20140663 All Versions_Complete File_20140630

i
HY221521 4/3/2006 U3308_rdy_ps06 belam IT01-5500c

HY221521 4/3/2006 u3308_rdy_psO7 belam ITOI -5500c

03
c
cy
00
CD
-0
L
00
CD
0
-0
fo
of
07,
0-
C,
-0
<-C
(D
PROJECT OFERENCE NO. SHEETT y�; NO.
ONE— --,s E ­211 u —4308 8
END CONSTRUCT ION' W ---S-i
BLK STEPS HEET 0.
200� ADT IV-, ca
/C ROA�?.� HYDk LfC
—Y6— POT STA. 12,+001-00 1 `C
0
T A. VA CIL NGINEER
cr LINDA R. INEER
AD x --f�<
W
2 1 32' F-F VANESSA E. BELL
CD VAR RASWELL
EVANGELISTIC PRAYER BANP;JNC. �� I . ,
in 10 S) i4 BST -PREU
DB 2923 PG 270
--F �-PLANS 77a IMINARYI`
DB 2313 PG 11 03 4 3 DB 2313 Pb 76
N
vo mr un rm ��4�VcTm
-F.76'
2 132 0
2 (114) DO NOT DISTURB BLK WALL Mm",
INCOM it L DO 1W V=
EXIST. WALL 1
EIP b
.1 �-­, PN 2
V24*0 C4
?:1 O.�
03
j CONC
2
------ --- ----- J -------
0 21 ------
-L- W,/A&?-CH4-- - - ;-OR
ME_ _42 CO.UC- W AL
EU
Zi I� FOR Y6- PROF SEE SHEET 33 EET 2-F 1 � j %
x
2 C\--
cr- I PROFILE FOR TYPICAL SEE SHEET
ITX r 1W 1, c\j
PI Sta 35 +60.87 01 64 E 34 cc)
RESCL E MISSION �iiwcli,1111,11STRI S INC. OR PROFILE S FOR -Y8- TYPICALS SEE SHEET 2-G 2SFDUPLEX
x OTHA & ALICE K I LIAMS-1
8* 2,-f 08-1Y (RT) ------DB 2912 PIG 971 FOR PROFILE SEE SHEET 34 FOR -Y9- TYPICALS SEE SHEET 2-G
77
DB 1502 PG
D /* 08'45.Y US a,
2 In
INV�357.0 2 10 4 14 -Y7- L 733.251 Ir- c! 6 ­. -
R/W LO L.LJ a
T 367.2.1Y ISM j- CONIC --x — 00 \AH 94 11 c� _0 Ln z to
Prop. 4' Con . F 0
HISTORIC DISTRICT
R 5,000.001 46' R/W Sidewalk CD LLJ
1.0 .45 ton C.0
SE NC CINC W
W c 0
R/
L0360
CONIC Ln 3* '38*E
15 RANDOLPH R. 01 1 S2 x-
32* IS BK BUS 01 DB 1336 PG 70 F-
'49-E
------------- S is CR
IC
0, 164
PAVEMENT RE L
IS
OTHER END in I
LnO o- UNKNOWNO C4 Gf
::e —L— POTStG. 4Q-Y--77J4 - z� - - - " .1 III 1 0
u INV ILI-
4.2 3' 0 CLAY 5
- ------- DB 2630 PIG 454 G —Y6— P-GIT-Sta. /0+00.00 (10 02 -1
'i \b0T
ISFD
-`b�ASWEI L
1 R 2 5 F4 u —Y8— POT�-�mllmoo UJI
148KBuS QO/vc —L— POTSta.40+7726 —Y9— TT Sta. c 3 7.80 1
DOCK 15" L Sto 2 +84J6 +
F DB 2006 PG 301
F- — I z W j
W — N I 2SFD -jf I
0.58 0
-Y7- POT Sta /0+00.00 a:
F 30' R GR It , = Q-
4u IL --- - -
CONC 1 20 R x
GR A-- R Z
ts Prop. 267 C&G I NV- gm 0
4. ------
C4 c C/ x47
.14 ------------------------ _ K CD 1
45
)VE CONC H V U)
c
u -IR _j lit
4 0
/V 2'6" C4&GCONC
E
00 V= 21 6 --- co
CONIL,
01.
BST Pro
-!0- ------- Ld
210 PER I W TAP R W CONIC
Prop. ss 60, C N CONC C14 6'CURB
C4 C4 CONIC
EXIST R/W zo ill;
N
4d
8, cl/ v
, -vo 6 RAIS D v N 286 - STEEL
> INV=354 X; REMOVE _8—
TEST HO *19 ss MEDIA G
wp. c TOP UTILITY=3 .051
3r, .4 co
ss G— — — — — — — — — - — — - — — — — —
AO Ill REMOVE
'CLAY SS SS
LOW OFF o
Z� 8, STE G - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — CN INV=354 741 N =347.28 — — —
Pro 2`6ff C& - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W ss
o; @) cl W it I
W ir TEST HOLE 1118 1 'IT
TIS" 4' 95 24.15' RIGHI ram- ', INV=34 m 6" CURB
41' Pro 2'6" C&G
Op= 53 3 60' CO C
CFR EMOV
: l��
-7, N 24* 5-
"CHL P
X—X 48' CHL x C x-
1 EXIST R/W x-
x 0 02
At I
x- TOP EXIST R/W F 171
-BL- c 4 0 c F
72- CHI RE� �(- (2 B
KOVE fid x 2.
EwALK 30 cl- �0+79.7 �7 5
\\PINC
SID 3 F—F F R x Es 81
CONC HISTORIC
E MI N INC. 0 A 12 9+61.01= E �
-L- PO Sta. 0+99.00 x SAAll
­11-T­RT�stc- 39+26.84 U HAM RE (4 2.6 9' T) S -10
x 0113 1251 P 736 1 mi Q) KHALID SALEH tAS
c C4rA,,SEW.1
ISFD CONC DB 2923 PG 123
R.
IN 00 q2 Ic MINISTRIES INC.
D 41 4-x N11 tISSION MINI
_j R SCUE L
u
Ix HISTOR, c D 2642 PIS 738
HER EN[ x-
�3) GP IT
NKNOWN %
0 cj
7�' CHL —W—
I K ID SALEH L91z Q) N
X.
02 oo
DB 36 PIG 726
�n
z
O I Ln G
DURHAM RESCU MISSION INC. x I BUS 15" ISFD Z 0
o6
D13 969 P BL- 113 PINC 4 +88.15
DB 1251 P 7 772' C '— — 0 1
L
CONC K/1 o ISBUS >( PINCI 8+47.71 :2 (D
C Prop. 4' Conc.T? 14- A113 c%j
I __j -L\-\ POT Sta.,\41+07.36 LLI ca
----- ------ (7f) =31
200 ADT -Y8- GR - - - - - - - - - - - c ONC Side 0 L) x
u
0 W
203/0 ADT -2 GR G c cr-
oo +-G Prop. Conc.
C 6 Re, - R, x -EI
- -- - - - - - - - - - - \ -- -• 12 CIO
2 60° CHL I Si �walk
'0 =2 72' CHL. & 12'
8 84.05' x 72' WW/WD
;0 05, (2 x x x—X-
11,00— x 4'28'E
CONC
L 4 L7 X ��5L3 4'2 8 N25*3
/ 1-1. 3.4 0' 73.93'
210 CONC NC )I, —
IN R c\I 10.
210 1-1
ISFO
I n DO
321 q-
I r ne) 1 4 MINI ES I
s S x DB 25 05..
1 15 RESCUE MISSION MINISTRIES IN
1:0 NOT I OZOI V)
Nj D13 3807 PIS 889
U"
A 11 N C-
-41 n 10 s
I
-\j 1211 N24*21'5 O'R/ C-0- Nc
N24'21'58*E NC FD
34.54' ISFD iSFD 75 I RE CUE MISSION INISTRIES INC.
RE��
(0
DB 2553 PG 20
> zl�
Lc; 0 133 DB 1633 PIG 583 1
V (vz & I
P­16��� 4,
115" 11
y 9
V TCH UN HEFT 19
HY221521 4/3/2006 U3308 _j rdy psO8 belam IT01-5500c

cc
c
In
Q
L
00
-0
N-O
U
O/
In
t,_0�
O�
or'
N 7
a_
Q �
of
FOR -L- PROFILE E SHEET 29
FOR -Y10- PR SE __ ET�
FOR Y11�-PRO ILE SEE SHEET 3
F81 - 2- P HtE--SEE__-SHEET 35
FOR R Y13- ROFILE SEE SHEtT-3S
DO T DISTLIB
EXIST. WA � I
ISFD t47 Y
BEVY Go
CRAIG
DB 1186 PG
f �
f
TCH LINE SHEET 22 :r
� I
GR
D NOT DISTLI"
EXI T. WALL
F
r
DO NOT DISTURB
o
o
J FOWLER STREET
EXIST. WALL
r-
�,
D 19 427
B
VIN T N WELL
2SFD.=
,'
i
163
ISFD DB , 1 70 PG 549 ,
NC I
JQ NNA J. HATLEY
ISFD
;coNc
162'
1
DB 4331 PG 733
N
r`t
- i
146
Y
w
DK
i
C
-
�
I t 1 °20'4XI 4GF0"
N
°O
DB
Al
I
72' WD
X
I
29"E - - -
x , N279
I
4 7'29"E .- x X X
6
GR
so'E
o.
- 6-
2
POT +00.
- I
I
----N2
- - °�8=39'E
I
- _ _ _ _
-Y12-
PO
Sta. 12 4.
`'
Q
4.03' LT) 13
I I�
w
-' 74.68' EI
I
I
_ _
GR
S
(>
o
N
r
N
02
00
O
02
.
3
�;-BY15-` �— -SOT 5+00 00 =
w
BILLY W. FOWLER SR.
Y I
o
(II 52 PT)
o
1943 PG 420
Yp- POT Sta. II -- -. co
-
- .
FOR -L TYPICAL SEE SHEET 2=� ---_— I I 164 ISFD I ISIS CONC ISFD
ISFD S O NC I N
" ti
ISFD 149 i I r o �' NOT D URB � 30� I
FOR Y 0- TYPICALS SEE SHEET 2-G o
CON 30' w c o a3i ,�HARL1= MOORE EXIS . WA i 3 I�.
FOR - 11- PItALS SEE SHEET 2—G GRADY T. & -_- _- L , I F w
JOSEPH{NE VEASE I I DB 1706 PG C NC ' VINS N ASWELL
6 PG 398 \ F — — I � o
- TYPICALS SEE SHE�.T-2 32 i I _ - _ 3 1 DB I G 335 NQO
FOR Y13- TYPICAL SEE EET 2-J i I 4 C� � '-' I
1 �'�-�' - X X_ _ _ _ _X� ' N24°07' 9'E RE�BAR � 4°21'45'W
FO RETAINING L #2 ENVELOPE I w_ J 48, ww/w 1,4°07'2� 79. GR t I ,ram 27'
S SHEET 29 - -
x X-.�=-x-- I i ,13
36Q1 I
L- f--
----- —� X— rtX48'CHLx� I I ` ----- ---`\ / � I 102 02 GR ---_
x = I - _ HIS _RIC I 3 -- --- -----_ --
DIS RI I r a E. RiRLEY HIS
DISTRICT
0 I DB 941 PG 379 TRICT
/i f -
€ 102
X
C47 0 ,�
L. Ec ISFD 5 - I�
ETHEL CRAWFORD i I ^' THOMAS .FOWLER + OO
N
DB 1374 PG 214 I- I doN CHARD R. WELLO S E TATE o ISFD —� s
G 16 6 DB 1943 PG 413 � (02 � ��`�
Lli DB 3 N I ' 25' S
N I / AASEky 5
C cv A/ _ O I EASEMENT DER
% ISFD 6 192 C M L— — 3
+75 _----------- `° I
w---° - - GR -L- OT Sta. 44+6 . - + • 0= - X
- - _ _ _ _ -Y12- POT Sta. 0+00.00 102 0 3 7
_ - - - - - - POT Sta. l0 0, 0 -Y13- POT Sta. l +00.00 -L- PC Sta.
X x_ I - 20' -Yll- Sta. l0 I I
_.
I - ---
15'
CARPORT G i I ` 5
CONC 0 02 C / / = F 'l, 48" W/WD EXIST R/w
—'I —--------- --- l 15 / -
- EXIST R/v \ X x
X —
4 -- - ----
/W-EIR)EIP
_
c
` I I 6' CURB CB
- `'q� ` I CCF
--� --- --- I' I
\ I I � — — — F3.E� ALE- 8" STEEL N — — �s-- —� M G — — � �1
P p.l'6" GI --- An ---------G-- - / �l
REMOVE — —G— \\\ —------- -- —G-- r�
= I , " r0 . 4 slan / 16' CI w —
��� I REMOVE I_ - - - - - - - I /
w - - I Prop. l 6" � o�-
`/�/ p EXIS R/w 60' CONC
\ i
6� " � LL LANE �-
� —R V� � I N � �
// N CB
N 4° 6' 4 .8' \ s rn i I / os N c Z
U N o I N 24" 06' 30.3' E
/ CCFR Exls R/w
5 Prop. 2'6" C&G
i co I Pro GU A IL Q
�KI i L -L
15" ,\T 0 021 ,------------ ____
OVE
' R -BL- 115 PINC +
S
fgsE RY S f c 5 R 2 _ _ I N
MfNr weR 5 £q,TARY _ + - Y16 A115 PINC 7+20.22 I I
F SEJlEf�T WfR - Y13� Sta. 10+16.02 I I i FRANCES DOBROVODSKY X
- - ' \ ' - � (21.55' R � � I I I DB 2814 PG 817 53
_____HISTQRI --- F I -�'� RETAI �� 30' j �, � I `�
Q S25°50'56'W
�.i DIS CT 1 02 -� , \ GR RESCUE MISSION MINISTRIES INC 2 / I I x x x x
= I \°�o/VC \ HIS ORIC DB 3934 PG 943 — — I� I I e Prop. Re in Wall cH�
I? m 51 - - - ta. 6+8
- ---- � D r w 0 Rt
-- X
\ N Z / 3 � �...,,, S oX
11 �� I -BL 5- i A114 IPING 62� \ / �' SIC, I EN
STRUCTI N
RESC� MISSION I -I P -L- OT +81 55 �� o X'' I I _ _POT +2 .00
MINISTRIES INC.I I 2 02 (27. T) .\ 'o �� �3�"C / M w II 1 Y13
DB 2642 PG 738 - X I `� ; Q Ln \��� \ / \I I , I I oNC ISFD FRANC LICK�HORIC
�, I , / 4 III DISTRt� `.
- 370
ISFD I MARIE H. JOHNSON PLUG EV
. D , 21 PG �.
V _
48 06 �� �_ s
� I � DB 1627 PG 351 � � � tD � o' R w
U '� 2 ' sA
Iw30' /W I I \ \ _ J iv I I 6 fASf fNSE
WE/C
INS I �N ISFDi—
i N I GR I , -
I ' 6 SON B GR - CARPORT ` G
I I P T �
ci
35
i
MAT CH"a Ll L- SH ET 2/ 3�Q.
�tr�
Q i —1 i
PROJECJ REF NCE NO.
U -3308
RJW/ SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
v
2Q03 ADT -Y1n-
2OK ADT
(in I 's
-L-
200.E AU i
2030 ADT
(in I-1O's)
-L-
210
-,J-2I
54„
C
P/
Sta 49+09.71
A=
28' 2/' 52.8" (LT)
D
= 6° 2/' 58.Y
L
= 445.55'
T
---'5e227.44'
R
= 900.09
SE
= 3%
RO
= /70'
210
321
I,J
210
321
EET NO.
9
ULICS
JEER
ITS
O
ILNS
N
HY221521 4/3/2006 u3308-rdy_ps09 belam IT01-5500c

HY221521 4/3/2006 U3308_rdy_ps 10 belam ITO 1-5500c

a
\ \ r I I 1 I I X 1
X I I I I X
1 i i PROJECT R O RE�E O. SHEET NO.
ti
r' 1 i
\---- + ; + �HEO NO.
O \ O CMG RdADWAY 1 IG . Y
qj O \ O c, c, ���� I ' , ! x i i `. j i ENGIN X - - = - - 1= GINEER - - -
Lc)`O �, \ 04r i ' % i
----- — ------
c j N��N \� O = �b /�\ / { 3 a40 - - -- - - --
\ Q ap \ Q V ll j �` I• �/' I ��b I \ r �i /�' X 2 3 0
O N
I� 1, I N O
Q �O� �NN �`,,` 6� ` v�� C�NC U I I �, x� X I
II II II II II I O vo / Cb
r
v is
I � I Co.>- �ONC i I / ,
Ln
1 /
�I� W
�i 2 i
' I IO VA/ A ram, ♦ / , 4,� I I I I I I - -
L In O ' / I • /\\ c �� 4 } ,
/ '/ � � I ' 1 , \\ / o� J,L \ , � I I I I f I X I
r /
/ /C,, O / \ I / \\ \� �, ', 03
r r i i
/
/ 30' C&G 4 r� I
I / I 1
1
X f I I I f X ---
CONC
///
tn
/ > M
/ 20 BST X
01/0
X X X X X
\r A • �� VA = Q ��� r'
Cb
O
\ \ 0c1
• 2 /�G — —lko
36- NC / / 36• C NC — - o� p ,"' 2 \ \
O 0� o — 2 0 \ x
9 mid -� z� �
o `t. • '
mCL
\ \,
co
\• / 0 b f
ONO ,� / rn�� �� \�♦`\� \���� -- ---_ II I •
k -----_ ANC N x
- - - -
// \ \ \ �k •
O
k •/� \ \ \ \
r ! ,
i
co
Wyk
/ �/ i -- -- - \ '
lb
1
- \\ \ k�-------------
X
,/ , ''v r k
00
/ , /i•/ %' - - / \ \ -- -_-- \ it
1� / / r
HY221521 4/3/2006 0308_hyd_dm belam IT01-5500c

co
C
cy
L
00
CD
:D
u
0,-
CD�
<-C
T REFERENCE NO. PRqEC SHEET N6,
q63 2 ADT
ADT
Y4-8-
30 ADT 6 WW �HEET No.
2030 ADT
7
VATC E L L 2-�
ROADWAY DESIGN, HYDRALICS
Y18 in 100 n 12 B W ENGINEER ENGIN R
F-j WA 72- CHL�YBLE 1-0
- 156 15
POT 5 8S
x
+ a0O CONC R ELL
St 7
'u- ")q+0-5-44 f23
co 42 T 0 E 123.4
07 0) ...... ...... ......
INCWPLETE
um Fm R/ W
L -
2 192 Ll INARY7
tv 206
�w USX
317 CP 09**�
------ ------ 1 317 305 -Y18- PRC
DOCK TERRELL
9 D13 3021 PG 13
CONC 316 8 F/
BST LOADING 1
DOCK
--------- ---
BST
x W
INV=362.
H
4 IN Y 18 TOPz369 4 Ln un
-Y17- 106 i
/1 NOI* Ln
Z I 1\� 4 2'4 8'E 00 X
62. I V=36 1 .3 5'
FOR -L-, PROFILE E SHEET 30 •
-Y18-
FOR -Yl\6,\- PROFILE S E < PI Sta 54+81.89
/O/v u
ET 35
END CONSTR CT `FOR SEE S T35 __j PI Sta H+27J6 0 Z 161 520 (RT)
F- 01 *10
-Y16- ►POT Stu. #44Q.00 I A -f 03" 09k" (RT) D 0* 42'58.Y
FOR -Y1 8- RqFILE SEE SHEET
D 6* 21*'58V IO2 L 318.5YBST Fi;5 x
.11 SEE MEET 2 FOR -Y18- INTERSE TI D L 63.66' T 159.2,cl NAD 83
(15 V) ETA(L
Ix
L' TYPIC LS"---' T 31.84' R = 8,000.001 FOR A S"EET 2 B & 2-C►'err R 900.00'
co FOR -Y16 TYPICAL __ 'r I i I1 1 V) SE NC x
I tt: x T1. SE SEE PLANS
SEES
00 1 FOR -Y17- PICAL SEE S
, 1 0 HE 2�-- RO SEE PLANS
(D
SOUTHERN RE R SERVICIf INC. 25 1 PI Sta 14+09-52 c x
DB 1039 826 x CONC 01
6` 00 Lu T /9 05.7' (LT) x1m
60 Juu C FOR -Y18- ICALS SEE EET 2-HI & 2-1 D /* 25' 56.6 0 c
F5 2' CHL
(D FOR RETAININ WALL #3 1ELOPE SEE SHEET 29 L 500.44'
0 00 c� CID T 250.55' x
W r"i FOR RETAINING WALL #4 LOPE SEE SHEET 30
Ln C\j 0 1 1 1
LL 1 0 + - q- W R 4,".W
5i
o a- + x SE NC EARL PICKETT ENTERPRISES x
< n W - I INC. tv 3:: " \
DB 1447 PG 932 0 rn
00
0-
+CO�� C-Lo F 05 00 -L- POT Sta. 54+19.5
I -Z 7 1 L�) -:;� J- -L '\\POT Sta 57+22-31 P
c� __j c u')
-Y16- POT Sta. /0+00.00 -Y18- OC Sta. 13+82-3119 CHANN IZATibN 1SBKBUSO x 0
S z in
ECCLESIA HOUSE OF PRAYER INC. BST C RB M
><= 0 1
q- <1 <
(\j LLJ CC) m
ISBK4P 1 4 :2 j C colvc -L- POT Sta. 54+21.17 DB 2462 PG 593 c <
-Li LLJ I ao LI --in I x
I LLJ C,[� -J c
E3 >- -� \ -Y17- POT Sta. /0+00.00
I \ 0
CP
i I -- -- BST 7 R
4 40' R PROP. 65' R x
06 'TAPER
PROP. CHANNELIZATION u 41 c 175-
A-NN, E L I ZAT I ON - - - - - - - - CURB C A.
7- 1/ B WNING
FE)kl�,T P/w CUM-,, PT \Sta. 56 +41J4 I I c c c 3ro 05 PG
BST
IV)
ou x U
Pmn- JvA- rg-r-
-::V/ Cj "c
1<�� UNG Pro C\\]
6' CURB ZO L IS' CON LLI
04
--Zl� C & G f-rOP. 2`6"
CONC CONC : I ------------ C&G
CB
-CON c
-Ij 8 STE L REO NE X ----- -
fjrop-1'-6"-C&G- OVE 6' CUR EXIST R/
IG 0 10' BLK WALL
M z 42. Prom 4' Conc. island
NC 55 6'CURB
8' STEEL
ST
TOP= X
SS
8' CLAY
12" CI
ss_ 11 =3 5 E 4
1'6" C&CP42.6 35
W Ss- MH C4
'TAPER FULL TOPz358.4 8" STEEL
- - - - - - - - - - - - INV=352 TOP�35:),Ijz3-
+ -w- 121 Ci
-PC GUN( zo- - A-7, -W-
N 4014' 02.8 CONC -77- 61 CUJ-R'T'- 10 6'CURB FULL
-E .=EXIST ifw-
I ------------ L 4 T- F:UL
S 12' CI
rop. 2'6" C&G R I - ICONC - 48'CONC Ef /W W
\ I T U
1 0 -1-1 48- CONC 1 3 9' 5 0.9 BST
< (jb p 1 .1 2' EXIST R/W
C
•
C?tG CNI
0
1 0 NO
ji I --
ER ri
UL T PROP.
F BST
N/C CHANNELIZATION (0) B
< 2-ISL'S
Tie Prop. CURB 6-GAS PUMPS
tn 1 - I - - 1
Sidewalk 20' R coNc U/MTL CANOPY c 11-1 ----------- PROP. GUARDRAIL
F 1-1
F EO'S SEAFOOD OF in P 4
--,to Exist. CONC z c
461 01 Uni ?HAM L.D.R. INC. 02
0form a er
co 0' R M.M. FOWLER INC. B 1039 PG 581 5' End Pro p. Retainin Wall 4 )L
NV=33�.� DB 1029 PG 808 PROP. S021
NZ11 ---L -- S Our-
+ CHANNELI ION 13
ASEMEt H 00 R
Cv) 25' SANITARYIN 38.55 4' S TIC CURB I- - 'T -
HE END 6 LO S 0' R
S TOP .06 NK 0 THE SALVATION /��My
8- CLAY GR
02% NV .16 5 DB 1239 PG//782
� I- .. L 118 PINC
S �D 7+ .86
JEAN 6@5
Ld TRAWICK PROP. c 0 61
ISBLKBUS BYI - A 118 /P1 64
-------- D13 142
rb b8I W
A co ----------------- L CHANNELIZATION t a. 5 7 *'61.8 2 '�I. 7' T)
z
Lu CURB
c\j 18
DURHAM PUBLIC SCH'POLS F/ c-4 Z
T
WALL If
BOARD OF EDUCATIONL 0 8ST
Lu U) 01 S ALL
02*45,44,w
X 0c) 0 01 + 0
uj GR
v) C) 00 2 BK
DURHAM Pui3uc . - t - A
0
I V
2 *4 5'4 4'W SALVATION
D13 1838 PG 314 cv) W6 CONC �!!' /W-I EBA R Di 8' CLAY LA R Y
TION�02•4 '41 -�-- == = == = ==: == `OTHER END
BARW
SHEET
"Bu
3
I n
UGI.fX
1.4 3�
28
18
E EET 35 �T 3
SEES
H SEE r SHEET
_yj 8_ INTERS
G 314 W 9, UNKNOWN
ST D13 1838 P
END CONSTRUCTION Z:
u 0
-Y17- POT Sta. 11+45.00 c D U IF 0 -1� ----
A
I V 11 021 1 1
PATCH LINE SHEET 24
HY221521 4/3/2006 U3308_rdy_ps1I belam IT01-5500c

00
00
CD
_0
0
(0
000
0,-
In
(_00
0-7,
0
_0
<1-c
v
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
co
U-3308 12
FOR
X_ FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEETS 30-31 L- Ty CALS SEE SHEETS 3/ & 2-C
RoW SHEET NO.
FOR -Y2 PROFILE SEE SHEET 32 FOR -Y2b- TY
PkAL SEE SHEET 2'\�- ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
1186 FOR -Y 1- PROFILE SEE SHEET 35 F0-R--_-Y21- TYPICAI��EE SHEET 2--
X_x
CD
PI Sta 64+92.07 FOR -Y 2- PROFILE SEE SHEET 36'FOR -Y22- TYPICALt\\S1EE 4ET -1 & 2-
8" BLK WALL W/5' CHL
U
Z 05/ 27Z (LT)
S TUB INCOMPLETE PLANS,
D F5 CT2255J" W moT Va ]MR it/w Acx"rrtow
L =��547_3_'Y
T = 273.73' PRELIMINARY PLANS,
B IN COV!3TRIIrTlnm\� 00 NW US$ FOR COMMUCnON.
co C NC R 15,000.00'\ ,,, -Y20-
/0+�5.00 ISFD SENC Ic
V)
�Nc
SF 1xi
ISFD CONC ;u
IN
c c
0
/i I �i �i TIE PR P. SIDEWALK
-Y20- POT to. /O+op.00 0%`.,C)
_W� -
TO EXI SIDEWALK
0 CONC
E NOO'29'53 C
&G
X-X-X 117.25'
IN .25 E P-R/W 60;�HL I I i 1 0
_J77� 00 10*4 ■ v m a
MIE L. & G-E 741 mc&G
MH 0 *35'41'E RkLDINE-K -
- - - - - - - )TC:' 9.96
YZUffG`toq)`f'1\-
D13 M6 f�G 8g6
KI cp
�OGR - - - - - - CoNc\\ RETAI N CONSTRUCTIO
GR 4.09 9.5�?'
--------
POT Sta.12 *55.00
F 160.26'
2 R +76.5 c)
A\4`MS IN ESTMENT CO. INC.
0 JE*NETTE'\TUCKE D13 67 PG 70
CAROLYN _X. -BRO'WNI ISFID >
%DB 3521, PG I
Lu
D13 305 PG 327 IN W C-1 \TETAIN T G
F
/W 0 DRIV
BK y 6. POT 5-�00.00
EWA
ISFD
EXIST
_c - L Y20- 10+46.35 \(15.33' I�T)S EXIT
JCONC
-0 -, .74 TIE PRO IDEWAL
C14 E
x &_ ui (n TO EXIS SIDEWALK
0 CL
ISBLKBUS
01H C X
T P 00 c E uj END
LINK W ISBKBUS
F
G - EIP �qp83 F
SC12 Ui: osc
Nol*
EARL M. & DELORES EVANS 02 o
121.05, 1
1751 TAP 0 NOI'35'41'E ! i
DB 935 PG 957
, I z - ~PROP.
`44 9. 3 6'
C ARM 6 F _74
HENRY M. & GLENN CHERRY CHANNELIZATI \ \ \�o�
20 R
POT Sta. 60+23 DB 1817 PG 688 CURB T
+36.1
F
c POT Sta H+52 0
26 uj ISFD PROP. -L- POC S 3 iL7\8- M
0 _t - - - - - - - - - CHANNELIZATI N 60' R (-Ufvc -Y22- POT Sta. 11-43
U
F CURB 0�
FD CONC
Q /1 ` / I I 55' R
POP. C. Lo CONC ISL
U-)
TF PS
360 I'
p c
rO d[6" C& CFR
Ir BST
CIO
EXIST IN) EXIST /W
6, TEST HOLE # C.)
WALL `
u 13' LK WALL --j Jv L-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIJ
TOP UTILITY=334
C _j 6_s
tAi
Ltj LAJ S
ST
V) 6, CU I!
AP 7__ _j
u REMOVE 109 TAI U --j
z HOLE *30 JRB
0 -L- 63+59.28 -L-c-
E 46 E 24.28' LEFT
U Z Qj�� _E TOP UTILITY=335.45' - - - .35 r EST HOLE #29 cv)
-L- 6 8.83 5.21' RIGHT cv)
81CL Y TOP u TY=336.84'
_G - - - - - - - - - - - 8*STEEL L Lo
SS G' L G - - - - - - 8'STEEL
cl S 8' CLAY -- - - - - - - - Pz338.36 - - -G-
ss 12" Cl
0'-FULL-LANE W - - - - - - - - - u- W -
OTHER EN C4 7- D r
Z ss PA
W - - - - - - - UNKNOWN TFST HOLE # 8 u OVER
EEL- I
- - - --- - - - - - L r,'�+17 Ao 0 'IGHT MH
77--cu - --- - - - - - - - TOP� 538.63 00
0 C EXIST R/W / 11 W/
A _411 CUR III IN - MH
08' 41.6■ -711. - , -V-2 5 ILL
Cq CZ
Ld GR EXIST R/ z_ N N
48'BLK WALL b' C -P-81, T
cvl ~ ( _-------- /'--------------- ----,_ 48"BLK L
V)
48'CONC
p
C0 N L I`DI
G - - - - - - - - - - - GR
- - - - - - - - - Lu
CHA ES R.
cc I S
ELL
LONS ESTATE
RE %low 36 PG 453 u
B 2
rAIN 3
3
u I c c
_L_ �OT Std. 60419.87= 20' R co A P�U
Fl-
F ► 32 F" CONC u� c
0 20' R c All C) 2SBKAPT CH U0 LCANOPY
_Y21- POT St 10+00.00 .1 -
Q)
.91, V) PROP.
PLA
350 2SBKAP
GR CONC CONC NNELIATI
I a: I CURB
CONC 0-1-35--
N, ------ ----------
F_ 8 0 D8 c c F-
-BL- 119 1 1 -Tv- -- -- -- 340' RT.
Ld ff
'INC 60+29.02 SAJAI & 50' R -
StNGDEUANE H
)IA
3L Bs
_�2d A 60' R
SALVATION I - TAPER
I PING 6+28.73 DB 3S\46 PG 548 1 7
PUMP
T14E �cl
-L- Sta. �E 0+42.82 F 1) co
(22.39" CY CHARLES R. WELLONS ESTATE
DB 12 G 782 PING 63+96.86
DB 237 PG 175 \-BL- 120 GR
65 L-0 up Y22�C]AI62 PINIC 8+76.11
C +50
I I �c% c-------
-C.- s +10.39 (21.29' RT)
L VENT CAPS
��
2SBK
02 CONC EC 70N�P S ATION 52 F-
_�-'-BY20-7,11151 POT _(+ 0.7-3-= CONCI
ARMY
END qqXS_rRUCT1
S02*48'29-W
OJ5 I.-L- Sta. 60+45.0-6_04.37' GR E WN DIST/RtBU`TikG-,,CORP INC.
11 03 12 3.8 10413 POT STA 11+25 D8 1025 PG 740---------
S0I*33150'E IC4
Ol 0 ISBLK BUS
03 ADT
20I_)3 AD -Y20- 20
Q-1
EXIST-.'
TOP=343.39 96" BLK
__WALL
2030 ADT 3 GAS-3500 GAL
MH 2030 ADT
100/s) (in 100/s) AVID MCQUEEN SR. -----------------
---PI3/3
INV= .54 DB 3291 PG 169 # NOO'17'03'E
-L------- - - - - - 151.23'
CONC ISFD
C NC
10 1 L 02 Lk Lu
L L CL
CONC 9 V Z DAVID MCQUEEN SR.
2SBKAPT 21 CL -C IN
Q) 192 0 :5 D13 3291 PG 158
W - - -b l 305 192 306 -REB Z ISFID
9.2 - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - -_ 39'341 4'
uj 306 4 12 01 13 REB 0.12,01 �> >_ L 8
15
< 52
---------- I ' )___ - - -_ I c
ESTOY GO 1 4r.��/w 1
co _j 0 C-H - Esr E Ln
O.
I Irvc
OTH�RA D L CONC 150 PT 993 Is
UNKNOWN
340
E 15
LINE SHE
y 21 T
HY221521 4/3/2006 u3308_rdy_ps12 belam IT01-5500c

co
HY221521 4/3/2006 U3308 rdy_psl3 belam ITOI-5500c

00
CT
Q
L
00
c�
i
0
o�
OC)U
o,-
Qo
o�
0—
N 7
L
a�
Q
M�
O L
HY221521 4/3/2006 U3308_rdy_psl4 belam ITO1-5500c

l
14Y221521 4/3/2006 U3308_rdy_ps 15 belam ITO 1-5500c

a'
co
HY221521 4/3/2006 U3308 rdy_psl6 belam ITO1-5500c

co
0
co
0
110
0
0
N/C
iiIITA-014
LO o -NSS - - ' �I­
S 60 40'
35-5m E
L-Li
c
L-L]
N/C
31
N/C
N
--N N— POT Sta. 30+40.00--
-END CONSTRUCTIQN
—NSS— POT Sta. 30+*.00
-BY24- 170 POT 16+23.N =
-NSS- POT Sta. 29+96 6 (18.77' RT)
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
U-3308 17
RW SHEET NO.
FOR —NSS— TYPICAL SEE SHEET 2—M FOR —NSS— PROFILE SEE SHEET 40 ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
FOR —NSN— TYPICAL SEE SHEET 2—M FOR —NSN— PROFILE SEE SHEET 42 ENGINEER ENGINEER
INCOMPLETE PLAN$
to, IQ r un pm it/w AcQuwlrs?IA -
x
�x
LLJ
77
RETAJ
ING
��� — —'_ _ _� (F URE RETAINING W I ic)
FUTURE
C&G
6. C, CLA 5 C, Nc —w—
ss Top.-
9
I�—& TYPE N =395-60 TWH::402.99 CUR6 z
(ms) 1KNOWN i - — — 1IN
w— V=395.59
PET ST '--UNKNOWN S 6 CID
29�2" E
INV=395.8 Z- ::�- ::�: -z :�z 15' CONC
CB kt I — �!-- -- 20 —'CIExlsr w—
/W —'�gT—T'CR-EC ST
EB —(XEE T w-- C,
Wi X
f-- NIX
L
—w— PETTIGREW ST 91
=,�93. 1:
Ss
ctt S 301 59.3N E 9
INVz3 A. C,
—W— Ago
END FUTURE ss
co INV=394 06 .06 2" PLASTIC
C&G &x
16, ci
=t
SOUT ERN REP SERVICEINC. -T
N.
RR Row
-----00 -----------
t7
oot7
00t,
SOUTHERiV RR
D
C&G
w- W
- - - - - - - - - - w - - - - - - - - - — 2a - - --- — — — — — — — — 24,, CI
10' CLAY S 66 14 / 2 21-:7 E
ss _ss _ss ss-
16" C1
— — — — — — w --. — — — — — — — — — — wr - — — — — — — — — — - F-L-UIC)-REVV—STREET —
400-____
LID 11J9J r"12 879 (g a- --- — I
>- w
< F- SOUTHERN REPAIR SERVICE INC.
-j V) END
D13 1093 PC 879
CONS
I OVERL TR N
TT S 00
X
0—
IN ANNA LOUISE SOWELL GR S.
B�RTIE ELNORA SOWELL
LS AND
Q0 9@7 ISFD ANO:
GRAVEL S AND F K HUSBAND JOHN ELS, ANNA LOUISE SOWELL GRAVES,
IIISOWELL, U
LYSSES SOW LL BERTIE ELNORA SOWELL KEELS ANN
EST I�TF B 1995-E PC 948 15' CONC co SOUT�ERN R
zz -BY5- 134 PINC PAIR SERVI HUSBAND JOHN W.KEELS,
LAJ 3: 16+50.65 ISFD WLANO SOWELL AND FRANK
Q� (D PB 109 ULYSSES S�ELL
I z PC 879
uj'."� NSS,,-- POT Sta. 30+35.00 (121.9�' RT
MZ I ESTATE BOOK 1995-E PC 948
,I I1D ISFD ISFD
cr-
z -BY5- 135 POT 18+86.84 = 6 C) En
J-)
ISFD -BY9- P 41235 OT 8+39.39 —
Lu
------- --ff 3.55' RT)
"low -L7,�#OT Sta 21 1 TAS [I u
- - - - - - ISFD
CD ISFD
HY221521 4/3/2006 U3308—rdy_ps17 belam IT01-5500c

co
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
w _ U —3308 /8
on RIW SHEET NO.
J 6 , OADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
J NGINEER ENGINEER
-_j ,
am Og,
_an all.PBLIMINARY PLANS
I �
N/C---------- : _ -_--- _�_"
1 — =TI R
1 _
` 8• TIMBER_
GR
HISTORIC DISTRICT 1
CD
1 "'�000
1------------ /
v t
1 v-
`\. ` GR EVANGELISTIC PRAYER BAN. INC.
1 � '
DB 2313 PG 770
CID
1 `---- - - - ---
j /\
-
1
1 ISBLK '
�■�■�■�■�■�■�■ 1 8•TIMBER
OTHER END 7f7
1 i AND CONSTRUCTIONPOT 5+UNKNOWN Y12OT 5+�� ��STAdo
+85.00 -Y4- P T S1 a. 5.62� (19.31'RTSS 'i
-- _ _— E X 72 D %Di$T
— _ XfST Riw X I uRB
1-0 00 SS TI)— _ —_ — P — — — — —x� EXIsT I�gL� J
r D
X (D /
0 7 ���� _ _ �� — X %C
O 25
8' Ci X� C
FOR Y4— TYPICAL SEE SHEET 2—E
FOR Y4— PROFILE SEE SHEET 33
SEE SHEET 33 FOR RETAINING WALL #5 ENVELOPE
co
Q
i
L
co
1D
/
rn-0
..fo
Oj
LO U
O�
O :3
N
C L
a-0
aC
M�
O L
ss
X
— _ 6• Cl C&G EXIST R/wGo
I
4f4l* ST SS rn ryJ
8•CI---=—c= \ BST o w U
H R
--_ —w__— 0 Ln
—c— SS
oD
TC-
�� W r- Ltd
REBAR O r _ _ _ UTILITY_ 77.2
Q - -`�
' J
�--CURB `� 6„ Cl
-- �\ __ _ — _
��
ioposed CONC � -Yq- 1TES T HOL 16LLJ
ILITY — 8s -- _—
Reta l n l n —� — � 6 I q O' RI T
-Y4- Stq. 13 + 8 .0 20' , U 37
(TIE TP' EXIST. OVA Q k -___ \ I 60-
/lti is -Pr os
W k Retaining\ _ c
Y4- Sta. 13 + 0 \ _
1 � 1
I c* /---
LARRY L. NICHOLS X
P •6„
z DB 2585 PG 366 n • f r er `� '1 �C& c Q
N/C �' � 20' G
� �• I 4
LAKEISHA R. WILLI
DB 2631 P I �' I ;. Prop. ' Conc.
1 ,
ISFD 116 PF , C " `� ' Q 1 Side alk
. C. Sidewalk
1
HARVEY L. &
�V_ +rr-- ; PEGGY M. MAYNARD
DB 1238 PG 625
GR
a '
coNC BETTY C MPBELL
DB 258 P 355 ' 1
Proposed Retainin Wall #
-Sta. 1 + 72.00
28.40' Lt. '
ISFD
`l
\\ CONIC
1
1
1
ISBLKBUS
o
I I "E' . S582808
� >
Z I 88.74' \ 1 1
is
HY221521 4/3/2006 u3308_rdy_psl8 belam IT01-5500c

PROO. •
kW SHEET1 NO.
ISFMTLBUS Prop. I
II II
U
•11-
C1
it i
)D/ Sto 18+85J8
L 209.0.Y
eII IIIVEEN=
T = 104.5Z
II II II
II II
R = /0,000.001 0
SE NC
P.
;(N POT sta.
ISM
LM
ran
ISFD
P
361' BST E
'CONC m
ff IN I
man A 01
TEST HOLE 48
L-
a �wd 21+39.02 mi mom 1.19'LE,FT SIMMONS MAIMMA
TOP U LILY-19-1-6161 MEMO Ecru !Rumim �
:� C-- _
111W, K1'GC-&
15' CONC M i
/////////�iC�Ilii� , II I� �. II -
wm WAId
?UTL ?UTL
175
DTAPER L4i� "MEIAN LANE - --�',%
ILH FULL
ss
i -nigLE-
RIGHT FULL -L- 21+39.12 9. �4Y w
y 7,
--31 1111111111111111M. if I TOP UTILIT Prop. 2'6" C&G
6'CI W
_71 C13 60'CONC
------ Tr
]RAN Jill
iff. MMIMM ELI
TEST Hj
XIST Oo 06' 57
+35.99 111114.47, q
F 36' �L-23 IUH I
TOP UTILI-Ft,: 96.5 0, IN&
I —C? BST MISSION.
•
C
-L- POT 2J+05�36=
C F 21
GR oof II
NIP a
I II II
SOUTHERN REPAIR 'SERVICE INC. lo,
-111 IRI PIW. 2R+76.10 "o
BST
if
5 181 PING1-(+93.19
yp 3SFAPT
0 2 +87.30 z
uI
LO! ISFBUS
+ BY 168 :4N
36.76 8ST
Y- OT S 00
141 14 1.8 LT) - CL
C\jii
.1 / I
(D
00
2 If i II
/BEGIP4 LO
BST I FUTURE F
�c Prop. Point Stri ing FOR -L-,, PROFILE SEE SHEETS 2
I C&d
Pro .01
00
jjF I _-0
(1 PROFILE S ETS 31-32
FOR -Y4
Prop. 2'6
-0i
GUARDRAIL C& F R -N N- PROFILE SEE SHEET 41-42
�J
I Approach Skit) FOR - S- PROFILE SEE SHEET 39-40
EGIN
FOR - SXN- PROFILE SEE SHEET 43
(F
---------------- f?E WALL) F UR A FOR - TYPICALS SEE SHEETS 2-A & 2-\B \0 /8' +\IMBERS
It
FOR TYPICALS SEE SHEET 2-D
/7--
CON
LIAR RAIL FOR CSX- RAIL TYPICAL SEE SHEET 2-M
"IJ V)
i
FOR - SN- RAIL TYPICAL SEE SHEET 2-M
5 -
------- B Y 32 i�iji C\j
j I;0 FOR SS- RAIL TYPICAL SEE SHEET 2-M
POT St / I
i FOR EMENT-BRIDGE RELATIONSHIP FOR
E (9.19
15 -Y- 0 R -L- TYPICAL SEE SHEET 2-N
Pr R URE PLANS SEE SHEETS S- THRU
-/@-1- -1 1 zu I FOR STR
Prop. I►I I
C
5' Conc
7D C
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
Sidew ENGINEER EER
zz &G Q0
>
U-1
L0 �-J�C H L &
SB4
)(\j PSI Vol (C\j
X
(-D
23'13ST ;1j '0 1 1 -T---,>(— I k Nm
x
II I
I -N-
W ALL JVW
—xcr
P
"Ll MR
Ns
0
01 A
cs z
:111110 NOT- Al*1
x C x C\
IVATCHi LINE HEET! 16
HY221521 4/3/2006 u3308_rdy _jvs05 belam IT01-5500c

W AT �9QG
co
MEMORANDUM
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
August 6, 2007
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
To: Melba McGee, NCDENR Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
From: Rob Ridings, Division of Water Quality, Transportation Permitting Unity
Subject: Comments on the Finding of No Significant Impact related to proposed widening of NC
55 from NC 147 to US 70 Business/NC 98, Durham County, Federal Aid Project No.
STP-55(20), State Project No. 8.1352801, TIP No. U-3308, DENR Clearinghouse No.
08-0028.
This office has reviewed the referenced document dated received July 27, 2007. The Division of Water
Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
activities that impact Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. It is our understanding that the project as
presented will result in impacts to jurisdictional streams and Neuse Riparian Buffers. The DWQ offers
the following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
Project Specific Comments
1. This project is being planned as part of the 404/NEPA Merger Process. As a participating team
member, the NCDWQ will continue to work with the team.
2. UT Ellerbe Creek is class C, NSW; 303(d) waters of the State. DWQ is very concerned with
sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that the most
protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff
to Ellerbe Creek and its tributaries. DWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment of the
storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of NC
DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
This project is within the Neuse River Basin. Riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and
minimized to the greatest extent possible pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B.0233. New development
activities located in the protected 50-foot wide riparian areas within the basin shall be limited to
"uses" identified within and constructed in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0233. Buffer mitigation
may be required for buffer impacts resulting from. activities classified as "allowable with mitigation"
within the "Table of Uses" section of the Buffer Rules or require a variance under the Buffer Rules.
A buffer mitigation plan, including use of the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program, must be
provided to DWQ prior to approval of the Water Quality Certification.
General Comments:
4. The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary as required
by 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan
with the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to
issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
N�o e�Carolina
Transportation Permitting Unit Nturallm
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone] Internet: httpJ/h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An F-m ini nnnnr i mitvlAffirmativa Artinn Fmnlnver — 50% Recvcled110% Post Consumer Paoer

5. Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives should include road designs that
allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the
most recent version of Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed swales, buffer areas,
preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
6. After, the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance
and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. In
accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)},
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the event that
mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions
and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as wetland
mitigation.
I
7. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules {15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)),
mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream.
In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate
lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as
stream mitigation.
8. Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, should continue to
include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding mapping.
9. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. NC
DOT should address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the aquatic
environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
10. An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project is required.
The type and detail of analysis should conform to the NC Division of Water Quality Policy on the
assessment of secondary and cumulative impacts dated April 10, 2004.
11. NC DOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill,
excavation and clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included
in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary
or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application.
12. Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we
realize that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that culverts
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms. Moreover,
in areas where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove preferable. When.
applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent practicable.
13. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands or streams.
14. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could
precipitate compensatory mitigation.

15. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into streams or surface waters.
16. Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams may require a Nationwide Permit (NW) application to the Corps of Engineers and
corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards
are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal
of a formal application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware
that any approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and
stream impacts to the maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater
management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
17. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to prevent direct
contact between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured
concrete should not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible
aquatic life and fish kills.
18. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction
contours and elevations. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and;
appropriate native woody species should be planted. When using temporary structures the area
should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush -hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re -vegetate
naturally and minimizes soil disturbance.
19. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be placed below the
elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches, and 20
percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low flow
passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures including
temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in dis-
equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the
above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being
maintained if requested. in writing by DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock or
other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact the NC DWQ for guidance on
how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be required.
20. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural stream cross
section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills "where
appropriate. Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at the inlet
or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that
requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
21. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented
and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion
Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250. .

f
22. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area. Approved BMP
measures from the most current version of NCDOT Construction and Maintenance Activities manual
such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and other diversion structures should be used to prevent
excavation in flowing water.
23. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of
Wetland Significance (NC -CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent
inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
24. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This
equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from
leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
25. Riprdp should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner
that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly
designed, sized and installed.
26. Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) should be preserved to the maximum extent possible.
Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of
the growing season following completion of construction.
The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your.project.. Should you have any
questions or require any additional information, please contact Rob Ridings at [phone].
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., NCDOT PDEA
Clarence Coleman, Federal Highway Administration
Chris Murray, Division 5 Environmental Officer
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Gary Jordan, US Fish and Wildlife Service
File Copy

Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number County Date Received Date Response Due (firm deadline)
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office
Regional Office Area
In -House Review
Asheville
Air
Soil & Water _ Marine Fisheries
_ Fayettevilke
_ Water
_ Coastal Management
Mooresville
_ Groundwater
_k4ildlrfe
_ Raleigh
_ Land Quality Engineer
_ Forest Resources
_ Washington
_ Water Resources _ Environmental Health
_ Wilmington
— Parks & Recreation _ Solid Waste Mgmt
Winston-Salem
✓Water Quality _ Radiation Protection
Air Quality _ Other
Manager Sign-Off/Region:
Date:
In -House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
No objection to project as proposed
_ No comment
Insufficient information to complete review
Other (specify or attach comments)
�7nn,
RETURN TO: ✓04 —
Melba McGeer ar 0
Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs r0,04
.:^InyrM

0
DURHAM
NC 55 (Alston Avenue)
From NC 147 (I.L. "Buck" Dean Freeway) to
US 70 Business/NC 98 (Holloway Street)
Durham County
Federal -Aid Project STP-55(20)
State Project 8.1352801
WBS Element 34915.1.1
TIP Project U-3308
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
AND
Final Section 4(F) EVALUATION
Su
APPROVED:
lv 2010 7
Date foWregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Branch Manager, PDEA
Date John F. Sullivan III, PE
Division Administrator, FHWA
K)

DURHAM
NC 55 (Alston Avenue)
From NC 147 (I.L. "Buck" Dean Freeway) to
US 70 Business/NC 98 (Holloway Street)
Durham County
Federal -Aid Project STP-55(20)
State Project 8.1352801
WBS Element 34915.1.1
TIP Project U-3308
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
AND
Final Section 4(F) EVALUATION
Document Prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch by:
everly G. Robi ison ?,.
Project Development Engineer �,��►���°a�®��,,���
SEAL
"//� �JI14�L 02488
Derrick G. Weavev! P.E.
Project Development Group Leader
4�°`��✓
'6K G.
2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PROJECTCOMMITMENTS...................................................................................................... i
I. TYPE OF ACTION............................................................................................................. 1
II. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION............................................................................................. 1
III. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE................................................................................. 2
IV. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS............................................................. 3
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION............................................................................. 3
A. Distribution of Environmental Assessment......................................................................... 3
B. Comments on Environmental Assessment..........................................................................4
C. Public Hearing.....................................................................................................................7
VI. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ........................................... 7
A. Project Commitments..........................................................................................................7
B. Summary of Environmental Effects.................................................................................... 8
C. Description of Proposed Action.......................................................................................... 8
D. Proposed Typical Section and Alignment...........................................................................8
E. Intersections/Interchanges................................................................................................... 9
F. Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations........................................................................... 9
G. 'Landscaping ..................................................................:.................................................... 10
H. Alternates Currently Being Studied/Main Street to Taylor Street.. .................................... 10
I. Table 5...............................................................................................................................11
J. Air Quality Analysis...........................................................................................................11
VII. CHANGES TO PROPOSED DESIGN............................................................................. 17
VIII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT...............................................19
IX. FINAL SECTION 4(f) ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION/MEMORANDUM OF
AGREEMENT....................................... ........................................................................... 19
. Proposed Action 19
2. Section 4(f) Properties...........................................................................................20
3 Impacts on the Section 4(f) Properties.................................................................. 22
4. Avoidance Alternatives......................................................................................... 23
5. Measures to Minimize Harm................................................................................. 24

6. Coordination..........................................................................................................26
7. Department of Interior Coordination.....................................................................26
8. Basis for No Feasible and Prudent Alternative to Recommended Alternative .... 26
9. Conclusion.............................................................................................................27
Figures
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Aerial Mosaic
Figure 3A Proposed Typical Section
Figure 3B Proposed Typical Section (Side Streets Within Historic District)
Tables
Table 1 — Summary of Environmental Effects............................................................................ 3
APPENDIX
Appendix A- Comments Received on Environmental Assessment
Appendix B — Public Hearing Comments

PROTECT COMMITMENTS
NC 55 (Alston Avenue)
From NC 147 (I. L. "Buck" Dean Freeway)
to US 70 Business/NC 98 (Holloway Street)
Durham County
Federal -Aid Project STP-55(20)
State Project 8.1352801
WBS Element 34915.1.1
TIP Project U-3308
Roadway Design Unit/ Program Development Branch
Eleven (I I) -foot inside lanes and fourteen (14)-foot outside lanes will be constructed as a
part of this project. The 14-foot outside lanes are proposed in order to accommodate bicycles.
The City of Durham has requested six foot sidewalks be provided along both sides of
Alston Avenue for the entire project length. The City has also requested sidewalks be provided
along one side of streets to be converted to one-way traffic (see Section III -A in the EA) within
the Golden Belt Historic District. A six (6) foot sidewalk will be provided if the city agrees to
pay for the extra foot of width. However, if additional berm width is required to accommodate
street lights and utilities, the City may agree to standard five (5) foot width sidewalk as
previously proposed for the project. A municipal agreement will be prepared later in the design
process prior to construction regarding the provision of sidewalks.
PD&EA — Office of Human Environment
A memorandum of agreement (MOA) will be prepared for the adverse effect to the
National Register -listed Golden Belt Historic District before the completion of the final
environmental document. The MOA is included in Appendix B of this report.
Geotechnical Unit
Preliminary site assessments will be conducted for all potentially contaminated sites
within the proposed right of way prior to right of way acquisition. This is a Standard NCDOT
Procedure.
Roadside Environmental Unit/ Program Development Branch
- The City of Durham has requested landscaping within the proposed median or within the
berm where possible. Landscaping plans will be developed as the project progresses. A
municipal agreement is required only if the desired landscaping cost exceeds the amount
established by the landscaping policy. After an establishment period of three years, the city of
Durham is responsible for maintaining the landscaping in the project area.
Finding of No Significant Impact i Page 1 of 4
June 2007

Roadway Design/ Division 5 Construction
The following measures are included in the design of the proposed project to minimize
harm to the Golden Belt Historic District and the Holloway Street Historic District Expansion.
These measures were coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Office and are listed
below.
• Berm widths through Golden Belt Historic District were reduced from 10 feet to 8 feet.
■ All 4:1 slopes were changed to 2:1 (cuts and fills).
• One retaining walls were added through the Golden Belt Historic District.
■ The full right turn lane from Alston Avenue to Taylor Street was eliminated.
■ Berm widths along Holloway Street are 6 feet with sidewalks, with 3:1 slopes minimum.
■ Franklin Street and Worth Street on the east side of Alston Avenue will remain two-way
streets with a connection to Alston Avenue and no additional improvements. The west side
of Wall Street will be a one-way street. The east side of Wall Street will be cul-de-laced to
minimize impacts to the Golden Belt Historic District.
Temporary easements will be required from the historic property in order to construct
sidewalks proposed for the project. The State Historic Preservation Office has concurred the
project will have "no adverse effect" on Branson Methodist Church (Asbury Temple United
Methodist Church) if NCDOT will only acquire temporary easements (no permanent right of way
or permanent easements) from the church property. In addition, NCDOT must replant grass,
replace sidewalk disturbed during construction and tie the new sidewalk into steps leading to the
church building.
FHWA/N\'CDOT
To allow the maximum time possible for relocation, NCDOT shall, early in the right of
way phase and/or through protective purchase as necessitated, focus on the acquisition of the
property at 1202 Taylor Street.
Following standards prescribed in the NCDOT Right of Way. Manual, the NCDOT Right of Way
Branch will provide the former owner the opportunity to repurchase the house structure as a negotiated
sale at the salvage value as determined by NCDOT. As part of the contract for the negotiated sale of the
house (NCDOT bid form 14.8), the house must be relocated no later than ninety (90) days prior to the
construction letting date. If the owner chooses to enter into a partnership with PD after the reptrchase,
the house must be relocated within the Golden Belt Historic District or the East Durham Historic District
(Historic District) with restrictive preservation covenants in place. Funds equivalent to the NCDOT
estimated house demolition cost will be made available to the owner to assist in the house relocation.
These funds will be payable upon the successful completion of the relocation within the Historic District.
If the property owner declines to retain the house structure, NCDOT will notify PD that the
house is available for sale. PD will be given the opportunity to market the house for sale with restrictive
covenants in place. Marketing efforts by PD shall include advertisements or articles in the PD newsletter,
on its website, or in other local news media, providing information about the house and showing the
house to prospective buyers with the assistance of NCDOT. The marketing period will begin after
Finding of No Significant Impact ii Page 2 of 4
June 2007

NCDOT has acquired the house and the tenant has vacated. Marketing by PD prior to tenant vacancy
will be permitted with the permission of the tenant and NCDOT.
While PD will be responsible for marketing the house, the sales transaction of the house will be
managed by the NCDOT. NCDOT and PD will be required to coordinate their efforts in order to ensure
that NCDOT requirements and procedures for the public sale of improvements are followed.
Relocation of the house by a third party purchaser shall not begin before the vacate date for the
current occupant unless clearance is obtained from the NCDOT Division Right of Way Agent. The
relocation of the structure shall be completed within sixty (60) days following the vacate date ,or ninety
(90) days prior to the construction letting date, whichever is later.
If a third party purchaser chooses to enter into a partnership with PD, the house must be
relocated within the Historic District with restrictive preservation covenants in place. Funds equivalent to
the NCDOT estimated house demolition cost will be made available to the third party purchaser to assist
in the house relocation. These funds will be payable upon the successful completion of the relocation
within the Historic District.
PD shall make every effort to provide prospective owners with information about current lots
available within the Historic District for potential house relocation. The new owner shall be responsible
for the lot acquisition and moving the house within either historic' district. The new owner also shall be
responsible for all permits necessary to move the house and shall be encouraged to move the house in a
manner that minimizes harm to the historic fabric. NCDOT shall purchase and PD shall provide the
owner with a copy of Moving Historic Buildings by John Obed Curtis.
If no lots are available within the Historic District for the house relocation, NCDOT will allow
the relocation of the house outside the Historic District as long as the new site is compatible with the
goals of -historic preservation. However, funds equivalent to the NCDOT estimated house demolition
cost will not be made available to the former owner (after repurchase) or any third party purchaser to
assist in the house relocation.
If the new owner, to include a third party purchaser, defaults on the terms of the negotiated sale
agreement or fails to move the structure in accordance with the agreement or if PD cannot find a new
owner willing to relocate the house as part of its marketing efforts, the house will become the property of
the highway contractor and may be removed and/or demolished.
NCDOT shall build a concrete retaining wall on the south side of Taylor Street east of
Alston Avenue to avoid encroaching upon houses east of 1202 Taylor Street. This simple,
unadorned wall will be approximately three to four feet in height.
In consultation with SHPO, PD, and City, NCDOT shall develop two landscape plans. The first
plan will provide for a raised planted median constructed on Alston Avenue, within the Golden Belt.
Historic District. The second plan will provide for a vehicle tum-around occupying a vacant lot at the
southeastern corner of Alston Avenue and Wall Street with landscaping limited to the side of the turn-
around facing Alston Avenue. NCDOT will replace in kind any landscape elements which die within
three years of installation. After the establishment period has expired, the City of Durham will be
responsible for maintaining the landscaping in the project area.
Finding of No Significant Impact iii Page 3 of 4
June2007

NCDOT will install concrete bollards to close Wall Street to vehicular traffic at its western
terminus with Alston Avenue. Should the concrete bollard design prove to be not feasible,
NCDOT will consult with SHPO, PD, and City for the review and approval of a design
alternative.
NCDOT shall provide background materials on the history of the Golden Belt Historic
District for the Durham Public Schools. The school system may use this information to develop
an educational module on the history of the district. The purpose of the module is to increase the
students' awareness of historic resources within the North East Central Durham community.
Additional project commitments are listed in the attached MOA stipulations. See
Appendix B.
Finding of No Significant Impact iv Page 4 of 4
June 2007

NC 55 (Alston Avenue)
From NC 147 (I. L. "Buck" Dean Freeway)
to US 70 Business/NC 98 (Holloway Street)
Durham County
Federal -Aid Project STP-55(20)
State Project 8.1352801
WBS Element 34915.1.1
TIP Project U-3308
I. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has determined this project
will not have a significant impact on the human environment. This FONSI is based on a
November 22, 2005 Environmental Assessment (EA), which has been independently evaluated
by the FHWA and determined to adequately and accurately discuss the need, environmental
issues, and impacts of the project and appropriate mitigation measures. The EA provides
sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is
not required. The FHWA takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope and content of the
Environmental Assessment.
II. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion and improve safety along Alston
Avenue between NC 147 and US 70 Business/NC 98 (Holloway Street).
The project involves widening existing Alston Avenue to a mostly four -lane median
divided facility with curb and gutter and sidewalks along the entire length of the project. The
proposed project is approximately one mile long (see Figure 1).
It is anticipated approximately 100 to 120 feet of right of way plus easements will be
required to accommodate this facility. No control of access is proposed for the project.
The proposed project is included in the 2007-2013 Department of Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition is scheduled for Fiscal Year (FY) 2007
and construction is scheduled for FY 2010.
The current estimated cost for the proposed project is $28,320,000, which includes
$23,300,000 for construction and $5,020,000 for right of way acquisition. The cost included in
the 2007-2013 TIP is $24,425,000, which includes $23,300,000 for construction and $800,000
for right of way acquisition and $325,000 for prior years cost.

III. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
In the EA, east side. west side and symmetrical widening of existing Alston Avenue were
studied. The proposed project was divided into three sections in order to evaluate alternatives.
The recommendations for these sections and the alternatives examined within each section are
described below.
NC 147 to Main Street — West Side Widening Recommended
Due to constraints, only west side widening was studied for this portion of the proposed
project. Two historic properties, Branson Methodist Church (Asbury Temple United Methodist
Church) and the Pure Oil Filling Station, are located on the east side of Alston Avenue in this
area (see Section V.B. La. of the EA). Widening to the west will minimize impacts to these
properties. A five -lane curb and gutter cross section is recommended from south of NC 147 to
south of Pettigrew Street. From south of Pettigrew Street to Main Street, a four -lane 16-foot
median divided cross section is recommended (see Figure 4A).
Main Street to Taylor Street — West Side Widening Recommended
A four -lane 16-foot median divided cross section is recommended from Main Street to
Taylor Street. Both west side and east side widening were examined in the EA for the portion of
the project between Main Street and Taylor Street. In addition to east side and west side
widening, three alternative treatments were examined in the EA for the three streets intersecting
Alston Avenue between Morning Glory Avenue and Taylor Street with west side widening. The
portion of Alston Avenue between Morning Glory Avenue and Taylor Street passes through the
Golden Belt Historic District. West side widening is recommended between Main and Taylor
Street.
Alternative treatments were examined in the EA for Worth, Franklin and Wall Streets
with west side widening. The recommended alternative treatment for Worth and Franklin Streets
on the east side of Alston Avenue is to maintain the existing two-lane two-way streets. No
additional improvements will be made to these streets. Wall Street on the east side of Alston
Avenue will also remain as a two-lane two-way street however, the intersection with Alston
Avenue will be removed and a turn around constructed. Worth, Franklin and Wall Streets on the
west side of Alston Avenue will be narrowed to 20-foot wide streets and converted to one-way
traffic.
Taylor Street to US 70 Business/NC 98 — Symmetrical Widening Recommended
Symmetrical widening is recommended for this portion of Alston Avenue in order to
minimize impacts to homes and businesses surrounding Alston Avenue. A four -lane 16-foot
median divided cross section is recommended from Taylor Street to US 70 Business/NC 98.
2

IV. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Table I presents a summary of the anticipated environmental effects for the
recommended alternative.
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMF.NTAT. FFFFCTc
Residential Relocatees
19 v
Business Relocatees
4
Non -Profit
1
Apartment Buildings
2
Wetlands (Acres)
0
Streams (Linear Feet)
40
Noise Impacts
26
A National Register listed historic district, a National Register eligible expansion to
another listed historic district and two individual properties eligible for the National Register are
located in the project area. The proposed project will have an "adverse effect" on the National
Register listed Golden Belt Historic District. The project will have a "no adverse effect" on the
National Register eligible Branson Methodist Church (Asbury Temple United Methodist Church)
if environmental commitments are met. The project will have "no effect" on the National
Register eligible Pure Oil Filling Station and the expansion to the Holloway Street Historic
District.
V. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Distribution of Environmental Assessment
The approved EA was circulated to the following federal, state and local agencies for
review and comments. Copies of the comments received are included in the Appendix of this
document (note: An asterisk indicates those agencies that provided comments on the EA.)
US Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
*US Environmental Protection Agency
*US Fish and Wildlife Service
US Geological Survey
*NC Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
NC Department of Cultural Resources -State Historic Preservation Office
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources-DENR
DENR-NC Division of Water Quality
DENR-NC Wildlife Resources Commission
*City of Durham
Durham County Commissioners
Durham City Council
3

B. Comments on Environmental Assessment
Substantive comments on the Environmental Assessment are discussed below:
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Comment: Due to the urban nature of the project area and lack of fish and wildlife habitat,
the Service does not have any concerns with this proposed project. We concur that the project
will have no effect on federally protected species.
NCDOT Response: No response needed.
US EPA
Comment: The EPA has no outstanding environmental concerns for this project. Should any
of the impacts related to this project change, the EPA requests updated information regarding the
impacts. EPA also requests a copy of the FONSI once it becomes available.
Response: Any changes to impacts related to the recommended alternative are included in
this document. The FONSI will be forwarded to the EPA once it is approved.
DENR-Division of Water Quality
Comment: UT to Ellerbe Creek are class C; NSW waters of the State. DWQ is very
concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ
recommends that highly protective sediment and erosion control BMP's be implemented to
reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to the UT to Ellerbe Creek. DWQ requests that roadway design
plans provide treatment of the stormwater runoff through best management practices as detailed
in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
NCDOT Response: Highly protective sediment and erosion control BMP's will be
implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to the UT to Ellerbe Creek. In addition, .
roadway design plans will provide treatment of stormwater runoff through best management
practices as detailed in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management
Practices Guidelines.
Comment: This project is within the Neuse River basin. Riparian buffer impacts should be
avoided and minimized to the greatest extent possible pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B .0233. New
development activities located in the protected 50 foot wide riparian areas within the basin shall
be limited to "uses" identified within and constructed in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B .0233.
Buffer mitigation may be required for buffer impacts resulting from activities classified as
"allowable with mitigation" within the "Table of Uses" section of the Buffer Rules or require a
variance under the Buffer Rules. A buffer mitigation plan, including use of the NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program, must be provided to DWQ prior to approval of Water Quality
Certification.
0

NCDOT Response: Riparian buffer impacts will be minimized to the greatest extent possible.
A buffer mitigation plan, including use of the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program, will be
provided to DWQ prior to approval of Water Quality Certification.
Comment: Several general comments for roadway improvements as it relates to water quality
are included in the Division of Water Quality's letter dated March 3, 2006.
NCDOT Response: Items included in the general comment section of the DWQ letter
mentioned above are Standard Operating Procedures and will be addressed as Standard Operating
Procedures if applicable.
City of Durham
Comment: Right turn lanes — As noted in previous correspondence there is significant
pedestrian activity along Alston Avenue. The provision of right turn lanes at several of the
intersections along this project is dangerous for pedestrians and will impede safe pedestrian
movement at these intersections. Ironically, the City is currently working with NCDOT to
remove the islands and free right turn lanes at other locations in the City to improve pedestrian
safety. Further, the capacity analysis of the intersections at which right turn lanes are proposed
does not indicate a need for right turn lanes to provide an acceptable level of service. Therefore,
we request again the exclusive right turn lanes be eliminated from this project. We would be
willing to consider exclusive right turn lanes on Holloway Street without islands so that these
lanes could operate under signal control to provide a safer pedestrian crossing.
Response: Several right turn lanes have been eliminated from the proposed project since the
project began. Right turn lanes along Alston Avenue at Angier, Main Taylor, Liberty and
Holloway Streets were eliminated from the design Pedestrian refuge islands are proposed for the
project and will be constructed at intersections where right turn lanes are proposed.
Comment: Street Cross Section — The proposed cross section recommends a five foot
sidewalk located two feet from the face of the curb within a ten foot berm. Due to the heavy
pedestrian activity along this corridor we recommend that a six foot sidewalk be provided and
located a minimum distance of three feet from the face of the curb to provide a safer environment
for pedestrians. A twelve -foot berm should be provided to accommodate utility poles behind the
sidewalk.
L Response: Six-foot sidewalks have been incorporated into the proposed design. The standard
width for sidewalk is five feet. The City of Durham will be required to pay full cost for the extra
1 foot of sidewalk. A municipal agreement will be prepared regarding the provision of
sidewalks; a five (5) foot sidewalk width may be necessary if additional berm width is needed for
street lights and utilities. A ten -foot berm is proposed in the project area with an eight -foot berm
from south of Morning Glory Avenue to Taylor Street. The proposed berm width can
accommodate the proposed utility poles along the project if breakaway poles are used.
5

Comment: Treatment of Streets Intersecting Alston Avenue — We recommend that Wall
Street continue to intersect Alston Avenue from the east and that two-way traffic be maintained
on Worth and Franklin Streets on both sides of Alston Avenue if this can be done without
increasing the number of homes to be relocated. We also recommend that sidewalks be provided
on one side of these streets. We further recommend that the curb radius at streets intersecting
Alston Avenue be minimized while providing sufficient radius to accommodate anticipated
vehicular traffic.
Response: Two-way traffic will be maintained on Worth and Franklin Streets on the east side
of Alston Avenue. Worth and Franklin Streets on the west side of Alston Avenue will be `
narrowed to 20 feet wide and converted to one-way streets. Changing these streets to two-way
streets with the proposed improvements will require the relocation of several homes within the
Golden Belt Historic District. Wall Street on the east side of Alston Avenue will remain two-
way, however the intersection of Wall Street with Alston Avenue will be removed and a turn
around constructed. No improvements will be made to Worth and Franklin and Wall Streets on
.the east side of Alston Ave including sidewalk. Four -foot sidewalks are proposed on both sides
of Wall, Franklin and Worth Streets on the west side of Alston Avenue.
Curb radius will be minimized at every intersection along the proposed project. The
reduction in the curb radii will require DATA buses to turn into the inside through lane on Alston
Avenue instead of the outer lane. DATA buses currently use Main, Liberty and Holloway
Streets. The reduced radii's at these intersections are areas of concern for the Department. The
City of Durham requested the reduced radius and takes full responsibility for the design.
Comment: We also question the alignment shift of Alston Avenue between Angier Avenue
and Main Streets and with the removal of the right turn lanes recommend that the alignment shift
to the east to the maximum extent possible.
Response: The alignment shift between Angier Street and Main Street. is required to avoid
impacting two historic properties located on the east side of Alston Ave between Angier and
Main Streets. A shift in the alignment to the east would impact the historic properties and is not
recommended for the proposed project.
Comment: We further find the proposed eight to ten foot lowering of the existing grade to
Alston Avenue under the railroad unacceptable and request design alternatives that will reduce
the magnitude of the grade change to Alston Avenue at the railroad to no more than three feet.
Response: The minimum vertical clearance below the railroad and pettigrew Street bridges
was reduced from 16'6" to 15'6". An additional 3 feet grade change is not feasible and would •
not meet required design standards.
Comment: We respectfully request that the final design of this project be context sensitive
and the aforementioned recommendations be included in the final design.
0

Response: The final design of the proposed project will be context sensitive and all of the
changes made to the design at the request of the City of Durham and agreed upon by the
Department are included in the final design.
C. Public Hearing
A combined formal public hearing for the project was held on November 3, 2006 at the
Hayti Heritage Community Center in Durham. Approximately 29 people attended this meeting.
Citizens were asked to comment on the recommended alternative for the proposed
project. Four persons spoke at the public hearing and 19 written comments were received after
the hearing.
Three of the four persons that spoke at the hearing expressed concerns with a variety of
issues related to the proposed design along Alston Avenue. Some of the design related
comments received verbally at the public hearing or in writing following the hearing include the
following:
1. Eliminating right turn lanes along Alston Avenue.
2. Restriping the proposed 14-foot outside lane to a 3 foot bike lane and 11 foot travel lane.
3. Widening the sidewalk along Alston Avenue to 6 feet.
4. Reducing the intersection radii along Alston Avenue to allow design vehicles to safely
make turning movements.
5. Providing decorative plantings along Alston Avenue within the median, over and above
what is normally provided.
6. Reducing cut under railroad structures along Alston Avenue.
The public hearing officer and NCDOT planning and design engineers addressed these
questions during the public hearing. In addition, a post -hearing meeting was conducted
involving NCDOT professional staff and management along with City of Durham
representatives. All public hearing comments were reviewed at this meeting to ensure full
consideration of these comments. Details regarding these comments received during and
following the public hearing are addressed in this document therefore, responses were not
repeated in this section. Post -hearing meeting minutes addressing these comments are included
in the Appendix.
VI. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Project Commitments
Page ii of the Environmental Assessment (EA), under the Roadside Environmental
Unit/Project Development Branch heading it states " After an establishment period of one year,
the City of Durham is responsible for maintaining the landscaping in the project area." The
establishment period was changed to 3 years.
7

B. Summary of Environmental Effects
Page iv of the Environmental Assessment (EA), under Summary of Environmental
Effects presents the relocation impacts as approximately 21 homes, 5 businesses, and 1 non-
profit organization. Based on a revised design relocation impacts are 19 homes, 4 businesses,
1 church (non-profit) and 2 apartment buildings.
C. Description of Proposed Action
Page 1 of the EA, under Cost Estimates, the current estimated cost is listed as a total cost
of $23,520,000 to include $18,500,000 for construction and $5,020,000 for right of way
acquisition. This current total cost was updated to $28,120,000, which includes $23,100,000 for
construction, and $5,020,000 for right of way acquisition. The total TIP cost was listed in the EA
as $19,300,000 to include $18,500,000 for construction cost and $800,000 for right of way
acquisition. The total TIP cost in the 2007-2014 TIP is $24,425,000 to include $23,300,000 for
construction $800,000 for right of way acquisition and $325,000 for prior years cost.
D. Proposed Typical Section and Alignment
Page 6 of the EA states "Several side streets along the project will be converted from
two-way to one-way traffic as a part of the project . Worth and Franklin Streets on both sides of
Alston Avenue and Wall Street west of Alston Avenue will be narrowed to 20 feet wide curb and
gutter on both sides and converted to one-way traffic. A sidewalk will be provided along both
sides of these streets. Wall Street east of Alston Avenue will remain two-way, but the
intersection of this portion of Wall Street with Alston Avenue will be removed and a cul-de-sac
constructed."
"Converting these streets to one-way traffic is proposed because retaining two-way traffic
and a connection with Alston Avenue would require adjusting the vertical alignment of all of
these streets. Changing the vertical alignment would result in relocating most of the homes on
each of these streets. These streets are all located within the National Register listed Golden Belt
Historic District (see Section V.B. Lb. of the EA). Retaining two-way traffic and a connection to
Alston Avenue would require relocating 15 homes within the historic district which would not
otherwise be affected by the.proposed widening. Converting the streets to one-way traffic and
providing a turn around on Wall Street would not relocate any homes which would not otherwise
be affected by the proposed widening."
The recommendation for intersecting streets within the Golden Belt Historic District
includes two-way traffic maintained on Worth and Franklin Streets on the east side of Alston
Avenue and Worth and Franklin Streets on the west side of Alston Avenue narrowed to 20 feet
wide and converted to one-way streets. Changing these streets to two-way streets will require the
relocation of several homes within the Golden Belt Historic District. Wall Street on the east side
of Alston Avenue will remain two-way and the intersection of Wall Street with Alston Avenue
will be removed and a turn around constructed. No improvements will be made to Worth and
Franklin and Wall Streets on the east side of Alston Avenue including sidewalk. Four -foot

sidewalks are proposed for both sides of Worth, Franklin and Wall Streets on the west side of
Alston Avenue. See Figures 2, 4A and 4B.
E. Intersections/Interchanges
Page 7 of EA states "Exclusive right turn lanes are proposed on at least one approach of
the following intersections with Alston Avenue: at the west bound ramp and loop at NC 147,
Angier Street, Main Street, Liberty Street, Taylor Street, Gann Street, and Holloway Street. The
City of Durham had asked in a letter (see Appendix A in the EA) that exclusive right turn lanes
be eliminated from the project in order to enhance pedestrian safety. Because of this request,
several previously proposed turn lanes were eliminated. However, due to the high number of
right turns at these intersections, not providing a right turn lane at these locations would severely
affect the capacity of the intersections. In addition, as discussed in Section II.B.2 in the EA,
Alston Avenue in the project area has a very high accident rate. Over 43 percent of these
accidents are rear -end collisions. ' The proposed right turn lanes should reduce the likelihood of
rear -end collisions by allowing turning traffic to move out of the through lanes."
The City of Durham has submitted additional letters to the Department requesting the
removal of all right turn lanes along the project. Exclusive right turn lanes have been removed at
Taylor Street, Liberty Street and Holloway Street since the completion of the EA.
A meeting was held February 7, 2007 to discuss design issues relating to the proposed
project with the City of Durham. At the meeting the following decisions were made regarding
right turn lanes and pedestrian accommodations:
The right turn lane proposed at Angier Avenue is required and can not be removed from
the proposed design. Liberty Street east bound and westbound -right turn lanes will be removed.
Since the project began, right turn lanes have been removed from several intersections
along the proposed project. In addition, pedestrian refuge islands and push button signals will be
installed at all intersections with the exception of Angier Avenue. The Angier Avenue
intersection inhibits the space for the pedestrian refuge island because Branson United Methodist
Church (Asbury Temple United Methodist Church), a historic property, is located at the Angier
Avenue intersection. However, a push button signal control would be installed at this
intersection.
F. Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations
Page 8 of the EA states "The City of Durham has requested sidewalks be provided along
both sides of Alston Avenue for the entire project length. The. City has also requested sidewalks
be provided along one side of streets to be converted to one-way traffic (see Section III -A of the
EA) within the Golden Belt Historic District. In accordance with NCDOT Pedestrian policy,
NCDOT will bear the full cost to replace any existing sidewalks to be relocated by the project.
The City of Durham will participate in the cost of new sidewalks in areas where sidewalks do not
W

currently exist. A municipal agreement will be prepared regarding the provision of sidewalks
prior to project construction."
The City has also requested six foot sidewalks be constructed along the proposed project.
The Department has agreed to construct six-foot sidewalks if the City agrees to fund the entire
cost for the extra one foot of sidewalk in addition to sharing the cost for new sidewalk in
locations where there is no existing sidewalk.
Fourteen -foot outside lanes will be constructed along Alston Avenue to accommodate
bicycles. See Figure 4A.
G. Landscaping
Page 8 of the EA states "After an establishment period of one year, the city of Durham is
responsible for maintaining the landscaping in the project area."
The establishment period has been changed to three years at the request of the City of
Durham.
H. Alternatives Currently Being Studied/ Main Street to Taylor Street
Page 11 of the EA states "West side widening with a combination of cul-de-sacs and one-
way streets would relocate the least number of homes and businesses. With this alternative,
Worth and Franklin Streets on both sides of Alston Avenue and Wall Street west of Alston
Avenue will be narrowed to 20 feet wide and converted to one-way traffic. Wall Street east of
Alston Avenue will remain two-way, but the intersection of this portion of Wall Street with
Alston Avenue will be removed and a cul-de-sac constructed."
The recommendation for the streets within the Golden Belt Historic District includes two-
way traffic maintained on Worth and Franklin Streets on the east side of Alston Avenue and
Worth and Franklin Streets on the west side of Alston Avenue narrowed to 20 feet wide and
converted to one-way streets. Changing these streets to two-way streets will require the
relocation of several homes within the Golden Belt Historic District. Wall Street on the east side
of Alston Avenue will remain two-way and the intersection of Wall Street with Alston Avenue
will be removed and a turn around constructed. No improvements will be made to Worth,
Franklin and Wall Streets on the east side of Alston Avenue including sidewalk. Four -foot
sidewalks are proposed for both sides of Worth, Franklin and Wall Streets on the west side of
Alston Avenue. See Figures 2, 4A and 4B.
10

I. Table 5
Table 5 Impacts of Alternatives Examined Between Main Street and Taylor Street
Alternative
Total No. of Relocatees
Homes Relocated
(Main St. to Taylor St.)
Homes (Businesses)
Within Historic District
West -Side Widening w/
8 (4)
7
Cul-de-sacs
West -Side Widening w/
7(1)
7
One -Way Streets
West -Side Widening w/-
2 (1)
1
Combination Cul-de-Sacs
and Two -Way Streets
East -Side Widening
15(2)
13
The design for the proposed project has been refined. As a result of the refinement,
impacts to the historic district have decreased for the recommended west side widening
alternative combination of cul-de-sacs and two-way streets from 6 total number of relocatees to 2
and homes relocated within the Historic District from 4 to 1.
J. Air Quality Analysis
The following text, contains updated dates different from those supplied in the October 28,
2003 Air Quality Analysis and the November 22, 2005 Environmental Assessment for this
project.
The project is located in Durham County, which is within the Raleigh -Durham -Chapel
Hill non -attainment area for ozone (03) and the Raleigh -Durham maintenance area for
carbon monoxide (CO) as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
(CAAA) designated these areas as moderate non -attainment area for CO. However, due
to improved monitoring data, this area was redesignated as maintenance for CO on
September 18, 1995. The area was designated non -attainment for 03 under the eight -hour
ozone standard effective June 15, 2004. Section 176(c) of the CAAA requires that
transportation plans, programs, and projects conform to the intent of the state air quality
implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain any transportation control
measures for Durham County. The Durham -Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning
Organization 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the 2007-2013
Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) conform to the intent of the
SIP. The USDOT made. a conformity determination on the LRTP on June 15, 2005 and
the MTIP on November 14, 2005. The current conformity determination is consistent
with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93. There are no significant
changes in the project's design concept or scope, as used in the conformity analyses.

MOBILE SOURCE AIR TOXICS
The Air Quality Analysis included in the November 2005 Environmental Assessment did
not address Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs). FHWA issued guidance for addressing MSAT
impacts in February 2006, requiring inclusion of language pertaining to MSATs in all documents
signed by the FHWA after February 3, 2006. In accordance with this guidance, text below
includes the required MSATs information.
In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), EPA also regulates air toxics. Most air toxics originate from human -made
sources, including on -road mobile sources, non -road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes), area
sources (e.g., dry cleaners) and stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries).
Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the
Clean Air Act. The MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non -road
equipment. Some toxic compounds are present in fuel and are emitted to the air when the file]
evaporates or passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics are emitted from the incomplete
combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also result from
engine wear or from impurities in oil or gasoline.
The EPA is the lead Federal Agency for administering the Clean Air Act and has certain
responsibilities regarding the health effects of MSATs. The EPA issued a Final Rule on
Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources. 66 FR 17229 (March
29, 2001). This rule was issued under the authority in Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. In its
rule, EPA examined the impacts of existing and newly promulgated mobile source control
programs, including its reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, its national low emission vehicle
(NLEV) standards, its Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline sulfur control
requirements, and its proposed heavy duty engine and vehicle standards -and on -highway diesel
fuel sulfur control requirements. Between 2000 and 2020, FHWA projects that even with a 64
percent increase in VMT, these programs will reduce on -highway emissions of benzene,
formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde by 57 percent to 65 percent, and will reduce on -
highway diesel PM emissions by 87 percent, as shown in the Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled vs.
Mobile Source Air Toxics Figure below.
The EPA is the. lead Federal Agency for administering the Clean Air Act and has certain
responsibilities regarding the health effects of MSATs. The EPA issued a Final Rule on
Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources. 66 FR 17229 (March
29, 2001). This rule was issued under the authority in Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. In its
rule, EPA examined the impacts of existing and newly promulgated mobile source control
programs, including its reforinuiated gasoline (Xv v) program, its national low' emission vehicle
(NLEV) standards, its Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline sulfur control
requirements, and its proposed heavy duty engine and vehicle standards and on -highway diesel
fuel sulfur control requirements. Between 2000 and 2020, FHWA projects that even with a
64 percent increase in VMT, these programs will reduce on -highway emissions of benzene,
12

formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde by 57 percent to 65 percent, and will reduce on -
highway diesel PM emissions by 87 percent, as shown below:
U.S. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) vs. Mobile Source Air Toxics Emissions,
2000-2020
VhIT
(trillions/year)
6
DPLI+DE:•G •?':
P;matlehrk +..•.
4ii. bkY- hcle .%i
0
2000
Emissions
(tons/year)
200,000
100,000
2005 2010 2015 2020
Notes: For on -road mobile sources. Emissions factors were generated using MOBILE6.2. MTBE
proportion of market for oxygenates is held constant, at 50%. Gasoline RVP and oxygenate content are
held constant. VMT: Highway Statistics 2000, Table VM-2 for 2000, analysis assumes annual growth
rate of 2.5%. "DPM + DEOG" is based on MOBILE 6.2-generated factors for elemental carbon, organic
carbon and SO4 from diesel -powered vehicles, with the particle size cutoff set at 10.0 microns.
As a result, EPA concluded that no further motor vehicle emissions standards or fuel
standards were necessary to further control MSATs. The agency is preparing another rule under
authority of CAA Section 202(l) that will address these issues and could make adjustments to the
full 21 and the primary six MSATs.
Unavailable Information for Project Specific MSAT Impact Analysis
Information form the MSATs report includes a basic analysis of the likely MSAT
emission impacts of this project. However, available technical tools do not enable us to predict
the project -specific health impacts of the emission changes associated with the alternatives in this
report. Due to these limitations, the following discussion is included in accordance with CEQ
regulations (40 CFR 15O2.22(b)) regarding incomplete or unavailable information:
Information that is Unavailable or Incomplete
Evaluating the environmental and health impacts from MSATs on a proposed highway
project would involve several key elements, including emissions modeling, dispersion modeling
in order to estimate ambient concentrations resulting from the estimated emissions, exposure
13

modeling in order to estimate human exposure to the estimated concentrations, and then final
determination of health impacts based on the estimated exposure. Each of these steps is
encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science that prevents a more complete
determination of the MSAT health impacts of this project.
• Emissions: The EPA tools to estimate MSAT emissions from motor vehicles are not
sensitive to key variables determining emissions of MSATs in the context of highway
projects. While MOBILE 6.2 is used to predict emissions at a regional level, it has
limited applicability at the project level. MOBILE 6.2 is a trip -based model --emission
factors are projected based on a typical trip of 7.5 miles, and on average speeds for this
typical trip. This means that MOBILE 6.2 does not have the ability to predict emission
factors for a specific vehicle operating condition at a specific location at a specific time.
Because of this limitation, MOBILE 6.2 can only approximate the operating speeds and
levels of congestion likely to be present on the largest -scale projects, and cannot
adequately capture emissions effects of smaller projects. For particulate matter, the
model results are not sensitive to average trip speed, although the other MSAT emission
rates do chance with changes in trip speed. Also, the emissions rates used in MOBILE
6.2 for both particulate matter and MSATs are based on a limited number of tests of
mostly older -technology vehicles. Lastly, in its discussions of PM under the conformity
rule, EPA has identified problems with MOBILE 6.2 as an obstacle to quantitative
analysis.
These deficiencies compromise the capability of MOBILE 6.2 to estimate MSAT
emissions. MOBILE 6.2 is an adequate tool for projecting emissions trends, and performing
relative analyses between alternatives for very large projects, but it is not sensitive enough to
capture the effects of travel changes tied to smaller projects or to predict emissions near
specific roadside locations.
• Dispersion. The tools to predict how MSATs disperse are also limited. The EPA's
current regulatory models, CALINE3 and CAL3QHC, were developed and validated
more than a decade ago for the purpose of predicting episodic concentrations of carbon
monoxide to determine compliance with the NAAQS. The performance of dispersion
models is more accurate for predicting maximum concentrations that can occur at some
time at some location within a geographic area. This limitation makes it difficult to
predict accurate exposure patterns at specific times at specific highway project locations
across an urban area to assess potential health risk. The NCHRP is conducting research
on best practices in applying models and other technical methods in the analysis of
MSATs. This work also will focus on identifying appropriate methods of documenting
and communicating MSAT impacts in the NEPA process and to the general public.
Along with these general limitations of dispersion models, FlVWA is also faced with a
lack of monitoring data in most areas for use in establishing project -specific MSAT
background concentrations.
• Exposure Levels and Health Effects. Finally, even if emission levels and concentrations
of MSATs could be accurately predicted, shortcomings in current techniques for exposure ,
14

assessment and risk analysis preclude us from reaching meaningful conclusions about
project -specific health impacts. Exposure assessments are difficult because it is difficult
to accurately calculate annual concentrations of MSATs near roadways, and to determine
the portion of a year that people are actually exposed to those concentrations at a specific
location. These difficulties are magnified for 70-year cancer assessments, particularly
because unsupportable assumptions would have to be made regarding changes in travel
patterns and vehicle technology (which affects emissions rates) over a 70-year period.
There are also considerable uncertainties associated with the existing estimates of toxicity
of the various MSATs, because of factors such as low -dose extrapolation and translation
of occupational exposure data to the general population. Because of these shortcomings,
any calculated difference in health impacts between alternatives is likely to be much
smaller than the uncertainties associated with calculating the impacts. Consequently, the
results of such assessments would not be useful to decision makers, who would need to
weigh this information against other project impacts that are better suited for quantitative
analysis.
Summary of Existing Credible Scientific Evidence Relevant to Evaluating the Impacts of
MSATs
Research into the health impacts of MSATs is ongoing. For difierent emission types,
there are a variety of studies that show that some either are statistically associated with adverse
health outcomes through epidemiological studies (frequently based on emissions levels found in
occupational settings) or that animals demonstrate adverse health outcomes when exposed to
large doses.
Exposure to toxics has been a focus of a number of EPA efforts. Most notably, the
agency conducted the National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) in 1996 to evaluate modeled
estimates of human exposure applicable to the county level. While not intended for use as a
measure of or benchmark for local exposure, the modeled estimates in the NATA database best
illustrate the levels of various toxics when aggregated to a national or State level.
The EPA is in the process of assessing the risks of various kinds of exposures to these
pollutants. The EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is a database of human health
effects that may result from exposure to various substances found in the environment. The IRIS
database is located at http://www.epa.gov/iris. The following toxicity information for the six
_ prioritized MSATs was taken from the IRIS database Weight of Evidence Characterization
summaries. This information is taken verbatim from EPA's IRIS database and represents the
Agency's most current evaluations of the potential hazards and toxicology of these chemicals or
• mixtures.
• Benzene is characterized as a known human carcinogen.
• The potential carcinogenicity of acrolein cannot be determined because the existing data
are inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential for either the oral or
inhalation route of exposure.
15

• Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen, based on limited evidence in humans,
and sufficient evidence in animals.
• 1,3-butadiene is characterized as carcinogenic to humans by inhalation.
• Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen based on increased incidence of nasal
tumors in male and female rats and laryngeal tumors in male and female hamsters after
inhalation exposure.
• Diesel exhaust (DE) is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation from
environmental exposures. Diesel exhaust as reviewed in this document is the combination
of diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases.
• Diesel exhaust also represents chronic respiratory effects, possibly the primary noncancer
hazard from MSATs. Prolonged exposures may impair pulmonary function and could
produce symptoms, such as cough, phlegm, and chronic bronchitis. Exposure
relationships have not been developed from these studies.
There have been other studies that address MSAT health impacts in proximity to roadways.
The Health Effects Institute, a non-profit organization funded by EPA, FHWA, and industry, has
undertaken a major series of studies to research near -roadway MSAT hot spots, the health
implications of the entire mix of mobile source pollutants, and other topics. The final summary
of the series is not expected for several years.
Some recent studies have reported that proximity to roadways is related to adverse health
outcomes -- particularly respiratory problems. Much of this research is not specific to MSATs,
instead surveying the full spectrum of both criteria and other pollutants. The FHWA cannot
evaluate the validity of these studies, but more importantly, they do not provide information that
would be useful to alleviate the uncertainties listed above and enable us to perform a more
comprehensive evaluation of the health impacts specific to this project.
Relevance of Unavailable or Incomplete Information to Evaluating Reasonably Foreseeable
Significant Adverse Impacts on the Environment, and Evaluation of impacts based upon
theoretical approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific community
Because of the uncertainties outlined above, a quantitative assessment of the effects of air
toxic emissions impacts on human health cannot be made at the project level. While available
tools do allow us to reasonably predict relative emissions changes between alternatives for larger
projects, the amount of MSAT emissions from each of the project alternatives and MSAT.
concentrations or exposures created by each of the project alternatives cannot be predicted with
enough accuracy to be useful in estimating health impacts. (As noted above, the current
emissions model is not capable of serving as a meaningful emissions analysis too] for smaller
projects.) Therefore, the relevance of the unavailable or incomplete information is that it is not
possible to make a determination of whether any of the alternatives would have "significant
adverse impacts on the human environment."
For each alternative in this project, the amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional
to the vehicle miles traveled, or VMT, assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the
same for each alternative. The VMT estimated for each of the Build Alternatives is slightly
16

higher than that for the No Build Alternative, because the additional capacity increases the
efficiency of the roadway and attracts rerouted trips from elsewhere in the transportation
network. This increase in VMT would lead to higher MSAT emissions for the action alternative
along the highway corridor, along with a corresponding decrease in MSAT emissions along the
parallel routes. The emissions increase is offset somewhat by lower MSAT emission rates due to
increased speeds; according to EPA's MOBILE6 emissions model, emissions of all of the priority
MSATs except for diesel particulate matter decrease as speed increases. The extent to which
these speed -related emissions decreases will offset VMT-related emissions increases cannot be
reliably projected due to the inherent deficiencies of technical models.
Because the estimated VMT under each of the Alternatives are nearly the same, it is
expected there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions among the various
alternatives. Also, regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions will likely be lower than
present levels in the design year as a result of EPA's national control programs that are projected
to reduce MSAT emissions by 57 to 87 percent between 2000 and 2020. Local conditions may
differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and
local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA -projected reductions is so great
(even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be
lower in the future in nearly all cases.
The additional travel lanes contemplated as part of the project alternatives will have the
effect of moving some traffic closer to nearby homes, schools and businesses; therefore, under
each alternative there may be localized areas where ambient concentrations of MSATs could be
higher under certain Build Alternatives than the No Build Alternative. Localized increases in
MSAT concentrations would likely be most pronounced along the west side of NC 55 between
NC 147 and Main Street (west side widening is recommended) and, to a lesser extent, along both
sides of NC 55 between Main Street and US 70 Business/NC 98 (symmetrical widening is
recommended). However, as discussed above, the magnitude and the duration of these potential
increases compared to the No -build alternative cannot be accurately quantified due to the
inherent deficiencies of current models. In sum, when a highway is widened and, as a result,
moves closer to receptors, the localized level of MSAT emissions for the Build Alternative could
be higher relative to the No Build Alternative, but this could be offset due to increases in speeds
and reductions in congestion (which are associated with lower MSAT emissions). Also, MSATs
will be lower in other locations when traffic shifts away from them. However, on a regional
basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover, will over time cause
substantial reductions that, in almost all cases, will cause region -wide MSAT levels to be
significantly lower than today.
VII. CHANGES TO PROPOSED DESIGN
Several changes have occurred to the proposed design since the completion of the EA.
Changes to the design are itemized below:
17

Right turn lanes
The following exclusive right turn lanes have been deleted from the proposed design
since the public hearing
Westbound Taylor Street
Eastbound and Westbound Liberty Street
Northbound Alston Avenue at Main Street
Northbound Alston Avenue at Taylor Street
Eastbound Holloway Street
One -Way Streets
Worth Street on the east side of Alston Avenue, was proposed as a one-way street. The
design was changed to retain the existing configuration for east side Worth Street as a two-lane
street. No additional improvements will be made to this street.
Franklin Street, on the east side of Alston Avenue, was proposed as a one-way street.
The design was changed to retain the existing configuration for east side Franklin Street as a two-
lane street. No additional improvements will be made to this street.
Curb radii
Curb radii's were reduced along the entire project to a variable radius of 20 to 35 feet at
the request of the City of Durham.
Sidewalk
Six-foot sidewalks are proposed along the project. Because of the request for six-foot
sidewalks, the City of Durham would be required to pay full cost for the extra foot of sidewalk.
A municipal agreement will be prepared regarding the provision of sidewalks prior to project
construction. If the City of Durham decides not to pay for the additional foot of sidewalk,
standard five (5) foot wide sidewalks will be proposed along Alston Avenue.
Additional changes to the design since the beginning of the project
-Reduced design speed to 35mph from 40mph.
-Reduced the vertical clearance underneath the railroad and Pettigrew Street bridges to 15'6"
from 166".
-Reduced the width of the inside travel lane to 11'.
-Reduced the width of the left turn lanes to 11'.
-Added 14' outside lanes at the request of Durham for bicycle and vehicular dual use.
-Removed right turn lanes along Alston Avenue at Angier, Main, Taylor, Liberty and Holloway
Streets.
In

-Connected Franklin, Worth and Wall Streets on the west side of Alston Avenue by making them
one-way streets
-Added sidewalk along Gann Street up to Pettigrew Street to provide pedestrian access to future
TTA station.
-Added mid -block pedestrian crosswalks to Alston Avenue with high visibility markings.
-Agreed to require high visibility crosswalks at all signalized intersections.
-Agreed to include mast arms and pedestrian actuated signals at all signalized intersections.
-Increased median island widths to 5' at intersections and extended where possible to provide
pedestrian protection.
-Agreed to provide aesthetic treatments on any proposed retaining walls to match the existing
walls in the area.
VIII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon environmental studies and coordination with appropriate state, and local
agencies, it is the finding of the North Carolina Department of Transportation that the proposed
action will have no significant impact upon the quality of the human environment. Therefore, an
environmental impact statement will not be required.
Additional information concerning this proposal can be obtained by contacting the
following person:
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph. D., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone [phone]
John F. Sullivan III, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administrator
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
(919) 8564346
IX. FINAL SECTION 4(F) ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION MEMORANDUM OF
AGREEMENT
1. Proposed Action
The project involves widening existing NC 55 (Alston Avenue) to a mostly four -lane
median divided facility with curb and gutter and sidewalks along the entire length of the project.
The proposed project is approximately one mile long.
19

It is anticipated approximately 100 to 120 feet of right of way plus easements will be
required to accommodate this facility. No control of access is proposed for the project.
The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion and improve safety along Alston
Avenue between NC 147 and US 70 Business/NC 98 (Holloway Street).
2. Section 4(f) Properties
Five properties protected by Section 4(f) exist in the project area. Two of these properties
are individual historic properties, two are historic districts made up of several individual
properties and one of the properties is a publicly owned park. Figure C-1 presents the location of
the Section 4(f) properties in the project area.
Branson Methodist Church
Branson Methodist Church (now known as Asbury Temple United Methodist Church) is
located on the southeast corner of Alston Avenue and Angier Avenue.
Branson Methodist Church is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under
Criterion A in the area of social history for its association with surrounding mills and mill
villages. The church is eligible for the. National Register under Criterion C for its architecture as
a good example of Neoclassical Revival ecclesiastical architecture, which is uncommon in
Durham. The church building meets Criteria Consideration A for a property owned by a
religious institution or used for religious purposes, but which derives its primary significance
from historical importance or architectural distinction. The State Historic Preservation Office
concurred with the eligibility of Branson Methodist Church in a letter dated January 9, 2003.
Pure Oil Filling Station
A former Pure Oil filling station (now known as Steve's Auto Repair) is located at the
southeast corner of the Alston Avenue and East Main Street intersection.
The Pure Oil filling station is eligible for the National Register under Criterion A in the
areas of commerce and transportation for its association with the development of the surrounding
residential neighborhood and under.Criterion C for architecture as an intact, representative
example of a typical Pure Oil station reproduced around the country. The State Historic
Preservation Office concurred with the eligibility of the Pure Oil Station in a letter dated
January 9, 2003.
Golden Belt Historic District
The Golden Belt Historic District is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
The district occupies nearly forty acres just east of Durham's central business district. The
Golden Belt Historic District is bounded by East Main Street and Morning Glory Avenue on the
20

south; Holman Street on the east; the south -facing block of Taylor Street on the north and the
Norfolk and Western Railroad on the west. Alston Avenue bisects the residential section of the
district. The historic district comprises the Golden Belt manufacturing complex, the adjacent
mill village and the commercial district historically associated with the mill village.
The Golden Belt Historic District was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in
1985. The property is eligible under Criteria A, B and C in the areas of architecture and industry.
Architecturally, the district contains imposing brick industrial structures, modest early -twentieth
century commercial buildings, and small houses that reflect turn of the century rural and 1920's
bungalow styles. The proximity of these three disparate areas reflects the organization of the
Golden Belt mill village and the surviving concentration of structures within them conveys the
district's historic character.
Individual houses within the district have been altered over the years. However, their
basic form and orientation remain intact and they collectively convey the historic character of the
residential portion of the village.
Long Meadow Park
Long Meadow Park is located east of Alston Avenue between Liberty Street and
Holloway Street. The park was built in 1936 as a Work Project Administration project. Long
Meadow Park is owned by the City of Durham and is one of the oldest public parks in Durham.
The park consists of approximately 11 acres with 2 baseball fields, a swimming pool, a
playground area and basketball courts.
Holloway Street Historic District Boundary Expansion
Holloway Street Historic District is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and
consists of the 500 and 600 blocks of Holloway Street, the two westernmost houses on the 700
block of Holloway Street, and two Dillard Street structures, which form the southwest corner of
the district. The existing district's closest boundary to the project area is about one block west of
Alston Avenue.
The Holloway Street Boundary Expansion was added to the State Study List in 2001.
The proposed expansion would extend the eastern boundary of the historic district nearly to
Alston Avenue, incorporating the remainder of the 700 block and most of the 800 block of
Holloway Street. The boundary expansion would also affect the north edge of the existing
district, an area about three blocks removed from the Alston Avenue project area.
The National Register listed portion of the Holloway Street Historic District is residential
in character and reflects a fashionable Victorian neighborhood through the early decades of the
twentieth century. The proposed expansion area along Holloway Street would include smaller,
newer homes that also display architectural detailing, such as early twentieth-century Craftsman
bungalows.
21

The 700 and 800 blocks of Holloway Street are eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under Criterion A for their association with the development of the 500 and
600 blocks of Holloway Street, which are already listed on the National Register of'Historic
Places. The 700 and 800 blocks compose a transitional neighborhood between the prestigious
residences to the east, built by the city's industrialists and financiers, and the vernacular houses
to the south, built for those who worked in the local industrial concerns. The State Historic
Preservation Office concurred with the eligibility of the Holloway Street Historic District
boundary expansion in a letter dated January 9, 2003.
3. Impacts on the Section 4(f) Properties
Branson Methodist Church
Alston Avenue will be widened to the west near Branson Methodist Church. Temporary
easements will be required from the historic property in order to construct sidewalks proposed
for the project. The State Historic Preservation Office has concurred the project will have "no
adverse effect" on Branson Methodist Church if NCDOT will only acquire temporary easements
(no permanent right of way or permanent easements) from the church property. In addition,
NCDOT must replant grass, replace sidewalk disturbed during construction and tie the new
sidewalk into steps leading to the church building. Figure C-2 depicts the project design in the
vicinity of Branson Methodist Church. .
Pure Oil Filling Station
Alston Avenue will be widened and shifted to the west at the Pure Oil Filling Station, in
order to minimize impacts to this historic property. Only temporary easements will be required
from the historic property. The State Historic Preservation Office has concurred the project will
have "no adverse effect" on the Pure Oil Filling Station. Figure C-3 depicts the project design in
the vicinity of the Pure Oil Filling Station.
Golden Belt Historic District
Several alternatives for the project have been examined within the Golden Belt Historic
District (see Section IV-B of the EA). West side widening with a combination of cul-de-sacs and
one-way streets is the preferred alternative because it will relocate the least number of homes
within the Golden Belt Historic District. With this alternative, Worth and Franklin Streets and
Wall Street west of Alston Avenue will be narrowed to 20 feet wide and converted to one-way
traffic. Wall Street east of Alston Avenue will remain two-way, but the intersection of this
portion of Wall Street with Alston Avenue will be removed and a turn around constructed.
Worth and Franklin Streets on the west side of Alston Avenue will remain two-lane two-way
streets with an intersection with Alston Avenue. No improvements will be made to these streets.
Permanent right of way will be required from properties within the Golden Belt Historic
District and one home within the district will be impacted. The State Historic Preservation
Office has concurred the project will have an "adverse effect" on the Golden Belt Historic
22

District. Figure C-4 presents the recommended project design through the Golden Belt Historic
District.
Long Meadow Park
Improvements will be made at the Liberty Street/Alston Avenue intersection. As a result
of proposed intersection improvements along Liberty Street, temporary easements will be
acquired from Long Meadow Park. Temporary easements will also be acquired from Long
Meadow Park along US 70 Business/NC 98 (Holloway Street). No park amenities will be
impacted as a result of the proposed improvements. Figure C-5 presents the project design in the
vicinity of Long Meadow Park.
Holloway Street Historic District Expansion
Improvements will be made at the Alston Avenue/Holloway Street intersection. No right
of way or permanent or temporary easements will be acquired from property within the National
Register -eligible boundaries of the Holloway Street Historic District Expansion. Figure C-5
presents the project design in the vicinity of the Holloway Street Historic District Expansion.
The State Historic Preservation Office has concurred the project will have "no effect" on the
Holloway Street Historic District Expansion.
4. Avoidance Alternatives
No -Build
The "No -Build" alternative would avoid impacts to all of the Section 4(f) properties in the
project -area. However, the "No -Build" alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the
project.
Reroute Alston Avenue
Rerouting Alston Avenue from Alston Avenue onto a parallel roadway was considered as
an alternative. This project would involve signing Alston Avenue onto either Briggs Avenue or
Fayetteville Street, both of which have interchanges on NC 147.
This alternative would avoid all Section 4(f) resources in the project area. However,
rerouting Alston Avenue onto existing roadways would not meet the purpose and need for the
project. The majority of traffic utilizing Alston Avenue is local traffic, not through traffic
following Alston Avenue. The proposed improvements would be needed even if Alston Avenue
was no longer signed Alston Avenue.
One -Way Pair
Converting existing Alston Avenue within the Golden Belt Historic District into a
one-way street was considered as an alternative. This alternative would involve constructing a
23

roadway on new location to connect Alston Avenue with Holman Street, which is one block east
of and runs parallel to Alston Avenue. The portion of existing Alston Avenue from just north of
NC 147 to Liberty Street would be converted to one-way traffic. Existing Holman Street
between Angier Avenue and Morning Glory Avenue would be converted to one-way traffic, as
well. A roadway on new location would be constructed parallel to Holman Street north of
Morning Glory Avenue. This roadway would tie into existing Alston Avenue at Liberty Street.
This alternative would avoid all the Section 4(f) resources in the project area. This
alternative is feasible but is not prudent. The new location roadways required to connect Alston
Avenue with Holman Street would relocate several homes and businesses, including Eastway
Elementary School. This roadway would also be very disruptive to the Hope VI redevelopment
project.
Reduced Typical Section
Existing Alston Avenue through the Golden Belt Historic district is a three -lane roadway.
The proposed typical section for the project is based on anticipated traffic volumes. A reduced
typical section would not meet the purpose and need of the project.
Holloway Street Historic District Expansion will not be impacted as a result of minor
intersection improvements required by the proposed project. These improvements will include a
right turn taper from Holloway Street to Alston Avenue and adjustments to the vertical alignment
of Holloway Street. To avoid impacts to the Holloway Street Historic District Expansion, the
full right turn lane was reduced to a right turn taper. This is a feasible and prudent alternative
and these improvements meet current design standards.
5. Measures to Minimize Harm
The following measures are included in the design of the proposed project to minimize
harm to the Section 4(f) properties in the .project area. These measures were coordinated with the
State Historic Preservation Office and the Durham Parks and Recreation Department.
Branson Methodist Church
• The alignment of Alston Avenue will be shifted to the west by approximately 14 feet and the
proposed new lanes will be added to the west side of Alston Avenue in the area of the church.
• Only temporary easements will be required from the church property. No permanent right of
way or permanent easement is proposed from the church property.
• Disturbed areas on the church property will be replanted with grass.
• Sidewalk disturbed during construction will be rep'.a;.ed and the new sidewalk will be tied
into steps leading to the church building.
24

Pure Oil Filling Station
• The alignment of NC 55 will be shifted to the west by approximately 19 feet and the
proposed new lanes will be added to the west side of Alston Avenue in the area of the Pure
Oil Filling Station.
• Only temporary easements will be required from the filling station property. No permanent
right of way or permanent easement is proposed from the filling station property.
Golden Belt Historic District
• Berm widths through the Golden Belt Historic District have been reduced from 10 feet to 8
feet.
• All 4:1 slopes have been changed to 3:1 (cuts and fills).
• Two retaining walls are proposed within the Golden Belt Historic District.
• A shared through/right lane, rather than an exclusive right turn lane, is proposed on
northbound Alston Avenue at Taylor Street.
• The west side of Franklin Street, Worth Street and Wall Street will be narrowed to 20-feet
wide (face to face of curb) and converted to one-way streets. The east side of Wall Street
will be cul-de-saced.
Long Meadow Park
■ A proposed right turn lane on westbound Liberty Street was shortened in order to reduce
impacts to the park.
■ Only temporary easements will be required from the park property. No permanent right of
way is proposed from the park property.
Holloway Historic District Boundary Expansion
■ A right -turn taper rather than a full turn lane is proposed for eastbound Holloway Street at
Alston Avenue.
■ Six-foot berms and 3:1 slopes are proposed along Holloway Street.
■ No temporary easements will be required from within the historic district expansion. No
permanent right of way or permanent easement is proposed from the historic district
expansion.
25

6. Coordination
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following:
Federal Highway Administration
State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
Preservation Durham
Durham Parks and Recreation Department
A finding of adverse effect has been determined for the Golden Belt Historic District. No
effect has been determined for the Holloway Street Historic District Expanded Boundary. The
HPO letter of concurrence and the Concurrence Form for Assessment of Effects is included in
Appendix A.
In accordance with Section 106 of the National Preservation Act, any alternative which
has an adverse effect on the Golden Belt Historic District will require NCDOT to enter into a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Historic Preservation Office. This MOA will
detail how the effects to the historic properties will be taken into account (See Appendix B).
7. Department of Interior Coordination
A copy of the Environmental Assessment and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation was provided
to the US Department of Interior (USDOI). The USDOI's response to the document is included
in the Appendix.
The USDOI concurs that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the recommended
alternative (see letter in Appendix).
8. Basis for No Feasible and Prudent Alternative to Recommended Alternate
West side, east side and symmetrical widening alternatives_ were studied for the proposed
widening of Alston Avenue. Only west side widening was studied between NC 147 and Main
Street. In the vicinity of the Golden Belt Historic District, between Main Street and Taylor
Street, three alternative treatments for side streets for west side widening was studied as well as
east side widening with no consideration for side street treatment alternatives. Between Taylor
Street and US 70 Business/NC 98 symmetrical widening was the only alternative studied.' The
recommended alternative for the proposed project includes west side widening between NC 147
and Main Street and west side widening between Main and Taylor Streets with no improvements
to Worth and Franklin Streets east of Alston Avenue. Between Main and Taylor Streets a cul-de-
sac will be constructed for Wall Street on the east side of Alston Avenue with no connection to
Alston Avenue. Symmetrical widening is recommended between Taylor Street and US 70
Business/NC 98. Problems associated with alternatives studied for this project but not
recommended are as follows:
• East side widening would relocate 13 homes within the Golden Belt Historic District.
26

West side widening with cul-de-sacs would relocate 7 homes within the Golden Belt Historic
District and 4 business between Main Street and Taylor Street. Seven of the homes relocated
with this alternative are contributing structures to the District.
• West side widening with one-way streets would relocate 7 contributing structures within the
Golden Belt Historic District.
9. Conclusion
Based on the above considerations, there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use
of.land from Golden Belt Historic District.
27

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
AMONG
THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION,
THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
AND
THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
FOR
TIP No. U-3308
WIDEN NC 55 (ALSTON AVENUE) BETWEEN NC 147 (BUCK DEAN FREEWAY)
AND US 70 BUSINESS/NC 98 (HOLLOWAY STREET), DURHAM COUNTY, NC
FEDERAL AID NO. STP-55(20)
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that the widening of
NC 55 (Alston Avenue) in Durham County, North Carolina (the Undertaking) will have an
adverse effect upon the Golden Belt Historic District, a property listed in the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP), and has consulted with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800, regulations implementing Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470f); and
WHEREAS, the house and property at 1202 Taylor Street is a contributing resource to the
Golden Belt Historic District; and
WHEREAS, for the purpose of avoiding adverse effects to the Branson Methodist Church and
the Pure Oil Filling Station, properties determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) agrees to carry out the environmental
commitments attached to this Memorandum of Agreement (Agreement) in Stipulation #8; and .
WHEREAS, the City of Durham, North Carolina (City), Preservation Durham (PD), and Ralph
Owens, property owner of 1202 Taylor Street, have participated in the consultation and have been
invited to concur in this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, this Agreement applies only if NCDOT decides to construct the Preferred
Alternative (proceed with the Undertaking);
NOW, THEREFORE, FHWA, NCDOT, and the North Carolina SHPO agree that the
Underiaking shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order to take
into account the adverse effect upon the historic district.
STIPULATIONS
FHWA and NCDOT will ensure that the following measures are carried out:
Golden Belt Historic District
1. Recordation
Prior to the initiation of construction, NCDOT will record the existing condition of
affected properties within the Golden Belt Historic District along Alston Avenue and its
side streets in accordance with the Historic Structures and Landscape Recordation Plan,
attached to this Agreement as Appendix A.

MOA for U-3308
Durham. North Carolina
2. House Relocation
Although the relocation and preservation of the house at 1202 Taylor Street cannot be
guaranteed by this Agreement, FHWA, NCDOT, SHPO, City, and PD will adhere to the
following plan to promote its preservation and continued use.
A. To allow the maximum time possible for relocation, NCDOT shall, early in the right-
of-way phase and/or through protective purchase as necessitated, focus on the
acquisition of the property at 1202 Taylor Street.
B. Following standards prescribed in the NCDOT Right of Way Manual, the NCDOT
Right of Way Branch will provide the former owner the opportunity to repurchase the
house structure as a negotiated sale at the salvage value as determined by NCDOT.
As part of the contract for the negotiated sale of the house (NCDOT bid form 14.8),
the house must be relocated no later than ninety (90) days prior to the construction
letting date. If the owner chooses to enter into a partnership with PD after the
repurchase, the house must be relocated within the Golden Belt Historic District or
the East Durham Historic District (Historic District) with restrictive preservation
covenants in place. Funds equivalent to the NCDOT estimated house demolition cost
will be made available to the owner to assist in the house relocation. These funds
will be payable upon the successful completion of the relocation within the Historic
District.
C. If the property owner declines to retain the house structure, NCDOT will notify PD
that the house is available for sale. PD will be given the opportunity to market the
house for sale with restrictive covenants in place. Marketing efforts by PD shall
include advertisements or articles in the PD newsletter, on its website, or in other
local news media, providing information about the house and showing the house to
prospective buyers with the assistance of NCDOT. The marketing period will begin
after NCDOT has acquired the house and the tenant has vacated. Marketing by PD
prior to tenant vacancy will be permitted with the permission of the tenant and
NCDOT.
D. While PD will be responsible for marketing the house, the sales transaction of the
house will be managed by the NCDOT. NCDOT and PD will be required to
coordinate their efforts in order to ensure that NCDOT requirements and procedures
for the public sale of improvements are followed.
E. Relocation of the house by a third party purchaser shall not begin before the vacate
date for the current occupant unless clearance is obtained from the NCDOT Division
Right of Way Agent. The relocation of the structure shall be completed within sixty
(60) days following the vacate date or ninety (90) days prior to the construction
letting date, whichever is later.
F. If a third party purchaser chooses to enter into a partnership with PD. the house must
be relocated within the Historic District with restrictive preservation covenants in
place. Funds equivalent to the NCDOT estimated house demolition cost will be made
available to the third party purchaser to assist in the house relocation. These funds
will be payable upon the successful completion of the relocation within the Historic
District.

MOA for U-3308
Durham, North Carolina
G. PD shall make every effort to provide prospective owners with information about
current lots available within the Historic District for potential house relocation. The
new owner shall be responsible for the lot acquisition and moving the house within
either historic district. The new owner also shall be responsible for all permits
necessary to move the house and shall be encouraged to move the house in a manner
that minimizes harm to the historic fabric. NCDOT shall purchase and PD shall
provide the owner with a copy of Moving Historic Buildings by John Obed Curtis.
H. If no lots are available within the Historic District for the house relocation, NCDOT
will allow the relocation of the house outside the Historic District as long as the new
site is compatible with the goals of historic preservation. However, funds equivalent
to the NCDOT estimated house demolition cost will not be made available to the
former owner (after repurchase) or any third party purchaser to assist in the house
relocation.
I. If the new owner, to include a third party purchaser, defaults on the terms of the
negotiated sale agreement or fails to move the structure in accordance with the
agreement or if PD cannot find a new owner willing to relocate the house as part of
its marketing efforts, the house will become the property of the highway contractor
and may be removed and/or demolished.
3. Concrete Retaining Wall
NCDOT shall build a concrete retaining wall on the south side of Taylor Street east of
Alston Avenue to avoid encroaching upon houses east of 1202 Taylor Street. This
simple, unadorned wall will be approximately three to four feet in height.
4. Landscape Plan
In consultation with SHPO, PD, and City, NCDOT shall develop two landscape plans.
The first plan will provide for a raised planted median constructed on Alston Avenue,
within the Golden Belt Historic District. The second plan will provide fora vehicle turn-
around occupying a vacant lot at the southeastern corner of Alston Avenue and Wall
Street with landscaping limited to the side of the turn -around facing Alston Avenue.
NCDOT will replace in kind any landscape elements which die within three years of
installation. After the establishment period has expired, the City of Durham will be
responsible for maintaining the landscaping in the project area.
5. Bollards at Wall Street and Alston Avenue
NCDOT will install concrete bollards to close Wall Street to vehicular traffic .at its
western terminus with Alston Avenue. Should the concrete bollard design prove to be
not feasible, NCDOT will consult with SHPO, PD, and City for the review and approval
of a design alternative.
6. Historic District Signage
In consultation with SHPO and the City, NCDOT shall develop, fund, and install two
small-scale signs on Alston Avenue identifying the Golden Belt Historic District. Once
installed, the City of Durham will be responsible for maintaining, repairing, and/or
replacing these signs. The NCDOT Division 5 Engineer shall review design concepts
prior to approval and installation.
7. Educational Module

MOA for U-3308
Durham, North Carolina
NCDOT shall provide background materials on the history of the Golden Belt Historic
District for the Durham Public Schools. The school system may use this information to
develop an educational module on the history of the district. The purpose of the module is
to increase the students' awareness of historic resources within the North East Central
Durham community.
8. Environmental Commitments for Properties Not Aversely Affected
To avoid Adverse Effects to the following Historic Properties, FHWA and NCDOT shall
ensure that the following environmental commitments are carried out:
• For the Branson Methodist Church, NCDOT shall utilize a temporary construction
easement. NCDOT shall replace the slopes to their pre -construction condition and
replace the sod. NCDOT shall design the new sidewalks so that they tie into the existing
steps and sidewalk to the church.
For the Pure Oil Filling Station, NCDOT shall utilize a temporary construction
easement. NCDOT shall construct a new sidewalk further away from the station.
NCDOT agrees to repair any damage to the wall on the south side of the property if
damage is caused by NCDOT or its contractors during construction. NCDOT shall
provide information to the property owner on the Federal and State Historic Preservation
Tax Credit program administered by the North Carolina SHPO and National Park
Service.
OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Unanticipated Discovery
In accordance with 36 CFR 800.1 ] (a), and prior to initiation of construction activities, NCDOT
will ensure preparation of a plan of action should archaeological or architectural resources be
inadvertently or accidentally discovered during the construction phase of the project. The plan
will provide for an assessment of the significance of the discovery in consultation amongst
NCDOT, FHWA, and the SHPO. Inadvertent or accidental discovery of human remains will be
handled in accordance with North Carolina General Statutes 65 and 70.
Dispute Resolution
Modification, amendment, or termination of this agreement as necessary will be accomplished by
the signatories in the same manner as the original agreement.
Disputes regarding the completion of the terms of this agreement will be resolved by the
signatories. If the signatories cannot agree regarding a dispute, any one of the signatories may
request the participation of the Advisory Council to assist in resolving the dispute.
Should the North Carolina SHPO object within (30) days to any plans or documentation provided
for review pursuant to this Agreement, FHWA will consult with the North Carolina SHPO to
resolve the objection. If FHWA or the North Carolina SHPO determines that the objection
cannot be resolved, FHWA will forward all documentation relevant to the dispute to the Advisory
Council. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of all pertinent documentation, the Advisory
Council will either:
• Provide FHWA with recommendations, which FHWA will take into account in
reaching a final decision regarding the dispute, or
4

MOA for U-3308
Durham, North Carolina
Notify FHWA that it will comment pursuant to 36 CFR Section 800.7(c) and proceed
to comment. Any Advisory Council comment provided in response to such a request
will be taken into account by FHWA in accordance with 36 CFR Section 800.7 (c)
(4) with reference to the subject of the dispute.
Any recommendation or comment provided by the Advisory Council will be understood to
pertain only to the subject of the dispute; FHWA's responsibility to carry out all the actions under
this Agreement that are not the subject of the dispute will remain unchanged.
Execution of Agreement
Execution of this Memorandum of Agreement by FHWA and the North Carolina SHPO, its
subsequent filing with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and implementation of its
terms evidence that FHWA has afforded the Advisory Council an opportunity to comment on the
Undertaking and its adverse effects on the Golden Belt Historic District, and that FHWA has
taken into account the adverse effects of the Undertaking on the historic property.
AGREE:
Federal Highway Administration:
,IZ%.LJohn F. Sullivan, III, P.E. Date
Division Administrator
State Historic Preservation Officer:
_3v70
Jeffrey Date
North Carolina De Historic Preservation Officer
North Carolina Department of Transportation:
Gregory] . Th/o Z , Ph.D. Date
Directo` PrCSjeDevelUpnlClilulld Ellvlll711111elltal AtialySiS Branch

CONCUR:
City of Durham:
Signature
MOA for U-3308
Durham. North Carolina
Date

CONCUR:
Preservation Durham:
Signature
Date
MOA for U-3308
Durham, North Carolina

MOA for U-3308
Durham, North Carolina
CONCUR:
Property Owner, 1202 Taylor Street, Durham, North Carolina:
Ralph Owens Date

MOA for U-3308
Durham, North Carolina
APPENDIX A
Historic Structures and Landscape Recordation Plan
TIP No. U-3308
Widen NC 55 (Alston Avenue)
Federal Aid No. STP-55(20)
WBS No. 34915.1.1
Durham County, North Carolina
Photographic Requirements
• Overall views of the Golden Belt Historic District along Alston Avenue and side streets.
(elevations and oblique views).
■ Selected photographic views of the first block of houses on Taylor Street on the east and
west sides of Alston Avenue.
■ Overall and selected photographic views of the house and property located at 1202
Taylor Street, Durham, North Carolina.
Photographic Format
■ Color digital images (all views). Images are to be shot on a SLR digital camera with a
minimum resolution of 6 megabyte pixels, at a high quality (preferably RAW) setting, to
be saved in TIF format as the archival masters.
■ Images should be catalogued in such a way as to be easily cross-referenced with an
accompanying inventory.
■ Images are to be saved on two sets of CD-ROMs, one for NCDOT and one for the North
Carolina Historic Preservation Office. There should also be two sets of contact sheets, to
be printed on coated inkjet paper.
■ The accompanying printed inventory of the images'including subject, location, date,
and photographer information for each image —is to be completed according to Division
of Archives and History standards, and should also be included in the CD-ROMs.
■ Because CD-ROMs are occasionally not stable, it is also recommended that each
institution place these images on a server to be periodically backed up.
Copies and Curation
• One (1) set of all above mentioned photographic documentation will be deposited with
the North Carolina Division of Archives and History/Historic Preservation Office to be
made a permanent part of the statewide survey and iconographic collection.
• The other contact sheet shall be deposited in the files of the Historic Architecture Group
of NCDOT.
9

r�-
c
RHMMEADOW
HOLLOWAY ST. v
HISTORIC DISTRICT m
EXPANSION 2
I m m
1 E SouthGat I St
ca
m d s`..,
St
-;�n Kendrick
y Cir. Preston
o St 55
c>
Ct
m
sp ..
C z
St
PURE OIL
o
Ave. y m �
FILLING STATION
m m
Q
Ca/yet
Main
� OF
BRANSON
m m
METHODIST
N
D
o m
m
F -�
CHURCH
m
V Ga a��i • -� � �
4S Ae • .tip
St l tbgle �7p/�
Ashe
� W � �� "•, Sc�`
Cole Va/e
A�9ie�
O0
y
nons co St
eme
2 gym. s a� 8 dy
pe
abocill
p
Jacob
BEGIN PROJECT
GilleAve.
tte-ate
Ave. Cnffnn
SECTION 4(f) PROPERTIES
0 FEET 1000
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
r PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
SECTION 4(fl PROPERTIES
IN PROJECT AREA
TIP PROJECT U-3308
FIGURE C-1

fTl r Nc�= FAST
II I :Y OCD MA,
ZMK C-)o N ST
m m m z m
�7 �7 x x D X
O O O O —1 N >
z m
—I n D
D m G5 c r O
< K _ ,U = O
m-+ °D ; -� 0
N
m o Q° o
Z D C) N
--I �7
-< c m o
m D D m _� D m D
O V) n K
mol
D ---q OD
rr m o N
Z Z
W O
0
z
MORNINGGLORY AVE. MORNINGGLORY AVE.
0
D
s.
Z
O
WORTH ST.
WORTH ST. _
m
r
N
z
(7
to
to
O D
C
FRANKLIN ST. o FRANKLIN ST.
= O 0
= z
m
O�
r co z m mr
N =
O
c") t
N
WALL ST. WALL ST.
h
�P
1
• .
TAYLOR ST. TAYLOR ST.
O
-n
rm cn
m o
O n
m r
D m
�'r N N
D
O n z
vo
m N
Z mO �p r m
N L'
�"' z0 O
3- m m
m DA
C),C) soOZ D
-iZ oz > D
n
W= D Z m -C m
'T1 70 1„ D N
OD O O NZ C)
C v C mo m t = r
m z 0
•
Fi
FF
`, .ter.. � � � -. . � . a b.:.• �:

J
to
•
♦s � :J
< • r
. is •fit ,. ) ' r',
w ,
.44
i
og"
r ern
INS
WWAN
mow
I ' ��ti■�
■?h•� t `, 'fit
■ f E I I I <t1c- o� �j ' y,
■ E I I I I' ,'a' _
.• ` It ..
r • ji. • ,
• H
llllll h
z�m"+'' - • rn
.—F- — — .-. ..
N
1:.,Wow-

FIGURES

e
' v Ave
98
=
55
END
PROJECT
0
i 3) 4
Mallard
�;
i
m
Evergreen
SL
,yo .03 (11)
Ave.
Pnni• �',.$F '�
<
re
Fern
St a
.
BU
7 Aron Ave.
trve /. 0
St
Gilbert �'
'e
�(9)
�^, s•
2266 i >
BUS
70
.43 E
, m
1�
(2)
Gbert
5
4r. , 2267
' � v
(1 95
(12)
501
41 70N
Eva <
w
SL
98
Eva
St _ r
98
y - E m
�i
L"ftYSt
a' ciS
Cay�
z
E
' Hop1dns
a
(32)
St
a
v
s
501 (61) 4- SL
11 ��
r°
I
u o
4) 3
•
pig '�
��/"
N }
■SouthGate
(13 L
147 (31) 4 T°h4 1
SL
Uberty
?� 1364
(3)
Ch. Sch.
a
sc SL
'��(29)
Kendnck
Or.
(23)
St
Preeion =
1365 I (�) (22) ' o R
=
1 r St r Q m ¢ s Moelle
A
Ave Zi' m �' � I Long St
(26) (27) • �' N +9 SL
f_ p (20) (21)
■
,ry � • • \ \ ro (B) (2� � �' 3 � Main p Keats � l
(63) ►ioytl �. ry S a w S > Ave. Y.E. Smith
Fowler ' d % ,r^. > o O- it Elam. Sch.
Ave. .0 5 .Hart SL
6m W.G. Peamon a 4 _
srareEltan. 49
Soh st S� °mbgy, • • • ••••�,�:\
St cae (68) & �� �' Full Gospel
°� s �s ��,8) r Hay Ch.
o ya ri (67) 174)� • 1 q� � �� Ua Q� r' � sp � � �
118 t r I F✓eWy kt' ~ �L45 g A ay_ ; P y row
o St $ Zi oT �iDurham SL
65� � m (�) tlipeme se P.O.
.. A (/3) H h = : crane St m
BEGIN PROJECT " AV& 147 Ave.Derr' : _,b' Kab a
—J �. Burton .'ti SL • •'� St sz
/ t r St 8 F g Elam. Sch.
FEET
1000 2000 3000
I I
0 250 .500 750 1000
METERS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
DURHAM
NC 55 (ALSTON AVENUE)
NC 147 (I.L. 'BUCK' DEAN FREEWAY)
TO US 70 BUS/NC 98 (HOLLOWAY ST)
DURHAM COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-3308
FIGURE

we
ALimL i
a
10

0000
�': Ln ?o M Z—' —1
27 z LTI 0 0 -0
4 ^
-i6j> 'A' 0 -/ -
r- Z Z
(D > ' >
> z z m 0
> m
< F--i _0
m -< >
L- >
Wo
V) Z
m
zIT O
L 44-
z

-.Tl. " -1
on
-.0
------------------
—ddow- I.
...... . . . . . . . . . .
Ell -
Ii to
P-n
tl
...........
0

Q
M
W
Cie
a D
^L =° o
+- W N
;o m J
z LULL
O co
O m Y w
00
10
M r ♦ � Q N r
W 3
N
o 0 0
m '- ♦ C^c' -a 0
V ~
� w
w ♦ v C9 o a
pLU
( Z ax
Q m
o nm
O W s
N F-CL
Lj
LU W
mn Ln
w p 3 a
Q Q p
LL
moo. 9L
:o � w 0 m
0 10 c O C �° rn
W � �► - c
a 0- m
cn > d
y `L o
O r J N ..-a
Q —
OZ-
CL
r ~ ZV
0
O W
C
0 W��! W
a
V.
cn
/ O
F-
O
z

CIO
U
W
�
E-'
D
z
`�
V
O
00
O-
W
LL.
M
U
��
O
3
M
uu
V)
o
Q
U
O
z
U
cL
=
W
3
'' W
`}
W -
'' U
f.�i
_�
�
°
W
LL
o
7i.
N
O
Cie
W�
�
Q
CL
W
to
W
W
o
O
v
N
CL
CL
2
N
'7
�—
o
<
w
LL
CL
W
Q
U
V).
O
F-
O
z

United States Department of the Interior
FISH ,AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
�ti
Ralei`_h Field Office '
Post Office Box =; , "6 "
Raleich. North Carolina'76=6-:726
January 18, 2000
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1 54S Mail Service Center
Raleich, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your January 11. 2006 letter which requested comments fi-om the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the Federal Environmental Assessment for the
Nvidening of NC » (Alston Avenue) fi-om NC 147 (I.L. "Buck" Dean Freew av) to US 70
Business. -NC 98 (HolloNvay Street). Durham County. North Carolina (TIP No. U-3308). These
comments are provided in accordance Nvith provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
( 16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the Endan�,ered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. as amended
( 10 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Due to the urban nature of the project area and the lack of fish and wildlife habitat. the Service
does not have any concerns with this proposed project. %Ve concur that the project NN-111 have no
effect on federally protected species. The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this
project. If you have any questions regarding our response. please contact `Ir. Gary Jordan at
(919) S56-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerejy,1 ..
Pete Be min
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
T ravis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Eric Alsmeyer. USACE, Raleigh, NC

Subject: U-3308 Federal EA/Draft 4F Eval.
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 13:24:18 -0500
From: [e-mail]
To: brobinson @dot. state.nc.us, jmcinnis@dot. state.nc.us
CC: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Beverly/Jay: EPA has completed its review of this non -Merger project, U-3308, NC 55 (Alston
Avenue) widening in Durham Co. I estimate that the project is approximately 1.1 miles long based
upon the figures in the appendices. I note the environmental commitment (green sheets) for the
Golden Belt Historic District.
EPA has no outstanding environmental concerns for this project. I have summarized the impacts to
key indicators below. If any of this information is incorrect, please let me know and thanks for the
opportunity to review the EA. EPA requests a copy of the FONSI when it becomes available.
Wetlands: 0
Streams: 40 linear feet
Buffers: < 40 ft.
Relocations: 21R/5B
Churches/Schools: 1/0
4f/106 Properties: 5/0
Prime Ag lands: 0
Terr. forests: 0
Noise Rec: 26
Haz Mat. sites: 7
EJ Communities: 0
End. Species: 0
Crit. Water Supply: 0
Air Quality: 0
Thanks again.
Christopher A. Militscher, REM, CHMM
2/16/2007 9:09 Al

�W I 1 W I
North CarolinaLl
Department of Administration°G�'"-
Michael F. Easley, Governor
March 15, 2006
Mr. Majed Al-Ghandour
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Program Development
1534 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1534
Dear Mr. Al-Ghandour:
Britt Cobb, Secretary
ECE''`'
17 M6
4� Pmject Management
Re: SCH File # 06-E-4220-0233; EA; Proposal to widen NC 55 to a mostly four -lane median to
improve safety along NC 55 (Alston Avenue) between NC 147 & US 70 Business/NC 98
(Holloway St.). TIP No. U-3308
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G.S. 113A-10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this
letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review.
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely.
C `'&YY�
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
P'9 iFr3 LF
cc: Region J v 7 \� ,J t� © ,�
ERAI CpRRESP
J C {) PUP,LIC HE.4AIN? ���
FIL JTH
� ES'Til4lATE$
ef.
Mailing Address•: Telephone: [phone]
1301 Mail Servicc Center �!� fax [phone] Wnr"vs $t
Raleigh. NC 27099-1301 State Courier #51-01-00 Raleigh. North Carolina
e-mail Chrys.Qaggelt'd-ncmatl.net
An Equal OpportunityiAfftnnalive Action Employer

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
7 .h
v
ti
j 906 p
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee 4_/
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 06-0233 EA for the Proposed NC 55 Widening from Existing NC 147
in Durham County
DATE: March 9, 2006
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed information. The applicant is encouraged to consider the attached
recommendations and should also continue to work with our agencies as this
project moves forward.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
Attachments
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North CaN
rolina 27699-1601 One
orthCarolina
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR/ ;Vatmally
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Adon Employer - 50 % Recycled 1 10 % Post Consumer Paper

North Uaroiina Uepartment of tnvironment ano ivaturai mesourcee
March 3, 2006
NM MORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
JJi
AMR
2006 r,
Through: John Hennessy
From: Nicole Thomson, Division of Water Quality, Central Office
Subject: Comments on the Environmental Assessment related to proposed NC 55 (Alston Avenue)
Widening from existing NC 147 (I.L. `Buck"Dean Freeway) to Existing US 70
Business/NC 98 (Holloway Street), Durham County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-
55(20), State Project No. 8.1352801, TIP U-3308.
This office has reviewed the referenced document dated February 7, 2006. The Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that
impact Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. It is our understanding that the project as presented will
result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and other surface waters. The DWQ offers the
following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
Project Specific Comments:
UT to Ellerbe Creek are class C; NSW waters of the State. DWQ is very concerned with sediment
and erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that highly protective
sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to UT to
Ellerbe Creek. DWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment of the storm water runoff
through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stonmvater
Best Management Practices.
2. This project is within the Neuse River Basin. Riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and
minimized to the greatest extent possible pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B .0233. New development
activities located in the protected 50-foot wide riparian areas within the. basin shall be limited to
"uses" identified within and constructed in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B .0233. Buffer
mitigation may be required for buffer impacts resulting from activities classified as "allowable with
mitigation" within the "Table of Uses" section of the Buffer Rules or require a variance under the
Buffer Rules. A buffer mitigation plan, including use of the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program,
must be provided to DWQ prior to approval of the Water Quality Certification.
None
r hCarolina
Transportation Permitting Unit NafulQll✓
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: htti)://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunit//Affirmative Action Employer 50% Recycled/10°/ Post Consumer Paper

General Comments:
I The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary as required
by 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan
with the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to
issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
4. Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to,
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives should include road designs that
allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the
most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed swales,
buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
5. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules { 15A NCAC
2H.0506(h) }, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single
perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to
replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be
available for use as stream mitigation.
6. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. NC
DOT should address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the
aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
7. NC DOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill,
excavation and clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included
in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary
or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application.
Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we
realize that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that
culverts should be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms.
Moreover, in areas where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove
preferable. When applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in..the creek, to the maximum
extent practicable.
9. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands or streams.
10. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could
precipitate compensatory mitigation.
11. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into streams or surface waters.

12. Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams may require a Nationwide Permit application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding
401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires
satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland
or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal application
by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will
be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the
maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the
inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
13. Bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream when possible.
14. Whenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel
realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allow for human and
wildlife passage beneath the structure, do not block fish passage and do not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
15. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater should be directed
across the bridge and pre-treated through site -appropriate means (grassed swales, pre -formed scour
holes, vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to the most current version of
NC DWQ Stormwater Best Ma72agement Practices.
16. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to prevent direct
contact between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured
concrete should not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and
possible aquatic life and fish kills.
17. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction
contours and elevations. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
appropriate native woody species should be planted. When using temporary structures the area
should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush -hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re -vegetate
naturally and minimizes soil disturbance.
18. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be placed below
the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches,
and 20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow
low flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures
including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in
dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the
above structure S. The applicant :s required to provide evidence that the equ:l.br:um .S being
maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock or
other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact the ITC DWQ for guidance
on how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be required.
19. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural stream cross
section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where

appropriate. Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at the inlet
or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that
requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
20. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
21. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented
and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of NC Sediment and Erosion Control
Planning and Design Manual and NCS000250.
22. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area, unless otherwise
approved by NC Division of Water Quality. Approved BMP measures from the most current
version of NCDOT Construction and Maintenance Activities manual such as sandbags, rock berms,
cofferdams and other diversion structures should be used to prevent excavation in flowing water.
23. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands and streams.
24. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
25. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWl) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of
Wetland Significance (NC -CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent
inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
26. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This
equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters
from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
27. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner
that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly
designed, sized and installed.
28. Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) should be preserved to the maximum extent possible.
Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of
the growing season following completion of construction.

The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any
questions or require any additional information, please contact Nicole Thomson at [phone].
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
John F. Sullivan, Federal Highway Administration
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency -
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission,, —
Gary Jordan, US Fish and Wildlife Service
File Copy

AMA —State Of North Carolina Reviewing Office:
NCDENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources /
Project Number:. � C;- i / �ue Date: /2y/ c,t
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
After review of this project it has been determined that the DENR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in order for this project
to comply with North Carolina Law. Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of this form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
PERMITS
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
Normal Process Time
(StatutoryTime Limit)
❑
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment
Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems
contracts. On -site inspection. Post -application technical conference usual.
30 days
not discharging into state surface waters.
(90 days)
❑
NPDES-permit to discharge into surface water and/or
Application 180 days before begin activity. On -site inspection preapplication
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater treatment
90 -120 days
discharging into state surface waters.
facility -granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue
(N/A)
of NPDES permit -whichever is later.
❑
Water Use Permit
Preapplication technical conference usually necessary
30 days
(N/A)
❑
Well Construction Permit
Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the
7 days
installation of a well.
(15 days)
❑
Dredge and Fill Permit
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner.
On -site inspection. Preapplication conference usual. Filling may require Easement
55 days
_
to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit
(90 days)
❑
Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC
N/A
60 days
(2Q.0100, 2Q.0300, 2H.0600)
®
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with
15 A NCAC 2D.1 110 (a) (1) which requires notification
N/A
60 days
and removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos
(90 days)
Control Group 919-733-0820.
❑
Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.0800
❑
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation
20 days
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Section) at least 30
(30 days)
days before beginning activity. A fee of S • jr the first acre or any part of an acre.
❑
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance.
30 days
Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with NCDOTs approved program. Particular attention should be
given to design and installation of appropriate perimeter sediment trapping devices as well as stable stormwater conveyances and outlets.
❑
Mining Permit
On -site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with DENR. Bond amount varies with
type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any are mined greater than
30 days
one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received before
(60 days)
the permit can be issued
❑
North Carolina Burning permit
On -site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days
1 day
(N/A)
❑
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit-22 counties
On -site inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources required "if more than five
I day
In coastal N.C.with organic soils.
acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should be requested
(N/A)
at least ten days before actual burn is planned!
❑
Oil Refining Facilities
N/A
g0 -120 days
(N/A) _

PERMITS
❑ I Dam Safety Permit
❑I Permit to drill exploratory oil o
r gas well
❑, Geophysical Ex�ploration Permit
131 State Lakes Construction Permit
❑ 401 Water Quality Certification
❑ CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS
If Permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans, Inspect construction, certify
construction is according to DENR approved plans. May also require permit under
mosquito control program, and a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers
An inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum
fee of $200.00 must accompany the application. An additional processing fee
based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
File surety bond of $5,000 with DENR running to State of N.C. conditional that any
well opened by drill operator shall, upon abandonment, be plugged according
to DENR rules and regulations.
Application filed with DENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit. Application
by letter. No standard application form.
='=t
ure size is charged. Must include descriptionsof ownership of riparian property.
N/A'
Normal Proces
Statutory Time Limit;
$250.00 fee must accompany application
❑ CAMA Permit for MINOR development
$50.00 fee must accompany application
❑ Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monument needs to be moved or destroyed, lease notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687 Raleigh, N.0 27611
P
Abandonment of any wells, if required must be in accordance with Title 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100.
❑ Notification of the proper regional office is requested if.
Orphan' underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered Burin a
❑ Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. g ny excavation operation.
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority)
2006
Lr�
?;%
30 days
(60 days)
10 days
(N/A)
10 days
(N/A)
15 - 20 days
(N/A)
55 days
030 days)
60��
(130 days)
22 days
(25 days)
45 days
(N/A)
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addres
sed to the Regional Office marked below.
❑ Asheville Regional Office ❑ M
59 Woodfin Place
Asheville, N.C.28801
[phone]
❑ Fayetteville Regional Office
225 Green Street, Suite 714
Fayetteville, N.C. 28301
[phone]
ooresvllle Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, N.C. 28115
[phone]
❑ Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C.27611
[phone]
❑ Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, N.C.27889
[phone]
❑ Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, N.C.2,9405
[phone]
❑ Winston-Salem Regional Office
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, N.C. 27107
[phone]

v
�7 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
���� V NATURAL RESOURCES
a
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Inter -Agency Project Review Response
Project Name US DOT & NC DOT Type of Project
C
Protect Number
06-0233
County
burham
Proposal to widen NC 55 to a
month, four -lane median to
improve safety alone NC 55
(Alston Ave) between NC 147
The applicant should be advised that plans & US 70 Bus./NC 98
and specifications for all water system (Holloway St.). TIP No. U-
improvements must be approved by the 3308.
Division of Environmental Health prior to the
award of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC
.0300et. seq.). For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919)
733-2321.
18C
This project will be classified as a non -community public water supply and must comply
with state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the
applicant should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
❑ If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of
adjacent waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfish
sanitation program, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Section at (252)
726-6827.
❑ The soil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding
problem. For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the
applicant should contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
❑ The applicant should be advised that. prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated
structures, a extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control,
contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management Section at
[phone].
❑ The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
requirements for septic tank installations ('as required under 15A NCAC 18A. 1900 et.
sep.). For information concerning septic tank and other on -site waste disposal methods,
contact the On -Site Wastewater Section at [phone].
❑ The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding the
sanitary facilities required for this project.
(� If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line
f__ t--...:a._.J t., al.,, r,�..:..:.... r C.. fnl l--I -,I#h Diihlir 1Alafer
relocation mull UC JUUIIIILL U to the Division of LEnvironmental f c.-Iu
Supply Section, Technical Services Branch, 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1634, [phone].
Z For Regional and Central Office comments, see the reverse side of this form.
Jim McRight PWSS 02/21/06
Reviewer Section/Branch Date
S:1Pws\Ange1a W1CtearinghouselReview Response Pgs 1 and 2 for input.doc

a
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Inter -Agency Project Review Response
Project Name US DOT & NC DOT
Comments provided by:
❑ Regional Program Person
Type of Project
® Regional Supervisor for Public Water Supply Section
❑ Central Office program person
Name Michael Douglas -Raleigh RO Date
Telephone number: _% ( l "7 2-0)
Program within Division of Environmental Health:
[Public Water Supply
❑ Other, Name of Program:
Response (check all applicable):
❑ No objection to project as proposed
❑ No comment
❑ Insufficient information to complete review
❑ Comments attached
2-1104-See comments below
02/21 /06
Project Number
06-0233
County
Durham
Proposal to iiiden NC 55 to a
mosttc four -lane median to
improve safety along NC 55
(Alston Ave.) between NC
147 & US 70 Bus.JNC 98
(Hollowwv St.). TIP No. U-
3308.
6
VJ
I l ti L.l ✓\/�' V C� i' �nr17 i 7
f r .
Return to:
Public Water Supply Section
Environmental Review Coordinator
for the Division of Environmental Health

Ftxl..rul.•lid ,,ur STP-55(20) TIP r U-3 308 Coimty: Durham
Properties witil:a the area of polemlal : ffcct for which there is no eff.-;t. lndicate if prop<rty is
(NTIRI) or diet crrnin�!eiiYib!c lDE).
ii?r i'•there:s an,rt\' ..-_i�;_..
Branson :Methodist Church (DE)—IN'o .a(lv.:_r `: .v '` al ;, >=a��. � ial:I:��i:Jiii%�,i� �JIila'sill:�' �a: i:iiCh.
below)
Pure Oil Filling :station (DE --No eifeCi with ervironmental corn.-nitmc!its (I;s:ed
below)
Golden Belt IINtoric District (NR) Averse Effect
1`21`0110wa- Str etI Hiswric District Ez:pa--stun EINcct
ri,i` Ys' ; 1 ie' :C11'S. ti v�:ii::. j'Ian:i
01
'So I .3i Ii,ev -1e .11,L: tl
le -ill
Pure Oil Filling Station (DE) Frivironmertal Cominitments:
1. NC DOT u iii utilizc z ternporjry construction easement ,
2. tiCDOT plans to construct a new sidewalk further away froin the station
3.:vCDOT agees to repair any damage to the wali on the south side of the property it
darna=_:. is incurred. bv i\C.1DOi o: its co:.t.,actors du ins construction.
_,il`:v_=

E'A
CITY OF DURHAM
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
101 CITY HALL PLAZA • DURHAM, NC 27701
919.5 60.4 3 66 • fax [phone]
www.durhamnc.gov
June 30, 2006
Ms. Beverly G. Robinson
Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT
1548 Mail Center Service
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
RE: Alston Avenue Widening (TIP Project U-3308)
Dear Ms. Robinson:
We are in receipt of the Administrative Action -Environmental Assessment and Draft
Section 4(f) Evaluation for NC55 (Alston Avenue) from NC 147 (IL`Buck'Dean
Freeway) to US 70 Business/NC 98 (Holloway Street) (TIP Project U-3308) and offer the
following comments on this project.
We appreciate the consideration of our comments dated August 7, 2003, November 18,
2003, and August 4, 2004 which are included in the environmental document. However,
we remain concerned with several issues including the excessive provision of right turn,
lanes, the street cross section and manner in which pedestrian issues are addressed and
the treatment of streets intersecting Alston Avenue. These concerns are addressed in
greater detail below.
Right Turn Lanes —As noted in previous correspondence there is significant
pedestrian activity along Alston Avenue. The provision of right turn lanes at
several of the intersections along this project is dangerous for pedestrians and
will impede safe pedestrian movement at these intersections. Ironically, the
City is currently working with NCDOT to remove the islands and free right
turn lanes at other locations in the City to improve pedestrian safety. Further,
the capacity analysis of the intersections at which right turn lanes are proposed
does not indicate a need for right turn lanes to provide an acceptable level of
service. Therefore, we request again that the exclusive right turn lanes be
eliminated from this project. We would be willing to consider exclusive right
Good Things Are Happening In Durham

turn lanes on Holloway Street without islands so that these lanes could operate
under signal control to provide a safer pedestrian crossing.
2. Street Cross Section —The proposed cross section recommends a five foot
sidewalk located two feet from the face of the curb within a ten foot berm.
Due to the heavy pedestrian activity along this corridor we recommend that a
six foot sidewalk be provided and located a minimum distance of three feet
from the face of the curb to provide a safer environment for pedestrians. A
twelve foot berm should be provided to accommodate utility poles behind the
sidewalk.
3. Treatment of Streets Intersecting Alston Avenue—We.recommend that Wall
Street continue to intersect Alston Avenue from the east and that two way
traffic be maintained on Worth, Franklin and Wall Streets on both sides of
Alston Avenue if this can be done without increasing the number of homes to
be relocated. We also recommend that sidewalks be provided on one side of
these streets. We further recommend that the curb radius at streets
intersecting Alston Avenue be minimized while providing sufficient radius to
accommodate anticipated vehicular traffic.
We also question the shift in the alignment of Alston Avenue between Angier and Main
Streets and with the removal of the right turn lanes recommend that the alignment shift to
the east to the maximum extent possible.
We further find the proposed eight to ten foot lowering of the existing grade of Alston
Avenue under the railroad unacceptable and request design alternatives that will reduce
the magnitude of the grade change to Alston Avenue at the railroad to no more than three
feet.
We have consistently noted the heavy pedestrian activity in this corridor and emphasized
the need to incorporate design features that safely accommodate pedestrians.
Unfortunately, we feel that the proposed design of Alston Avenue does not safely
accommodate pedestrians and is not sensitive to the context in which the project is
located. Therefore, we respectfully request that the final design of this project be context
sensitive and that the aforementioned recommendations/requests be included in the final
design.

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NC55 (Alston Avenue) Widening
from NC 147 (I.L. 'Buck" Dean Freeway to
= US 70 Business/NC 98 (Holloway Street)
WBS Number 34915.1.1
TIP PROJECT U-3308
Federal Aid No. STP-55(20)
Durham County
Combined Public Hearing
Performance Hall & Community Room
Hayti Heritage Center
804 Old Fayetteville Street
Durham
Open House 4:30 p.m. — 7:00 p.m.
Presentation 7:00 p.m.
November 21 2006
NCDOT - Human Environment Unit - 1583 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1583

Widening of NC 55 (Alston Avenue)
TIP U-3308
Durham County
Packet Contents:
Project Overview
• Public. Involvement Process
• Project Funding
• Public Hearing Format
• Right of Way Procedures
• Project Contact Information
• Project Map
• Comment Sheet
NCDOT v Human Environment Unit ® 1583 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1583

Project Overview
This project is located east of Durham's Central Business just north of NC 147 (Durham
Freeway). The proposed project will widen 1.0 miles of NC 55 (Alston Avenue) to a 4-lane
median divided roadway with curb and gutter from NC 147 Durham Freeway to US 70
Business/NC 98 (Holloway Street). The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion and
improve safety.
The project will have one 11' wide inside lane and one 14' wide outside lane to
accommodate bicyclists in each direction with a 16.0' raised median. In addition the City of
Durham will work with NCDOT to install any new sidewalks on both sides for the entire
length of the project, as well as Worth Street and Franklin Street.
Project Funding
NC 55 (Alston Avenue), a Federal -Aid Highway Project, will be constructed under the State -
Federal Aid Highway Program. Financing of this project is 80% federal funds and 20% state
funds. The Board of Transportation is responsible for the selection and scheduling of the
project location, design and maintenance cost of the project once construction is completed.
In order to ensure that each Federal Aid Highway Project meets federal standards and
guidelines, the Federal Highway Administration is responsible for the review and approval of
the location and design of the project. Preliminary cost estimates for widening NC 55 is:
Right of Way Acquisition $ 5,020,000 Schedule: FY 2007
Construction $ 23,100,000 FY 2009
Total Cost $ 28,120,000
Public Involvement Process
NCDOT's Public Involvement Program provides interested citizens the opportunity to gain
information about the project and to participate in the planning process. Tonight's open
house and public hearing is an important step in the department's transportation
development process.
The Public Hearing and Comment Period allows you the opportunity to provide input °
regarding the NC 55 widening project. Everyone is encouraged to participate by expressing
his or her individual opinion. Please note that the project team considers all opinions
equally.
Public Hearing 3 Ali
November 2, 2006

Widening of NC 55 TIP U-3308
Planning and environmental studies on the project are provided in the environmental report
- Environmental Assessment (EA). Copies of this report and today's hearing map have been
available for public review at the City of Durham Transportation Division, 101 City Hall
Plaza, 4th Floor, Durham, 27701, at the Durham County Main Library, 300 North Roxboro
Street, Durham; 27701 and at the NCDOT Highway Division Office, 2612 North Duke
Street, Durham, 27704.
Public Hearing Format
Tonight's meeting is a continuation of the department's efforts to gather information
regarding the widening of NC 55. This is an occasion for the project team to meet you and
answer your questions. It is also an opportunity for you to meet the team members and
obtain additional information about the project.
MAP REVIEW
Maps of the NC 55 project are available and will help guide you regarding the
project boundaries, sections of the road that will be improved and properties .that
a will be impacted by right of way acquisition.
When looking at the maps you will note there is a legend in the bottom left corner. Below
are some of the items on the map to which you may want to pay particular attention.
(General Legend Shown)
• Brown = existing buildings, i.e. residents and businesses
• Dark green = existing right of way
• Light green = proposed right of way
• Steel = existing roadway
• Orange = existing roadway that will be resurfaced
• Yellow = proposed roadway
• Red = proposed structures, i.e. a bridge
a
OPEN HOUSE
LEGEND:
® BUILDINGS
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
ALL EASEMENTS
CO EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENT
S RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY
CI EXISTING ROADWAY
EXISTING ROADWAY TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING ROADWAY TO BE RESURFACED
C`7 PROPOSED ROADWAY
PROPOSED0 AND SGUTTER
TRUCTURES, ISLAND, SIDEWALK,
The open house is from 4:30 - 7 p.m. and is an occasion for you to meet one on
one with project team members.
PUBLIC HEARING
A presentation regarding the project and design public hearing begins at 7 p.m.
You will have the opportunity to provide verbal comments. All proceedings of the
It public hearing are recorded.
COMMENTS
Please take a moment to complete the comment sheet, at the end of this
information packet. Both written and verbal comments are considered equally
Public Hearing 4
November 2, 2006 A4W

Widening of NC 55 TIP U-3308
by the project team and will be accepted until November 22, 2006. You may give your
comment sheet to a project team member, drop it in the comment box, located at the sign in
table, or mail it to the Senior Public Hearing Officer, Kimberly Hinton.
Once the comment period closes the project team will meet again with NCDOT and federal
agency staff who play a role in the project development. In addition to public comment, the
project team will also considers safety, cost, traffic service, and social impacts when making
decisions regarding the next phase of the project.
If an issue merits further consideration, additional assessments and studies may be
conducted. Board of Transportation Members and/or the Secretary of Transportation may
be consulted, if necessary. If you wish to receive a copy of the post hearing meeting
minutes, please indicate so on the comment sheet.
Right of Way Procedures
There are nineteen (19) homes, four (4) businesses, one (1) church, and two (2)
apartment buildings that are anticipated to be relocated as a result of this project.
Existing right of way for the NC 55 project is about 60 feet. The proposed right of way is
about 110 - 120 feet. Proposed right of way and temporary construction easements will be
purchased by NCDOT in areas needed for grading and drainage. The easements will revert
back to the property owners at the end of construction. Right of way agents are available to
discuss right of way concerns.
NCDOT's standard right of way procedures are outlined below. If your property is affected,
the right of way agent will contact you. The agent will gather additional information, answer
questions concerning the right of way acquisition procedure and inform you of your legal
rights.
As part of the right of way acquisition process NCDOT must:
• Treat all property owners and tenants impartially without regard to race, color,
religion, sex or national origin;
• Fully explain an owner's legal rights;
• Pay just compensation in exchange for property rights;
• Furnish relocation advisory assistance, in accordance with federal and state
regulations; and
• Initiate legal action should a settlement not be reached.
Right of way agents are trained to explain plans and advise you how a proposed highway
project will affect your property. The agent will also collect information regarding the
property history, accuracy of the property lines and buildings as shown on the plans and
property areas. If permanent right of way is required, professionals who are familiar with
real estate values will evaluate or appraise your property. The evaluations or appraisals will
be reviewed for completeness and accuracy and then the Right of Way Agent will make a
written offer to you. The current market value of the property at its highest and best use,
when appraised, will be offered as compensation.
Public Hearing 5 i i
November 2, 2006

Widening of NC 55
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
If you are relocated, that is, if your residence or business is to be acquired as part of the
project, additional assistance in the form of advice and compensation is available. You will
also be provided with assistance on locations of comparable housing and/or commercial
establishments, moving procedures, and moving aid. Moving expenses may be paid for you.
Additional monetary compensation is available to help homeowners cope with mortgage
increases, increased value of comparable homes, closing costs, etc. A similar program is
available to assist business owners. The Right of Way Agent can explain this assistance in
greater detail.
For your convenience, an informational pamphlet on right of way and relocation assistance
is available at the sign in table. It outlines this process in more detail.
Project Contact Information
If you have any question or would like to send comments regarding NC 55, please contact:
Kimberly D. Hinton
Senior Public Hearing Officer
N.C. Department of Transportation
Human Environment Unit
1583 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1583
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Project Map
The Public Hearing Map is attached in the back of this handout along with the Public
Hearing Map Legend.
Public Hearing 6
November 2, 2006

Comment Sheet
Submit by November 22, 2006
Name:
Address:
Public Hearing 7 Ali i
November 2, 2006

E991-669LZ ON `461e118N
r rx �elueo GoweS HOW E85�
mun ;uewuoulnu3 ueuunH - JLOa0N
u(4ulH 'a ANequurA

3
FIT--
W4 - , i
TA(
oat-_—_
�1�

FF
Y �
�9 IL d
6 16
rc
n #
UJI
i �. 02
W ���.i!z

4u
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAELF. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
MEMO TO: Post Hearing Meeting Attendees
FROM: Jay Bennett, P
State Roadway es' n Wintr
'V
DATE: January 2, 20 7
SUBJECT: Project 34915.1.1 (U-3308) Durham County
NC 55 (Alston Avenue) from NC 147 to north of US 70
Bus./NC 98 (Holloway Street) in Durham
Post Hearing Meeting
A post hearing meeting was held on December 5, 2006 in the
Highway Design Conference Room to discuss the verbal and written
comments received from the Combined Public Hearing. This hearing
was held on November 3, 2006 at the Hayti Community Center in
Durham, NC. Approximately 29 people attended. Four people spoke
at the hearing and 19 sent written comments.
Post Hearing Meeting Attendees
Art McMillan
Highway Design
Jay Bennett
Roadway Design
Dewayne Sykes
Roadway Design
James Speer
Roadway Design
John Lansford
Roadway Design
Kimberly Hutton
Public Involvement
Allen Raynor
Structure Design
Lonnie Brooks
Structure Design
Eric Midkiff
PDEA
James Dunlop.
Congestion Management
BenJetta Johnson
Congestion Management
Tom Norman
Bicycle/Pedestrian Unit
Bob Mosher
Bicycle/Pedestrian Unit
Jeffrey Cox
Bicycle/Pedestrian Unit
Jim Harris
Rail Division
Brian Orthner
Rail Division
Doumit Ishak
Signals & Geometrics
Jesse Gilstrap
Traffic Control
Robert Mathis
Division 5 R/W
Thomas Perry
Division 5 R/W
Mark Ahrendsen
City of Durham
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
RODEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONFAX' 919-250-4036 CENTURY CENTER COMPLEX
P,OAD;"!F'I DESIGN UNIT
1 E82 M'11- SERVICE CENTER BUILDING A
WEGJIrE: WWW.DOH.DOr.STATE.NC.US 1000 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
R,.L�IGH NC 27699-1582
RALEIGH NC

Post Hearing Attendees
Page 2
January 2, 2007
Executive Summary
• There were 3 verbal and 12 written requests to eliminate the
right turn lanes throughout the project to make the project
more pedestrian friendly. After discussion, Congestion
Management agreed to evaluate the right turn lanes at Liberty
Street and recommend if any should be removed. The other
right turn lanes on the project (at the interchange with NC
147, Gann, Main, Angier, and Holloway Streets) will remain as
shown on the plans. Mark Ahrendsen (City of Durham) remains
opposed to keeping right turn lanes on the project except at
Holloway Street.
• There were 3 verbal and 12 written requests to reduce the lane
widths on Alston Avenue to at least 11 ft., and as narrow as
10 ft. for left turn lanes. NCDOT agreed to reduce the left
turn lane width to 11 ft. and increase the concrete median
island width adjacent to the left turn lane to 5 ft.
• There were 9 written requests to add striped bicycle lanes to
the project instead of the current 14 ft. outside shared
through lanes. The City of Durham requested restriping the 14
ft. lane as an 11 ft. vehicular lane and a 3 ft. bicycle lane.
The Durham Bicycle Commission requested a 4 ft. bicycle lane.
Citing safety concerns, NCDOT could not justify this request;
the 14 ft. outside lane is considered sufficient for both
bicycle and vehicular use.
• There were 3 verbal and 12 written requests to widen the
sidewalks along Alston Avenue to at least 6 ft., preferably
8 ft., and place the sidewalk at least 3 ft. from the back of
the curb and gutter. In order to widen the sidewalks to 8
ft., the berm width would need to be increased over the
current 10.ft. width. The City of Durham will need to commit
to paying for the additional 1 ft. of sidewalk width over 5ft.
before NCDOT will agree to widening the sidewalks to Eft.
• There were 3 verbal and 10 written requests to reduce the
intersection radii to the minimum needed to allow design
vehicles to safely make turning movements. The proposed radii
take into account various design vehicles depending on the ,
type of crossing road at the intersection; they vary from
20 ft. for passenger cars to 75 ft. for skewed intersections
with right turn lanes, using large trucks as the design
vehicle. Roadway Design agreed to meet further with the
Bicycle/Pedestrian Unit and review the intersections to see
if any of them can be further improved.

Post Hearing Attendees
Page 3
January 2, 2007
• There were 3 verbal and 10 written requests to eliminate the
cul-de-sacs on Eva and Wall Streets. Wall Street is located
within a Historic District and connecting it to Alston Avenue
would result in impacts to homes in the District. Connecting
Eva Street to Alston Avenue results in a very steep proposed
grade that would impact every home along the road. Both
streets are recommended to remain with cul-de-sacs.
• There were 3 verbal and 11 written requests to provide funding
for decorative plantings along Alston Avenue and within the
median, over and above what is normally provided. The project
will include an additional 0.75% of the construction cost for
landscaping, and the City of Durham can include more funding
if they wish.
Responses to Comments not Already Addressed
• There were 2 verbal and one written comment (Tom Davis) to
return Worth, Franklin and Wall Streets to a two lane, two-way
configuration.
Response: All three streets are in a Historic District on the
west side of Alston Avenue. The proposed grades for these
streets will result in severe housing impacts if these streets
remain as two lane, two-way roads. On the east side the grades
are much less severe, and for Franklin and Worth Streets it is
possible to connect them to Alston Avenue without converting them
to a one lane, one-way configuration. We plan to pursue leaving
Franklin and Worth Streets on the east side of Alston.Avenue two
lanes, two-way roads.
• There were 2 written requests to provide direct pedestrian
access to the future TTA rail station located on Pettigrew
Street. (Peter Schubert & the City of Durham)
Response: No direct access will be provided on this project, but
a sidewalk will be added to Gann, Chatham and Pettigrew Streets,
providing pedestrian access to the future train station.
• There were 2 written requests concerning the proposed
retaining walls on the project. One request was from Tom
Davis, the HOPE VI developer, asking that they be eliminated
from the project. The other request was from the City of
Durham asking that any walls have aesthetic treatments to
allow them to match the existing walls in the neighborhoods.

Post Hearing Attendees
Page 4
January.2, 2007
Response: The walls are required to avoid impacting to. adjacent
properties and will not be removed. Aesthetic treatments will
be added to the walls to match them to the existing walls in
the area.
• There were 3 written requests for the installation of mast
arms and pedestrian buttons at all signalized intersections.
(City of Durham, Durham Bicycle/Pedestrian and Schubert)
Response: This request will be included in the plans.
• There were 2 written requests to decrease the depth of cut
below the railroad bridges, to no deeper than 3ft. (City of
Durham and Schubert)
Response: The proposed depth of cut is 6.5 ft., due to the deeper
railroad structure and a_greater vertical clearance height than
current conditions. The only option to reducing the depth of cut
is to extend the railroad grades .back a substaintial distance to
raise the structures higher. This action is not economically
feasible.
• There were 2 written requests to provide direct pedestrian
access to the future TTA rail station located on Pettigrew
Street. (City of Durham and Schubert)
Response: No direct access will be provided on this project, but
a sidewalk will be added to Gann, Chatham and Pettigrew Streets,
providing pedestrian access to the future train station.
• There were 2 written requests concerning the proposed
retaining walls on the project. One request was from Tom
Davis, the HOPE VI developer, asking that they be eliminated
from the project. The other request was from the City of
Durham asking that any walls have aesthetic treatments to
allow them to match the existing walls in the neighborhoods.
Response: The walls are required to avoid impacting adjacent
properties and will not be removed. Aesthetic treatments will
be added to the walls to match them to the existing walls in »
the area.
• There was one verbal and two written comments to shift the
horizontal alignment of Alston Avenue eastward in the area
between Main Street and Morning Glory Road to use more of
the existing roadway. (City of Durham and Tom Davis)

Post Hearing Attendees
Page 5
January 2, 2007
Response: The current alignment is further west of the existing
roadway in this area to provide room for a right turn lane at
Angier Street and avoid impacting two historic properties. The
alignment will remain as currently proposed.
• Add high visibility crosswalks to all signalized intersections
' (Peter Schubert)
Response: High visibility markings will be 'considered at all
signalized intersections.
• Eliminate the NB free -flow ramp from Alston Avenue onto NC 147
(Peter Schubert)
Response: The NB turning movement onto NC 147 has a very high
traffic volume. Eliminating the free -flow ramp would cause a
long queue of traffic that would back into the through lanes,
creating additional capacity problems for Alston Avenue. The NB
free -flow ramp will not be eliminated.
• Provide bus pull-outs along Alston Avenue (Peter Schubert)
Response: There is insufficient room along the project corridor
for bus pull-outs due to Historic Properties, Historic Districts,
the number of crossing roads and the proximity of businesses and
residences. No bus pull-outs are proposed.
• Reduce the length of left turn lanes and tapers to provide
more median for landscaping (Tom Davis, HOPE VI developer)
Response: The left turn lanes and tapers are at the minimum
lengths recommended for the current design. No further
reductions in length will be made.
• Relocate the existing grocery store impacted by the project
(City of Durham)
Response: It is up to the impacted business owner to decide where
he wants to relocate his business. Compensation and relocation
assistance will be offered to the owner, but the Department
cannot purchase property and construct a building for the owner
in order to keep the grocery store in the area.

Post Hearing Attendees
Page 6
January 2, 2007
• Eliminate the median in favor of a narrower road and on -street
parking (Michael Bacon)
Response: Eliminating the median would result in a four lane road "
with no left turn lane, resulting in increased crash potential
and increased congestion. Adding on -street parking near adjacent
businesses would increase the width of the roadway beyond what is
currently proposed, and create additional safety hazards for
motorists, pedestrians and cyclists.
• Requested a pedestrian crossing over Alston Avenue for
schoolchildren going to the elementary school (Dr. Ed Woods)
Response: Pedestrian overpasses are not recommended on this
project due to the lack of available right of way, presence of
numerous signalized intersections and construction costs.
• Requested information on when Alston Avenue would be widened
north of this project to I-85 (Bill Egan)
Response: Further widening of Alston Avenue is not programmed in
the current Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP)
• Concerns over dangers to children and access to the Salvation
Army building (Mark Jacobs)
Response: Railing or fencing used in conjunction. with the
proposed retaining wall near the Salvation Army building will be
extended to protect the buildings entrance.
• Change direction of one-way roads to better suit HOPE VI
developments (Tom Davis)
Response: This request. will be studied and, if acceptable to the
City of Durham, will be incorporated into the plans.
• _Requested information on impacts to business at the Holloway
Street/Alston Avenue intersection (Ken Vehslage)
Response: The requested information will be sent

Post Hearing Attendees
Page 7
January 2, 2007
• Requested an alignment shift of Alston Avenue to avoid the BP
Station near Gann Street (M.L. Barnes)
Response: Widening Alston Avenue to the west (towards the BP
Station) is required due to the future TTA station to the east
and the need to connect to existing Alston Avenue to the south of
NC 143.
• Requested information on right of way and construction dates,
as well as copies of handouts from the Combined Hearing
(Seneca -Jacobs)
Response: The information has been provided.
A copy of the hearing transcript is attached. If there are any
questions or comments concerning this information, please contact
me or James Speer, PE, Project Engineer, at [phone].
JAB/ jcl
Attachment
cc: Kenneth Spaulding, Member, Board of Transportation
Deborah Barbour, PE
Felix Nwoko (MPO Contact)

I OFFICIAL PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT
2 Combined Public Hearina for
3 NC 55 (Alston Avenue) Widening
4 From NC 147 to US 70 Business/NIC 98
5 Hayti Heritage Center
6 November 2, 2006
7 TIPU-,3108
8
9
10 Welcome to tonight's public hearing on the widening of Alston Avenue between NC 147,
11 Buck Dean Freeway to US 70 BLISiness[NC 98 or Holloway Street. My name is
12 Kimberly Hinton and I'm with the North Carolina Department of Transportation in the
13 Human Environment Unit. First off just to let you know the format for tonight's public
14 hearing; I will go over introductions, then we'll go over the handout. Does everybody
15 have a handout? If you don't just raise your hand. After I finish going over the handout
16 we'll go through the map description and then we'll take recorded comments. We'll start
17 with the people who signed in and then we'll take additional comments after we've gone
18 through the list.
19 u
20 We have with us tonight Tracy Parrott who's with the local division office. Earlier we
21 had our deputy division engineer, Wally Bowman out tonight. Also with the Location
22 and Surveys local division office is Larry Williford and Derrick Bradner. They will be
23 coming "out surveying the property once we get started with the right-of-way. With the
24 City we have here tonight, Mark Arhendson and Mr. Wesley Parham. In our Right-Of-
25 Way office we have Mr. Robert Mathes, our Roadway Design unit we have Mr. Jim
26 Speer and John Lansford. In our Project Development unit we have Beverly Robinson
27 and Derrick Weaver here. With me tonight we have Jamille Robbins, Kevin Jenkins,
28 working the sign -in table and Ed Lewis, thank you.
29
30 Okay, If you just open up your handout, the second sheet behind the title sheet, it just
31 tells you what's in the handout. We're going to go over the project, the purpose of the
32 project, our public involvement process, the project funding, our format for tonight, right-
33 of -way procedures, my contact information, the project map and then the comment sheet.
34 I'll just pause briefly to pull out the comment sheet and let you know that this is very
35 important. Please, if you have a moment, and I think some of you have already, fill your
36 comment sheet out tonight if you could. If you have more comments that you want to
37 give you can get that into me as well. The due date for the comment sheet is November
38 22 and we'll talk about that some more too.
39
40 If you go to your next page, page three. Why are we doing this project? The Purpose of
41 this project is to reduce congestion along Alston Avenue and also to improve the safety.
42 We've worked with the City of Durham or the Metropolitan Planning Organization and
43 on their long-range plan they have identified Alston Avenue as one of their projects that
44 needs to be improved. So we've worked with the city on this project.
45
46 Now what will be done. The project will be widened to a four -lane divided facility or
47 roadway and we'll have sidewalks on both sides. The outside travel lanes will be wide
U-3308 —Alston Avenue Widening 11/2/06 pale ]

3.
48 enough to accommodate bicycles. The median will be a grassed, landscape median, 16'
49 wide.
50
51 Project Funding, the funding for this project, 80% of this funding will come from federal
52 funds and 20% from the state. The right-of-way acquisition on this project is $5,020,000.
53 It is scheduled to begin next year, fiscal year 2007. The construction cost for this project
54 is $23,100,000 dollars and construction is scheduled to start in 2009. The total cost for
55 this project is $28.120.000 dollars.
56
57 Our Public Involvement Process: this process is an opportunity to allow the public
58 citizens to come out and see what's going on with the project and gather your comments.
59 We're in the process of writing an environmental document. These comments will go
60 into the environmental document. So your comments are important and they count so
61 please don't think that, "no, I'm not going to write a comment." Please, write your
62 comment. We look at each and every comment. We're not out here to debate anybody.
63 We're just here to listen to your concerns and get your questions answered. Everyone's
64 opinion is valued and considered equally.
65
66 Now before we came,out we advertised in several newspapers and we also put the
67 environmental document and the map out in three locations. It was at the City of Durham
68 Transportation Division and the Durham County Main Library, as well as our local
69 Division Office. So you had an opportunity to go out there and take a look and if you
70 know anybody that wasn't able to come tonight, those documents and the map will still
71 be at those locations so they can still go out and take a look at them.
72
73 Our Public Hearing format: Tonight we start with the open house and the map review.
74 Open the map, what you have here in the handout is a general legend. The most
75 important thing on the legend is the buildings and the Light Green color. The building's
76 meaning is the Brown color. The Light Green would be our proposed right of way.
77 From 4:30 until 7:00 p.m. we started with an informal one-on-one meeting, met with
78 everyone individually and so at 7:00 p.m. we started with the presentation. It goes on,
79 it's not just here for tonight. Your comments are very important, I'll keep reiterating that.
80 There's a comment sheet on the back. The due date is November the 22nd. Take a
81 moment to jot your comments down now while they're fresh in your head or if you have
82 additional comments or if you want to take it home and write it up, just put your
83 comments in and get it back to us. Well. what are we going to do with these comments?
84 Turn over to the next page. We'll go over each and every comment at our post hearing
85 meeting. We'll have a project team of roadway design, hydraulics, community studies,
86 traffic, local division office, federal government, we'll all get together and go over the
87 comments for this project at our post hearing meeting. If you would like minutes for that
88 meeting, they will be available and you can put that on your comment sheet.
89
90 Right -of -Way procedures: This project as indicated on the map, we kind of like to put the
91 worse case scenario. We have nineteen homes that's going to be acquired, four
92 businesses, one church, which is actually now a duplex, and two apartment buildings.
93 This is what is anticipated. We may find that we will not have to acquire everything but
94 this is a worse case scenario. Once we get to the right-of-way design portion of the
U-3308 — Alston Avenue WideninL* 1 1/2/06 page 2

95 project, we may be able to save some homes from being purchased. Our Right -Of -Way
96 Agents are very good at explaining the process. They're going to come out to your home
97 and talk with you one-on-one. Location and SuryeyS will come out and they'll survey the
98 area and you'll see them out in the yard and along the project. Once they finish
99 surveying the area the Right -Of -Way Agent will come out and explain it crystal cleat- so
100 that you'll understand. Mr. Mathes is going to stick around a little bit after the meeting if
101 you still have additional questions for him. We will treat all property owners and tenants
102 impartially. We will fully explain your legal rights. We will pay just compensation for
103 the exchange of your property. We will also furnish relocation assistance for the property
104 owner and the tenant, whether you're a resident or a business, if you're a business lessee
105 or a business owner. Although this is a difficult time and the road widening process is
106 going to happen, we wouldn't want to, but if we would need to take legal action to work
107 it out, then we would do that as well. y
108
109 Relocation Assistance on the next page: With the relocation assistance we'll help you
110 find a comparable house. We would help you with moving expenses and this is also for
1 1 1 your property owner as well as the tenant, whether it be resident or business.
112
113 Here's my project contact information again. I will be taking all comments for the public
114 hearing and we'll be passing them over to the project team members that I introduced
115 earlier.
116
117 The Project Map: If you also turn in your packet, there's the legend. I'm going to go over
118 to the map now and go over the legend. The most important thing on the legend is the
119 buildings and the buildings are Brown. The Light Green is the proposed right-of-way.
120 The Dark Green is existing right of way. Your easement is going to be the Light Green
121 with the Hashed Lines. This is where we have to rent the property during construction.
122 After construction typically all the project will .go and return back to the property owner.
123 It is used for construction equipment and things of that nature. So as they build the
124 project, we can use this area. The Gray would be existing roadway and some of that
125 we'll be removing and that's the Gray Hashed Marks. The Orange we're going to be
126 resurfacing these areas. The Yellow is the new roadway. The Red will be your
127 structures, bridges, curb and gutter, sidewalks. Here we have the Candy Stripe with the
128 structures that would be replacing structures. The Red with the Dark Hash are structures
129 that will be removed.
130
131 We'll stop there, start describing the map. If you want to pull out the map, I know it's
132 small. If you want to pull out the map and look at it as I'm going across it up here, it's on
133 the last page. The project will start at the ramp, on the south side of the project. This
134 would be the Buck Dean Freeway or the Durham Freeway. We'll be adding a ramp in
135 the southbound lane. Widening the bridge on the Durham "I.L. Buck Dean' -'Freeway
136 which will also be raised about a foot and widened. As we proceed northward, the
137 section between the ramp and Pettigrew Street Bridge, this section will be five lanes. We
138 will be realigning the ramp that's going in the westbound direction. The bridges. the
139 Pettigrew Street Bridge and the two railroad street bridges will be replaced and widened.
lio After you cross over and go udder the railroad street bridges, that's where the rnedian will
141 start. (Inaudible). Then as you're proceed up to Angier Avenue, we'll have a dedicated
142 right lane that will turn eastward onto Angier Avenue. There will not be one in the
U-3308 — Alston Avenuc Widening 1 1/2/06 page 3

143 southbound direction or the northern direction. It would be shared with the through lane.
144 Then we have the historic property, the Asbury Temple, that we are going to build a
145 (inaudible). You will go past the Asbury Temple and shift to the north because there's
146 another historic property the Pure Oil Filling Station. So we'll shift on the left side
147 towards downtown.
148
149 Then we will proceed past the Durham Rescue Mission. Right there at the Senior
150 Citizen's Center, there will be three one-way streets established here on Worth, Franklin
151 and Wall Streets. With Franklin Street one-way, we'll be going towards downtown.
152 With Worth and Wall, you're going in the opposite direction towards the east. Also for
153 the east side of the project. Worth and Franklin will also be one-way. However on the
154 east side of the project, Franklin will be going in the eastern direction and Worth will be
155 going towards the central business district. There will beno access to Wall Street. We
156 will be providing a turn -around for people are coming from South Holman Street. As
157 they come up, they can not turn on Alston because they have to turn around and come
158 back down. The reason why we're one-waying these streets are because of the vertical
159 alignment. What I mean about that is the existing roads right now sit higher than Alston
160 Avenue. Alston Avenue needs to be lowered. Going back to the bridges to create a
161 standard height here, it's going to be lowered and we're going come to a one-way street
162 there. Alston would be lowered to make the (Inaudible) so that you don't have to impact
163 houses. That's why it's going to be a one-way pair here. It also creates controlled access
164 and safety (inaudible).
165
166 Continuing northward past the school, we're going to put up a retaining wall at the school
167 area. This is the place there on the other side and we'll be putting sidewalks right at the
168 retaining wall. (Inaudible) Going towards Liberty Street, Liberty will have a dedicated
169 right hand turn. It will be dedicated in both directions at this intersection in the
170 northbound and southbound direction. Then on Liberty it extends and we will have a
171 dedicated turning lane in the east in the westbound direction.
172
173 Continuing North to Eva Street, Eva Street will also have no connection. It will be cul-
174 de-saced. Then we will pretty much end at Holloway Street. We probably will have a
175 dedicated right turn lane as you're going back out to Miami Boulevard. It will not have
176 one in the opposite direction, not a dedicated right turn. If you're wanting to turn from
177 Holloway going to the north direction, we'll have a dedicated right turn here. If you're
178 coming from downtown wanting to turn on Alston, we'll have a dedicated right turn here
179 as well. (Inaudible) the project will taper back down at Gilbert Street.
180
181 Now is the time for comments. If you'd like to make a comment. I'm going to call your
182 name from the roster. If you could step up to the microphone and make your comment.
183 Gary Kueber. Gary, could you state your address for the recording please?
184
185 Gary Kueber: Gary Kueber, 507 Yancey Street.
186
187 I'll say that I'm opposed to the widening of Alston Avenue but I think it's a
188 little late for that, so I'll give my recommendations of what I would like to see changed. 1
189 really would like to see this being what it should be' which is an urban boulevard. This is
190 through downtown, residential area: you've got a lot of pedestrian traffic through here.
li-3308 — Alston Avenue Widening 1 1/2/06 Page 4

191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
.209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
I'm concerned that this looks like a (inaudible). I don't want to look like the widened 55
does down in Apex. I'll give some of my specific concerns which is that the cross
section should be the absolute minimum, add intersections to maintain level of
(inaudible), eliminate right turn lanes at Holloway, through right turn lanes, (inaudible)
consolidate those, dedicated right turn lanes (inaudible). At Holloway. Liberty and Main,
sidewalks should be minimum six feet, preferably to allow side by side passage of the
disabled. Planning strip should be wide enough to accommodate 6" caliper street trees.
In terms of whatever standards are in place from your set backs. I don't know the
standards in terms of how wide...
Moderator: Four inches, the caliper.
Gary Kueber: Four inches and I don't know how wide the planning strip has to
be to accommodate, to allow the 4" trees to be planted, but I just don't want the design to
eliminate the possibility of planting street trees. I'd prefer that it become a landscape
project and the same for the median as well. I'd like some street trees as well as median
trees. I'd like to see the left hand through lane reduced to 10' which I think is what the
ITE (inaudible) says. It's allowable for 35mph four lane. I should mention landscaping
budget. I'm very concerned with the turn radii at Liberty, Holloway and at East Main.
You've got very wide turn radii which may allow high-speed right turns in particular.
You've got a very wide radius at the northwest corner of Main and basically all four
corners of Liberty and Holloway. Really my focus here is pedestrian safety. You've got
schools, you've got shelters, you've got churches, you've got the Salvation Army, you've
got parks, you've going through an historic district, you've got historic districts on both
sides of this, you've got HOPE VI project that's going on both sides of this. This is a
major residential pedestrian area and I don't want this to be a barrier to people either
crossing it or walking along. It should not be a noxious experience for people to be on
this street. That's all I'd like to say. Thank you very much.
Moderator: Thank you. sir. Okay. Tom Davis. If could please state your name
and address for the record?
Tom Davis: My name is Tom Davis. I work for the Community Builders; our
local address is 705 East Main Street, Suite 7 in Durham.
I guess I have a combination of a few questions and also several
comments. So maybe the questions are just to understand better where the decisions
were made. I was hoping that you could speak a little more to what the dynamic was
around disconnecting the Wall Street, Alston Avenue travel connection. Was that a drain
issue, what are the issues there? Should I stop...?
Moderator: No, go ahead. I'll go after you.
Tom Davis: They definitely shared the concern about making Alston Avenue a
very pedestrian oriented roadway. I recognize there are a number of tensions in doing
that. The width of the median or to be widened out or precise trees makes it a wider
roadway. So there's certainly tensions in there but I think there are a number of places
where the width of the overall right-of-way can be significantly improved for pedestrian
U-3308 — Alston Avenue Widenint_* 1 1/2/06
page 5
La

239 and urban neighborhood benefits. Most of my comments have stemmed from that. For
240 those of you who are not familiar with who I am, I'm involved in the HOPE VI effort and
241 so have been working on and thinking about this neighborhood for several years now.
242 It's a very high pedestrian traffic area. It's my understanding that the DOT has done
243 some research about pedestrian -vehicle interactions and I'd be interested in what that data
244 is. The amount of pedestrian crossing on Alston Avenue is very, very high and I'm very
245 concerned about the safetv of that crossing. Towards that end. I believe that we should
246 be eliminating the right turn lanes on several of the intersections. The two that I
247 particularly noticed are the Main Street intersection and the Angier Avenue intersection.
248 That is not to say the area of my focus has not really extended up to Liberty Street, it
249 mostly been up to Taylor Street. I'm not listing other intersections because I disagree
250 with those points, I'm just listing the ones that I'm most concerned about. Both the Main
251 Street turning towards downtown and the Angier Avenue turning away from downtown
252 are the right turn lanes that we believe should be eliminated in favor of integrated right
253 turns traffic. y
254
255 On more specific items, the configuration of Worth Street being one-way
256 towards the east, Franklin being one-way towards downtown, on the downtown side of
257 Alston Avenue and Wall being one-way towards the east on the downtown side of Wall,
258 are actually the reverse of what each of those streets, should be. We actually negotiated
259 with NCDOT three years ago when we were designing.the Senior building with Worth
260 Street to be one-way leading from Alston Avenue towards downtown. Based on that
261 agreement, the driveway to the garbage collection only works at that angle, if the
262 driveway to garbage collection is angled, and only works on a one-way headed from
263 AIston Avenue towards downtown on Wall Street. If you flip Wall Street then you'd
264 presumably flip the other two as well. But I agree with Franklin on the eastside of Alston
265 being one-way into the neighborhood. I certainly agree with that direction. I may have
266 other questions or comments as the meeting goes along, so I'm going to write as well.
267 y
2'68 Moderator: Okay, thank you. You asked the first question, the disconnect
269 from Wall Street, (inaudible) eastside (inaudible), capacity, you've got the (inaudible)
270 you've got three different (inaudible) you've got (inaudible) traffic (inaudible).
'' 71
272 Tom Davis: So it's not a grade issue, but rather a traffic flow issue?
273 y
274 Moderator: Right. traffic accessing the main area.
-6 Tom Davis: Would making Wall Street one-way away from Alston Avenue not
277 solve the problem the same way? We could (inaudible) one-way going east, on the
278 eastside, instead of the disconnect, the cul-de-sac. One of our concerns is maintaining the
279 street grid for a number of reasons both because of the historic district that the street grid
2SO was part of the historic district. Also for security reasons, one-way streets tend to be
281 harder insure the security and of traditionally distressed areas because they allow for
282 (inaudible) that doesn't have the kind of supervision. So, what I'm wondering is why
283 that connection can't be maintained by turning the street one-way.
284
285 Moderator: It still goes back to that access (inaudible) so close to the
286 intersection of Taylor. The intersection with Taylor Street intersection (inaudible) and a
U-3308 — Alston Avenue WideninL, 1 1/2/06 page 6

287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
round movement in around Wall Street, so close to the intersection. Then you've got
your turns going to points downtown, so you've got that access issue as well.
Toni Davis: Well. I guess I disagree with the judgement that I would make a
comment that Wall Street in addition to Franklin Street could be one-way, leading away
from Alston Avenue towards the east.
Moderator: Okay.
Tom Davis: But if it's one-way going the other direction (inaudible).
Moderator: What you're saying is this direction should change ...
Tom Davis: What I propose is it going one-way in that direction.
Moderator: Put that on your comment sheet and we'll take a look at it.
John Lansford: Kim (inaudible).
Moderator: Let me get you on the microphone.
John Lansford: John Lansford, I'm the design engineer on this project. There is a
great issue that the road is closed off. If we reconnected it, it would take multiple historic
homes in the area, by Federal law we can not do that if there is a viable alternative.
Moderator: You talked about (inaudible) Alston Avenue being pedestrian
friendly. We talked about putting (inaudible) island (inaudible) property (inaudible)
island (inaudible). So that's an option as well. (Inaudible) pedestrian studies (inaudible).
Unidentified Males: (Inaudible)
Moderator: Any more comments for tonight?
Tom Davis: I'll just say that I (inaudible) about the one-way issue or the closing of
Wall Street. I don't think it's going to hurt the design to create a one -ways. I understand
there's a greater issue and if there's a way to minimize impact on housing, maintain a
connection there and not do a cul-de-sac, which I think is just (inaudible). I think that
should be done. I don't really agree with refugee islands. I don't think islands are
effective (inaudible).
Moderator: Please put that in your comments. I will say that this project has
been redesigned three times over the last two years. Our Roadway Design Unit has done
a lot to really maximize the minimization of impacts of this project as much as we can.
We've been working with the City of Durham and Hope IV as well. So please put your
comments in and then we'll look at them again. Anymore comments?
Carrie Hill: (Inaudible)
U-3308 —Alston Avenue Widening 1 1/2/06
page 7

335 Noderator: Can you please come to the mic and state your name and address
336 so I can get you on the recorder?
337
338 Carrie Hill: My name is Carrie Hill and I'm here representing the Ecclesia
339 House of Prayer. The church is located on 601 North Alston Avenue.
340
341 You mentioned in your comments that only one church was affected or
342 will be relocated.
343
344 Moderator: The church that was in this area right here, is not a church
345 anvniore. when I went through the map.
346
347 Carrie Hill: Okay. that's my question because in the documents that I'm
348 reading it does, say one church and it's our understanding that some of our land will be
349 affected at 601 North Alston Avenue.
350
351 Moderator: This is not your church here. Is that correct?
352 y
353 Carrie Hill: As far as I know, we'll have to move the entrance. But.I really
354 wanted to know if the one church is the one that is no longer a church or is it Ecclesia?
355 y
356 Moderator: Let me talk to you after the hearing because when I was driving the
357 project this particular building that has a church on the map is no longer a church. I
358 wasn't talking about the church down the street. Let me talk to you afterwards.
359 Anymore questions? That closes our public hearing for tonight. Thank you.
360
361
362 Hearing adjourned.
363
364 Kimberly D. Hinton, Moderator
365 Public Involvement Unit
366
367
368 Transcript typed by Cyndy D. Hummel
369 November 27, 2006
U-3308 —Alston Avcnuc Widcnin« 1 1/2/06 page 8

DtJRHMI • CRAPPI. HILL • CARRBORO METROPOLITAN PLAN'MNG ORGA\NATtON
lfemb-r Governments
T'ov.1; of l t;?pt i Hill
Courity of Chatham
Durham
Coun"; of Durham
U_,. Janu n 17, 200 i
N.C. Def:artmeri of
r
Kimberly D. Hinton
Senior Publ.ie }-fearing Officer
1v.C. D :pa+tment of Transportation.
Human Envlro rinient Unit
1=YU Mail Service Cer,.ter
Ra,_LhB83
RE- Alston ,:.Avenue Widerlii.e (TIP Project li-3308)
Dear Ms. Hinton:
Thank you and the other NC'DOT staff members for attending the Jamiar; 10, 200
Jill -
Meeting of the. Transportation Advisory C ommittee ('T:�Cl of the Durham -Chapel I-Iill-
Can-boro Metropolita.l Flaming Organization. We appreciate your attention to the
concerns of the City and the TAC re-arditi,2 the desim of this pro, ect and loot; fonyard to
wdr-I'King with you to resolve any outstanding issues.
W, e have reviewed the Januar-; 2. 2007 correspondence regarding this project and
appreciate ,vCDOT's willingness to positively respond to rilwiy of our concerns.
However, as you heard at the TAC meeting. several cortcenis remain. In particular we
COutLTiue to request that tll.e exclusive right turn lanes, particularly- at Angier, 10a n and
Liberty Streets. be eliulinated. 1�'e also continue to realest that the futtrteen foot oUtsid :
Mule on _;1ston .-;.venue be striped for all eleven foot travel lane anal th►-ee foot hike later
(pies zuner). We also want to ensure that sufficient space will exist along A115ton. Avenue
to ac"-0n3n'.nd'te street lights ion rne:al poles Nvith underground wu1I1,2).
We colitln.ue to request that the c-urb radius at the streets intersecting Alston .Avenue bi'
minittlized while I)rovidi.ng sufficien radius to aecon-imodate anticipated vehicular tratfiC.
We are also willitlg to Consider a change ire the direction of the one way streets on the
west side of Alston Avenue to better suit the HOPE. VI developments. In addition, iv;°
,,vish to enhance, the landscaping mn this project beyond what is norn.al.ly provided to
include small caliper trees in the mt than and alone the berth between the street and
sidewalk if possible. We a]so reque t that you con,ide,: decreasing, the length of the
exclusive left turn lanes and tapers to provide Vlore rnecha.1 space for land_c:aput 2.
r!•`'i OE l)Uit�inlL • I.'r rrbll:�:�:'.t .. i`-en<r•:��;'. �:�t::,n • II � 1�: � • [,ii"i'.:'Ti .�:('�i ` ;.f' • � I �] i ir:l.1 .r.r • � i �i i ��: i.
.._1. Na::F'.�z� .i r._.�i'1 .,. - -:I,:.. t' _.. a;•6l_

continue to have concerns xvith the retain.imz m alls along this. project 'but appreciate
V0111 VVtllIji n.ss to add aesthetic treatments to the walls to .thatch theIil to the ex stII1�?
walls in the area. We would also like to review an-, plans for railing or fenci:il Used t l
Colil'unction '"Itlz the ret.•itnina walls.
Finally, we remain Concerned the prop:,sed 6.5 toot depth of cut on :Aston Avenue
at the railroad and cont.imie to r: q;:est consideration of alternative designs to I'mit tl'' cltt
to no more than three feet.
In consideration of the aforementioned concerns we request an opportunity to meet with
NCDOT to fizrther discuss the resolution of these concerns. Subsequent to this meeting.
any outstanding concerns will be brought back to the TAC for their aCtton_
We appreciate tiTCDOT's willingness to incorporate desi re than.ges for the Alston
Avenue -%videni;gig projectthatmore. safely accom—modate pedcst fans and bic.-cli�ts and
tll.at are n?orc sensitive to the context L*1 which this pr0]ect is located. Please feel free to
e-rruil rrte at nark_allrendsen;%z:dtirhamnc_an-,- or call me at (919) 500- --'3nfi to sched:ile a
iueelhag to discuss this project fiuther.
Sincere'y,
Mark D. A}urendsen
Tr.,3nsport;:Lien Nlanauer
TCC Chair. DCHC MPO
Cc: ;tiers ",T)a lldul<T Boa?-d 'Otnib,=r
%Villiari V. "Bill" Bell. Ma, or C.:it': of Durl2Lun
Durham City Council Niembers
Patrick Baker. City Manaszer
Theodore Voorhees, Dcputy City i'tan.ager
Kathi-,, l Kali:, Puhlic V,,oi ks D:rcclQr
l rc 1. Duke. City -County Planning Director
Alan DeUsle. Assistant City Manager fc�r EConc;niic L�evlopment
Lee \1tz_Tphy, Public Works'�1ai�ager
Wesley Parham, Transportation Ent ineer V
Phil Loziuk_ Cinv Traffic Engineer
Stele C:ntse, City Historic PresLr,-ati.on Officer
Felix 1`--«polio, Transportation Planning, Manager
TA(-- 1 ltmlber5

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTIVTENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
March 2, 2007
MEMORANDUM TO: FILE
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
0
FROM: Beverly Robinso
Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: NC 55 Alston Avenue Improvements, from NC 147 to US 70
Business/NC 98 (Holloway Street), Durham County, Federal Aid
Project No. STP 55(20), State project No. 8.1352801, WBS
Element 34915.1.1, TIP Project U-3308
A meeting was held for the project on February 7, 2007 in Room 117 of the
Highway Building. The following persons were in attendance at this meeting:
Mark Ahrendsen
Dale McKeel
Renee Gledhill -Earley
Sarah McBride
DeWayne Sykes
James Speer
John Lansford
Jay Stancil
Jim Dunlop
Benjetta Johnson
Mike Stanley
Mary Pope Furr
Ed Lewis
Kimberly Hinton
Eric Midkiff
Derrick Weaver
Beverly Robinson
City of Durham/DCHC MPO
City of Durham Transportation
Division of Cultural Resources/SHPO
Division of Cultural Resources/SHPO
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Congestion Management
Congestion Management
TIP
Human Environment Unit/Architectural
Human Environment Unit/Public Involvement
Human Environment Unit/ Public Involvement
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
The purpose of the meeting was to discuss outstanding design related issues
addressed in a letter dated January 17, 2007 from the City of Durham. The following is a
summary of the issues discussed and resolutions to those issues:
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

Issue: The City requests that the exclusive right turn lanes along Alston Avenue,
particularly at Angier Avenue, Main Street and Liberty Street be eliminated
Resolution: The right turn lane proposed at Angier Avenue is required and can not be
removed from the proposed design. Liberty Street east bound and west bound right turn
lanes will be removed. Congestion Management is reviewing the necessity of the
southbound right turn lane along Alston Avenue. A decision regarding the southbound
right turn lane at the Liberty Street intersection is expected by the end of March. The
proposed westbound right turn lane along Holloway Street is also under review by
Congestion Management. A decision is expected by the end of March.
Right turn lanes have been removed from several intersections along the proposed
project. In addition, pedestrian refuge islands and push button signals will be installed at
all intersection with the exception of Angier Avenue. The Angier Avenue intersection
inhibits the space for the pedestrian refuge because Asbury Temple United Methodist
Church, a historic property, is located at this intersection.
Issue: Stripe the proposed fourteen foot outside lanes for an eleven foot travel lane and
three foot bike lane plus gutter.
Resolution: The NCDOT Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation does not
recommend changing the proposed 14 foot outside travel lane to an eleven foot outside
travel lane with a striped three foot bike lane. Fourteen foot outside lanes will effectively
accommodate bicycle and vehicular travel.
Issue: Provide sufficient space along Alston Avenue to accommodate street lights on
metal poles with underground wiring.
Resolution: This will be handled as an encroachment, along with the other Duke
Power facilities inside the R/W. The Department will give Duke Power Company (DPC)
the lighting design criteria and review the plans for conformance with AASHTO
requirements, as we do with all lighting encroachments. Synergetic Design is the
designers that DPC have worked with in the past to prepare the lighting plans. In addition
because of the berm width along this project breakaway poles must be used for the
proposed lights. Murray Howell is in charge of the right of way utilities for the proposed
project. Mr. Howell will coordinate with the City of Durham and DPC to coordinate the
design for the street lights and placement of stub outs and conduits for the proposed
lighting.
Issue: Minimize curb radius at streets intersecting Alston Avenue while providing
sufficient radius to accommodate anticipated vehicular traffic.
Resolution: Roadway Design has reduced the curb radius at every intersection along
the proposed project to 30 or 35 feet. This reduction will require DATA buses making
right turns from a stop position to do so from the inside travel lane. DATA buses
currently use Main, Liberty and Holloway Streets. These intersections would be areas of
concern for the turn radii's. Mark Ahrendsen, City of Durham, stated that he takes full
responsibility for DATA and is in agreement with this design.

Issue: Consider a change in the direction of the one way streets on the west side of
Alston Avenue to better suit the HOPE VI developments.
Resolution: As requested by the City of Durham in an earlier letter, the street
directions have been changed and are currently reflected in -the design plans.
Issue: Consider decreasing the length of the exclusive left turn lanes and tapers to
provide more median space for landscaping.
Resolution: Congestion Management is reviewing current design plans to determine
areas where reducing left turn lanes and tapers might be possible. A decision regarding
decreasing the length of the exclusive left turn lanes and tapers will be reached by the end
of March. The design plans currently shows additional median space measuring 200-feet
in length and 12 feet wide along Alston Avenue near NC 147 that can be used for
landscaping.
Issue: The City has concerns with retaining walls along the project and would like the
Department to add aesthetic treatments to the proposed retaining walls to match the
existing walls in the area.
Resolution: The retaining wall proposed at Main Street is the only wall along the
project that is visible from Alston Avenue. Other retaining walls proposed for the project
are approximately 6 to 8 feet in height and are below Alston Avenue. The City of
Durham will review our retaining walls products and coordinate with Pamela Schooler,
Alternative Delivery Unit/New Products Section, concerning the type of adornment
available for retaining walls.. The State Historic Preservation Office has requested that
the retaining walls within the Golden Belt Historic District be unadorned. Therefore,
these walls will be unadorned concrete walls.
Issue: The City of Durham has requested the opportunity to review any plans for railing
or fencing used in conjunction with the proposed retaining walls.
Resolution: The Department commits to coordinate with the City of Durham regarding
the fencing or railings used in conjunction with the retaining walls.
Issue: Consideration should be given to reducing the proposed 6.5 foot depth cut along
Alston Avenue at the railroad structures to no more than 3 feet.
Resolution: Information supplied by the Rail Division of the NCDOT recommended
proposed spans for the new structure that are thicker than the existing spans as well as a
bridge deck that is thicker. The height required for the proposed structures will not allow
for a 3-foot saving of cut under the proposed structures.
Additional items discussed at this meeting include the following:
The Department is requesting that the Memorandum of Agreement for the Golden
Belt Historic District be sign by the City of Durham by the end of February. If the

signatures are not received from the City by then the Department will proceed with the
MOA without their signature.
The landscaping agreement in the MOA will be changed from a 2-year warranty
to 3 years. Current landscaping Municipal Agreements with NCDOT allocates a 3-year
warranty.
Design plans currently shows a 6-foot side walk. A commitment will be added to
the Finding of No Significant Impact to provide 6-foot sidewalk if the City agrees to pay
for the extra foot of sidewalk. However, if additional berm width is required to
accommodate street lights, the City may agree to 5-foot sidewalks as previously proposed
for the project
The City has concerns about the relocation of the Compare Foods Grocery Store
along Alston Avenue. Mark Ahrendsen suggested some type of mitigation because of
Environmental Justice (EJ).
Executive Order 12898 requires all agencies using federal funds to incorporate
achieving EJ into their mission. Each agency is required to identify and address
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its
programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.
A disproportionately high adverse effect is any substantial individual or
cumulative human health or environmental effect that (1) will be predominately borne by
a minority/low-income population; or (2) will be suffered by minority/low income
population and is appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect
to be suffered by the non-minority/low-income population.
The Department will adhere to the Executive Order as it relates to this project as
is possible.
If there are questions or corrections concerning the above information please feel
free to call me at [phone] extension 254.
4",
CC: Kenneth Spaulding, Member, Board of Transportation
Wally Bowman, P.E., Division 5
Pamela Schooler, Alternative Delivery Unit
Murray Howell, Utilities Coordination Unit

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
January 22, 2007
MEMORANDUM
TO: Beverly Robinson, PDEA
John Lansford, PE Roadway Design
FROM: Kimberly Hinton, Senior Public Involvement Officer P-Ev
PDEA — Human Environment Unit
SUBJECT: Forwarding Comments from U-3308 January 10, 2007 SGM
LYMID TIPPETr
SECRETARY
Attached are the public comments for U-3308, NC 55 (Alston Avenue) from NC 147
(I.L. "Buck" Dean Freeway to US 70 Business/NC 98 (Holloway Street) following the January
10, 2007 small group meeting (SGM) held with the Durham Chapel Hill Carborro Metropolitan
Planning Organization's (DCHC MPO) Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC). There may
be additional comments received into our office. As they come in they will be forwarded as well.
Please give me a call at [phone], if further assistance is needed.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTWNT OF TRANSPORTATION
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT UNIT
1583 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1583
TELEPHONE: 910,715-1500
FAX: [phone]
WESSITE. WWW.NCDO7.ORG
Comments Sent
01/22/07
LOCATION:
PARKER-LINCOLN BUILDING
2728 CAPITAL BOULEVARD
RALEIGH NC

I-3308 Alston Ave Update
k(z2
Subject: U-3308 Alston Ave Update
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:27:46 -0500
From: Kimberly Drew Hinton <khinton a dot.state.nc.uc>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
CC: Beverly Robinson <[e-mail]>, Ed Lewis <[e-mail]>,
Mark Ahrendsen <[e-mail]>, John Lansford PE <[e-mail],us>
BCC: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
• Thanks for submitting your comments and concerns about the Alston
Avenue project. Your comments will be forwarded to the Project
team members. Also to provide a project update, consideration to
eliminate some right turn lanes and request for a design
exception to reduce the vertical clearance of the bridges have
been presented after the Durham meeting. NCDOT will continue to
work through the issues to produce a project for all members of
the travelling public.
Project already includes but not limited to:
Shared cost venture with City of Durham for Six feet Sidewalk
All Left Turn Lanes at 11 feet
Reduction of curb radii with Pedestrian refugee islands
Crosswalks & Pedestrian Activated crossing signals at all
signalized intersections
Shared cost venture with City of Durham on the Landscaping budget
Grass median & planting strip may include safe plantings that do
not block pedestrian and driver view
Traffic Signals on Mast Arms
Lighting conduits and stubouts so the City may light the project
after construction
Use aesthetically pleasing retaining wall material and fencing
that's available from Manufacturer at time construction
if you have other concerns, please let me know.
Thank you,
Kimberly
Kimberly D. Hinton, Transportation Engineer
Senior Public Involvement Officer
NCDOT - Human Environment Unit
1583 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27599-1583
919.715.1595 fax [phone]

stun A,,•c DOT pl:u, '-o 0
11yz
Subject: Alston Ave DOT plan
Date: Thu, i 1 Jan 2007 18:00:41 -0500
From: "Keelee MacPhee" <keeleem 0a otmail.com>
To: [e-mail], mark.ahrendsen i durhamnc.gov
Hello again,
I am an East Downtown Durham resident and previously emailed you about the many problems of the Alston Ave expansion
plan. I am exceptionally disappointed to hear that the DOT is not going to pay any attention to the issues myself and many
others raised about the problems with the plan. Your plan will destroy historic architecture and disrupt the redevelopment of •
a community that is already treated like an afterthought of our city. Increasing the volume and speed of traffic will cut east
durham off from downtown completely. There will be no easy way for pedestrians to cross your huge road cutting between
homes and great little locally -owned shops.
Please do not let DOT do this!
Keelee MacPhee
204 North Dillard St
Durham, NC 27701
Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football Pape

Jston Avenuc Expansion
Subject: Alston Avenne Expansion
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:17:57 -0500
From: "Nathan Lindquist" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Dear Ms. Hinton and Mr. Ahrendsen,
I am writing to indicate my concern with the DOTS plans for Alston Avenue in'Durham. I drive through the neighborhood on
occasion, and as such feel that the plans to widen the road in order to increase traffic capacity do not justify the costs in
community vitality and pedestrian access.
It seems that there are ways to mitigate the harm done to Alston Avenue, including decreasing the lane width, increasing the
sidewalk width, adding painted bike lanes, and getting rid of the unnecessary turning lanes. Please reconsider the DOTS plans
for this road.
Sincerely,
Nathan Lindquist
JJ2Z

Iston Ave. widening vs the Last End Connwaor
Subject: Alston Ave. widening vs the East End Connector
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 11:11:39 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
From: Jen Hill <jenrhiII mindspring.com>
To: khinton a dot.state.nc.us, mark.ahrendsenCdurhamnc.gov
Dear Kimberly and Mark,
I'm writing to voice my grave concerns regarding the Alston Ave. widening.
The city, county, and community all have serious concerns regarding the Alston Avenue
widening - but DOT does not seem to care.
Giant projects that involve seizing property, demolishing historic housing and grocery stores
and laying wide strips of asphalt in the middle of a Federally -funded community revitalization
project are a terrible idea for the future of Durham. Instead, I urge you to focus on building a
project that the community supports - the East End Connector.
There is a great need to accommodate the traffic getting from 185 to RTP, but this is exactly
what the East End Connector would accomplish, and with far less dire results for the integrity of
downtown Durham as it struggles to thrive as a viable city for people to live in the Triangle.
The East End Connector would also allow us to start reworking Mangum and Roxboro Streets into
two-way neighborhood streets again, something that will further help downtown and the
struggling near north-east neighborhoods. As a resident of Duke Park, this is especially dear to
my own heart - it is only a matter of time before someone is harmed by a speeding car cutting
through our neighborhood from 85 to 147. But the correction should not come at the expense
of another historic neighborhood.
Thanks
Jennifer Hill (with thanks to Scott Harmon and the guy at Endangered Durham)
1610 Peace Street, Durham

N
Videning of Alston Avenue (NC 55) through downtown Durham
Subject: Widening of Alston Avenue (NC 55) through downtown Durham
Date: Fri, 12 in 2007 06:55:50 -0500
From: Alice Gugelmann <gugelman a email.unc.edu>
To: khintonadot.state.nc.us
Dear Ms. Hinton,
I am very concerned about the DOT'S project to widen Alston Avenue
through downtown Durham. As I understand it, the completion of this
project as planned will have severe negative impacts on the surrounding
neighborhood, including a HOPE VI project. As a Chapel Hill resident
and frequent visitor of Durham, I strongly urge you and your colleagues
to reconsider changes in the project as suggested by Dr. Gary Kueber
(using the guidelines set out by the Institute for Transportation
Engineers Context -Sensitive design manual):
1) Sidewalks should be a minimum of 6 feet, preferably 8 ft in width. 5
ft is the absolute minimum for non-commercial areas, and does not allow
comfortable side -by -side passage of pedestrians.
2) Left lane should be no wider than 10 feet, the minimum design
recommendation by ITE. Wider lanes increase capacity minimally, and the
right lane is appropriately wide to accommodate trucks and buses.
3) Dedicated right turn lanes are superfluous and have a major adverse
impact on pedestrians at intersections, particularly when combined with
wide turning radii (which allow cars to make right turns at higher
speeds). Consolidate right turn lanes with right through lanes.
4) Reduce curb radii, as noted above.
5) Allow adequa'-s-planting strip and median width to allow planting of
minimum 4 inch diameter street trees. Allocate necessary funds from the
S175,000 landscaping budget to plant these trees. Street trees will
provide a functional pedestrian buffer (which grass does not,
particularly at less -than the recommended 6 ft width).
6) Cul-de-sacs are not recommended urban design and should be
eliminated at Eva and Wall.
7) Stripe bike lane - a 14 ft unstriped width will increase effective
traffic speeds, making biking inherently less safe.
Please reconsider these changes, which lessen the impact of the project
on the surrounding neighborhoods, making it more pedestrian and bicycle
safe. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Alice Gugelmann
MRP, Class of 2007
Department of City & Regional Planning
The University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC

Fwd: [Fwd: NC 551]
Subject: (Fwd: [Fwd: NC 5511
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:12:00 -0500
From: Kimberly Drew Hinton <khinton ct dot.state.nc.u.,>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: Ed Lewis <[e-mail]>, Carl Goode <cgoode(a3dot.state.nc.us>
-------- Original Message ------
Subject: 1Fwd: NC 551
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 09:07:12 -0500
From: "Dewayne L. Sykes PE" <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: "James A. Speer PE" <[e-mail]>, John Lansford
PE <[e-mail]>, Kimberly Drew Hinton
< [e-mail]>
CC: Beverly Robinson <[e-mail]>, Rob Hanson
< [e-mail]>
FYI, here is Ms. Osland's reply to Wally's email.
Dewayne L. Sykes, PE
Assistant State Roadway Design Engineer
North Carolina Dept. of Transportation
Phone [phone] FAX [phone]
http://www.doh.dot.state.nc.us/preconstrucVhighway/roadway/
Subject: Re: NC 55
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 07:55:50 -0600
From: Anna Osland <[e-mail]!iu>
Organization: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
To: "J. Wally Bowman, PE" <[e-mail]>
CC: Pat Tart <[e-mail]>, "Suzanne Smith (Rep. Cole)" <[e-mail]>,
Senator Clark Jenkins <[e-mail]>, Carolyn McDonald <[e-mail]>,
"Susan C. Coward" <[e-mail]>, "Johanna H. Reese" <[e-mail]>,
Joey Hopkins <[e-mail]>, Tracy Parrott <[e-mail]>,
"Dewayne L. Sykes PE" <[e-mail]>, "Nina S. Szlosberg" <napro 1 @earthlinknet>
Dear Mr. Bowman,
Thank you for getting back to me on this topic. I'm interested to hear
how the project develops and glad to see that you are working to include
community input regarding pedestrian issues. I'm hopeful the completed
project will be able to achieve both pedestrian safety and motorized
traffic goals.
Anna
J. Wally Bowman, PE wrote:
> Ms. Osland,
> Our Roadway Design Unit is in the process of working through the various
> requests from the City of Durham. For example, consideration is being given to
> eliminate some of the right turn lanes. in addition, they are looking into a
> design exception to reduce the vertical clearance of the bridge over Alston

Fwd: [Fwd: NC 55]]
> Avenue which will ultimately reduce the height of the retaining wall. We will
> continue to work through these issues in an effort to design a project that will
> provide the mobility for the travelling public while at the same time be
> sensitive to the pedestrian needs of the community.
> Wally Bowman
> Pat Tart wrote:
> > Suzanne,
> > By way of this email, 1 am requesting that Division Engineer Wally Bowman
> > review and ask appropriate staff to investigate and respond to the concerns
> > of Representative Cole's constituent, Ms. Anna Osland. 1 am.asking that you
> > and Senator Jenkins be copied on the response to Ms. Osland.
> > As always we appreciate the opportunity to help!
> > Pat
> > (Wally, please ask that Susan Coward and Johanna Reese also be copied on the
> > response.
> > "Suzanne Smith (Rep. Cole)" wrote:
> > > Susan,
> > > Rep. Cole and Sen. Jenkins recevied the e-mail below. Can you please
> > > pass it on to the correct hands?
> > > Thanks so much.
> > > Suzanre .
> > > -----Original Message----
* > > From: Anna Osland /mailto:[e-mail]
> > > Sent. Thursday, January 11, 2007 2.38 PM
> > > To: Sen. Clark Jenkins; Rep. Nelson Cole
> > > Subject. NC 55
> > > Dear Representative Cole and Sena tor Jenkins,
> > > I was pretty upset to hear how difficult NC DOT has been in working with
> > > Durham County residents in regards to traffic revisions to NC 55. 1
> > > believe a little traffic congestion is probably better than pedestrians
> > > that are unable to cross busy (and dangerous!) roads in Durham. Please
> > > urge DOT to consider the concerns of local residents on this issue.
> > > I read about this article in the Durham Herald Sun today.
> > > http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-807860.cfm
> > > Thanks,
> > > Anna Osland
> > > 2404 Englewood Ave.
> > > Durham

Fwd: [Fwd: NC ss]l
> > Pat Tart
> > Administrative Assistant
> > Deputy Secretary Susan Coward
> > Intergovernmental Affairs and Budget Coordination
> > North Carolina Department of Transportation
> > Telephone: [phone] - Ext. 330
> > Fax. [phone]

Public Involvement Summary U-3308 Public Hearing
November 2, 2006
Project Teary_
NCDOT Staff (Raleigh)
Kimberly Hinton — Public Hearing Officer
Ed Lewis
Jamille Robbins
Kevin Jenkins
Derrick Weaver
Beverly Robinson
Jim Speer
John Lansford
NCDOT Local Staff (Division 5)
Wally Bowman — Deputy Division Engineer
Tracy Parrot
Robert Mathis
Larry T. Williford
Derrick Bradner
City of Durham
Mark Arhendson
Wesley Parham
Other Notables
Juanita Shearer -Swink, TTA
Resource Materials
• Environmental Assessment signed 11/22/05
• Mailing List
• Information Packet Handout
• Project Maps
➢ Public Hearing Map
➢ 2 Posters showing Public Hearing Map Details from NC 147 to Taylor Street
• Comment Sheet
• Sign In Sheet
• Public Hearing - Speaker Sign Up Sheet
• DCHCMPO 2030 Transportation Plan
• Spanish Translator
• Right of Way Brochure
• Relocation Assistance Booklet
• Environmental Impacts Board

Public Involvement Summary U-3308 Public Hearing
Page 2
Citizen Comment Summary
• Business leaseholders expressed concerns that they were not notified of hearing. They saw the
notice up the day before.
• Business leaseholders were also concerned that project would remove their parking and they would
not comply with zoning regulations.
• Business owners affected by proposed project concerned that motorists would not have easy access
to property during construction.
• Everyone wanted to know schedule of project.
• Everyone wanted to know how they would be compensated.
• Ecclesia House of Prayer wanted to know if they needed to change from entering through the main
entrance fronting Alston Ave or create a side entrance.
• Worth Street, Franklin Street and Wall Street direction of one-way pairs should be changed.
Meeting Evaluation
• The meeting had fair attendance.
➢ 29 non-NCDOT participants
• There were 3 Speakers to record their comments.
• A project team member staffed the sign in table at all times.
➢ This was useful because the team member oriented people to the room lay out.
➢ Team member was able to point out Project team members, i.e. project engineers and right of
way agents.
• Project team members were very helpful in talking to the public.
• Previous Meeting held on October 19, 2006
➢ To Debrief the Durham City Council during their working session.
➢ Kimberly Hinton presented a short version of the Public Hearing presentation.
➢ Beverly Robinson also in attendance. Very helpful in answering questions.
/KH

Widening of NC 55
Vv O
lit
Submit by November 22, 2006
Name:
Address:
Comment Sheet
4�4
7Z 7
Public Hearing 7
November 2, 2006

ON
Comment Sheet
Submit by November 22, 2006
Name:
i 8 Lk Q, T)
Address: -5 n -1 9 &,� I I 'I- ",
V\A
Lky2EaCL14 AW11-3 M&N-27)
(:=-Z
-FD (D
p WREN! F-i W-j"IM
WMI W.Aj
CU
Public Hearing 7
November 2, 2006

Alston Ave Widening Project - Durham, NC v
fit G
Subject: Alston Ave Widening Project - Durham, NC
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 09:01:03 -0500
From: "Alison Carpenter" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Dear Kimberly,
I was unable to attend the public hearing last week for the Alston Ave widening project, but I'd like to submit comments on
the plans (as a Durham citizen). This widening project could "make or break." the surrounding area, and I feel that NCDOT
should be VERY sensitive to this responsibility during planning, design and construction of the Alston Ave widening. There
are many features in the current design that are over -engineered, and (in my opinion) should be eliminated to preserve the
walkability and neighborhood character of the area. These are my suggestions-
1) Sidewalks should be a minimum of 6 feet, preferably 8 ft in width. 5 ft is the absolute minimum for non-commercial areas,
and does not allow comfortable side -by -side passage of pedestrians.
2) Left turn lanes should be no wider than 10 feet, the minimum design recommendation by ITE. Wider lanes increase
capacity minimally, and_the right lane is appropriately wide to accommodate trucks and buses.
3) Dedicated right turn lanes are superfluous and have a major adverse impact on pedestrians at intersections, particularly
when combined with wide turning radii (which allow cars to make right turns at higher speeds). Consolidate right turn lanes
with right through lanes.
4) Reduce curb radii, as noted above.
5) Allow adequate planting strip and median width to allow planting of minimum 4 inch diameter street trees. Allocate
necessary funds from the $175,000 landscaping budget to plant these trees. Street trees will provide a functional pedestrian
buffer (which grass does not, particularly at less -than the recommended 6 ft width).
6) Cul-de-sacs are not recommended urban design and should be eliminated at Eva and Wall.
7) Stripe bike lane - a 14 ft unstriped width will increase effective traffic speeds, making biking inherently less safe.
Planting street trees and landscaping the median, maintaining a four -lane cross section at intersections (i.e. #3) and reducing
curb radii will allow for a more pedestrian and bicycle friendly boulevard effect that is attractive and welcoming for all.
Without these measures, the current plan will possibly ruin the struggling east Durham neighborhood, which is working
toward regenerating itself as a gateway to downtown.
Thanks for your consideration and serious attention to these issues.
Best regards,
Alison Carpenter
1509 N Duke St
1 of 1 11/6/2006 10:50 AM

Proposed Alston Widening 7
Subject: Proposed Alston Widening
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 14:08:03 -0800 (PST)
From: Eleni Vlachos <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Hello Ms. Hinton and Mr. Ahrendsen,
I just wanted to take a moment to provide feedback on the proposal to widen Alston. As a resident of East Durham, I find it
convenient to utilize my bicycle rather than drive on most occasions. However, on streets such as Main street, or other
unmarked, busy roads, despite the width I often am quite afraid on those roads.
In a society with increasing obesity and environmental problems due to oil consumption, I think it is crucial to build a city
that supports alternative transport. Merely widening the road for bicycles is not enough - marked bike lanes are needed
throughout the city, including the Alston plan.
Following are a few other recommendations:
1) Sidewalks should be a minimum of 6 feet, preferably 8 ft in width. 5 ft is the absolute minimum for non-commercial areas,
and does not allow comfortable side -by -side passage of pedestrians.
2) Left lane should be no wider than 10 feet, the minimum design recommendation by ITE. Wider lanes increase capacity
minimally, and the right lane is appropriately wide to accommodate trucks and buses.
3) Dedicated right turn lanes are superfluous and have a major adverse impact on pedestrians at intersections, particularly
when combined with wide turning radii (which allow cars to make right turns at higher speeds). Consolidate right turn lanes
with right through lanes.
4) Allow adequate planting strip and median width to allow planting of minimum 4 inch diameter street trees. Allocate
necessary funds from the $175,000 landscaping budget to plant these trees. Street trees will provide a functional pedestrian
buffer (which grass does not, particularly at less -than the recommended 6 ft width).
6) Cul-de-sacs are not recommended urban design and should be eliminated at Eva and Wall.
7) Stripe bike lane - a 14 ft unstriped width will increase effective traffic speeds, making biking inherently less safe.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of these recommendations. Let me know if you have any questions or need for
clarification.
--Eleni Vlachos, 407 N Queen Street, Durham, NC
We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups.
I of 1 11/6/2006 10:50 AM

Alston Avenue Widening
Subject: Alston Avenue Widening
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2006 18:28:52 -0500
From: Yonah Freemark <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Hello,
I'd like to comment on the proposed widening of Alston Avenue between the Durham Freeway and N.C. 98
Though the street currently sees heavy traffic loads and would benefit from a widening, the current plan would disrupt the
neighborhood and is an example of poorly conceived urban planning. Instead of making the Alston Avenue a functional
corridor for both pedestrians and vehicles, the plan would do serious damage to the walking experience in the neighborhood
while also increasing dangers of driving in the area, for the following reasons:
1. The radii of the street corners at many of the intersections is far wider than it ought to be, especially at Main, Liberty, and
Holloway Streets. While convenience for automobiles may be increased through wide comers, such intersections only induce
higher driving speeds. They also mean that pedestrians have much wider strips of asphalt to cross to get to the other side.
2. There is little reason that right -turn -only lanes are necessary. The left lane is designed for through traffic while the right
lane can be used for local traffic and therefore should be used by those turning at intersections. The four southbound lanes at
Main Street are a particularly grievous example of a trend throughout the plan. Pedestrians simply shouldn't have to cross six
lanes of traffic to get from one side of the street to the next - such a solution puts them in serious danger.
3. Bikes and pedestrians are basically ignored in this plan. By building only 5-foot sidewalks, the street would be designed for
only limited use. With the redevelopment of Few Gardens and other significant investment in urban -scale amenities in the
neighborhood recently, it seems like the neighborhoods major street ought to emphasize pedestrians. The sidewalks should be
at least 8 feet wide. Meanwhile, by making right lanes 14 feet wide but not marking bike lanes in them, the street again is
allowing for increased vehicular speeds, which would make biking even more difficult. Either make the lanes 11 or 12 feet, or
mark out the bike lanes.
4. There must be money in the budget for street trees between the sidewalk and the road, or pedestrians will not be insulated
from the cars moving on what will become essentially a suburban arterial. If these trees are not planted, the sidewalk will be
hostile to pedestrians.
I'd like to point out the similarity between this plan for the widening of Alston and the recently constructed segments of
Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd - they seem almost to have been conceived together. The fundamental problem is that Alston
Avenue shoots directly through an urban, walkable neighborhood, whereas MLK Blvd is meant for a suburban car -based area.
MLK Blvd's mistakes also ought not be repeated; though that street has posted speed limits of 35 mph, its wide lanes, very
wide turning radii, and left- and right -turn only lanes make speeds on the street much higher than its designers wanted. There
is no reason to make our urban streets like our suburban ones, even if that means slowing the cars down a bit. The major
emphasis of the street redesign should be on the pedestrian, not the vehicle.
Thanks, I hope these comments are heard.
Yonah Freemark
1309 Oakland Avenue
Durham, NC 27705
203-508-2565
1 of 1 11/6!2006 10:50 AM

alston rd widening project
Subject: alston rd widening project
Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2006 15:46:12 -0500
From: "Keelee MacPhee" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Hello Ms. Hinton and Mr. Ahrendsen:
I am writing to you about the proposed widening project of Alston Ave.
Key points that I advocate for, as guided by the institute for
transportation Engineers Context -Sensitive design manual:
1) Sidewalks should be a minimum of 6 feet, preferably 8 ft in width. 5 ft
is the absolute minimum for non-commercial areas, and does not allow
comfortable side-bv-side passage of pedestrians.
2) Left lane should be no wider than 10 feet, the minimum design
recommendation by ITE. Wider lanes increase capacity minimally, and the
right lane is appropriately wide to accommodate trucks and buses.
3) Dedicated right turn lanes are superfluous and have a major adverse
impact on pedestrians at intersections, particularly when combined with wide
turning radii (which allow cars to make right turns at higher speeds).
Consolidate right turn lanes with right through lanes.
4) Reduce curb radii,. as noted above.
5) Allow adequate planting strip and median width to allow planting of
minimum 4 inch diameter street trees. Allocate necessary funds from the
$175,000 landscaping budget to plant these trees. Street trees will provide
a functional pedestrian buffer (which grass does not, particularly at
less -than the recommended 6 ft width).
6) Cul-de-sacs are not recommended urban design and should be eliminated at
Eva and Wall.
7) Stripe bike lane- a 14 ft unstriped width will increase effective
traffic speeds, making biking inherently less safe.
The unprotected or unmarked bike lane is asking for disaster to occur,
because you will have faster travelling cars without taking caution for
bikes or pedestrians.
The loss of the corner mexican grocery store will takeaway one successful
highlight in the alston/main intersection and their beautiful mural on the
wall.
If Golden belt is restored as proposed to build up our downtown with more
business and people, then why would we want it's neighboring road to be a
fast track. Cars and trucks hurling down alston will not encourage anybody
from golden belt to walk eastward.
I think this widening of Alston will overall separate the east end of durham
even more than it is now. Let's bring it's people and beautiful historic
architecture back into the fold, instead of pushed away on the edge.
Yours truly,
Keelee MacPhee
204 North Dillard Street, Durham, NC 27701
Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones.with Windows Live Spaces
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001 msn/direct/01/?href = http://spaces.live.com/sp
1 of 1 1 1/6/2006 10:50 AM

[Fwd: Public comment for Alston Ave. wiuenmg 1'ianj
Subject: [Fwd: Public comment for Alston Ave. Widening Plan]
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2006 08:02:10 -0500
From: Kimberly Drew Hinton <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: "Cyndy D. Hummel" <[e-mail]>
please add to ML U-3308
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Public comment for Alston Ave. Widening Plan
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 23:15:50 -0500
From: Michael Bacon <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Greetings,
I'd like to submit this e-mail as public comment on the widening
plan of
Alston Avenue through east -central Durham. Please consider the
following
points:
- preferably, the 16-foot planted median should be eliminated in
favor of a
wider sidewalk and street trees on both sides of the street.
Additionally,
in areas with commercial frontage to the street as well as areas
near
Eastway Elementary and other areas requiring parking, Alston
should have
on -street parallel parking on both sides of the street. (The
loss of
central median will help this.) The median only encourages
increased and
unsafe speeds through a busy residential and commercial area. I
realize
that Alston constitutes a major throughway, but as it passes
through the
middle of a city, it must also serve as a pedestrian corridor and
a
commercial district.
Additionally, I'd like to add these, which you've likely seen
before, but
which I completely agree with.
1) Sidewalks should be a minimum of 6 feet, preferably 8 ft in
width. 5 ft
is the absolute minimum for non-commercial areas, and does not
allow
comfortable side -by -side passage of pedestrians.
2) Left lane should be no wider than 10 feet, the minimum design
recommendation by ITE. Wider lanes increase capacity minimally,
and the
right lane is appropriately wide to accommodate trucks and buses.
3) Dedicated right turn lanes are superfluous and have a major
adverse
impact on pedestrians at intersections, particularly when
combined with
1 of 2 11 /13/2006 8:58 AN,

Fwd: Public comment for Alston Ave. Widening rianj
wide turning radii (which allow cars to make right turns at
higher speeds).
Consolidate right turn lanes with right through lanes.
4) Reduce curb radii, as noted above.
5) Allow adequate planting strip width to allow planting of
minimum 4 inch
diameter street trees. Allocate necessary funds from the $175,000
landscaping budget to plant these trees. Street trees will
provide a
functional pedestrian buffer (which grass does not, particularly
at
less -than the recommended 6 ft width).
6) Cul-de-sacs are not recommended urban design and should be
eliminated at
Eva and Wall.
7) Stripe bike lane - a 14 ft unstriped width will increase
effective
traffic speeds, making biking inherently less safe.
Thank you,
Michael Bacon
912 Rosehill Ave.
MA, Urban Geography
2 of 11/13/2006 8:58 AN

#31e(p

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
January 18, 2006
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your January 11, 2006 letter which requested comments from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the Federal Environmental Assessment for the
widening of NC 55 (Alston Avenue) from NC 147 (I.L. "Buck" Dean Freeway) to US 70
Business/NC 98 (Holloway Street), Durham County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-3308). These
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
(16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Due to the urban nature of the project area and the lack of fish and wildlife habitat, the Service
does not have any concerns with this proposed project. We concur that the project will have no
effect on federally protected species. The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this
project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at
[phone], ext. 32.
Sincere y,'
Pete Be i'amin
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC

WA TF
Michael F. Easley, Governor
O k
pG
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
`O
C? r
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
U `c
March 3, 2006
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Hennessy
From: Nicole Thomson, Division of Water Quality, Central Office
Subject: Comments on the Environmental Assessment related to proposed NC 55 (Alston Avenue)
Widening from existing NC 147 (I.L. "Buck" Dean Freeway) to Existing US 70
Business/NC 98 (Holloway Street), Durham County, Federal Aid Project No. STP-
55(20), State Project No. 8.1352801, TIP U-3308.
This office has reviewed -the referenced document dated February 7, 2006. The Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that
impact Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. It is our understanding that the project as presented will
result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and other surface waters. The DWQ offers the
following comments based on review of the aforementioned document:
Project Specific Comments:
1. UT to Ellerbe Creek are class C; NSW waters of the State. DWQ is very concerned with sediment
and erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that highly protective
sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to UT to
Ellerbe Creek. DWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment of the storm water runoff
through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater
Best Management Practices.
2. This project is within the Neuse River Basin. Riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and
minimized to the greatest extent possible pursuant to .15A NCAC 2B .0233. New development
activities located in the protected 50-foot wide riparian areas within the basin shall be limited to
"uses" identified within and constructed in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B .0233. Buffer
mitigation may be required for buffer impacts resulting from activities classified as "allowable with
mitigation" within the "Table of Uses" section of the Buffer Rules or require a variance under the
Buffer Rules. A buffer mitigation plan, including use of the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program,
must be provided to DWQ prior to approval of the Water Quality Certification.
6fthCarolina
Transportation Permitting Unit d atyrQlt'ly
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands

General Comments:
3. The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary as required
by 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan
with the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to
issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
4. Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives should include road designs that
allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the
most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed swales,
buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
5. In accordance with. the Environmental Management Commission's Rules (15A NCAC
2H.0506(h)1, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single
perennial stream. Tn the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to
replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be
available for use as stream mitigation.
6. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. NC
DOT should address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the
aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
7. NC DOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill,
excavation and clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included
in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary
or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application.
8. Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we
realize that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that
culverts should be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms.
Moreover, in areas where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove
preferable. When applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum
extent practicable.
9. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands or streams.
10. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could
precipitate compensatory mitigation.
11. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into streams or surface waters.

12. Based on the information .presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams may require a Nationwide Permit application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding
401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires
satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland
or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal application
by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will
be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the
maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the
inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate.
13. Bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream when possible.
14. Whenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel
realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allow for human and
wildlife passage beneath the structure, do not block fish passage and do not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
15. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater should be directed
across the bridge and pre-treated through site -appropriate means (grassed swales, pre -formed scour
holes, vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to the most current version of
NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
16. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to .prevent direct
contact between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured
concrete should not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and
possible aquatic :life and fish kills.
17. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction
contours and elevations. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
appropriate native woody species should be planted.. When using temporary structures the area
should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush -hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re -vegetate
naturally and. minimizes soil disturbance.
18. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be placed below
the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches,
and 20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow
low flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures
including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in
dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream of the
above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being
maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock or
other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact the NC DWQ for guidance
on how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be required.
19. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural stream cross
section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where

appropriate. Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at the inlet
or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that
requires increased maintenance,and disrupts aquatic life passage.
20. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
21. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented
and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of NC Sediment and Erosion Control
Planning and Design Manual and NCS000250.
22. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area, unless otherwise
approved by NC Division of Water Quality. Approved BMP measures from the most current
version of NCDOT Construction and Maintenance. Activities manual such as sandbags, rock berms,
cofferdams and other diversion structures should be used to prevent excavation in flowing water.
23. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands and streams.
24. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
25. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of
Wetland Significance (NC -CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent
inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
26. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This
equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters
from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
27. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner
that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly
designed, sized and installed.
28. Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) should be preserved to the maximum extent possible.
Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of
the growing season following completion of construction.

The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any
questions or require any additional information, please contact Nicole Thomson at [phone].
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
John F. Sullivan, Federal Highway Administration
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Gary Jordan, US Fish and Wildlife Service
File Copy

Durham
NC 55 (Alston Avenue)
From NC 147 (I.L. "Buck" Dean Freeway)
To US 70 Business/NC 98 (Holloway Street)
Durham County
Federal -Aid Project STP-55(20)
State Project 8.1352801
WBS Element 34915.1.1
TIP Project U-3308
ADNIINISTRATIVE ACTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
AND
DRAFT SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
L
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
And
N. C. Department of Transportation
Submitted pursuant to 42 U. S. C. 4332(2)(C)
APPROVED:
aleeo;r' regory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
ZZ/w ►' . r
Date 4LJohn F. Sullivan III, PE
Division Administrator, FHWA
4A

Durham
NC 55 (Alston Avenue)
From NC 147 (I.L. "Buck" Dean Freeway)
To US 70 Business/NC 98 (Holloway Street)
Durham County
Federal -Aid Project STP-55(20)
State Project 8.1352801
WBS Element 34915.1.1
TIP Project U-3308
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
0
DRAFT SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
By:
Beverly G. Ro inson
Project Develo ment Engineer
4,140 l,% ,
Jants A. McInnis Jr., PE
Project Development Unit Head
H CAROtr •,
11/ 19/05

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECTCOND41TU ENTS......................................................................................................................... i
SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................................. iii
1. Type of Action
2. Additional Information .......................................... "'
3. Permits Required............................................................................................................................. iii
4. Project Purpose/Description of Action............................................................................................ iv
5. Needs Addressed by the Project...................................................................................................... iv
6. Summary of Environmental Effects................................................................................................ iv
7. Alternatives Considered................................................................................................................... v
8. Coordination..................................................................................................................................... v
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION......................................................................................... 1
A.
Project Purpose................................................................................................................................. 1
B.
General Description/Project Status................................................................................................... 1
C.
Cost Estimates.................................................................................................................................. I
H. NEED FOR PROJECT......................................................................................................................... 1
A.
Description of Existing Facility........................................................................................................ 1
1.
.Functional Classification................................................................................................................ 2
2.
Physical Description of Existing Facility........................................................................................ 2
a. Roadway Cross Section.............................................................................................................. 2
b. Right of Way and Access Control.............................................................................................. 2
c. Speed Limits............................................................................................................................... 2
d. Intersecting Roads and Types of Control.................................................................................... 2
e. Railroad Facilities....................................................................................................................... 3
f. Structures.................................................................................................................................... 3
g. Bicycle Accommodations........................................................................................................... 3
h. Utilities....................................................................................................................................... 3
i. Pedestrian Facilities/Sidewalks................................................................................................... 3
3.
Traffic Volumes..............................................................................................................................4
4.
School Bus Usage........................................................................................................................... 4
5.
Airports........................................................................................................................................... 4
6.
Other Highway Projects in the Area............................................................................................... 4
B.
Deficiencies of Existing Facility...................................................................................................... 4
1.
Traffic Carrying Capacity............................................................................................................... 4
2.
Accident Record............................................................................................................................. 5
C.
Benefits of Proposed Project............................................................................................................ 5
1.
Safety.............................................................................................................................................. 5
2.
Level of Service.............................................................................................................................. 5
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS.......................................................................................................... 6
A. Proposed Typical Section and Alignment........................................................................................ 6
B. Right of Way and Access Control.................................................................................................... 6
C. Speed Limit/Design Speed............................................................................................................... 7
D. Anticipated Design Exceptions........................................................................................................ 7
E. Intersections/Interchanges................................................................................................................ 7
F. Railroad Crossings........................................................................................................................... 7
G. Structures..........................................................................................................................................8
H. Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations........................................................................................ 8
I. Utilities.............................................................................................................................................8
J. Landscaping..................................................................................................................................... 8

K. Noise Barriers............................................................................................................:...................... 9
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION............................................................................ 9
A. Preliminary Study Alternatives........................................................................................................ 9
1. "No -Build" Alternative..........................:..........:......................................................:...................... 9
2. Alternate Modes of Transportation................................................................................................. 9
B. Alternatives Currently being Studied............................................................................................... 9
V. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ....................................... 11
A. Natural Resources........................................................................................................................... 11
1. Biotic Resources........................................................................................................................... 11
a. Terrestrial Communities........................................................................................................... 11
b. Aquatic Communities..............................................................................................:................ 12
c. Summary of Anticipated Effects............................................................................................... 12
2. Water Resources........................................................................................................................... 13
a. Streams, Rivers, Impoundments............................................................................................... 13
b. Summary of Anticipated Effects............................................................................................... 14
3. Waters of the US........................................................................................................................... 14
a. Wetlands................................................................................................................................... 14
b. Summary of Anticipated Effects............................................................................................... 14
c. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation.....................:.......................................................... 14
d. Anticipated Permit Requirements............................................................................................. 15
4. Neuse Buffer Rules...............................................................:....................................................... 15
5. Rare and Protected Species........................................................................................................... 15
a. Federally -Protected Species...................................................................................................... 16
b. Federal Species of Concern/State-Protected Species................................................................ 16
B. Cultural Resources......................................................................................................................... 17
1. Historic Architectural Resources.................................................................................................. 18
a. Historic Properties.................................................................................................................... 18
b. Project Effects........................................................................................................................... 20
2. Archaeological Resources............................................................................................................. 20
C. Social Effects.................................................................................................................................. 21
1. Neighborhoods/Communities....................................................................................................... 21
2. Relocation of Residences and Businesses..................................................................................... 21
3. Minority/Low-Income Populations............................................................................................... 21
4. Public Facilities............................................................................................................................ 22
D. Economic Effects........................................................................................................................... 22
E. Land Use........................................................................................................................................ 22
1. Existing Land Use and Zoning..................................................................................................... 22
2. Future Land Use........................................................................................................................... 22
3. Project compatibility with Local Plans......................................................................................... 23
F. Secondary/Cumulative Effects....................................................................................................... 23
G. Section 4(f) Resources.................................................................................................................... 23
H. Prime and Important Farmland....................................................................................................... 24
I. Flood Hazard Evaluation................................................................................................................ 24
J. Traffic Noise Analysis.................................................................................................................... 24
1. Ambient Noise Levels.................................................................................................................. 25
2. Analysis Results............................................................................................................................ 25
3. Noise Abatement Alternatives..................................................................................:................... 25
4. Construction Noise......................................................................................................:................ 27
5. Summary .......................................................................................................................................27
K. Air Quality Analysis....................................................................................................................... 27
1. Background CO Concentrations.........................................................................:......................... 27
2. Air Quality Analysis Results........................................................................................................ 28
3. Construction Air Quality Effects.................................................................................................. 28
4. Summary .......................................................................................................................................28

VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION............................................................................................. 29
A. Citizens Informational Workshop.................................................................................................. 29
B. Public Hearing..............................................................................................
C. Other Agency Coordination........................................................................................................... 30
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Proposed Improvements
Figure 3
2008/2030 Average Daily Traffic
Figure 4A
Proposed Typical Section
Figure 4B
Proposed Typical Section (Side Streets Within Historic District)
Figure 5
Portion of 1991 Durham Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 6
Projects in Vicinity of TIP Project U-3308
Figure 7
Wetlands, Streams and Floodplains in Project Area
Figure 8
Potentially Contaminated Sites in Project Area
Figure 9
Durham HOPE VI Neighborhood Revitalization Plan
LIST OF TABLES
Table l .
Existing Bridge Structures
Page3
Table 2.
Capacity Analysis for NC 55 Without Project
5
Table 3.
Capacity Analysis for NC 55 With Project
6
Table 4.
Proposed Structures
8
Table 5
Impacts of Alternatives Examined Between Main Street and Taylor Street
10
Table 6.
Federally -Protected Species in Durham County
16
Table 7.
Federal Species of Concern in Durham County
17
Table 8.
Effects on Historic Properties
20
Table 9.
Homes/Businesses to be Relocated by Project
21
Table 10. Receptors Impacted By Traffic Noise
25
Table 11.
Potentially Contaminated Sites Within Project Area
29
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Comments Received
Appendix B - NCDOT Relocation Assistance Program/Relocation Reports
Appendix C — Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation

N.C. Department of Cultural Resources — State Historic Preservation Office
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources — DENR
DENR — North Carolina Division of Water Quality
DENR — North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Region J Council of Governments
Durham County
City of Durham
vi

TUUN:1
NC 55 (Alston Avenue)
From NC 147 (I.L. "Buck" Dean Freeway)
to US 70 Business/NC 98 (Holloway Street)
Durham County
Federal -Aid Project STP-55(20)
State Project 8.1352801
WBS Element 34915.1.1
TIP Project U-3308
1. Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration Action, environmental assessment and
draft Section 4(f) evaluation.
2. Additional Information
The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning
the proposed project and assessment :
Gregory J. Thorpe Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
[phone]
John F. Sullivan III, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
[phone]
3. Permits Required
Due to expected impacts to jurisdictional surface waters, a Nationwide 23 permit
will likely be required. The US Army Corps of Engineers will determine final permit
requirements.
A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 may also be required for temporary
construction related to the project. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be
required prior to issuance of the Section 404 Nationwide 23 permit.
iii

4. Proiect Purpose/Description of Action
The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion and improve safety along
NC 55 (Alston Avenue) between NC 147 and US 70 Business/NC 98 (Holloway Street).
The project involves widening existing NC 55 to a mostly four -lane median
divided facility with curb and gutter and sidewalks along the entire length of the project.
The proposed project is approximately one mile long.
It is anticipated approximately 100 to 120 feet of right of way plus easements will
be required to accommodate this facility. No control of access is proposed for the
proj ect.
5. Needs Addressed by the Project
The proposed project will address the following needs:
■ Total accident rates for NC 55 in the study area are over six times higher than the
statewide rate for three -lane urban NC routes. The most common types of
accidents occurring along this section of NC 55 are rearend type accidents
resulting from vehicles slowing or stopping.
■ Without improvements, several existing intersections along NC 55 within the
project area will operate at level of service F in the design year 2030.
6. Summary of Environmental Effects
The proposed project will require the relocation of Approximately 21 homes, 5
businesses, and I. non-profit organization. It is anticipated highway traffic noise in the
project area will result in impacts to*26 receptors with construction of the project. Traffic
noise abatement measures are not recommended (see Section V-J). If the proposed
project were not built, 31 receptors would be impacted by traffic noise.
No wetlands will be impacted as a result of this project. However, impacts to
jurisdictional surface waters could total approximately 40 linear feet.
A National Register listed historic district, a National Register eligible expansion
to another listed historic district and two individual properties eligible for the National
Register are located in the project area. The proposed project will have an "adverse
effect" on the National Register listed Golden Belt Historic District. The project will
have a "no adverse effect" on the National Register eligible Branson Methodist Church
(Asbury Temple United Methodist Church) if environmental commitments are met. The
project will have "no effect" on the National Register eligible Pure Oil Filling Station and
the expansion to the Holloway Street Historic District.
Branson Methodist Church, the Pure Oil Filling Station, the Golden Belt Historic
District, Long Meadow Park and the Holloway Street Historic District Expansion are all
IV

protected by Section 4(f) of the DOT Act of 1966, as amended. The proposed project
will require the use of land from all of these Section 4(f) resources. A Section 4(f)
evaluation is included in Appendix C of this document.
7. Alternatives Considered
The "No -Build" alternative is not recommended. While this alternative avoids the
anticipated impacts of the proposed project, this alternative does not meet the purpose of
the project to reduce congestion and improve safety along NC 55.
It was determined alternate modes of transportation would not be a practical
alternative to the recommended alternative.
The proposed project was divided into three sections in order to evaluate build
alternatives. These sections and the alternatives examined within each section are
described below.
NC 147 to Main Street
Due to constraints, only west side widening was studied for this portion of the
proposed project. Two historic properties, Branson Methodist Church and the Pure Oil
Filling Station, are located on the east side of NC 55 in this area (see Section VI-B-1).
Main Street to Taylor Street
Both west -side and east -side widening were examined for the portion of the
project between Main Street and Taylor Street. In addition to east -side and west -side
widening, three alternative treatments were examined for the three streets intersecting
NC 55 between Morning Glory Avenue and Taylor Street with west -side widening. The
portion of NC 55 between Morning Glory Avenue and Taylor Street passes through the
Golden Belt Historic District. .
Taylor Street to US 70 Business/NC 98
Symmetrical widening is proposed for this portion of NC 55 in order to minimize
impacts to homes and businesses surrounding NC 55.
8. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local agencies and officials were consulted
regarding this project.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of Interior
N.C. Department of Administration — State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
1A

N.C. Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources — DENR
DENR — North Carolina Division of Water Quality
DENR — North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Region J Council of Governments
Durham County
City of Durham
vi

NC 55 (Alston Avenue)
From NC 147 (I.L. "Buck" Dean Freeway)
to US 70 Business/NC 98 (Holloway Street)
Durham County
Federal -Aid Project STP-55(20)
State Project 8.1352801
NMS Element 34915.1.1
TIP Project U-3308
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Project Purpose
The purpose of this project is to reduce congestion and improve safety along NC 55
(Alston Avenue) between NC 147 and US 70 Business/NC 98 (Holloway Street).
B. General Description/Project Status
The project involves widening NC 55. A four -lane median divided facility with curb and
gutter and sidewalks is proposed. It is anticipated approximately 100-120 feet of right of way as
well as construction easements will be required to accommodate this facility. No control of
access is proposed for this project.
The proposed project is included in the 2006-2012 North Carolina Department of
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Right of way acquisition is scheduled for Fiscal
Year (FY) 2007 and construction is scheduled for FY 2009.
C. Cost Estimates
The current estimated cost for the proposed project is $23,520,000, which includes
$18,500,000 for construction and $5,020,000 for right of way acquisition. The cost included in
the 2006-2012 TIP is $19,300,000, which includes $18,500,000 for construction and $800,000
for right of way acquisition.
H. NEED FOR PROJECT
A. Description of Existing Facility
NC 55 is a north/south route which extends from the town of Oriental in Pamlico
County to I-85 in Durham. NC 55 is a mostly three -lane facility with sidewalks and curb and
gutter in the project area. NC 55 is one of several routes, including NC 147, which connect
downtown Durham to Research Triangle Park.

1. Functional Classification
NC 55 in the project area is classified as an urban minor arterial in the North Carolina
functional classification system.
2. Physical Description of Existing Facility
a. Roadway Cross Section
South of NC 147, NC 55 is a five -lane roadway with curb and gutter. Between NC 147
and Angier Avenue, existing NC 55 is a two-lane roadway with curb and gutter. Left turn lanes
are provided at the NC 147 ramps and Angier Avenue. Between Angier Avenue and
US 70 Business/NC 98, existing NC 55 is a three -lane roadway with curb and gutter. Lane and
berm widths are variable (total face of curb to face of curb width varies from 35 feet to 40 feet).
North of US 70 Business/NC 98, NC 55 is a three -lane roadway (40 feet wide face of curb to
face of curb).
b. Right of Way and Access Control
Existing right of way along NC 55 between NC 147 and US 70 Business/NC 98
(Holloway Street) varies between 46 to 80 feet wide. No control of access exists along NC 55
with the exception of at the NC 147 interchange.
C. Speed Limits
The existing speed limit along NC 55 is 35 miles per hour (mph).
d. Intersecting Roads and Types of Control
All intersections along existing NC 55 are at -grade except at NC 147 and Pettigrew
Street. An interchange exists at NC 147. A grade separation exists between NC 55 and
Pettigrew Street. There are seven signalized intersections along NC 55. These intersections are
as follows:
NC 147 Eastbound Ramp
NC 147 Westbound Ramp/Gann Street
Angier Avenue
Main Street
Taylor Street
Liberty Street
US 70 Business/NC 98 (Holloway Street)
The remaining intersections in the project area are stop sign controlled.
2

e. Railroad Facilities
Four rail lines cross over NC 55 on bridges just north of NC 147. The southern two
tracks are owned by Norfolk Southern (NS). The third track was a diagonal connection track
between the NS and CSX parallel tracks, but is no longer in service. The northernmost track is
owned by CSX Transportation and is also not in service.
In addition to these existing rail lines, the Triangle Transit Authority proposes to
construct a new rail bridge to carry a proposed light rail line over NC 55.
f. Structures
There are six existing structures along NC 55. Bridge No. 12 carries NC 55 over
NC 147. Bridge No. 44 carries Pettigrew Street over NC 55 and four bridges carry rail lines
owned by CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern over NC 55. These structures are described
in Table 1 below.
Table 11. Rxistina Rridap
Bridge
Carries/
Clear Rdwy Width or
- Vertical
Year
Suff.
No.
Crosses
Min. Horiz. Clearance Under
Clearance
Length
Built
Rt .*
12
NC 55INC 147
52'
16' 2"
190'
1968
76.0
Pettigrew St./
36' (Clear Roadway Width)
44**
NC 55
0' (left) 7.5' (right) Horiz.
13' 6"
147'
1951
33.7
Clearance Under
L67***
Railroad/NC 55
0' (left) 0.1' (right) Horiz.
13' 2"
93'
1913
N/A
Clearance Under
*
-Sufficiency rating out of 100 possible rating points.
**-Bridge No. 44 is posted with a weight limit of 37 tons for single vehicles and legal gross
weight (40 tons) for tractor trailers.
***-Bridge No. 67 is actually four separate structures carrying railroad tracks over NC 55.
g. Bicycle Accommodations
No special bicycle accommodations exist along NC 55 in the project area.
h. Utilities
Utilities along NC 55 include telephone, cable television, power, water, sewer and gas.
i. Pedestrian Facilities/Sidewalks
Sidewalks exists along most of existing NC 55 within the project limits.
3

3. Traffic Volumes
Traffic projections were prepared for the subject section of NC 55 for the years 2008 and
2030. In the year 2008, average daily traffic along NC 55 will likely range between 19,900 and
24,900 vehicles per day. By the year 2030, traffic in this area is predicted to range between
30,500 and 36,900 vehicles per day, respectively. Traffic volumes are shown in greater detail on
Figure 3.
4. School Bus Usage
Approximately 76 school buses travel NC 55 twice daily. Eastway Elementary School is
located at the intersection of NC 55 and Taylor Street.
5. Airports
There are no airports or other aviation facilities in the vicinity of the proposed project.
6. Other Highway Projects in the Area
There are several projects planned for Durham County. Projects included in the 2006-
2012 TIP in the vicinity of NC 55 are listed below:
TIP Project I-306 - I-85, Orange County to east of Midland Terrace Road. This project
involves widening I-85 and adding lighting. Construction of this project is underway.
TIP Project U-2831 - Briggs Avenue Extension, from Riddle Road to So -Hi Drive and
Northeast Creek Parkway, Cornwallis Road to Ellis Road. This project involves constructing a
two-lane roadway on multi -lane right of way. A portion of this project is complete and
remaining portions are unfunded.
TIP Project U-4010 — NC 98 (Holloway Street), east of US 70 to east of Junction Road.
This project involves widening NC 98 for a center turn lane. Construction of this project is
underway.
B. Deficiencies of Existing Facility
1. Traffic Carrying Capacity
Capacity analyses were performed for the existing signalized intersections along NC 55
within the project limits. These analyses were performed for the years 2008 and 2030. Table 2
presents the results.
4

Table 2. Cauacity Analysis for NC 55 Withnnt Pro:Pet
Intersection
Level of Service
2008
2030
NC 147 EB Ramps & NC 55
F
E
NC 147 WB Ramps & NC 55
C
D
Angier Avenue & NC 55
D
F
Main Street & NC 55
D
F
Taylor Street & NC 55
C
C
Liberty Street & NC 55
D
D
Holloway Street & NC 55
F
F
2. Accident Record
An accident study was conducted along NC 55 in Durham for the time period between
January 1998 to August 2001. During this study period, 642 crashes were reported on NC 55 in
the project area. 219 of these crashes resulted in injuries. No fatal crashes occurred. These
crashes resulted in property damage costing an estimated $1,826,972. The largest number of
crashes were rear -end type collisions due to vehicles slowing or stopping. Approximately
forty-three percent of the crashes reported were of this type.
The crash rate for this section of NC 55 is 2,414.56 accidents per 100 million vehicle
miles (acc/100 mvm). Compared to the statewide rate of 370.51 acc/100mvm for urban NC
routes, NC 55 is significantly above the statewide rate.
C. Benefits of Proposed Project
1. Safety
As reported in Section II-B-2, the accident rate along NC 55 in the project area is over six
times the statewide average for similar facilities. The largest number of accidents were rear -end
type collisions due to slowing or stopping. The additional through lanes and turn lanes proposed
at signalized intersections along NC 55 should allow traffic to shift out of through lanes for left
turns. The additional through lanes will provide an opportunity for movement when cars are
stopped or slowed for right turns in the absence of exclusive right turn lanes.
Providing accommodations for bicycles and pedestrians will also help to improve safety
along NC 55.
2. Level of Service
The proposed project will increase the traffic carrying capacity of NC 55 within the
project limits. The project includes improvements to seven signalized intersections along NC 55.
The addition of left turn lanes at the intersections will help reduce delays and improve level of
service. Table 3 shows the level of service with the proposed improvements for the signalized
intersections on NC 55.
5

Table 3. Ca aci Analysis for NC 55 With Proiect
Intersection
Level of Service
2030
NC 147 EB Ramps & NC 55
F
NC 147 WB Ramps & NC 55
B
Angier Avenue & NC 55
B
Main Street & NC 55
C
Taylor Street & NC 55
B
Liberty Street & NC 55
C
Holloway Street & NC 55
E
M. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Proposed Typical Section and Alignment
A four -lane median divided facility with curb and gutter and sidewalks on both sides is
proposed for NC 55 from NC 147 to US 70 Business/NC 98. The proposed typical section
includes two travel lanes in each direction separated by a 16-foot raised median. A median will
not be provided between the northernmost ramp for NC 147 and the Pettigrew Street bridge.
Eleven foot inside and 14-foot outside travel lanes are proposed. The 14-foot outside lanes are
recommended to accommodate bicycles. Figures 4A and 4B illustrate the proposed typical
section for the project.
Several side streets along the project will be converted from two-way to one-way traffic
as part of the project. Worth and Franklin Streets on both sides of NC 55 and Wall Street west of
NC 55 will be narrowed to 20 feet wide with curb and gutter on both sides and converted to one-
way traffic. A sidewalk will be provided along both sides of these streets. Wall Street east of
NC 55 will remain two-way, but the intersection of this portion of Wall Street with NC 55 will
be removed and a cul-de-sac constructed.
Converting these streets to one-way traffic is proposed because retaining two-way traffic
and a connection with NC 55 would require adjusting the vertical alignment of all of these
streets. Changing the vertical alignment would result in relocating most of the homes on each of
these streets. These streets are all located within the National Register listed Golden Belt
Historic District (see Section V-B-1-b). Retaining two-way traffic and a connection to NC 55
would require relocating 15 homes within the historic district which would not otherwise be
affected by the proposed widening. Converting the streets to one-way traffic and providing a
turn around on Wall Street would not relocate any homes which would not. otherwise be affected
by the proposed widening.
B. Right of Way and Access Control
A total right of way width of between 100 to 120 feet will be required to accommodate
the proposed improvements. Easements may be required in some locations outside the proposed
0

right of way.
Due to the number of existing driveways and intersecting streets, no change in access
control is recommended as apart of this project.
C. Speed Limit/Design Speed
It is anticipated the posted speed limit along NC 55 will remain 35 mph. A design speed
of 35 mph is proposed for the project. Typically, a 40 mph design speed would be recommended
for a roadway to be signed 35 mph, but due to the nature of the area and the number of
constraints such as historic properties, a lower design speed was chosen in order to reduce
project impacts. A 35 mph design speed is acceptable for a 35 mph posted speed.
D. Anticipated Design Exceptions
It is anticipated no design exceptions will be required for this project.
E. Intersections/Interchanges
All of the existing at -grade intersections along NC 55 within the project limits will
remain at -grade. Seven signalized intersections exist along the proposed project. No new
signals are proposed with this project. All other intersections will remain stop sign controlled.
The proposed median will restrict left turns at several intersections along the project. Median
breaks will be provided at major intersections along the project.
The intersection of Wall Street east of NC 55 will be removed and a cul-de-sac
constructed on Wall Street as part of the project. As discussed in Section III -A, Wall Street west
of NC 55 and Worth and Franklin Streets on both sides of NC 55 will continue to intersect with
NC 55 but will be converted to one-way traffic. The intersection of Eva Street west of NC 55
will be removed and a cul-de-sac constructed on Eva Street. The intersection of Eva Street east
of NC 55 will remain, but only right turns will be allowed.
Exclusive right turn lanes are proposed on at least one approach of the following
intersections with NC 55: at the west bound ramp and loop at NC 147, Angier Street, Main
Street, Liberty Street, Taylor Street, Gann Street, and Holloway Street. The City of Durham had
asked in a letter (see Appendix A) that exclusive right turn lanes be eliminated from the project
in order to enhance pedestrian safety. Because of this request, several previously proposed turn
lanes were eliminated. However, due to the high number of right turns at these intersections, not
providing a right turn lane at these locations would severely affect the capacity of the
intersections. In addition, as discussed in Section II-B-2, NC 55 in the project area has a very
high accident rate. Over 43 percent of these accidents are rear -end collisions. The proposed
right turn lanes should reduce the likelihood of rear -end collisions by allowing turning traffic to
move out of the through lanes.
F. Railroad Crossings
All of the existing railroad bridges over NC 55 will be replaced as a part of this project.
7

Section III-G provides additional information regarding the proposed structures.
G. Structures
The bridge carrying NC 55 over NC 147, the bridge carrying Pettigrew Street over NC 55
and the four railroad bridges over NC 55 will all be replaced as a part of this project. Table 4
below presents proposed structures along the project. The locations of the proposed structures
are shown on Figure 2.
Table 4. Prnnncpd Ctrn�t»rp�
Carries/Crosses
Proposed
Width
Proposed +
Length
v Proposed
Vertical Clearance
Pettigrew St./NC 55
39 feet
160 feet
15.5 feet
Southern RR/NC 55
50.5 feet
185 feet
15.5 feet
CSX RR/NC 55
feet
185 feet
15.5 feet
NC 55 over NC 147+_,22
88 feet
190 feet
16.5 feet
In addition to these four structures to be built as a part of this project, the Triangle Transit
Authority proposes to construct a bridge to carry a proposed light rail line over NC 55. The
construction of this light rail bridge will be coordinated with the widening of NC 55.
H. Pedestrian and Bicycle Accommodations
The City of Durham has requested sidewalks be provided along both sides of NC 55 for
the entire project length. The City has also requested sidewalks be provided along one side of
streets to be converted to one-way traffic (see Section III -A) within the Golden Belt Historic
District. In accordance with NCDOT Pedestrian policy, NCDOT will bear the full cost to
replace any existing sidewalks to be relocated by the project. The City of Durham will
participate in the cost of new sidewalks in areas where sidewalks do not currently exist. A
municipal agreement will be prepared regarding the provision of sidewalks prior to project
construction.
Fourteen -foot outside lanes will be constructed along NC 55 to accommodate bicycles.
I. Utilities
The project is expected to have a high level of utility impacts. Utilities along the project
will be relocated prior to construction.
J. Landscaping
The City of Durham has requested landscaping within the proposed median or within the
berm where possible. Landscaping plans will be developed as the project progresses. A
municipal agreement is required only if the desired landscaping cost exceeds the amount
established by the landscaping policy. After an establishment period of one year, the city of
Durham is responsible for maintaining the landscaping in the project area.
8

K. Noise Barriers
No noise barriers are proposed along the project (see Section V-J).
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Preliminary Study Alternatives
1. "No -Build" Alternative
The "No -Build" alternative is not recommended. While this alternative avoids the
anticipated impacts of the proposed project, this alternative does not meet the purpose of the
project to reduce congestion and improve safety along NC 55.
2. Alternate Modes of Transportation
It was determined alternate modes of transportation would not be a practical alternative to
the recommended alternative. Staggering work hours, car-pooling and van pooling are possible
ways to generally reduce congestion; however, these congestion management measures are not
controlled by the NCDOT.
The project area is served by four Durham Area Transit Authority (DATA) bus routes.
Route 12 operates along NC 55 from south of the project limits up to NC 147. The route then
operates along NC 147 west of NC 55. Route 2 crosses NC 55 on Main Street, Route 16 crosses
NC 55 on Liberty Street and Route 3 crosses'NC 55 on US 70 Business/NC 98 (Holloway
Street).
A station for the proposed Triangle Transit Authority light rail system is proposed for the
east side of NC 55 just north of NC 147. The proposed rail station consists of a rail platform on
the north side of Pettigrew Street with 176 passenger vehicle parking spaces on the south side of
Pettigrew Street. A driveway on NC 55 is proposed for the station parking lot. Other driveways
will access Pettigrew Street. The proposed rail station has the potential to generate 2,856
automobile trips during a typical weekday.
The future traffic volume projections along NC 55 in the project area have taken into
consideration the existing and future transit available in the project area. These projections show
that NC 55 in the project area will operate at an unsatisfactory level of service even with the use
of alternate modes of transportation.
B. Alternatives Currently being Studied
The proposed project was divided into three sections in order to evaluate alternatives.
01

These sections and the alternatives examined within each section are described below.
NC 147 to Main Street
Due to constraints, only west -side widening was studied for this portion of the proposed
project. Two historic properties, Branson Methodist Church and the Pure Oil Filling Station, are
located on the east side of NC 55 in this area (see Section V-B-1-a). Widening to the west will
minimize impacts to these properties. A five -lane curb and gutter section is proposed from
NC 147 to north of Pettigrew Street. From north of Pettigrew Street to Main Street, a four -lane
16-foot median divided facility is proposed (see Figure 4A).
Main Street to Taylor Street
A four lane 16-foot median divided facility is proposed from Main Street to Taylor
Street. Both west -side and east -side widening were examined for the portion of the project
between Main Street and Taylor Street. In addition to east -side and west -side widening, three
alternative treatments were examined for the three streets intersecting NC 55 between Morning
Glory Avenue and Taylor Street with west -side widening. The portion of NC 55 between
Morning Glory Avenue and Taylor Street passes through the Golden Belt Historic District.
Alternative treatments were examined for Worth, Franklin and Wall Streets with
west -side widening because these side streets cannot be reconnected to NC 55 without major
adjustments in the vertical alignment of the streets. This vertical realignment would result in
relocating many of the homes along the streets. One alternative examined involves adding
cul-de-sacs to the streets with no access to NC 55. A second alternative involves providing
access to NC 55 but narrowing the streets and converting them to one-way traffic. A third
alternative is a combination of cul-de-sacs and one-way streets.
Alternative treatments for the side streets were not examined for the east -side widening
alternative because reconnecting the streets to NC 55 would not relocate anymore homes than the
widening itself would. Table 5 below presents the impacts of the alternatives examined for the
project between Main Street to Taylor Street.
Table 5 Impacts of Alternatives Examined Between Main Ctrppt and TnAnr Ctrapt
Alternative
Total No. of Relocatees
Homes Relocated vv
(Main St. to Taylor St.
Homes(Businesses)
Within Historic District
West -Side Widening w/
8 (4)
7
Cul-de Sacs
West -Side Widening w/
7(1)
7
One -Way Streets
West -Side Widening w/-
6 (1)
4
Combination Cul-de-Sacs
and One -Way Streets
East -Side Widening
15 2
13
As Table 5 shows, all of the alternatives would involve relocating contributing structures
10

from the historic district. The State Historic Preservation Office has concurred all of these
alternatives would have an "adverse effect" on the Golden Belt Historic District. West -side
widening with a combination of cul-de-sacs and one-way streets would relocate the least number
of homes and businesses. With this alternative, Worth and Franklin Streets on both sides of NC
55 and Wall Street west of NC 55 will be narrowed to 20 feet wide and converted to one-way
traffic. Wall Street east of NC 55 will remain two-way, but the intersection of this portion of
Wall Street with NC 55 will be removed and a cul-de-sac constructed.
Taylor Street to US 70 Business/NC 98
Symmetrical widening is proposed for this portion of NC 55 in order to minimize impacts
to homes and businesses surrounding NC 55. A four -lane 16-foot median divided facility is
proposed from Taylor Street to US 70 Business/NC 98.
V. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Natural Resources
1. Biotic Resources
a. Terrestrial Communities
The project study area is located in an urban area and is composed entirely of
maintained/disturbed lands. The area is characterized by artificial surfaces such as parking lots
and roadways and other maintained areas including manicured lawns. Regular mowing keeps
vegetation associated with this community in a low state of succession. Fescue and a few
primary successional species are the prevalent vegetation within the maintained/disturbed lands.
An unnamed tributary to Ellerbe Creek is the only portion of the study area of minor
benefit to wildlife due to the difficulty of maintaining the narrow, sparsely lined (rip rap) riparian
areas adjacent to the stream. The riparian vegetation growing along the stream consists primarily
of maintained fescue lawn, however there is a ten -foot wide vegetated border covering both
banks along the stream. This area consists of Chinaberry and Mulberry saplings covered with
Kudzu.
Terrestrial Wildlife
Several bird species and a set of raccoon tracks along the edge of the stream were the
only observations of wildlife made during the field assessment. The following is a listing of
terrestrial wildlife that might be expected based on the habitat conditions in the project study
area.
Amphibians such as the southern leopard frog, bullfrog, green frog, American toad and
Fowler's toad may exist along streams within the area. In addition, the northern cricket frog, the
gray treefrog and other species of tree frogs that require aquatic habitat for breeding and foraging
11

could occur in the project study area. Turtles such as the snapping turtle, eastern musk turtle, or
eastern mud turtle are likely to be present in the upstream, unpiped stream portion of the project
study area. No snakes or lizards were observed, however several species of snakes and lizards
are common in the area, particularly near streams. The snake species include the brown snake,
redbelly snake, eastern ribbon snake, eastern garter snake, smooth earth snake and the
copperhead. The lizard species most likely to be found include the five -lined skink.
The project study area provides a narrow linear area for birds to forage and nest. The
mourning dove, common grackle and the American robin were identified during the field
assessment. Other birds likely to be observed along this urban corridor would include the
European starling, house sparrow, American crow, northern cardinal and the rufous -sided
towhee. These species are better adapted to life around urban centers than other birds.
Mammals common to the project vicinity and readily adaptable to the urban environment
include the raccoon and the Virginia opossum. No mammals were observed during the course of
this assessment, however raccoon tracks were visible in the sediment adjacent to the stream
bank.
b. Aquatic Communities
The unnamed tributary to Ellerbe Creek is the only aquatic community within the project
study area. The aquatic habitat consists of a 40 linear foot length of stream channel
approximately ten feet wide. The predominant plant community consists of an unknown
periphyton. The channel substrate is comprised of both fine homogenous materials and medium
sized gravel. The stream was fairly clear on the date of inspection.
The quality of the aquatic habitat is poor in the project study area due to the urbanization
of downtown Durham. This unnamed tributary was identified as an intermittent stream that
derives its flow from a groundwater interface, as well as surface water inputs from contributory
impervious areas. It is likely that non -point source contaminants enter the system with the urban
runoff.
No aquatic species were observed within the stream or adjacent stream corridor. Aquatic
species likely to be encountered include fish, salamanders, frogs and turtles. Fish species such as
the eastern mosquitofish could potentially be found in intermittent streams, but are more likely to
be found in perennial waters.
C. Summary of Anticipated Effects
Potential construction effects of the proposed project include increased sedimentation,
soil compaction and streambed scour. NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters will be followed in order to minimize the potential effects of the project.
Animal species within the area will be temporarily displaced by construction activities.
Mobile species will be displaced to adjacent areas while slow moving or burrowing animals may
be directly impacted.
12

Aquatic species are more susceptible to changes in the environment; therefore,
construction impacts may result in long-term population declines. However, the overall impacts
to the aquatic community should be minimal.
2. Water Resources
Water resources in the project area are part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020201,
DWQ Subbasin 030401 of the Neuse River Basin.
a. Streams, Rivers, Impoundments
NC 55 crosses an unnamed tributary to Ellerbe Creek between Liberty Street and Taylor
Street. This stream had a light persistent flow and was fairly clear at the time of the field
investigation. The stream has been subjected to extensive human alteration from channelization
and it has a partially vegetated riparian zone. The average width of the stream is approximately
ten feet and the water depth ranges from two to six inches in the riffles and pools. The stream
banks appeared to be relatively stable. The channel bed consists of homogenous materials and
medium sized gravel.
A Best Usage Classification has not been assigned to the unnamed tributary to Ellerbe
Creek. The unnamed tributary is considered to have the same classification as Ellerbe Creek,
which has been assigned a Best Usage Classification of C (NSW). Class C denotes waters that
are used for aquatic life propagation/protection and secondary recreation and agriculture. NSW
are streams with water quality problems associated with excessive plant growth resulting from
nutrient enrichment.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) assesses water quality by
sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. No sampling
sites exist within the project study area. The most recent sample taken in Ellerbe Creek was taken in
2000, approximately 5.6 miles downstream of the project area. That sample received a BMAN
bioclassification of "Fair."
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are regulated through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). No permitted dischargers are
located within the project study area. Impervious surfaces from adjacent apartment buildings
and church and asphalt parking lots are potential sources of non -point source pollutants.
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to develop a comprehensive list of
impaired waters. Ellerbe Creek is included on the North Carolina 303(d) list and is considered
impaired from its source to Falls Lake. Elevated levels of lead and zinc have been detected and
dissolved oxygen is occasionally below the water quality standard. It is heavily impacted by
urban runoff from Durham. The Ellerbe Creek drainage is also a North Carolina Wetland
Restoration Program (NCWRP) targeted local watershed.
13

b. Summary of Anticipated Effects
It is anticipated the proposed widening will require extending the existing pipe carrying
the unnamed tributary to Ellerbe Creek under NC 55 by approximately 40 feet.
The proposed construction has the potential to effect water quality. However, with
proper erosion and sediment control measures, project effects can be reduced to a negligible
level.
In order to minimize potential impacts, NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for
the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during the construction phase of the
project
Long-term impacts on streams, as a result of the proposed widening, are not expected.
3. Waters of the US
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands and streams fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) Part 328.3. Any action that proposes to place fill material into these areas falls under the
jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA) (33 USC.1344).
a. Wetlands
No wetlands were found in the project study area. One intermittent stream, an unnamed
tributary to Ellerbe Creek, was identified as jurisdictional surface waters.
b. Summary of Anticipated Effects
It is anticipated extending the existing pipe carrying the unnamed tributary under NC 55
will affect approximately 40 feet of this jurisdictional stream.
C. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
The project involves widening an existing road in an urban area. An existing pipe
carrying an unnamed tributary to Ellerbe Creek under NC 55 must be extended in order to
accommodate the widening. Project effects to this stream are unavoidable.
In order to minimize potential impacts, NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for
the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during the construction phase of the
project
The Corps of Engineers determined the unnamed tributary to Ellerbe Creek is intermittent
and does not have important aquatic functions. Compensatory mitigation will not be required for
impacts to this stream.
14

d. Anticipated Permit Requirements
A permit will be required from the US Army Corps of Engineers due to project impacts
to jurisdictional surface waters. A Nationwide 23 Permit will likely be applicable for this
project. A Nationwide 33 Permit may also be required for temporary construction related to the
project.
A Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is required from the NC Division of
Water Quality prior to the issuance of the Section 404 Nationwide 23 Permit.
4. Neuse Buffer Rules
The Neuse River Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233) applies to 50-foot wide buffers
directly adjacent to surface waters in the Neuse River Basin (intermittent streams, perennial
streams, lakes, ponds, and estuaries), excluding wetlands. The Neuse River Buffer Rules are
administered by the NC Division of Water Quality. The rules are applicable to all streams
identified on either the most recent local county soil survey or the most recent USGS quadrangle
map. If stream features are not present on either map, the area is not subject to the rule, even if a
stream is present.
The Southwest Durham USGS quadrangle map does not show a stream within the project
study area, however, the unnamed tributary to Ellerbe Creek in the project area does appear on
the current Durham County Soil Survey map. Because the unnamed tributary appears on the soil
survey map, the Neuse Buffer Rules apply to this stream. One other stream feature is
represented on the soil survey map within the study area, however, this stream appears to have
been piped and no visible evidence remains at or near this location. The NC Division of Water
Quality determined the piped stream is not subject to the Neuse River Buffer Rules.
Road crossings of streams and other surface waters subject to the buffer rules are exempt
if the road crossing impacts are equal to or less than 40 linear feet of riparian buffer. Road
crossing impacts of more than 40 and up to 150 feet or one-third of an acre of riparian buffer,
then the crossing is allowable without mitigation. Uses designated allowable may proceed
within the riparian buffer provided there are no practicable alternatives to the requested use.
These uses require written authorization from the Division or the delegated local authority
(NCDENR-DWQ 2004). The uses associated with this project are either exempt or are
allowable without mitigation (NCDENR-DWQ, 2004).
5. Rare and Protected Species
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, requires any action likely to adversely
affect species classified as endangered or threatened be subject to review by the US Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate state
laws.
15

a. Federally -Protected Species
As of November 9, 2005, three federally -protected species are listed for Durham County.
Table 6. Federally -Protected Sneeiec in nnrhnm f nnniv
Common Name
Scientific Name
Status
^ Habitat
Biological
Conclusion
Bald eagle
Haliaeetus leucoce halus
T
No
No Effect
Smooth coneflower
Echinacea laevi ata
E
No
No Effect
Michaux's sumac
1 Rhus michauxii
E
No
No Effect
b-bnaangered, - l hreatened
No habitat for bald eagle exists in the project area. The project area is located more than
1.5 mile from Falls Lake, the nearest open water in the area. Habitat for smooth coneflower and
Michaux's sumac is limited due to the amount of urban development in the project area.
Vegetative communities in the project area are regularly mowed and maintained. The areas are
too shaded to support smooth coneflower.
b. Federal Species of Concern/State-Protected Species
Twelve federal Species of Concern (FSC) are listed for Durham County. These species
are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered.
Organisms listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Special Concern (SC), or
Significantly Rare (SR) on the NC Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal
Species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North
Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
16

Table 7. Federal Species of Concern in Durham f nnnfv
Common Name
Scientific Name
State
Status
Habitat
Available
Carolina darter -eastern
Piedmont population
Ethesostoma collis lepidinion
o 2
SC
YES
Pinewoods Shiner
L thrurus matutinus
SR
YES
Neuse madtom
Noturus riosis o ulation 1
N/A
YES
Atlantic Pigtoe
Fusconaia masoni
E
NO
Yellow lam mussel
Lam sills cariosa
E
NO
Green floater
Lasmi ona subviridis
E
YES
Panhandle pebblesnail
Somotogyrus vir 'nicus
SR
YES
Se tima's clubtail dragonfly
Gom hus se tima
SR
NO
Tall larkspur
Delphinium exaltatum
E-SC
NO
Sweet pinesap
Monotro sis odorata
SR-T
NO
Butternut
Ju lans cinerea
N/A
NO
A liverwort
Pla iochila columbiana
N/A
NO
N/A - Not Applicable
A review of NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records revealed an occurrence of the
Pinewoods shiner near the project study area during a 1991 survey. According to the element
occurrence record, the species was found in Ellerbe Creek, apparently near SR 1669. No further
details were listed.
A review of the NCNHP database of uncommon and protected species revealed two
occurrences of the Panhandle pebblesnail near the project study area during a 1993 survey.
According to the element occurrence record, the species was found in the Eno River at both the
Guess Road and Roxboro Road crossings.
B. Cultural Resources
The proposed project is subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally -funded,
licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places and to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on
such undertakings.
17

1. Historic Architectural Resources
a. Historic Properties
An intensive level historic architectural survey was conducted in 2002 within the Area of
Potential Effects (APE) of the project. The APE included areas that may be physically and/or
visually affected by the proposed project.
Thirty five properties over 50 years old exist in the APE. As a result of the historic
architecture investigations four of these properties were determined to be eligible for the
National Register. The properties determined to be eligible are Branson Methodist Church
(Asbury Temple United Methodist Church), Pure Oil Filling Station and houses at 808 and 809
Holloway Street which are included as part of a Holloway Street Historic District expansion.
The North Carolina Historic Preservation Office (HPO) concurred with these findings in a letter
dated January 9, 2003 (see Appendix A). The remaining properties were determined to be
ineligible for the National Register. Historic properties in the project area are shown on Figure
2.
Branson Methodist Church
Branson Methodist Church (now known as Asbury Temple United Methodist Church) is
located on the southeast corner of NC 55 and Angier Avenue.
The Branson Methodist Church is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
under Criterion A in the area of social history for its association with surrounding mills and mill
villages. The church is eligible for the National Register under Criterion C for its architecture as
a good example of Neoclassical Revival ecclesiastical architecture, which is uncommon in
Durham. The church building meets Criteria Consideration A for a property owned by a
religious institution or used for religious purposes, but which derives its primary significance
from historical importance or architectural distinction. The North Carolina Historic Preservation
Office (HPO) concurred with the eligibility of Branson Methodist Church in a letter dated
January 9, 2003 (see Appendix A)..
The eligible boundary of the Branson Methodist Church encompasses the entire 0.4-acre
parcel historically associated with the church.
Pure Oil Filling Station
The Pure Oil Filling Station stands at the corner of NC 55 and East Main Street in
Durham.
The Pure Oil Filling Station is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under
Criterion A in the areas of commerce and transportation for its association with the development
of the surrounding residential neighborhood and under Criterion C for architecture as an intact,
representative example of a typical Pure Oil station that was reproduced around the country. The
North Carolina Historic Preservation Office (HPO) concurred with the eligibility of the Pure Oil
Station in a letter dated January 9, 2003 (see Appendix A).
18

The eligible boundary of the Pure Oil Filling Station encompasses the entire 0.2-acre
parcel historically associated with the building.
Golden Belt Historic District
The Golden Belt Historic District occupies nearly forty acres just east of Durham's
central business district. The Golden Belt Historic District is bounded by East Main Street and
Morning Glory Avenue on the south, Holman Street on the east, the south -facing block of Taylor
Street on the north and the Norfolk and Western Railroad on the west. NC 55 bisects the five
east -west streets that compose the residential section of the district.
The Golden Belt Historic District was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in
1985. The property is eligible under Criteria A, B and C in the areas of architecture and
industry. Architecturally, the district contains imposing brick industrial structures, modest early -
twentieth century commercial buildings, and small houses that reflect turn of the century rural
and 1920's bungalow styles. The proximity of these three disparate areas reflects the
organization of the Golden Belt mill village and the surviving concentration of structures within
them conveys the district's historic character.
Individual houses within the district have been altered over the years. However, their
basic form and orientation remain intact and they collectively convey the historic character of the
residential portion of the village.
Holloway Street Historic District Boundary Expansion
Holloway Street Historic District is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and
consists of the 500 and 600 blocks of Holloway Street, the two westernmost houses on the 700
block of Holloway Street, and two Dillard Street structures, which form the southwest corner of
the district. The existing district's closest boundary to the project area is about one block west of
the APE.
The Holloway Street Boundary Expansion was added to the State Study List in 2001.
The proposed expansion would extend the east edge of the National Register district nearly to
NC 55, incorporating the remainder of the 700 block and most of the 800 block of Holloway
Street. The boundary expansion would also affect the north edge of the existing district, an area
about three blocks removed from the NC 55 project area.
The National Register -listed portion of the Holloway Street Historic District is residential
in character and reflects a fashionable Victorian neighborhood through the early decades of the
twentieth century. The proposed expansion area along Holloway Street would include smaller,
newer homes that also display architectural detailing, such as early twentieth-century Craftsman
bungalows.
The 700 and 800 blocks of Holloway Street are eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under Criterion A for their association with the development of the 500 and 600
19

blocks of Holloway Street, which are already listed in the National Register of Historic Places.
The 700 and 800 blocks compose a transitional neighborhood between the prestigious residences
to the east, built by the city's industrialists and financiers, and the vernacular houses to the south,
built for those who worked in the local industrial concerns.
The eastern portion of the Holloway Street Historic District boundary expansion consists
of the parcels occupied by residential structures on the 700 and 800 blocks of Holloway Street.
The North Carolina Historic Preservation Office (HPO) concurred with the eligibility of
the Holloway Street Historic District boundary expansion in a lettgr dated January 9, 2003 (see
Appendix A).
b. Project Effects
w.
Project effects on historic properties were discussed with HPO on September 16, 2003
and again on June 28, 2005. The concurrence form for assessment of effects is included in
Appendix A. The project effects are shown on Table 8 below.
Table 8. Effects on Historic Pro ernes
Historic Properties
Effect
Golden Belt Historic District
Adverse Effect
Branson Methodist Church
No Adverse Effect with Environmental
Commitments
Pure Oil Filling Station
No Adverse Effect
Holloway Street Historic District Boundary
Expansion
No Effect
N o adverse errectr � with environmental Commitments- The project will have "no adverse
effect" on Branson Methodist Church if NCDOT will only acquire temporary easements (no
permanent right of way or permanent easements) from the church property. In addition,
NCDOT must replant grass, replace sidewalk disturbed during construction and tie the new
sidewalk into steps leading to the church building.
The proposed project will affect homes within the Golden Belt Historic District.
Approximately six properties within the Golden Belt Historic district will be impacted by the
proposed project. All of these structures are contributing structures to the district.
A memorandum of agreement (MOA) will be prepared for the adverse effect to the
National Register -listed Golden Belt Historic District prior to completion of the final
environmental document for the project. The proposed improvements will have no effect on the
National Register -eligible expansion of the Holloway Street Historic District, therefore a MOA
is not required.
2. 'Archaeological Resources
There are no recorded archaeological sites located within the project area. Since the
proposed ground disturbance is to take place in areas where previous construction has occurred,
W

it is unlikely this project will involve significant archaeological resources. In a letter dated May
22, 2002, the State Historic Preservation Office recommended no archaeological investigation be
conducted for this project (see Appendix A).
C. Social Effects
1. Neighborhoods/Communities
The project area is predominately urban. The single most dominant land use within the
study area is residential. The project corridor itself has four communities abutting the roadway:
Albright, East Durham, Edgemont and East End. The residential communities have a mix of
housing types including apartments, single family detached units, town homes and public
housing.
Commercial activity along the project corridor is dominated by automobile related
commercial ventures and small retailers. There are three functioning gas stations and five
automobile repair service centers. Several retail food establishments also exist.
There are several areas zoned for industrial activity in the project area. The area of
industrial use abutting NC 55 extends in a predominately western to eastern direction with its
major use being the Norfolk Southern Railroad corridor that crosses NC 55 between NC 147 and
Angier Avenue.
2. Relocation of Residences and Businesses
The proposed project will require the relocation of homes and businesses. All relocations
will be carried out in accordance with Federal and State laws and regulations. NCDOT's
Relocation Assistance Program will be utilized to assist in finding replacement housing for
residents relocated by the project. Table 9 below presents the anticipated number of homes and
businesses which would be relocated by each alternative. Appendix B includes information on
NCDOT's relocation assistance program, as well as the relocation reports for each alternative.
Table 9. Homes/Businesses to he Relnented by prniP..t
NC 147 to
Morning Glory to
Hopkins Street to
Morning Glory
Hopkins Street
US 70
Business/NC 98
Homes
6 6
6 4
9L5L____d
Businesses 1
3 2
l(l)I
1 1
Numbers in parenthesis 0 indicate minority owned or occupied
homes and businesses.
3. Minority/ ow -Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 requires each federal agency, to the greatest extent allowed by
law, to administer and implement its programs, policies, and activities that affect human health
or the environment so as to identify and avoid "disproportionately high and adverse" effects on
21

minority and low-income populations.
Portions of the project area have a higher percentage of minorities and/or low-income
persons than the county average (52 percent versus 30 percent). Citizens informational
workshops were held for the project on March 6, 2003 and May 17, 2004. These workshops
were advertised in local newspapers and property owners within the project area were notified of
the workshop by mail. Through the public involvement program, citizens have been kept
informed of the proposed project. No issues related to environmental justice concerns have been
discovered through the public involvement process. Based on project studies, this project is
being implemented in accordance with Executive Order 12898.
4. Public Facilities
Two churches and one school are located along NC 55 in the project area. The churches
in the project area are Asbury Temple United Methodist Church (the National Register -eligible
Branson Methodist Church), located on the comer of Angier Avenue and NC 55 and Ecclesia
House of Prayer, located immediately north of Taylor Street on NC 55. Eastway Elementary
School is located at the intersection of Taylor Street and NC 55.
D. Economic Effects
NCDOT has coordinated with the Triangle Transit Authority and the Durham Housing
Authority's HOPE VI project to incorporate their plans into the road improvements. These two
efforts are important factors in economic considerations because these plans incorporate this
aspect of their proposal.
Induced economic growth is possible with increased accessibility of larger trucks to
existing industrial zones in the study area. Improved access can lead to growth for existing
businesses and use of idle industrial space ultimately providing more local jobs.
With the increased volumes the road will be able to handle, there will be an increased
opportunity for transit oriented businesses to develop in the corridor.
E. Land Use
1. Existing Land Use and Zoning
The current corridor is dominated by residential zoning but includes areas of general
commercial use. Other areas are zoned for institutional and industrial uses.
2. Future Land Use
Transportation facilities will be a dominant future land use within the project area. There
are seven major transportation routes within the North East Central Durham area, and all are
within two miles of the project corridor. Many of the development plans have significant
transportation elements.
22

Aside from the roadway projects, the TTA Light Rail Station, the Barnes Avenue
Revitalization effort and the Durham HOPE VI residential development are major expected
changes.
In August of 2000, the City of Durham received a HOPE VI grant from the US
Department of Housing and Urban Development to be used to revitalize the Few Gardens public
housing development. The grant, administered through the City's Housing Authority, will
provide for the development of the following:
■ 160 public housing rental units
■ 88 tax credit or affordable rental units
■ 27 market rate rental units
■ 115 affordable and market rate homeownership units
The funds for the project are specifically earmarked for residential construction but the
project incorporates a holistic view of the community development. Figure 9 illustrates the
HOPE VI master plan.
3. Project compatibility with Local Plans
The proposed widening of NC 55 is consistent with the East Central Durham Small Area
Plan, the 2020 Durham Comprehensive Plan and the regional 2025 Long Range Transportation
Plan of the Durham -Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO.
F. Secondary/Cumulative Effects
Several major public projects are planned in the area surrounding the subject project.
These include:
■ Extending NC 55 to join I-85 — northern NC 55 will be extended to SR 1004 (Oxford
Road) to improve access to I-85.
■ Widening NC 98 to provide center turn lanes
■ The HOPE VI Redevelopment Plan
■ Barnes Avenue Revitalization — A holistic based community revitalization effort by the
City of Durham through the City's Department of Housing and Community
Development. The first -on -the ground efforts are to start in the community's Barnes
Avenue area.
■ The proposed TTA Light Rail Station at NC 55 and Pettigrew Street.
G. Section 4(f) Resources
Section 4(f) of the US Department of Transportation Act of 1966 specifies that publicly
owned land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, and all historic
sites of national, state, and local significance may be used for federal projects only if there is no
feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land and the project includes all possible
23

planning to minimize harm to 4(f) lands resulting from such use.
Five Section 4(f) resources, two individual historic properties, two historic districts and a
public park, are located in the project area. The project will require the use of land from four of
these Section 4(f) resources. Appendix C contains a draft Section 4(f) evaluation for the use of
land from these resources.
H. Prime and Important Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives
to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime and important
farmland soils. North Carolina Executive Order Number 96 requires all state agencies to
consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime farmland soils, as
designated by the US Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). Land planned or zoned
for urban development is not subject to the same level of preservation afforded other rural,
agricultural areas.
The proposed project is located in a highly developed, urban area.
I. Flood Hazard Evaluation
The City of Durham is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. Figure 7
presents the limits of the 100-year floodplain for streams in the project area. As Figure 7 shows,
the proposed project is not located in a flood hazard zone.
J. Traffic Noise Analysis
A traffic noise analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed widening
on noise levels in the immediate project area. This investigation included an inventory of
existing noise sensitive land uses and measurements of ambient (existing) noise levels in the
study area. These ambient noise levels were compared with the predicted future noise levels to
determine if traffic noise impacts will result from the proposed project. If traffic noise impacts
are predicted, alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts
must be considered.
The traffic noise prediction model used to predict future noise levels was the TNM 2.1
model. Only preliminary alignments for the studied alternatives were available for use in this
noise analysis. The "worst -case" topographical and traffic volume conditions were assumed.
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are compatible with various land
uses, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed noise abatement criteria
(NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways. These abatement
criteria and procedures are set forth in Part 772 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Noise abatement must be considered when a land use is exposed to noise levels approaching or
exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or the predicted design year noise levels
substantially exceed existing noise levels as defined below:
24

Existing Leg(h)
50 or less dBA
51 dBA
52 dBA
53 dBA
54 dBA
55 or more dBA
1. Ambient Noise Levels
Substantial Increase if Receptor
Experiences Increase of:
15 or more dBA
14 or more dBA
13 or more dBA
12 or more dBA
11 or more dBA
10 or more dBA
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to determine
existing noise levels. The existing Leq noise levels in the project area as measured at 50 feet
from the edge of pavement was found to be 66 dBA. A background noise level of 45 dBA was
used for the project in areas where traffic noise was not the predominant source.
2. Analysis Results
Peak hour design and level of service C volumes were compared, and the volumes
resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the proposed posted speed limits in the TNM
computer model to determine the number of land uses (by type) which would be impacted during
the peak hour of the design year.
The maximum extent of the 72 and 67 dBA noise level contours from the center of the
proposed roadway is less than 58 feet and 83 feet, respectively. The predicted noise level
increases for this project range up to +6 dBA. Table 10 presents the number of receptors
predicted to be impacted due to traffic noise levels or expected to experience a substantial
increase in exterior noise levels.
Table 10. Receptors Impacted By Traffic Noise
Category
Impacted Receptors
Category B — homes, playgrounds, schools, churches
25
Category C — developed land properties not included in Category B
1
If the proposed project were not built, 31 receptors would experience noise impacts.
3. Noise Abatement Alternatives
Measures for reducing or eliminating the traffic noise impacts of the project were
considered. Noise abatement alternatives investigated for the project included highway
alignment changes, traffic system management measures and noise barriers.
Highway Alignment Changes
Highway alignment selections for noise abatement involve adjusting the horizontal or
25

vertical orientation of proposed improvements in such a way as to minimize impacts and cost.
The selection of alternative highway alignments must consider the balance between noise
impacts and other engineering and environmental considerations. Due to environmental
considerations, changing the highway alignment is not a viable alternative for noise abatement.
Traffic System Management Measures
Traffic system management measures which limit vehicle type, speed, volume and time
of operations are not considered appropriate for noise abatement due to the adverse effect they
would have on the capacity and level of service of the proposed roadway.
Noise Barriers
Earth berms or artificial abatement walls can often be used to abate anticipated traffic
noise levels. These structures diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions.
No control of access is proposed for the project, which means most commercial
establishments and residences will have direct driveway connections to NC 55, and all
intersections will be at -grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high enough and long
enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the highway. Access openings in the
barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then becomes
economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction. Safety at access
openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight distance is also a concern.
Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's length would normally be eight times
the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For example, a receptor located 50 feet from the
barrier would normally require a barrier 400 feet long. An access opening of 40 feet (10 percent
of the area) would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA. For the reasons explained
above, noise barriers will not be provided as part of this project.
Other Mitigation Measures Considered
The acquisition of property in order to provide buffer zones to minimize noise
impacts is not considered feasible due to cost. The cost to acquire impacted receptors to
establish buffer zones would exceed the abatement cost effectiveness threshold established under
NCDOT Noise Abatement Policy. The use of buffer zones to minimize impacts to future
development is not recommended because this could be accomplished through land use controls.
The use of vegetation for noise mitigation is not considered reasonable due to the
amount of right of way required to make vegetative barriers effective. A vegetative barrier
would have to be approximately 100 feet wide to provide a 3-dBA reduction in noise levels. A
5-dBA reduction would require an even wider vegetative barrier. The cost of the additional right
of way and the plantings for a vegetative barrier would likely exceed the abatement cost
effectiveness threshold.
26

4. Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal, hauling,
grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary speech interference
for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the project can be expected.
However, considering the relatively short-term nature of construction noise and the limitation of
construction to daytime hours, these impacts are not expected to be substantial. The transmission
loss characteristics of nearby natural elements and man-made structures are believed to be
sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise.
5. Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not recommended, and no
noise abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation completes the highway traffic noise
requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change occurs, no additional
noise reports will be submitted for this project.
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State
governments are not responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new development
for which building permits are issued after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public
Knowledge is defined as the date of the public hearing for the project or the approval date of the
final environmental document (FONSI or ROD), whichever comes later. For development
occurring after this public knowledge date, local governing bodies and private landowners are
responsible for insuring noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility.
K. Air Quality Analysis
Automobiles are considered to be the major source of carbon monoxide (CO) in the project
area. For this reason; most of the analysis presented is concerned with determining expected CO
levels in the vicinity of the project due to automobile traffic.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO concentrations
resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL3QHC - A Modeling Methodology
For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections" was used to predict the CO
concentration at the nearest sensitive receptor to the project.
Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated for 2010, 2015 and 2030 using
the EPA publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the MOBILE 5B mobile source
emissions computer model. This analysis was completed on October 28, 2003 therefore using
the MOBILE 5B model is acceptable.
1. Background CO Concentrations
The background CO concentration used for the project area was 1.8 parts per million
(ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section of the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources' Division of Environmental Management suggests this is an
appropriate CO background concentration for use in most suburban and rural areas.
27

2. Air Quality Analysis Results
The worst -case air quality scenario was determined to be in the vicinity of the
intersection of NC 55 and Main Street. The predicted one -hour average CO concentrations for
the evaluation build years of 2010, 2015 and 2030 are 4.50, 4.60 and 5.90 ppm, respectively.
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (maximum permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period
= 9 ppm) indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the worst -case 1-hour CO
analysis for the build scenario is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded the 8-hour CO level does
not exceed the standard.
3. Construction Air Quality Effects
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and
grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or otherwise
disposed of by the Contractor. Any burning will be performed in accordance with applicable
local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance
with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning will be performed at the greatest
distance practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a
hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under constant surveillance. Also during
construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated by construction when the
control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area residents.
4. Summary
The project is located in Durham County, which is within the Raleigh -Durham -Chapel Hill
nonattainnient area for ozone (03) and the Raleigh -Durham nonattainment area for carbon
monoxide (CO) as defined by the EPA. The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA)
designated these areas as "moderate" nonattainment areas for carbon monoxide (CO). However,
due to improved monitoring data, these areas were redesignated as "maintenance" for CO on
September 18, 1995. The area was designated nonattainment for 03 under the eight -hour ozone
standards effective June 15, 2004. Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA)
requires transportation plans, programs and projects conform to the intent of the state air quality
implementation plan (SIP). The current SIP does not contain any transportation control
measures for Durham County.
The Durham -Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization 2030 Long Range
Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the 2004-2010 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement
Program (MTIP) conform to the intent of the SIP. The US DOT made a conformity
determination on the LRTP and the MTIP on June 15, 2005. The current conformity
determination is consistent with the final conformity rule found in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93.
There are no significant changes in the project's design concept or scope, as used in the
conformity analysis.
28

L. Hazardous Materials
Based on a field reconnaissance survey and database review of the project area, several
facilities with underground storage tanks or possibly containing hazardous materials were found
within the project area. There is also the possibility of unregulated home heating storage tanks.
Preliminary site assessments will be conducted for all potentially contaminated sites within the
proposed right of way prior to right of way acquisition. Potentially contaminated properties
within the project area are presented on Figure 8 and Table 11 below.
Table 11. Potentially Contaminated Sites Within Proiect Area
Site No.
Site Name
Facility ID#
Location
1
Freeway BP #120
0-016174
NW quadrant at NC
55 and Gann Street
2
Steve's Auto Repair
N/A
SE quadrant at NC 55
and Main Street
3
Collins Exxon, Inc.
0-002117
west side NC 55 at
Main Street
4
Caroco # 31
0-002188
NE NC 55 and
Hopkins
5
Town Deli Grocery
0-016103
West side of NC 55
at Liberty Street
6
Holloway and Sons
N/A
SW quadrant NC 55
Auto Repair
and Holloway Street
7
Alston Avenue
0-016597
NE quadrant NC 55
Amoco
and Holloway Street
N/A — NOT APPLICABLE
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Citizens Informational Workshop
Citizens informational workshops were held on March 6, 2003 at the Asbury Temple
United Methodist Church and May 17, 2004 at Eastway Elementary School to obtain comments
and suggestions about the project from the public. Approximately 39 person attended the March
2003 meeting and 41 persons attended the May 2004 meeting. These meetings were advertised
through local newspapers and flyers were sent to property owners and citizens in the project area.
Many of the comments heard at the meeting concerned likely project effects on
individual properties.
B. Public Hearing
A public hearing for this project will be held following approval of this document and
prior to right of way acquisition. The project will be presented to the public for their comments
at the hearing.
29

at the hearing.
C. Other Agency Coordination
NCDOT has coordinated with appropriate federal, state and local agencies throughout the
project development study. Comments on the project have been requested from the agencies
listed below. Asterisks indicate a response was received. Copies of the comments received are
included in Appendix A.
*US Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
(Wilmington District)
US Environmental Protection Agency
*US Fish and Wildlife Service — Raleigh
US Geological Survey
*NC Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
*NC Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
*NC Department of Cultural Resources -State Historic Preservation Office
*NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources-DENR
*DENR-NC Division of Water Quality
*DENR-NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Region J Council of Governments
Durham County
*City of Durham
ft
30

A
zit V "%f' / Avs.
lam, " 8L <55> END PROJECT
N •Fam StSt. GWmn BUS
<
r
SIL
E
j.
9 ,\ G �0 2267 r .43 IFA 11 95 (12)
501 w Eva T< St `\. O 8L
4) 70N 98 96 Eva
E (7)32)
st
at
15 (61) 1 A 2Bak
F
�: • � asoufflOwdle Stuberty
1364 (' (3) Ch. Sch.
r dk aY (23) st
tcaiartr�c 4-1
se. c(29) 44y Ch. aro.mn
1365 (28) tx $
go 'A? (22) o m moasAa
SL \ � tore A $ ANR St
A
r�'x a. a• `� r (26) (2� • �' v +9 St
er f (20) (21) SL
Ksab
(�) ►+ • �` tSo
v a $ y > Ave. Y.E. Smith
Fowler / > gat ; Elam. Soh.
Ave, do' St
o � ' 1926,4a
• �,
Sine Elem. Sdt st �s \ Atha
af sbm ode (68) . S�� +perIL Full Gospel
om St $gam i; st ,•d qb� \� �+ •�%i�) • HoyCh.
Zi (671� �G q °0b g (17)�
H8 Inn "mar rimy ir
9(S 4 A y.,y 1S' East �
c� 3t KF A Durham St
BEGIN P R 0 J T A Q3) .�, Ave.�) ,47 A` °' P.O. ►ra SL
st
y E C cotton
/ k st F Elam. Sch \ • 1
FEET
1000 2000 3000
I
I I
0 250 500 750 1000
METERS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
DURHAM
NC 55 (ALSTON AVENUE)
NC 14T (I.L.'BUCK' DEAN FREEWAY)
TO US 70 BUS/NC 98 (HOLLOWAY ST)
DURHAM COUNTY
TIP PROJECT U-3308
FIGURE I

Kit'
JAI
'191 IM U dollEW
�x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---
- — — — — — — — — — — — — — ---- — — — — -
kim
77 -
P
��, I 'r, W-1

.(1 !...1 J , •. {•IT asy I Sv __ t . 1 a "i•V2"
§ t tel.: . - i•`,�/ '' .
ir
l
r •
0 .. Q
0 0
-------------
- ---------------------
rrl
9�
. - ~z�: • e. �' _ rct it { � ■ -
�+ {� .w. .'y � � '{. � .-. ^ Y: ' �! (may.-.?, �'•. _ 4X '
A
F'
� - F -- 'ter.• --=^� — _ .. d � 1 �i ---,.,-�.• - . _ - . _ ..
7F ..
41
Lim
�r MS
.'.?• 1� j: ,1. _ ... -Y (a. .cam
® t
1
1
:":... 8
0 CD CD CD
4j `F
f" h
-
-
•
a .
i

i,.J . r ...,. - ,� •la .'�. Y ` ^f•'a..e1a.YyX�' 1 {.yy-a.,„' .y
r
` f
fill
--- •---------°--_--�--_—_—'----------
Y _
rn
lot
to
a
1
}
- i}; :fi` may' '.1" I Pir v'�. ��s5q:. 1*e`C:�• •.
�,✓�►.' '�,F.. +i7`a -ram � - ti.-Z �•I � �� ,.�.- � - � T`3:- 2 �.. ".
A-
' tag
jail
Ak
Zia
- 4
----.-'' ;� �wr•++a..�l�, E , 0.. �` rat% -
dui , �• � � f �� '. a
w �
• }i-
'• f
a
r
■
`
CO
•
.�
IQ
• J
�1• • Wi,'., 'r. .
simiummaim
• • •------- -_- - �- A -•------------ - - - - - - - -
- -- -
- - ■-
EE ` f •

Y � i
/ / m / / — r/
{ '
,Sit ,
• c Art
► - m { _
�■ ^ I �..
•
IL
.97
/ i
cn
► / f I W
/
CD-s. a
cn
/ k.' f
{
3'
• -.,.... _ to
.._ .. - -
a.
,r ..
1 i'- -- ::- "E _ YT"• i� +55 R"'. '.. q� Y ii •.i ��� `:."z � _ I �� .`h''
r
- I >
r
♦ 4 i
_joll
4.
Oft
izz
e
.�. <. „..
• '� :��!. _ ti� ..'•i ` .. .. t .. I n-.� y '_�_ �• "fit YS. `}F ', •�
d •i' rR %
1 � iF •

TIP PROJECT U-3308
NC 55 (ALSTON AVE.)
NC 98/US 70 10 PM eo
�(���
BUSINESS 14
108
66
301
12
10 PM 55
149
(HOLLOWAY ST.) 133 21
is
tso
47
H 9
a
32
199
306
24 PM 75
EVA ST. h
L
1-
9PM65
(Z� ') 10 ' 81
11
t-
1 98
30l
14
9 P�gS
(7.1)
LIBERTY ST. �—
106
7
28
29
7
7� OPM 55 7 g
HOPKINS ST. (z t) �$ 3 ,
212
316
L
L
TAYIOpST
f Msa 4 ,
t-
5 �� 1213
1 317
73p 13
Wq<< f���lss 13
10
%DHV %DIRECTIONAL
ST ; 2� 6
. 1
f3 Maa
11-11OPM60/ PEAKHOUR321
(4.,3) DIRECTION
/ \
WN��'NS �a4s L
%DUAL
TTS,I,
2 i L
1-
i
\
3 1 lyO�rysr1��,r+t
1
� 1 )
2 1
116
8 1 321
1-
NOT TO SCALE
'9/NS
4 1 �1
2 321
a�
s 2
�110 � 2
3
-1
4 � i
L 12
a
ANG'�Rq�F fg7Mss 22
zs
$ 44
b�
� 7
n
4 320 �7
4 14
20
4V
3T °
2 66
7 36 �94
58 n y�
/HGR
• Cr �M'cRF GgHNST
361
qy ,
952 ap'ye0 4� 0 gO T
i424 fs7i 52 (A 12 �ckc
Ll �31
32
249 1
369 17
31 35
.p_ 58
18 �A
152
227
yy 11
Q� A 17
A°
344
531
NC 55 (ALSTON AVE.)
2008/2030
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
(IN HUNDREDS)
35
58
800
70 1226
fsaj �
FIGURE 3

N
Z
00
0
H
M
M
w
N
J
a
V
cv—..
W
0
cle
a
CL
W
N
CL
0
CL
0
loe
oicle Z41
�0
m
ce
D
V
LL
O
LU
O
H
W
Q
LL.
�o
�o
Y
T
T
0
N
LO
W
LU
N
W
a
N
V
W
o�C
LL
O
a
N
Y
Q
�
N
N
m
LY
n
N
;I 40
�Pl m►
J
N
N
V
W
d
O
0
Z
W
0
W
W
CC
N
3
cc
K
W
a
W
Cie

M
141
z
O
�
00
LL
CV)
—
V
LU
W
V
°C
3
/
�
N
N
Q
_W
m
ad
JL
Z
LL
3
�LU
VCL
N
LL
�
1
1��ui
o
N
O
ce
W
Dec
H
w
Q
3
CL
V)Qz
W
I
N
0.
O
CL
~tie
v'
LQ
O
O
L1J
t
CL
N
W
J
Q
V
N
O
F--
O
z

s
0

>"`"
a� ,s'�

END PROJECT s5
98`B
W �
,-
�
Evergreen
St
se
O E y
Ottawa Ave. Ptimi- i <
Fem St <
, Q
BUS
70
Sit m
S�
Carlton Ave. Gilbert
BUS �, m
Gilbert
2266
70 \
SL
Gr
15
501
2267 v s
L Eva < St 98
Eva St`
70N
98
a
[e
'tfaj, E
Uberty 1
St
y�
a St
a
'o
SN 1
�� stm Bait1
I
2
�o
&
147
H ocA� TeY/or I
I
SoutlrGats
St
Oui
s�
I
1364
� ���
Kendrick
St.
s
Cir. Preston
St.Ct
0
k
a
1365
g�tn f
z
Mouelle
St
tone
o
A. e'I Zi
r
St
I F3
Man
Kesls
St
A
Ave.
Hoytl
I � ' � N
y
r•
S
Fowler
ry'
Hart
St
her
Ave.
1 -'•-- - 1926
�ass°A
Seter
PL
G.�
St 1 A _
�BSt.
N
g on St, g
Simmoft Zi St y a
se H�
o St j u�
� y qr'e � � BY Owen
Ae y
- ea0b). Brace
1118 Meyey "`Ood �b rn$ y % aP� y Fes'
Z+i Gillette Crane St rm $
Ave. Fii H&rell y Ave. Kate Li m
BEGIN PROJECT St "� St. Qg y
.46W
m
FEET
1000 2000 3000
0 250 500 750 1000
METERS
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
< TRANSPORTATION
.` PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
„ of ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NC 55 (ALSTON AVENUE)
TIP PROJECT U-3308
POTENTIALLY CONTAMINATED SITES
IN PROJECT AREA
FIGURE 8

00 Nl#
low
�► I
p it'll
., ppl m8 •
�,b j�..F a .pry • sa ,' MI
• "r'fm' NNE
� •'� , . � vie ,�
fie f
/• a �
♦ * r . fir
AN vim'
r ti
ff
�r
p� 'art l M �/ BIB■ I ��.�'� r�r ,: �' via. I
aw
xm
' Wu
e frir wrir■sitrra s +�
ca � .F'3Rdr����' �-k���N.%atr�Xan,. �7,:r � '� Kii as »•+
jt o Vi *�`-. {i • Mei or _ p /f� a�$6.#�,M� 4. k• •w m . "'+ Rfp •� Vva' !a
i M, &� a s g p
w�, �. �• �� �,Fl��O,'(�f� G If:, wl•R � � 7!r1�5r: �� ' $p �' .■ � �' � aP t^'
,(� $•� `� s �. Al ln:�. � �` +;, ,a S� pay _ y n �`^'.•� + ., p.,� �'
Art � Y'� . •i i r two ofV��N
17P
cl
ICI ll1'• , ,w. +• y r �i {'�$ >,a7 [� > m
1116'tir • i � N . *• it
A. 6y +tr . ti Li s o
��, 4.a . '♦ .A. ,� �,�� � dl�,i1114 � ii � ' ne "'" w � tiF��Rp � °� *� � 74 TIN
CIP
1■w j� M s9 ii� �3 �iI F ; •90
MICA
N
C
w
W
00
r

Federal Aid # STP-55(30) TIP # LG-3308 County: Durham
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSIIENT OF EFFECTS
Projecl Description: Widen NC 55 (Alston Ave.) between NC: 14`7 (Durham Freeway) and US
70/NC 94 (Holloway St.)
On 9/16i2003, representatives of the
[g� North Carolina Department of "Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) .
(]i / North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
❑ Other
Reviewed the subject project and agreed
❑ There are no effects on the National Register -listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
❑ There are no effects on the National Register -eligible property/properties located within
the pr(ject's area of pots-ntia] effect and listed on the reverse.
There is an effect on the National Register -listed propertv'properties located within the
yr� t t'S i?rG orYotcnwal t;?,LCt. Thu property/properties and theaid i;_c. i ant l:Stvd, on
Y i ere is ante teci on tht ''+..'.?il" Fkil i" .,ibl ^:0'. CIS: 7Ti' -t' ? ' y 1 th ..;=i�tt.T-i'li„ !' �'� p,.- !v3 ,�•_:.ic '.�'i'1]f'; e
prcj ct's <+rez of powniial effei:. The pre)petty/prop erties and eiiect(s) arc
reverse.
Signed:
Represent ti -e, N DOT Date
FHW A, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
tj
Represet-ative, HPO !� Date
f t N
St tt 1li-c>r ({:

Federal Aid # STP-55(20) TIP # U-3308 County: Durham
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register -listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status
(NR or DE) and describe the effect.
Branson Methodist Church (DE) —No adverse effect with en'Oronmental commitments (listed
below)
Pure Oil Filling Station (DE) --No adverse effect with environmental commitments (listed
below)
Golden Belt Historic District (NR)—Adverse Effect
Holloway Street Historic District Expansion (DE) --Adverse Effect
*Adv rse cffe:ct may change once HPO reviews more: detaiicd plans 6,4.
t� C U�- cP 2-gl -zoo S- ,S
:ire e`fecr i; not adverse (i{ applicable).
Bransc:ct NIcr:.odist (_'bu:-ch (DE1---Environmental corrunitments: i
. '•. . �, :.� �t::arc �, ;.e:r;:po,«-y construction cascnlc:it
ti:... rchiaJc 11he. slopes io their pre -construction iciifcn and retiac e .e 5oci
3. NCD0T A ii' design the new sidewalks so that they tie into the existing; steps and
Sidewalk to .he Church
Pure Oil Filling Station (DE) Environmental commitments:
1 _ NCDOT wiil utilize a temporary construction easement
2. NCDOT plans to construct a -new sidewalk further away from the station
3. NCDOT agrees to repair any damage to the wall on the south side of the property if
damage is incurred by NCDOT or its contractors during construction.
Initialed: NCDOT N- PHWA �� HPO

Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
January 9, 2005
North Carolina Department of Cultural
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
MEMORANDUM
CEI� 4
JAR 3
TO: Greg Thorpe, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: David Brook
SUBJECT: Historic Archite Resources Survey Report, Widen NC 55 from NC 147 to
US 70 Business/NC 98, Federal Aid No. STP-55(20), T.I.P. No. U-3308,
State Project No. 8.1352801, Durham County, ER02-9726
Thank you for your letter of December 19, 2002, transmitting the survey report by
Ms. Cynthia de Miranda of Edwards -Pittman Environmental, Inc.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur
that the following property is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places:
Pettigrew Street Bridge because it lacks design and technological distinction, and is not
located in an area with sufficient concentration of historic structures to form a district.
The following properties are on the State Study List and are eligible for the National Register.
Branson Methodist Church, located at 201 South Alston Avenue, under Criteria A and C in
social history for its association with the surrounding mills and mill villages, and as a good
example of Neoclassical Revival ecclesiastical architecture.
Pure Oil Filling Station, located at the southeast comer of Alston Avenue and East Main
Street, under Criteria A and C in the areas of commerce and transportation for its
association with the development of the surrounding residential area, and as an intact
example of a typical Pure Oil station.
Holloway Street Historic District Boundary Expansion, including blocks 700 and 800 of
Holloway Street, and lots 808 and 809 of Holloway Street, under Criterion A for its
association with the development of the 500 and 600 blocks of Holloway Street, already
listed in the National Register.
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone] •715-8653
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone] .715-4809
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618 (919) 7334763 •715-4801

Greg Thorpe
January 9, 2003
Page 2
The following property is listed in the National Register of Historic Places:
Golden Belt Historic District, bounded by East Main Street and Morning Glory Avenue on
the south; Holman Street on the east; the south -facing block of Taylor Street on the north;
and the Norfolk & Western Railroad tracks on the west. The district is eligible under
Criteria A, B, and C for its association with Durham's industrial economy of early twentieth-
century, and with industrialist Julian S. Carr. The. district is architecturally significant as a
mixture of industrial, commercial and small residences reflecting the organization and
character of the Golden Belt Mill Village.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106
codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all
future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Furr
Cynthia de Miranda
Steve Cruse

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State IRstoric Preservation Office
David L S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Historical Resources
Lisbeth.C. Evans, Secretary David J. Olson, Director
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
May 22, 2002 �� }'��
O
MEMORANDUM
TO: •William D. Gilmore, Manager., JUN
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch! r 0o
Division of Highways 00,, Hfi; yea;,,,
Department of Transportation •;
FROM: David Brook
SUBJECT: Review of Scopmg Sheets for NC 55 (Alston Avenue) from NC 147 (Buck Dean Freeway) to
US 70 Business -NC 98 (Halloway Street), State Project No. 8.1352801, TIP No. U-3308,
Federal Aid Project No. STP-55(20), Durham County, ER 02-9726
We regret that a member of our staff was unable to attend the scoping meeting for the above project on May
21, 2002. However, we provide the following comments.
There are no recorded archaeological sites located within the project area. Since the proposed ground
disturbance is to take place in areas where previous construction has occurred, it is unlikely that this project
will involve significant archaeological resources. We have no preference concerning alternative selection, and
recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with the project.
There are several historic properties within the area of potential effect including-
* Golden Beli. Historic District (NR)
• Branson Memorial Church (SL)
Based on the age of the survey and types of resources in the area, we recommend that an architectural survey
be undertaken.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above -referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Steve Cruise, HPC
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone] •733-8653
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh , NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone].715-4801
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 276994618 [phone] •7154801

i 4q
May 20, 2003
DURHAM PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Hugh L. Osteen, Sr, FMA
Assistant Superintendent of Operational Services
Ms. Beverly Robinson
Department of Transportation Project. Engineer
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Re: Alston Avenue Widening at Eastway Elementary School
Dear Ms. Robinson:
Thank you for contacting me today regarding the planned widening of Alston Avenue at Eastway
Elementary School. I would like to formally request to be able to review and comment on the
design for this work as it could negatively effect the school.
The school's playground is near the roadway and safety, noise and traffic will be major concerns.
Additionally, the system plans to create additional parking along the fire lane between the school
and the road.
Please let me know when representatives of our central office as well as Eastway staff could
review the proposed changes. Thank you for you consideration and assistance.
Sincerely,
Ilk � �7 .
Hugh L. Osteen, Sr., FMA
Assistant Superintendent of Operational Services
c: H. Hank Huai
Myron Wilson
VISION STATEMENT
Durham Public schools will ensure that all students achieve at their highest potential regardless of race, gender or socio-economic status.
Each student will make rontnuou., progress and be at or above grade level.
PG i,ox 30002 • 1jurham. North CAroina 2770?
Operational Services • 2011 Hamlin Road - Durham, North Carolina 27704 • Phone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]

DURHAM
w
1869 CITY OF DURHAM
my OF MEMONEDEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
101 CITY HALL PLAZA • DURHAM, NC 27701
919.560.4366 • fax [phone]
www.d.durham.nc.us
August 4, 2004
Beverly G. Robinson
Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,•N. C. 27699-1548
Re: Alston Avenue Widening (TIP Project U-3308)
Dear Ms. Robinson:
We appreciate the information that was provided and the opportunity to comment on the
Alston Avenue widening project at the May 17, 2004 citizen's informational workshop.
Our understanding is that NCDOT will release the draft Environmental Assessment (EA)
for this project soon. While we expect to offer comments on the draft EA after it is
released, we would also like to offer the following comments on the project at this time.
Some of these comments were offered previously in a letter to you dated November 18,
2003.
General comments are as follows:
1. We understand that the primary purpose of the project is to provide additional
vehicular capacity.
2. An additional privacy objective for the City is to enhance economic development
opportunities in this area. The project should support the Hope VI plan for the
neighborhood.
3. Pedestrian friendly features must be incorporated into the project (i.e., the project
must be walkable).
4. The appearance of the project must be aesthetically pleasing (e.g., landscaped
median, grass strip/tree lined berm with sidewalk, eliminate/minimize overhead
utilities, address roadway grades related to adjacent property, etc.).
Good Things Are Happening In Durham

Beverly G. Robinson
Page 2
Specific comments are listed below:
,l . Eliminate- right turn lanes. The right turn lanes are not pedestrian friendly and
create greater adverse right-of-way impacts. According to a preliminary analysis
shared by NCDOT, the right turn lanes are not needed to maintain an acceptable
level of service. With the removal of the right turn lanes, it is requested that the
alignment near Angier and Main shift to the east to the maximum extent possible.
/2. Minimize the curb radius at intersecting streets while providing a radius to
accommodate anticipated vehicular traffic. This reduces pedestrian crossing
distances.
16. Ensure opportunities for median landscaping (trees, if possible), landscaping -
/ details to be discussed by the appropriate parties at a later time.
44. Ensure the provision of an adequate berm width to accommodate sidewalks, a
grassed/landscaped buffer between the sidewalk and the curb and utilities
(including street lights). The proposed 10' berm may not be sufficient.
Provide for street lights (on metal poles with underground wiring where possible
and on signal most arms at signalized intersections).
+V611, Maintain two-way traffic on Worth, Franklin and Wall Streets from east of their
intersections with Alston Avenue (i.e., don't unnecessarily change street cross
section). Consider changing one way direction of Worth, Franklin and Wall
Streets from west of their intersection with Alston Avenue. Provide sidewalks on
one side of these streets.
7. The proposed 8' to 10' lowering of the existing grade of Alston Avenue under the
railroad is unacceptable. This grade change will adversely affect the relationship
of the street to the adjacent property (access, appearance) and will create a fairly
steep grade from the regional rail station to Alston Avenue and from Alston
Avenue to the NC 147 bridge. Alternatives need to be explored that will reduce
the magnitude of that grade change to Alston Avenue at the railroad (to perhaps
no more than Y). To the extent possible, the design and construction of the new
bridges for TTA's regional rail system need to be coordinated with the design and
construction of the ^:ain line railroad and Pettigrew Street b.Aidge stnuct•.:rss
associated with the Alston Avenue widening project so that the support structures
and head walls of these structures are aligned and a straight sidewalk can be
accommodated along Alston Avenue under these structures.
8. Whether part of the Alston Avenue project or the TTA regional rail project,
convenient pedestrian access must be provided between the regional rail station
near Pettigrew Street at Alston Avenue. If necessary, steps should be provided to
accommodate this connection.
9. Property owners and businesses affected by the Alston Avenue widening must be
fairly and reasonably compensated. In particular, if the grocery at the northwest
corner of Main and Alston is taken by this project, sufficient compensation should
be provided to relocate the grocery to another site in the immediate vicinity. This
should include necessary land acquisition for the grocery store and a new building
for operation. The City believes this is an environmental justice issue.

Beverly G. Robinson
Page 3
We appreciate the opportunity to comment and your consideration of these comments in
the further development of the Alston Avenue widening project. Should you have any
questions or desire additional information, please contact me at 560-4366.
Sincerely,
Mark D. Ahrendsen
Transportation Manager
Ty Cox, Board Member
Ted Voorhees, City of Durham
Kathryn Kalb, City of Durham
Frank Duke, City of Durham
Alan DeLisle, City of Durham
Lee Murphy, City of Durham
Wesley Parham, City of Durham
Phil Loziuk, City of Durham
Steve Cruse, City of Durham
vGreg Thorpe, NCDOT
Roy Shelton, NCDOT
Rob Hanson, NCDOT
Carl Goode, NCDOT
Jim Speer, NCDOT
Jim Dunlop, NCDOT
Emily Lawton, FHWA
Renee Geldhill Early, SHPO
John Roberson, TTA
Tom Davis, the Community Builders (HOPE VI)
Gwen Simpson, Durham Housing Authority (HOPE V1)
Carrie Mowry, Historic Preservation Society of Durham

DURHAM
CITY OF DURHAM
1 8 6 9 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
MY OFMEDICMIE TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
101 CITY HALL PLAZA • DURHAM, NC 27701
919.560.4366 • fax [phone]
www.d.durham.nc.us
November 18, 2003
Beverly G. Robinson
Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Re: Alston Avenue Widening (TIP Project U-3308)
Dear Ms. Robinson:
Thank you for organizing the meeting on October 27, 2003, regarding the Alston Avenue
widening project (TIP No. U-3308). Given that this important project passes through a sensitive
area of the City, it was and will continue to be helpful to ensure that the discussions regarding
the Alston Avenue widening involve affected stakeholders including but not limited to NCDOT
(PDEA, Roadway Design, Congestion Management and Human Environment), the City of
Durham, the FHWA, the State Historic Preservation Office, the HOPE VI effort (The
Community Builders, Housing Authority of the City of Durham) and the Historic Preservation
Society of Durham.
The goal of all participants in this process is to develop a design for Alston Avenue which
provides for the needed capacity in the corridor in a safe and sensitive manner. Achieving this
goal is complex, due to the unique urban character of the North East Central Durham
community. At the October meeting, the NCDOT presented the current design concept for the
corridor and the participants identified a number of outstanding concerns, including:
• Traffic safety (including directional changes, traffic speeds, traffic calming, etc.)
• Pedestrian safety;
• The effect on the area's historic resources, including. the Golden Belt Historic District, the
Asbury Temple, the Pure Oil Filling Station, the Holloway Street Historic District (including
the study area for a potential expansion of this district) and the historic City Stables;
Good Things Are Happening In Durham

Beverly G. Robinson
Project Development Engineer
NCDOT
November 18, 2003
Page 2
• The effect on the area's current commercial activities, particularly the Compare Foods
grocery store located at the corner of Alston and Main. Streets;
• The effect on the area's long-term economic development potential;
• Environmental justice concerns relating to the project's impact on an African American and
predominantly low-income community;
• Connectivity and the scale of the roadway;
• The effect on revitalization activities underway and pending in the immediate area; and
• Opportunities for providing street lights and relocating overhead utilities underground.
At the meeting in October, the City requested that NCDOT do additional analysis, examining
specific trade-offs and options available in connection with balancing the many goals for this
area of the City. We look forward to the follow-up meeting scheduled for December 10, 2003, at
which these issues will be discussed in more detail. Specifically, we understand that a revised
design analysis is being prepared which will address the following issues and which will present
the costs and benefits to traffic flow, safety and impact minimization of the following design
parameters:
1. Design and Posted Speed: The City has requested a design speed of 35 mph and a posted
speed of 30 mph. The City would be interested in examining a 30 mph design speed and 25 mph
posted speed to assess any trade offs that such a design speed would have in avoiding or
minimizing adverse impacts to the grocery store at Main and Alston and maintaining existing
street intersections with Worth, Franklin, Wall and Eva Streets. This examination should
consider opportunities to modify the horizontal and vertical alignment of Alston Avenue to
minimize adverse impacts on the community. Alternatives to a normal crown cross section for
Alston Avenue (eg., reverse crown, superelevation) should also be considered.
2. Location of Widening - Anchor Point. The widening is generally assumed to be
asymmetrical. The current design has used the Pure Oil Filling Station as an anchor point, which
has accentuated the land taking to the west of the current roadway. The City understands that,
due to the adverse effect on the Golden Belt Historic District, the SHPO is prepared to consider
some impact on the Pure Oil Filling Station property in order to mitigate other impacts in the
area. The City further understands that NCDOT will examine a roadway alignment exploring
this option.
3. Location of Widening - Lane Shift. The NCDOT design indicated a relatively gentle shift
from an asymmetrical widening to the west, south of Main Street, to an asymmetrical widening
to the east, north of Taylor Street. The City understands that NCDOT will present the trade-offs

Beverly G. Robinson
Project Development Engineer
NCDOT
November 18, 2003
Page 3
regarding a tighter lane shift, focused primarily in the area between Main Street and Morning
Glory Street.
4. Lane Widths. The current NCDOT design uses an I V inside lane and 13' outside lane in the
Golden Belt Historic District only. NCDOT indicated that it would examine the consequences of
using these lane widths throughout the project corridor. The City has expressed a desire for a 14'
outside lane to adequately accommodate bicyclists and would like this cross section considered.
5. Riaht Turn Lanes. Previously, the City requested that the provision of right turn lanes be
minimized and provided only when absolutely essential due to traffic volumes at specific
intersections. A level -of -service (LOS) standard of D is the design standard used by the City of
Durham for determining the acceptable performance of intersections. As Alston Avenue is a
Class IV urban minor arterial, a LOS D is within the acceptable range pursuant to the Highway
Capacity Manual. While the overall intersection may perform at LOS D, the City would like to
consider the .impact of allowing individual approaches to exceed LOS D if necessary to eliminate
the right turn lanes and develop a design that mitigates impacts on the community. The City
understands that NCDOT will revisit the need for right turn lanes and will examine the trade-offs
between right turn lanes and alternative levels of service, particularly at the Main, Taylor,
Holloway and Liberty Street intersections.
6. Curb Radius at Corners. The City previously requested that standard curb radii be designed to
accommodate buses and trucks traveling in the area, except that the curb radius at the southeast
corner of Main and Alston (in front of the Pure Oil Filling Station) may warrant a tighter curb
radius in order to minimize adverse impacts. For signalized intersections, the largest typical
vehicle is a city bus. A curb radius designed for these vehicles at the signalized intersections
(with the possible exception of the southeast corner of Main Street) will accommodate regular
traffic., For all other streets, a garbage truck is the appropriate design vehicle. This distinction
may permit smaller curb radii, particularly in the Golden Belt Historic District where cross
streets extend two blocks or less.
7. Treatment of Median. The City has requested a median which.can be landscaped, with
medium maturing trees (20-40 feet at mature height). In an area with a 35 mph speed, NCDOT's
planting guidelines require a 10 foot setback from the curb for a large tree and a 5 foot setback
for a small tree. This raises the question of potential tradeoffs regarding the width of the median
versus the size of the tree - i.e., whether a wider median may be appropriate in some locations to
permit the scale of tree preferred by the City, or whether a narrower median could be used to
mitigate impacts while still accommodating a small tree.
8. Intersecting Streets. The City has, on several occasions, indicated that the connections
between existing intersecting streets and Alston Avenue should be maintained (if not for full
access at least for right in/right out movements). The City is concerned with NCDOT's proposal
to remove roadway connections from Alston Avenue to Worth, Franklin and Wall Streets on
both the west and east sides of Alston Avenue and with Eva Street on the west side of Alston

Beverly G. Robinson
Project Development Engineer
NCDOT
November 18, 2003
Page 4
Avenue. The City anticipates that NCDOT will be prepared to discuss the tradeoffs associated
with various alternatives in this area in substantial detail. Specifically, the City will want to
examine:
a. The need for any loss of connectivity on the east side of Alston Avenue;
b. The impacts of design alternatives (eg., superelevation, reverse crown, etc.) on the
southbound lanes of Alston Avenue with respect to the west side street intersections;
c. The impacts of using the median to create a differential in the elevation between the
northbound and southbound lanes;
d. The potential to use retaining walls on either side of the side street to permit a
connection with Alston Avenue without significant grading along either side; and
e. Other alternatives to the loss of connection.
9. Pedestrian Safety. North East Central Durham is a pedestrian neighborhood and will become
more so as the HOPE VI revitalization effort is implemented. Concerns have been raised
regarding pedestrian facilities in this area, particularly sidewalks and cross walks. In addition,
concerns have been raised regarding traffic calming and measures to ensure that the traffic does
not exceed the posted speed. Pedestrian considerations are integral to the design of the roadway
and should not be deferred to the detailed design process. In particular, NCDOT should
consider:
a) The adverse impacts of right turn lanes on pedestrian activity;
�b) The traffic calming effect of connections between Alston Avenue and the cross
streets;
c) The location and frequency of cross walks, including potential cross walks within
the Golden Belt Historic District; and
d) Other street treatments or design elements which will serve to calm traffic and
enhance pedestrian safety.
10. U-Turns. Finally, since it is a desire of the City to minimize the adverse impacts of the
widening of Alston Avenue, the City would like to determine whether prohibiting U-turns would
further minimize the impacts on adjacent properties by reducing the roadway width at
intersections.
The City is truly desirous of developing a context sensitive solution for the widening of Alston
Avenue. The City appreciates NCDOT's efforts to improve the Alston Avenue corridor and
looks forward to working with NCDOT to refine the design of the Alston Avenue widening

Beverly G. Robinson
Project Development Engineer
NCDOT
November 18, 2003
Page 5
project. The December 10 meeting promises to be a productive and substantive discussion of
tradeoffs and will provide the foundation for further development of the design for Alston
Avenue.
As noted previously, there is active development planned for this corridor and it is important that
these design decisions are developed in the near future and that a revised preliminary drawing be
available to the City so that we can appropriately review development proposals in this area.
Should you have any questions regarding the City's concerns or preferences associated with the
Alston Avenue widening project, please contact me at 919-560-4366.
Sincerely,
Mark Ahrendsen
Transportation Manager

Beverly G. Robinson
Project Development Engineer
NCDOT
November 18, 2003
Page 6
cc: Marcia Conner, City of Durham
Ted Voorhees, City of Durham
Kathryn Kalb, City of Durham
Frank Duke, City of Durham
Alan DeLisle, City of Durham
Greg Thorpe, NCDOT
Roy Shelton, NCDOT
Rob Hanson, NCDOT
Carl Goode, NCDOT
Jim Speer, NCDOT
Jim Dunlop, NCDOT
Emily Lawton, FHWA
Renee Geldhill Early, SHPO
John Roberson, TTA
Tom Davis, The Community Builders (HOPE VI)
Gwen Simpson, Durham Housing Authority (HOPE VI)
Carrie Mowry, Historic Preservation Society of Durham

bURFfAM
r- 8CITY OF DURHAM
69 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
aTYOFMENW TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
101 CITY HALL PLAZA • DURHAM, NC 27701
919.560.4366 0 fax 919.S60.4561
www.d.durham.nc.us
August 7, 2003
Beverly G. Robinson
Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Re: Alston Avenue Widening (TIP Project U-3308)
Dear Ms. Robinson:
The City is aware that NCDOT is in the early planning stages of the Alston Avenue
widening project (TIP No. U-3308). NCDOT has begun the community impact analysis
and environmental analysis for the project. A scoping meeting was held on May 21,
2002. A citizen's information workshop was held on March 6, 2003: Right-of-way
acquisition is scheduled for FY 2006 with construction to follow in FY 2007-08.
To provide early input, City staff, along with representatives of the Durham Housing
Authority/HOPE VI and the Community Builders (HOPE VI) met recently to discuss the
City's goals and preferences regarding various issues and design features associated with
this important project.
Key goals and issues that were identified and discussed included the following:
• Transportation issues (roadway capacity, including truck capacity, safety, traffic
volume, access control/break in median, roadway design and functionality,
signalized intersections, maintenance, parking, left and right turn lanes, corner radii,
and relationship with the railroad overpass);
• Utility issues (location, overhead vs. underground, etc
• Relationship with neighborhood and revitalization efforts (connecting both
sides of Alston, street patterns, revitalization activities);
• Historic preservation issues (Golden Belt Historic District, Pure Oil Filling Station,
Asbury Temple United Methodist Church);
Good Things Are Happening In Durham

Beverly G. Robinson
Project Development Engineer
NCDOT
August T, 2003
Page 2
• Neighborhood commercial activities (preservation of thegrocery store, avoiding
strip -mall development, enhancing the commercial prospects of the area);
• Transit -oriented development features (due to TTA station);
• Pedestrian features (safety, aesthetics, scale, median fencing, etc.);
• Bicycle accommodations;
•- Traffic calming;
• Aesthetics/appearance (landscaping and streetscape treatment, maintenance, etc.); and
• Street lights.
The following represents the City's preferences with respect to various features of this
project. To the extent possible these preferences should be reflected in the design of the
project.
1. Design and Posted Speed. Due to the location through a densely populated,
residential neighborhood and an anticipated commercial area, the posted speed should
be 30 MPH, with a design speed of 35 MPH.
2. Location of Widening. The acquisition of additional right-of-way should minimize
the adverse impacts to the neighborhood. South of Angier Avenue, the widening
should be asymmetrical to the west of the existing roadway to avoid the Asbury
Temple United Methodist Church. From Angier Avenue to Morning Glory, it should
be predominantly to the west to avoid the Pure Oil Filling Station, but should be as
tight to the eastern curb of the existing roadway as possible and should begin shifting
to the east as far south as possible to avoid adverse impacts to the grocery store at
Main Street.
3. Lane Widths. Alston Avenue should be designed with inside lanes of 11 feet and
outside lanes of 14 feet. These lane widths are slightly narrower than lane widths
typically used in unconstricted locations, but are appropriate under industry standards
and will have a traffic calming effect through the neighborhood. The 14-foot outside
lane is to accommodate bicycles.

i
Beverly G. Robinson
Project Development Engineer
NCDOT
August 7, 2003
Page 3
4. RiQht Turn Lanes. Due to the relatively low design speeds, the urban context and
fabric of the area through which this project passes , the provision of right turn lanes
should be minimised and provided only when absolutely essential due to documented
traffic volume at specific intersections. The absence.of right turn lanes will also
serve as a traffic calming effect.
5. On -Street Parkins. Alston Avenue through the project area (NC147 to Holloway
Street) should not be designed to accommodate on -street parking.
6. Curb Radius at Corners. The curb radius at the corners should typically be designed
to accommodate buses and trucks that might be making deliveries and traveling in
the area. However, the curb radius at the southeast corner of Main and Alston (in
front of the historic Pure Oil Filling Station) should be designed to keep the eastern
curb line of Alston Avenue as close to its current location as possible to minimize the
shift of the roadway to the west and the adverse impact on the grocery store.
7. Median and Median Width. The widened Alston Avenue should include a
landscaped median. The median should be sufficiently wide to accommodate
moderate sized street trees on the scale of the American Hombeam (20 — 40 foot tall
at mature height). (The City's Design Guidelines identify City -approved street trees
in four size categories — small, medium, large and very large. The American
Hombeam is in the "medium maturing trees" category.) At intersections,
the median should be reduced in width to accommodate a left turn lane, but should
remain 4' wide all the way to the intersection to permit signage and a pedestrian
refuge area. Roadway design should consider the possibility of narrowing the median
slightly between intersections if doing so would offer other benefits (e.g., provide
more acceptable grade at street intersections).
8. Median Design. The median should be landscaped with medium-sized maturing
street trees on the scale of the American Hombeam. Options, such as decorative
fencing, to discourage mid -block pedestrian traffic should be considered.
9. Streetscape Design. Median width and street trees in the median should be a higher
priority than street trees along the sidewalk. Sidewalk design should accommodate a
5' sidewalk (minimum width), minimum separation between the curb and sidewalk
and appropriate spacing for utility and light poles. Additional right-of-way to
accommodate street trees at the sidewalk should minimize adverse impacts to
adjacent properties and at intersecting streets.

Beverly G. Robinson
Project Development Engineer
NCDOT"
August 7, 2003
Page 4
10. Intersecting Streets. Every effort should be made to maintain connections between
existing cross streets and Alston Avenue, based on the following principles and
exploration of the following options:
a. The design should examine raising the grade of Alston Avenue (particularly in
the depression between Main and Taylor Streets) to facilitate intersections
with cross streets.
b. If two adjacent streets cannot be connected to Alston Avenue, these two
streets should be connected in a " U' versus two separate cul-de-sacs.
Specifically, if Worth and Franklin Streets cannot be connected to Alston for
vehicular traffic, consideration should be given to connecting the streets
through 1107 Worth and 1108 Franklin (Lots 132-07-004 and 132-07-007) in
lieu of cul-de-sacs.. This would result in the loss of three housing .units on
these two lots, one of which would be a contributing structure in the Golden
Belt Historic District, but would preserve the three housing units at 1109
Worth, 1109 Franklin and 1110 Franklin (Lots 132-07-005, 132-07-006 and
132-05-005), all of which are contributing structures to the historic district.
c. In the event existing street connections with Alston Avenue cannot be
provided with the widening project in the Golden Belt Historic District, the
streetscape should be designed so that visually the street block pattern
remains. This would include retaining development at the intersection corners
of Alston and the cross streets. The former cross street should be landscaped
to maintain the perception of the original street, with street trees and
sidewalks reflecting the original lines and patterns.
We appreciate your incorporation of the City's aforementioned preferences into the
design of the Alston Avenue widening project. In recognition of the active development
in this corridor, we respectfully request that design decisions on this important project be
reached as soon as possible. We also request a revised preliminary drawing for this
project that we can use as we review development proposals in this corridor. Should you
have any questions regarding the City's preferences associated with the Alston Avenue
widening project, please contact me at 919-560-4366.
Sincerely, n
Mark Ahrendsen
Transportation Manager

Beverly G. Robinson
Project Development Engineer
NCDOT
August 7, 2003
Page 5
cc: Marcia Conner, City Manager
Ted Voorhees, Assistant City Manager
Kathryn Kalb, Public Works Director
Frank Duke, City/County Planning Director
Alan Delisle, Economic and Employment Development Director
Tom Davis, The. Community Builders (HOPE IV)
Gwen Simpson, Durham Housing Authority (HOPE IV)

lr
z�OZAF4Ar
A Commitment to Quality Living
February 20, 2004
Ms. Beverly Grate Robinson
Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
RE: Alston Avenue Widening - TIP #U-3308
Dear Ms. Robinson:
We understand that you have been in communication with Tom Davis of The Community
Builders, Inc., regarding the widening of Alston Avenue and the coordination of this widening
project with the federally funded HOPE VI initiative in the North East Central Durham
community. A component of the HOPE VI effort, specifically the Morning Glory Senior Village
development, fronts on Alston Avenue in this area.
Y
The advancement of this element of the HOPE VI effort has been on hold since September,
2003, pending guidance from NCDOT regarding the actual right of way needs. The original
drawings had significant negative impacts on the HOPE VI development efforts. I understand
that NCDOT has developed four alternative concepts for the Alston Avenue widening in the area
between Main Street and Taylor Street, and that these alternatives may improve the situation
with respect to the relationship between the Alston Avenue widening and the HOPE VI
revitalization. While the differences may seem minor, even small shifts of the right of way can
have a significant impact on the development and its ability to meet the goals and requirements
of the HOPE VI effort.
As Mr. Davis has informed you, we urgently need to receive copies of the NC Department of
Transportation's four options for this area. A few weeks ago, you indicated to him that these
drawings were complete, were available and would be provided, either electronically or by
overnight delivery. However, late last week, you informed him that the drawings would only be
provided if requested by a governmental agency. I am therefore requesting that you provide to
The Housing Authorih of the City of Durham • Post Office Box 1726 • 330 East Main Street 9 Durham, North Carolina 27702

me, preferably in electronic format, the four alternative options for the Alston Avenue design as
soon as possible.
The HOPE VI program relies on private sector investment and on compliance with strict time
deadlines imposed by the United States Internal Revenue Code, the US Department of Housing
and Urban Development and the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency. The six-month hold
on this project has created obstacles for the HOPE VI effort, which we have attempted to
mitigate with moderate success. However, further delay cannot be mitigated and will have a
significant negative impact on the HOPE VI effort, including the potential loss of portions of the
HOPE VI funding. Please provide the necessary information at your earliest convenience.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please don't hesitate to contact either me at 919-
683-1551 ext. 214 or Tom Davis, at 617-283-0656.
Very truly yours,
Gwendolyn hi_mp`slon, AIP C
Deputy Director for Planning, Development & HOPE VI
GCS/th
xc: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager

By Overnight Delivery
October 8, 2003
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1 South Wilmington Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
RE: Alston Avenue Widening - TIP #U-3308
Dear Mr. Thorpe:
s
-
,• sue, ,
The CotgntunitI Builders, Inc
' :'- t`"
' 95 Berkeley Street 5th Fkxx
As you may be aware, the North East Central Durham neighborhood
of Durham, NC, is currently the subject of significant attention and
investment, anticipated to substantially exceed $100.million within the next
5 years. These initiatives include two major regional transportation projects,
as well as multiple revitalization activities focused on the neighborhood
itself. The most significant of these investments are:
• The Alston Avenue widening project (TIP #U-3308), involving a
significant upgrade to Alston Avenue, which serves as a major north -
south axis in Durham and bisects the North East Central Durham
neighborhood;
• The Triangle Transit Authority Regional Rail Project, a multi-
million dollar public investment which will feature a station at
Alston Avenue, within the North East Central Durham
neighborhood;
• The Barnes Avenue Initiative, a $10 million City effort to
reconstruct one of the most distressed streets in the community; and
• The HOPE VI Revitalization Effort, an approximately $75 million
public -private partnership focused on the revitalization of the
distressed neighborhood into a vibrant residential community. One
pending phase of the HOPE VI Revitalization Effort is the
development of a senior citizens' residence on the block bounded by
Alston, Morning Glory, Elm and Worth Streets, a project tentatively
called the "Morning Glory Senior Village" development.
Doc. #33705
Boston, MA 02116-6240
617 695-9595
Main fax [phone]
Development fax [phone]
Finance fax [phone]
Human services fax [phone]
Legal fax [phone]
TDD 800 545-1833 x183
www.tcbinc.org
Albany Boston Cincinnati
Louisville New Haven New York
Philadelphia Pittsburgh Pro ' ence
Springfield Washingt+D.C.
Patrick E. Clancy
President & Chief Executive Officer

October 8, 2003 G. Thorpe - Alston Avenue Widening (TIP #U-3308) Page 2 of 5
In addition, there are a number of smaller initiatives in the works, ranging from an
upgrade of the neighborhood's Longmeadow Park, to a planned upgrade of the local grocery
store, now under new management.
We believe these activities should be closely coordinated in order to ensure the greatest
benefit for the neighborhood, the City and the region. Over the past several months, we have had
productive conversations with Beverly. Robinson of the Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch regarding this coordination effort, and she has welcomed input from the HOPE
VI team. It was recently recommended to us that we also inform you of the issues involved in
order to ensure that all Department of Transportation staff who may need to be involved in these
efforts are fully aware of the complexity of this coordination effort.
Historic, Transit and Community Parameters
The designs of both the HOPE VI developments and the Alston Avenue widening are
impacted by three other important factors - the historic resources in the community, the
pedestrian -oriented traditional neighborhood pattern of the surrounding area and the coordination
of new development with the TTA's regional rail system.
Alston Avenue passes next to two historic sites and passes through the nationally
designated Golden Belt Historic District. These historic resources establish certain constraints
on the roadway design. For example, a full avoidance strategy for the Pure Oil Filling Station
has a direct impact on the location of the roadway and on its potential impact on the mill village
housing within the Golden Belt Historic District. Further, the design of the Morning Glory
Senior Village development, and anticipated future phases of the HOPE VI effort, are intended to
stabilize and enhance the Golden Belt Historic District. The design of the roadway will
significantly impact these stabilization efforts.
In addition, the design of Alston Avenue will influence the ability of the revitalization
effort to create a pedestrian -oriented community. The Revitalization Plan is founded on the
principles of traditional neighborhood design, seeking to enhance a sense of community and
interconnectedness among residents by creating opportunities for interaction and by embracing a
pedestrian scale throughout the community. This pedestrian scale is consistent with the scale of
the surrounding neighborhood fabric and contributes to a transit -oriented development pattern.
The Revitalization Plan actively seeks to support the success of the TTA's regional rail station
on Alston Avenue through its development patterns. The HOPE VI team and the TTA have
worked closely together over. the past few years to ensure that our respective initiatives are
mutually reinforcing.
The pedestrian scale and the focus on connections throughout the neighborhood also seek
to counter the isolating forces of urban decline and past public investments. The Few Gardens
public housing project (being demolished in conjunction with the HOPE VI effort) and Highway
147 both created barriers between portions of the neighborhood. More recently, vacant land,
distressed properties and crime have further isolated the residents of the neighborhood from each
other. The focus on a pedestrian scale is an effort to enhance connections throughout the
neighborhood - both physically along the streets and emotionally by encouraging interaction
among residents. These connections will help re-establish a stable, cohesive community in the
Doc. #33705
Albany Boston Cincinnati Louisville New Haven New York Philadelphia Pittsburgh Providence Springfield Washington D.C.

October 8, 2003 G. Thorpe - Alstorr Avenue Widening (TIP #U-3308) Page 3 of 5
area. The Revitalization Plan seeks to focus the revitalized community on key area resources,
including an enhanced neighborhood center located along Alston Avenue between Main Street
and Angier Avenue. We hope that the design of Alston Avenue will minimize the street's
perceived scale and reinforce this transit -oriented and pedestrian -oriented design approach as
Alston bisects the neighborhood.
The goal of reconnecting the neighborhood around a community center also depends on
the ability of the revitalization effort to draw commercial and civic life to the planned
community center. The existing grocery store, now under new management, is an important
element of this plan. The Alston Avenue design, as originally proposed, would require the
demolition of the grocery store and the loss of this community resource. It is generally much
easier to maintain and enhance an existing grocery store in a distressed community than to
successfully persuade a grocery store to move into the area. The fate of the grocery store is also
of particular interest to the City of Durham's Department of Economic Development, as it works
to enhance the economic conditions within the neighborhood. Naturally, the grocery store has
put on hold plans for a facelift and physical upgrade pending additional information regarding its
long-term prospects at the site.
All of these issues argue in favor of an Alston Avenue design that is sensitive to the
surrounding community and is as supportive of the ongoing revitalization of the area as possible,
given the transportation needs in this corridor. Due to the complexity of this design challenge,
we hope to work with you to ensure that the HOPE VI effort makes decisions based on the NC
Department of Transportation's most current thinking and to ensure coordination among the
various initiatives in the area.
MOPE VI Development
In order to facilitate this coordination between the Alston Avenue widening and the
HOPE VI revitalization effort, we have prepared a draft site plan for the Morning Glory Senior
Village development for your review and analysis. The draft site plan, together with the existing
conditions plan, is enclosed. As noted above, this development fronts on Alston Avenue and the
design is intended to contribute to a compact, urban street fabric. We hope that this plan,
together with your drawings, can serve as the basis for our discussions. We assume there may
need to be some adjustment in the details of both plans in order to reach a mutually satisfactory
interaction between these two initiatives.
This draft site plan is founded on the parameters governing the HOPE VI revitalization
effort, as outlined in the Revitalization Plan for the neighborhood. A copy of the Revitalization
Plan is included for your convenience (also available on the "Documents" page_ at
www.DurhamHOPEVI.com). Both the revitalization plan, and the specifics of the Morning
Glory Senior Village, are also based on the community priorities we have identified in the HOPE
VI program's various public meetings.
The draft site plan is informed by the NC Department of Transportation's preliminary
information regarding the potential right of way dedication which might be necessary. The
preliminary design was shared with us at a meeting on February 13, 2003, and the right of way
profile was distributed at the Citizens Informational Workshop on March 6, 2003.
Doc. #33705
Albany Boston Cincinnati Louisville New Haven New York Philadelphia Pittsburgh Providence Springfield Washington D.C.

October 8, 2003 G. Thorpe - Alston Avenue Widening (TIP #U-3308) Page 4 of 5
Subsequent to the preparation of this preliminary design information, the City of Durham
compiled its comments and goals for the Alston Avenue widening and communicated the City's
priorities to the NC Department of Transportation. These priorities are outlined in a letter from
Mark Ahrendsen to Beverly Robinson, dated August 7, 2003. For your convenience, a copy of
Mark Ahrendsen's letter is enclosed.
The draft site plan for the Morning Glory Senior Village is based on the original NC
Department of Transportation drawings and on the assumption that the State will seek to
accommodate, as much as possible, the City's priorities for the Alston Avenue widening as
articulated in Mark Ahrendsen's letter. Specifically, the draft site plan is based on the following
assumed revisions to the State's preliminary design:
• Based on the City's request that on -street parking be eliminated south of Morning Glory,
we have assumed that the eastern curb would remain constant and the western curb would
move east by 8 feet.
• Based on the City's request that the curb radius on the southeast corner of Main and
Alston be minimized as much as possible, we have assumed that a tighter curb radius
would permit the eastern curb, and consequently the western curb, to move east by 4 feet.
• Based on the City's request that the inside lanes of traffic be 11, rather than 12 feet, we
have assumed that the eastern curb would remain constant and the western curb would
move east by 2 feet.
• Based on the City's request for 5 foot sidewalks in lieu of 6 foot sidewalks, we have
assumed that the easterr} and western curbs would move 1 foot east and the western right
of way line would move east by a total of 2 feet.
• Based on the City's request that the cul-de-sacs on Worth and Franklin Streets be
eliminated in favor of either direct connections to Alston Avenue or a "U" shaped
connection between Worth and Franklin, we have assumed that the southern curbline of
Worth Street will not change.
• Based on the assumption that the western right of way could end at the back of the
sidewalk, with the appropriate grading coordination on the adjacent private land, we have
assumed that the western right of way line would move east by 2 feet.
The sum total of these assumptions is that the western right of way line is 16 feet further
east than the line contained in the original NC Department of Transportation drawings, and that
the southern curb line of Worth Street is unaffected. We imagine that other recommendations,
such as the minimization of right turn lanes, may further minimize the right of way needs, or
shift them to the east in the area north of Main Street. Revisions such as these may also enhance
the ability of the project to mitigate impacts on the contributing structures within the Golden Belt
Historic District and to mitigate, if not eliminate, the impacts on the community grocery store.
We appreciate the opportunities we have had to discuss this project with Beverly
Robinson and other staff of the Department of Transportation and look forward to an ongoing,
Doc. #33705
Albany Boston Cincinnati Louisville New Haven New York Philadelphia Pittsburgh Providence Springfield Washington D.C.

October 8, 2003 G. Thorpe - Alston Avenue Widening (TIP #U-3308) Page 5 of 5
productive dialogue with the Department. Due to the funding deadlines for the HOPE VI
project, we will need to make certain design decisions with respect to the Morning Glory Senior
Village in the near future and look forward to being able to make those decisions based on the
most advanced thinking available at the time.
In order to continue this dialogue, we would appreciate an opportunity to meet with you
to discuss the various concerns associated with the Alston Avenue widening. I will call you in
the next few days in order to arrange a meeting. In the meantime, please don't hesitate to contact
me if you have any questions regarding this matter.
Ve truly yours,
11
Luuj.' �,_LAO
Thomas R. Davis
Enclosures
cc: Beverly Robinson (NCDOT)
Carl Goode (NCDOT)
Mark Ahrendsen (City of Durham - Transportation by US Mail)
Renee Gledhill -Earley (NC SHPO by US Mail)
Steve Cruse (City of Durham - Planning by US Mail)
Grace Dzidzienyo (City of Durham - Economic Development by US Mail)
Gwen Simpson (Durham Housing Authority by US Mail)
Bill Martin (Martin Alexiou Bryson by US Mail)
Doc. #33705
Albany Boston Cincinnati Louisville New Haven New York Philadelphia Pittsburgh Providence Springfield Washington D.C.

APPENDIX B
NCDOT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM/RELOCATION REPORTS

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
It is the policy of NCDOT to ensure comparable replacement housing will be
available prior to construction of state and federally -assisted projects. Furthermore, the
North Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation:
• Relocation Assistance
• Relocation Moving Payments
• Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
As part of the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and prices of homes,
apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing or other housing programs. The
Relocation Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for payment of actual
moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or
tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing
arrangement (in case of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or
Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and
qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance
with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act
(GS-133-5 through 133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced
persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation assistance
advisory services without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The
NCDOT will schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for
negotiations and possession of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and
sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice after
NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced persons will be offered in areas
not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial facilities. Rent
and sale prices of replacement property will be within the financial means of the families
and individuals displaced and will be reasonably accessible to their places of
employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses, non-
profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving to replacement
property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an
explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing,
(2) rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing owner -
occupant housing to another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply

information concerning other state and federal programs offering assistance to displaced
persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize
hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the displacee
for the costs of movie personal property from homes businesses non-profit
g p _ , p perty P
organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway project. Under the
Replacement .Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental
purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals,
and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment -for any increased interest
expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner -occupants for �►
replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental purchase -
expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the Last Resort
Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed $5,250, to
rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including incidental expenses,
on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the
state determines is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's state of
federally -assisted construction projects unless and until comparable replacement housing
has been offered or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time prior
to displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as income for the
purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social
Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is
not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the
replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the
program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by the state so that
decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this
program will be necessary on the project, since there appear to be adequate opportunities
for relocation within the area.
WN

II EIS RELOCATION REPORT II
North Carolina Department of Transportation
UPDATED JULY 20, 2005 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
® E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR ❑ DESIGN
WBS: 34915.1.1 COUNTY Durham Section A of 1 Alternate
I.D. NO.: I U-3308 F.A. PROJECT STP-55 20
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 55 (Alston Ave) from NC 147 to US 70 Business / NC 98 (Holloway St)
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential
4
0
4
4
0
4
0
0
0
Businesses
1
0
1
1
VALUE
Op
iWELLING
D5S
GWELLINGAVAILASLE
Farms
0
on
0
0
Owners
Tenants
For
Sale
For Rent
Non -Profit
0
01
0
0
0-20M
$ 0-150
0-20m
1
s o-150
1
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
20-40M
2
150-250
20-4OM
10
150-250
10
Yes No
Explain all "YES" answers.
40-70M
2
250-400
40-70M
15
2504=
15
X
1. Will special relocation services be necessary?
2. Will schools or churches be affected by
displacement?
3. Will business services still be available
after project?
p
4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered?
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? F1 vear
70-100M
400-600
70-100M
50
400-600
50
X
100 up
600 up
100 up
300
600 up
300
TOTAL
4
376
M
`-
376
X
REMARKS
Res and b
Number'
4. Taqueria Restaurant — approximately 1,000 square feet with
3 to 5 employees (Mexican descent).
8. Due to the location and current property values, last resort
housing will be necessary.
10. Public housing assistance may be a factor regarding
comparable relocation assistance.
12. Comparable DSS housing is currently available.
13. Section 8 housing may be a significant part of any residential
relocation claims.
14. Some of the business locations may be designated as
special use (churches). This may affect availability of
suitable comparables.
X
y
X
X
X
X
X
110.
X
X
X
.-XT
Leonard G. Scarborough
lion Right of Wav Aqent /
0"2
25, 2005 '" 5-25-05
Date Relocation Coordinator Date
NC 147 to Angier Ave. 2 Copy Division Relocation File

EIS RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
UPDATED JuLY 20, 2005 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
® E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR ❑ DESIGN
WBS: 34915.1.1 COUNTY Durham Section B -of 1 Alternate
I.D. NO.: [U-3308 F.A. PROJECT STP-55 20
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 55 (Alston Ave) from NC 147 to US 70 Business / NC 98 (Holloway St)
MINIM
Type of
Displacees
Residential
Businesses
Owners
2
2
Tenants Total
0 2
0 2
Minorities
2
1
0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
0 0 2 0 0
YALtJE ©F CINELUNG pSS flWELi.1NG AVNLABLE .
OwnersI
nts For Sale For Rent
0-20M 0-20M 1 $0-150 1
Farms
Non Profit
0
1
0 01
0 1
0
1
Yes No
X
/4NS,WERAf_t_Qt1EST10NS
Explain all "YES" answers
1. Will special relocation services be necessary?
2. Will schools or churches be affected by
displacement?
3. Will business services still be available
after project?
4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered?
9.. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 1 vear
20-40M
40-70m
70-100M
20-40M
40-70M
70-100M
10
15
50
150-260
260-400
400-600
10
15
50
X
100,uP
100 uP
300
600 UP
300
TOTAL
2
.,.
�"
376
376
X
REMARKS
ReS ond. b Number
4. Durham Rescue Mission, Inc. — Main Office — approx. 2,000
square feet with 5 to 8 employees. Compare Food Store
(grocery) - approximately 3,000 Square feet with 5 to 8
employees (Mexican descent).
8. Due to the location and current property values, last resort
housing will be necessary.
10. Public housing assistance may be a factor regarding
comparable relocation assistance.
12. Comparable DSS housing is currently available.
13. Section 8 housing may be a significant part of any residential
relocation claims.
14. Some of the business locations may be designated as
special use (churches). This may affect availability of
suitable comparables.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Leonard G.
Division Right of
FRM15-E Revised 09-02
2005,E
5-25-05
Relocation Coordinator Date
ion
Angier Ave. to Morning Glory Ave. — Relocation File
West Side Widening
M

EIS RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
❑ CORRIDOR RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
E.I.S. ❑ DESIGN
WBS: 34915.1.1 COUNTY Durham Section B of 2 Alternate
I.D. NO.: I U-3308 F.A. PROJECT I STP-55 20
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 55 (Alston Ave) from NC 147 to US 70 Business / NC 98 (Holloway St)
mm
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential
4
0
4
4
2
2
0
0
0
Businesses
0
0
0
0
Owners
DWELLING
Tenants
DSS
For
DWELiINGiAVAILABLE
Sale
For Rent
Farms
0
0
01
0
Non -Profit
0
0
OF
0
0-20M
$ 0-150
0-20M
1
so -ISO
1
Yes No
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
Explain all "YES" answers.
20-40M
40-70M
Z
2
150-250
250r100
20-40M
40-70M
1
15
150-250
250-400
10
15
X
1. Will special relocation services be necessary?
2. Will schools or churches be affected by
displacement?
3. Will business services still be available
after project?
4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
70-100M
400-600
70-100M
5p
400.600
50
X
100 up
600 up
100 up
300
600 up
300
TOTAL
4,'�.
�' -
376
376
X
REMARKS
Res and b
Number
zn
X
Indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered?
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
8. Due to the location and current property values, last resort
housing will be necessary.
10. Public housing assistance may be a factor regarding
comparable relocation assistance.
12. Comparable DSS housing is currently available.
13. Section 8 housing may be a significant part of any residential
relocation claims.
14. Some of the business locations may be designated as
special use (churches). This may affect availability of
suitable comparables.
X
X
_
X
X
X
X
X
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 1 vear
VIJ04, April 25, 2005 5-25-05
1 G. Scarborough Date Relocation Coordinator Date
ht of Way Agent / is
am, _
--:auun %.VWIUma[vr
ion Relocation File
Angier Ave. to Morning Glory Ave. -
East -Side Widening

EIS RELOCATION
REPORT
® E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR
❑ DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WBS: 134915.1.1 COUNTY Durham Section C of 1A Alternate
I.D. NO.: U-3308 F.A. PROJECT STP-55 20
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 55 (Alston Ave) from NC 147 to US 70 Business / NC 98 (Holloway St)
Type of
Dis lacees
Owners
I Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential
8
0-7,8
4
0
4
3
0
0
Businesses
0
0
0
0
YAIUE OF
t?WELLING
DSS
DWELLING
AVAIWI3LE_
Farms
0
0
01
0
Owners
Tenants
For
Sale
For Rent
Non
Profit
0
0
01
0
0-20M
$ 0450
0-20M
1
$ 0-150
1
ANSWER
ALL QUESTIONS
20�OM
150-250
20�OM
10
150-250
10
Yes
No
Explain all "YES" answers.
40-70M
7
250.400
40-70M
95
250-400
15
X
1. Will special relocation services be necessary?
2. Will schools or churches be affected by
displacement?
3. Will business services still be available
after project?
4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered?
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 1 ear4, _..
70400m
400-600
70-100M
50
400-600
50
X
100 up
600 up
100 up
300
600 up
300
TOTAL
7
376
376
X
REMARKS
Res
and by
Number
8. Due to the location and Current property values, last resort
housing will be necessary.
10. Public housing assistance may be a factor regarding
comparable relocation assistance.
12. Comparable DSS housing is currently available.
13. Section 8 housing may be a significant part of any residential
relocation claims.
14. Some of the business locations may be designated as
special use (churches). This may affect availability of
Suitable comparables.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
14.
15.
April 25, 2005� _
5-25 05
Leonard G. Scarborough Date Relocation Coordinator Date
Division Ri ht of Way Agent_ / tsg
FRM15-E Revised 09-02 �- m Coordinator
Morning Glory Ave. to Hopkins Street — Cul-de-sacs Relocation File
A

EIS RELOCATION REPORT
UPDATED JuLY 20, 2005
® E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR ❑ DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WBS: 34915.1.1 COUNTY Durham Section C Of. 1 B Alternate
I.D. NO.: U-3308 F.A. PROJECT STP-55 20
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 55 (Alston Ave) from NC 147 to US 70 Business / NC 98 (Holloway St)
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential
7
0
7
4
0 0 3 3 0
Businesses
1
0
1
1
EDP DWELLING ass..DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms
Non Profit
0
0
01
0
Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
0
0
0
0
0-20M $ o-150 0-20M 1 S 0-150 1
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS =
20-40M
150-250
20-40M
10
150-250
10
Yes
all "YES" answers
40-70M
6250.400
40-70M
15
250.4001.
JNoExplain
Will special relocation services be necessary?
70-100M
400-600
70-100M
50
400-600
50
2. Will schools or churches be affected by
100 up
600 up
100 ua
I300
600 uP
300
displacement?
TOTAL
6
s-;.
3761
376
X
3. Will business services still be available
REMARKS
Res and b Number
after project?
X
4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
4. Compare Food Store (grocery) — approximately 3,000
indicate size, type, estimated number of
square feet with 5 to 8 employees (Mexican descent).
employees, minorities, etc.
X
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
8. Due to the location and current property values, last resort
6. Source for available housing (list).
housing will be necessary.
X
7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
10. Public housing assistance may be a factor regarding
X
8. Should Last Resort Housing be
comparable relocation assistance.
considered?
X
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
12. Comparable DSS housing is currently available.
families?
X
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
13. Section 8 housing may be a significant part of any residential
X 11.
Is public housing available?
relocation claims.
X 12.
Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
14. Some of the business locations may be designated as
X 13.
Will there be a problem of housing within
special use (churches). This may affect availability of
financial means?
suitable comparables.
IV X 14.
Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15.
Number months estimated to complete
RELacnnoN? 1 vear
April 25, 2005 � '"' 'mot"' _ "' 5-25-C
G. Scarborough Date Relocation Coordinator Date
t of Way Agent / is
1 Vuululrlatur
elocation File
Morning Glory Ave. to Hopkins Street - One Way Streets

11 EIS RELOCATION REPORT 11
North Carolina Department of Transportation
UPDATED JuLY 20, 2005 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
® E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR ❑ DESIGN
WBS: 34915.1.1 COUNTY Durham I Section C of 1 C Alternate
I.D. NO.: U-3308 F.A. PROJECT STP-55 20
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 55 (Alston Ave) from NC 147 to US 70 Business / NC 98 (Holloway St)
Type o
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential
6
0
6
4
0
3
3
0
0
Businesses
1
0
1
1
VALUE: OP
DWSM-uNG
Dss
ITV L t.ING
AVAILABLE
Farms
0
0
01
0
Owners
Tenants
For
Sale
For Rent
Non -Profit
0
0
0
0
0-20M
$ 0-150
0-20M
1
so -ISO
1
ANSVIiER /ILL 11UEST10NS
20-40M
150-250
20-40M
10
150-250
10
Yes
No
I Explain all "YES" answers.
40-70M
g
260-400
40-70m
15
250.400
15
X
1.
Will special relocation services be necessary?
70-100M
70400m
50
400-600
50
X
2.
Will schools or churches be affected by
100 uP
[4010-600
oo UP
100 UP
1 300
600 uP
300
,.
displacement?
TOTAL
6
�.. F
376'°3
�.�..
376
X
3.
Will business services still be available
REMARKS Res and b
Number
after project?
X
4.
Will any business be displaced? If so,
E
indicate size, type, estimated number of
4. Compare Food Store (grocery) - approximately 3,000
employees, minorities, etc.
square feet with 5 to 8 employees (Mexican descent).
X
5.
Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6.
Source for available housing(list). ( )
8. Due to the location and current property values, last resort
X
7.
Will additional housing programs be
housing will be necessary.
M. 2
needed?
X
8.
Should Last Resort Housing be
10. Public housing assistance may be a factor regarding
'=
considered?
comparable relocation assistance.
X
9.
Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
12. Comparable DSS housing is currently available.
X
10.
Will public housing be needed for project?
X
11.
Is public housing available?
13. Section 8 housing may be a significant part of any residential
X
12.
Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
relocation claims.
housing available during relocation period?
X
13.
Will there be a problem of housing within
14. Some of the business locations may be designated as
financial means?
special use (churches). This may affect availability of
X
14.
Are suitable business sites available (list
suitable comparables.
source).
15.
Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION?
1 year
Division
FRM15-E Re,
VN bC&LLV06mf... April 25, 2005
G. Scarborough Date
t of Wav Aaent / tsa
5-25-05
Relocation Coordinator Date
' CoDv: Relocation Coordinator
2 Copy Division Relocation File
Morning Glory Ave. to Hopkins Street —
Cul-de-sacs & One -Way Streets

EIS RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
UPDATED JuLY 20, 2005 RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
® E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR ❑ DESIGN
WBS: 34915.1.1 COUNTY I Durham Section C Of 2 Alternate
I.D. NO.: I U-3308 F.A. PROJECT STP-55 20
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 55 (Alston Ave) from NC 147 to US 70 Business / NC 98 (Holloway St)
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential
15
0
15
10
0
9
6
0
0
`
Businesses
2
0
2
2
VALUE
OF
DWELLING
DSS
DWELLING
AVAILABLE
Farms
0
0
0
0
Owners
Tenants
For
Sale
For Rent
Non -Profit
0
0
0
0
0-20M
$ 0-150
0-20M
1
so -ISO
1
ANSWER
ALL QUESTIONS
20-40M
150-250
20-40M
10
150-250
10
Yes No
Explain all "YES" answers.
40-70M
15
250-400
40-70M
15
250-400
15
X
1. Will special relocation services be necessary?
2. Will schools or churches be affected by
displacement?
Will business services still be available
after project?
4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered?
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? Fi vear
5400M
400-600
70-100M
50
400-600
50
X
100 up
600 UP
10o uP
300
600 UP
300
TOTAL
15
376
376
X 13,
REMARKS
(Respond b
Number
4. Taqueria El Chilango Restaurant - approximately 600
square feet with 2 to 3 employees (Mexican descent).
And Quick Mart - approximately 600 square feet (African
descent).
8. Due to the location and current property values, last resort
housing will be necessary.
10. Public housing assistance may be a factor regarding
comparable relocation assistance.
12. Comparable DSS housing is currently available.
13. Section 8 housing may be a significant part of any residential
relocation claims.
14. Some of the business locations may be designated as
special use (churches). This may affect availability of
suitable comparables.
X
X
X
" •
n
X
L
X
r
X
X
X
X
X

EIS RELOCATION REPORT
North Carolina Department of Transportation
® E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
❑
WBS: 34915.1.1 COUNTY Durham Section D of 1 Alternate
I.D. NO.: [U-3308 F.A. PROJECT STP-55 20
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 55 (Alston Ave) from NC 147 to US 70 Business / NC 98 (Holloway St)
"J2 Llch'.L April 25, 2005 5
Leonard G. Scarborough Date Relocation Coordinator
Mon Right of Wav Aaent / tsa Eff
E Revised 09-02 1 Coav: Relocation
Date
2 Copy Division Relocation File
Hopkins Street to US 70 Bus/NC 98

APPENDIX C
DRAFT SECTION 4(fl EVALUATION

Durham
NC 55 (Alston Avenue)
From NC 147 (I.L. "Buck" Dean Freeway)
To US 70 Business/NC 98 (Holloway Street)
Durham County
Federal -Aid Project STP-55(20)
State Project 8.1352801
WBS Element 34915.1.1
TIP Project U-3308
. DRAFT SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
1. Proposed Action
The project involves widening existing NC 55 (Alston Avenue) to a mostly
four -lane median divided facility with curb and gutter and sidewalks along the entire
length of the project. The proposed project is approximately one mile long.
It is anticipated approximately 100 to 120 feet of right of way plus easements will
be required to accommodate this facility. No control of access is proposed for the
project.
The purpose of the project is to reduce congestion and improve safety along
NC 55 between NC 147 and US 70 Business/NC 98 (Holloway Street).
2. Section 4(t) Properties
Five properties protected by Section 4(f) exist in the project area. Two of these
properties are individual historic properties, two are historic districts made up of several
individual properties and one of the properties is a publicly owned park. Figure C-1
presents the location of the Section 4(f) properties in the project area.
Branson Methodist Church
Branson Methodist Church (now known as Asbury Temple United Methodist
Church) is located on the southeast comer of NC 55 and Angier Avenue.
Branson Methodist Church is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
under Criterion A in the area of social history for its association with surrounding mills
and mill villages. The church is eligible for the National Register under Criterion C for
its architecture as a good example of Neoclassical Revival ecclesiastical architecture,
which is uncommon in Durham. The church building meets Criteria Consideration A for
a property owned by a religious institution or used for religious purposes, but which
derives its primary significance from historical importance or architectural distinction.
The State Historic Preservation Office concurred with the eligibility of Branson
Methodist Church in a letter dated January 9, 2003.
C-1

Pure OR Filling Station
A former Pure Oil filling station (now known as Steve's Auto Repair) is located at
the southeast corner of the NC 55 and East Main Street intersection.
The Pure Oil filling station is eligible for the National Register under Criterion A
in the areas of commerce and transportation for its association with the development of
the surrounding residential neighborhood and under Criterion C for architecture as an
intact, representative example of a typical Pure Oil station reproduced around the
country. The State Historic Preservation Office concurred with the eligibility of the Pure
Oil Station in a letter dated January 9, 2003.
Golden Belt Historic District
The Golden Belt Historic District is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places. The district occupies nearly forty acres just east of Durham's central business
district. The Golden Belt Historic District is bounded by East Main Street and Morning
Glory Avenue on the south; Holman Street on the east; the south -facing block of Taylor
Street on the north and the Norfolk and Western Railroad on the west. NC 55 bisects the
residential section of the district. The historic district comprises the Golden Belt
manufacturing complex, the adjacent mill village and the commercial district historically
associated with the mill village.
The Golden Belt Historic District was listed on the National Register of Historic
Places in 1985. The property is eligible under Criteria A. B and C in the areas of
architecture and industry. Architecturally, the district contains imposing brick industrial
structures, modest early -twentieth century commercial buildings, and small houses that
reflect turn of the century rural and 1920's bungalow styles. The proximity of these three
disparate areas reflects the organization of the Golden Belt mill village and the surviving
concentration of structures within them conveys the district's historic character.
Individual houses within the district have been altered over the years. However,
their basic form and orientation remain intact and they collectively convey the historic
character of the residential portion of the village.
Long Meadow Park
Long Meadow Park is located east of NC 55 between Liberty Street and
Holloway Street. The park was built in 1936 as a Work Project Administration project.
Long Meadow Park is owned by the City of Durham and is one of the oldest public parks
in Durham. The park consists of approximately 11 acres with 2 baseball fields, a
swimming pool, a playground area and basketball courts.
C-2

Holloway Street Historic District Boundary Expansion
Holloway Street Historic District is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places and consists of the 500 and 600 blocks of Holloway Street, the two westernmost
houses on the 700 block of Holloway Street, and two Dillard Street structures, which
form the southwest corner of the district. The existing district's closest boundary to the
project area is about one block west of NC 55.
The Holloway Street Boundary Expansion was added to the State Study List in
2001. The proposed expansion would extend the eastern boundary of the historic district
nearly to NC 55, incorporating the remainder of the 700 block and most of the 800 block
of Holloway Street. The boundary expansion would also affect the north edge of the
= existing district, an area about three blocks removed from the NC 55 project area.
The National Register listed portion of the Holloway Street Historic District is
residential in character and reflects a fashionable Victorian neighborhood through the
early decades of the twentieth century. The proposed expansion area along Holloway
Street would include smaller, newer homes that also display architectural detailing, such
as early twentieth-century Craftsman bungalows.
The 700 and 800 blocks of Holloway Street are eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places under Criterion A for their association with the development of the 500
and 600 blocks of Holloway Street, which are already listed on the National Register of
Historic Places. The 700 and 800 blocks compose a transitional neighborhood between
the prestigious residences to the east, built by the city's industrialists and financiers, and
the vernacular houses to the south, built for those who worked in the local industrial
concerns. The State Historic Preservation Office concurred with the eligibility of the
Holloway Street Historic District boundary expansion in a letter dated January 9, 2003.
3. Impacts on the Section 4(f) Properties
Branson Methodist Church
NC 55 will be widened to the west near Branson Methodist Church. Temporary
easements will be required from the historic property in order to construct sidewalks
proposed for the project. The State Historic Preservation Office has concurred the project
will have "no adverse effect" on Branson Methodist Church if NCDOT will only acquire
temporary easements (no permanent right of way or permanent easements) from the
church property. In addition, NCDOT must replant grass, replace sidewalk disturbed
during construction and tie the new sidewalk into steps leading to the church building.
Figure C-2 depicts the project design in the vicinity of Branson Methodist Church.
Pure Oil Filling Station
NC 55 will be widened and shifted to the west at the Pure Oil Filling Station, in
order to minimize impacts to this historic property. Only temporary easements will be
C-3

required from the historic property. The State Historic Preservation Office has concurred
the project will have "no adverse effect" on the Pure Oil Filling Station. Figure C-3
depicts the project design in the vicinity of the Pure Oil Filling Station.
Golden Belt Historic District
Several alternatives for the project have been examined within the Golden Belt
Historic District (see Section IV-B of the EA). West -side widening with a combination
of cul-de-sacs and one-way streets is the preferred alternative because it will relocate the
least number of homes within the Golden Belt Historic District. With this alternative,
Worth and Franklin Streets on both sides of NC 55 and Wall Street west of NC 55 will be
narrowed to 20 feet wide and converted to one-way traffic. Wall Street east of NC 55
will remain two-way, but the intersection of this portion of Wall Street with NC 55 will
be removed and a turn around constructed.
Permanent right of way will be required from properties within the Golden Belt
Historic District and 4 homes within the district will be impacted. The State Historic
Preservation Office has concurred the project will have an "adverse effect" on the Golden
Belt Historic District. Figure C-4 presents the recommended project design through the
Golden Belt Historic District.
Long Meadow Park
Improvements will be made at the Liberty Street/NC 55 intersection. As a result
of proposed intersection improvements along Liberty Street, temporary easements will be
acquired from Long Meadow Parka Temporary easements will also be acquired from
Long Meadow Park along US 70 Business/NC 98 (Holloway Street). No park amenities
will be impacted, as a result of the proposed improvements. Figure C-5 presents the
project design in the vicinity of Long Meadow Park.
Holloway Street Historic District Expansion
Improvements will be made at the NC 55/Holloway Street intersection. No right
of way or permanent or temporary easements will be acquired from property within the
National Register -eligible boundaries of the Holloway Street Historic District Expansion.
Figure C-5 presents the project design in the vicinity of the Holloway Street Historic
District Expansion. The State Historic Preservation Office has concurred the project will
have "no effect" on the Holloway Street Historic District Expansion.
4. Avoidance Alternatives
No -Build
The "No -Build" alternative would avoid impacts to all of the Section 4(f)
properties in the project area. However, the "No -Build" alternative would not meet the
purpose and need for the project.
C-4

Reroute NC 55
Rerouting NC 55 from Alston Avenue onto a parallel roadway was considered as
an alternative. This project would involve signing NC 55 onto either Briggs Avenue or
Fayetteville Street, both of which have interchanges on NC 147.
This alternative would avoid all Section 4(f) resources in the project area.
However, rerouting NC 55 onto existing roadways would not meet the purpose and need
for the project. The majority of traffic utilizing Alston Avenue is local traffic, not
through traffic following NC 55. The proposed improvements would be needed even if
Alston Avenue was no longer signed NC 55.
One -Way Pair
Converting existing NC 55 within the Golden Belt Historic District into a
one-way street was considered as an alternative. This alternative would involve
constructing a roadway on new location to connect NC 55 with Holman Street, which is
one block east of and runs parallel to NC 55. The portion of existing NC 55 from just
north of NC 147 to Liberty Street would be converted to one-way traffic. Existing
Holman Street between Angier Avenue and Morning Glory Avenue would be converted
to one-way traffic, as well. A roadway on new location would be constructed parallel to
Holman Street north of Morning Glory Avenue. This roadway would tie into existing
NC 55 at Liberty Street.
This alternative would avoid all the Section 4(f) resources in the project area.
This alternative is feasible but is not prudent. The new location roadways required to
connect NC 55 with Holman Street would relocate several homes and businesses,
including Eastway Elementary School. This roadway would also be very disruptive to
the Hope VI redevelopment project.
Reduced Typical Section
Existing NC 55 through the Golden Belt Historic district is a three -lane roadway.
The proposed typical section for the project is based on anticipated traffic volumes. A
reduced typical section would not meet the purpose and need of the project.
Holloway Street Historic District Expansion will not be impacted as a result of
minor intersection improvements required by the proposed project. These improvements
will include a right turn taper from Holloway Street to NC 55 and adjustments to the
vertical alignment of Holloway Street. To avoid impacts to the Holloway Street Historic
District Expansion, the full right turn lane was reduced to a right turn taper. This is a
feasible and prudent alternative and these improvements meet current design standards.
C-5

5. Measures to Minimize Harm
The following measures are included in the design of the proposed project to
minimize harm to the Section 4(f) properties in the project area. These measures were
coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Office and the Durham Parks and
Recreation Department.
Branson Methodist Church
• The alignment of NC 55 will be shifted to the west by approximately 14 feet and
the proposed new lanes will be added to the west side of NC 55 in the area of the
church.
• Only temporary easements will be required from the church property. No
permanent right of way or permanent easement is proposed from the church
property.
• Disturbed areas on the church property will be replanted with grass.
• . Sidewalk disturbed during construction will be replaced and the new sidewalk
will be tied into steps leading to the church building.
Pure Oil Filling Station
• The alignment of NC 55 will be shifted to the west by approximately 19 feet and
the proposed new lanes will be added to the west side of NC 55 in the area of the
Pure Oil Filling Station.
• Only temporary easements will be required from the filling station property. No
permanent right of way or permanent easement is proposed from the filling station
property.
Golden Belt Historic District
• Berm widths through the Golden Belt Historic District have been reduced from 10
feet to 8 feet.
• All 4:1 slopes have been changed to 3:1 (cuts and fills).
• Two retaining walls are proposed within the Golden Belt Historic District.
• A shared through/right lane, rather than an exclusive right turn lane, is proposed
on northbound NC 55 at Taylor Street.
C-6

Franklin Street, Worth Street and the west side of Wall Street will be narrowed to
20-feet wide (face to face of curb) and converted to one-way streets. The east
side of Wall Street will be cul-de-saced.
Long Meadow Park
■ A proposed right turn lane on westbound Liberty Street was shortened in order to
reduce impacts to the park.
■ Only temporary easements will be required from the park property. No permanent
right of way is proposed from the park property.
Holloway Historic District Boundary Expansion
■ A right -turn taper rather than a full turn lane is proposed for eastbound Holloway
Street at NC 55.
■ Six-foot berms and 3:1 slopes are proposed along Holloway Street.
■ No temporary easements will be required from within the historic district expansion.
No permanent right of way or permanent easement is proposed from the historic
district expansion.
6. Coordination
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following:
Federal Highway Administration
State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
Durham Historical Society
Durham Parks and Recreation Department
A fording of adverse effect has been determined for the Golden Belt Historic
District. No effect has been determined for the Holloway Street Historic District
Expanded Boundary. The HPO letter of concurrence and the Concurrence Form for
Assessment of Effects is included in Appendix A.
In accordance with Section 106 of the National Preservation Act, any alternative
which has an adverse effect on the Golden Belt Historic District will require NCDOT to
enter into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Historic Preservation Office.
This MOA will detail how the effects to the historic properties will be taken into account.
C-7

Gilbert
;E2.
END PROJECT
U
Eva
Gilbert
St
HOLLOWAY ST, v
HISTORIC DISTRICT 8 �,
EXPANSION
I
OL
W SouthGat St
Co.
��::•• ni � RI W 11'�It, I
m
w
Kendrick
Cir.
St.
St• 55 ♦
O
Preston
c�
♦
IZF
Ct
St.
PURE OIL
�,
Ave.
�
FILLING STATION
CD
\•. �% �o ♦
° J�
Main
���. ♦ Q°
BRANSON
�'� ��;\` ♦ �`�
METHODIST
r
CHURCH
1926
Cd
.S''♦ A \'NO:%o�
St may, . �k
'she
Cole �
�••'•.'•.����
c°
S�'
"filer
ons St.
sy
A
F
U dq� Sf
a
y
Gillette
S
BEGIN PROJECT
y
Ave'
Ave -
SECTION 4(f) PROPERTIES
0 FEET 4�1000
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
- TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
SECTION 4(fl PROPERTIES
IN PROJECT AREA
TIP PROJECT U-3308
FIGURE C-1

v
F • K,'-1 � i • � - ems. -
r
Ne
B= �VETHODIST CHURCH
Ir
J�
I
- - EXIST. RIGHT OF WAY
-- NATIONAL REGISTER -ELIGIBLE BOUNDARY
PROP.CURB & GUTTER
PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
■
-F- PROP. TEMPORARY EASEMENT
'j
0 FEET 40
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
�\ TRANSPORTATION
` PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
PROJECT DESIGN
AT BRANSON METHODIST CHURCH
TIP PROJECT U-3308
FIGURE C-2

I

■ ■ml
■
■
■ ■ ■ ■ > x ter: f' R
• • • • f r e
■ ■ ■
•
■ • •
•
•If
• �(�pn• • - i�l I
■ A Imo-- y..s�� x f�
■ . w F ; �, h . ;;,..
■ A
AL
g,
n mayy,,4• � �... � � ��_ � �
:
tl
,! _ irk ;`.__'%
• -
• t
s
i• Z __ i
Ism
w6
D ■
l "Alf, aim
_ t
r
* t L > ap � j.• i a � .

�..
j
• • • • x '
'n
1
•
• i "Ta ` / •
.. .• i
ZE
•
0 LA
.. �.... - .._r .f '
am
r _
.•
rq
b
t
t
It
.. ---_
try:
�! .;�- =�►�' _. � fir_ � � y �- .� _� a
—
_ �.. 10!
�f
t ram` 1Cb
S
e r`
• ,�` i " 3 �, �; - 'Ydl.: • sir. ,;
2 e. [ [ t t [ n
h tea, Si�`� • Q ; �..T�" • 1 • r .i
�Jy z•. �' _ ■. '•yam . �'
�: � �E .di iw-.'. . ggqr y. • �.y p .�... V
• api _.: r
^ Y 4
Yl Y
.s. .,ti,. tatik3: ii,
„
,- — — —
• it 1 a i,' tr z�' -^.g.:•:., r a
• •
• f dFt ...
• • • ( r.
•zz
> Z
{
0

Michael F. Easley, Governor
�OF WA William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
O QG North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
r" Division of Water Quality
-�
November 2, 2004
ur am ounty
Mr. Steven F. Stokes
KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
Landmark Center II, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609-5210
Subject Property: NC 55 (Alston Avenue) widening from NC 147 to NC 98/US 70 Business
(Holloway Street)
On -Site Determination for Applicability to the Neuse River\Riparian Area Protection Rules (15A
NCAC 2B .0233)
Dear Mr. Stokes:
On July 30, 2004 at your request I conducted an on -site determination to review stream features located
on the subject property for applicability to the Neuse Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233). The stream
feature in question is labeled as "Stream 2" on the attached map initialed by me on November 2, 2004.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has determined that the surface water labeled as "Stream 2"
on the attached map is piped or culverted beneath the roadway and surrounding development and
is not subject to the Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rule. This on -site determination shall expire five (5)
years from the date of this letter.
Landowners or affected parties that dispute a determination made by the DWQ or Delegated Local
Authority that a surface water exists and that it is subject to the buffer rule may request a determination
by the Director. A request for a determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing
c/o John Dorney, DWQ Wetlands/401 Unit, 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260. Individuals
that dispute a determination by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority that "exempts" a surface water
from the buffer rule may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that
you receive this letter. Applicants are hereby notified that the 60-day statutory appeal time does not start
until the affected party (including downstream and adjacent landowners) is notified of this decision.
DWQ recommends that the applicant conduct this notification in order to be certain that third party
appeals are made in a timely manner. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This determination is final and binding unless you ask for a
hearing within 60 days.
re Colina
azura$
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: htti):Hh2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands

This letter only addresses the applicability to the buffer rules and does not approve any activity within the
buffers. Nor does this letter approve any activity within Waters of the United States or Waters of the
State. If you have any additional questions or require additional information please call me at (919) 715-
3415.
Sincerely,
Nicole Thomson
DWQ, Transportation Permitting Unit
NTlnjt
Enclosures: 1
cc: DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Filename: C:\Correspondence\U-3308\073004streamdetdoc

� � y
*lk
TMI
� 1W

William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
November 2, 2004
Mr. Steven F. Stokes
KCI Associates of North Carolina, P.A.
Landmark Center 11, Suite 220
4601 Six Forks Road
Raleigh, NC 27609-5210
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
TIP No. U-3308
Durham County
Subject Property: NC 55 (Alston Avenue) widening from NC 147 to NC 98/US 70 Business
(Holloway Street)
On -Site Determination for Applicability to the Neuse River\\ Riparian Area Protection Rules (15A
NCAC 2B .0233)
Dear Mr. Stokes:
On July 30, 2004 at your request I conducted an on -site determination to review stream features located
on the subject property for applicability to the Neuse Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233). The stream
feature in question is labeled as "Stream 2" on the attached map initialed by me on November 2, 2004.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has determined that the surface water labeled as "Stream 2"
on the attached map is piped or culverted beneath the roadway and surrounding development and
is not subject to the Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rule. This on -site determination shall expire five (5)
years from the date of this letter.
Landowners or affected parties that dispute a determination made by the DWQ or Delegated Local
Authority that a surface water exists and that it is subject to the buffer rule may request a determination
by the Director. A request for a determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing
c/o John Dorney, DWQ Wetlands/401 Unit, 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260. Individuals
that dispute a determination by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority that "exempts" a surface water
from the buffer rule may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that
you receive this letter. Applicants are hereby notified that the 60-day statutory appeal time does not start
until the affected party (including downstream and adjacent landowners) is notified of this decision.
DWQ recommends that the applicant conduct this notification in order to be certain that third party
appeals are made in a timely manner. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail
Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This determination is final and binding unless you ask for a
hearing within 60 days.
N�p0 thCarolina
Transportation Permitting UnittllCQ��lf
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer — 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

This letter only addresses the applicability to the buffer rules and does not approve any activity within the
buffers. Nor does this letter approve any activity within Waters of the United States or Waters of the
State. If you have any additional questions or require additional information please call me at (919) 715-
3415.
Sincerely,
Nicole Thomson
DWQ, Transportation Permitting Unit
NTInjt
Enclosures: 1
cc: DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
Filename: C:\Correspondence\U-3308\073004streamdetdoc

10
CN

2 >
�\ \
)( /
G§ q
/k o
f/rƒK2\2
^^®22®
(q
n
q[«N7.
=m
\/
/){E\�
`
/�
)\
2�
7
}
\
\

KCI
ASSOCIATES OF NC
July 15, 2004
ENGINEERS . SURVEYORS SCIENTISTS . CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
LANDMARK CENTER I, SUITE 200 . 4601 Six FORKs RoAD . RALEIGH, NC 27609 . 919-783-9214 • (FAX) 919-783-9266
Nicole Thomson
Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center WETLANDS / 401 GROUP
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699
RE: U-3308 NRTR Concurrence Meeting JUL 2 0 2004
Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Rules (WATER (QUALITY SECTION
KCI Job # 1202084L
Dear Ms. Thomson:
KCI Associates of North Carolina, PA (KCI) has conducted a Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Rule
Assessment of the proposed U-3308 project. For this project the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) wishes to widen a 1-mile section of Alston Avenue (NC55) extending from
NC 147 to NC 98/US 70 Business (Holloway Street). The total length of the project is 1.0 mile. KCI has
evaluated the area 75 feet on each side of NC55 for a total corridor width of 150 feet. The existing
alignment will be the only alignment proposed for the widening of NC55 (Alston Avenue). Based on our
findings, I would like to schedule an on -site meeting for concurrence of one feature as it pertains to the
Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Rules. My hope is to tie the field review for this project with the U-71
project on July 30, 2004 due to their close proximity.
Enclosed is the Durham County Soil Survey map showing the 150 foot corridor with one stream feature
in question highlighted in yellow, the accompanying USGS topographic quadrangle map, vicinity map
and 1999 aerial photograph. The highlighting represents an area where the drainage feature has been
piped and paved over for development. One additional feature not highlighted was determined to be at
least an intermittent stream by KCI and one, which the Corps of Engineers has taken jurisdiction.
I look forward to hearing from you regarding this concurrence meeting. If you have any questions, please
call. My cell # is [phone] and my work # is [phone] X134.
Sincerely,
d4� r;S2�
Steven F. Stokes, LSS
Environmental Scientist
C: Gary Mryncza, Project Manager
File
0.1202.084_NCD0T.L_U3308Wet Del.Correspondence.NicoleThomsonLetter
KCI ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROL-INA, P.A. w w w. k c i. c o m
Employee -Owned Since 1988

hBUS �.
n� Sot }: J ` MfC
' i. t �_ �� .e3 r , crt -'�.` ••' Ur X d
• -_ _ - - y.- �� � ti� r� ; R y �� �'. � lip
WwCUr
. _ _ ..r� a \ - �_' � � •�,- 4 ti . - ..
w MrC
.fNrC 'Ur .; � / �a:�_ ..� J�.�! - �.•.. o ICI
O <
C C
Ur - r o
- c WsE
�VNsE
Ch' 1
Ur
a O
' BUS 98
...:....... ` mfC/
70 _ - - - - OO BUS
70
WwC Cc `— I o
I BUS _ - •ZL ..�-�; �
r / tS BUS Ur \. WsE
WwC/ Ur
-
3 BUS Cc '
BOt Ur {
WwwC . rho Ur a
Bus'
is -- - - � _ TJ •' �. p
<,
W - � wC'Ur
-
4.'T
Sh-
I Ur
t . ,
(county
4 K� c•4`e t /1
Ur
r �\ YY\• c
WwE� CC
_ ww.
Irc
.' LY
f
r + : WwC 4j•.. WwC.'.�.. r.
% 3
r + J
sLArn,v
F :# c '. o-t;1f }[ • % Sf �-" -•� . / . e f:?-: - ''a•, k:`�� Z 4 .,
i _ 7
r1
i _tATsC..�j;may Q
Cr6: i
J
�. ! 'R • ,.'''.'� _ - Ur ,Ur-_ E.• _ 40
f /. l
1' }
CK
- f
•Cr6
ar
0
tit z
c.-t.Yi.. a`'" E?/• _ r _ )_1g� •t'. t' .£' '4z -f-)t= •2- - --?
WSC}'
-VL rt _fY- - _ '1
fi
JI:• ;Jx .. > - �`. a ti/ ' �,�. S'6�'' ' �
U
`• �� � �r� f q �MfC `-r E - •tl .� .�.� : -_ t 3 ; U _
: -
t - ! ,-s.• }y%.�„ >'' I 4

F 77
M4
.iri. �. - �s� .;� "�" it ��• ��. �_ ��• .L�'
rid — � '� �=fi i �?--��aa. ,, A• '-. x
lip
�}� =ii .•em wY �1
T � `• �' � R(S ` \!. •�' � ,[ham,�y • _ / ".� � �,� •�'r ''Y�.- ��
" f 3 �- }:t -1.. 3 �•. •fir- .t'
wl
41
01.
NORTI{
Figure 2. 1999 Aerial Photograph TIP U-3308
C
Project Road (NC 55)
� N
A
600 0 600 Feet
Source: Durham County GIS Department

< g
G§ $
\@ \
!§k«ƒ>}ro
{R
2/V'U'ZT
!©3n: n
»q*y— �n-
« m
�/,*®®�G!
°-Aa37w;m
ƒ»
o
(�/��)�\\
\�
H\
^
,
K;
/

MMMMW`
MMMEF4�
MMEF4�
KCI
ASSOCIATES OF NC
ENGINEERS . SURVEYORS . SCIENTISTS . CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS
LANDMARK CENTER I, SUITE 200 . 4601 Six FoRKs RoAD . RALEIGH, NC 27609 . 919-783-9214 . (FAx) 919-783-9266
October 29, 2004 t3 LE � 12 W
Nicole Thomson NOV 0 2 2004
Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center DENR - WATER QUALITY
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
RE: U-3308 NRTR Concurrence Meeting
Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Rules
KCI Job # 1202084L
Dear Ms. Thomson:
KCI Associates of North Carolina, PA (KCI) has conducted a Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer
Rule Assessment of the proposed U-3308 project. For this project the North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) wishes to widen a 0.9-mile section of North Carolina Highway 55
(Alston Avenue) extending from North Carolina Highway 147 to North Carolina 98/US
Highway 70 Business (Holloway Street). KCI has evaluated the area 75 feet on each side of NC
55 for a total corridor width of 150 feet. The existing alignment will be the only alignment
proposed for the widening of NC 55.
KCI met with you on July 30, 2004 to conduct a site visit to determine if a stream shown on the
Durham County Soil Survey maps was subject to the Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Rules.
Enclosed is the 1976 Durham County Soil Survey map and the most current Southwest Durham,
North Carolina United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, dated 2002
that shows the 150-foot corridor. Two streams are shown on the Durham County soil survey map
(map number 26) crossing NC 55 within the project study area. There are no streams shown on
the USGS Southwest Durham Quadrangle. The stream labeled number Ion the Durham County
soil survey was determined to be an intermittent stream based on KCI's investigation and was
also found to be subject to the Neuse River Basin Buffer Rules (NRB). This stream was not
included in the concurrence meeting on July 30, 2004. Stream No. 2 as shown on the Durham
County soil survey was determined to have been piped or culverted and therefore not subject to
the NRB's based on our July 30, 2004 concurrence meeting.
Enclosed is the 1976 Durham County Soil Survey map showing the 150-foot corridor with
stream number 2 highlighted in yellow along with the accompanying USGS topographic
quadrangle map, vicinity map and 1999 aerial photograph. The highlighting represents an area
where the drainage feature has been piped and paved over for development. This highlighting
also indicates the area you visited with me on July 30, 2004, Stream No. 1 (not highlighted) was
KCI ASSOCIATES OF NORTH CAROLINA, P.A. w w w. k c i. c o m
Employee -Owned Since 1988

Nicole Thomson
Division of Water Quality
U-3308 NRTR
October 29, 2004
Page 2
determined to be an intermittent stream and one that the Corps of Engineers has determined to be
jurisdictional.
Please provide a concurrence letter supporting the NRB determinations as shown on the enclosed
map for our files. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call. My cell #
is [phone] and my work # is [phone] X134.
Sincerely,
44vejv f-501(0�
Steven F. Stokes, LSS
Environmental Scientist
C: File
0.1202.084_NCDOT.L_U3308Wet Del.Correspondence.NicoleThomsonLetter

�,'{'• 10
WT W
w��.
,
\ .,-"�5*_.. � `R -f�e�i . 4? � � `�' t:� af3�: � �. �.��•a - `��_r.-� - �`�' �� •�•�.h_ ��.a_-.•�ir•'•� �;�� .r.....
y ,.y� ,far -;�L� , r-' " �;g ' 3r P,' F j`` "' s •1�,�.=x' =` y':'a'�°� . •,,, �.,
n M. to
v 4r
sr
-�f ri n, 9��''� ��' r;��. � �. {' •.� ,� .;,t�• ill...
f`A+
IL
10
If -
ICILY
IL
1 ,r .yg-� '�i, ��Y ilE- "F �� t�i�±k. �. � � !��•� ��`�.,1+"'� ;+�� 4 .f
JU
11 . �tilplbl
pORTf{
Figure 2. 1999 Aerial Photograph TIP U-3308
OF C
Project Road (NC 55)
600 0 600 Feet
Sbw e: Dwh=

i
HY221521 4/3/2006 U3308_rdy_ps06 belam IT01-5500c

HY221521 4/3/2006 u3308_rdy_psO7 belam ITOI -5500c

03
c
cy
00
CD
-0
L
00
CD
0
-0
fo
of
07,
0-
C,
-0
<-C
(D
PROJECT OFERENCE NO. SHEETT y�; NO.
ONE— --,s E ­211 u —4308 8
END CONSTRUCT ION' W ---S-i
BLK STEPS HEET 0.
200� ADT IV-, ca
/C ROA�?.� HYDk LfC
—Y6— POT STA. 12,+001-00 1 `C
0
T A. VA CIL NGINEER
cr LINDA R. INEER
AD x --f�<
W
2 1 32' F-F VANESSA E. BELL
CD VAR RASWELL
EVANGELISTIC PRAYER BANP;JNC. �� I . ,
in 10 S) i4 BST -PREU
DB 2923 PG 270
--F �-PLANS 77a IMINARYI`
DB 2313 PG 11 03 4 3 DB 2313 Pb 76
N
vo mr un rm ��4�VcTm
-F.76'
2 132 0
2 (114) DO NOT DISTURB BLK WALL Mm",
INCOM it L DO 1W V=
EXIST. WALL 1
EIP b
.1 �-­, PN 2
V24*0 C4
?:1 O.�
03
j CONC
2
------ --- ----- J -------
0 21 ------
-L- W,/A&?-CH4-- - - ;-OR
ME_ _42 CO.UC- W AL
EU
Zi I� FOR Y6- PROF SEE SHEET 33 EET 2-F 1 � j %
x
2 C\--
cr- I PROFILE FOR TYPICAL SEE SHEET
ITX r 1W 1, c\j
PI Sta 35 +60.87 01 64 E 34 cc)
RESCL E MISSION �iiwcli,1111,11STRI S INC. OR PROFILE S FOR -Y8- TYPICALS SEE SHEET 2-G 2SFDUPLEX
x OTHA & ALICE K I LIAMS-1
8* 2,-f 08-1Y (RT) ------DB 2912 PIG 971 FOR PROFILE SEE SHEET 34 FOR -Y9- TYPICALS SEE SHEET 2-G
77
DB 1502 PG
D /* 08'45.Y US a,
2 In
INV�357.0 2 10 4 14 -Y7- L 733.251 Ir- c! 6 ­. -
R/W LO L.LJ a
T 367.2.1Y ISM j- CONIC --x — 00 \AH 94 11 c� _0 Ln z to
Prop. 4' Con . F 0
HISTORIC DISTRICT
R 5,000.001 46' R/W Sidewalk CD LLJ
1.0 .45 ton C.0
SE NC CINC W
W c 0
R/
L0360
CONIC Ln 3* '38*E
15 RANDOLPH R. 01 1 S2 x-
32* IS BK BUS 01 DB 1336 PG 70 F-
'49-E
------------- S is CR
IC
0, 164
PAVEMENT RE L
IS
OTHER END in I
LnO o- UNKNOWNO C4 Gf
::e —L— POTStG. 4Q-Y--77J4 - z� - - - " .1 III 1 0
u INV ILI-
4.2 3' 0 CLAY 5
- ------- DB 2630 PIG 454 G —Y6— P-GIT-Sta. /0+00.00 (10 02 -1
'i \b0T
ISFD
-`b�ASWEI L
1 R 2 5 F4 u —Y8— POT�-�mllmoo UJI
148KBuS QO/vc —L— POTSta.40+7726 —Y9— TT Sta. c 3 7.80 1
DOCK 15" L Sto 2 +84J6 +
F DB 2006 PG 301
F- — I z W j
W — N I 2SFD -jf I
0.58 0
-Y7- POT Sta /0+00.00 a:
F 30' R GR It , = Q-
4u IL --- - -
CONC 1 20 R x
GR A-- R Z
ts Prop. 267 C&G I NV- gm 0
4. ------
C4 c C/ x47
.14 ------------------------ _ K CD 1
45
)VE CONC H V U)
c
u -IR _j lit
4 0
/V 2'6" C4&GCONC
E
00 V= 21 6 --- co
CONIL,
01.
BST Pro
-!0- ------- Ld
210 PER I W TAP R W CONIC
Prop. ss 60, C N CONC C14 6'CURB
C4 C4 CONIC
EXIST R/W zo ill;
N
4d
8, cl/ v
, -vo 6 RAIS D v N 286 - STEEL
> INV=354 X; REMOVE _8—
TEST HO *19 ss MEDIA G
wp. c TOP UTILITY=3 .051
3r, .4 co
ss G— — — — — — — — — - — — - — — — — —
AO Ill REMOVE
'CLAY SS SS
LOW OFF o
Z� 8, STE G - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — CN INV=354 741 N =347.28 — — —
Pro 2`6ff C& - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W ss
o; @) cl W it I
W ir TEST HOLE 1118 1 'IT
TIS" 4' 95 24.15' RIGHI ram- ', INV=34 m 6" CURB
41' Pro 2'6" C&G
Op= 53 3 60' CO C
CFR EMOV
: l��
-7, N 24* 5-
"CHL P
X—X 48' CHL x C x-
1 EXIST R/W x-
x 0 02
At I
x- TOP EXIST R/W F 171
-BL- c 4 0 c F
72- CHI RE� �(- (2 B
KOVE fid x 2.
EwALK 30 cl- �0+79.7 �7 5
\\PINC
SID 3 F—F F R x Es 81
CONC HISTORIC
E MI N INC. 0 A 12 9+61.01= E �
-L- PO Sta. 0+99.00 x SAAll
­11-T­RT�stc- 39+26.84 U HAM RE (4 2.6 9' T) S -10
x 0113 1251 P 736 1 mi Q) KHALID SALEH tAS
c C4rA,,SEW.1
ISFD CONC DB 2923 PG 123
R.
IN 00 q2 Ic MINISTRIES INC.
D 41 4-x N11 tISSION MINI
_j R SCUE L
u
Ix HISTOR, c D 2642 PIS 738
HER EN[ x-
�3) GP IT
NKNOWN %
0 cj
7�' CHL —W—
I K ID SALEH L91z Q) N
X.
02 oo
DB 36 PIG 726
�n
z
O I Ln G
DURHAM RESCU MISSION INC. x I BUS 15" ISFD Z 0
o6
D13 969 P BL- 113 PINC 4 +88.15
DB 1251 P 7 772' C '— — 0 1
L
CONC K/1 o ISBUS >( PINCI 8+47.71 :2 (D
C Prop. 4' Conc.T? 14- A113 c%j
I __j -L\-\ POT Sta.,\41+07.36 LLI ca
----- ------ (7f) =31
200 ADT -Y8- GR - - - - - - - - - - - c ONC Side 0 L) x
u
0 W
203/0 ADT -2 GR G c cr-
oo +-G Prop. Conc.
C 6 Re, - R, x -EI
- -- - - - - - - - - - - \ -- -• 12 CIO
2 60° CHL I Si �walk
'0 =2 72' CHL. & 12'
8 84.05' x 72' WW/WD
;0 05, (2 x x x—X-
11,00— x 4'28'E
CONC
L 4 L7 X ��5L3 4'2 8 N25*3
/ 1-1. 3.4 0' 73.93'
210 CONC NC )I, —
IN R c\I 10.
210 1-1
ISFO
I n DO
321 q-
I r ne) 1 4 MINI ES I
s S x DB 25 05..
1 15 RESCUE MISSION MINISTRIES IN
1:0 NOT I OZOI V)
Nj D13 3807 PIS 889
U"
A 11 N C-
-41 n 10 s
I
-\j 1211 N24*21'5 O'R/ C-0- Nc
N24'21'58*E NC FD
34.54' ISFD iSFD 75 I RE CUE MISSION INISTRIES INC.
RE��
(0
DB 2553 PG 20
> zl�
Lc; 0 133 DB 1633 PIG 583 1
V (vz & I
P­16��� 4,
115" 11
y 9
V TCH UN HEFT 19
HY221521 4/3/2006 U3308 _j rdy psO8 belam IT01-5500c

cc
c
In
Q
L
00
-0
N-O
U
O/
In
t,_0�
O�
or'
N 7
a_
Q �
of
FOR -L- PROFILE E SHEET 29
FOR -Y10- PR SE __ ET�
FOR Y11�-PRO ILE SEE SHEET 3
F81 - 2- P HtE--SEE__-SHEET 35
FOR R Y13- ROFILE SEE SHEtT-3S
DO T DISTLIB
EXIST. WA � I
ISFD t47 Y
BEVY Go
CRAIG
DB 1186 PG
f �
f
TCH LINE SHEET 22 :r
� I
GR
D NOT DISTLI"
EXI T. WALL
F
r
DO NOT DISTURB
o
o
J FOWLER STREET
EXIST. WALL
r-
�,
D 19 427
B
VIN T N WELL
2SFD.=
,'
i
163
ISFD DB , 1 70 PG 549 ,
NC I
JQ NNA J. HATLEY
ISFD
;coNc
162'
1
DB 4331 PG 733
N
r`t
- i
146
Y
w
DK
i
C
-
�
I t 1 °20'4XI 4GF0"
N
°O
DB
Al
I
72' WD
X
I
29"E - - -
x , N279
I
4 7'29"E .- x X X
6
GR
so'E
o.
- 6-
2
POT +00.
- I
I
----N2
- - °�8=39'E
I
- _ _ _ _
-Y12-
PO
Sta. 12 4.
`'
Q
4.03' LT) 13
I I�
w
-' 74.68' EI
I
I
_ _
GR
S
(>
o
N
r
N
02
00
O
02
.
3
�;-BY15-` �— -SOT 5+00 00 =
w
BILLY W. FOWLER SR.
Y I
o
(II 52 PT)
o
1943 PG 420
Yp- POT Sta. II -- -. co
-
- .
FOR -L TYPICAL SEE SHEET 2=� ---_— I I 164 ISFD I ISIS CONC ISFD
ISFD S O NC I N
" ti
ISFD 149 i I r o �' NOT D URB � 30� I
FOR Y 0- TYPICALS SEE SHEET 2-G o
CON 30' w c o a3i ,�HARL1= MOORE EXIS . WA i 3 I�.
FOR - 11- PItALS SEE SHEET 2—G GRADY T. & -_- _- L , I F w
JOSEPH{NE VEASE I I DB 1706 PG C NC ' VINS N ASWELL
6 PG 398 \ F — — I � o
- TYPICALS SEE SHE�.T-2 32 i I _ - _ 3 1 DB I G 335 NQO
FOR Y13- TYPICAL SEE EET 2-J i I 4 C� � '-' I
1 �'�-�' - X X_ _ _ _ _X� ' N24°07' 9'E RE�BAR � 4°21'45'W
FO RETAINING L #2 ENVELOPE I w_ J 48, ww/w 1,4°07'2� 79. GR t I ,ram 27'
S SHEET 29 - -
x X-.�=-x-- I i ,13
36Q1 I
L- f--
----- —� X— rtX48'CHLx� I I ` ----- ---`\ / � I 102 02 GR ---_
x = I - _ HIS _RIC I 3 -- --- -----_ --
DIS RI I r a E. RiRLEY HIS
DISTRICT
0 I DB 941 PG 379 TRICT
/i f -
€ 102
X
C47 0 ,�
L. Ec ISFD 5 - I�
ETHEL CRAWFORD i I ^' THOMAS .FOWLER + OO
N
DB 1374 PG 214 I- I doN CHARD R. WELLO S E TATE o ISFD —� s
G 16 6 DB 1943 PG 413 � (02 � ��`�
Lli DB 3 N I ' 25' S
N I / AASEky 5
C cv A/ _ O I EASEMENT DER
% ISFD 6 192 C M L— — 3
+75 _----------- `° I
w---° - - GR -L- OT Sta. 44+6 . - + • 0= - X
- - _ _ _ _ -Y12- POT Sta. 0+00.00 102 0 3 7
_ - - - - - - POT Sta. l0 0, 0 -Y13- POT Sta. l +00.00 -L- PC Sta.
X x_ I - 20' -Yll- Sta. l0 I I
_.
I - ---
15'
CARPORT G i I ` 5
CONC 0 02 C / / = F 'l, 48" W/WD EXIST R/w
—'I —--------- --- l 15 / -
- EXIST R/v \ X x
X —
4 -- - ----
/W-EIR)EIP
_
c
` I I 6' CURB CB
- `'q� ` I CCF
--� --- --- I' I
\ I I � — — — F3.E� ALE- 8" STEEL N — — �s-- —� M G — — � �1
P p.l'6" GI --- An ---------G-- - / �l
REMOVE — —G— \\\ —------- -- —G-- r�
= I , " r0 . 4 slan / 16' CI w —
��� I REMOVE I_ - - - - - - - I /
w - - I Prop. l 6" � o�-
`/�/ p EXIS R/w 60' CONC
\ i
6� " � LL LANE �-
� —R V� � I N � �
// N CB
N 4° 6' 4 .8' \ s rn i I / os N c Z
U N o I N 24" 06' 30.3' E
/ CCFR Exls R/w
5 Prop. 2'6" C&G
i co I Pro GU A IL Q
�KI i L -L
15" ,\T 0 021 ,------------ ____
OVE
' R -BL- 115 PINC +
S
fgsE RY S f c 5 R 2 _ _ I N
MfNr weR 5 £q,TARY _ + - Y16 A115 PINC 7+20.22 I I
F SEJlEf�T WfR - Y13� Sta. 10+16.02 I I i FRANCES DOBROVODSKY X
- - ' \ ' - � (21.55' R � � I I I DB 2814 PG 817 53
_____HISTQRI --- F I -�'� RETAI �� 30' j �, � I `�
Q S25°50'56'W
�.i DIS CT 1 02 -� , \ GR RESCUE MISSION MINISTRIES INC 2 / I I x x x x
= I \°�o/VC \ HIS ORIC DB 3934 PG 943 — — I� I I e Prop. Re in Wall cH�
I? m 51 - - - ta. 6+8
- ---- � D r w 0 Rt
-- X
\ N Z / 3 � �...,,, S oX
11 �� I -BL 5- i A114 IPING 62� \ / �' SIC, I EN
STRUCTI N
RESC� MISSION I -I P -L- OT +81 55 �� o X'' I I _ _POT +2 .00
MINISTRIES INC.I I 2 02 (27. T) .\ 'o �� �3�"C / M w II 1 Y13
DB 2642 PG 738 - X I `� ; Q Ln \��� \ / \I I , I I oNC ISFD FRANC LICK�HORIC
�, I , / 4 III DISTRt� `.
- 370
ISFD I MARIE H. JOHNSON PLUG EV
. D , 21 PG �.
V _
48 06 �� �_ s
� I � DB 1627 PG 351 � � � tD � o' R w
U '� 2 ' sA
Iw30' /W I I \ \ _ J iv I I 6 fASf fNSE
WE/C
INS I �N ISFDi—
i N I GR I , -
I ' 6 SON B GR - CARPORT ` G
I I P T �
ci
35
i
MAT CH"a Ll L- SH ET 2/ 3�Q.
�tr�
Q i —1 i
PROJECJ REF NCE NO.
U -3308
RJW/ SHEET NO.
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
v
2Q03 ADT -Y1n-
2OK ADT
(in I 's
-L-
200.E AU i
2030 ADT
(in I-1O's)
-L-
210
-,J-2I
54„
C
P/
Sta 49+09.71
A=
28' 2/' 52.8" (LT)
D
= 6° 2/' 58.Y
L
= 445.55'
T
---'5e227.44'
R
= 900.09
SE
= 3%
RO
= /70'
210
321
I,J
210
321
EET NO.
9
ULICS
JEER
ITS
O
ILNS
N
HY221521 4/3/2006 u3308-rdy_ps09 belam IT01-5500c

HY221521 4/3/2006 U3308_rdy_ps 10 belam ITO 1-5500c

a
\ \ r I I 1 I I X 1
X I I I I X
1 i i PROJECT R O RE�E O. SHEET NO.
ti
r' 1 i
\---- + ; + �HEO NO.
O \ O CMG RdADWAY 1 IG . Y
qj O \ O c, c, ���� I ' , ! x i i `. j i ENGIN X - - = - - 1= GINEER - - -
Lc)`O �, \ 04r i ' % i
----- — ------
c j N��N \� O = �b /�\ / { 3 a40 - - -- - - --
\ Q ap \ Q V ll j �` I• �/' I ��b I \ r �i /�' X 2 3 0
O N
I� 1, I N O
Q �O� �NN �`,,` 6� ` v�� C�NC U I I �, x� X I
II II II II II I O vo / Cb
r
v is
I � I Co.>- �ONC i I / ,
Ln
1 /
�I� W
�i 2 i
' I IO VA/ A ram, ♦ / , 4,� I I I I I I - -
L In O ' / I • /\\ c �� 4 } ,
/ '/ � � I ' 1 , \\ / o� J,L \ , � I I I I f I X I
r /
/ /C,, O / \ I / \\ \� �, ', 03
r r i i
/
/ 30' C&G 4 r� I
I / I 1
1
X f I I I f X ---
CONC
///
tn
/ > M
/ 20 BST X
01/0
X X X X X
\r A • �� VA = Q ��� r'
Cb
O
\ \ 0c1
• 2 /�G — —lko
36- NC / / 36• C NC — - o� p ,"' 2 \ \
O 0� o — 2 0 \ x
9 mid -� z� �
o `t. • '
mCL
\ \,
co
\• / 0 b f
ONO ,� / rn�� �� \�♦`\� \���� -- ---_ II I •
k -----_ ANC N x
- - - -
// \ \ \ �k •
O
k •/� \ \ \ \
r ! ,
i
co
Wyk
/ �/ i -- -- - \ '
lb
1
- \\ \ k�-------------
X
,/ , ''v r k
00
/ , /i•/ %' - - / \ \ -- -_-- \ it
1� / / r
HY221521 4/3/2006 0308_hyd_dm belam IT01-5500c

co
C
cy
L
00
CD
:D
u
0,-
CD�
<-C
T REFERENCE NO. PRqEC SHEET N6,
q63 2 ADT
ADT
Y4-8-
30 ADT 6 WW �HEET No.
2030 ADT
7
VATC E L L 2-�
ROADWAY DESIGN, HYDRALICS
Y18 in 100 n 12 B W ENGINEER ENGIN R
F-j WA 72- CHL�YBLE 1-0
- 156 15
POT 5 8S
x
+ a0O CONC R ELL
St 7
'u- ")q+0-5-44 f23
co 42 T 0 E 123.4
07 0) ...... ...... ......
INCWPLETE
um Fm R/ W
L -
2 192 Ll INARY7
tv 206
�w USX
317 CP 09**�
------ ------ 1 317 305 -Y18- PRC
DOCK TERRELL
9 D13 3021 PG 13
CONC 316 8 F/
BST LOADING 1
DOCK
--------- ---
BST
x W
INV=362.
H
4 IN Y 18 TOPz369 4 Ln un
-Y17- 106 i
/1 NOI* Ln
Z I 1\� 4 2'4 8'E 00 X
62. I V=36 1 .3 5'
FOR -L-, PROFILE E SHEET 30 •
-Y18-
FOR -Yl\6,\- PROFILE S E < PI Sta 54+81.89
/O/v u
ET 35
END CONSTR CT `FOR SEE S T35 __j PI Sta H+27J6 0 Z 161 520 (RT)
F- 01 *10
-Y16- ►POT Stu. #44Q.00 I A -f 03" 09k" (RT) D 0* 42'58.Y
FOR -Y1 8- RqFILE SEE SHEET
D 6* 21*'58V IO2 L 318.5YBST Fi;5 x
.11 SEE MEET 2 FOR -Y18- INTERSE TI D L 63.66' T 159.2,cl NAD 83
(15 V) ETA(L
Ix
L' TYPIC LS"---' T 31.84' R = 8,000.001 FOR A S"EET 2 B & 2-C►'err R 900.00'
co FOR -Y16 TYPICAL __ 'r I i I1 1 V) SE NC x
I tt: x T1. SE SEE PLANS
SEES
00 1 FOR -Y17- PICAL SEE S
, 1 0 HE 2�-- RO SEE PLANS
(D
SOUTHERN RE R SERVICIf INC. 25 1 PI Sta 14+09-52 c x
DB 1039 826 x CONC 01
6` 00 Lu T /9 05.7' (LT) x1m
60 Juu C FOR -Y18- ICALS SEE EET 2-HI & 2-1 D /* 25' 56.6 0 c
F5 2' CHL
(D FOR RETAININ WALL #3 1ELOPE SEE SHEET 29 L 500.44'
0 00 c� CID T 250.55' x
W r"i FOR RETAINING WALL #4 LOPE SEE SHEET 30
Ln C\j 0 1 1 1
LL 1 0 + - q- W R 4,".W
5i
o a- + x SE NC EARL PICKETT ENTERPRISES x
< n W - I INC. tv 3:: " \
DB 1447 PG 932 0 rn
00
0-
+CO�� C-Lo F 05 00 -L- POT Sta. 54+19.5
I -Z 7 1 L�) -:;� J- -L '\\POT Sta 57+22-31 P
c� __j c u')
-Y16- POT Sta. /0+00.00 -Y18- OC Sta. 13+82-3119 CHANN IZATibN 1SBKBUSO x 0
S z in
ECCLESIA HOUSE OF PRAYER INC. BST C RB M
><= 0 1
q- <1 <
(\j LLJ CC) m
ISBK4P 1 4 :2 j C colvc -L- POT Sta. 54+21.17 DB 2462 PG 593 c <
-Li LLJ I ao LI --in I x
I LLJ C,[� -J c
E3 >- -� \ -Y17- POT Sta. /0+00.00
I \ 0
CP
i I -- -- BST 7 R
4 40' R PROP. 65' R x
06 'TAPER
PROP. CHANNELIZATION u 41 c 175-
A-NN, E L I ZAT I ON - - - - - - - - CURB C A.
7- 1/ B WNING
FE)kl�,T P/w CUM-,, PT \Sta. 56 +41J4 I I c c c 3ro 05 PG
BST
IV)
ou x U
Pmn- JvA- rg-r-
-::V/ Cj "c
1<�� UNG Pro C\\]
6' CURB ZO L IS' CON LLI
04
--Zl� C & G f-rOP. 2`6"
CONC CONC : I ------------ C&G
CB
-CON c
-Ij 8 STE L REO NE X ----- -
fjrop-1'-6"-C&G- OVE 6' CUR EXIST R/
IG 0 10' BLK WALL
M z 42. Prom 4' Conc. island
NC 55 6'CURB
8' STEEL
ST
TOP= X
SS
8' CLAY
12" CI
ss_ 11 =3 5 E 4
1'6" C&CP42.6 35
W Ss- MH C4
'TAPER FULL TOPz358.4 8" STEEL
- - - - - - - - - - - - INV=352 TOP�35:),Ijz3-
+ -w- 121 Ci
-PC GUN( zo- - A-7, -W-
N 4014' 02.8 CONC -77- 61 CUJ-R'T'- 10 6'CURB FULL
-E .=EXIST ifw-
I ------------ L 4 T- F:UL
S 12' CI
rop. 2'6" C&G R I - ICONC - 48'CONC Ef /W W
\ I T U
1 0 -1-1 48- CONC 1 3 9' 5 0.9 BST
< (jb p 1 .1 2' EXIST R/W
C
•
C?tG CNI
0
1 0 NO
ji I --
ER ri
UL T PROP.
F BST
N/C CHANNELIZATION (0) B
< 2-ISL'S
Tie Prop. CURB 6-GAS PUMPS
tn 1 - I - - 1
Sidewalk 20' R coNc U/MTL CANOPY c 11-1 ----------- PROP. GUARDRAIL
F 1-1
F EO'S SEAFOOD OF in P 4
--,to Exist. CONC z c
461 01 Uni ?HAM L.D.R. INC. 02
0form a er
co 0' R M.M. FOWLER INC. B 1039 PG 581 5' End Pro p. Retainin Wall 4 )L
NV=33�.� DB 1029 PG 808 PROP. S021
NZ11 ---L -- S Our-
+ CHANNELI ION 13
ASEMEt H 00 R
Cv) 25' SANITARYIN 38.55 4' S TIC CURB I- - 'T -
HE END 6 LO S 0' R
S TOP .06 NK 0 THE SALVATION /��My
8- CLAY GR
02% NV .16 5 DB 1239 PG//782
� I- .. L 118 PINC
S �D 7+ .86
JEAN 6@5
Ld TRAWICK PROP. c 0 61
ISBLKBUS BYI - A 118 /P1 64
-------- D13 142
rb b8I W
A co ----------------- L CHANNELIZATION t a. 5 7 *'61.8 2 '�I. 7' T)
z
Lu CURB
c\j 18
DURHAM PUBLIC SCH'POLS F/ c-4 Z
T
WALL If
BOARD OF EDUCATIONL 0 8ST
Lu U) 01 S ALL
02*45,44,w
X 0c) 0 01 + 0
uj GR
v) C) 00 2 BK
DURHAM Pui3uc . - t - A
0
I V
2 *4 5'4 4'W SALVATION
D13 1838 PG 314 cv) W6 CONC �!!' /W-I EBA R Di 8' CLAY LA R Y
TION�02•4 '41 -�-- == = == = ==: == `OTHER END
BARW
SHEET
"Bu
3
I n
UGI.fX
1.4 3�
28
18
E EET 35 �T 3
SEES
H SEE r SHEET
_yj 8_ INTERS
G 314 W 9, UNKNOWN
ST D13 1838 P
END CONSTRUCTION Z:
u 0
-Y17- POT Sta. 11+45.00 c D U IF 0 -1� ----
A
I V 11 021 1 1
PATCH LINE SHEET 24
HY221521 4/3/2006 U3308_rdy_ps1I belam IT01-5500c

00
00
CD
_0
0
(0
000
0,-
In
(_00
0-7,
0
_0
<1-c
v
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
co
U-3308 12
FOR
X_ FOR -L- PROFILE SEE SHEETS 30-31 L- Ty CALS SEE SHEETS 3/ & 2-C
RoW SHEET NO.
FOR -Y2 PROFILE SEE SHEET 32 FOR -Y2b- TY
PkAL SEE SHEET 2'\�- ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
1186 FOR -Y 1- PROFILE SEE SHEET 35 F0-R--_-Y21- TYPICAI��EE SHEET 2--
X_x
CD
PI Sta 64+92.07 FOR -Y 2- PROFILE SEE SHEET 36'FOR -Y22- TYPICALt\\S1EE 4ET -1 & 2-
8" BLK WALL W/5' CHL
U
Z 05/ 27Z (LT)
S TUB INCOMPLETE PLANS,
D F5 CT2255J" W moT Va ]MR it/w Acx"rrtow
L =��547_3_'Y
T = 273.73' PRELIMINARY PLANS,
B IN COV!3TRIIrTlnm\� 00 NW US$ FOR COMMUCnON.
co C NC R 15,000.00'\ ,,, -Y20-
/0+�5.00 ISFD SENC Ic
V)
�Nc
SF 1xi
ISFD CONC ;u
IN
c c
0
/i I �i �i TIE PR P. SIDEWALK
-Y20- POT to. /O+op.00 0%`.,C)
_W� -
TO EXI SIDEWALK
0 CONC
E NOO'29'53 C
&G
X-X-X 117.25'
IN .25 E P-R/W 60;�HL I I i 1 0
_J77� 00 10*4 ■ v m a
MIE L. & G-E 741 mc&G
MH 0 *35'41'E RkLDINE-K -
- - - - - - - )TC:' 9.96
YZUffG`toq)`f'1\-
D13 M6 f�G 8g6
KI cp
�OGR - - - - - - CoNc\\ RETAI N CONSTRUCTIO
GR 4.09 9.5�?'
--------
POT Sta.12 *55.00
F 160.26'
2 R +76.5 c)
A\4`MS IN ESTMENT CO. INC.
0 JE*NETTE'\TUCKE D13 67 PG 70
CAROLYN _X. -BRO'WNI ISFID >
%DB 3521, PG I
Lu
D13 305 PG 327 IN W C-1 \TETAIN T G
F
/W 0 DRIV
BK y 6. POT 5-�00.00
EWA
ISFD
EXIST
_c - L Y20- 10+46.35 \(15.33' I�T)S EXIT
JCONC
-0 -, .74 TIE PRO IDEWAL
C14 E
x &_ ui (n TO EXIS SIDEWALK
0 CL
ISBLKBUS
01H C X
T P 00 c E uj END
LINK W ISBKBUS
F
G - EIP �qp83 F
SC12 Ui: osc
Nol*
EARL M. & DELORES EVANS 02 o
121.05, 1
1751 TAP 0 NOI'35'41'E ! i
DB 935 PG 957
, I z - ~PROP.
`44 9. 3 6'
C ARM 6 F _74
HENRY M. & GLENN CHERRY CHANNELIZATI \ \ \�o�
20 R
POT Sta. 60+23 DB 1817 PG 688 CURB T
+36.1
F
c POT Sta H+52 0
26 uj ISFD PROP. -L- POC S 3 iL7\8- M
0 _t - - - - - - - - - CHANNELIZATI N 60' R (-Ufvc -Y22- POT Sta. 11-43
U
F CURB 0�
FD CONC
Q /1 ` / I I 55' R
POP. C. Lo CONC ISL
U-)
TF PS
360 I'
p c
rO d[6" C& CFR
Ir BST
CIO
EXIST IN) EXIST /W
6, TEST HOLE # C.)
WALL `
u 13' LK WALL --j Jv L-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIJ
TOP UTILITY=334
C _j 6_s
tAi
Ltj LAJ S
ST
V) 6, CU I!
AP 7__ _j
u REMOVE 109 TAI U --j
z HOLE *30 JRB
0 -L- 63+59.28 -L-c-
E 46 E 24.28' LEFT
U Z Qj�� _E TOP UTILITY=335.45' - - - .35 r EST HOLE #29 cv)
-L- 6 8.83 5.21' RIGHT cv)
81CL Y TOP u TY=336.84'
_G - - - - - - - - - - - 8*STEEL L Lo
SS G' L G - - - - - - 8'STEEL
cl S 8' CLAY -- - - - - - - - Pz338.36 - - -G-
ss 12" Cl
0'-FULL-LANE W - - - - - - - - - u- W -
OTHER EN C4 7- D r
Z ss PA
W - - - - - - - UNKNOWN TFST HOLE # 8 u OVER
EEL- I
- - - --- - - - - - L r,'�+17 Ao 0 'IGHT MH
77--cu - --- - - - - - - - TOP� 538.63 00
0 C EXIST R/W / 11 W/
A _411 CUR III IN - MH
08' 41.6■ -711. - , -V-2 5 ILL
Cq CZ
Ld GR EXIST R/ z_ N N
48'BLK WALL b' C -P-81, T
cvl ~ ( _-------- /'--------------- ----,_ 48"BLK L
V)
48'CONC
p
C0 N L I`DI
G - - - - - - - - - - - GR
- - - - - - - - - Lu
CHA ES R.
cc I S
ELL
LONS ESTATE
RE %low 36 PG 453 u
B 2
rAIN 3
3
u I c c
_L_ �OT Std. 60419.87= 20' R co A P�U
Fl-
F ► 32 F" CONC u� c
0 20' R c All C) 2SBKAPT CH U0 LCANOPY
_Y21- POT St 10+00.00 .1 -
Q)
.91, V) PROP.
PLA
350 2SBKAP
GR CONC CONC NNELIATI
I a: I CURB
CONC 0-1-35--
N, ------ ----------
F_ 8 0 D8 c c F-
-BL- 119 1 1 -Tv- -- -- -- 340' RT.
Ld ff
'INC 60+29.02 SAJAI & 50' R -
StNGDEUANE H
)IA
3L Bs
_�2d A 60' R
SALVATION I - TAPER
I PING 6+28.73 DB 3S\46 PG 548 1 7
PUMP
T14E �cl
-L- Sta. �E 0+42.82 F 1) co
(22.39" CY CHARLES R. WELLONS ESTATE
DB 12 G 782 PING 63+96.86
DB 237 PG 175 \-BL- 120 GR
65 L-0 up Y22�C]AI62 PINIC 8+76.11
C +50
I I �c% c-------
-C.- s +10.39 (21.29' RT)
L VENT CAPS
��
2SBK
02 CONC EC 70N�P S ATION 52 F-
_�-'-BY20-7,11151 POT _(+ 0.7-3-= CONCI
ARMY
END qqXS_rRUCT1
S02*48'29-W
OJ5 I.-L- Sta. 60+45.0-6_04.37' GR E WN DIST/RtBU`TikG-,,CORP INC.
11 03 12 3.8 10413 POT STA 11+25 D8 1025 PG 740---------
S0I*33150'E IC4
Ol 0 ISBLK BUS
03 ADT
20I_)3 AD -Y20- 20
Q-1
EXIST-.'
TOP=343.39 96" BLK
__WALL
2030 ADT 3 GAS-3500 GAL
MH 2030 ADT
100/s) (in 100/s) AVID MCQUEEN SR. -----------------
---PI3/3
INV= .54 DB 3291 PG 169 # NOO'17'03'E
-L------- - - - - - 151.23'
CONC ISFD
C NC
10 1 L 02 Lk Lu
L L CL
CONC 9 V Z DAVID MCQUEEN SR.
2SBKAPT 21 CL -C IN
Q) 192 0 :5 D13 3291 PG 158
W - - -b l 305 192 306 -REB Z ISFID
9.2 - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - -_ 39'341 4'
uj 306 4 12 01 13 REB 0.12,01 �> >_ L 8
15
< 52
---------- I ' )___ - - -_ I c
ESTOY GO 1 4r.��/w 1
co _j 0 C-H - Esr E Ln
O.
I Irvc
OTH�RA D L CONC 150 PT 993 Is
UNKNOWN
340
E 15
LINE SHE
y 21 T
HY221521 4/3/2006 u3308_rdy_ps12 belam IT01-5500c

co
HY221521 4/3/2006 U3308 rdy_psl3 belam ITOI-5500c

00
CT
Q
L
00
c�
i
0
o�
OC)U
o,-
Qo
o�
0—
N 7
L
a�
Q
M�
O L
HY221521 4/3/2006 U3308_rdy_psl4 belam ITO1-5500c

l
14Y221521 4/3/2006 U3308_rdy_ps 15 belam ITO 1-5500c

a'
co
HY221521 4/3/2006 U3308 rdy_psl6 belam ITO1-5500c

co
0
co
0
110
0
0
N/C
iiIITA-014
LO o -NSS - - ' �I­
S 60 40'
35-5m E
L-Li
c
L-L]
N/C
31
N/C
N
--N N— POT Sta. 30+40.00--
-END CONSTRUCTIQN
—NSS— POT Sta. 30+*.00
-BY24- 170 POT 16+23.N =
-NSS- POT Sta. 29+96 6 (18.77' RT)
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
U-3308 17
RW SHEET NO.
FOR —NSS— TYPICAL SEE SHEET 2—M FOR —NSS— PROFILE SEE SHEET 40 ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
FOR —NSN— TYPICAL SEE SHEET 2—M FOR —NSN— PROFILE SEE SHEET 42 ENGINEER ENGINEER
INCOMPLETE PLAN$
to, IQ r un pm it/w AcQuwlrs?IA -
x
�x
LLJ
77
RETAJ
ING
��� — —'_ _ _� (F URE RETAINING W I ic)
FUTURE
C&G
6. C, CLA 5 C, Nc —w—
ss Top.-
9
I�—& TYPE N =395-60 TWH::402.99 CUR6 z
(ms) 1KNOWN i - — — 1IN
w— V=395.59
PET ST '--UNKNOWN S 6 CID
29�2" E
INV=395.8 Z- ::�- ::�: -z :�z 15' CONC
CB kt I — �!-- -- 20 —'CIExlsr w—
/W —'�gT—T'CR-EC ST
EB —(XEE T w-- C,
Wi X
f-- NIX
L
—w— PETTIGREW ST 91
=,�93. 1:
Ss
ctt S 301 59.3N E 9
INVz3 A. C,
—W— Ago
END FUTURE ss
co INV=394 06 .06 2" PLASTIC
C&G &x
16, ci
=t
SOUT ERN REP SERVICEINC. -T
N.
RR Row
-----00 -----------
t7
oot7
00t,
SOUTHERiV RR
D
C&G
w- W
- - - - - - - - - - w - - - - - - - - - — 2a - - --- — — — — — — — — 24,, CI
10' CLAY S 66 14 / 2 21-:7 E
ss _ss _ss ss-
16" C1
— — — — — — w --. — — — — — — — — — — wr - — — — — — — — — — - F-L-UIC)-REVV—STREET —
400-____
LID 11J9J r"12 879 (g a- --- — I
>- w
< F- SOUTHERN REPAIR SERVICE INC.
-j V) END
D13 1093 PC 879
CONS
I OVERL TR N
TT S 00
X
0—
IN ANNA LOUISE SOWELL GR S.
B�RTIE ELNORA SOWELL
LS AND
Q0 9@7 ISFD ANO:
GRAVEL S AND F K HUSBAND JOHN ELS, ANNA LOUISE SOWELL GRAVES,
IIISOWELL, U
LYSSES SOW LL BERTIE ELNORA SOWELL KEELS ANN
EST I�TF B 1995-E PC 948 15' CONC co SOUT�ERN R
zz -BY5- 134 PINC PAIR SERVI HUSBAND JOHN W.KEELS,
LAJ 3: 16+50.65 ISFD WLANO SOWELL AND FRANK
Q� (D PB 109 ULYSSES S�ELL
I z PC 879
uj'."� NSS,,-- POT Sta. 30+35.00 (121.9�' RT
MZ I ESTATE BOOK 1995-E PC 948
,I I1D ISFD ISFD
cr-
z -BY5- 135 POT 18+86.84 = 6 C) En
J-)
ISFD -BY9- P 41235 OT 8+39.39 —
Lu
------- --ff 3.55' RT)
"low -L7,�#OT Sta 21 1 TAS [I u
- - - - - - ISFD
CD ISFD
HY221521 4/3/2006 U3308—rdy_ps17 belam IT01-5500c

co
PROJECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO.
w _ U —3308 /8
on RIW SHEET NO.
J 6 , OADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
J NGINEER ENGINEER
-_j ,
am Og,
_an all.PBLIMINARY PLANS
I �
N/C---------- : _ -_--- _�_"
1 — =TI R
1 _
` 8• TIMBER_
GR
HISTORIC DISTRICT 1
CD
1 "'�000
1------------ /
v t
1 v-
`\. ` GR EVANGELISTIC PRAYER BAN. INC.
1 � '
DB 2313 PG 770
CID
1 `---- - - - ---
j /\
-
1
1 ISBLK '
�■�■�■�■�■�■�■ 1 8•TIMBER
OTHER END 7f7
1 i AND CONSTRUCTIONPOT 5+UNKNOWN Y12OT 5+�� ��STAdo
+85.00 -Y4- P T S1 a. 5.62� (19.31'RTSS 'i
-- _ _— E X 72 D %Di$T
— _ XfST Riw X I uRB
1-0 00 SS TI)— _ —_ — P — — — — —x� EXIsT I�gL� J
r D
X (D /
0 7 ���� _ _ �� — X %C
O 25
8' Ci X� C
FOR Y4— TYPICAL SEE SHEET 2—E
FOR Y4— PROFILE SEE SHEET 33
SEE SHEET 33 FOR RETAINING WALL #5 ENVELOPE
co
Q
i
L
co
1D
/
rn-0
..fo
Oj
LO U
O�
O :3
N
C L
a-0
aC
M�
O L
ss
X
— _ 6• Cl C&G EXIST R/wGo
I
4f4l* ST SS rn ryJ
8•CI---=—c= \ BST o w U
H R
--_ —w__— 0 Ln
—c— SS
oD
TC-
�� W r- Ltd
REBAR O r _ _ _ UTILITY_ 77.2
Q - -`�
' J
�--CURB `� 6„ Cl
-- �\ __ _ — _
��
ioposed CONC � -Yq- 1TES T HOL 16LLJ
ILITY — 8s -- _—
Reta l n l n —� — � 6 I q O' RI T
-Y4- Stq. 13 + 8 .0 20' , U 37
(TIE TP' EXIST. OVA Q k -___ \ I 60-
/lti is -Pr os
W k Retaining\ _ c
Y4- Sta. 13 + 0 \ _
1 � 1
I c* /---
LARRY L. NICHOLS X
P •6„
z DB 2585 PG 366 n • f r er `� '1 �C& c Q
N/C �' � 20' G
� �• I 4
LAKEISHA R. WILLI
DB 2631 P I �' I ;. Prop. ' Conc.
1 ,
ISFD 116 PF , C " `� ' Q 1 Side alk
. C. Sidewalk
1
HARVEY L. &
�V_ +rr-- ; PEGGY M. MAYNARD
DB 1238 PG 625
GR
a '
coNC BETTY C MPBELL
DB 258 P 355 ' 1
Proposed Retainin Wall #
-Sta. 1 + 72.00
28.40' Lt. '
ISFD
`l
\\ CONIC
1
1
1
ISBLKBUS
o
I I "E' . S582808
� >
Z I 88.74' \ 1 1
is
HY221521 4/3/2006 u3308_rdy_psl8 belam IT01-5500c

PROO. •
kW SHEET1 NO.
ISFMTLBUS Prop. I
II II
U
•11-
C1
it i
)D/ Sto 18+85J8
L 209.0.Y
eII IIIVEEN=
T = 104.5Z
II II II
II II
R = /0,000.001 0
SE NC
P.
;(N POT sta.
ISM
LM
ran
ISFD
P
361' BST E
'CONC m
ff IN I
man A 01
TEST HOLE 48
L-
a �wd 21+39.02 mi mom 1.19'LE,FT SIMMONS MAIMMA
TOP U LILY-19-1-6161 MEMO Ecru !Rumim �
:� C-- _
111W, K1'GC-&
15' CONC M i
/////////�iC�Ilii� , II I� �. II -
wm WAId
?UTL ?UTL
175
DTAPER L4i� "MEIAN LANE - --�',%
ILH FULL
ss
i -nigLE-
RIGHT FULL -L- 21+39.12 9. �4Y w
y 7,
--31 1111111111111111M. if I TOP UTILIT Prop. 2'6" C&G
6'CI W
_71 C13 60'CONC
------ Tr
]RAN Jill
iff. MMIMM ELI
TEST Hj
XIST Oo 06' 57
+35.99 111114.47, q
F 36' �L-23 IUH I
TOP UTILI-Ft,: 96.5 0, IN&
I —C? BST MISSION.
•
C
-L- POT 2J+05�36=
C F 21
GR oof II
NIP a
I II II
SOUTHERN REPAIR 'SERVICE INC. lo,
-111 IRI PIW. 2R+76.10 "o
BST
if
5 181 PING1-(+93.19
yp 3SFAPT
0 2 +87.30 z
uI
LO! ISFBUS
+ BY 168 :4N
36.76 8ST
Y- OT S 00
141 14 1.8 LT) - CL
C\jii
.1 / I
(D
00
2 If i II
/BEGIP4 LO
BST I FUTURE F
�c Prop. Point Stri ing FOR -L-,, PROFILE SEE SHEETS 2
I C&d
Pro .01
00
jjF I _-0
(1 PROFILE S ETS 31-32
FOR -Y4
Prop. 2'6
-0i
GUARDRAIL C& F R -N N- PROFILE SEE SHEET 41-42
�J
I Approach Skit) FOR - S- PROFILE SEE SHEET 39-40
EGIN
FOR - SXN- PROFILE SEE SHEET 43
(F
---------------- f?E WALL) F UR A FOR - TYPICALS SEE SHEETS 2-A & 2-\B \0 /8' +\IMBERS
It
FOR TYPICALS SEE SHEET 2-D
/7--
CON
LIAR RAIL FOR CSX- RAIL TYPICAL SEE SHEET 2-M
"IJ V)
i
FOR - SN- RAIL TYPICAL SEE SHEET 2-M
5 -
------- B Y 32 i�iji C\j
j I;0 FOR SS- RAIL TYPICAL SEE SHEET 2-M
POT St / I
i FOR EMENT-BRIDGE RELATIONSHIP FOR
E (9.19
15 -Y- 0 R -L- TYPICAL SEE SHEET 2-N
Pr R URE PLANS SEE SHEETS S- THRU
-/@-1- -1 1 zu I FOR STR
Prop. I►I I
C
5' Conc
7D C
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
Sidew ENGINEER EER
zz &G Q0
>
U-1
L0 �-J�C H L &
SB4
)(\j PSI Vol (C\j
X
(-D
23'13ST ;1j '0 1 1 -T---,>(— I k Nm
x
II I
I -N-
W ALL JVW
—xcr
P
"Ll MR
Ns
0
01 A
cs z
:111110 NOT- Al*1
x C x C\
IVATCHi LINE HEET! 16
HY221521 4/3/2006 u3308_rdy _jvs05 belam IT01-5500c