20060939 Ver 1_Scoping Comments_20001107

~d~~~o.
~ .~
.~~~~.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
November I, 2000
DAVID McCov
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
Mr. John Hennessy
Division of Water Quality/Wetlands
Michele James, Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting, NC 98 (Holloway Street), from East of US 70 to
East of Junction Road, Durham, Durham County, Federal Project
No. STP-98(5), State Project No. 8.1352401, TIP Project No. U-4010
A Scoping meeting for the subject project was held October 5, 2000 at 10:00 a.m. in
Room 350 of the Transportation Building. The following were in attendance:
Wesley Parham City of Durham
Phil Conrad City of Durham
Derek Bradner Location & Surveys
Larry Williford Location & Surveys
Michael Summers Congestion Management
Sonya Sykes Traffic Engineering -Traffic Control
Ron Allen Roadway Design
Craig Parker Roadway Design
Ray McIntyre Program Development
Ron Young Program Development
Dan Hinton FHWA
Ashley Reid Right-of-Way/Utility Section
David Hinnant Right-of-Way/LTtility Section/Railroad
Raymond W. Goodman Right-of--Way Negotiations
Arthur Petteway Rail Division
Barry Shapiro Rail Division
Christopher Bell Rail Division
Eric Taylor Rail Division
Al Odearo Bolivar Photogrammetry
David Woodie Hydraulics
Teresa Hart PD & EA
Lynn Smith PD & EA
Theresa Ellerby PD & EA
Michele James PD & EA
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

2
The following narrative presents the highlights of items discussed at this scoping
meeting:
1. Two design alternatives were proposed for study: (1) Widen to a 5-lane curb and gutter
section (symmetrical widening) and (2) Widen to a 5-lane curb and gutter section
(asymmetrical-north side only). Both alternatives include track improvements. Also,
improvements maybe necessary along the Y-lines.
2. Congestion Management prefers a 4-lane median divided section. It was also suggested a
signal at Muldee Street be included with this project. Michael Summers will analyze the
section after he receives traffic counts and the Start of Study Notification letter.
3. Two different railroads exist at the Junction Road Intersection (Norfolk Southern and CSX).
The crossing is rough and needs improvement for better rideability for the traveling public.
Coordination with both rail companies will be necessary.
4. The Rail Division noted the exposure index for the railroad-highway intersection exceeds the
threshold for urban areas. Based on this information, a grade separation is warranted and
should be considered. Roadway Design agreed to investigate the practicality of a grade
separation alternative. Upon completion of this investigation, PD&EA will notify upper
management of the findings and obtain management's recommendation regarding the
inclusion of a grade separation for this project.
5. It was suggested that PD&EA include train-related accidents (past 10 years) in the planning
document. Barry Shapiro will provide this information to Michele James.
6. Rail Division stated it would cost a minimum of $200,000 to replace the railroad signals. It
was also noted a minimum 75' long concrete island (monolithic), 15 feet from the centerline
of the tracks should be included. This provision would allow delineator posts to be erected.
7. Right-of-Way/Utilities/Railroad recommended a cement panel crossing if an at grade
crossing remains.
Location and Surveys noted that Public Service has gas lines along NC 98. Durham County
has water and sewer service. Overhead utility lines are present within the project limits.
9. Location and Surveys will provide a list of the property owners that maybe affected by the
proposed project. Michele James will send notification of the upcoming Citizens'
Informational Workshop to those property owners.
10. It was noted that right-of--way had been dedicated near one location along the project.
11. No major live streams are within the project area; however, a protected watershed starts at the
railroad going east and drains to a watershed away from the project.
12. SHPO noted there were no architectural and archaeological resources of concern within the
project limits or vicinity.

13. The City of Durham made several comments and requests for inclusion into the project.
They are as follows:
(a) A Durham Area Transit Authority facility exists in the project area. It has housed
40 busses and vans for approximately 3 years. The buses run 7 days a week from
7:30 a.m. to midnight.
(b) The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO requested the project.
(c) Include sidewalks on both sides of the project with a utility strip
(d) Include 14-foot outside lanes for bicycles
(e) Install concrete panel/rubberized crossing at the railroad tracks
(f) Study the feasibility of mast arms for traffic signals at Junction Road, Hoover Road and
US 70
(g) As City utilities are located in the area, please coordinate project design with Mr. Stuart
Carson, P.E. (City of Durham Engineering Division at [phone]
(h) Please notify adjacent property owners by mail of the upcoming workshop and public
hearing
(i) Please keep the project on schedule
(j) Replace street lighting with fiberglass poles instead of creosote poles
(k) Prefers divided typical section
14. An Environmental Assessment and a FONSI will be completed for the project. Their
completion dates are 5/O1 and 11/O1, respectively.
15. The current Right-of Way acquisition date is 01/02 and the current let date is 03/03.
16. A Citizens' Informational Workshop has been scheduled for November 14, 2000 from
4-7 pm at the Durham Memorial Baptist Church. The address is 2703 Holloway Street.
*FINDINGS SINCE THE SLOPING MEETING
Roadway Design investigated the possibility of a grade separation over the railroad tracks. The
proposed vertical alignment will not allow NC 98 to span over the railroad. It is the opinion of
the Roadway Design Engineer, Ron Allen, a grade separation alternative should no longer be
pursued as part of this project.
Listed below are the constraints of providing a grade separation
(a) The existing bridge at US 70 is too close to the existing railroad tracks. In order to span
the railroad, we need to be at least 30 feet higher than the (23 ft. + 7 ft. for bridge).
Therefore, a 9% +/- grade is needed to achieve this. In order to tie back in on the East
Side of Junction Road, within a reasonable distance, a 10% grade is needed. The grades,
vertical curvature, and resulting design speed are not acceptable.
(b) The future U-71 project proposes to construct a single point urban interchange at the
existing US 70 and NC 98 interchange. Anew bridge will be constructed on US 70,
making the spacing to the existing tracks even less. Providing for a grade separation
under U-4010 would conflict with. the U-71 design.

4
(c) Because of the vertical clearance needed to span the railroad, there would be heavy right
of way impacts. Construction along both Hoover and Junction Roads would increase
tremendously. Junction Road would have to be relocated to an acceptable distance
beyond the bridge, thus incurring more relocations. Also, the new height of NC 98 would
push the construction limits approximately 80-90 feet beyond the existing edge of
pavement. This would heavily impact all of the businesses being accessed by this road.
MLJ/plr