20020672 Ver 3_Attachment 29 - 10-2014 Union Co Multimodal Transportation Plan Draft_20141124

DRAFT
October 2014
Union County
Multimodal
Transportation Plan
Attachment 29
1-2 : UNION COUNTY
Prepared for
Union County
Prepared by
Stantec
In association with
LandDesign
Union County
Multimodal Transportation Plan
2014
DRAFT
Acknowledgements
Thank you to all the organizations and individuals who committed their time, energy and
resources to this effort. This Plan would not have been possible without the support of many
throughout the process.
ADvIsORy COMMITTee
Bob Cook, Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning Organization
Chris Dugan, Union County Planning Board
Tim Gibbs, Charlotte Department of Transportation, Union County Resident
Mary Jo Gollnitz, Union County Resident
Wayne Hathcock, Union County Power
Liza Kravis, Union County Resident
Greg Mahar, Planning Director, Waxhaw
Dennis Moser, The Moser Group
Jess Perry, Walt Perry Realty
Chris Plate, Monroe Union Economic Development
Travis Starnes, Circle S Ranch
Jennifer Stewart, Union County Board of Adjustment
Phillip Tarte, Union County Health Department
Lisa Thompson, Town of Marvin Administrator
PROJeCT TeAM
Joe Lesch (Client Project Manager - Union County Planning Department)
Dick Black (Union County Planning Department)
Brian Matthews (Union County Planning Department)
Lee Jensen (Union County Planning Department)
Roger Horton (Union County Planning Department)
Kate Pearce (Consultant Team Project Manager)
Margaret Nealon (Land Design)
Jake Petrosky (Land Design)
Mike Rutkowski (Transportation Plan Project Manager - Stantec)
Matt Noonkester (Stantec)
Scott Lane (Stantec)
Max Bushell (Stantec)
Todd Neoll (Noell Consulting
Contents
01 InTRODUCTIOn & PlAnnIng PROCess
1-2 | Location and Context
1-2 | Outreach – Vision - Goals
1-5 | Previous and On-going Planning Initiatives
1-6 | Travel Characteristics
02 lAnD Use & COMPReHensIve PlAn
InTegRATIOn
2-2 | Vision for Union County/ Context
03 HIgHWAy MOBIlITy ReCOMMenDATIOns
3-2 | Roadway Recommendations Development Process
3-3 | Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
3-3 | Roadway Deficiencies and Recommendations
3-10 | Recommended Cross-Sections
3-15 | Collector Street Improvements
3-15 | Detailed Corridor Recommendations
3-31 | Hot Spots & Concept Designs
04 MUlTIMODAl ReCOMMenDATIOns
4-2 | Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning Context
4-5 | Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Analysis
4-6 | Public Transportation Planning Context
4-8 | Summary of Existing Multi-Modal Conditions
4-9 | Recommendations for Bicycle & Pedestrian
4-12 | Recommendations for Public Transportation
05 COMPleTe sTReeTs DesIgn
5-2 | Setting the Context
5-4 | Complete Street Design Elements
5-10 | Access Management Design Elements
5-13 | Public Transportation Design Elements
06 ACTIOn PlAn & InITIATIves
6-2 | Introduction
6-4 | Funding Sources & Opportunities
6-5 | Priorities & Action Plan
6-9 | Conclusion

APPenDIx
Appendices: Transportation Plan Mapping
A. Roadway Maps
Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 PREFACE
The Union County 2025 Comprehensive Plan Update and associated
Multimodal Transportation Plan was initiated by the Union County
Commissioners to identify a sustainable land use and transportation
strategy for the growing communities of Monroe, Waxhaw, Marvin,
Weddington, Wesley Chapel, Mineral Springs, Indian Trail, Stallings,
Unionville, Fairview, Marshville and Wingate. This region encompasses
639.5 square miles of a unique mix of a mid-sized metropolitan area,
small towns/hamlets and farming communities painted across a broad
expanse of rural tapestry in eastern Union County. Between 2000 and
2010, Union County was the fastest growing county in North Carolina,
an attractive location for new residents due to resources and proximity
to the Charlotte metropolitan area.
The Transportation Plan focused on an integrated approach that
considered land use development initially, followed by transportation
scenarios that took into account an array of factors to find the best,
most cost-feasible set of recommendations. The hands and voices of
the people in these communities brought their concerns, initiative,
needs, and innovation to a comprehensive vision for Union County.
One day you will be able to walk safely on a sidewalk to your bus
stop; travel safely on the roadway without undue congestion; bicycle
to school with your child; and experience the plan that was created
through your efforts. From an Issues and Identification exercise to
computerized transportation models to rendered visions of “hot
spots,” this plan wove together these communities into a fabric that
will bring health, vitality, and opportunity to all citizens and attract
employers.
Preface
UNION COUNTY
Several related documents and tools were developed as a
part of the Transportation Plan planning process, including the
following.
project website
The project website was developed to keep all stakeholders
informed on the planning process and schedule and serves
as a repository for all information developed throughout
the course of the planning process. All of the below
documentation can be found on the project website.
www.unioncountyonevoice.com
UNioN coUNtY coMpreHeNsiVe
pLAN UpDAte 2014
Recognizing the need to proactively address growth and
development patterns and support economic development
efforts, County leaders decided to revisit the 2025
Comprehensive Plan and update the Plan accordingly. This
planning process addresses the issues and opportunities
generated by Union County’s growth and provides proactive
suggestions to ensure that Union remains a great place to
live, work and visit.
stAte oF tHe reGioN -
State of the Region – CTP Existing Conditions Technical
Memorandum.
This summary provides a snapshot of transportation
infrastructure existing conditions and includes an inventory
of facilities relative to vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian and public
transportation mobility. Elements include quality level of
services assessment, safety and operational analysis as
well as an issues identification exercise expressed by key
stakeholder groups.

project sHeet iNVeNtorY
This is a database of 50 roadway, transit, bicycle, and
pedestrian projects identified during the planning process.
They are summarized on single page project sheets that
detail: project location, description, purpose and need, vicinity
map, cost estimate, and funding strategy.
Union County
Comprehensive Plan
Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 PREFACE
Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 1-1CHAPTER 1: Introduction & Planning Process
Introduction
From 2000 to 2010, Union County was the fastest growing county
in North Carolina and one of the fastest in the country, increasing its
population by 5.7 percent annually. A combination of a healthy regional
economy, low taxes (particularly relative to Mecklenburg County)
and high quality schools fueled this growth. Unfortunately, with this
level of growth and prosperity comes the unwanted consequence
of congestion. Many of the County’s 2,525 miles of roadway have
been constrained by the effects of continued urban sprawl and lack
of infrastructure improvements. This section describes the context of
the study area relative to growth, previous planning initiatives, mobility
today and vision for tomorrow.
1-2 : UNION COUNTY
LocAtioN AND coNtext
The growth rate in Union County from 2000
– 2010 was estimated at 5 percent per year
for an overall increase in population of 62.8
percent. In comparison, North Carolina’s
growth rate was estimated at 1.7 percent per
year between the same time period, equating
to an increase in population of 18.4 percent.
Historically, Union County was characterized
by rural and agricultural development. In fact,
many of the highways in the county were
originally intended to be two-lane farm to
market roads. New development, however,
has transformed many of these once-country
roads to major transportation corridors,
creating problems with capacity and safety.
Developing a transportation system that
adequately serves the vehicular needs of the
residents and workers without compromising
the rural heritage and small-town atmosphere
in the area is a major challenge for Union
County.
oUtreAcH/ VisioN/ GoALs
As part of this Multimodal Transportation
Plan/2025 Comprehensive Plan Update,
the planning process included an Advisory
Committee charged with guiding the planning
process. This committee comprised of
several stakeholders representing planning
and engineering staff, residents, business
owners, farming community, NCDOT, and the
Charlotte Regional Transportation Planning
Organization (CRTPO). This Transportation
Plan was developed in conjunction with the
communities of Marvin, Monroe, Stallings,
Mineral Springs, Unionville, Waxhaw,
Weddington, Wesley Chapel, Wingate, and
Fairview as well as regional transit, and
other transportation and land regulatory
stakeholders. This planning effort focused
not only on automobile transportation, but
also on walking, bicycling, and transit, looking
specifically at deficiencies while recognizing
the inherent value of multimodal choices.
Slightly more than 80%
of people in Union
County drive alone to
work every day.
Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 1-3CHAPTER 1: Introduction & Planning Process
Part of the planning process included a visioning process with the public, local staff,
transportation agencies and regional decision-makers. Their collective vision provided a
comprehensive background on local issues and needs relative to transportation. With this in
mind, a set of issues and challenges were identified by local participants. The issues were then
translated to transportation themes, ultimately, to help guide the project team throughout the
planning process.
LocAL pArticipAtioN
Push Button Polling at an Advisory Committee Meeting
These Themes were than translated into
focus areas or core issues to be addressed
through the planning process. The following
Focus Areas became the central to the
development of the multimodal transportation
plan for Union County.
FocUs AreA:
We haven’t been able to “keep up” with
existing development. So, focus on existing
facilities to bring them up to standards.
FocUs AreA: Minimum safety
improvements needed for rural “farm to
market” roads.
FocUs AreA: Small-scale improvements or
“Hot Spots”.
FocUs AreA: Provide better choices
through multimodal integration. Upgrade
existing facilities as well as require bicycle and
pedestrian provisions in the implementation of
new streets and roadways.
FocUs AreA: Improve connectivity
through Collector Street design standards and
connectivity requirements.
FocUs AreA: Make good connections to
the US 74 Bypass.
FocUs AreA: Don’t overpromise –
concentrate on mobility carriers (traffic) and
moving people (Complete Streets).
Overall, many issues were raised with regard
to transportation within Union County. No
issue is more important than the general
theme of “doing more with less” and striving
to maintain a quality level of service for ALL
modes. With the profound influx and rapid
growth on the western side of the county, the
reality is that we (the County) did not keep
up with development. So, there is a need to
rebuild our infrastructure while playing catch
up to existing development. At the same
time, very little is being done for the rural
parts of the County, in particular eastern Union
County. There is still a need to improve the
multitude of unsafe rural two-lane roads to
NCDOT standards, including 12-foot lanes
and adequate shoulders for large vehicles and
farming equipment.
1-4 : UNION COUNTY
• Union County needs to allow higher densities (5+ units/acre or more) and cluster
development styles
• Retirement communities may demand more attention to safer, walkable design patterns
• Increase densities along US 74 corridor and provide streetscape improvements to permit a
more active, mixed-use environment
real estate professionals
• Widening rural roads is good for agriculture (and for cyclists and pedestrians that
don’t have other options)
• More school-based education opportunities, which might translate into
opportunities for cycling and walking safety
• Assess and prioritize rural bridges for priority improvements
agricultural representatives
• Need better connectivity, connectivity index
• US 74 Plan has been supported by each community
• Focus on mobility improvements to strategic corridors like Old Monroe Road, Weddington Road,
Waxhaw Highway (NC 75), Providence Road (NC 16), US 601, NC 218, and NC 200
• Fixed guideway service planning commencing soon
• Focus on bicycle and pedestrian improvements in urban areas
• Support Carolina Thread Trail / activity centers
• Local governments should pay more for street construction and maintenance
transportation professionals
• US 74 and Old Monroe Road have “horrible” traffic conditions
• Parallel Road to US 74 is needed
• Increase residential density in urbanized areas
economic development representatives
• Identify and support the mobility needs of the entire County (east versus west)
• Aging in-place is an emerging issue (e.g., Marshville Plan)
• Provide more consistency across jurisdictions, county
• Require more from the development community – “pay their fair share”
planning professionals
• Need to co-locate greenways on utility easements
• Need for more health-based decision-making during planning and design
community health / recreation
sUMMArY oF issUes
Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 1-5CHAPTER 1: Introduction & Planning Process
preVioUs AND oN-GoiNG pLANNiNG
iNitiAtiVes
here were a number of previous and on-going planning and
design initiatives that were consider and integrated as a part
of the Transportation Plan development.
• 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (2010) -
Mecklenburg-Union Metropolitan Planning Organization.
(now called the Charlotte Regional Transportation
Planning Organization - CRTPO) - The Plan focused on
highway needs for the western half of Union County
• Indian Trail Park Design (2013) - Town of Indian Trail
Parks & Recreation
• Western Union County local Area Regional
Transportation Plan (2009)
• executive summary: Parks & Recreation
Comprehensive Master Plan Update (2006) - Union
County, North Carolina
• Carolina Thread Trail (2011) - Union County
• Union County Comprehensive Transportation Plan
(2012).
• 2025 Comprehensive Plan, Union County (2010) - The
plan recommends expanding bus service and developing
a framework for future transit
• 2035 long Range Transportation Plan, MUMPO
& RRRPO (2010) - The plan recommends extensive
expansions to the CATS service
• Us 74 Corridor Revitalization study -
Recommendations include gateway centers, intersection
improvements, driveway closures/consolidations, and
parallel street connections were commonplace.
1-6 : UNION COUNTY
trAVeL cHArActeristics
Located in the Charlotte metropolitan statistical area, Union
County and the US 74 corridor are quickly becoming magnets
for residential growth and economic activity. Union County’s
economic engine is Monroe. However, with 30,000 of net
out-commuters, this area still remains a bedroom community
to the Charlotte metropolitan area. With growth comes the
unwanted demands on transportation causing high levels
congestion and increasing commuting travel delays.
As Union County continues to grow, providing more choices
will become increasingly important. Using data from the
Housing + Affordability Index, a service of the Center
for Neighborhood Technology, generalized measures of
transportation affordability were calculated for Union county.
In terms of the dollars spent on transportation, those areas
farther away from major commuting routes and those areas
with fewer transportation options represent areas where
transportation is expensive, costing a household more than
$4,500 per year. As indicated in this figure, much of Union
County lacks transportation options, while areas closer to
Charlotte spend substantially less money on transportation,
likely due to the presence of more transportation options and
shorter commute distances.
Looking at the percentage of income spent on transportation,
a similar picture presents itself. Everyone in Union County
spends more than 25% of their income on transportation.
Some residents living outside the US 74/Monroe corridor
spend, on average, more than $100 per month more than
most of the remainder of the County. Providing more options
to residents of Union County can help reduce transportation
costs and will increase prosperity in the community.
Of the 83,179 workers
that live in Union County,
57,875 travel outside
of the county to work,
while 25,304 work in
the county. Some 27,990
people commute to Union
County to work.
Some areas in Union
County spend between
30% and 35% of their
income on transportation.
$
30%35%
Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 1-7CHAPTER 1: Introduction & Planning Process
0 6 123 Miles j
Legend
Minutes
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
Monroe
Fairview
Unionville
Lake Park
Indian Trail
WaxhawMineral Springs
Wesley ChapelMarvin
Weddington
Wingate
Matthews
Pineville
Charlotte
Travel Times, AM period
2013
From Hayne & N Church Sts in Monroe
I-485
U
S 7
4
U
S 7
4
N C 7 5 US 74
Actual travel time:
55 min
Another travel metric often used by transportation professionals is the determination of Travel Bands. In this case,
the Metrolina Regional Model was used to estimate the time it took to travel from downtown Monroe to downtown
Charlotte during the AM peak period. Although this is not an exact science, the travel time increased by 29% from 2013
to 2035, assuming no further investment in roadway improvements. This equates to the average driver waiting two
signal cycle lengths as opposed to one today.
Actual travel time:
55 min
Figure 1-1
1-8 : UNION COUNTY
0 6 123 Miles j
Legend
Minutes
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-60
Monroe
Fairview
Unionville
Lake Park
Indian Trail
WaxhawMineral Springs
Wesley ChapelMarvin
Weddington
Wingate
Matthews
Pineville
Charlotte
Travel Times, AM period
2035 E+C
From Hayne & N Church Sts in Monroe
I-485
U
S 7
4
U
S 7
4 MonroeBypass
N C 7 5 US 74
Actual travel time:
66 min
Actual travel time:
66 min
Figure 1-2
Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 1-9CHAPTER 1: Introduction & Planning Process
An assessment of vehicular crashes was completed
using crash data from NCDOT’s Transportation Mobility
and Safety Division and analyzed in ArcGIS 10.1. Between
August 1, 2010 and July 31, 2013 there were 11,959
crashes recorded in the county, of which 71 resulted in
fatalities, 70 in disabling injuries, 772 in evident injuries,
2,583 in possible injuries, and 8,159 crashes incurring
property damage only. The most prevalent crash types in
Union County during this period were rear end crashes
(3,770 instances), fixed object crashes (1,435 instances),
and animal crashes (1,400 instances). On the whole,
most crashes occurred in the more developed areas of
the county, with particular crash clusters along US-74 and
around the City of Monroe.
Figure 1-3
Union County Crash Analysis
for Crashes Occurring between
August 2010 and July 2013
Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 2-1CHAPTER 2: Land Use & Comprehensive Plan Integration
The inherent relationship between land use and transportation cannot
be understated and can be best described by the law of Supply
and Demand. That is, land use represents the demand side of the
equation while transportation represents the supply side. Planners
and engineers can agree that one often influences the other. For this
reason, our planning process began with a detailed evaluation of
historic develop trends, demographics and land use decision within
Union County. The formation of a preferred Land Use Plan was the
foundation used to influence transportation decisions through the
development of this Multimodal Transportation Plan.
land Use & Comprehensive Plan
Integration
2-2 : UNION COUNTY
VisioN For UNioN coUNtY
The Future Land Use Plan outlines a framework of growth
to achieve a more sustainable, balanced tax base in Union
County. The following section provides a detailed description
of the character and quality of place envisioned in the Plan.
In 2030, there are a number of mixed-use developments in
the County that offer distinct living, working and shopping
options. Land suitable for industrial and office development
is preserved, especially around the Airport, which results in
attracting employers that offer jobs to Union’s workforce.
More industries take advantage of Union’s rail network. Fewer
people commute to other places like Charlotte for work. In
addition, there are a variety of housing options, including
townhomes and apartments, to accommodate Union’s
diverse population. Older residents are able to age-in-place in
close proximity to existing downtown services and amenities.
Existing neighborhoods are complemented by new single-
family developments of similar character and scale. The
agriculture areas in the County remain extremely productive
and there are more agriculture-related businesses leveraging
this asset.
The Bypass is complete and serves as a main thoroughfare
from downtown Charlotte to points east. Mainly local
traffic uses US 74, and key arterials have been widened to
four lanes to decrease travel times at any point during the
day. Pedestrian and bike facilities including sidewalks and
greenways connect key locations throughout the County
and serve as both recreational and transportation corridors
for residents. Local and regional transit carries residents and
visitors in and out of the County.
Infrastructure supports new development in appropriate
areas throughout the County. All areas are adequately served
by police, fire, and emergency services. All residents have
convenient access to a park or recreational facility, and many
schools are used afterhours as community centers. There
are plenty of ball fields, community centers and programmed
activities to serve Union’s growing population.
New development respects the agriculture areas. The public
is keenly aware of the value of Union’s agriculture industry
and actively supports farming and forestry operations. Rural
farm-to-market roads and bridges are improved and farmers
have access to the technology and infrastructure they need to
be competitive.
Low-impact development techniques are commonly used
in new projects. Many new neighborhoods outside of
established urban areas have been design in a way that
maintains the scenic quality of the County.
Historic assets are identified and preserved. Property of
historic significance is landmarked and added to the National
Register. Greenways and sidewalks connect Union’s historic
places to the greater community network of assets.
Unio
n

C
o
u
n
t
y
Comp
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e

P
l
a
n
Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 2-3CHAPTER 2: Land Use & Comprehensive Plan Integration
Agricultural Area
Farming, forestry and rural residential
Strategic Agricultural Areas
Contiguous Agricultural Areas that are larger than 200 acres
and 50% prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance
Single Family Residential
Detached single family (~1unit/acre)
Mixed Residential
Mixed residential (detached single family, patio and cottage
homes, town homes and multi-family)
Rural Center
Small scale commercial and civic uses
Neighborhood Center
Neighborhood-serving commercial uses (retail, restaurant and services)and
mixed residential services)
Community Center
Community-serving commercial uses (retail, restaurant and services) including
opportunities for office, civic, institutional and mixed residential uses
Town Center / Downtown
Existing Town Center or Downtown with a range of uses including
commercial, office, civic, institutional and mixed residential uses
Employment Center
Industrial and office uses
Employment Corridor
Logistics, industrial and agri-business related uses
Figure 2-1
Future land Use Concept
Union County Comprehensive Plan Update 2014
CHAPTER 3: Highway Mobility Recommendations Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 3-1
The transportation challenges facing Union County decision-makers
are daunting. To date, there are fewer than four capacity improvement
projects that are funded through the NCDOT’s Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) for the County. However, this reality did
not deter the Advisory Committee and project leaders from devising a
Plan built on previous efforts and defined by a set of Guiding Principles
(See Comp Plan). These guiding principles helped to stitch together
a series of local plans that did not necessarily align, blend a variety
of transportation modes that competed for space and funding, and
involved diverse stakeholders that held fast to competing interest.
Highway Mobility Recommendations
3-2 : UNION COUNTY
roADwAY recoMMeNDAtioNs
DeVeLopMeNt process
In order to develop a set of roadway recommendations
that reflects the wishes of the community for the Union
County Multimodal Transportation Plan (MTP), it became
clear that while congestion is an important driver of roadway
improvements projects, it is far from the only important
consideration. The robust public outreach effort undertaken as
part of this project also provided some important input to our
suggested improvements. In determining our final roadway
and mobility recommendations, each of the following criteria
were also considered.
• environmental/Cultural Features – Union County has
a rich history and cultural identity. In order to preserve
historic downtowns and avoid significant impacts to
buildings, recommendations in developed downtown
areas called for access management and pedestrian
and bicycle facility improvements in lieu of major
roadway widenings. Additionally, care was taken to avoid
crossing significant streams, floodplains, and wetland
areas, though crucial collector street connections were
recommended in these areas in certain instances.
• Mobility/safety – While congestion was an important
consideration in determining the project type on many of
the roads in the Official Roadway Map, improving safety
on corridors with high crash rates (and severity) per mile
was another paramount consideration. Indeed, many
of the proposed access management projects along
major roads in Union County were a result of safety
considerations.

• land Use/Development – A thorough understanding
of the projected land use changes and development
patterns in Union County (see Comprehensive Plan)
provided the basis for some of the recommended
roadway improvements, especially in areas forecast to
experience substantial suburban growth. Much of the
area around Waxhaw, Weddington, Wesley Chapel, Indian
Trail, Stallings, and Monroe will likely see a rapid increase
in population in the next 30 years, growth that will put a
strain on the existing roadway infrastructure. Many of the
major arterials in these areas are also recommended to
include pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
• Constructability – Early in the process, the consultant
team made a point to understand the local funding
context, estimated costs, and level of public support
for roadway improvements. With this knowledge, these
roadway recommendations reflect the public’s input as
well as a reasonable estimation of constructability based
on cost considerations and project timing.
CHAPTER 3: Highway Mobility Recommendations Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 3-3
trANsportAtioN iMproVeMeNt
proGrAM (tip)
Some of the projects identified in the Official Roadway
Map are in fact already funded as part of the NCDOT’s
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). These include
the Monroe Bypass, a multi-lane freeway on new location
divided into northern (R-3329) and southern (R-2559)
sections; Idlewild Road (U-4913), a widening project from
a 2-lane section to multi-lane from I-485 in Mecklenburg
County to SR 1524 (Stevens Mill Road); and SR 1009 (John
Street/Old Monroe Road), a widening project from a 2-lane
section to multi-lane from SR 3448 (Trade Street) to SR 1377
(Wesley Chapel-Stoudts Road). With the exception of the
Monroe Bypass, the remaining TIP projects are included as
recommendations in the maps in this document.
roADwAY DeFicieNcies AND
recoMMeNDAtioNs
The 2010 base year highway network was compared with
the 2040 E+C (Existing/underway projects as well as other,
Committed projects) roadway network using the results from
the Metrolina Regional Model (MRM) volume to capacity
(V/C) analysis. Under the timeframe, we expect to see
a 205.8% increase in regional congested corridors. This
translates to a decrease of the average speed for all facilities
in Union County from 40mph (2010) to 34mph (2040) if no
other roadway projects are implemented.
3-4 : UNION COUNTY
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-2
Union County 2010
Daily v/C Map
Union County 2040
existing and Committed Projects
v/C Map
CHAPTER 3: Highway Mobility Recommendations Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 3-5
V/c MAps
Most congestion issues shown in the 2040 E+C condition have been addressed through the recommended
roadway projects. The only remaining segments above capacity in 2040 are small portions of US 74 and
downtown urban areas, where community preference or barriers to construction result in a smaller preferred
cross-section. Note that network assumptions for the 2040 V/C Recommended Project Improvements map
reflect the socioeconomic data from the Preferred Growth scenario as described in the Union County 2025
Comprehensive Plan Update.
Figure 3-3
Union County 2040
Recommended Projects
v/C Map
3-6 : UNION COUNTY
Indicator 2010 2040 E + C 2040 Improvements
Vehicle Miles traveled 5,281,520 7,802,327 8,660,224
Vehicle Hours Traveled 155,221 242,042 278,558
Union County Population 201,275 319,159 371,086
Per Capita VMT 26.24 24.45 23.34
Per Capita VHT 0.77 0.76 0.75
VMT Under Congested Conditions (VOC.>0.9)492,850 947,056 1,162,900
Mode Split (AM HBW Tranist Share)approximately 0.4%
Notes:
• Vehicle Miles Traveled = roadway segment volume * roadway segment length
• Vehicle Hours Traveled = roadway segment volume * roadway segment travel time (hours)
• Per Capita VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled (within Union County)/Population within Union County
• Per Capita VHT = Vehicle Hours Traveled (within Union County)/Population within Union County
• Mode Split = Share of Transit for AM Period Home Based Work Trips Originating in Union County
As indicated in Table 3.1 above, the Vehicle Miles Traveled
(VMT) metric, which describes the total vehicle miles
traveled in Union County, increased substantially in the
2040 Improvements scenario. The 2040 Improvements
Transportation Demand Model run, however, includes an
increase in population of approximately 25 percent from the
2040 Existing and Committed Project Travel Demand Model
run, a considerable amount. Despite the larger population
figure used in this analysis, per capita VMT, a measure of how
many miles are traveled per person, decreased in the 2040
Improvements Travel Demand Model run by 11 percent as
opposed to a decrease of 7 percent in the 2040 Existing and
Committed Project Travel Demand Model run. While the VMT
under Congested Conditions metric increased, the Per Capita
Vehicle Hours Traveled (VHT) has decreased.
Overall, the 2040 Improvements Model Run indicates that
while more vehicle miles are being driven in Union County,
people are in fact driving fewer miles and spending less
time behind the wheel. As expected, congestion is getting
worse with the forecasted increase in population, but this is
understandable based on the volume of people driving during
peak hours.
Two separate maps are presented in this document, the
Roadway Improvement Map (Figure 3-4) and the Roadway
Laneage Map (Figure 3-5). The Roadway Improvement Map
presents the specific type of project recommended for each
roadway. Overall, five types of roadway recommendations
are suggested for Union County, including Arterial Widenings,
Arterial New Location projects, Arterial Access Management
and Streetscape projects, Rural Road Improvements, and
Collector Street New Location projects. The Official Roadway
Laneage Map presents the proposed future laneage
for all projects in the County, while the Corridor Design
Treatments map indicates the specific laneage as well as the
improvement type for each recommended project.
As collector streets are anticipated to be constructed with
new development on an as-needed basis, specific collector
street projects will not be discussed in detail. However, some
considerations with regard to constructing collector roads are
presented on the following page.
2010 2040 E + C Percent 2040 Improvements Percent
Vehicle Miles traveled 2,520,807 48%3,378,704 64%
Vehicle Hours Traveled 86,921 56%123,337 79%
Union County Population 117,884 59%169,811 84%
Per Capita VMT 1.79 -7%2.90 -11%
Per Capita VHT 0.01 -1%0.02 -3%
VMT Under Congested Conditions (VOC.>0.9)454,206 92%670,050 136%
Table 3.1: Transportation Indicators
Table 3.2: Difference between 2040 E+C and 2040 Improvements to 2010 Baseline (Not Shown)
Model Run
CHAPTER 3: Highway Mobility Recommendations Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 3-7
Arterial Improvements
As indicated, recommendations for arterials are grouped
into four categories: Existing Road Widenings, New Location
Construction, Access Management and Streetscape projects,
and Rural Road Improvement projects. On roadways where
capacity improvements are warranted, widening may not
always be the answer; in many cases, roadways with capacity
issues are recommended to be improved through the use of
landscaped medians and better access management design.
Access management strategies will be discussed in Chapter
V. These types of strategies help improve safety, provide
easier and safer ingress and egress to neighboring land uses,
and create better corridor aesthetics in addition to improving
capacity. Many of these access management and streetscape
improvement projects include provisions for bicyclists and
pedestrians; these recommendations are given further
consideration in the multimodal improvements section of this
document.
Figure 3-4
Union County 2040
Roadway Improvement Plan
3-8 : UNION COUNTY
Recommended Road Widening
In examining current as well as future capacity on Union
County roadways, it becomes clear that improvements will
be necessary to accommodate the growth forecast to occur
in the county over the coming decades. As a primarily rural
county for much of its history, many of the roadways in Union
County can be categorized as “farm to market” roads. That is,
these are roads that primarily serve to bring goods from the
agricultural areas of the County to the towns and cities. They
are typically narrow two-lane roads with no shoulders. Union
County has already seen substantial suburban development
occur in the northwestern area of the county, which has led
to the need for improvements as the “farm to market” roads
become primary commuting routes between Union County
and Charlotte in neighboring Mecklenburg County. In order to
improve traffic flows and support not only the current growth,
but also future growth, it will be vital to upgrade many of the
existing roadways to NCDOT two-lane standards (with proper
shoulders) as well as four-lane cross-sections.
With the development trends in Union County in mind,
many of the widening projects recommended as part of
this Transportation Plan are located in the western portion
of the county, while many of the access management and
streetscape improvement and rural road improvement
projects are focused on the northern, southern, and eastern
portions of Union County. These projects will be examined in
subsequent sections of this document.
The corridors listed on the following page are recommended
for widening projects, based mostly on current and
forecasted future congestion. However, many of these
roads were also identified during the public and stakeholder
outreach process as important pedestrian and bicycle
corridors. As such, it is expected that any widening project
construction will also include provisions for pedestrian and
bicycle. These facilities are grouped by the future ultimate
cross-section. See Chapter 6 for short-term, middle-term and
long-term priorities.
Figure 3-5
Union County 2040
Roadway laneage Map
CHAPTER 3: Highway Mobility Recommendations Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 3-9
4 lane Median Divided
• Airport Road – Old Charlotte Highway to Propel Way
• Airport Road – Propel way to Hampton Meadows Road
• Austin Chaney Road – Olive Branch Road to
approximately Camden Street
• Idlewild Road – Mill Grove Road to the Union/
Mecklenburg County Border.
• Indian Trail Road – US 74/Independence Boulevard to
Old Monroe Road
• lawyers Road – Rocky River Road to Union/
Mecklenburg County Border
• Martin luther King Junior Boulevard – Goldmine Road
to Weddington Road
• nC 601 – East Avenue to Fowler Road to Sikes Mill
• new Town Road – Rocky River Road to Potter Road
• new Town Road – Potter Road to Waxhaw – Indian Trail
Road
• new Town Road – Waxhaw – Indian Trail Road to
Providence Road
• north Rocky River Road – Goldmine Road to Old
Charlotte Highway
• north Rocky River Road – Old Charlotte Highway to US
74/Independence Boulevard
• north Rocky River Road – US 74/Independence
Boulevard to Secrest Short Cut Road
• Old Charlotte Highway – North Rocky River Road to
Wesley Chapel – Stouts Road
• Old Charlotte Highway – Rocky River to Dickerson
Boulevard and Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard
• Old Monroe Road – Waxhaw – Indian Trail Road to
Union/Mecklenburg County Border
• Old Monroe Road – Wesley Chapel – Stouts Road to
Indian Trail Road
• Providence Road – New Town Road to Rea Road
• Rocky River Road – Secrest Short Cut Road to Lawyers
Road
• Rocky River Road – Waxhaw Highway to Weddington
Road
• Rocky River Road – Weddington Road to Goldmine Road
• secrest short Cut Road – Mill Grove to Unionville –
Indian Trail Road
• south Providence Road – Cuthbertson Road and
Kensington Drive to New Town Road
• south Providence Road – Cuthbertson Road and
Kensington Drive to Waxhaw Parkway
• stallings Road – US 74/Independence Boulevard to
Union/Mecklenburg County Border
• Unionville – Indian Trail Road – Rocky River Road to
Secrest Short Cut Road
• Unionville – Indian Trail Road – US 74/Independence
Boulevard to Secrest Short Cut Road
• Waxhaw Highway – Broome Street to Weddington Road
• Waxhaw – Indian Trail Road – New Town Road to
Broome Street
• Waxhaw – Indian Trail Road – New Town Road to
Weddington Road
• Waxhaw – Indian Trail Road – Weddington Road to Old
Monroe Road
• Weddington Road – Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard
to Rocky River Road
• Weddington Road – Rocky River Road to Embassy
Court
• Weddington Road – Waxhaw – Indian Trail Road to
Potter Road
• Weddington Road - Waxhaw – Indian Trail Road to Rea
Road Extension
• Weddington Road – Waxhaw Highway and West
Franklin Street to Martin Luther Kind Junior Boulevard
In addition to the recommendations to widen whole sections
of roadway, some spot widening will likely be part of select
access management projects. These smaller widening
sections may be needed to accommodate passing lanes
or turn pockets. This needed improvement was specifically
expressed by our Advisory Committee to address large
tractor trailers as well as large farm equipment. Additionally,
as the rate of development in Union County continues
to increase and right-of-way continues to become more
constrained, it may behoove decision-makers to acquire
right-of-way in advance of any proposed widening projects
as the opportunity arises. Union County will work with local
governments and the CRTPO to preserve roadway corridors
to ensure right-of-way is obtained when available.
3-10 : UNION COUNTY
new location Construction
In the current funding climate, obtaining funding for the
construction of large-scale infrastructure projects can be
very difficult. While costs associated with new construction
including right-of-way acquisition, materials, and labor
continue to increase, the available funding for new location
projects has decreased. This trend is likely to continue.
With this in mind, justifying the expense of adding a new
location project can be difficult and usually only occurs when
significant congestion relief, safety improvement, or growth
opportunities are anticipated as a result of the project.
Apart from the Monroe Bypass project (TIP # R-2559,
R-3329), which is already programmed and funded, the
majority of the new location projects recommended in this
document provide crucial short connections between major
roadways. In every case, these short projects provide a
linkage between two roadways that are recommended for
improvement. These projects are presented below.
4 lane new location Projects
• Rea Road extension (TIP #U-3467) – The proposed
extension to Rea Road would create an important 4-lane
divided cross connection between Providence Road and
Weddington Road in an area likely to continue to develop
at a rapid pace. Located within the town of Weddington,
this proposed section would open a large parcel for
development and reduce congestion along Providence
Road as well as in downtown Weddington.
2 lane new location Projects
• Chestnut lane Relocation – This short project would
straighten the alignment of Chestnut Lane to Matthews
Weddington Road in order to reduce conflicts at the
existing intersection and improve traffic flows from the
southwest to northeast.
ReCOMMenDeD CROss-seCTIOns
Figure 3-6 presents the typical cross sections as well as
the laneage for the roadways proposed for improvements
in Union County. In determining the recommended
cross-sections for each roadway, not only roadway
recommendations, but also pedestrian and bicycle
recommendations were considered. The recommended
cross-sections are color-coded to correspond directly to the
laneage indicated on the Official Laneage Map (Figure 3-5),
with red indicating the 6-lane sections, light blue the 5-lane
sections, green the 4-lane section, and dark blue the 2-lane
section. For the 2- and 4-lane sections, multiple cross-
sections are presented to indicate possible pedestrian and
bicycle improvements that may accompany the roadway.
Final design will determine the ultimate cross-section of the
roadway. The total right-of-way widths along with an example
facility are listed with each cross-section.
ReCOMMenDeD CROss-seCTIOns
Figure 3-6
Project Type Total
Access Management / Operational
Improvement / Streetscape Improvement 180.531
New Location 2.502
Rural Road Improvement 137.805
Widening 96.962
CHAPTER 3: Highway Mobility Recommendations Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 3-11
2-lane sections
3-12 : UNION COUNTY
2-lane sections
CHAPTER 3: Highway Mobility Recommendations Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 3-13
4-lane sections
3-14 : UNION COUNTY
5-lane section
6-lane section
CHAPTER 3: Highway Mobility Recommendations Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 3-15
coLLector street iMproVeMeNts
According to the latest edition of AASHTO’s A Policy
on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (2011)1,
commonly known as the “Green Book”, collector streets are
defined differently depending on the context of the roadway.
For more rural areas, collector streets serve to provide
intracounty travel, as opposed to intrastate, and typically
serve travel over shorter distances than on arterial roads.
In a more urban/suburban context, collector streets provide
access between arterials and local roads, serving both land
access and traffic circulation purposes. Collector streets are
typically lower speed than arterial roads and can penetrate
neighborhoods with the intention of helping to distribute trips
from arterials to local roads and vice versa (AASHTO 2011).
Designing collectors in locations that link neighborhoods
to arterials and ensuring that they are built to applicable
standards is a critical component to the transportation future
of Union County.
• Policy Considerations
The collector street network should reflect the
community’s vision for transportation in the County
as well as the balance between connectivity, access,
mobility, and safety. As the collector street network
also impacts congestion, any future construction
should reflect both the current and future condition and
operation of the roadway.
• natural environment
Natural features such as wetlands, lakes, and streams
will often have a large impact on where new location
roadway construction occurs. The collector street
recommendations presented in this Transportation
Plan were developed with the intention of avoiding
major stream crossings as well as any major impacts to
wetlands.
• Design elements
Collector streets in Union County are expected to
be constructed to the latest roadway standards, as
determined by the County. As it is anticipated that
majority of collector streets will be constructed by private
developers, these proposed collector street alignments
can serve as base recommendations, but may be altered
as future land use plans crystallize. Additionally, collector
street design should consider pedestrians, bicyclists,
and transit users and incorporate Complete Streets (see
Chapter V) design elements to ensure that all modes of
transportation are accommodated safely and comfortably
for all users.
DetAiLeD corriDor
recoMMeNDAtioNs
Corridor Based Planning
Each transportation corridor within Union County has its
particular characteristics. Right-of-way constraints, land use
service, and relationship to major job centers, residential
areas, schools, and shopping districts shape the demand
for travel. Every trip has a reason; even recreational trips
that have the same beginning and ending point have a clear
purpose.
The following section helps describe the major corridors
within Union County, and what trip purposes are being
served. Each corridor has been assessed using a multi-modal
evaluation technique called a Quality / Level-of-Service
(Q/LOS) rating. The Q/LOS method is a planning-level
assessment of roadway/automobile, public transportation,
pedestrian and bicycling modes of travel; lower scores
indicate better conditions. Each description in the following
pages describes the typical conditions along the travel
corridor (which may include more than one street in a
corridor), key intersections, and how the corridor functions
currently. Recommendations for these corridors will utilize
these descriptions as a baseline for comparison.
1American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2011). A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.
Washington, D.C., AASHTO.
Recurring Congestion: Traffic delays caused
by exceedances of volume beyond the
normal operating capacity of the roadway,
typically happening in peak period, weekday
conditions.

non-Recurring Congestion: Traffic
delays due to weather, accidents, special
events, or construction.
3-16 : UNION COUNTY
How the Q/lOs evaluation Works. Each roadway was
divided into segments that had fairly similar characteristics:
number of travel lanes, volumes, and median/access control.
For each segment, information about travel lane widths,
posted speeds, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, traffic volumes
(2012), and intersections were input into the model. The Q/
LOS software outputs a letter level-of-service as well as
average speeds (automobile mode), and a unique score for
each segment and alternative mode of travel (bus, bicycle,
and pedestrian) as well as average values for the entire
roadway. The Highway Capacity Manual and Transit Capacity
& Quality of Service Manual provide the basis for the scoring
systems. The sample chart below provides an overview of
how to interpret each Q/LOS table.
Us 74 West (east Independence Boulevard/Andrew
Jackson Boulevard/W. Roosevelt Boulevard) / Old
Monroe Road-Old Charlotte Highway Corridor

This corridor is the most complex and heavily traveled
corridor in Union County, and includes the CSX Railroad
line as well. The corridor provides the most direct route
into Charlotte from the center of the County, but also is
an important destination in its own right, providing the
location of a considerable fraction of the retail, employment,
and commercial energy of the County (about 30% of
the 2011 employment in Union County falls within one
mile of US 74 ). The corridor is comprised mainly of two
streets: Independence Boulevard from Monroe to the
Mecklenburg County line, and Old Monroe Road to the
south. Independence Boulevard is a combination of four-
lane and six-lane median-divided highway. While the median
greatly aids in the control of access from adjoining land
uses, frequent driveways have been permitted throughout
its length, contributing to both recurring and non-recurring
(e.g., from accidents) traffic congestion. Old Monroe Road
roughly parallels Independence Boulevard to the south,
with the CSX single-track rail line in-between the two roads
north of Rocky River Road. This road is typically two-three
lanes, and with little to no control of access to adjacent
residential and industrial properties. For both roads, land
access is almost entirely limited to private automobile,
with only sporadic sections of sidewalk, including along the
side streets. There are almost no provisions for pedestrian
crossings or for cycling along or across either major street in
the corridor. The
ultimate provision of two-way multi-use paths set back
well behind the ditch line is demonstrated only along the
frontage of a few relatively recent private developments.
Given the traffic levels, density of destinations, and
residential uses nearby, it isn’t surprising that this corridor
also experiences the highest number of crashes in the
County. Transit service is provided to Mecklenburg and
downtown Charlotte via the CATS 74X Union County
regional express route. This service is provided during
weekdays only, however, and has four morning and four
evening peak period runs approximately 20 to 30 minutes
apart, with pickups restricted to two shopping center
locations in this corridor.
1
2
3
4
5
6
CHAPTER 3: Highway Mobility Recommendations Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 3-17
Us 74 West
This corridor is the most complex and heavily traveled
corridor in Union County, and includes the CSX Railroad
line as well. The corridor provides the most direct route
into Charlotte from the center of the County, but also is an
important destination in its own right, providing the location
of a considerable fraction of the retail, employment, and
commercial energy of the County (approximately 63% of
the total employment of Union County in 2011 falls within
one mile of US 74 corridor2). The corridor is comprised of
one street: Independence Boulevard from Monroe to the
Mecklenburg County line. Independence Boulevard is a
combination of four-lane and six-lane median-divided highway.
While the median greatly aids in the control of access from
adjoining land uses, frequent driveways have been permitted
throughout its length, contributing to both recurring and
non-recurring (e.g., from accidents) traffic congestion. Land
access is almost entirely limited to private automobile,
with only sporadic sections of sidewalk, including along the
side streets. There are almost no provisions for pedestrian
crossings or for cycling along or across US 74 in the corridor.
The ultimate provision of two-way multi-use paths set back
well behind the ditch line is demonstrated only along the
frontage of a few relatively recent private developments.
Given the traffic levels, density of destinations, and residential
uses nearby, it isn’t surprising that this corridor also
experiences the highest number of crashes in the County.
Transit service is provided to Mecklenburg and downtown
Charlotte via the CATS 74X Union County regional express
route. This service is provided during weekdays only, however,
and has four morning and four evening peak period runs
approximately 20 to 30 minutes apart, with pickups restricted
to two shopping center locations in this corridor.
30% of the 2011 employment in Union
County falls within one mile of US 74
Building rooftops (red) northwest of Monroe.
Recommended Cross sections: US 74/Independence
Boulevard is proposed to be improved through access
management strategies including applications for Super
Streets and include the implementation of sidepaths.
2 U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. OnTheMap Application. Longitudinal-Employer Household Dynamics Program. http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/
3-18 : UNION COUNTY
Old Monroe Road is proposed to be widened to a 4-lane with
plantable median. See Chapter 5 for more details.
Old Monroe Road-Old Charlotte Highway Corridor
Running parallel to US 74/Independence Boulevard, this corridor is another heavily traveled roadway providing both local
access to businesses, but also serving as a commuting route from Union County into Charlotte. A number of local businesses
are located directly in the vicinity of this area, while residential areas can be accessed from this corridor. This road is typically
two-three lanes and has little to no control of access to adjacent residential and industrial properties. Sidewalks can be found
only sporadically along this roadway and pedestrian crossing facilities and bicycle infrastructure is almost non-existent. Based
on the high crash rate in this area of Union County, the ultimate provision of sidepaths and sidewalks along this corridor will
have a hugely beneficial effect on non-motorized user safety and will likely encourage pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Transit
service is not recommended on Old Monroe Road-Old Charlotte Highway at this time, though transit is recommended on
nearby US 74.
Us 74 West
CHAPTER 3: Highway Mobility Recommendations Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 3-19
Us 74 east
East of Comfort Lane, US 74 reverts back to a four-lane, median-divided cross-section. “Superstreet” control measures, which
primarily restrict left-turn maneuvers in the median, are prolific in this section of roadway until it reaches Edgewood Drive. At
this point, the roadway turns back into a five-lane cross-section, and access controls become more lax until it reaches nearly to
Country Lane, where the median picks back up again, sometimes reaching 35’ in width. Bicycling provisions (and automobile
run-off recovery area) are provided through 14’ outside lanes in the sections where two-way, left-turns are permitted. The five-
lane design reappears as the road traverses through Marshville and driveways, residential development, and highway retail
land uses all increase in this brief stretch. The roadway handles drainage through a ditching system. No public transportation
services in terms of fixed routes are provided; the CSX rail line stays to the north of the roadway alignment, and well out of
the road right-of-way.
Recommended Cross section: This section of US 74 is proposed to be improved through access
management strategies and the provision of 5’ sidewalks, but only on a short section between
Wingate and Marshville. Otherwise, this other portions of US 74 will remain as 4-lane divided
sections
US 74 East, through Marshville (note freight train on CSX
tracks to the north)
3-20 : UNION COUNTY
nC 16 (Providence Road)
Providence Road emerges from Mecklenburg County as a four-lane, divided arterial serving about 23,000 vpd, and maintains
good access control in the median into Weddington. This northern section of the road has sidewalks on both sides but, except
for a very small section of bike lane south of Weddington Road, there are no bicycle facilities and the lanes become narrower
(10’) south of Weddington to NC 16 in Waxhaw. This much longer stretch between Weddington and Waxhaw serves lower
volumes, but without access control or provisions for left- or right-turns, small perturbations in traffic create delays. There is no
fixed-route transit service in this corridor.
Recommended Cross section: Providence Road is slated to be improved through access
management strategies from the Mecklenburg County line to Rea Road, while the southern portion,
from Rea Road to Waxhaw, will be widening from a 2-lane to 4-lane section and will also include
sidepaths.
Providence Road at Weddington (left) and further
south (right)
CHAPTER 3: Highway Mobility Recommendations Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 3-21
Waxhaw-Indian Trail Road
This long road, extending from US 74 all the way to Waxhaw, provides relief from other, similar routes for automobile travel.
The road is generally one lane in each direction, although an occasional center turning lane precedes a major intersection. In
the northern section, from US 74 to Old Monroe Road, there are sidewalks, not uncommonly on both sides of the road. There
are no bicycling facilities to speak of anyplace along the roadway, little control of access either in the center of the roadway or
observed along the edge of the road, and no public transportation service. The road transitions to a very rural context south of
Old Monroe Road, although some newer tract housing emerging on the roadside is a harbinger of future changes to come as
the area develops. (See also Potter/Stallings Road)
Recommended Cross section: Waxhaw-Indian Trail Road, as an important connector between the
towns of Indian Trail and Waxhaw is recommended to be improved to a 4-lane divided section with
5’ shoulders and sidewalks.
Waxhaw-Indian Trail Road, south of Monroe Road
3-22 : UNION COUNTY
nC 75 (Waxhaw Highway) / nC 200 south (Lancaster Highway) Corridor
The two principle roadways in this corridor connect their namesakes (Waxhaw and Lancaster, SC) to the City of Monroe. Both
run in a generally southwest-northeast fashion, and both are typically two-lane undivided cross-sections, even inside much
of the Waxhaw town limits. NC 75 is paralleled on its north side by the CSX railroad, which has lent this side of the corridor
a more industrial context than that of NC 200 to the south. There is sidewalk along NC 75 (Franklin Street) for most of its
length in Monroe but not further west. NC 200, which is slated to remain a two-lane facility, provides access to even more
rural properties, particularly after passing the Central Academy of Technology and Arts. The road is a two-lane, undivided facility
without sidewalks, provisions for cycling, or transit service.
Recommended Cross section: NC 75 (Waxhaw Highway) is recommended for
improvement to a 4-lane section with sidepaths from Waxhaw to Monroe, while NC 200
South is slated for access management improvements including driveway consolidation
and passing lanes along with the addition of 5’ shoulders.
NC 75 (left) and NC 200 serve as gateways from rural but
transitioning areas
nC 75 (Waxhaw Highway)
CHAPTER 3: Highway Mobility Recommendations Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 3-23
nC 207 (s. Hayne street / Wolf Pond Road)
NC 207 passes nearly due south out of Monroe’s downtown, traversing a rural landscape for nearly 12 miles before leaving
the State. The road is generally two lanes, undivided, and without provisions for cycling or walking (sidewalks end at Sunset
Drive). The posted speed is 35mph until the last residential subdivision in Monroe, then becomes a 45mph rural highway to
South Carolina.
Recommended Cross section: The portion of this roadway within the city limits of
Monroe (S. Hayne Street) is recommended for access management improvements
as well as the addition of sidewalks and 5’ shoulders. The portion extending from
the southern border of Monroe southward to the South Carolina border is also
recommended for improvement through access management strategies, but is
recommended to include a sidepath instead of sidewalks.
NC 207 is generally rural, even before leaving the City limits
3-24 : UNION COUNTY
north Us 601 (Concord Highway)
The northern section of US 601 emerges from US 74 and runs north through the crossroads community of Fairview before
entering Cabarrus County. Pavement conditions are currently better than on many of the state numbered routes, although
the two-lane, undivided cross-section looks similar. One important difference is a striped shoulder ranging from two to three
feet that provides some cycling and walking refuge, even in the most rural sections. Traffic volumes peak around the US 74
interchange, then drop off rapidly as the road moves north into rural, scattered residential and farming properties.
Recommended Cross section: North US 601 is recommended for widening with
sidewalks from US 74 northward until the Sikes Mill Road and US 601 split. In the more
rural area north of Sikes Mill Road, US 601 is recommended to be improved through
access management strategies and the addition of 3’ shoulders.
The northern section of US 601, while a major US route,
maintains a rural character
CHAPTER 3: Highway Mobility Recommendations Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 3-25
south Us 601 (Pageland Highway)
The southern section of US 601 crosses US 74 and runs south across Richardson Creek and into South Carolina. However,
this roadway differs greatly from the northern reaches in that it has four travel lanes separated by a median and managed
left-turn movements that translate into a 55mph speed limit. Pedestrian, cycling, and transit modes are not accommodated,
although some segments of the roadway have a valley-style curb-and-gutter treatment that could support a sidewalk behind
the curbline.
Recommended Cross section: No additional improvements recommended at this time.
The southern stretch of US 601 is highly access-managed
3-26 : UNION COUNTY
nC 200 north (Morgan Mill Road)
This roadway is to the east of US 601, starting from US 74 and gradually pulling away from it on a more easterly path. The
automobile carriageway consists of a two-lane, undivided cross-section with no paved shoulders. Commercial and small
industrial land uses taper off to agricultural fields and scattered residences on large lots. The single important crossing is with
NC 218 about three-and-a-half miles before NC 200 reaches the Stanly County line. Only a few properties have sidewalk in
front, and there are no provisions for cycling and no public transportation services.
Recommended Cross section: NC 200 North is proposed to be improved through
access management strategies including driveway consolidation and passing lanes.
Additionally, NC 200 North is recommended for improvements by adding a 5’ shoulder
and using shared lane markings for bicyclists to NC 218 and including 3’ shoulder from
NC 218 to the Stanly County line.Commercial and agricultural uses often share proximate spaces
(NC 200 North)
CHAPTER 3: Highway Mobility Recommendations Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 3-27
nC 218 (Fairview Road)
NC 218 (Fairview Road) has the unique distinction of the being the only road that crosses the full east-west width of Union
County, starting off just east of I-485 at Mecklenburg and continuing 26 miles later just south of Richardson Creek into Anson
County. Fairview, New Salem, and Olive Branch are the small communities that are linked across the northern side of Union
County by Fairview Road. Throughout its length, NC 218 is a two-lane, undivided cross-section with generally 10’ lanes and a
(maximum) one-foot-wide paved shoulder. Sidewalks and biking facilities are generally non-existent along this rural corridor.
Recommended Cross section: NC 218 is recommended for improvement through
access management strategies, including passing lanes, and 3’ bikable shoulders from the
Mecklenburg County border to NC 205.
The typical cross-section of NC 218 extends virtually
unchanged for 26 miles
3-28 : UNION COUNTY
stallings Road-Potter Road
Stallings Road emerges from Mecklenburg County heading southward across US 74 to the Town of Stallings, essentially
staying parallel to the Mecklenburg County line. Crossing East John Street / Old Monroe Road, the roadway changes names
to Potter Road, and goes from a two-lane, undivided street to a three-lane (center two-way, left-turn lane) until it reaches
Chestnut Lane at which point it reverts back to a two-lane cross-section. The average and posted speeds drop between US
74 and Old Monroe Road, but sidewalks in this section are set well off the edge of pavement and exist almost the entire
length of the road, likely serving cyclists as well as pedestrians. This section is also the most urbanized, with numerous
commercial driveways serving small, stand-alone retail to larger distribution facilities. The road takes on a more rural character
south of Chestnut Lane, losing sidewalks but still maintaining fairly high levels (8,000vpd) traffic numbers. While the CATS
74X Union Express Route crosses Stallings Road, there is no transit service otherwise along this route. Paved shoulders are
non-existent, and there are no other cycling facilities. (Note: This transportation corridor extends only to Wesley Chapel Road,
where the road changes names again to South Potter Road.)
Recommended Cross section: Stallings Road from the Mecklenburg County
border to US 74 is proposed for widening from a 2-lane to 4-lane section. Beyond
US 74, Stallings/Potter Road is proposed for improvement through access
management strategies including driveway consolidation. Both sections are
proposed for improvements thorugh 5’ sidewalks and 5’ shoulders.
Stallings Road services light industrial, commercial
and some scattered residential uses before
becoming Potter Road, assuming a more rural
context south of Chestnut Lane
CHAPTER 3: Highway Mobility Recommendations Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 3-29
Weddington-Matthews Road
Not to be confused with Weddington Road to the south, this street comes out of Mecklenburg County and runs southwest to
the community of Weddington (and Weddington Road) where it terminates at a roundabout. This road is a two-lane, undivided
roadway that looks like it might be more in character with a road much further away from the boundary with Mecklenburg
County. Scattered residential driveways and even a small farm or two dot the roadside.
Recommended Cross section: Weddington-Matthews Road is proposed for
improvement through access management and operational improvement strategies
as well as the provision of buffered bicycle lanes and sidewalks.
The southern terminus of Weddington-Matthews
Road is three miles and five minutes from the I-485 /
Providence Road interchange, and is indicative of areas
ripe for new development
3-30 : UNION COUNTY
new Town Road
Entering Union County from the northern peninsula of Lancaster County, SC, New Town Road enters the small community of
Marvin from the west, crosses NC 16 and Waxhaw-Indian Trail Road (south) before taking a sharp turn towards Monroe and
ending at NC 75 (Waxhaw Highway). Traffic volumes actually increase away from Monroe, falling to about 3,000 vpd close to
NC 75. The roadway is typically a two-lane, undivided road with no paved shoulders or sidewalks regardless of its location;
there is not transit service provided at any point along the route. Small farms and older, isolated homes vie for dominance with
newer, tract-style subdivisions that increase as the road reaches the South Carolina border.
Recommended Cross section: New Town Road is proposed for widening from a
2-lane to 4-lane divided section with the provision of a sidepath.Proximity to South Carolina translates into more homes and more
traffic on New Town Road (top), but the rural cross-section persists
for the road’s entire length.
CHAPTER 3: Highway Mobility Recommendations Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 3-31
Hot spots & coNcept DesiGNs
It is apparent that large, costly highway projects are becoming
less frequent and more controversial every day. Our gas tax
dollars are not able to fund projects of significant magnitude.
However recently, smaller, more cost-effective projects
have been successfully implemented through smaller
funding sources like Spot Safety and Hazard Elimination
programs. The purpose of this section is to provide a higher
level of detail for specific high priority projects through the
development of Hot Spot and Corridor Concept Designs
(20% design detail). The intent of the Hot Spot projects is
to highlight specific projects within the study area that were
selected by the Advisory Committee as “High Priority”. In
turn, the information contained in the concept designs could
be used by local champions to lobby for future funding and
ultimately, full implementation. In today’s environment and
with SPOT prioritization process, small type projects are
less likely to compete at the level of major mobility carrier
type projects. This innovative program leverages alternative
funding sources to administer and implement smaller type
projects.
Note: These locations are based on safety. They represent
concepts for improving individual intersections which
could be applied to other intersection locations
(i.e., traffic operations plan)
HOT sPOTs & COnCePT DesIgns
3-32 : UNION COUNTY
Figure 3-7: Weddington Road/Antioch Church Road Intersection Improvements
In order to provide an increased safety benefit and improve traffic operations at a skewed intersection close to a major shopping area, this
hotspot treatment recommends replacing the traditional intersection with a roundabout. Additionally, this roundabout would provide easy
access to a developable parcel south of the intersection.
Figure 3-6: US 74 (Roosevelt Boulevard)/ Rocky River Road Intersection Improvements
US 74/Independence Boulevard in Union County is one of the major transportation corridors in the region and serves as an important mobility
corridor between Union County and Uptown Charlotte. Assigned the project number SP-2012-35, this project has been vetted with NCDOT
and programmed for funding.
CHAPTER 3: Highway Mobility Recommendations Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 3-33
Figure 3-8: Old Charlotte Highway/MLK Jr. Drive/Dickerson Boulevard Widening Enhancements
These improvements target a section of Dickerson Blvd. south of US 74 that transitions from rural road to a suburban corridor with major retail amenities
on both sides. In order to create a smoother transition between the 2-lane and 5-lane sections, these improvements widen the roadway to accommodate
two lanes in the southbound section as well as in the northbound section closer to the railroad crossing.
Figure 3-9: Highway 218/Mill Grove Road Intersection Improvements
NC 218 and Mill Grove Road are rural, relatively high-speed roads that provide east-west and north-south mobility in northwestern Union County. In
lieu of the safety flashing warning signals currently in place along NC 218, this hotspot treatment calls for the installation of a roundabout, which will
substantially improve safety at this location.
3-34 : UNION COUNTY
Figure 3-11: US 74 (W. Roosevelt Boulevard)/Morgan Mill Road Intersection Improvements
As US 74 carries the most traffic in Union County, these improvements are designed to facilitate smoother traffic movements along the corridor as well as
improve safety. This hotspot recommendation provides an additional left turn lane on the western leg of US 74, an additional right turn lane on Morgan Mill after
the intersection going northward, and also calls for additional sidewalk construction and driveway consolidation.
Figure 3-10: Lancaster Highway/Rocky River Road Intersection Improvements
Improvements at this location are not only restricted to implementing a roundabout, but also mandate realigning Parkwood School Road, which will help
avoid issues related to having two intersections in such close proximity to one another. In addition to improving safety, these improvements will facilitate
easier traffic flows along both corridors.
CHAPTER 3: Highway Mobility Recommendations Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 3-35
CHAPTER 4: Multimodal Recommendations Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 4-1
Ultimately, the goal for bicycle and pedestrian mobility is to increase
the number of trips made on foot or bicycle significant enough to
realize economic, health and social benefits. There are three main
ways for this to occur: connectivity, safety and access. Several key
tenets were adhered to during recommendations development to
ensure that strategies recognized the diversity of cyclist types—
experienced, novice, and child — functional vs. recreational.
Multimodal Recommendations
4-2 : UNION COUNTY
peDestriAN AND bicYcLe
pLANNiNG coNtext
Union County and the municipalities within it have previously
studied bicycle and pedestrian travel to a great extent. The
predominant movements in and out of Charlotte and its
attendant commercial centers hampers long-distance bicycle
travel to a degree, but so do the lack of dedicated facilities
that can accommodate any but the most serious of cyclists.
Crash distributions and causes were studied for the current
plan as well, and coalesce where there are known pedestrian
and cycling activity centers and along major and some minor
thoroughfares. The past planning efforts, crash studies, and
recommendations for project, program and policy actions are
described in further detail in the following sections.
Past efforts and Adopted Plans, Policies
Carolina Thread Trail Master Plan for Union County and
Participating Municipalities (2011)
The Plan assigns the goal of creating 1.5 to 3.0 miles of
greenway each year in Union County, providing an estimate of
the costs of construction and financial resources. The stated
goal of the planning process was, among others, to adopt the
Carolina Thread Trail (CTT) Master Plan, which describes a trail
system interconnected among 15 counties of the Piedmont
Region. The Plan also describes popular destinations indicated
by public outreach efforts, and delves into demographic and
economic forces shaping or supporting trail development.
Contact Points with Current Plan:
• Establishes construction goal of 1.5 miles of trail each
year through 2020; 3.0 miles each year thereafter
• Establishes the preeminence of the CTT in Union County
• Parks, town centers, and museums (Museum of the
Waxhaws, JAARS) as well as creeks (Twelve-Mile,
Cane, Goose, Six-Mile) established as destinations and
corridors for off-road trail development and destinations
• Stallings Road, Old Charlotte Highway, Old Monroe Road,
and other roadways are cited as having an important
place in the development of an adjacent trail facility to
complete the CTT
CHAPTER 4: Multimodal Recommendations Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 4-3
Us-74 Corridor Revitalization study (2013)
The public survey for this Study suggested that nearly 44%
of survey respondents used US 74 to commute to and from
work, and another 37% used it for shopping. However, more
respondents commuted to Monroe than to Mecklenburg
County. Less than two percent used public transit, and less
than three percent carpooled to work (13% of the populace
cited that they carpooled to work in the 2010 Census, so the
sample population is not representative for this aspect of
travel). Although only one percent of respondents have ridden
their bike along US 74, nearly 28% said that they would like to
be able to do so. Respondents also wanted to improve traffic
flow far more than any other aspect of the corridor, with
aesthetics and more commercial development coming in a
distant second and third choice.
Contact Points with Current Plan:
• Recommendations from the Study include gateway
centers, intersection improvements, driveway closures/
consolidations, and parallel street connections were
commonplace; the parallel road network proposed should
be represented in this plan, particularly
• The typical cross-section is proposed to be 10’ paved
paths offset 14’ from the edge of pavement on both
sides of the road
• In commercial centers, bicyclists are in mixed, low-speed
traffic on frontage roads (or on bicycle lanes where no
on-street parking is permitted) while pedestrians are
accommodated along storefront sidewalks (10’)
• Crossing US 74 on bike or by foot may remain
problematic, as “superstreet” treatments are
recommended in the corridor at intersections
Transit recommendations being considered along the
Independence Corridor in Mecklenburg County include Bus
Rapid Transit (BRT); if this option is to remain viable in Union
County, then adequate right-of-way for the main line as well
as on- and off-ramps will need to be considered in future
widening projects, as well as accessways for foot and bicycle
travel.

Indian Trail Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan (2009)
This Plan indicated that safety and sidewalk connectivity were
the most important features of the pedestrian environment
missing in Indian Trail. Other plans reviewed, including the
Defining the Vision for Downtown Indian Trail and Downtown
Master Plan, underscore the importance of downtown as a
walkable place in the future of Indian Trail.
Contact Points with Current Plan:
• Identifies several intersections needing improved
pedestrian accommodations, including US 74 and its
intersections with Wesley Chapel Stouts Road, Indian
Trail Road, and Unionville-Indian Trail Road; Secrest
Shortcut Road and Wesley Chapel Stouts Road as well
as Old Monroe Road were identified priority corridors for
improvements
• Programs like National Trails Day, walk-to-school, fun
runs, and web- and print-based education materials were
also deemed important priorities
• Policies including those associated with interconnectivity,
land dedication, sidewalk construction on both sides
of new streets, lighting adequacy, maintenance
programs, and upgrading curb ramps to meet with ADA
requirements are cited
• Specific greenways are identified, as are many sidewalk
projects and a number of intersection crossing
improvements (pages 42-43)
• The town has a two-cent property tax tied to
transportation improvements, including sidewalk
development and intersection/crossing treatments
4-4 : UNION COUNTY
Indian Trail Comprehensive Bicycle Plan (2011)
The Plan identifies parks/greenways, grocery stores, and
events (to avoid parking) as major destinations for cycling
in Indian Trail. Neighborhood loops, connector routes, and
neighborhood connections that are informal accessways
between neighborhoods were identified during the planning
process. About 50% of crashes involve people 18 years of
age or younger. The current bicycle facilities were deemed
unsafe, and more facilities should be constructed for cyclists
of all levels of ability.
Contact Points with Current Plan:
• Eventually, a 10’-wide adjacent sidepath is planned for
US 74, required in conjunction with new development
projects
• Connecting Austin Village with Beatty Park, more
greenways, educational programs, and safe/accessible
facilities were identified as priorities
• The Union Towne park-and-ride (74X) needs bicycle
parking
• There are existing bicycle parking requirements in the
UDO; plats have to show bicycle and pedestrian paths;
incentives (not requirements) for developers to construct
bicycle parking; and open space dedication are other
requirements
• A list of pilot projects (page 6-11) is described to be
undertaken in 1-3 years (e.g., Sun Valley HS, Poplin ES
Connection with Bonterra, Idlewilds Shopping Center,
and Red Lantern Road)
• Street design standards are textually described, but are
not specific

stallings Pedestrian Plan (2008)
This Plan recognizes that many of the
streets and new subdivisions have existing
sidewalks. Generally, the Plan’s contents
follow the NCDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan Development Guidelines, otherwise.
Contact Points with Current Plan:
• A variety of policy measures including 5,000’ maximum
perimeter block length and 500’ maximum cul-de-sac
length, are noted in the current ordinance
• The downtown overlay district requires 12’ sidewalks
• Greenways in an adopted plan may be counted against
open space requirements
• The Plan calls for an adoption of mixed-use nodes
to magnetize future development into areas that are
walkable and bikeable.
• Trails are recommended along Twelve-Mile Creek, Goose
Creek, Crooked Creek, North Fork, and a connection to
Francis Beatty Park along Matthews-Weddington Road.
CHAPTER 4: Multimodal Recommendations Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 4-5
City of Monroe Downtown Master Plan (2008)
The Plan emphasizes the downtown’s status in Monroe as
its “heart,” although it notes that commercial flight to the
US 74 corridor hurt the downtown’s economic viability. The
result is a downtown that still lacks many of the attractions to
make it a daily destination, elements creating connectivity to
surrounding neighborhoods like sidewalks and street trees,
and services that would provide for the day-to-day needs of
residents.
Contact Points with Current Plan:
• Jefferson Street and Franklin Street are too vehicular-
oriented and warrant improved crossing provisions for
pedestrians
• There is a need for better defining the pedestrian and trail
system through signage
• Recommended downtown sidewalk width is 13 feet;
create textured/colored paving for crosswalks at key
intersections (e.g., Main/Franklin, Franklin/Charlotte,
Franklin/Hayne)
• Jefferson and Franklin Streets are recommended to be
converted to two-way traffic, with a roundabout at their
juncture; and another roundabout at Charlotte Avenue/
Lancaster Avenue

Marshville Comprehensive Transportation Plan (2010)
The primary purpose of this Plan is to support the
development of a bypass around Marshville and US Highway
74, due to traffic increases east of town from 17,000 vehicles
per day (vpd) to 32,200 (the roadway capacity is 42,100 vpd)
in 2035. Within Marshville the roadway capacity is 29,100 vpd
with an expected 2035 volume of 39,800 vpd. The Plan notes
a bus stop of the US 74 Union County Express (CATS) in
Marshville, but this does not appear to be the case.
Contact Points with Current Plan:
• The Plan does not contain any recommendations directly
referring to either bicycling or pedestrian modes of travel.
• Grade-separated crossings at Old Hwy 74, Dr. Blair Road,
and Hasty Road may offer some options for connectivity
of bicycle and pedestrian facilities
BICyCle AnD PeDesTRIAn sAFeTy
AnAlysIs

An assessment of crash data involving either a cyclists or
a pedestrian was conducted for this plan at both a system
level and to help identify individual activity centers for bicycle
and pedestrian movements. The data are derived from 2007
through 2011 crash data statistics across Union County that
included information about the characteristics of the crash
and those involved in it. The following is a brief, graphical
summary of that data.
Figure 1: Cycling crashes often happen after working hours; many pedestrian
crashes occur mid-day or late in the evening.
Figure 2: Cycling crashes tend to follow male/female and black/white trends;
Hispanics are disproportionally represented in pedestrian crashes
Figure 3: Pedestrian injuries - and pedestrian travel - occur more often than
cycling
4-6 : UNION COUNTY
There is not a “typical” bicycle or pedestrian crash victim;
but we can say the following about many of these crashes
looking at this data as well as individual crash records:
• While alcohol did not play a role in a large number of
crashes, one high-activity center along Charlotte Avenue
northwest of downtown Monroe involved a cluster of
crashes that were related to alcohol consumption;
• Crashes often occurred for unexpected reasons: parents
backing over their children, attempted (or successful)
homicide, or domestic disputes;
• Minorities and Hispanic populations were
disproportionately represented, although a study of the
effects of income did not reveal a particular correlation to
bicycle/pedestrian crashes;
• The US 74 corridor and some of its cross-streets stands
out strongly as a place where both cycling and especially
pedestrian crashes occur with regularity;
• There were actually more fatal pedestrian crashes in the
sparsely populated rural parts of Union County (7) than in
urban and suburban areas (6); and
• Downtown areas as well as some school areas were
locations where crashes happened more often than other
locations.
PUBlIC TRAnsPORTATIOn PlAnnIng
COnTexT
The state-leading pace of rapid growth of Union County’s
population has underscored the demand for transportation
services of every type. While the prevalent travel paths
are and will continue to be between home-based origins
in Union County to work- and shopping-based destinations
in Mecklenburg County, the accessibility of existing and
future services to create a more convenient situation is
also worthy of exploration. This Plan’s public transportation
planning is necessarily long-range in nature, but takes
into account currently adopted plans, existing services,
and recommendations from an array of stakeholders.
The following sections start by considering the current
services and adopted plans before moving into the timing
of expansions of service levels and coverage. In these
recommendations, we considered an appropriate level
of service that match the population and employment
densities and supportive design features that would have to
be in place to make public transit a cost-effective means of
transportation.
Union County also operates human service transportation for
trips within and without the County, at fares ranging from $2
to $10 (Charlotte). A two-day advance notification is required.
Participants must prove that they are senior citizen at least
60 years of age; a developmentally disabled adult; Medicaid
client; veteran eligible for medical treatment at a VA Hospital
or clinic; or physically disabled.
Figure 4-4: Cycling (0) crashes at left and pedestrian (x)
crashes from at right from 2007 to 2011 tended to occur in
downtown areas and along a few major corridors, particularly
US 74; however, a number of fatal pedestrian crashes
happened in rural areas tot he south and east (right)
CHAPTER 4: Multimodal Recommendations Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 4-7
Current Public Transportation services
The only fixed-route transit service currently in Union County
is that of the 74X Regional Express route operated by the
Charlotte Area Transit Service (CATS). Service is limited to
weekdays, and only during peak morning and afternoon
periods running on 20- to 30-minute headways. The base
fare is $3.50 per one-way trip, and the trip length from the
K-Mart in Monroe to the Charlotte Transportation Center is
approximately 50 minutes (about 17 minutes longer than
using a private automobile). The most recent transportation
plan describes the route performance as having an average
of 19 passengers per hour in the AM peak period and 16
passengers in the PM peak. About 182 people ride the
service each weekday. There was at one point in 2011
discussions of terminating service to Union County, although
this action was not taken.
Past efforts and Adopted Plans, Policies
Countywide Transit services Plan FY 2012-FY2017 (2012)
The five-year transit services plan describes the existing
routes and (generally) minor modifications to them designed
to provide improved cost-efficiency. The current service into
Union County (74X Regional Express) does not have any
changes proposed on the Union County side of the route,
although re-routing on the Charlotte end will save some time
overall on the route.
Contact Points with Current Plan:
• The short-term service plan does not contemplate any
significant change to service on the 74X Regional Express
route

2030 Transit Corridor system Plan - Charlotte (2006)
This long-range transit plan describes the Lynx Silver Line
to the Levine Campus of CPCC at I-485 and Independence
Boulevard as a bus-rapid transit service (buses on dedicated
right-of-way generally not subject to in-traffic vehicular
delays). The timeframe for reaching Union County is 2026,
although there is no mention of extending this service all the
way into Union County.

Contact Points with Current Plan:
• If the Lynx Silver Line continues to be viewed as a BRT
service, then additional right-of-way in the Independence
(or Old Independence) Boulevard corridor will need to
be made available to provide for the service into Union
County. Currently, there is no documentation illustrating
service into Union County, only to Levine Campus.
Us-74 Corridor Revitalization study (2013)
The Study does not recommend a particular transit service in
the important commuting corridor of US 74, but recognizes
that Light Rail, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), or Express Bus
service would be options. Few specific details were provided
in the document on the viability or preference of mode, or
the possible location of future transit stops, park-and-ride
facilities, or transfer centers.
Contact Points with Current Plan:
• The CSX Company has stated that providing right-of-way
inside the rail corridor is a non-starter due to significant
freight traffic already present on the existing trackage
• Traffic disruption from at-grade crossings would also be a
significant barrier to light rail service
4-8 : UNION COUNTY
sUMMARY OF exIsTIng MULTI-MODAL
COnDITIOns
Generally, the roadways in Union County, with a few
exceptions tending towards US-numbered routes, are
built and designed to accommodate fairly moderate traffic
volumes (2,000 to 10,000vpd). A number of roads have at
least short segments where these ideal volumes are being
exceeded now; as the area continues to grow and develop,
these segments will grow more numerous and experience
congestion into ever-longer periods of the day. Intersection
improvements are critical in the short-term, as is improving
control of access and providing a strong connector-level street
system.
The prospect for modes of travel other than by automobile
is daunting. Conditions for cycling are very poor to marginal,
favoring only the most experienced road cyclist, except in
the core downtown areas of the municipalities. See Table
5.1 for a summary of multimodal conditions (QLOS) along
key corridors in Union County. Opportunities for expanding
or constructing adjacent paths, such as those found along
parts of Stallings/Potter Road, are available but would
be both expensive to construct and poorly utilized until
more development arrives. Pedestrian accommodations
are generally scant, poorly interconnected, and limited
to the frontages of newly developed properties or inside
municipalities. The same is true for a number of intersections
that don’t have marked crosswalks. Public transportation is
provided now only through CATS service on one route (US
74 to Monroe), and there have been discussions in recent
years about that route’s affordability. Projects like the Carolina
Thread Trail may provide the “trunk” system for off-road
greenways, but progress is incremental. Instead of prioritizing
long, expensive bicycle, pedestrian and transit facilities,
creating environments that are supportive of these modes –
and expanding the economic viability of town centers – may
Road Name
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
(a
v
g
.
sp
e
e
d
,
mp
h
(Q
L
O
S
)
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
(h
i
g
h
e
r
is
be
t
t
e
r
)
(Q
L
O
S
)
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
(l
o
w
e
r
is
be
t
t
e
r
)
(Q
L
O
S
)
Cy
c
l
i
s
t
(l
o
w
e
r
is
be
t
t
e
r
)

(Q
L
O
S
)
US 74 West (East Independence Boulevard/Andrew Jackson Highway/W. Roosevelt
Boulevard) / Old Monroe Road- Old Charlotte Highway Corridor 17.9 1.6 7.0 4.9
US 74 East (Monroe Street/E. Roosevelt Boulevard)45.5 0 5.5 4.7
NC 16 (Providence Road)38.1 0 3.9 3.7
Waxhaw-Indian Trail Road 20.4 0 5.4 4.7
NC 75 (Waxhaw Highway) / NC 200 South (Lancaster Highway) Corridor 27.0
42.0 0 4.5
5.0
4.6
4.2
NC 207 (S. Hayne Street/Wolf Pond Road)39.1 0 3.6 3.2
North US 601 (Concord Highway)42.0 0 4.6 3.3
South US 601 (Pageland Highway)48.3 0 4.5 2.9
NC 200 North (Morgan Mill Road)43.2 0 4.7 3.9
NC 218 (Fairview Road)42.9 0 4.9 4.2
Stallings Road-Potter Road 36.9 0 4.2 3.9
Weddington-Matthews Road 44.3 0 4.2 3.4
Table 4.1: Summary of Existing (2012) Conditions on major roadways
note: QLOS is based on the Florida Department of Transportation Multimodal Level of Service Assessment (2009).
QLOS values reflect active design conditions and provisions for on-road multimodal elements.
CHAPTER 4: Multimodal Recommendations Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 4-9
Road Name
Ro
a
d
w
a
y
(a
v
g
.
sp
e
e
d
,
mp
h
(Q
L
O
S
)
Tr
a
n
s
i
t
(h
i
g
h
e
r
is
be
t
t
e
r
)
(Q
L
O
S
)
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
(l
o
w
e
r
is
be
t
t
e
r
)
(Q
L
O
S
)
Cy
c
l
i
s
t
(l
o
w
e
r
is
be
t
t
e
r
)

(Q
L
O
S
)
US 74 West (East Independence Boulevard/Andrew Jackson Highway/W. Roosevelt
Boulevard) / Old Monroe Road- Old Charlotte Highway Corridor17.91.67.0 4.9
US 74 East (Monroe Street/E. Roosevelt Boulevard)45.505.54.7
NC 16 (Providence Road)38.103.93.7
Waxhaw-Indian Trail Road20.405.44.7
NC 75 (Waxhaw Highway) / NC 200 South (Lancaster Highway) Corridor27.0
42.004.5
5.0
4.6
4.2
NC 207 (S. Hayne Street/Wolf Pond Road)39.103.63.2
North US 601 (Concord Highway)42.004.63.3
South US 601 (Pageland Highway)48.304.52.9
NC 200 North (Morgan Mill Road)43.204.73.9
NC 218 (Fairview Road)42.904.94.2
Stallings Road-Potter Road36.904.23.9
Weddington-Matthews Road44.304.23.4
ReCOMMenDATIOns FOR BICyCle & PeDesTRIAn
Our recommendations for bicycle and pedestrian modes of travel can comfortably fall within four categories: off-road, on-
road, policy/program, and short connections (generally centered around the activity centers identified in the land use plan
(Comp Plan) as well as through bicycle and pedestrian crash location studies). The following maps illustrate the location and
type of improvements that are recommended to facilitate active modes of travel.
Figure 4-1
Union County 2040
Off-Road Pedestrian and Bicycle Recommendations
4-10 : UNION COUNTY
Figure 4-2
Union County 2040
On-Road Pedestrian Recommendations
Figure 4-3
Union County 2040
On-Road Bicycle Recommendations
note: The 3’ and 5’ shoulder
recommendations are not
dedicated pedestrian facilities.
However, they most likely will
be used as such.
CHAPTER 4: Multimodal Recommendations Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 4-11
• Off-Road Recommendations. This plan is not a
surrogate for the updated Greenways Master Plan being
conducted at the time of this writing, but certainly
the prospect of implementing the Carolina Thread Trail
(CTT) is foremost among the off-road pedestrian and
bicycle objectives. Elements of the trail, along with its
connections, traverse the county east-west, and parallel
the US 74 corridor. Providing an alternative to on-road
facilities is critical, since many trip ends lie within it, but
are poorly accommodative of pedestrian and bicycle
travel due to high volumes and truck traffic. Additional
connections to this trail linking residential areas and
other, planned greenways and on-road connections are
also critical. Other elements of the off-road system will
primarily be relative short, and link important destinations
within each town. These are suggested by the mapping
of projects, but it is fully anticipated that new/modified
facility recommendations will occur as a result of the
Greenways Master Plan update.
• On-Road Recommendations. With the interest in
complete streets reaching a high point in recent years,
a renewed emphasis in accommodating pedestrian
and bicycle travel (as well as public transportation) on
major streets has occurred. This Plan makes specific
recommendations for every street where a proposed
widening or other improvement is being recommended;
both pedestrian and bicycle recommendations are
specified for each roadway segment. One important
separator for Union County is the remarkably small
number of driveways along many major and minor
arterials. Union County’s growth pattern and timing is
such that major subdivisions were the norm, typically
with no interconnection and with only one or two
ingress/egress points to the surrounding street system.
This situation creates an important opportunity for
creating adjacent sidepaths. Sidepaths, typically 10’ to
14’ in width, are essentially paved greenways set off
from the major roadway by at least 10 feet (and that
deviate back toward an intersection when necessary
to cross a perpendicular street; refer to Figure 7). A
number of our recommendations are for sidepaths,
creating a network of off-road facilities that can connect
to greenways and promote novice or youthful bicycle
and pedestrian travelers. This recommendation comes
with the caveat that Union County and its municipal
governments exercise strict access management
controls along the roadways where these sidepaths are
to occur; otherwise the conflicts between sidepaths and
intersecting streets become serious.
• short Connections. The final category of bicycle and
pedestrian recommendations are focused on activity
centers of bicycle and pedestrian crashes and nearby
schools. These recommendations are typically low-cost,
and provide connections between existing and proposed
facilities and schools or residential neighborhoods.
In some instances, intersection crossing treatments
are specified, some of which will require redesign/
reconstruction of roadway intersections to make them
safer for all users.
Figure 4-4: Sidepath crossings at street intersection
4-12 : UNION COUNTY
ReCOMMenDATIOns FOR PUBlIC
TRAnsPORTATIOn
The role of public transportation is, for the vast majority
of people in Union County, relatively small now. Only one
regular, fixed-route service enters into the County, connecting
Charlotte with the northwest side of Monroe. However, the
role of transit in the future may be much larger, owing to the
dominance of a single corridor (US 74/Old Monroe Road),
the high rate of growth of many parts of the County, and the
strong travel patterns linking Union and Mecklenburg counties
together. The following recommendations recognize a fairly
modest set of improvements given the long-term horizon of
this Plan, but are considered to be feasible given the current
starting point of public transportation in the County generally.
Recommendations are broken out into two phases, short-
term addressing the first ten years after plan adoption, and
long-term recommendations that would occur thereafter.
• Phase I: Short-Term Transit Recommendations.
The initial impetus for public transportation is the US
74 corridor, and enhancing the 74X express route with
improved headways and weekend services are logical
next steps. Also within a short-term horizon, the route
should be extended into downtown Monroe itself, setting
up for a longer route to the east in the second phase of
development.
• Phase II: Long-Term Transit Recommendations.
As the County continues to see increased densities of
development, particularly in the land use high-activity
nodes, additional services should be considered. A
circulator system in Monroe and the creation of a
downtown transit hub is recommended, preferably
with 30-minute headways on the circulator system. The
extension of the US 74X route to at least Wingate to the
east is also recommended, along with the creation of a
fourth park-and-ride location. The other area of moderate
density is Waxhaw and the Providence Road corridor
extending out of Charlotte. Ultimately, this second phase
of transit development would see the 61X express route
extending into Waxhaw on NC 16, a suitable station/
park-and-ride facility developed in-town, and either route-
deviated service or a companion circulator service to
cover the areas of Waxhaw where lower car ownership
rates might provide a market for transit services.
CHAPTER 4: Multimodal Recommendations Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 4-13
Figure 4-5
Union County
Official Transit Map - Phase 1
Figure 4-6
Union County
Phase 1 Recommendations Household Concentration
4-14 : UNION COUNTY
Figure 4-7
Union County
Official Transit Map - Phase 2
Figure 4-8
Union County 2040
Phase 2 Recommendations Household Concentration
CHAPTER 4: Multimodal Recommendations Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 4-15
The role of technology throughout the life of both phases
of transit development should not be overlooked. Traveler
information systems, including route pick-up data are
important additions that would have to be made at the
system and stop levels. These systems may create a
renaissance for route-deviated services, whereby a standard
bus vehicle is notified of a pick-up and can make small
detours as needed to accommodate passengers. The
explosion of alternative, customer-oriented transportation
services that allow on-demand renting from public and
private entrepreneurs has occurred in just the past few years,
and holds promise for low-density areas that pervade much
of Union County. Finally, the concept of urban intersection
bypassing, whether through queue-jump lanes that allow
buses to bypass other vehicles at intersections or with
transponder/receiver technology that “trips” a green signal for
an approaching bus (a side benefit is that these systems can
and are being used for emergency response vehicles as well
as buses), may be an important first-step in the US 74 corridor
particularly to emphasize the importance of bus travel.
Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 5-1CHAPTER 5: Complete Streets Design
“Complete streets” is a term that describes the transformation of
vehicle-dominated thoroughfares to community-oriented streets
with safe, convenient accommodations for all modes of travel. They
are designed to be accessible to all types of transportation and,
essentially, provide choice. There has been a tectonic shift in the
United States from traditional automobile-dominated roadway design
to the idea of “completing” streets. Complete Streets incorporate
infrastructure into roadway design to move not only cars but also
people walking, bicycling and using public transportation.
Complete streets Design
5-2 : UNION COUNTY
settiNG tHe coNtext
A Complete Streets (CS) policy creates a platform for
planners and designers to consider and incorporate all modes
of transportation into the planning and building of new
projects as well as into retrofitting of existing infrastructure.
Aspects of a typical Complete Streets policy include ensuring
the right-of-way is planned, designed, constructed, operated,
and maintained to provide safe, comfortable, and convenient
access for all users. The North Carolina Department of
Transportation has adopted such a policy, and produced a
companion design guide to help communities articulate the
needs of their communities and the streets where they travel.
Members of the public pointed to speeding motorists, unsafe
and unpleasant conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists, and
the lack of transit amenities as reason the Complete Streets
approach is needed.
The ideal complete street accommodates every travel mode
– pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders of all
ages and abilities. However, in many cases, Complete Street
applications are limited by existing right-of-way or design
constraints. Therefore, trade-offs need to be assessed to
determine the best approach to implementation on each
street segment. This is most important when an improvement
is made to an existing facility (i.e., widening or retrofit) where
residents and businesses have already claimed their space,
making future capacity expansions generally expensive and
unpopular options.
Complete streets include three distinct street zones that foster interaction
between different modes of travel and adjacent land uses. The three basic
context zones are the pedestrian, travelway, and building zones. Together
these zones or realms define the space where interaction between modes
and the built environment occur.
Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 5-3CHAPTER 5: Complete Streets Design
5-4 : UNION COUNTY
Two-Lane Roadways. Two-lane roads are
commonplace throughout Union County, and can
typically handle 12,000 to 16,000 vehicles per day (vpd)
under ideal conditions. A great variety of these streets
exist, with the urban version (right) illustrating how wide
sidewalks and on-street parking accommodate a range
of users. Other variations are shown on the left, with
the rural road improvement at bottom-left indicating
how the many miles of rural, two-lane roads can be
made safer and accommodate users at the edge of the
roadway. Right-of-way requirements typically range from
60’ to 72’ across.
coMpLete street DesiGN
eLeMeNts
As the Project Team reviewed the demands being placed on
each street now and in the future, considered the contexts
of future development patterns, and assessed available
resources and importance of various improvements, the
streets were assigned one of the following cross-sections.
A cross-section describes how the street should look in
the future under ideal circumstances, including provisions
for parking, walking, biking and locating transit facilities.
Ultimate cross section details will be determined at the time
of final design.
The cross-sections listed on the following pages are
described in these terms; key design elements for
incorporating other modes of travel into complete streets
are also discussed in more detail.

Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 5-5CHAPTER 5: Complete Streets Design
Four-Lane Roadways. The four-lane roadway serves longer travel distances, and is
particularly valuable to frieght shippers due to higher speed limits and greater reliability. The
much-preferred version contains a median (bottom) to help limit conflict points, reduce crash
rates, and create opportunities for landscaping and lighting as shown here. The undivided
four-lane cross-sectin (top-left) will typically serve slower traffic and be located in urbanized
areas where right-of-way is at a premium. Even with these higher-speed facilities, it is still very
possible to create beautiful and pedestrian-friendly four-lane roadways. Typical right-of-way
widths are approximately 100’ from edge to edge.
5-6 : UNION COUNTY
Five- and six-Lane Roadways. Streets with more than four lanes either serve
commercial areas (top-left) with a center turn lane, or provide major through capacity at
something less than freeway speeds (six-lane section at bottom). While provisions for
bicyclsts and pedestrian are still recommended, the walking and biking environments
become more strained especially as people attempt to cross heavy, high-speed traffic.
Greater setbacks from sidewalks and even paths away from the road corridor altogether
may be necessary to adequately serve these users. Rights-of-way widths may range from
just under 100’ to over 120’.
Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 5-7CHAPTER 5: Complete Streets Design
Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel
These are two distinct modes of travel, often lumped
together for the sake of convenience but embodying different
characteristics of maneuverability, skills, and mobility. Safe
cycling has to include travel along streets, since automobile
conflicts happen at the confluence of sidewalks with
driveways or street crossings. Further, cycling improvements
almost invariably provide improved roadway conditions,
thanks to providing wider edge treatments that allow safer
recovery areas or emergency zones for cars. Pedestrian
accommodations are typically off the edge of the roadway
well behind the curb or ditch lines, and accommodating
pedestrians at street crossings can mean longer signal
delay in urban areas to permit safer crossings, or slowing
automobile turns through smaller corner radii. The following
are some of the key elements to better integrate bicycle and
pedestrian design in the pursuit of complete streets, broken
out into three categories: along the street, across the street,
and parking.
Along the street. Bicycling facilities have to be carefully
tailored to their environments; Figure 1 illustrates some
– although not all – of the design decisions that lead to
different kinds of facilities to serve different kinds of cyclists.
Variations on the facilities described in this figure include
separated bicycle lanes, cycle tracks, and bicycle boulevards
(to name a few). Parallel paths can also be designed to
accommodate cyclists and pedestrians together, but should
be at least 10’ to 12’ in width to help separate the two kinds
of traveler. More common are sidewalks, typically 5’ in width
but expanding to 8’ or greater in downtown or heavily-traveled
areas where pedestrians congregate and interact, often in
tandem with pedestrian-oriented business activity. Bicycle
boxes and stencils indicating the most favorable position for
triggering signal detection equipment are helpful to cyclists
and serve as reminders to motorists that bicycles may be
present in the roadway.
Figure 5-1: Bicycle Facility Selection Considerations
5-8 : UNION COUNTY
greenways and Multi-Use Paths. When streets become too wide, too congested, or have speeds that are too
high, then a separated path is recommended. Greenways provide even novice bicyclists and children with an opportunity
to access important destinations and get some outside recreation. Major “trunk” greenways may have totally separate
spaces for pedestrians and bicyclists (right) using 14’ or more of paved width; more common are 10’ – 12’ greenways that
utilize careful design, pavement markings, and other treatments to create off-road corridors. Landscaping, seating, trash
receptacles, lighting, and pet stations – as well as continuous maintenance – are paramount to creating a successful
greenway facility. Rights-of-way will need to include a minimum 2’ “clear zone” on either side of the main passageway.
Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 5-9CHAPTER 5: Complete Streets Design
Across the street.
Getting pedestrians (and bicyclists) across the street is perhaps the most crucial element
of street design. Pedestrian and bicycle accessibility in urban cores and along transit routes
is a great influencer of the success of public transportation as well as creating livable areas
in our cities and towns, accommodating lower-income persons without ready access to
private automobiles, and generally creating a supportive business environment that attracts
visitors as well as new companies. The figure below (Figure 2) illustrates some of the key
provisions for pedestrian crossings and their usage. Generally, as the population density,
proximity to schools or other places where children congregate, and vehicle volumes
increase, the level of provisions increases similarly.
How
iMportANt is
wALKAbiLitY
to peopLe?
Here are a few
headlines from some
diverse sources that
tell us how critical
walking and biking are
to attracting talent,
companies, retiriees,
and tourists
15 most Walkable
Cities
(Good Housekeeping)
The Best Us Cities
for Walkers
(Prevention Magazine)
The 10 Most
Walkable Cities
(Huffington Post)
10 Most Walkable
Cities for Retirees
(MarketWatch)
America’s Most
Walkable Cities
(Forbes)
America’s Most
Walkable Big Cities
(MSN Real Estate)
20 Top
Walkable Cities
(Ideal Living Magazine)
The Future’s Most
Walkable Cities:
Prepare to be
surprised
(Time Magazine)
Parking Considerations.
Parking for bicycles should be
included in every municipal and
county ordinance for shopping,
school, and multifamily
residential development
districts (over 50 units),
generally at the rate of one,
two-position rack for every
20 students or automobile
spaces. The bicycle parking
facilities should be within 50-
100 feet of the main entrance,
covered from the weather,
well-lit, and be secured to the
ground considering the space
requirements illustrated in
Figure 3.
Figure 5-3: Bicycle Parking Lot
Figure 5-2: Crossing Provisions and Considerations
5-10 : UNION COUNTY
Parking areas are where all motorists become pedestrians.
Having well-lit, secure parking with uniform lighting across a
parking area and more intense, non-glare lighting at cleared
building entranceways provides a safer medium for walking.
Parking areas are often designed very poorly, encouraging the
majority of traffic to pass directly in front of a storefront, for
example. Ordinances requiring at least 50% of all parking to
be in side or rear areas will help improve the appearance of
commercial developments, but also encourage developers to
invest more in the rear of their properties – which often front
the yards of concerned residents. Figure 4 illustrates some of
the key points in parking lot design.
Access MANAGeMeNt DesiGN
eLeMeNts
Managing Access and Resources. It is unlikely that
almost anyone today would consider raising revenues
through increased taxation a wise course of action without
considering every possible alternative. And yet if public
policies don’t contemplate how streets and cities can
grow in ways that consume roadway capacity, increase
traveler delays, create more hazardous driving conditions,
and require more frequent widening projects, new streets
and maintenance then finding the money to pay for these
costs is inevitable. Although a detailed discussion of
access management is beyond the necessary scope of this
document, the following elements are consistently the most
important when considering how best to manage street
access, preserve capacity and reduce dangerous and costly
crashes.
street Hierarchy. The overarching concept behind access
management is creating and maintaining a strong hierarchy of
street types that serve their purposes and users well. Streets
do only two things to provide transportation service: mobility
and accessibility. Mobility makes for better long-distance
travel, useful for commuters going into Charlotte, farmers
taking their produce to marketplaces, and freight shippers
trying to reach airports, distribution centers, or retail outlets.
Accessibility creates land value: where accessibility is high,
land rents are also typically high, such as at the confluence of
an interchange ramp or gridded street system in a downtown
core. Problems occur when streets designed for one purpose
become desirable for the other purpose. We see this happen
as major arterials (like US 74) attract “strip” commercial
development, or where conventional subdivisions have
only one access point. Access management is really about
keeping streets in their hierarchical place so that they can
continue to serve their purposes optimally.

The relationship between mobility and accessibility
Figure 5-4: Parking Area Design Considerations
Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 5-11CHAPTER 5: Complete Streets Design
Driveway and street Intersection Density. The number
of driveways and street intersections severely impacts the
mobility of those traveling along the street. As the number of
driveways increases, so do the number of “conflict points,”
the places where the travel paths of vehicles intersect. With
more points of conflict, there are more potential crashes as
well. Freeways, which provide excellent mobility, also have
the fewest conflict points – and the fewest crashes per
vehicle mile traveled. Providing a center median that either
entirely or partially prohibits turning movements except at a
few key locations is the single best provision for managing
access and reducing conflict points; however, this measure
is best taken before development occurs since adjacent
property owners typically oppose any reduction of access to
their own property, even though it may make travel easier and
safer for them and their customers.
Driveway and street Intersection spacing Almost as
important as the number of intersections along a street is
their distance apart from each other. Obviously, as spacing
increases between driveways, the number of driveways (or
street intersections) decreases. But more than that, when
driveway cuts are close together the potential for conflicts
increases as drivers attempt to deal with what military
strategists call “multiple threats.” Generally, people that
drive (or ride a bicycle or walk) can deal with one issue at
a time, but when there are multiple turning vehicles and
others coming from behind and ahead of the driver, their
ability to negotiate the space declines. Refer to Figure 5 for
recommended spacing standards (note: these standards may
be slightly different from and more aggressive than those
used by NCDOT).
Figure 5-5: Driveway Spacing Standards
5-12 : UNION COUNTY
Driveway and street Intersection Design. Even away
from the roadway, it is important to consider the design of
our spaces, particularly parking areas and how corner design
impacts turning speeds. The smaller the corner radius, the
slower the travel speeds moving through the intersection.
These slower speeds translate into more visibility and
lower speeds at impact in the event of a crash (note that
slower turning speeds can also translate into more rear-end
collisions, although the severity of these seldom outweighs
the benefits of reducing head-on or angle collisions). Similarly,
when driving areas share cross-access, the necessity of
traveling into the street is reduced for some customers; we
speak of the result as “internal capture” among compatible
land uses, and it is much sought-after by traffic engineers and
developers alike to reduce conflicts, crashes, and traveler
delays. Roundabouts are also becoming more popular as
ways of reducing crashes (between 40% and 60% compared
to conventional STOP- or signal-controlled intersections) and
improving air quality.
Connectivity and Other strategies. Even when we have
situations where there are already too many dirveways
too close together and designed poorly, there are still
opportunities to alleviate roadway congestion, reduce crashes
and their severity, and generally improve travel conditions for
everyone. One important solution is requiring connectivity
between different developments, either through the cross-
access between parking areas mentioned earlier, or through a
system of frontage or “backage” streets that create pathways
for residents to reach shopping, work, and transit options. A
typical connectivity standard for new residential development
is to have a full connection every 1,500 feet; any longer or
shorter and performance for at least one mode of travel is
compromised. These connectivity standards are typically
applied during the site development stage, but should be
supplemented with a collector street plan that specifies the
general location, path and design of a network of collector
streets across Union County. Other strategies include
various enforcement techniques, improving sight distances,
modifying signals or turning lanes, supplemental driver
education programs, bicycle and pedestrian safety education
programs, and general awareness campaigns. One of the
latter that is targeted at the most vulnerable road users is the
Watch for Me NC campaign being conducted now by the
N.C. Department of Transportation.
*nCDOT may adhere to 100’ minimum
Site Activity Throat Lengths
Regional shopping Centers
(Malls)250’
Community shopping Center
(supermarket, Drug store)100’
small strip shopping Center 30’*
Regional Office Complex 250’
Office Center 100’
small Commercial Developments 30’*
Figure 5-6: Throat Length Standards
Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 5-13CHAPTER 5: Complete Streets Design
pUbLic trANsportAtioN DesiGN
eLeMeNts
Traditional public transportation for the past 50 to 60 years
has nearly always meant providing bus service along a fixed
route on a regular schedule. Improving this service can
happen in many ways, described in the hierarchy of service
provisions in Figure 7. As this figure indicates, the popular
conception of bus-oriented transit service is just one “stop”
along a continuum of services that increases in complexity,
cost and sensitivity to both good design and the number of
potential riders.

Provide on-demand service for medically eligible customers
Provide on-demand service for all customers
Bus Service on one-hour headways on weekdays
Increase service headways to 30 minutes in peak periods
Add weekend service
Provide traveler information (time of arrival) at major stops
Create Internet-based traveler information system
Create signal pre-emption and queue bypass lanes
Place some routes on dedicated lanes
Create bus rapid transit on dedicated lanes
Provide light rail service
Provide commuter rail service
On-D
eMA
nD
FI
xe
D-
R
O
U
T
e
TeCH
nOlOgy
gUI
D
eWA
y
POPULATIOn DensITY, TRAnsIT-FRIenDLY DesIgn, AnD COsT
Figure 5-7: Driveway Spacing Standards
5-14 : UNION COUNTY
The design of bus stops indicates if the service will attract
new riders, even those that may have the choice of using
the service occasionally or riding in a car (Figure 8). Bus
stops should generally be located on the “far side” of an
intersection so that people can cross on foot to the stop
quickly, and the bus driver can wait for the signal to provide
a gap to re-enter the traffic stream. Depending on the bus
operator policy, transit stops should be provided with a sitting
area, covered shelter with transparent sides, and a waste
receptacle. Many stops should also have provisions for
securing bicycles, particularly when the stop is near a campus
or bicycle facility (e.g., bike lane). In every case, transit
stops and particularly park-and-ride areas should be well-
lit, clean, and connected with pedestrian facilities (usually
sidewalks). Requiring private developers of major shopping,
office, and multi-family projects to provide space for transit
facilities and adequate room for bus turn-around maneuvers is
important – just as with adding roadway capacity and access
management, retrofitting is much harder to accomplish than
having the right policies in place when public and private
infrastructure is designed and approved.
Figure 5-8: Ideal Transit Stop Design (Major Stop)
Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 5-15CHAPTER 5: Complete Streets Design
Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 6-1CHAPTER 6: Action Plan & Initiatives
The purpose of this document is to provide a context for understanding
the transportation issues confronting Union County; recommendations
to resolve those issues; and, in this section, create some insight
into the actions that will be required to make the objectives and
recommendations from the study a future reality. This section will
address the implementation context as it currently exists nationwide
and within North Carolina and Union County; a matrix of action planning
steps that include the recommended project and policy initiatives from
this report as well as complimentary programmatic and policy actions;
and primary and secondary financing opportunities.
Action Plan & Initiatives
6-2 : UNION COUNTY
iNtroDUctioN
At the time of this plan’s preparation and adoption, a number
of factors that have been traditionally counted upon to drive
how transportation improvements are selected, financed,
and implemented are undergoing tectonic shifts, the most
important of which are described below. These changes will
substantially influence in the short- and mid-terms how Union
County approaches project prioritization and, perhaps, the
roles of local government and the private sector with respect
to transportation infrastructure and service provision.
Perhaps the largest overall change in transportation
implementation is coming from the state level. First, financing
from state and federal (via state allocations) are undergoing
monumental shifts from where they have stood for the
past two decades. Funding allocations from North Carolina
are now divided into statewide, regional and divisional
categories of spending. In effect, these subcategories of
spending, coupled with other legal and policy requirements,
translate into fewer dollars being eligible for expenditures
on local roads – generally any roadway without a federal or
state route designation. Second, NCDOT has undergone a
massive change in the way that it selects projects for funding,
now relying on local inputs, but also based on technical
performance areas (e.g., safety,
economics). Much of the “local” input does not come
directly from local governments like Union County or its
municipalities, but instead is channeled through NCDOT
Division offices and metropolitan/rural planning organizations.

The federal government, as it has continued to do over the
past two decades, is wrestling with the dilemma of shrinking
revenues from fuel taxes, as well as how to apportion those
revenues fairly among the 50 states. While there is not a
set course charted out as yet, discussions of congestion
taxes – taxes applied directly to vehicle users rather than
through the purchase of fuels for those vehicles – are getting
renewed interest, as one example. Declines in expected
revenues have forced the federal government to issue
rescissions to the states, essentially “taking back” funds
already allocated based upon too-optimistic revenue pictures.
Besides the major debate on transportation funding, the
other two changes in the federal implementation process
are (a) an increased reliance on performance-based metrics
to identify the best projects for funding (best represented
by North Carolina’s own increased reliance on performance-
based funding); and (b) a consolidation of multiple funding
categories into fewer categories, which has changed how
some programs like Safe Routes to School are likely to
operate in coming years.
Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 6-3CHAPTER 6: Action Plan & Initiatives
How do these changes at the state and federal levels
influence how we approach implementing transportation
projects in Union County? While we cannot say with
certainty how these and other policy changes will influence
our thinking, there are a number of concepts that this Plan
respected as it was being prepared, and that influence our
implementation strategies:
• local Control. North Carolina has a made several moves
towards pushing responsibility of secondary roads
downward to counties and municipalities. This shift will
ultimately translate into Union County desiring to work
more closely with NCDOT Division and District offices
to accomplish work collaboratively, including (perhaps)
county and municipal funds being used by the State to
improve and maintain roadways.
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel less a Factor at the
state level. North Carolina passed legislation in 2013
that does not allow state monies to be used as a match
to federal funds for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Even
more than secondary roadway capacity, new active mode
projects will now be required to have a non-state funding
partner. However, public awareness of the health issues
that envelope a sedentary lifestyle like those depicted in
the graphic on this page have started to make positive
changes in our people: in 2013, for the first time in many
years, one age segment of children (aged 2 to 5 years) is
not more obese than their predecessors3.
• Performance + Collaboration. As long as the current
performance-based system for project selection
continues, Union County will have to play the same
tune as it thinks about backing its own transportation
priorities – if it wants to receive state/federal funding
for transportation improvements. Union County did
receive top ten status for two projects in the available
(May 2014) performance evaluation, one of which is the
Monroe Northern Loop. Since both the technical merits
and inputs of the Charlotte Regional Transportation
Planning Organization (CRTPO) and NC Division 10
office are relevant to these rankings, maintaining a close
relationship with both entities is highly advisable.

• local Financing on the Ascendant. Whether through
general bond issuances, sales taxes, property taxes or
some other means, it is highly likely that the fastest-
growing counties and cities in North Carolina will have
to come to the table with additional ways of financing
transportation projects. That promises to be a potentially
painful discussion, but – along with a relaxation of state
rules that prohibit certain types of revenue mechanisms
being used at the local level without state authorization –
one that is almost certainly going to take place if current
devolution trends continue.

A final point should be included before leaving this
introduction to implementation: things inevitably change. The
fact that there are relatively few examples of local funding
for major transportation initiatives is more a reflection of
the history of North Carolina’s peculiar funding policies than
a harbinger of how the future will unfold (and examples of
local financial participation, at least on the municipal side of
the ledger, are becoming more commonplace). The current
state of policy is just one consideration in how we craft our
recommendations, but we did not rely on the current state of
affairs to dictate our decision-making.
3Sources: Center for Disease Control (Childhood Obesity Facts, www.cdc.com); New York Times (Sabrina Tavernise, Obesity Rate for
Young Children Plummets 43% in a Decade, February 25, 2014); and Harvard School of Public Health (Child Obesity: Too Many Kids
are Too Heavy, Too Young, www.hsph.harvard.edu).
In the 1970’s, 5% of children
aged 2-19 were obese. By 2008
that number had tripled to 17%.
During the same period (1969
to 2009), the percent of children
walking to school dropped from
48% to 13%.
6-4 : UNION COUNTY
FUNDiNG soUrces AND
opportUNities
As mentioned previously, funding sources are a continuous
topic of discussion, and one that frequently changes. The
following describe how different funding mechanisms can be
considered, particularly in light of both current policies and
this Plan’s recommendations.
state/Federal Funding. These two sources are frequently
“lumped” together since they are both ultimately apportioned
through the State. Federal influences are still felt through the
state-level apportionment process, perhaps most strongly on
public transportation projects. There are some opportunities
for increasing transit service for the mid-and-term projects
described in the recommendations, particularly through Job
Access – Reverse Commute and New Freedom formula
programs (although there is a 20% match, and these grant-
type sources don’t extend very far into operations). All state
and federal funds practically speaking are now subject to the
Strategic Transportation Investment prioritization system,
which is updated periodically. Hence, considering which
projects have the best scoring potential may be an important
consideration as discussions move forward to encompass
more detailed planning.
local government Funding. Although localities do have
restrictions on adopting “new” funding tools that aren’t
already authorized by North Carolina (or where they
have obtained enabling authority from the State in the
past), the role of local governments, even counties that
have traditionally played a small or non-existent role in
transportation infrastructure investment or maintenance,
is on the upswing in North Carolina. As mentioned earlier,
local funding will likely take the place of some formerly state
matches on federal dollars, particularly for pedestrian and
bicycle infrastructure projects. Independent bond efforts,
as well as property and sales taxes, are going to be closely
scrutinized as sources that may increase in importance over
the life of this Plan.
Private sector Participation. One of the historic issues
with the way that North Carolina has struggled to provide
roadway capacity is the disjointedness between the bodies
that approve the development that creates demand for
transportation services (municipalities and counties) and the
entity that owns and maintains three-fourths of the roadway
network (state). In order to better link private actions with
public need, we should expect to see a greater reliance
on plan reviews that generate impact statements, which
in turn can impose requirements or restrictions on private
actions that generate traffic. The desire to lure more private
investment – and thus higher property tax revenues – has
kept impact fees and contingent development standards in
check, but as the need for more and better infrastructure
grows without a concurrent increase in federal and state
revenues to create more supply, the pressure will increase
on the private sector to participate more directly and earlier
in the development cycle. Public-private partnerships (PPPs)
have become more commonplace in recent years, taking
a variety of forms from right-of-way dedications to utility
agreements to full-scale construction of interchanges and
sections of arterial roadway.
With the preceding review of revenue sources, trends and
background context in mind, the discussion of prioritizing and
implementing the major recommendations contained in this
Plan is possible.
Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 6-5CHAPTER 6: Action Plan & Initiatives
priorities AND ActioN pLAN
Given the recommendations contained in this Plan as well
as the current and anticipated future policy contexts at the
federal, state, and local government levels, the following
action plan was developed.
The priority factors listed in the following table (Table 6.1)
were used to choose which projects to pursue as top
priorities (balanced by cost and constructability):
Utilizing these priority factors, many of which are represented
in the current version of the North Carolina DOT project
priority system as well, the following tables present
information on roadway, public transportation and bicycle-
pedestrian facility and program recommendations.
The “Term” in each table describes short-, middle-, and long-
term implementation timeframes:
• short-Term: Within the next five to seven years (many
policy-level actions are possible in this timeframe, as are
some small-scale, low capital cost projects);
• Middle-Term: Between 8 and 20 years from now, these
projects could be financed through state/federal sources
in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); and
• Long-Term: After 20 years, these higher capital
cost projects could be financed, particularly through
participation from non state/federal partners or should
future growth place sufficient pressure for these
projects to score well in future project priority exercises
conducted to determine projects for state and federal
funding in the TIP.
Roadways Bicycle Pedestrian Public Transportation
Volume-to-Capacity Ratios
(Forecasted)Distance to ES or MS Distance to ES or MS Existing Population + Employment Density
Quality-of-Service
Assessment System Connectivity System Connectivity Future Population + Employment Density
Public Input “Fixable” Crash History “Fixable” Crash History System Connectivity/Enhancement
Minority Population Minority Population Low-Income Population
Supportive Land Use
Patterns Supportive Land Use Patterns
Table 6.1- Transportation Project Priority Factors
While the Hotspot locations are all short-term
recommendations, they have been included here to provide
approximate cost information and to ensure that future
funding be allocated to these projects on equal footing with
other short-term recommendations.

6-6 : UNION COUNTY
Project/Policy Description Term Capital Cost
County-Wide Hotspot
Safety Study
In order to evaluate which locations are in need of hotspot
safety improvements, this study, to be performed by a
consultant, will provide the requisite detail with regard to costs
and benefits for each location.
Short-Term $75,000
Weddington Road/Antioch
Church Road Intersection
Improvements
In order to provide an increased safety benefit and improve
traffic operations at a skewed intersection close to a major
shopping area, this hotspot treatment recommends replacing
the traditional intersection with a roundabout. Additionally, this
roundabout would provide easy access to a developable parcel
south of the intersection.
Short-Term $750,000
US 74/N. Rocky River
Road Intersection
Improvements
US 74/Independence Boulevard in Union County is one of
the major transportation corridors in the region and serves
as an important mobility corridor between Union County and
Uptown Charlotte. Assigned the project number SP-2012-35,
this project has been vetted with NCDOT and programmed for
funding.
Short-Term $1,000,000
Old Charlotte Highway/
MLK Jr. Drive/Dickerson
Boulevard Widening
Enhancements
These improvements target a section of Dickerson Blvd. south
of US 74 that transitions from rural road to a suburban corridor
with major retail amenities on both sides. In order to create a
smoother transition between the 2-lane and 5-lane sections,
these improvements widen the roadway to accommodate two
lanes in the southbound section as well as in the northbound
section closer to the railroad crossing.
Short-Term $1,200,000
Highway 218/Mill Grove
Road Intersection
Improvements
NC 218 and Mill Grove Road are rural, relatively high-speed
roads that provide east-west and north-south mobility in
northwestern Union County. In lieu of the safety flashing
warning signals currently in place along NC 218, this hotspot
treatment calls for the installation of a roundabout, which will
substantially improve safety at this location.
Short-Term $600,000
Lancaster Highway/Rocky
River Road Intersection
Improvements
Improvements at this location are not only restricted to
implementing a roundabout, but also mandate realigning
Parkwood School Road, which will help avoid issues related
to having two intersections in such close proximity to one
another. In addition to improving safety, these improvements
will facilitate easier traffic flows along both corridors.
Short-Term $750,000
US 74 (W. Roosevelt
Boulevard/Morgan
Mill Road Intersection
Improvements
As US 74 carries the most traffic in Union County, these
improvements are designed to facilitate smoother traffic
movements along the corridor as well as improve safety.
This hotspot recommendation provides an additional left turn
lane on the western leg of US 74, an additional right turn lane
on Morgan Mill after the intersection going northward, and
also calls for additional sidewalk construction and driveway
consolidation.
Short-Term $1,100,000
Table 6.2- Hotspot Locations
Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 6-7CHAPTER 6: Action Plan & Initiatives
Project/Policy Description Term Capital
Cost
Us 74 (Roosevelt
Boulevard)
This corridor is the most heavily traveled corridor in Union County and is recommended
for improvement through access management and operational improvement strategies
as well as the provision of a sidepath. Sidewalks are recommended along US 74 within
the city limits of Monroe. A small portion of this roadway is programmed for access
management improvement through TIP Number R-3329, the Monroe Bypass.
Short $ 40,600,000
nC 16 (Providence
Road)
NC 16 provides an important connection between Mecklenburg County and Waxhaw in
the western portion of Union County. This roadway is recommended for improvement
through both access management and operational improvement strategies and the
provision of a sidepath along the corridor.
Short $ 57,600,000
Waxhaw-Indian
Trail Road
Waxhaw-Indian Trail Road is an important north-south connector from US 74 to
Waxhaw is recommended for widening from a 2-lane section to a 4-lane section.
Other improvements to this corridor include the implementation of 5’ shoulders and
sidewalks on both sides.
Middle $ 87,400,000
nC 75 (Waxhaw
Highway)
NC 75 is an important connector between Waxhaw with Monroe and is proposed for
improvement by widening between from a 2-lane to 4-lane section and providing a
sidepath along the corridor.
Middle $ 104,300,000
nC 84 (Weddington
Road)
NC 84 is an east-west route in the rapidly suburbanizing area of western Union County
spanning from the Town of Marvin east through Wesley Chapel to Monroe. This
roadway is proposed for widening from a 2-lane to 4-lane section with a sidepath from
Rea Road Extension (4-lane section on new location) to West Franklin Street in Monroe
Middle $ 93,700,000
nC 200 south
(Lancaster
Highway)
NC 200 spans all of Union County, reaching from Stanly County in the north to the
South Carolina border in the south. This roadway is recommended for improvement
through access management and operational improvement strategies and 5’ shoulders
as well as streetscape improvements including sidewalks along the portions of the
roadway in Monroe.
Middle &
Long $ 11,000,000
nC 207 (s. Hayne
street/Wolf Pond
Road)
NC 207 is another corridor linking Monroe in the north to the South Carolina border
and is proposed for improvement through access management and operational
improvement strategies. The portion within Monroe (S. Hayne Street) should be
improved with sidewalks, while a sidepath is recommended along the Wolf Pond Road
section.
Middle $ 28,900,000
north Us 601
(Concord Highway)
As the name implies, North US 601 reaches from Monroe in the south to Cabarrus
County and Concord in the north. This route is proposed for improvement through
access management and operational improvement strategies and the provision of 3’
shoulders following the Sikes Mill Road split. From US 74 to the Sikes Mill Road split,
the roadway is recommended for widening from a 2-lane section to a 4-lane section
with sidewalks and 3’ shoulders.
Middle $ 31,600,000
south Us 601
(Pageland
Highway)
South US 601 stretches from Monroe southward to the South Carolina border and is
not proposed for improvement at this time.Middle N/A
nC 200 north
(Morgan Mill Road)
NC 200 North stretches from Monroe in a northerly direction and is also proposed for
improvement through access management and operation improvement strategies and
the provision of 5’ shoulders.
Middle $ 4,700,000
nC 218
(Fairview Road)
NC 218 stretches in an east-west direction from Mecklenburg County in the west
to Anson County in the east. With the exception of the easternmost section of
roadway (east of NC 205), this corridor is proposed for improvement through access
management and operation improvement strategies and the provision of 3’ shoulders.
Middle $ 3,000,000
stallings Road/
Potter Road
This section of urbanized roadway provides local access from the Mecklenburg County
border across US 74 to the more suburban areas in the vicinity of the Town of Indian
Trail. The portion north of US 74 is proposed for a widening from a 2-lane section to
4-lane section, while the section south of US 74 is proposed for improvement through
access management and operation improvement strategies. The entire corridor is
proposed to include 5’ sidewalks and 5’ shoulders.
Middle &
Long $ 19,800,000
Weddington-
Matthews Road
This section of roadway spans from the Mecklenburg County border south through
the community of Weddington. This roadway is proposed for improvement through
access management and operation improvement strategies as well as the provision of
sidewalks and buffered bicycle lanes.
Middle $,100,000
new Town Road
New Town Road is a cross-county connecting route, spanning from the town of Marvin
to Rocky River road just west of Monroe. This route is recommended for widening from
a 2-lane to 4-lane section with a sidepath.
Long $ 90,000,000
Old Charlotte
Highway
Running parallel to US 74 just to the south, Old Charlotte Highway provides important
access in an urbanized area of Union County. This roadway is proposed for widening
from a 2-lane to a 4-lane section with a sidepath from the Mecklenburg County border
until Rocky River Road and then wide outside lanes and sidewalks closer to Monroe.
Long $ 82,300,000
Table 6.3- Roadway Priority Actions
Project/PolicyDescriptionTermCapital Cost
County-Wide Hotspot
Safety Study
In order to evaluate which locations are in need of hotspot
safety improvements, this study, to be performed by a
consultant, will provide the requisite detail with regard to costs
and benefits for each location.
Short-Term$75,000
Weddington Road/Antioch
Church Road Intersection
Improvements
In order to provide an increased safety benefit and improve
traffic operations at a skewed intersection close to a major
shopping area, this hotspot treatment recommends replacing
the traditional intersection with a roundabout. Additionally, this
roundabout would provide easy access to a developable parcel
south of the intersection.
Short-Term$750,000
US 74/N. Rocky River
Road Intersection
Improvements
US 74/Independence Boulevard in Union County is one of
the major transportation corridors in the region and serves
as an important mobility corridor between Union County and
Uptown Charlotte. Assigned the project number SP-2012-35,
this project has been vetted with NCDOT and programmed for
funding.
Short-Term$1,000,000
Old Charlotte Highway/
MLK Jr. Drive/Dickerson
Boulevard Widening
Enhancements
These improvements target a section of Dickerson Blvd. south
of US 74 that transitions from rural road to a suburban corridor
with major retail amenities on both sides. In order to create a
smoother transition between the 2-lane and 5-lane sections,
these improvements widen the roadway to accommodate two
lanes in the southbound section as well as in the northbound
section closer to the railroad crossing.
Short-Term $1,200,000
Highway 218/Mill Grove
Road Intersection
Improvements
NC 218 and Mill Grove Road are rural, relatively high-speed
roads that provide east-west and north-south mobility in
northwestern Union County. In lieu of the safety flashing
warning signals currently in place along NC 218, this hotspot
treatment calls for the installation of a roundabout, which will
substantially improve safety at this location.
Short-Term$600,000
Lancaster Highway/Rocky
River Road Intersection
Improvements
Improvements at this location are not only restricted to
implementing a roundabout, but also mandate realigning
Parkwood School Road, which will help avoid issues related
to having two intersections in such close proximity to one
another. In addition to improving safety, these improvements
will facilitate easier traffic flows along both corridors.
Short-Term $750,000
US 74 (W. Roosevelt
Boulevard/Morgan
Mill Road Intersection
Improvements
As US 74 carries the most traffic in Union County, these
improvements are designed to facilitate smoother traffic
movements along the corridor as well as improve safety.
This hotspot recommendation provides an additional left turn
lane on the western leg of US 74, an additional right turn lane
on Morgan Mill after the intersection going northward, and
also calls for additional sidewalk construction and driveway
consolidation.
Short-Term $1,100,000
6-8 : UNION COUNTY
Project/Policy Description Lead
Authority
Potential
Partners Term Capital
Cost
Us 74 express
service
enhancements
Increase headways;
expand service to
weekends
CAT
Union Co.,
Monroe, State/
Federal
Short $300,000
Us 74 express
extension, Phase I
Extend route to Monroe
Downtown; create 1 new
Park-and-Ride station
CAT
Union Co.,
Monroe, State/
Federal,
Private Sector
Short $1,000,000
support land Uses
that support Transit
Adopt supportive land
use ordinances to
increase densities around
transit stations; remove
density barriers
City of Monroe,
Towns
Union County,
CRTPO, Private
Sector
Short & Middle
$50,000 (to
develop transit-
supportive
ordinance for
adoption)
support Activity
Centers
Infrastructure funds
should be directed
towards high-activity
locations identified in the
Comprehensive Plan
City of Monroe,
Towns, Union
County
CRTPO, State/
Federal
Short, Middle &
Long N/A
Providence Road
(61x) express
extension
Extend the current route
to Waxhaw; create 1-2
new Park-and-Ride
stations
CAT
Union Co.,
Monroe, State/
Federal,
Private Sector
Middle $ 450,000
Monroe Circulator
Create bus circulator
around and into
downtown Monroe
City of Monroe,
CAT
CRTPO, State/
Federal Middle $ 300,000
Us 74 BRT Add BRT Lanes to
outside lanes of US 74 NCDOT / CAT CRTPO, State/
Federal Long variable
Us 74 express
extension, Phase II Extend route to Wingate CAT
Union Co.,
Monroe, State/
Federal,
Private Sector
Long $ 500,000
Waxhaw-Area
Circulator
Provide circulator service
around Waxhaw area
Town of
Waxhaw
CAT, CRTPO,
Union County,
State/Federal,
Private Sector
Long $ 300,000
Table 6.4- Priority Transit Action Items
Multimodal Transportation Plan Update 2014 : 6-9CHAPTER 6: Action Plan & Initiatives
Project/PolicyDescriptionLead
Authority
Potential
PartnersTermCapital
Cost
Us 74 express
service
enhancements
Increase headways;
expand service to
weekends
CAT
Union Co.,
Monroe, State/
Federal
Short$300,000
Us 74 express
extension, Phase I
Extend route to Monroe
Downtown; create 1 new
Park-and-Ride station
CAT
Union Co.,
Monroe, State/
Federal,
Private Sector
Short$1,000,000
support land Uses
that support Transit
Adopt supportive land
use ordinances to
increase densities around
transit stations; remove
density barriers
City of Monroe,
Towns
Union County,
CRTPO, Private
Sector
Short & Middle
$50,000 (to
develop transit-
supportive
ordinance for
adoption)
support Activity
Centers
Infrastructure funds
should be directed
towards high-activity
locations identified in the
Comprehensive Plan
City of Monroe,
Towns, Union
County
CRTPO, State/
Federal
Short, Middle &
LongN/A
Providence Road
(61x) express
extension
Extend the current route
to Waxhaw; create 1-2
new Park-and-Ride
stations
CAT
Union Co.,
Monroe, State/
Federal,
Private Sector
Middle$ 450,000
Monroe Circulator
Create bus circulator
around and into
downtown Monroe
City of Monroe,
CAT
CRTPO, State/
FederalMiddle$ 300,000
Us 74 BRTAdd BRT Lanes to
outside lanes of US 74NCDOT / CATCRTPO, State/
FederalLongvariable
Us 74 express
extension, Phase IIExtend route to WingateCAT
Union Co.,
Monroe, State/
Federal,
Private Sector
Long$ 500,000
Waxhaw-Area
Circulator
Provide circulator service
around Waxhaw area
Town of
Waxhaw
CAT, CRTPO,
Union County,
State/Federal,
Private Sector
Long$ 300,000
Project/Policy Description Lead
Authority
Potential
Partners Term Capital
Cost
High-Activity
Center solutions
Program
Create an outreach
program to identify and
create solutions to small-
scale issues, prioritizing
schools and transit
connections
City / Towns CRTPO Short, Middle,
& Long variable
Adopt a Complete
streets Policy
Create standard policy
and resolution supporting
Complete Streets
(reference NCDOT
guidance)
City / Towns Union County Short $50,000, Study
by Consultant
Initiate County-
Wide Child
Pedestrian and
Bicycle safety
Program
Create a program in
cooperation with Union
County School System
to utilize K-5 training
materials from NCDOT
to teach pedestrian, bus,
and bicycle safety
Union County
(School
System)
NCDOT Short $75,000
Complete Carolina
Thread Trail, Phase I
Complete the Carolina
Thread Trail to City
west of Monroe to
Mecklenburg County
Limits
City of Monroe
Union County,
CRTPO, State /
Federal
Middle $59,890,000
Complete Carolina
Thread Trail,
Phase II
Complete the Carolina
Thread Trail east of
Monroe to Union County
Limits
Union County State/Federal Long $33,380,000
Update Policies /
Ordinances
Create ordinances
referencing (1) required
connectivity (or
maximum block lengths),
(2) multi-modal traffic
impact assessment
guidelines, (3) define a
collector street network
and design policy
City / Towns /
Union County
CRTPO (input
from Private
Sector)
Middle $50,000, Study
by Consultant
Us 74 Parallel Trail
Construct a multi-use
path either as a priority
segment of the CTT or
along the edge of road
right-of-way on US 74
between Mecklenburg
County and Monroe
downtown
Monroe / Indian
Trail / Union
County
State/Federal,
CRTPO Middle $17,200,000
Intersection
and Connector
Improvements
The Transportation
Plan identifies 42
different small-area
improvements, ranging
in size/scale from
crossing improvements
to greenway connectors
and intersection
geometry corrections
Union County /
various towns NCDOT, CRTPO Short and
Middle variable
Table 6.5- Priority Bicycle-Pedestrian Action Items
6-10 : UNION COUNTY
coNcLUsioN
To suggest that Union County has changed over the past two
decades is an understatement. Continued suburban sprawl
and development patterns have placed a growing burden
on existing infrastructure to the point of frustration, impact
on economic potential, and lack of a good understanding of
community priorities. Relying on true partnerships between
municipal, CRTPO, and NCDOT will be the key to success,
not only to rebuild existing deficient infrastructure, but to
work in collaboration with the development community
to incorporate better choices (bike, pedestrian and transit)
for regional mobility. The communities of Union County
are building on the established momentum in the area. To
continue attracting economic development and expanding
transportation choices, the communities need to be proactive
when addressing needs and issues. The success of the
Union County Transportation Plan relies in part on how well
local and regional officials and leaders collaborate to make
difficult decisions. The highest priority initiatives developed
as part of the study are summarized in this chapter along
with key projects. It will be up to local and regional decision-
makers to identify the most desirable recommendations for
implementation, but it will be the combined efforts over many
years of decision-making that creates the sustainable, vibrant,
and economically sound communities where people want to
continue to live.
Note: a companion document - Union County Comprehensive
Plan has been developed in addition to the Multimodal
Transportation Plan to provide a comprehensive look at land
use, transportation, economic development, housing, health,
and the environment in Union County. Please refer to this
document for more detail about how transportation fits in
with the overall vision for Union County.
1-12 : UNION COUNTY
Union County
Appendix A - Roadway Maps
MultimodalTransportation Plan
MultimodalTransportation Plan