need to be
translated into new UDO districts. A mix of IH, IX and
CX is recommended, along with appropriate height and
frontage standards.
• IX zoning is recommended for most of the land
fronting on Capital Boulevard between Peace Street
and Wake Forest Road. IX zoning concentrates on
light industrial, office and retail uses, but does allow
residential in the context of a mixed-use building.
• IX zoning should also be applied to the light industrial
and distribution areas between Capital Boulevard and
Atlantic Avenue.
• The area east of Capital Boulevard and north of the
Atlantic Avenue interchange should be given CX
zoning. While this plan envisions that the eventual
redevelopment of this area will most likely be
residential, CX zoning provides the option of a more
mixed-use approach should the market support it.
47
• IH zoning should be used for the rail yards and
associated heavy industrial uses.
• DX zoning should be applied south of Peace Street.
• The emerging multi-family residential area north of Six
Forks Road and east of Atlantic Avenue is currently
a hodgepodge of conditional use zoning districts,
including Shopping Center, Office and Institutional, and
Residential-20. While the zoning conditions may need
to be preserved, a more uniform set of base districts,
mostly RX with some CX for the commercial and mixed-
use areas, should be used.
The mixed-use zoning districts will need to specify a
permitted height. In general, most land uses in the corridor
are buffered from nearby neighborhoods by transportation
infrastructure, so taller buildings should not have an adverse
impact on character. Taller buildings help buffer upper floor
occupants from traffic and railway noise and help amortize
the cost of noise-proof construction. Recommended heights
in the study are range from three stories at the neighborhood
edge, to up to twelve stories in areas well separated from
neighborhoods. Finally, frontages should be used in targeted
areas to promote good urban form and a pedestrian-friendly
approach to development. At this time, frontages are not
recommended for the IX areas, but should be used in
the DX areas and CX and RX areas. Where major public
improvements are planned, such as in the vicinity of rail
transit stops or new parkside property, an urban frontage
approach is recommended.
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
48
49
5. CAPITAL PLAN AND PHASING
The Capital Boulevard Corridor Plan is primarily a plan
for capital projects within the study area. The projects are
ambitious in scope and will need many years to be designed,
funded, and implemented. Some are likely to be completed
within a few years from now; others will be many years
further out; and, frankly, some may never be implemented.
This chapter provides rough cost estimates for capital
components of the plan, organized by phases.
The phases should be thought of less as a set of sequential
steps, and more as clusters of related actions that should
be coordinated simultaneously so as to take advantage
of opportunities to aggregate funding sources, minimize
costs and physical disruptions, and maximize synergies.
Rather than being numbered or lettered, which implies a set
order, the phases are named to reinforce the fact that the
timing of implementation will be opportunistic rather than
predetermined. However, given the pending NCDOT project
in the southern end of the study area, it is very likely that the
first cluster of projects will be the phase which is aptly named
“Downtown Express.”
PHASE
PROJECT Downtown Express Valley North Boulevard
TRANSPORTATION
1. Peace Street Interchange X
2. Wade Avenue Diamond X
3. West Street Extension and Fairview Interchange Removal X
4. Capital Boulevard Median X
5. West Street Improvements and Valley Superstreet X
6. Atlantic/Brookside Roundabout N/A
7. North Boulevard Consolidation X
8. North Person Street Extension X
9. Six Forks Road Extension N/A
10. Street Grid Enhancements N/A
GREENWAY AND PARK
1. Crabtree Creek to Boulevard X
2. North Boulevard Park X
3. Valley Multi-purpose Trail X
4. Devereux Meadows Park X
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE
1. North Boulevard Stream Restoration X
2. Valley Flood Bench X
3. Devereux Meadows Stream Restoration X
TABLE 5.1: CAPITAL PROJECT LIST AND PHASE
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
50
DOWNTOWN EXPRESS
This phase includes the two NCDOT bridge replacement
projects at Peace Street and Wade Avenue, plus all the
associated projects necessary to maximize the benefits
of these roadway system investments. The removal of the
Fairview Road ramps, extension of West Street to connect
with Fairview Road, and improvements to the southern
portion of Capital Boulevard are all included in this bundle.
Also included are the Devereaux Meadows Park, and
greenway and stream restoration. The right-of-way impacts
of the new Wade Avenue Diamond and Capital Boulevard
Median will require the acquisition of the private property
within the proposed park area, and will also force the
relocation of the City’s sanitation and vehicle maintenance
facilities, making it a great time to undertake the park and
stream projects.
VALLEY
Moving up the corridor, there is a smaller number of
lower-cost projects planned for the area between Fairview
and Wake Forest roads. These include the improvements
to the existing service road which aligns with the extended
West Street, the closing of median access points to this
road in conjunction with the superstreet projects, and
the median-based multipurpose trail. The one green
infrastructure project proposed for this area is the excavation
of a flood bench for the straight section of the Pigeon House
Branch, with stabilization of the stream banks. The primary
opportunity for capital project coordination is to time the
improvements to the service road with the installation of new
utility lines under the street.
NORTH BOULEVARD
The most ambitious and expensive part of the Capital
Boulevard Corridor Plan is the remaking of the northern part
of the study area as a boulevard running adjacent to a linear
park. Ideally, implementation in the form of land acquisition
and banking for the park would begin as soon as money
is available (FEMA funds are already being pursued for
the acquisition of repetitive loss structures). Consolidating
the one-way segments of Capital Boulevard should be
coordinated with the eventual replacement of bridges over
Atlantic Avenue, which is still a decade or more out on
NCDOT’s schedule. Full implementation of this portion of the
plan is therefore likely at least a decade or more in the future.
OTHER PROJECTS
There are three projects which are not included in any
of the above phases, because they could be undertaken
independently and/or would likely be funded separately from
the other projects:
• A roundabout is proposed to replace the convoluted
intersection at Atlantic, Wake Forest, and Brookside.
This might be an eligible project for CMAQ funding
(Congestion, Mitigation and Air Quality).
• The Six Forks Road extension pre-dates this plan,
and is already a listed project in the Transportation
Improvement Program.
• The proposed Street Grid Enhancements near the
Whitaker Mill Road light rail station are intended to be
implemented through the development process as this
area redevelops. Adoption of this grid, either through a
small area plan or as part of the Thoroughfare Map, will
be necessary to achieve this outcome.
51
CAPITAL COST
ESTIMATES
City staff has prepared order-of-magnitude cost estimates
for the capital projects recommended in this study.
Acquisition costs are based on the 2008 values determined
by the Wake County assessor. Items such as building
demolition, road construction, park improvements, and
stream restoration are based on staff experience with similar
projects. Projects with committed outside funds, such as
the pending bridge replacement, are not included. As none
of these projects have been designed or engineered, the
estimates should only be considered a rough guide to the
actual costs. All costs are presented in 2011 dollars (Chart
5.1-Total Costs by Project Type).
The total cost of the Capital Boulevard projects is roughly
$60 million, the bulk of which is split evenly between roadway
and transportation projects. The other major share is park
and greenway improvements, with environmental projects
such as stream restoration accounting for about $5 million of
the total (Chart 5.2-Total Costs by Project Phase).
In terms of project phase, the North Boulevard
improvements are well over half the total, due to the need
for extensive property acquisition, demolition, roadway
realignments, and park improvements. The second most
expensive phase are the Downtown Express improvements,
which include bridging and extending West Street north to
Wake Forest Road, and creating the Devereux Meadows
Park. Were the NCDOT-borne costs of the two bridge
replacement projects included, the cost of this phase would
be similar to the North Boulevard phase (Detailed cost
accounting is provided in Table 5.1)
CHART 5.1: TOTAL COSTS BY PROJECT TYPE
CHART 5.2: TOTAL COSTS BY PROJECT PHASE
$17.9 MILLON
$3.3 MILLON
$35.8 MILLON
$2.3 MILLON
30.13%
5.62%
60.32%
3.93%
Downtown Express Valley North Boulevard Other
$26.9 MILLON
$27.6 MILLON
$4.8 MILLON
Transportation Park & Greenway Environmental
46.45%
8.21%
45.34%
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
52
DESIGN PROPERTY
ACQUISITION DEMOLITION CONSTRUCTION TOTAL
DOWNTOWN EXPRESS
Peace Street Interchange (1)(1)(1)(1)$0
Wade Avenue Diamond (1)(1)(1)(1)$0
West Street Extension and Fairview Interchange Removal $895,000 $3,970,000 $0 $5,970,000 $10,835,000
Capital Boulevard Median (1)(1)(1)(1)$0
Devereux Meadows Park (2)$0 $750,000 $4,500,000 $5,250,000
Devereux Meadows Stream Restoration (2)$0 $0 $1,800,000 $1,800,000
Subtotal $895,000 $3,970,000 $750,000 $12,270,000 $17,885,000
VALLEY
Valley Superstreet (2)$0 $0 $1,200,000 $1,200,000
Valley Multi-Purpose Trail (2)$0 $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
Valley Flood Bench (2)$0 $0 $1,138,000 $1,138,000
Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $3,338,000 $3,338,000
NORTH BOULEVARD
North Boulevard Consolidation $897,000 $564,000 $0 $5,980,000 $7,441,000
North Person Street Extension $345,000 $2,460,000 $0 $2,300,000 $5,105,000
Crabtree Creek to Boulevard Greenway (2)$0 $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000
North Boulevard Park (2)$10,715,000 $1,500,000 $8,100,000 $20,315,000
North Boulevard Stream Restoration (2)$0 $0 $1,938,000 $1,938,000
Subtotal $1,242,000 $13,739,000 $1,500,000 $19,318,000 $35,799,000
OTHER
Atlantic/Brookside Roundabout $304,000 $0 $0 $2,030,000 $2,334,000
GRAND TOTAL $2,441,000 $17,709,000 $2,250,000 $36,956,000 $59,356,000
TABLE 5.1: COST ESTIMATE DETAIL
(1) Funding through federal Bridge Replacement funds under NCDOT project B-5121 and B-5317 is assumed.
(2) Included in construction cost estimate
53
CITY OF RALEIGH GO BONDS
In recent years, the City of Raleigh has put before the
voters General Obligation (GO) bond packages for parks
and greenways, transportation, and affordable housing, all
of which have been approved. The most recently package
of parks bonds passed in 2007, and the latest transportation
and housing bonds passed in 2011. GO bond financing,
which is backed by the full faith and credit of the City’s taxing
power, is the lowest-cost form of financing available. At the
time of writing, the City can incur GO debt at about four
percent interest.
The projects in this plan were not known at the time these
bonds passed, and were therefore not included as part of the
project lists that went to the voters along the with the bond
authorization. However, it is likely that components of this
plan will be eligible for both parks and transportation bond
financing as part of future bond packages. In particular, a
greenway from Downtown to the Crabtree Creek has been a
long standing part of the City’s greenway plan, and this plan
provides a feasible means of making this long sought-after
connection.
VALUE CAPTURE
MECHANISMS
‘Value capture’ is a term used to describe public-private
partnership arrangements whereby the increase in real estate
value attributable to a public project is used to pay all or part
of the cost of the public project. The most common forms of
value capture are Tax Increment Financing (TIF), Special
Assessment Districts, and joint development agreements.
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
Tax Increment Financing or TIF (known as Project
Development Financing in the North Carolina General
Statutes) is a financing mechanism by which a portion of
tax revenues associated with new development within a
designated district is diverted from the general fund and
dedicated to servicing bonds for capital improvements within
the TIF district. Using TIF bonds does not result in greater
revenues or lesser costs than undertaking the same activities
with an alternative financing mechanism. Rather, it differs
from more traditional bond financing in that the security for
the bonds consists of future revenues generated by the TIF
district, and the full faith and credit of the local government’s
taxing power is not pledged.
The power of TIF to finance public infrastructure in
Raleigh should not be overestimated. With a combined
City-County tax rate of less than one percent, and assuming
a debt-coverage ratio of at least 1.5 or better, a private
investment of $15 to $20 is necessary to support one dollar
of public debt. Therefore, the public infrastructure costs
to be underwritten by a TIF district can be no more than
five-to-seven percent of the total project costs . A $5 million
public project would need to catalyze $100 million in new
investment to fully pay for itself using TIF bonds. As a result,
TIF financing cannot fund the large projects, such as new
parks, but could fund smaller supportive investments, such
as streetscapes.
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS
While TIF arrangements redirect tax receipts otherwise
destined for the general fund to fund infrastructure
investments in a specific area, Special Assessment Districts
(SAD) generate new revenue by imposing an additional
assessment on top of the normal property tax.
Under North Carolina law , formation of a SAD requires
a petition of a majority of property owners within the
proposed district, representing at least 66 percent of the total
assessed value within the district. The petition must include
a description of the project to be financed, estimated project
cost, and an estimate of the portion of the project cost to be
financed through the SAD.
APPENDIX A: PAYING FOR IT
The foregoing chapter set forth the capital plan and
preliminary cost estimate. This chapter gives an indication
of what types of funds may be available to pay for the
proposed projects.
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
54
Compared to TIF, a SAD could theoretically finance a
larger proportion of the total project costs. The assessment
applies to the total project value, not just the increment, with
the upper limit determined by the size of the assessment
the petitioning property owners are willing to accept. The
assessment can be used to secure general revenue bonds
or used as additional security for Project Development
Financing (TIF) bonds. In this way, a SAD can be combined
with TIF to provide additional public financing. The
combination of TIF and a SAD may make the use of TIF
more politically acceptable by reducing the revenue forgone
by the general fund and giving the benefiting property owners
more “skin in the game.”
From the standpoint of a developer, shifting a portion of
project costs onto a SAD carries two major benefits: (1) the
cost of capital is lower, as municipal revenue bonds will carry
a lower rate than private loans; and (2) the assessment runs
with the land, meaning that if the project is sold before the
debt is retired, the new owner assumes the assessment
payments. This reduces the risks involved with refinancing
10-year debt (such as higher interest rates).
VALUE CAPTURE IN THE NORTH BOULEVARD PARK AREA
The upland acreage fronting on the eastern edge of the
park totals about 30 developable acres. If this land were to be
redeveloped for five-story apartments at a net density of 50
units per acre (lower than many comparable developments),
it would produce around 1,500 units worth a total of $225
million (assuming a conservative value of $150,000 per unit).
The increment over the existing taxable value of about $15
million totals $210 million dollars.
Wake County’s current tax rate is 0.91 percent. The tax
increment would therefore generate $2 million in new tax
revenue annually. Applying a debt service coverage ratio
of 1.5 and assuming an interest rate of 4.5 percent, this
increment could support $17 million in bonds for capital
projects.
Adding a special assessment of 0.10 percent would provide
an additional $2.6 million in bonding capacity using the same
term and interest rate assumptions above. Additional bonding
capacity would require a significant rise in the overall tax rate.
Property owners might agree to this if the infrastructure thus
financed provided a significant financial benefit, and certainly
the ability to create $225 million worth of development where
only $10 million in value exists today is such a benefit.
However, taxes come straight out of a rental property’s Net
Operating Income (NOI), and so the cost of the recurring tax
burden can be capitalized using the same Cap Rate used to
determine value, which for apartments at the present time is
about 6 percent . Each dollar of tax paid therefore reduces
project value by about $17. The willingness of a property
owner to agree to a special assessment would theoretically
be based upon an assessment of whether the publically-
financed infrastructure generates sufficient value to offset this
value impact.
JOINT DEVELOPMENT
A joint development agreement is generally defined as a
real estate development project that involves coordination
among multiple parties to develop a site, usually on
55
publicly-owned land. A joint development agreement
typically involves the financing and development of a project
that incorporates both public infrastructure and amenities
and private development. Such an agreement could
include a cost-sharing agreement to pay for infrastructure,
a revenue-sharing agreement to divide profits from
increased real estate values, or a combination of the two.
Cost-sharing agreements usually involve cooperation to pay
for infrastructure that supports surrounding development.
Revenue-sharing agreements distribute the revenues that
result from development among joint development partners.
Examples of revenue-sharing agreements include ground
lease revenues, air rights payments or, in some cases, direct
participation in rents or other revenues from development.
Similar to TIFs and SADs, joint development agreements
provide another value capture mechanism to fund transit
without requiring a direct outlay of government funding.
However, joint development agreements are more flexible
than the other tools and can be tailored to a particular situation.
4 Per HDR Consulting
GOVERNMENT
RESOURCES REVIEW
The government resource pool is broad. In addition to those
mentioned above, federal and state agencies offer funding
opportunities. While not exhaustive, the following listing reviews
several standard year-to-year government grant programs.
The listed grant opportunities include an overview, eligibility
requirements, and typical amounts that have been allocated
previously or are currently available.
The following table provides an at-a-glance summary of
government resources, including primary government funders.
RESOURCE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT
STATE
GOVERNMENT
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
TRANSPORTATION + INFRASTRUCTURE
Build America Bonds X
North Carolina Department of Transportation Enhancement Program X
Federal Highway Administration, Transportation, Community, and System
Preservation Program Federal Highway Administration, Office of Planning,
Environment & Realty, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
(CMAQ) Improvement Program
X X
Federal Department of Transportation, TIGER Grants X
PARKS + GREENSPACE
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (EEP)X
Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)X X X
The Parks and Recreation Trust Fund (PARTF)X X
North Carolina Trails Program X
WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
U.S. Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Grants X X X
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division
of Water Resources X X
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Cleanwater Management Trust Fund X X
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
56
TRANSPORTATION +
INFRASTRUCTURE
BUILD AMERICA BONDS
http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/recovery/Pages/babs.aspx
OVERVIEW: The existing tax-exempt bond market has
faced significant challenges over the past two years. Build
America Bonds (BABs) address that by providing state and
local governments with a new, direct federal payment subsidy
for a portion of their borrowing costs on taxable bonds.
BABs provide a deeper federal subsidy to state and local
governments (equal to 35 percent of the taxable borrowing
cost) than traditional tax-exempt bonds which leads to
lower net borrowing costs for state and local governments.
This feature also makes Build America Bonds attractive to
a broader group of investors than typically invest in more
traditional state and local tax-exempt bonds.
ELIGIBILITY: The capital projects these bonds fund include
work on public buildings, courthouses, schools, transportation
infrastructure, government hospitals, public safety facilities
and equipment, water and sewer projects, environmental
projects, energy projects, government housing projects and
public utilities.
TYPICAL FUNDING: Among the Triangle-area issuers
are the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, $113
million for various improvements and the refinancing of prior
bond issues; the North Carolina Municipal Power Agency,
$69 million for nuclear power plants; the North Carolina
Turnpike Authority, $353 million for highway projects; and
North Carolina State University, $60 million for various
improvements.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNITY, AND SYSTEM PRESERVATION PROGRAM
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/discretionary/tcsp2012selc.htm
OVERVIEW: The Transportation, Community, and System
Preservation Program provides funding for a comprehensive
initiative including planning grants, implementation grants,
and research to investigate and address the relationships
among transportation, community, and system preservation
plans and practices and identify private-sector-based
initiatives to improve those relationships. Grants may be used
to plan and implement strategies that improve the efficiency
of the transportation system; reduce environmental impacts
of transportation; reduce the need for costly future public
infrastructure investments; ensure efficient access to jobs,
services, and centers of trade; and examine development
patterns and identify strategies to encourage private sector
development patterns that achieve these goals.
ELIGIBILITY: Eligibility is broadly defined as a project
eligible for assistance under Title 23 or Chapter 53 of Title
49, or any other activity the Secretary determines to be
appropriate to implement transit-oriented development
plans, traffic calming measures, or other coordinated TCSP
practices.
TYPICAL FUNDING: As of this writing, $29 million is
available in grant funding. The federal share generally is 80
percent.
FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, TIGER GRANTS
http://www.dot.gov/tiger/index.html
OVERVIEW: The Transportation Investment Generating
Economic Recovery, or TIGER Discretionary Grant program,
provides a unique opportunity for the U.S. Department
of Transportation to invest in road, rail, transit and port
projects that promise to achieve critical national objectives.
Congress dedicated $1.5 billion for TIGER I and $600 million
for TIGER II to fund projects that have a significant impact
on the Nation, a region or a metropolitan area. TIGER’s
57
highly competitive process, galvanized by tremendous
applicant interest, allowed DOT to fund 51 innovative capital
projects in TIGER I, and an additional 42 capital projects
in TIGER II. TIGER II also featured a new Planning Grant
category and 33 planning projects were also funded through
TIGER II. Each project is multi-modal, multi-jurisdictional or
otherwise challenging to fund through existing programs.
The TIGER program enables DOT to use a rigorous process
to select projects with exceptional benefits, explore ways to
deliver projects faster and save on construction costs, and
make investments in our Nation’s infrastructure that make
communities more livable and sustainable.
ELIGIBILITY: TIGER grants are awarded to transportation
projects that have a significant national or regional impact.
Projects are chosen for their ability to contribute to the
long-term economic competitiveness of the nation, improve
the condition of existing transportation facilities and systems,
increase energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, improve the safety of U.S. transportation facilities
and enhance the quality of living and working environments
of communities through increased transportation choices and
connections. The Department also gives priority to projects
that are expected to create and preserve jobs quickly and
stimulate increases in economic activity.
TYPICAL FUNDING: In 2009 and 2010, the Department
received a total of 2,400 applications requesting $76 billion;
greatly exceeding the $2.1 billion available in the TIGER I
and TIGER II grant programs. In the previous two rounds,
the TIGER program awarded grants to 126 freight, highway,
transit, port and bicycle/pedestrian projects in all 50 states
and the District of Columbia.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT (TE) PROGRAM
http://www.ncdot.org/programs/enhancement/
OVERVIEW: Federal Transportation Enhancement funding
is administered by the Enhancement Unit and serves
to strengthen the cultural, aesthetic, and environmental
aspects of the Nation’s intermodal transportation system.
Transportation Enhancement (TE) activities are awarded
through the North Carolina Call for Projects process.
ELIGIBILITY: Transportation Enhancement (TE) activities
must benefit the traveling public and help communities
increase transportation choices and access, enhance
the built or natural environment, and create a sense
of place. All TE projects must meet the following TWO
federal requirements: (1) have a relationship to surface
transportation and (2) be one of twelve qualifying activities.
Factors for determination include the project’s proximity to a
highway or a pedestrian/bicycle corridor; whether the project
enhances the aesthetic, cultural, or historic aspects of the
travel experience; and whether the proposed project serves a
current or past transportation purpose.
Qualifying activities include:
■BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
■BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
■ACQUISITION OF SCENIC EASEMENTS, SCENIC OR HISTORIC SITES
■SCENIC OR HISTORIC HIGHWAY PROGRAMS (INCLUDING TOURIST OR WELCOME CENTERS)
■LANDSCAPING AND OTHER SCENIC BEAUTIFICATION
■HISTORIC PRESERVATION
■REHABILITATION OF HISTORIC TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
■PRESERVATION OF ABANDONED RAIL CORRIDORS
■CONTROL OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING
■ARCHAEOLOGICAL PLANNING AND RESEARCH
■ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION
■TRANSPORTATION MUSEUMS
TYPICAL FUNDING: Allocation decisions regarding
Federal enhancement funding are on hold pending
Congressional action on surface transportation program
reauthorization.
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
58
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT & REALTY, CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY (CMAQ) IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/cmaq/
OVERVIEW: The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
(CMAQ) Improvement Program funds transportation projects
to improve air quality and reduce traffic congestion in areas
that do not meet air quality standards. Jointly administered
by FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the
CMAQ program was reauthorized under the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998, and, most
recently in 2005 under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU). Under SAFETEA-LU, the program has
provided just under $9 billion in authorizations to State DOTs
and metropolitan planning organizations, and their project
sponsors for a growing variety of transportation-environmental
projects, including bicycling and walking.
ELIGIBILITY: Fundable projects must show that they will
reduce emissions and be cost effective. Project proposals
can be submitted by government and non-government
agencies, though rules vary by region. States that have
no nonattainment or maintenance areas can still receive a
minimum apportionment of CMAQ funding. An apportioned
program, each year’s CMAQ funding is distributed to the
States via a statutory formula based on population and air
quality classification.
TYPICAL FUNDING: Funding runs the gamut of amounts,
with the grant requiring matching funds of 20, 30, 50 percent
depending on the grantee organization and the project.
PARKS + GREENSPACE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOUCES ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM (EEP)
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/eep/
OVERVIEW: The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program’s
mission is to restore and protect North Carolina’s natural
resources for future generations while supporting responsible
economic development. EEP offers four In-Lieu Fee
mitigation programs designed to assist private and public
entities comply with state and federal compensatory
mitigation for streams, wetlands, riparian buffers, and
nutrients. EEP utilizes receipts from the programs to restore
streams and wetlands where the need is greatest by working
with state and local partners, including willing landowners.
The NC Department of Transportation and other developers
voluntarily use EEP to move projects forward in a timely and
affordable manner.
ELIGIBILITY: EEP offers four voluntary In-Lieu Fee
(ILF) mitigation programs to the public and private sectors
to satisfy compensatory-mitigation requirements in state
and federal laws and regulations. The initiatives offset
unavoidable environmental damage from transportation-
infrastructure improvements and other economic
development, and help to prevent harmful pollutants from
endangering water quality in sensitive river basins.
TYPICAL FUNDING: In state Fiscal Year 2009-10,
payments to vendors totaled $22,904,012.69. More than 60
percent of payments during the fiscal year were made to
private full-delivery firms that worked towards implementing
high-quality EEP mitigation projects.
In addition, about 18 percent of payments were made to
vendors working on completing restoration designs, and
about 20 percent were made to construction contractors
implementing mitigation projects. EEP has more than 560
restoration, enhancement and preservation projects in North
Carolina.
59
FEDERAL LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND (LWCF)
http://www.ncparks.gov/About/grants/lwcf_main.php
OVERVIEW: The land and water conservation fund
(LWCF) has historically been a primary funding source of
the US Department of the Interior for outdoor recreation
development and land acquisition by local governments and
state agencies. In North Carolina, the program is administered
by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
The National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
administers the program on behalf of the federal government.
Authority for the program at the state level is vested in the
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources and
the State Liaison Officer (SLO) appointed by the Governor.
ELIGIBILITY: To be eligible for LWCF assistance, every
state must prepare and regularly update a Statewide
Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP). The
SCORP includes inventories or assessments of current
recreation resources (local, state and federal) within a state,
identifies needs and new opportunities for outdoor recreation
improvements and sets forth a five-year action agenda to
meet the goals identified by its citizens and elected leaders.
TYPICAL FUNDING: Historically, North Carolina’s LWCF
annual allocation has been split 60/40 between local
governments and state agencies. In North Carolina alone,
the LWCF program has provided more than $75 million in
matching grants to protect land and support more than 875
state and local park projects. More than 38,500 acres have
been acquired with LWCF assistance to establish a park
legacy in North Carolina.
THE PARKS AND RECREATION TRUST FUND (PARTF)
http://www.ncparks.gov/About/grants/partf_main.php
OVERVIEW: The North Carolina General Assembly
established the PARTF on July 16, 1994 to fund
improvements in the state’s park system, to fund grants for
local governments, and to increase the public’s access to
the state’s beaches. The Parks and Recreation Authority, a
fifteen-member appointed board, was also created to allocate
funds from PARTF to the state parks and to the grants
program for local governments. PARTF is the primary source
of funding to build and renovate facilities in the state parks
as well as to buy land for new and existing parks. Recipients
use the grants to acquire land and/or to develop parks and
recreational projects that serve the general public.
ELIGIBILITY: North Carolina counties and incorporated
municipalities are eligible for PARTF grants. Public
authorities, as defined by NC General Statute 159-7, are
also eligible if they are authorized to acquire land or develop
recreational facilities for the general public. A public authority
that is considering a PARTF grant should provide its regional
consultant with proof of eligibility as soon as possible.
Two or more local governments may apply jointly. One
government must serve as the primary sponsor. If approved,
both parties will be jointly responsible for compliance with all
rules pertaining to operation and maintenance of the project.
Applicants can buy land to use as recreational projects for
the public or to protect the natural or scenic resources of
the property. Applicants can also request money to build or
renovate recreational and support facilities. A project must
be located on a single site. Sports equipment, maintenance
equipment, office equipment and indoor furniture cannot be
purchased with PARTF grants.
TYPICAL FUNDING: The PARTF provides dollar-for-
dollar matching grants to local governments for parks and
recreational projects to serve the public. Between 1995-2011
grant amounts have ranged from $7,000 to $400,000 (this
does not include the local match which, typically, is 50
percent).
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
60
NORTH CAROLINA TRAILS PROGRAM
http://www.ncparks.gov/About/trails_main.php
OVERVIEW: The State Trails Program is a section of the
NC Division of Parks and Recreation. The program originated
in 1973 with the North Carolina Trails System Act and is
dedicated to helping citizens, organizations and agencies plan,
develop and manage all types of trails ranging from greenways
and trails for hiking, biking and horseback riding to river trails
and off-highway vehicle trails.
The four-person staff of the State Trails Program and the
North Carolina Trails Committee work together to enable
volunteers, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies
to develop trail plans, preserve land and develop and manage
trails for all trail users. Staff is working toward a goal of a
system of trails across North Carolina by providing technical
assistance, offering grant opportunities and developing
successful partnerships with local conservation and recreation
advocates.
ELIGIBILITY: The North Carolina Division of Parks
and Recreation and its State Trails Program offer two (2)
grant programs: (1) Adopt-a-trail grant program; and (2)
Recreational trails grant program. Governmental agencies and
non-profit organizations are encouraged to apply for grants
for trail construction and maintenance projects, for trail side
facilities, and land acquisition projects.
TYPICAL FUNDING: Grants typically are in the range of
$5,000.
WATER RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) GRANT PROGRAM
http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/hma/index.shtm
OVERVIEW: The FEMA grant program exists to remove
structures, and therefore people, from floodplain areas
through an application process which analyzes the frequency
and severity of damages to the structure. Ideally, structures
are removed from harm’s way and the land is restored to its
natural function (green space and open space).
ELIGIBILITY: The property owner must be willing to
participate. The project must display a benefit cost analysis
ratio of one or greater. The program is voluntary for property
owners who can walk away from the program at any time
during the process, even after the grant is awarded and the
offer is on the table.
TYPICAL FUNDING: There is usually a 75/25 cost share
associated with the grant project. The City is required to
commit 25 percent of the project cost, which includes not
only purchase of the property, but demolition and property
restoration costs.
61
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (NCDENR), DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
www.ncwater.org/Financial_Assistance/
OVERVIEW: This program is designed to provide cost-share
grants and technical assistance to local governments
throughout the State. Applications for grants are accepted for
seven purposes: General Navigation, Recreational Navigation,
Water Management, Stream Restoration, Beach Protection,
Land Acquisition and Facility Development for Water-Based
Recreation, and Aquatic Weed Control. There are two grant
cycles per fiscal year; the application deadlines are July 1st
and January 1st.
ELIGIBILITY: Units of local government and local political
subdivisions are eligible for assistance. In the case where
projects provide broad regional benefits, or where assignment
of non-federal responsibilities to local government is not
appropriate in the opinion of the department, the department
may assume sponsorship on behalf of the state and may pay
up to 100 percent of the total (or the non-federal share of the
costs) of planning, construction, or operation of said water
resources project.
TYPICAL FUNDING: Spring 2011 grant awards ranged from
$20,000 to $150,000, totaling $979,000.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES (NCDENR), CLEANWATER MANAGEMENT TRUST FUND (CWMTF)
http://www.cwmtf.net/
OVERVIEW: To carry out the mandate set by legislation,
CWMTF provides grant funds for five primary activities: (1)
acquisition of Riparian Buffers (fee simple or conservation
easements); (2) acquisition of Riparian Greenway Corridors
(includes regional trails); (3) restoration and Stormwater
projects; (4) Wastewater Infrastructure; (5) planning (for
acquisition, greenway, restoration, stormwater, or wastewater
infrastructure projects. In addition, CWMTF has several
“mini-grant” programs to help recipients plan and prepare for
larger projects. Mini-grants do not follow the same application
or review process and are awarded as funds are available.
There is no deadline for mini-grants.
ELIGIBILITY: A state agency, a local government, or
a nonprofit corporation whose primary purpose is the
conservation, preservation, and restoration of North
Carolina’s environmental and natural resources is eligible to
apply for a grant.
TYPICAL FUNDING: Overview of CWMTF 2011 Awards:
46 awards made in 26 different counties across the state;
CWMTF funds will leverage an overall 65% in matching
funds; 76% of wastewater awards made to economically
distressed communities; Infrastructure awards focus on
projects that are construction ready; 17 awards will help to
protect downstream water supplies serving over 1.8 million
people in 26 different communities, with 3 communities
serving over 250,000 each. The grant provides matching
funds between 20 percent and 59 percent.
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
62
63
APPENDIX B: PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE ANALYSIS
GRAHAM SMITH, DHM DESIGN
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Assess the possibility of pedestrian bridge and/or physical
connection to occur across the southern portion of Capital
Boulevard Corridor (below Wake Forest Road/Atlantic
Avenue)
SCENARIOS STUDIED
■OPTION 1: CONNECT SEABOARD STATION/PEACE
COLLEGE TO DEVEREUX MEADOWS PROPERTY
■OPTION 2: CONNECT MORDECAI/PILOT MILL
COMMUNITY TO FIVE POINTS COMMUNITY
■OPTION 3: CONNECT FIVE POINTS COMMUNITY TO
CAPITAL BOULEVARD CORRIDOR
■OPTION 4: CONNECT MORDECAI/PILOT MILL
COMMUNITY TO CAPITAL BOULEVARD CORRIDOR
**** It should be noted that all of these options will require significant approvals from NCDOT Highway Division, NCDOT Rail Division, CSX Railroad, and Norfolk Southern Railroad. Those approval processes have not been evaluated as part of this analysis.
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
64
CONNECT SEABOARD STATION/PEACE COLLEGE TO
DEVEREUX MEADOWS PROPERTY VIA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OPTION 1
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The Seaboard Station area appears to have significant
public right of way available – utilizing Semart Drive and
West Franklin Street. This will allow for some flexibility for
locating a pedestrian access point. The vertical elevation
within the area in location is 306’. The immediately adjacent
CSX track (west of Logan’s Trading Company) has an
approximate vertical elevation of 304’. The approximate
vertical elevation of Capital Boulevard in this area is 270’.
Therefore, we will have to elevate any pedestrian access
point significantly within the Seaboard Station site to ensure
proper clearance above CSX train tracks and Capital
Boulevard. The land within the Devereux Meadows property
is significantly lower – with a rough vertical elevation of 260’
within the middle of the property. Both the Seaboard Station
location and the Devereux Meadows property have ample
city-owned property for pedestrian access points.
OPPORTUNITIES
This route is feasible. It will be cheaper than Options 2A,
2B and 2C (described later), all of which are longer and/
or have more vertical challenges. The goal of this option is
to link the current activity zone of Seaboard Station/Peace
College, while planning for its continued redevelopment
with the City-owned Devereux Meadows property. This
will also potentially act as a significant and very deliberate
gateway element as one arrives into Downtown from the
north. However, the question still remains about whether
a pedestrian bridge here would be redundant with other
pedestrian improvements proposed for Peace Street/Capital
Boulevard intersection?
In its shown state, the bridge is approximately 1,000 linear
OPTION 1
SEABOARD STATION/PEACE COLLEGE TO
DEVEREUX MEADOWS PROPERTY:
65
CONNECT SEABOARD STATION/PEACE COLLEGE TO
DEVEREUX MEADOWS PROPERTY VIA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OPTION 1
feet. At a rough average pedestrian bridge cost of $3,000
per linear foot, this would equate to an approximate cost of
$3,000,000. Unique site specific features or elements may
drive the cost significantly higher.
It appears that there will have to be two ‘pedestrian
access towers’ to make this route work and to allow for full
pedestrian access to the eastern side of Capital Boulevard
and the western side of Capital Boulevard. Multiple
structural columns will also be required.
Utilizing existing grades, a tower of up to 25’ in height will
have to be placed in the Seaboard Station property near the
northern end of Logan Trading Company’s canopy. This will
allow for 23’ of clearance over the eastern train tracks. To
ensure ADAAG-compliant pedestrian access to this area,
if an elevator combined with steps is not provided, there
would have to be a 350’ long ramp to connect to existing
grades within Seaboard Station.
At the western terminus for this proposed pedestrian
route, and located within the City-owned Devereux
Meadows property, a much smaller pedestrian access
tower of 5’-8’ in height from a approximate existing vertical
elevation of 260’ allows for pedestrian access to this bridge.
To ensure ADAAG-compliant pedestrian access to this area,
if an elevator combined with steps is not provided, there
would have to be a 70’-110’ long ramp to tie into existing
grades within the Devereux Meadows property.
This route will have to occur over 2 private properties, along
with crossing Capital Boulevard and the CSX train tracks.
The pedestrian access points or towers on each end of this
route (Seaboard Station and Devereux Meadows) have the
possibility to be placed on public property. This will also
allow access to both sides of Capital Boulevard. It should be
pointed out that the section of the pedestrian bridge from the
Devereux Meadows property to the western edge of Capital
Boulevard will have to be at 8.3% to ensure clearance
over Capital Boulevard. The remainder of the bridge will
have to be inclined at least 5% to make the connection to
the approximate vertical elevation of 327’ within Seaboard
Station.
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
66
CONNECT BLOUNT STREET (PILOT MILL AND MORDECAI COMMUNITIES) TO
HANNOVER STREET (FIVE POINTS COMMUNITY) VIA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OPTION 2A
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The Blount Street right-of-way butts immediately against
the Railroad property. This minimizes the space that may
be available for creating a pedestrian access point. Also,
the vertical elevation of the end of Blount Street is roughly
276’ while the immediately adjacent train tracks is at a
vertical elevation of roughly 274’. Therefore, we will have to
elevate any pedestrian access point significantly to ensure
proper clearance above the CSX train tracks. Steeply
sloping topography is also present within the immediately
adjacent City -owned open space parcel to the northeast of
the end of Blount Street and the end of Marshall Street. For
reasons of this study, we proceeded with the concept that
some type of pedestrian access point could be generated in
this ‘open space’ to accommodate the Pilot Mill and Mordecai
neighborhoods.
The end of Hannover Street is well -positioned to have a
pedestrian access point. The vertical elevation at this point is
roughly 278’ while the vertical elevation of the western train
tracks in this area is roughly 260’. Therefore with a gentle
slope in the ‘walkway, we can obtain the preferred clearance
over the Norfolk -Southern train tracks.
OPTION 2A
CONNECT BLOUNT STREET (PILOT MILL AND MORDECAI
COMMUNITIES) TO HANNOVER STREET (FIVE POINTS
COMMUNIT) VIA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
67
CONNECT BLOUNT STREET (PILOT MILL AND MORDECAI COMMUNITIES) TO
HANNOVER STREET (FIVE POINTS COMMUNITY) VIA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OPTION 2A
OPPORTUNITIES
This route is feasible. However the cost will be expensive.
It will most likely be cheaper than Options 2B and 2C, both
of which are longer and/or have more vertical challenges.
The goal of this option is to link the current neighborhoods
of Pilot Mill and Mordecai with the Five Points community
and their commercial center. This will also potentially act as
a significant and very deliberate gateway element as one
arrives into Downtown from the north and as one departs
Downtown heading north. However, as a visual element,
there may be a bit of clutter with the existing Fairview Road
interchange, if that were to remain.
In its shown state, the bridge is approximately 1,500
linear feet. At a rough average pedestrian bridge cost of
$3,000 per linear foot, this would equate to an approximate
cost of $4,500,000. Unique site specific features or
elements may drive the cost significantly higher.
It appears that there will have to be four ‘pedestrian
towers’ to make this route work and to allow for full
pedestrian access to the eastern/southern side of Capital
Boulevard and the western/northern of Capital Boulevard.
Multiple structural columns will also be required.
Utilizing existing grades, a tower of up to 25’ in height will
have to be placed in the City’s open space near the end
of Blount Street and Marshall Street. This will allow for 23’
of clearance over the CSX train tracks. To ensure ADAAG
-compliant pedestrian access to this area, if an elevator
combined with steps is not provided, there would have to
be a 350’ long ramp to existing grades at Blount Street or
Marshall Street.
Utilizing existing grades, a second tower of up to 33’ in
height will have to be placed in between Capital Boulevard
and the eastern train tracks. This will allow 23’ of clearance
over the CSX train tracks and 20’ clearance over Capital
Boulevard. To ensure ADAAG -compliant pedestrian access
to this area, if an elevator combined with steps is not
provided, there would have to be a 500’ long ramp to existing
grade.
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
68
Utilizing existing grades, a third tower of up to 33’ in height
will have to be placed in between Capital Boulevard and the
western train tracks. This will allow 23’ of clearance over
the Norfolk -Southern train tracks and 20’ clearance over
Capital Boulevard. To ensure ADAAG -compliant pedestrian
access to this area, if an elevator combined with steps is not
provided, there would have to be a 500’ long ramp to existing
grade.
At Hannover Street, there is very little vertical elevation
needed to make a pedestrian connection at the end of
Hannover Street. A pedestrian bridge could take off at a
vertical elevation of 278’ and could ramp up per ADAAG
guidelines to 283’ effectively to appropriately provide the 23’
of clearance for the western train tracks.
This route will have to occur over 2 -3 private properties,
along with crossing Capital Boulevard, and the Norfolk
Southern train tracks, and the CSX train tracks. The
pedestrian access points or towers on each end of this route
(Blount Street and Hannover Street) have the possibility to be
placed on public property, however with Blount Street being
significantly constrained. The internal towers will have to
placed on property that is currently privately owned.
69
CONNECT BLOUNT STREET (PILOT MILL AND MORDECAI
COMMUNITIES) TO CARSON STREET AND SUNRISE AVENUE (FIVE
POINTS COMMUNITY) VIA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEBRIDGE OPTION 2B
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The Blount Street right -of -way butts immediately against
the Railroad property. This minimizes the space that may
be available for creating a pedestrian access point. Also,
the vertical elevation of the end of Blount Street is roughly
276’ while the immediately adjacent train tracks is at a
vertical elevation of roughly 274’. Therefore, we will have to
elevate any pedestrian access point significantly to ensure
proper clearance above the CSX train tracks. Steeply
sloping topography is also present within the immediately
adjacent City -owned open space parcel to the northeast of
the end of Blount Street and the end of Marshall Street. For
reasons of this study, we proceeded with the concept that
some type of pedestrian access point could be generated in
this ‘open space’ to accommodate the Pilot Mill and Mordecai
neighborhoods.
The end of Carson Street and Sunrise Avenue will be
difficult to connect for pedestrian access because of limited
space between the existing right -of -way and the western
boundary of the Norfolk Southern train tracks. The vertical
elevation at this point is roughly 256’ and the immediately
adjacent train tracks End of Blount Street End of Carson
Street and Sunrise Avenue are at a vertical elevation
of roughly 254’. Therefore, we will have to elevate any
OPTION 2B
CONNECT BLOUNT STREET (PILOT MILL AND MORDECAI
COMMUNITIES) TO CARSON STREET AND SUNRISE AVENUE
(FIVE POINTS COMMUNITY) VIA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
70
CONNECT BLOUNT STREET (PILOT MILL AND MORDECAI
COMMUNITIES) TO CARSON STREET AND SUNRISE AVENUE (FIVE
POINTS COMMUNITY) VIA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEBRIDGE OPTION 2B
pedestrian access point significantly to ensure proper
clearance above Norfolk Southern train tracks.
OPPORTUNITIES
This route is feasible. However the cost will be expensive.
It will most likely be cheaper than Option 2C, but more
expensive than Option 2A. Due to the tower required at
Carson Street/Sunrise Avenue, it will have more vertical
challenges than Option 2A. The goal of this option is to link
the current neighborhoods of Pilot Mill and Mordecai with
the Five Points community and their commercial center.
This will also potentially act as a significant and very
deliberate gateway element as one arrives into Downtown
from the north and as one departs Downtown heading
north.
In its shown state, the bridge is approximately 1,600
linear feet. Using a rough average pedestrian bridge cost of
$3,000 per linear foot, this would equate to an approximate
cost of $4,800,000. Unique site specific features or
elements may drive the cost significantly higher.
It appears that there will have to be four ‘pedestrian
access towers’ to make this route work and to allow for
full pedestrian access to the east/southern side of Capital
Boulevard and the west/north of Capital Boulevard. Multiple
structural columns will also be required, per the final bridge
design.
Utilizing existing grades, a tower of up to 25’ in height
will have to be placed in the City’s open space near the
end of Blount Street and Marshall Street. This will allow
for 23’ of clearance over the CSX train tracks. To ensure
ADAAG-compliant pedestrian access to this area, if an
elevator combined with steps is not provided, there would
have to be a 350’ long ramp to existing grades at Blount
Street or Marshall Street.
Utilizing existing grades, a second tower of up to 35’ in
height will have to be placed in between Capital Boulevard
and the CSX train tracks. This will allow 23’ of clearance
over the CSX train tracks and 20’ clearance over Capital
Boulevard. To ensure ADAAG-compliant pedestrian access
to this area, if an elevator combined with steps is not
71
provided, there would have to be a 550’ long ramp to existing
grade.
Utilizing existing grades, a third tower of up to 37’ in height
will have to be placed in between Capital Boulevard and the
Norfolk Southern train tracks. This will allow 23’ of clearance
over the Norfolk Southern train tracks and 20’ clearance over
Capital Boulevard. To ensure ADAAG-compliant pedestrian
access to this area, if an elevator combined with steps is not
provided, there would have to be a 600’ long ramp to existing
grade.
At Carson Street/Sunrise Avenue, utilizing existing grades,
there will need to be another pedestrian access tower up
to 21’ in height. This will allow 23’ in clearance over the
Norfolk Southern train tracks. To ensure ADAAG-compliant
pedestrian access to this area, if an elevator combined with
steps is not provided, there would have to be a 300’ long
ramp to existing grade.
This route will have to occur over 2-3 private properties,
along with crossing Capital Boulevard, and the Norfolk
Southern train tracks, and the CSX train tracks. The
pedestrian access points or towers on each end of this route
(Blount Street and Carson Street/Sunrise Avenue) have the
possibility to be placed on public property, however each
location is somewhat constrained. The internal towers will
have to placed on property that is currently privately owned.
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
72
CONNECT BLOUNT STREET (PILOT MILL AND MORDECAI
COMMUNITIES) TO HANNOVER STREET AND CARSON STREET/SUNRISE
AVENUE (FIVE POINTS COMMUNITY) VIA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OPTION 2C
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The Blount Street right-of-way butts immediately against
the Railroad property. This minimizes the space that may
be available for creating a pedestrian access point. Also,
the vertical elevation of the end of Blount Street is roughly
276’ while the immediately adjacent train tracks is at a
vertical elevation of roughly 274’. Therefore, we will have to
elevate any pedestrian access point significantly to ensure
proper clearance above CSX train tracks. Steeply sloping
topography is also present within the immediately adjacent
City-owned parcel to the northeast of the end of Blount Street
and the end of Marshall Street. For reasons of this study,
we proceeded with the concept that some type of pedestrian
OPTION 2C
CONNECT BLOUNT STREET (PILOT MILL AND MORDECAI
COMMUNITIES) TO HANNOVER STREET AND CARSON
STREET/SUNRISE AVENUE (FIVE POINTS COMMUNITY) VIA
PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
73
CONNECT BLOUNT STREET (PILOT MILL AND MORDECAI
COMMUNITIES) TO HANNOVER STREET AND CARSON STREET/SUNRISE
AVENUE (FIVE POINTS COMMUNITY) VIA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OPTION 2C
access point could be generated in this ‘open space’ to
accommodate the Pilot Mill and Mordecai neighborhoods.
The end of Hannover Street is well-positioned to have a
pedestrian access point. The vertical elevation at this point
is roughly 278’ while the vertical elevation of the Norfolk
Southern train tracks in this area is roughly 260’. Therefore
with a gentle slope in the ‘walkway, we can obtain the
preferred clearance over the Norfolk Southern train tracks.
The end of Carson Street and Sunrise Avenue will be
difficult to connect for pedestrian access because of limited
space between the existing right-of-way and the western
boundary of the Norfolk Southern train tracks. The vertical
elevation at this point is roughly 256’ and the immediately
adjacent train tracks are at a vertical elevation of roughly
254’. Therefore, we will have to elevate any pedestrian
access point significantly to ensure proper clearance above
Norfolk Southern train tracks.
OPPORTUNITIES
There is the possibility to combine both options. This could
be done with 6 or 7 ‘pedestrian access towers’, depending on
the design/layout. This is more expensive by combining both
routes. However, it truly connects the communities with the
potential spaces within the corridor. The goal of this option is
to link the current neighborhoods of Pilot Mill and Mordecai
with the Five Points community and their commercial
center. This will also potentially act as a significant and very
deliberate gateway element as one arrives into Downtown
from the north and as one departs Downtown heading north.
In its shown state, the bridge is approximately 1,600 linear
feet and 1,500 linear feet. Using a rough average pedestrian
bridge cost of $3,000 per linear foot, this would equate to
an approximate cost of $9,300,000. Unique site specific
features or elements may drive the cost significantly higher.
If the alternate (dashed route) was chosen as a link between
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
74
the two bridges and the southern portion of Option 2B were
eliminated, there could be a savings of approximately $1,000,000.
It appears that there will have to be six (if alternate - dashed
route is chosen) or seven ‘pedestrian access towers’ to make
this route work and to allow for full pedestrian access to the east/
southern side of Capital Boulevard and the west/north of Capital
Boulevard. Multiple structural columns will also be required, per
the final bridge design.
All previously noted ‘pedestrian access towers’ in Options 2A
and 2B will have to be developed for this combined concept to
work. The second tower in Option 2B would be eliminated if the
alternate (dashed route) would be chosen.
These routes will have to occur over 5 private properties, along
with crossing Capital Boulevard, and the Norfolk Southern train
tracks, and the CSX train tracks. The pedestrian access points
or towers on each end of these routes (Blount Street, Hannover
Street, Carson Street/Sunrise Avenue) have the possibility to be
placed on public property, however each location is somewhat
constrained. The internal towers will have to placed on property
that is currently privately owned.
75
CONNECT HANNOVER STREET (FIVE POINTS COMMUNITY) TO CAPITAL
BOULEVARD CORRIDOR VIA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OPTION 3
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The end of Hannover Street is well-positioned to have a
pedestrian access point. The vertical elevation at this point
is roughly 278’ while the vertical elevation of the western
train tracks in this area is roughly 260’. Therefore with a
gentle slope in the ‘walkway, we can obtain the preferred
clearance over the Norfolk-Southern train tracks. The
topography within the Capital Boulevard corridor is fairly
flat, with a shown existing vertical elevation around 250’.
The end of Hannover Street is well -positioned to have a
pedestrian access point. The vertical elevation at this point
is roughly 278’ while the vertical elevation of the Norfolk
Southern train tracks in this area is roughly 260’. Therefore
with a gentle slope in the ‘walkway, we can obtain the
preferred clearance over the Norfolk Southern train tracks.
OPTION 3
CONNECT HANNOVER STREET (FIVE POINTS COMMUNITY) TO
CAPITAL BOULEVARD CORRIDOR VIA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
76
CONNECT HANNOVER STREET (FIVE POINTS COMMUNITY) TO CAPITAL
BOULEVARD CORRIDOR VIA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE OPTION 3
OPPORTUNITIES
This route is feasible. It will be cheapest of all proposed
alternatives. Options 1, 2A, 2B and 2C all are longer and/or
have more vertical challenges. The goal of this option is to
link the current neighborhoods of the Five Points community
with any potential redevelopment that may occur within the
Capital Boulevard Corridor. It will ensure safe pedestrian
passage over the Norfolk-Southern train tracks.
In its shown state, the bridge is approximately 450 linear
feet, depending on tower locations. At a rough average
pedestrian bridge cost of $3,000 per linear foot, this would
equate to an approximate cost of $1,350,000. Unique site
specific features or elements may drive the cost significantly
higher.
It appears that there will have to be two ‘pedestrian
towers’ to make this route work and to allow for full
pedestrian access from Five Points Community to the
western/northern of Capital Boulevard. Several structural
columns will also be required.
At Hannover Street, there is very little vertical elevation
needed to make a pedestrian connection at the end of
Hannover Street. A pedestrian bridge could take off at a
vertical elevation of 278’ and could ramp up per ADAAG
guidelines to 283’ effectively to appropriately provide the 23’
of clearance for the western train tracks.
Utilizing existing grades, a second tower of up to
33’ in height will have to be placed in between Capital
Boulevard and the western train tracks. This will allow 23’ of
clearance over the Norfolk-Southern train tracks. To ensure
ADAAG-compliant pedestrian access to this area of the
Capital Boulevard Corridor, if an elevator combined with
steps is not provided, there would have to be a 500’ long
ramp to existing grade.
This route will have to cross the Norfolk Southern train
tracks. However, the pedestrian access points or towers
on each end of this route (Hannover Street and within the
Capital Boulevard Corridor) have the possibility to be placed
on public property. There is some confusion about who
owns the right-of-way between the Norfolk-Southern train
tracks and Capital Boulevard. If the City owns it, it will make
this project more simple to complete. If not, there is still the
possibility of placing this tower on private property in the
same general area.
77
CONNECT MARSHALL STREET (PILOT MILL AND MORDECAI
COMMUNITIES) TO CAPITAL BOULEVARD CORRIDOR VIA A COMBINED
PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR TUNNEL OPTION 4A
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The Blount Street right-of-way butts immediately against
the Railroad property. This minimizes the space that
may be available for creating a pedestrian access point.
Also, the vertical elevation of the end of Blount Street is
roughly 276’ while the immediately adjacent train tracks
is at a vertical elevation of roughly 274’. Steeply sloping
topography is also present within the immediately adjacent
City-owned open space parcel to the northeast of the end
of Blount Street and the end of Marshall Street. However,
this does present a great opportunity for exploring an
underground tunnel option as the low point and rough vertical
elevation of the stream/culvert under the train tracks within
this open space is 244’. With the train tracks at a vertical
elevation of 270’, this is a 26’ vertical difference.
This option explores the possibility of a vehicular connection
along with the pedestrian connection. We therefore assumed
that we could make traffic flow work with a small traffic egg/
circle located at the intersections of Mulberry Street and
Marshall Street. For reasons of this study, we proceeded with
OPTION 4A
(MARSHALL STREET/MULBERRY STREET
TO CAPITAL BOULEVARD CORRIDOR):
COMBINED PEDESTRIAN AND
VEHICULAR TUNNE
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
78
the concept that some type of vehicular access system could
be generated within the existing right-of-ways and the ‘open
space’ to accommodate this request. It does appear possible.
The two properties that are most likely to be where the
northwest end of the tunnel would occur are both privately
owned. Therefore there may be some complications with this.
However, the vertical elevation of those two parcels is roughly
240’ which would provide easy access into the tunnel. And it
would allow a lot of natural light into the tunnel, thus adding to
its safety factor.
CONNECT MARSHALL STREET (PILOT MILL AND MORDECAI
COMMUNITIES) TO CAPITAL BOULEVARD CORRIDOR VIA A COMBINED
PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR TUNNEL OPTION 4A
OPPORTUNITIES
This route is feasible. However the cost will be expensive.
This option is unique because it will be an underground tunnel
that will have to be constructed underneath the existing
CSX train tracks. The goal of this option is to link the current
neighborhoods of Pilot Mill and Mordecai with the potentially
redeveloped area of the Capital Boulevard Corridor via both
pedestrian and vehicular movements, along with providing for
bicyclists and the existing culvert to be ‘daylighted’. There is
the potential that the communities of Pilot Mill and Mordecai
will not want this vehicular link to occur. However, with this
79
tunnel being wider than just a pedestrian tunnel, it would be
safer and feel more open while also providing a very deliberate
connection for this community back to the Capital Boulevard
Corridor.
By having the stream daylighted, it will provide an
opportunity for educating the public about the benefits of green
infrastructure and may be cheaper than putting this culvert
back into a pipe. By having the pedestrian/bikeway element
going through this tunnel, the Pilot Mill/Mordecai residents
will have a direct connection to the forthcoming greenway
connecting Crabtree Creek to Downtown, along with any other
potential corridor improvements.
Please see below as we have shown a simple diagram
of what the tunnel may look like if built as described. In this
diagram, we show a 3’ shoulder, a 12’ road lane, another
12’ road lane, a 10’ bike/pedestrian lane, a 10’ daylighted
culver/stream, and another 3’ shoulder. This is just a rough
organization that can be varied. Another option would be to
build a bridge for the train right of way to cross over this and
make this a fully operating underpass.
In its shown state, the tunnel is approximately 270 linear
feet, although it may range up to 300 linear feet, depending
on depth and the angle it takes under the tracks. At a rough
average concrete tunnel/road cost of $4,000 per linear foot,
this would equate to an approximate cost of $10,800,000.
This seems like a safe estimate, however the City should
also plan on accommodating road/site improvement
particularly on the east end of the tunnel, probably
costing at least $500,000. Unique site specific features or
elements may drive the cost significantly higher.Utilizing
existing grades (250’ at the edge of Mulberry Street/
Marshall Street intersection), the road and pedestrian/
bicycling trail would come down at a slope of 4.5%
(ADAAG-compliant) to obtain a bottom vertical elevation
of 244’. And then if the tunnel were to be 14’ of vertical
clearance, then 2’ of structural concrete, it would allow
for 10’ between finish grade and the top of the tunnel
structure. This can be modified, however for this study,
we looked at utilizing the existing grades.
The tunnel would then proceed at an approximate 2%
slope downward to tie to the existing vertical elevation of
240’ on the west side of the CSX train tracks and within
the Capital Boulevard Corridor.
This route will have to occur onto at least one private
property within the Capital Boulevard Corridor along with
crossing under the CSX train tracks. The vehicular and
pedestrian access point on the eastern end of the tunnel
(Marshall Street/Mulberry Street) has the possibility to
be placed on public property, however with some traffic
reconfigurations being required.
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
80
CONNECT MARSHALL STREET (PILOT MILL AND MORDECAI
COMMUNITIES) TO CAPITAL BOULEVARD CORRIDOR VIA A
PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL OPTION 4B
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
The Blount Street right-of-way butts immediately against
the Railroad property. This minimizes the space that
may be available for creating a pedestrian access point.
Also, the vertical elevation of the end of Blount Street is
roughly 276’ while the immediately adjacent train tracks
is at a vertical elevation of roughly 274’. Steeply sloping
topography is also present within the immediately adjacent
City-owned open space parcel to the northeast of the end
of Blount Street and the end of Marshall Street. However,
this does present a great opportunity for exploring an
underground tunnel option as the low point and rough
vertical elevation of the stream/culvert under the train tracks
within this open space is 244’. With the train tracks at a
vertical elevation of 270’, this is a 26’ vertical difference.
This option explores the possibility of a pedestrian only
connection within this area, along with a daylighted stream/
culvert.
The two properties that are most likely to be where the
northwest end of the tunnel would occur are both privately
owned. Therefore there may be some complications with
this. However, the vertical elevation of those two parcels
is roughly 240’ which would provide easy access into the
tunnel. And it would allow a lot of natural light into the tunnel,
thus adding to its safety factor.
OPTION 4B
CONNECT MARSHALL STREET (PILOT MILL AND MORDECAI
COMMUNITIES) TO CAPITAL BOULEVARD CORRIDOR VIA A
PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL
81
CONNECT MARSHALL STREET (PILOT MILL AND MORDECAI
COMMUNITIES) TO CAPITAL BOULEVARD CORRIDOR VIA A
PEDESTRIAN TUNNEL OPTION 4B
OPPORTUNITIES
This route is feasible. However the cost will be expensive.
This option is unique because it will be an underground
tunnel that will have to be constructed underneath the
existing CSX train tracks. The goal of this option is to link
the current neighborhoods of Pilot Mill and Mordecai with
the potentially redeveloped area of the Capital Boulevard
Corridor via both pedestrian and vehicular movements,
along with providing for bicyclists and the existing culvert to
be ‘daylighted’. There is the potential that the communities
of Pilot Mill and Mordecai will not want this vehicular link
to occur. However, with this tunnel being wider than just
a pedestrian tunnel, it would be safer and feel more open
while also providing a very deliberate connection for this
community back to the Capital Boulevard Corridor.
By having the stream daylighted, it will provide an
opportunity for educating the public about the benefits of
green infrastructure and may be cheaper than putting this
culvert back into a pipe. By having the pedestrian/bikeway
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
82
element going through this tunnel, the Pilot Mill/Mordecai
residents will have a direct connection to the forthcoming
greenway connecting Crabtree Creek to Downtown, along with
any other potential corridor improvements.
Please see below as we have shown a simple diagram
of what the tunnel may look like if built as described. In this
diagram, we show a 3’ shoulder, a 10’ bike/pedestrian lane, a
10’ daylighted culvert/stream, and another 3’ shoulder. This is
just a rough organization that can be varied. We also propose
that the walls be flared to allow for more natural sunlight to
enter the tunnel.
In its shown state, the tunnel is approximately 270 linear
feet, although it may range up to 300 linear feet, depending
on depth and the angle it takes under the tracks. At a rough
average concrete tunnel/road cost of $1,850 per linear foot,
this would equate to an approximate cost of $5,000,000. This
seems like a safe estimate, however the City should also plan
on accommodating trail and site improvements particularly on
the east end of the tunnel, probably costing at least $200,000.
Unique site specific features or elements may drive the cost
significantly higher.
Utilizing existing grades (250’ at the edge of Mulberry Street/
Marshall Street intersection), the pedestrian/bicycling trail
would come down at a slope of 4.5% (ADAAG-compliant)
to obtain a bottom vertical elevation of 244’. And then if the
tunnel were to be 14’ of vertical clearance, then 2’ of structural
concrete, it would allow for 10’ between finish grade and the
top of the tunnel structure. This can be modified, however for
this study, we looked at utilizing the existing grades.
The tunnel would then proceed at an approximate 2% slope
downward to tie to the existing vertical elevation of 240’ on
the west side of the CSX train tracks and within the Capital
Boulevard Corridor.
This route will have to occur onto at least one private
property within the Capital Boulevard Corridor along with
crossing under the CSX train tracks. The vehicular and
pedestrian access point on the eastern end of the tunnel
(Marshall Street/Mulberry Street) has the possibility to
be placed on public property, however with some traffic
reconfigurations being required.
83
OPTION BRIEF DESCRIPTION DIMENSIONS UNIT COST ESTIMATED TOTAL COST
1 BRIDGE (PEDESTRIAN): SEABOARD
STATION/PEACE COLLEGE TO
DEVEREUX MEADOWS PROPERTY
1,000’ X 10’ WIDE $3,000/LF $3,000,000
2A BRIDGE (PEDESTRIAN): BLOUNT
STREET (PILOT MILL AND MORDECAI
COMMUNITIES) TO HANNOVER STREET
(FIVE POINTS COMMUNITY)
1,500’ X 10’ WIDE $3,000/LF $4,500,000
2B BRIDGE (PEDESTRIAN): BLOUNT
STREET TO CARSON STREET/SUNRISE
AVENUE
1,600’ X 10’ WIDE $3,000/LF $4,800,000
2C BRIDGE (PEDESTRIAN): COMBINED
BLOUNT STREET TO HANNOVER
STREET AND CARSON STREET/
SUNRISE AVENUE)
3,100’ X 10’ WIDE $3,000/LF $9,300,000
3 BRIDGE (PEDESTRIAN): HANNOVER
STREET TO CAPITAL BOULEVARD
CORRIDOR
450’ X 10’ WIDE $3,000/LF $1,350,000
4A TUNNEL (VEHICLES + PEDESTRIAN
+ STREAM) : MARSHALL STREET/
MULBERRY STREET TO CAPITAL
BOULEVARD CORRIDOR
270’ X 50’ WIDE $4,000/LF $10,800,000
4B TUNNEL (PEDESTRIAN + STREAM):
MARSHALL STREET/MULBERRY
STREET TO CAPITAL BOULEVARD
CORRIDOR
270’ X 22’ WIDE $1,850/LF $5,000,000
SUMMARY OF OPTIONS
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
84
85
POTENTIAL PEDESTRIAN
BRIDGE DESIGN STYLES
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
86
87
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
88
89
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
90
91
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
92
CB Capital Boulevard Corridor Study
122

Page 1

Executive Summary

The existing bridge on Capital Boulevard at Peace Street was built in the early 1950’s. It is
structurally deficient, functionally obsolete and the half-clover interchange does not meet
current NCDOT interchange design standards1. The bridge is nearing the end of its design life
and needs to be replaced. NCDOT is initiating planning, environmental, and design studies for
the proposed bridge replacement and associated improvements to the interchange
configuration. The anticipated project timeframe assumes that construction will start in 2015
and be completed in 2017.

The City of Raleigh has been discussing proposals for various interchange configurations that
would meet the City’s urban development needs but still provide adequate traffic function. As
part of the City’s Capital Boulevard Corridor Study, a configuration known as a Square Loop
Interchange would replace the Capital Boulevard bridge spanning Peace Street, but would utilize
parts of W. Johnson Street and N. Harrington Street in lieu of traditional interchange ramps to
move motorists between Capital Boulevard and Peace Street. It has been suggested by area
residents that the Capital Boulevard bridge over Peace Street be removed, and that the
interchange could instead be replaced with an at-grade intersection. At-grade intersections have
a number of advantages over grade-separated interchanges, but can have significant adverse
impacts to traffic flow.

The Office of Transportation Planning conducted a study to compare traffic impacts of the
existing interchange to the alternatives listed above. The existing bridge configuration was
modeled using the most current traffic volume and signal timing data available. A separate
traffic model was created for the morning peak (7-9 AM) and afternoon peak (4-6 PM) periods.
Additional models were created for the proposed at-grade signal and for the proposed square
loop option. In order to simulate the effects of traffic growth between 2012 and 2035, a
separate traffic model was created with an annual growth rate of 1% over 23 years. A further
refinement of the square loop option looked at reducing the number of travel lanes on
westbound Peace Street between the Capital Boulevard northbound ramp and West Street.

Traffic impacts can be quantified in a variety of ways and at different scales. Scale refers to
impacts for a specific area under review: an isolated intersection, all intersections along a
particular road or all intersections within a roadway network. Measures of effectiveness such as
delay, queue length and arterial speed were used to quantify traffic impacts and allow for an
objective examination of the results. This study uses all three (intersection, arterial and
network) measures of effectiveness.

The square loop option outperformed the existing bridge and the at-grade intersection in regard
to network measures of effectiveness. Although it resulted in greater travel distance, traffic flow
was more constant. There were fewer stops, less congestion, and better gas mileage under the
square loop option. With regard to traffic flow and arterial speed along Peace Street, the
existing bridge provides better performance than either option.

1 NCDOT Roadway Design Manual, Part 1, Chapter 8, Interchanges
Capital Boulevard/Peace Street
Interchange Alternatives Traffic Analysis
Page 2

Intersection measures of effectiveness include average delay per vehicle and queue length. It
was not possible to adjust signal timing the at-grade intersection to provide acceptable delays or
levels-of-service, defined as average delay per vehicle of 80 seconds or less. The at-grade signal
is not a viable option for replacing the current Capital Boulevard bridge. Total Network
Performance measures for all alternatives under consideration are shown in the following table.

Total Network Performance - AM
MOE
Existing
Bridge
At-Grade
Option
Square Loop
Option
Square Loop
Alternate
Total Delay/Veh (sec) 428 384 39 39
Stops/Veh 1.28 1.69 0.97 0.90
Travel Distance (mi) 5,279 5,780 6,883 6,940
Travel Time (hr) 1,086 1,073 305 305
Avg Speed (mph) 16 13 23 23
Fuel Used (gal) 403 414 267 268
Fuel Efficiency (mpg) 13.1 14.0 25.8 25.9
Density (ft/veh) 136 111 157 154
Total Network Performance - PM
MOE
Existing
Bridge
At-Grade
Option
Square Loop
Option
Square Loop
Alternate
Total Delay/Veh (sec) 296 286 100 88
Stops/Veh 1.41 2.17 1.65 1.51
Travel Distance (mi) 5,348 5,850 6,604 6,610
Travel Time (hr) 838 880 475 441
Avg Speed (mph) 13 10 16 16
Fuel Used (gal) 346 374 302 294
Fuel Efficiency (mpg) 15.5 15.6 21.9 22.5
Density (ft/veh) 112 87 111 114

Based on this data and analysis, the Office of Transportation Planning recommends that NCDOT
pursue replacement of the existing Partial Cloverleaf interchange with the Square Loop
interchange configuration.
Capital Boulevard/Peace Street
Interchange Alternatives Traffic Analysis
Page 3

Introduction

Project Background
Capital Boulevard serves as a major gateway corridor into downtown Raleigh. Conceived in the
late 1940’s, Capital Boulevard (originally known as Downtown Boulevard) opened to traffic in
1955 from Fairview Road to downtown Raleigh. Three years later in 1958, the section between
Fairview Road and Wake Forest Road (then US 1) was completed. In May of 1970, Capital
Boulevard was distinguished as the busiest highway in the State of North Carolina.

The bridge on Capital Boulevard over Peace Street (Bridge No. 227) was built in the early 1950’s
and currently has a sufficiency rating of 42.9 out of a possible 100. Sufficiency ratings are based
on factors like the age of the bridge, the traffic volumes, the percentage of heavy vehicles, and
upon the findings of a structural inspection. The Capital Boulevard bridge is structurally deficient
and functionally obsolete. While it is still adequate to support traffic, the bridge is nearing the
end of its design life and needs to be replaced.

Bridges with sufficiency scores of 50 or below are eligible for federal funds for repair or
replacement. NCDOT is initiating planning, environmental, and design studies for the proposed
bridge replacement (Project #B-5121). During the planning phase of this project, alternatives will
be studied that replace the bridge with a new one while keeping the current ramp
configurations. Additional alternatives will also be considered that replace the bridge with new
bridges in different styles of interchange configurations. The project is currently in preliminary
design phases of the planning process. The anticipated project timeframe assumes that
construction will start in 2015 and be completed in 2017. Total project cost is estimated at
$12,000,000.

Project Description
Capital Boulevard is part of the US 401 Corridor. This corridor is designated as a principal arterial
in the Raleigh 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and is the only corridor inside the I-440 Beltline with
this designation. Capital Boulevard still remains the most dominant north/south commuting
route into the downtown area. Average daily traffic volumes along Capital Boulevard vary from
41,000 vehicles per day south of Peace Street to 54,000 vehicles per day north of Peace Street.

Capital Boulevard is constructed as a six-lane, median-divided roadway with a posted speed of
45 mph. Peace Street is a four-lane street with a speed limit of 35 mph. Peace Street has
auxiliary turn lanes at intersections between West Street and Wilmington Street. Capital
Boulevard crosses over Peace Street and forms a partial cloverleaf interchange (type AB, 2-
quad). An interchange is a road junction that uses grade separation and ramps to permit traffic
on one road to pass through the junction without directly crossing any other traffic stream.
Interchanges increase traffic flow efficiency, reduce traffic conflicts and reduce delay for all
system users (motorists, bicycle, pedestrians, and transit). However interchanges are expensive
to build and maintain; they can require large amounts of public right-of-way (compared to at-
grade intersections) and, in order to function properly, may restrict access to adjoining
properties.

To alleviate some of these shortcomings, it has been suggested by area residents that the
Capital Boulevard bridge be removed and the interchange with Peace Street be replaced with an
at-grade intersection. At-grade intersections have a number of advantages over grade-separated
interchanges. At-grade intersections provide more opportunities for driveway access to
Capital Boulevard/Peace Street
Interchange Alternatives Traffic Analysis
Page 4

adjoining businesses and may enhance the potential for redevelopment of adjacent properties.
The downside is that at-grade intersections can have significant adverse impacts to traffic flow.
They may create long delays for motorists, may cause long queues to form and increase travel
time for commercial vehicles and transit providers. Larger intersections can create impediments
to pedestrians through increased crossing distance and cyclists often have difficulty navigating
complex traffic flows.

In an effort to overcome the negative aspects of an at-grade intersection, an alternative
interchange configuration was developed to provide a high level of traffic flow while at the same
time improving access to adjoining properties and businesses. Known as a Square Loop, the
alternative interchange configuration would keep the Capital Boulevard bridge spanning Peace
Street, but would utilize parts of W. Johnson Street and N. Harrington Street in lieu of traditional
interchange ramps to move motorists between Capital Boulevard and Peace Street. NCDOT has
utilized square loop configurations in other parts of the state, most notably along the Lee Street
and Wendover Avenue corridors in Greensboro. The Square Loop configuration provides more
opportunities for driveway access to adjoining businesses, enhances the potential for
redevelopment of adjacent properties, and improves traffic flow by reducing the volume of left
turns on Peace Street.

The Office of Transportation Planning conducted a study to compare traffic impacts of the
existing interchange to the alternatives listed above. The following public street intersections
were included in the analyses:
 Peace Street at West Street (Signalized)
 Peace Street at Capital Boulevard Southbound Ramp (Unsignalized)
 Peace Street at Capital Boulevard Northbound Ramp (Signalized)
 Peace Street at Wilmington Street/Halifax Street (Signalized)
 Lane Street at McDowell Street (Signalized)
 Lane Street at Dawson Street (Signalized)

The existing bridge configuration was modeled using the most current traffic volume and signal
timing data available. A separate model was created for the AM and PM peak periods.
Additional models, both AM peak and PM peak, were created for the proposed at-grade signal
and for the proposed square loop option. In order to simulate the effects of traffic growth
between 2012 and 2035, a separate traffic model was created with an annual growth rate of 1%
over 23 years (equivalent to increasing traffic volumes by 26% across the board). A further
refinement of the square loop option looked at reducing the number of travel lanes on
westbound Peace Street between the Capital Boulevard northbound ramp and West Street. This
was done to enhance the potential for other modes of transportation, primarily pedestrians and
bicyclists, to utilize Peace Street. All traffic models were compared using the measures of
effectiveness described below.

Measures of Effectiveness
Measures of effectiveness (MOEs) are measureable quantities and characteristics used to
compare traffic impacts from various alternatives. Measures of effectiveness quantify traffic
impacts and allow for an objective examination of the results. Traffic impacts can be quantified
in a variety of ways and at different scales. In many instances, the specific quantity for a given
MOE is not as significant as the relative change of in MOE quantity between different
alternatives. “Scale” refers to impacts for a specific area under review: an isolated intersection,
all intersections along a particular road or all intersections within a roadway network. This study
Capital Boulevard/Peace Street
Interchange Alternatives Traffic Analysis
Page 5

uses all three (intersection, arterial and network) measures of effectiveness to quantify traffic
impacts.

Intersection measures of effectiveness include average delay per vehicle and queue length.
Based on information in the Highway Capacity Manual 2010, the average delay per vehicle is
used to compute a qualitative measure of effectiveness known as level-of-service or LOS. Similar
to grades in school, level-of-service “A” is desirable while level-of-service “F” is undesirable. At
signalized intersections, delay and level-of-service are defined for the intersection as a whole. At
unsignalized intersections, delay is only applicable for those movements that yield right-of-way.
Delay and level-of-service for both signalized and unsignalized intersections is shown in the
following table:

Unsignalized Intersections Signalized Intersections
Level-of-Service Average Approach Delay
(sec/veh) Level-of-Service Average Delay
(sec/veh)
A ≤ 10 A ≤ 10
B > 10 – 15 B > 10 – 20
C > 15 – 25 C > 20 – 35
D > 25 – 35 D > 35 – 55
E > 35 – 50 E > 55 – 80
F > 50 F > 80
Table 1: Intersection Level-of-Service

According to the City of Raleigh’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Policy T 2.10) one goal for
managing growth is to “maintain level of service (LOS) "E" or better on all roadways and for
overall intersection operation at all times, including peak travel times, unless maintaining this
LOS would be infeasible and/or conflict with the achievement of other goals”.

Arterial MOEs quantify the average travel time and speed for a motorist driving along Peace
Street between West Street and Wilmington Street. Travel time and speed are calculated
separately for eastbound motorists and westbound motorists. Arterial level-of-service is defined
by the average travel speed experienced by a motorist travelling along the street. Travel speed
is the quotient of travel time divided by distance covered. Thus it includes the time spent
stopped at a red light. Arterial levels-of-service are shown in Table 2.

Level-of-Service Travel Speed as a Percentage of
Free-Flow Speed (%)
Equivalent Travel Speed for
Free-Flow Speed of 35 mph
A > 85 > 29.8 mph
B > 67 – 85 > 23.5 mph – 29.8 mph
C > 50 – 67 > 17.5 mph – 23.5 mph
D > 40 – 50 > 14.0 mph – 17.5 mph
E > 30 – 40 > 10.5 mph – 14.0 mph
F ≤ 30 ≤ 10.5 mph
Table 2: Arterial Level-of-Service

Capital Boulevard/Peace Street
Interchange Alternatives Traffic Analysis
Page 6

Network MOEs quantify the cumulative travel time and travel distance of all vehicles traversing
all roads and intersections in the network for a one-hour period. Average speed is calculated by
dividing travel distance by travel time. Fuel Used is derived from an assumed distribution of
different types of vehicles traversing the network (compact cars, sedans, pickup trucks, buses,
commercial trucks, etc.). Fuel Efficiency is computed by dividing travel distance by Fuel Used.
Other network MOEs include the average delay time per vehicle, i.e., the average amount of
time spent idling and the average number of stops per vehicle. Density is the average distance
separating successive vehicles in a traffic stream.

Capital Boulevard/Peace Street
Interchange Alternatives Traffic Analysis
Page 7

Base Conditions

Geometrics and Traffic Control
Capital Boulevard is a multi-lane road with three lanes southbound and four lanes northbound
in the vicinity of Peace Street. Peace Street is a four-lane road with exclusive left-turn lanes
(westbound) at the Capital Boulevard northbound and southbound ramps. Traffic lanes on
Capital Boulevard are approximately 20 feet above the lanes on Peace Street. Ramps located on
the north side of Peace Street allow traffic to move between the two roads. The westbound to
northbound movement (from Peace to Capital) and the northbound to eastbound movement
(from Capital to Peace) have been provided with auxiliary departure lanes. As a result, these
movements do not have to merge into an existing traffic stream. Existing lane configurations for
Capital Boulevard and Peace Street are shown in Figure 1.

Traffic control can be divided into three separate categories depending on how right-of-way is
assigned: free-flow, stop and yield. Free-flow movements are given exclusive right-of-way and
may travel along their intended path without interference from any other movement. Note that
exclusive right-of-way may be assigned for only a limited period of time such as the green phase
at a traffic signal. Stop-controlled movements are required to stop with they approach an
intersection; they may only proceed along their intended path when all other movements have
been served. Yield-controlled movements are not required to stop, but neither are they given
exclusive right-of-way. Instead they are given conditional right-of-way and may proceed along
their intended path through gaps in the conflicting traffic stream. For example, channelized right
turns at unsignalized intersections and permitted left turns at traffic signals are yield-controlled
movements.

Existing Traffic Volumes
Traffic volumes for this study were obtained from the City of Raleigh’s turning movement count
database and NCDOT. Traffic volumes at the three signalized intersections were collected in
2012; volumes for the unsignalized intersection of Peace Street at the Capital Boulevard
southbound ramp are from late January 2011. Peak period traffic for the main travel lanes on
Capital Boulevard was dated March 2009. Traffic data was mostly collected during the middle
part of the week when Wake County Public Schools were in session and thus represent typical
weekday conditions. Volumes at the Capital Boulevard northbound ramps were recorded in late
December 2011 (AM) and early January 2012 (PM). A review of historic traffic volumes at this
location shows that turning movement volumes to and from the ramps are consistent with
volume counts from previous years. However, thru volumes on Peace Street at the Capital
Boulevard northbound ramp appeared to be lower than in previous years.

To account for the differences that invariably arise from traffic counts taken on different days,
all volumes were balanced manually. Thru volumes on Capital Boulevard (south of Peace Street)
were held constant as were all right turn and left turn volumes on both Peace Street and Capital
Boulevard. Eastbound and westbound thru movement volumes on Peace Street were increased
so that total traffic approaching an intersection matched the total traffic departing from the
previous intersection. Thru movements on Peace Street at the Capital Boulevard southbound
ramp were higher than at other study area intersections; they were held constant. The
remaining eastbound and westbound thru movement volumes at Peace Street/West Street,
Peace Street/Northbound Ramp and Peace Street/Wilmington Street were increased so that
total traffic approaching an intersection matched the total traffic departing from the previous
intersection. Balanced traffic volumes are shown in Figure 2.
Capital Boulevard/Peace Street
Interchange Alternatives Traffic Analysis
Page 8

Figure 1: Existing Interchange Lanes
Capital Boulevard/Peace Street
Interchange Alternatives Traffic Analysis
Page 9

Figure 2: Existing Interchange Volumes

Capital Boulevard/Peace Street
Interchange Alternatives Traffic Analysis
Page 10

Examination of the existing interchange volumes shows that most interaction between Capital
Boulevard and Peace Street is directed northward. Trip volumes to and from the north are
approximately 10 times the volume of trips to and from the south. This 10 to 1 ratio of trip
origins and destinations holds for both the AM and PM peak periods. Trip distribution ratios are
shown in Table 3.

Peace/Capital Interchange
AM Turning Movement Volume (%)
Peace/Capital Interchange
PM Turning Movement Volume (%)
To
North
From
North
To
South
From
South
To
North
From
North
To
South
From
South
38.5% 54.2% 2.3% 5.0% 64.0% 25.9% 4.0% 6.1%
To & From North To & From South To & From North To & From South
92.7% 7.3% 89.9% 10.1%
Table 3: Peace/Capital Turning Movement Percentages

The existing Capital Boulevard junction with Peace Street forms a partial cloverleaf interchange
type AB, known euphemistically as a “Parclo”. Partial cloverleaf interchanges use a combination
of bridges, traditional ramps and loop ramps to move traffic between roadways. Parclo type AB
interchanges are used when the traffic volume distribution is heavily skewed in one direction.
High volume left turns to and from a major traffic source are converted into right turns which do
not have to wait at a signal or for gaps in the opposing traffic stream. Loop ramps for a Parclo
type AB interchange are placed on the opposite side of the major traffic source. This type of
interchange is illustrated in Figure 3. Loop ramps for the existing interchange are located on the
north side of Peace Street. In the 1950’s and 1960’s traffic volumes to and from the south were
undoubtedly much higher than volumes to and from the north. Today however, the majority of
traffic origins and destinations are to and from the north. The existing interchange
configuration, with loop ramps on the north side of Peace Street, is functionally obsolete.

Figure 3: Diamond Interchange versus Parclo Type AB Interchange

Capital Boulevard/Peace Street
Interchange Alternatives Traffic Analysis
Page 11

Existing Signal Phasing / Timing Information
Traffic signals control the assignment of right-of-way to conflicting movements by separating
them in time. For example, northbound and southbound motorists are given exclusive use of an
intersection for a short period of time then eastbound and westbound motorists have exclusive
use of the intersection. This process repeats over and over throughout the course of a day.
Though there are many nuances, there are four main variables that govern the assignment of
right-of-way: Cycle length, Phasing, Phase Splits and Offset. Cycle length is the amount of time
that elapses before a movement is repeated. For low volume intersections, cycle length typically
runs between 60 and 80 seconds; at a high volume intersection the cycle length may be 150 to
180 seconds.

Phasing is the number of movements that are assigned exclusive right-of-way during the course
of a cycle. There are a number of phasing options used to assign right-of-way. The simplest is a
two-phase sequence in which the first phase allocates right-of-way to the main street while the
second phase gives exclusive right-of-way to the side street. In a two-phase cycle, main street
and side street thru movements are separated but left-turn movements must yield to opposing
traffic, turning only when there are adequate gaps in the opposing traffic stream. Left turns in
this scheme are known as permitted left turns. Phases for protected left turns are the most
commonly added phases. Under protected left turn phasing one or both of the main street left
turns and one or both of the side street left turns are given exclusive right-of-way. In many
cases, left turns operate as a protected movement during one part of a phase and are then
allowed to turn through gaps in the opposing traffic stream during the remaining part of the
phase. This is referred to as protected-permitted left turns; it is used to maximize the
throughput of left turns on an approach. Although there are no limits to the number of phases
that can be assigned, as a general rule they should be kept to a minimum. Typical phasing
schemes are illustrated below. Dashed arrows indicate permitted left turns while solid arrows
stand for protected left turns.

Figure 4: Two-Phase Cycle with Permitted Left Turns

Figure 5: Three-Phase Cycle with Protected-Permitted Left Turns

Phase Split refers to the amount of time (in seconds) assigned to each phase. Phase split
encompasses the length of exclusive right-of-way, the warning time that right-of-way is about to
end and clearance time. These terms are commonly known as green time, yellow time and all-
Capital Boulevard/Peace Street
Interchange Alternatives Traffic Analysis
Page 12

red time. Phase splits, when added together, equal the cycle length. Indeed, that is how cycle
length is defined.

Offset is a variable used for coordinated signals. Coordination is the process of synchronizing
multiple intersections to enhance the operation of one or more directional movements along a
street. Each signalized intersection in a coordinated system will have an offset point referenced
to a master clock that is common to the adjacent signals. The intent of coordinating traffic
signals is to provide smooth flow of traffic along a street in order to reduce travel time, stops
and delay. Offset defines the time relationship, expressed in either seconds or as a percent of
the cycle length, between coordinated phases at subsequent traffic signals. With coordinated
signals, motorists departing one intersection should arrive at the next intersection just as the
signal turns green. An important constraint of coordinated signals is that each intersection must
have the same cycle length (or some even multiple thereof).

Cycle length, Phasing, Phase Split and Offset collectively define the controls used to assign right-
of-way at a traffic signal. Table 4 shows the timing parameters currently used for each
signalized intersection in the study area.

Intersection
Cycle Length (sec) Number of
Phases
Coordinated with
Adjacent Signal?
Offset
(sec) AM PM
Peace/West 80 110 3 No N/A
Peace/Capital NB Ramp 80 80 3 No N/A
Peace/Wilmington 110 110 3 No N/A
Lane/Dawson* 80 90 2 Yes ---
Lane/McDowell* 80 90 2 Yes ---
* Lane/Dawson is coordinated with Jones/Dawson, Lane/McDowell is coordinated with Jones/McDowell, but
Lane/Dawson is not coordinated with Lane/McDowell
Table 4: Signal Timing Parameters

Area Safety Review
NCDOT maintains a database of all reported accidents that occur within the state. NCDOT has
developed special software known as TEAAS2 to analyze and report on crashes that occur on
roadway segments. City staff generated a TEAAS report for crashes along Peace Street, between
West Street and Wilmington Street, for a three-year period between April 1, 2009 and March
31, 2012. Along the 0.45 mile section of Peace Street, there were 135 reported crashes within
the study period. The majority of the crashes were “rear end, slow or stop” crashes (47), “angle”
crashes (27) “side swipe, same direction” crashes (22) or “left turn, same roadway” crashes (15).
No fatalities occurred along this section of roadway during the study period. Approximately 77%
of all crashes were property damage only crashes. Injury crashes are classified according to
severity. The crash severity is equal to the most serious injury sustained by any individual
involved in the crash. NCDOT defines injury crashes as follows:

 K (fatal) deaths that occur within twelve months of the crash
 A (disabling) injuries serious enough to prevent normal activity for at least one day such as
massive loss of blood, broken bones, etc.

2 Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
Capital Boulevard/Peace Street
Interchange Alternatives Traffic Analysis
Page 13

 B (evident) non-K or non-A type injuries such as bruises, swelling, skin abrasions etc.
 C (possible) no visible injury but there are complaints of pain or momentary
unconsciousness
 O (none) no injury, property damage only

There were no reported Type-K or Type-A injuries for this segment of Peace Street. There were 8
Type-B injuries (6% of total crashes) and 23 Type-C injuries (17% of total crashes). Thankfully,
the majority of crashes resulted in no injury while those injuries that did occur were typically
confined to cuts & bruises. Table 4 details the locations of the most frequent crash sites.

NCDOT Traffic Engineering Accident Analysis System
April 1, 2009 to March 31, 2012
Location Total # of Crashes Percent of Total
Peace St/West St 22 16%
Peace St/Capital Blvd Interchange 69 51%
Peace St/Wilmington St 24 18%
Table 4: Peace Street Crash Statistics (West Street to Wilmington Street)

Crash rates are normally considered better indicators of risk than crash frequency alone because
they account for differences in traffic volumes, and by extension exposure to risk. Crash rates
involve combining crash frequency with traffic volumes and are expressed as crashes per 100
million vehicle miles traveled (MVM). In North Carolina, crash rate data for total crashes, fatal
crashes and (non-fatal) injury crashes is compiled for each county. Table 5 shows how the crash
rate for this segment of Peace Street compares to the county-wide crash rate for Wake County.

Crash Rates Wake County
Peace St
From West St to Wilmington St
Total Crash Rate per 100 MVM 328.69 1527.47
Fatal Crash Rate per 100 MVM 0.80 0.00
Injury Crash Rate per 100 MVM 81.69 350.75
Table 5: Crash Rate Comparison

These results show that this segment of Peace Street has a substantially higher total crash rate
and a higher injury crash rate than Wake County as a whole. The injury crash rate does not
distinguish between the type of injury sustained (Type-A, Type-B, etc.). Note that the fatal crash
rate for this segment of Peace Street is nonexistent, that all reported injuries were Type-B or
Type-C crashes and that the county-wide rate includes urban, suburban and rural roads. Peace
Street is not listed in the 2011 North Carolina Highway Safety Improvement Program list of
potentially hazardous locations.

Traffic Analysis
All traffic analyses used in this study are based upon results obtained from the traffic software
program Synchro/SimTraffic© Version 8. Network, arterial and intersection measures of
effectiveness were analyzed to quantify traffic impacts for the existing bridge on Capital
Boulevard. The specific quantities for network measures of effectiveness are not as significant as
the relative change of in quantity between different alternatives. For that reason, network
MOEs will be discussed in the Conclusions section of this report.
Capital Boulevard/Peace Street
Interchange Alternatives Traffic Analysis
Page 14

Arterial measures of effectiveness quantify the average travel time and speed for a motorist
driving along Peace Street between West Street and Wilmington Street. Average speed for
eastbound motorists traversing Peace Street is 16 mph during the AM peak; the average speed
for westbound motorists is 20 mph this same period. These speeds equate to arterial level-of-
service LOS-D for eastbound and LOS-C for westbound motorists, respectively. During the PM
peak period, average speed for eastbound motorists is 15 mph (LOS-D); average speed in the
westbound direction is also 15 mph (LOS-D).

Intersection measures of effectiveness include delay, queue length and level-of-service. All
signalized intersections in the study operate at LOS-D or better during the AM peak period. The
southbound approach level-of-service for Peace/Capital Southbound Ramp operates at LOS-E.
During the PM peak, the intersections of Peace/West and Peace/Capital Northbound Ramp
operate at LOS-B and LOS-C, respectively. Southbound approach level-of-service for
Peace/Capital Southbound Ramp improves slightly to LOS-D. The signalized intersection of Peace
Street at Wilmington Street has LOS-F during the PM peak with average delays per vehicle of
approximately 100 seconds. Queuing along Capital Boulevard, at its junction with Peace Street,
is negligible with the existing bridge since northbound and southbound traffic flows do not
encounter conflicting movements. Traffic analysis for the existing bridge on Capital Boulevard
provides a basis of comparison for alternative designs of the Capital/Peace junction. Analysis of
the square loop alternative will be discussed in the next section.

Capital Boulevard/Peace Street
Interchange Alternatives Traffic Analysis
Page 15

Square Loop Scenarios

Lane Geometry
The Square Loop is an alternative interchange configuration that would keep the Capital
Boulevard bridge spanning Peace Street, but would utilize parts of W. Johnson Street and
N. Harrington Street in lieu of traditional interchange ramps to move motorists between Capital
Boulevard and Peace Street. Functionally the square loop configuration works as a Parclo type
AB interchange.

In the square loop scenario, the southbound ramp from Capital Boulevard to Peace Street was
eliminated. Southbound traffic exits right from Capital Boulevard onto W. Johnson Street then
turns right again onto N. Harrington Street. Harrington Street, which currently curves westward
and intersects West Street, would be realigned due northward through properties owned by
Mann Family Properties (REID # 0043838) and by Chaucer Investments LLC (REID #’s 0062082
and 0266864), connecting directly to Peace Street as a T-intersection. Note that under the
Capital Boulevard Corridor Plan, driveway conflicts along the north side of Peace Street in this
section would likely be removed as the City-owned property is converted to park usage.

The existing northbound loop ramp from Capital Boulevard to Peace Street would also be
removed in this proposed interchange scenario. Northbound motorists on Capital Boulevard
would exit right onto the existing Johnson Street stub. Johnson Street would be extended
parallel to the CSX railroad tracks and connect with Peace Street opposite an existing driveway
that serves property owned by McKnitt & Associates LLC (REID # 0077125), which provides
cross-access to the Cotton Mill Condominiums.

Both of these new intersections on Peace Street would require three-phase traffic signals. Peace
Street would retain two thru lanes in each direction. Where left turns are possible, exclusive left
turn lanes would be provided on the eastbound, westbound and northbound approaches for
both intersections. Due to heavy PM peak westbound right turn movements from Peace Street
onto Capital Boulevard, the northbound ramp onto Capital Boulevard must be retained in this
scenario. Lane geometry for the square loop configuration is shown in Figure 6.

Traffic Volume Distribution
Current traffic volumes from the existing interchange were transformed into the equivalent
turning movement volumes for the square loop interchange. Thru volumes on Capital Boulevard
(south of Peace Street) were held constant as were all right turn and left turn volumes.
Eastbound and westbound thru movement volumes on Peace Street were balanced. There was
no change in the directional distribution of trips. Traffic volumes for the square loop scenario
are shown in Figure 7.

Capital Boulevard/Peace Street
Interchange Alternatives Traffic Analysis
Page 16

Figure 6: Square Loop Lane and Ramp Geometry
Capital Boulevard/Peace Street
Interchange Alternatives Traffic Analysis
Page 17

Figure 7: Square Loop Volumes
Capital Boulevard/Peace Street
Interchange Alternatives Traffic Analysis
Page 18

Traffic Analysis
After traffic volumes and lane geometry had been determined, the information was entered into
Synchro for analysis. Synchro has optimization subroutines that can adjust factors such as cycle
length and phase split to minimize delay for an individual intersection or a group of
intersections. Typically, the traffic analyst determines the number and sequence of phases for
an intersection and Synchro then calculates the optimum cycle length, phase split and also
offset when signals are coordinated. The two new signals on Peace Street were optimized using
Synchro’s optimization subroutines. Referring back to Figure 6, these signals would operate as
two-phase signals in the AM peak and three-phase signals during the PM peak. The new Peace
Street signals were coordinated with the signal at West Street. Synchro adjusted the cycle length
and phase splits at Peace and West to minimize delay then determined optimum offset between
West Street, N. Harrington Street and W. Johnson Street. This process was done for both the AM
and PM peak periods. The resulting traffic models were then used to quantify traffic impacts for
the square loop scenario.

Results
Arterial measures of effectiveness quantify the average travel time and speed for a motorist
driving along Peace Street between West Street and Wilmington Street. Based on current year
volumes, the average speed for eastbound motorists traversing Peace Street is 12 mph during
the AM peak; the average speed for westbound motorists is 18 mph this same period. These
speeds equate to arterial level-of-service LOS-E for eastbound and LOS-C for westbound
motorists, respectively. During the PM peak period, average speed for eastbound motorists is 9
mph (LOS-F); average speed in the westbound direction is 13 mph (LOS-E).

Intersection measures of effectiveness include delay, queue length and level-of-service. All
signalized intersections in the study operate at LOS-D or better during the AM peak period. The
new signals on Peace Street have LOS-C or better for the AM and PM peak periods as does the
existing signal at Peace and West. The signalized intersection of Peace Street at Wilmington
Street has LOS-F during the PM peak with average delays per vehicle of approximately 120
seconds. Queuing along Capital Boulevard at its junction with Peace Street is negligible since
northbound and southbound traffic flows do not encounter conflicting movements.

A major area of concern with the square loop configuration is the ability of Harrington Street
and Johnson Street to discharge queues. Long queues on either of these streets could
potentially cause back up onto Capital Boulevard and block the northbound or southbound thru
movements. Queue lengths for the northbound left and right turns were modeled in SimTraffic
and compared against the segment distance for Harrington Street and Johnson Street. Segment
distance was defined as the separation between Peace Street and the nearest intersection
southward along Harrington and Johnson. For both AM and PM peak periods, 95th percentile
queues on Johnson Street and Harrington Street did not exceed the segment length.

Queue discharge was also studied for eastbound Johnson Street onto Capital Boulevard
northbound and the eastbound square loop between Capital Boulevard southbound and
Harrington Street. Queuing on eastbound Johnson Street could potentially backup onto Peace
Street and impact westbound traffic flow. It was determined that the risk of queue spillback
could be minimized by operating the eastbound approach of Johnson Street onto Capital
Boulevard as a yield-controlled intersection.

Capital Boulevard/Peace Street
Interchange Alternatives Traffic Analysis
Page 19

Queue discharge on the eastbound square loop at Harrington Street is critical because it
receives traffic directly from southbound Capital Boulevard; long delay for the eastbound right
turn onto Harrington Street could cause spillback onto Capital Boulevard. Under the type of
control typically used at three-way unsignalized intersections, the eastbound approach would
operate under stop-control. Eastbound right turns would stop and yield to the northbound thru
movement. With this type on control, it was determined that the minimum sustainable headway
for northbound thru motorists was approximately 60 seconds per vehicle. This is equivalent to a
flow of 60 vph on northbound Harrington Street. Higher volumes, and consequently shorter
headways, for the northbound approach increased the potential for queue spillback onto
southbound Capital Boulevard. One possible solution that would minimize the risk of long
queues on the eastbound square loop would be to use nonconventional traffic control at its
intersection with Harrington Street. By operating the northbound and southbound approaches
with stop control and setting the eastbound right turn to free flow, the potential for queue
spillback on to southbound Capital Boulevard would be much reduced.

Lane Reduction Scenario
In order to further enhance the potential for pedestrians and bicyclists to utilize Peace Street, a
refinement of the square loop option looked at impacts of reducing the number of travel lanes
on Peace Street between the Capital Boulevard northbound ramp and West Street. Removing
even one lane of travel would possibly create opportunities for Peace Street to be striped with
bike lanes and increase the separation between pedestrians and moving vehicles. Initial
examination of traffic volumes and turning movements showed that reducing the laneage to a
three-lane section created substantial congestion at the intersection of Peace and West. But by
properly adjusting the cycle lengths and intersection offsets, it is possible to remove one
westbound lane and maintain LOS-C or better for the signals at West Street, Harrington Street
and Johnson Street. This scenario works provided that eastbound two lanes are retained for the
eastbound approach at all intersections. Given the orientation and the balance of the traffic
volumes at the Capital Boulevard northbound ramp, it is possible to drop one westbound lane as
a westbound right-turn lane onto the ramp. Arterial speed and level-of-service between West
Street and Wilmington Street changed very little under the reduced-lane option.
Capital Boulevard/Peace Street
Interchange Alternatives Traffic Analysis
Page 20

At-Grade Scenario

Traffic Volume Distribution
Traffic volumes from the existing interchange were transformed into the equivalent turning
movement volumes for an at-grade intersection. As with the existing interchange, main lane
thru volumes on Capital Boulevard (south of Peace Street) were held constant as were all right
turn and left turn volumes on both Peace Street and Capital Boulevard. Eastbound and
westbound thru movement volumes on Peace Street were increased so that total traffic
approaching an intersection matched the total traffic departing from the previous intersection.
This report assumed no change in the directional distribution of trips. It also assumed no
diversion of trips to other roads or intersections. Traffic volumes for the at-grade scenario are
shown schematically in Figure 8.

Once traffic volumes for each approach and turning movement were established, the next task
was to determine the number of lanes for each movement. In order to minimize disruption to
adjacent traffic signals and to keep intact as much of the existing roadbeds as possible, it was
decided to keep the same number of thru lanes for each cardinal direction. In other words,
there was no change in the number of thru lanes on Capital Boulevard (3 lanes southbound and
3 lanes northbound) or in the number of thru lanes on Peace Street (2 lanes each direction).
Next, left turn volumes were evaluated to decide if exclusive left turn lanes should be installed.

One “rule of thumb” is that exclusive left turn lanes should be considered when left turn volume
exceeds 100 vehicles per hour (vph) and dual left turn lanes should be considered when left turn
volume is greater than 300 vehicles per hour3. Another “rule of thumb” that relates to left turn
signal phases is that a protected left turn phase (which by necessity requires an exclusive left
turn lane) is justified when the product of left turn volume times the opposing thru movement
volume exceeds 100,000 on a multilane road4. Southbound left turn volume for the AM peak is
398 vph, so dual left turn lanes were provided on southbound Capital Boulevard. Eastbound left
turn volume for the PM peak is 341 vph therefore dual left turn lanes were added on eastbound
Peace Street. The product of northbound left turns (75 vph) and southbound thru (2000 vph)
volume on Capital Boulevard is 150,000 during the PM peak; a single left turn lane was assigned
to the northbound approach on Capital Boulevard.

On some facilities left turn lanes may be desirable on all approaches regardless of left turn
volume. The westbound left turn on Peace Street is very low during both peak periods.
However, since the eastbound left turn is large (341 vph during the PM peak) and will only
operate as a protected left phase, it does no harm to provide westbound Peace Street with an
exclusive left turn lane. To summarize, dual left turn lanes were provided on the southbound
and eastbound approached while single left turn lanes were placed on the northbound and
westbound approaches.

3 Rodegerdts, L.A. Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide. Report No. FHWA-HRT-04-091.
Washington, DC: FHWA, August 2004, pg 153.
4 Koonce, P. Traffic Signal Timing Manual. Report No. FHWA-HOP-08-024. Washington, DC: FHWA, June
2008, Ch 4, pg 13.
Capital Boulevard/Peace Street
Interchange Alternatives Traffic Analysis
Page 21

Figure 8: At-Grade Traffic Volumes
Capital Boulevard/Peace Street
Interchange Alternatives Traffic Analysis
Page 22

In a similar manner, right turn volumes were duly examined to determine if exclusive right turn
lanes were justified. According to the FHWA report Signalized Intersections: Informational
Guide, exclusive right turn lanes are recommended when the volume of right turns is greater
than 300 vehicles per hour. Right turn volume on westbound Peace Street is 876 vph during the
PM peak period. Right turn volume on southbound Capital Boulevard is 385 vpd in the AM peak.
Therefore exclusive right turn lanes were assumed on the westbound and southbound
approaches. As is currently the case, the existing right turn on westbound Peace Street flows
into an auxiliary departure lane on northbound Capital Boulevard. On the remaining approaches
(northbound and eastbound) right turn traffic will operate out a shared thru-right lane. Lane
geometry for the at-grade intersection of Capital Boulevard and Peace Street appears in
Figure 9.

Traffic Analysis
Traffic volume and lane geometry information was entered into Synchro for analysis. Given the
proximity to downtown Raleigh and the urban setting of the Capital Boulevard/Peace Street
junction, a maximum cycle length of 240 seconds was used as a design constraint, and 80
seconds was set as the minimum cycle length. Within these constraints, Synchro determined
that the optimum cycle length was 200 seconds for the AM peak and 180 seconds for the PM
peak. For this study, signal timing parameters at the Peace/Wilmington signal were not changed.
The new signal at Peace Street and Capital Boulevard used Synchro’s optimization subroutines
to set the cycle length and phase splits. The phase sequence was dictated by the fact that dual
left turn lanes always require a protected left phase. In order to maintain reasonable traffic flow
along Peace Street, the signal at Peace/Capital was coordinated with the signal at Peace Street
and West Street. Synchro adjusted the cycle length and phase splits at Peace/West and
determined the optimum offset between West Street and Capital Boulevard. This process was
done for both the AM and PM peak periods. The resulting traffic models were then used to
quantify traffic impacts for the at-grade scenario.

Results
A necessary condition of the at-grade traffic model was that overall intersection delay, on
average, must be less than 80 seconds per vehicle for both the AM and PM peak periods (LOS-E
or better). The Synchro deterministic model predicts that the at-grade intersection of Capital
Boulevard and Peace Street will operate at LOS-F during both the AM and PM peak periods.
Average delay for motorists traversing the intersection is 120 sec/veh during the AM peak and
100 sec/veh for the PM peak. According to the SimTraffic microsimulation model, southbound
queues on Capital Boulevard will exceed 1200 feet for 10 out of every 20 cycles during the AM
peak. Northbound queues on Capital Boulevard will exceed 1700 feet for 10 out of every 20
cycles during the PM peak. SimTraffic predicts that northbound queues will stack up and block
traffic at the Lane/McDowell intersection at least once during the PM peak hour. These results
are based on an average of ten SimTraffic runs and are summarized in Table 6.

Peace/Capital At-Grade Intersection
Measure of Effectiveness AM Peak PM Peak Nearest Intersection (Ft)
Intersection Delay (sec/veh) 121.8 99.5 ---
Level-of-Service F F ---
Average Queue NB (Ft) 1,365 1750 1750
Average Queue SB (Ft) 1,227 561 1990
Table 6: Intersection Measures of Effectiveness
Capital Boulevard/Peace Street
Interchange Alternatives Traffic Analysis
Page 23

Figure 9: At-Grade Intersection Lane Configuration
Capital Boulevard/Peace Street
Interchange Alternatives Traffic Analysis
Page 24

Future Traffic Volumes

In order to simulate the effects of traffic growth between 2012 and 2035, a separate traffic
model was created with an annual growth rate 1% over 23 years (equivalent to increasing traffic
volumes by 26% across the board). The 2035 models were confined to the PM peak period as it
is the heavier travel period. Given that the at-grade scenario operated at LOS-F with 2012 traffic
volumes, it was not included in the 2035 models. Cycle lengths, phase splits and offsets at all
intersections were optimized but the 2012 phase sequences were retained for the existing
bridge and the square loop options. Measures of effectiveness for the Peace/Capital interchange
alternatives with 2035 traffic volumes are shown in Table 7.

Best overall performance was obtained with the square loop configuration and no reduction in
travel lanes on Peace Street. However, optimizing Peace Street to minimize travel time and
intersection delay for signals at Harrington Street and Johnson Street tends to be at the expense
of intersection delay for Wilmington Street.

Peace Street Existing Bridge - PM 2035
Measure of
Effectiveness West St
Capital Ramp
Southbound
Capital Ramp
Northbound
Wilmington
St
Intersection Delay (sec/veh) 14.3 17.8 113.3 181.8
Level-of-Service B C F F
EB Arterial Speed (mph) 8
Arterial LOS F
WB Arterial Speed (mph) 6
Arterial LOS F
Peace Street Square Loop - PM 2035
Measure of
Effectiveness West St Harrington St Johnson St
Wilmington
St
Intersection Delay (sec/veh) 21.0 26.3 26.2 > 300
Level-of-Service C C C F
EB Arterial Speed (mph) 12
Arterial LOS E
WB Arterial Speed (mph) 13
Arterial LOS E
Peace Street Square Loop Reduced-Lane Option - PM 2035
Measure of
Effectiveness West St Harrington St Johnson St
Wilmington
St
Intersection Delay (sec/veh) 55.0 50.5 49.8 > 300
Level-of-Service E D D F
EB Arterial Speed (mph) 4
Arterial LOS F
WB Arterial Speed (mph) 4
Arterial LOS F
Table 7: Future Traffic Volume Measures of Effectiveness
Capital Boulevard/Peace Street
Interchange Alternatives Traffic Analysis
Page 25

Conclusions

This study used intersection, arterial and network measures of effectiveness to quantify impacts
among the various alternative interchange/intersection configurations. If all MOEs clearly
pointed to one alternative as superior to the others, then the task of making a recommendation
would indeed be easy. Unfortunately, that is rarely the case. Typically, one alternative is better
in some aspects while another alternative is preferred in other aspects. City staff must weigh the
good points and not so good points of each before deciding upon a recommended alternative.

Network measures of effectiveness quantify variables such as the average delay time per
vehicle, the average number of stops per vehicle, average speed, fuel used and fuel efficiency of
all vehicles traversing all roads and intersections in the network for a one-hour period. Based on
the average of 10 runs of SimTraffic, networks MOEs are quantified in Table 8.

Total Network Performance - AM
MOE
Existing
Bridge
At-Grade
Option
Square Loop
Option
Square Loop
Alternate
Total Delay/Veh (sec) 428 384 39 39
Stops/Veh 1.28 1.69 0.97 0.90
Travel Distance (mi) 5,279 5,780 6,883 6,940
Travel Time (hr) 1,086 1,073 305 305
Avg Speed (mph) 16 13 23 23
Fuel Used (gal) 403 414 267 268
Fuel Efficiency (mpg) 13.1 14.0 25.8 25.9
Density (ft/veh) 136 111 157 154
Total Network Performance - PM
MOE
Existing
Bridge
At-Grade
Option
Square Loop
Option
Square Loop
Alternate
Total Delay/Veh (sec) 296 286 100 88
Stops/Veh 1.41 2.17 1.65 1.51
Travel Distance (mi) 5,348 5,850 6,604 6,610
Travel Time (hr) 838 880 475 441
Avg Speed (mph) 13 10 16 16
Fuel Used (gal) 346 374 302 294
Fuel Efficiency (mpg) 15.5 15.6 21.9 22.5
Density (ft/veh) 112 87 111 114
Table 8: Total Network Performance Measures of Effectiveness

The square loop option outperformed the existing bridge and the at-grade intersection in almost
every category. Although it resulted in greater travel distance, traffic flow was more constant.
There were fewer stops, shorter stops, less congestion, and better gas mileage under the square
loop option.

Arterial measures of effectiveness quantify the average travel time and speed for a motorist
driving along Peace Street between West Street and Wilmington Street. Travel time and speed
Capital Boulevard/Peace Street
Interchange Alternatives Traffic Analysis
Page 26

are calculated separately for eastbound motorists and westbound motorists. Arterial MOEs used
in this study were taken from the Synchro deterministic model; they are listed in Table 9.

Peace Arterial MOEs - AM
MOE
Existing
Bridge
At-Grade
Option
Square Loop
Option
Square Loop
Alternate
Eastbound Travel Time (sec) 104 208 137 125
Eastbound Arterial Speed (mph) 16.4 8.2 12.6 13.7
Eastbound Arterial LOS D F E E
Westbound Travel Time (sec) 92 166 101 105
Westbound Arterial Speed (mph) 20.3 11.2 18.5 17.7
Westbound Arterial LOS C E C C
Peace Arterial MOEs - PM
MOE
Existing
Bridge
At-Grade
Option
Square Loop
Option
Square Loop
Alternate
Eastbound Travel Time (sec) 111 180 197 176
Eastbound Arterial Speed (mph) 15.3 9.4 8.7 9.7
Eastbound Arterial LOS D F E F
Westbound Travel Time (sec) 119 231 144 156
Westbound Arterial Speed (mph) 15.4 7.9 13.0 11.9
Westbound Arterial LOS D F E E
Table 9: Arterial Measures of Effectiveness

With regard to traffic flow along Peace Street, the existing bridge provides better performance
than the square loop option. This is not surprising since the square loop configuration has one
additional traffic signal on Peace Street. The additional signal, even though it is coordinated with
other signals along Peace Street, must periodically stop east-west traffic and discharge
northbound motorists on Harrington Street. By necessity this increases travel time and reduces
travel speed along Peace Street. However, both the existing bridge and the square loop
outperform the at-grade intersection. The at-grade intersection must give so much green to the
heavy north-south traffic on Capital Boulevard that very little green time is left for Peace Street.
As a consequence, travel time is higher and travel speeds are lower for eastbound and
westbound traffic under the at-grade alternative. Even with manual fine tuning of the Synchro
optimization subroutines, it was not possible to adjust signal timing in the at-grade intersection
scenario to provide acceptable delays or levels-of-service.

Intersection measures of effectiveness include delay, queue length and level-of-service. There
are significant differences in the number of directions served and the number of phases per
cycle between the alternatives. Peace Street and the existing Capital Boulevard northbound
ramp operate as three-phase signals and serve three directions of travel (eastbound, westbound
and southbound). Peace Street eastbound and westbound is the major movement. For the
square loop option, a three-phase signal would be installed at the intersection of Peace Street
and the Johnson Street extension. Peace Street eastbound and westbound traffic would be the
major movement. Under the proposed at-grade signal, Capital Boulevard is the major
movement; Peace Street is the minor movement. The at-grade intersection would operate as an
eight-phase signal. A necessary condition of the at-grade traffic model was that overall
Capital Boulevard/Peace Street
Interchange Alternatives Traffic Analysis
Page 27

intersection delay, on average, must be less than 80 seconds per vehicle for both the AM and
PM peak periods (LOS-E or better) and that queues do not spillback into adjacent intersections.
Even after fine tuning Synchro’s optimization of the signal timings, the at-grade intersection
failed to meet these conditions. Overall intersection delay was approximately 120 sec/veh in the
AM peak and 100 sec/veh during the PM peak. SimTraffic predicts that northbound queues will
stack up and block traffic at the Lane/McDowell intersection at least once during the PM peak
hour.

An additional analysis was conducted to evaluate the performance of the at-grade signalized
intersection in terms of its service to pedestrians. Intersection performance is separately
evaluated for each crosswalk and intersection corner. Pedestrian performance for an
intersection corner is largely a function of the space allocated for pedestrians waiting to cross
the street and is more a sidewalk design issue than a traffic engineering issue. Separate
methodologies are used to evaluate pedestrian level-of-service for street segments and
unsignalized intersections. The evaluation of alternatives in this study is confined to crosswalk
level-of-service. It is not possible, strictly speaking, to compare one large signalized intersection
with two smaller signalized intersections or to compare one large signalized intersection with
one signalized and one unsignalized intersection. With this caveat in mind, pedestrian
performance was evaluated for Peace Street at the Capital Boulevard northbound ramp, Peace
Street at the Capital Boulevard at-grade intersection and Peace Street at the proposed Johnson
Street Signal. The results shown in Table 10 are based on the Highway Capacity Manual 2010
methodology. In general, the square loop option provided the best pedestrian performance.

AM Intersection Pedestrian Performance
Measure of Effectiveness
Existing
Bridge
At-Grade
Option
Square Loop
Option
Square Loop
Alternative
EB Pedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.84 2.94 2.98 3.00
EB Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS C C C C
WB Pedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.85 2.91 2.88 2.89
WB Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS C C C C
NB Pedestrian Crosswalk Score --- 3.95 2.10 2.11
NB Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS --- D B B
SB Pedestrian Crosswalk Score --- 4.16 1.79 1.80
SB Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS --- D A A
PM Intersection Pedestrian Performance
Measure of Effectiveness
Existing
Bridge
At-Grade
Option
Square Loop
Option
Square Loop
Alternative
EB Pedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.87 2.98 3.13 3.13
EB Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS C C C C
WB Pedestrian Crosswalk Score 2.99 3.02 3.03 3.03
WB Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS C C C C
NB Pedestrian Crosswalk Score --- 3.78 2.18 2.18
NB Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS --- D B B
SB Pedestrian Crosswalk Score --- 4.07 1.81 1.81
SB Pedestrian Crosswalk LOS --- D A A
Table 10: Intersection Pedestrian Performance
Capital Boulevard/Peace Street
Interchange Alternatives Traffic Analysis
Page 28

Recommendations

This analysis has been conducted using appropriately conservative assumptions, with every
possible operational advantage objectively applied to each scenario. It also assumes a worst
case in that none of the existing trips on the network would divert to other street in the
surrounding area.

Based on the most current traffic data, a rigorous analysis and an objective review of the results
this study recommends replacing the existing Capital Boulevard interchange at Peace Street with
the Square Loop option as proposed in the Capital Boulevard Corridor Study. Considerations for
the appropriate laneage along Peace Street west of Capital Boulevard should be measured
against NCDOT’s Complete Streets Guidelines once they are finalized. While a reduced-lane
scenario may potentially fail based on future year growth, the advantage of improving bicycle
and pedestrian transportation in the short term may be very beneficial. Further discussion of
this issue should occur with the consideration of the Peace Street East streetscape project,
which will resume with the conclusion of the Capital Boulevard study.

Planning & Development
CB
Capital Boulevard