Elizabeth Brady Rd Extension (7)

4
4yyd4ASWpq
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ~y ` ~~/
DEPART~/~NT OF T'RANSPORTATI ~ s~o `~~% fi'''n
ON S,oR~:~G s ~.,~
MICHAEL F. EASLEY ~h' ~`~~`
LYNDO~ETT
GOVERNOR
SECRETAR C~
May 17, 2006
To: NEPA/404 Merger Team
Re: Hillsborough, Elizabeth Brady Road Extension, from south of US 70 Business to
north US 70 Bypass at SR 1002 (Saint Mary's Road), Orange County, Federal-Aid
Project No. STP-0711 (1), State Project No. 8.2501941, TIP Project No. U-3808
Dear Merger Team Member:
On November 17, 2005, a Merger 2A meeting was held to discuss the major bridges and
culverts proposed for the Elizabeth Brady Road project in Hillsborough. Concurrence
was reached on all structures, with conditions imposed for the proposed Eno River bridge
for Alternative 4. Concern had been raised with regard to the amount of fill proposed to
be placed within the floodplain fringe (i.e., the 100-year floodplain) and the potential for
impacts to wildlife populations. The proposed 310-foot bridge had been adequately sized
to span the FEMA floodway and accommodate flood flows. The Merger Team had
concurred on a bridge length of between 310 and 500 feet. The Merger Team concurred
that the exact length would be determined after a field review of the proposed alignment.
On January 18, 2006, a field review was conducted. Members of the Merger Team
walked the proposed Alternative 4 alignment and discussed the bridge length. The
Merger Team continued to have concern over the amount of fill to be placed in the
floodplain, but no specific plan was developed as a result of the meeting other than to try
and reduce the amount of fill on the flood plain
Following the meeting, NCDOT reviewed three additional options. These options were:
1. Construct a 500-foot long bridge, spanning the floodplain, at a new location (alt 4 rev)
approximately 150 feet to the east of the original Alternative 4 alignment.
2. Construct a longer bridge (approximately 800 feet) on the original alignment that
would span most of the floodplain.
3. Construct a 500-foot long bridge on the original alignment.
The following table summarizes some of the differences between the three options
considered.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH W ILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

Options
1-Revised Alternative 4 2-Original Alternative 4 3-Original Alternative 4-
(500-ft Bridge) (long-bridge) (500-ft Bridge)
Criteria
Relocations 16 11 11
ROW Cost $ 6,520,000 $ 5,865,000 $ 5,865,000
Construction Cost $21,622,000 $25,093,500 $22,250,500
Total Cost (ROW
+ Construction) $28,142,000 $30,958,500 $28,115,500
Width of
Unobstructed 240 feet X550 feet 250 feet
Floodplain
Under option one, approximately one-half acre of fill would be placed within the
floodplain at the north end of the bridge. This option would result in five additional
relocations, essentially taking all of the homes located along the west side of Riverside
Drive. Also, the shift would locate the road closer to the homes on the east side of
Riverside Drive, increasing noise impacts to those homes and possibly requiring noise
abatement mitigation (a reevaluation of noise impacts was not conducted).
The second option was to evaluate a longer bridge (approximately 800 feet} along the
original alignment that would span most of the floodplain. Like Option 1, Option 2
would result in approximately 0.5 acres of fill within the floodplain. This option would
keep the number of relocations the same as for the originally proposed alternative, but
would increase the construction costs by $2,843,000.
The third option was a 500-foot long bridge on the original alignment (the maximum
length concurred to by the Merger Team). The 500-foot long bridge would be longer than
required to span the approximate 140-foot wide FEMA floodway, but would substantially
reduce the linear distance of fill placed within the floodplain, as compared with the
original bridge design evaluated by the Merger Team.
After review of all three options, it has been determined that the third option, a 500-foot
long bridge on the original alignment, is the best option for Alternative 4. This option
meets the requirements of the Merger 2A concurrence, minimizes impacts to the residents
along Riverside Drive, and has a substantial cost savings over Option 2.
Attached are two figures that illustrate the options that were considered. Figure 1 shows
the locations of the two alignments (Alternative 4 and Alternative 4 Revised). Figure 2
shows the slope stake and right-of-way limits for both Option 2, the long-bridge option,
and Option 3, the 500-foot long bridge. Also attached is the revised Merger 2A meeting
minutes that incorporate the comments received following the Merger 2A field review.
These minutes have also been updated to summarize the evaluation conducted by
NCDOT to determine an appropriate size and location for the Alternative 4 bridge
crossing of the Eno River.

If you have any questions, please contact me at [phone], extension 261.
Sincer ,
Vincent Rhea, PE
Project Development Engineer

~n
~ ~~vU~`'
NEPA / 404 MERGER TEAM, CONCURRENCE POINT 2a ~~F. 9~,- "O//~~~~
f~
(Review of Major Hydrologic Structures) -~i~ ~y ~
os ',
MEETING MINUTES ~T~~~~G°~,~~~~6'
Elizabeth Brady Road (U-3808) ~~e
Federal Project Number: STP-0711(1) /State Project Number: 8.2501901 ~~
State WBS Number 34975.1.1
Introduction
On October 17, 2005, the NEPA/404 Merger Team met in the NCDOT Board Conference Room
to discuss and reach concurrence on the proposed major structures required for stream
crossings for the proposed project. As noted in the following discussion, a field review meeting
was requested by the Merger Team members. The field review was held on January 18, 2006.
These minutes summarize the results of both meetings.
Merger 2A Meeting
The meeting was called to order by Mr. Vincent Rhea, NCDOT Project Engineer at 9:05am.
Following introductions, asign-in sheet was distributed. A copy of the sign-in sheet is attached.
After introductions, the meeting was turned over to Mr. Douglas Smith, the consultant Project
Manager, to describe the proposed major structures. Mr. Smith noted a revised project
information package had been distributed. Revisions are summarized as follows:
1. The bridge length for the new crossing of the Eno River at stream 6S1 has been corrected
(see Table 1, page 2, and the Wetlands and Stream figure, page 7).
2. Stream 7S1 was removed from Table 1 (page 2) as a major stream crossing. The culvert
information that had been included in the original package was incorrect. This crossing will
not require a large culvert or bridge.
3. The structure type for stream 13S1 (see Table 1, page 2, and the Wetland and Stream
Figure, page 7) has been changed. The change was based upon a revised hydraulic
analysis of the stream crossing that showed adouble-barrel box culvert could adequately
handle the flow.
4. Anew table, Table 4 (page 5), has been added. This table provides the stream mitigation
requirements based upon the Corps' field visit.
5. The notes at the end of Table 5 (page 6) have been updated to include information showing
only the Eno River and Cates Creek have suitable habitat for the dwarf wedge mussel.
6. Table 5 (page 6) has been updated to identify the number of hazardous waste sites directly
impacted by the alignments.
7. Photographs of existing structures on US 70 Business and US 70 Bypass (Eno River) have
been added to the Information Package. The photographs begin on page 11.
Mr. Smith then provided an overview of the project to date, highlighting the 2000 NCDOT
Scoping meeting, 2001 Merger Team meeting for Purpose and Need (Concurrence Point 1),
and the 2004 Merger Team Meeting for Alternatives (Concurrence Point 2). At the Concurrence
Point 2 meeting, three build alternatives were selected for detailed study in the DEIS,
Alternatives 3, 4, and 6. The location of each Alternative was shown in the Project Information
Package and on display boards.

Descriptions of Major Stream Crossings
There are seven stream crossings requiring major structures. The structures would be either a
large culvert or bridge. Each Alternative has at least four major stream crossings, some of
which are common to all alternatives. After explaining the stream designations, Mr. Smith
described each stream crossing, the type of structure currently over the stream, if any, and the
proposed structure(s). Table 1 of these Meeting Minutes is from the Project Information
Package and was used as a reference during the discussion.
After describing each crossing, the Merger Team then discussed the crossings individually and
reached concurrence on each structure.
Discussion of Structure
3S1 -New Crossina of the Eno River. Alternative 3
There were few questions regarding this structure. Travis Wilson asked about the length of the
bridge and if it spanned the floodplain. It was noted that all of the structures were designed to
span the floodway and the Eno River crossings would have some fill within the floodplain. Mr.
Jerry Snead, NCDOT Hydraulics Unit, indicated that the crossing for Alternative 3 (3S1) was at
a location where the floodplain and floodway were very similar in size. Concurrence was
reached on the structure as proposed.
4S1 -New Crossina of Cates Creek. Alternative 3
The discussion of this structure was done in context of the discussions of the structure over
Cates Creek at 13S1. Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC, asked what type of structure was located at
existing Elizabeth Brady Road over Cates Creek. It was indicated that the structure was a
culvert. Travis Wilson asked if the existing culvert on Elizabeth Brady could be removed if
Alternative 3 were to be constructed. NCDOT indicated that it would be removed. Concurrence
was reached on the structure as proposed.
6S1 -New Crossing of the Eno River, Alternative 4
Mr. Wilson asked about the width of the floodplain at this location. Jerry Snead indicated that
the floodplain was approximately 500 feet wide at that location. Mr. Wilson expressed concern
that fill material would be placed along approximately 40 percent of the floodplain's linear width.
His concern was the potential impact to wildlife movement long the floodplain. Mr. Felix Davila,
FHWA, asked about size of the bridge and if it was spanning the floodway. Mr. Smith and Mr.
Snead indicated that all of the bridge structures were designed to span the floodway. Mr.
Wilson indicated that he was uncomfortable concurring on the bridge length without being able
to go into the field to look at the site. Mr. Wilson expressed concern that filling the flood fringe was
a potential adverse impact to wildlife habitat, which could result from blocking that amount of the
floodplain. There was general consensus that a field review of the crossing should be made
before finalizing the length of the structure.
The Merger Team concurred that a bridge would be recommended for this crossing with a length
ranging between a minimum of 310 feet (as recommended in the revised concurrence meeting
information package) to a maximum of 500 feet (based on the spanning the entire floodplain).
NCDOT agreed to contact the Merger Team members to schedule a date for the field review.
2

Table 1. Proposed Major Stream Crossings
w
Existing Structure Type of Required Structure
St Len
th 8
ream ~
Designation Stream Name
Length g
~
Width (feet) Cost2
Type Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 6
(feet)
3S1 Eno River None - New Bridge - - 850 x 90 $6,502,500
4S1 Cates Creek None - New Bridge - - 130 x 80 $884,000
6S1 Eno River None - - New Bridge - 500 x 90 $3,825,000

9S1a UT Cates Creek 7' x 6' Box
70 8' x 8' Single-Barrel 8' x 8' Single-Barrel 8' x 8' Single-Barrel
206 x 8
$140, 080
(existing crossing) Culvert Box Culvert Box Culvert Box Culvert

9S1 b UT Cates Creek (new
None
-
- New 8' x 8' Single- New 8' x 8' Single-
200 x 8
$136,000
alignment) Barrel Culvert Barrel Culvert
Double-

13S1
Cates Creek Barrel 10' x
50 Double-Barrel 12' x Double-Barrel 12' x Double-Barrel 12' x 8
24 x 110
$149,600
6' Box 8 Box Culvert 8 Box Culvert Box Culvert
Culvert
5-Span Replace Existing
14S1 Eno River Bridge 237.5 - - Bridge with New 240 x 90 $1,836,000
Bridges
See the Wetlands and Streams Figure on page 8.
ZBridge dimensions and costs have been updated as of 5/5/06. Structures are based on Merger Team Concurrence. Alternative 4 is on original alignment with 500-ft bridge.
UT =Unnamed Tributary

Following the Merger Team meeting, a field review meeting was scheduled for January 18, 2006, to
determine the proposed bridge length recommendation.
New information since the Concurrence Point 2A Meetina and Revised Bridae Recommendation:
New information pertinent to this site (of which the Hydraulics Unit was unaware of at the November
17, 2005 meeting) has been identified. A preliminary flood insurance study was produced by FEMA,
dated April 28, 2005. The study includes a revised detailed study of Cates Creek from the
confluence with Eno River to approximately one mile upstream of US Highway 40. This study is
available on the www.ncfloodmaps.com website. While this study is not yet effective, it is anticipated
that it will be effective by the time the project enters the final design stage.
The floodway has been redelineated in the vicinity of the confluence of Cates Creek and Eno
River, which is where the subject crossing is located. Based on a CADD overlay of the current
Alternative 4 alignment on the current and new floodplain mapping, the following changes were
observed:
The 100-year floodplain fringe at the location crossed by Alternative 4, as shown at the Merger
Team meeting and reviewed in the field, has been increased from 490 feet to 585 feet. The
100-year floodway has been decreased from 290 feet to 140 feet (see attached figure). Based
on the new information, the NCDOT Hydraulics Unit recommends a 210 ft. bridge at this
location with a minimum low chord elevation of 500.0 feet NAVD (this length is based on a 50-
foot channel width, 100-foot riparian buffer, and 30 feet on each side for 2:1 spill-through slopes
15 feet high to get low chord of 500.0 ft. NAVD). The following figure illustrates the difference
between the currently effective floodplain boundary map and the proposed boundary map. The
map was prepared by Mr. Jerry Snead, PE (NCDOT).
The new crossings of Eno River on (3S1) and Cates Creek (4S1) on Alternative 3 were also
reviewed, and the new floodplain and floodway delineation at those sites do not differ substantially
from that of the effective study, so no changes in bridge length recommendations are warranted at
those locations.
9S1a - Reolacement of an Existina Culvert on US 70 Business. all alternatives
It was explained that the road improvements would require a longer culvert. The existing culvert
could not be extended because it was undersized. NCDOT had considered lengthening the
existing culvert and constructing overflow culverts; however, it was determined that the current
culvert was structurally deficient and would require replacement in the near future. Concurrence
was reached on replacing the existing culvert.
9S1 b -New Culvert, Alternatives 4 and 6
The culvert at 9S1 b is a short distance downstream from 9S1a on the unnamed tributary to
Cates Creek. It was pointed out that because of a small difference in the alignments for
Alternatives 4 and 6; the required culvert length for Alterative 4 was longer than Alternative 6.
Concurrence was reached on the structure as proposed.
4

Figure is not to scale. Floodplain and floodway measurements shown in red (left of Alt 4) are taken from
the currently effective Floodway and Flood Boundary Map Panel 155 for Orange County (dated 3/16/81 -
depicted in green). The measurements shown in magenta are taken from the preliminary FEMA flood
insurance DFIRM pane19874, which is not yet effective and is based on a preliminary detailed flood
insurance study dated April 28, 2005. The red floodplain mapping is from the currently effective Town of
Hillsborough Floodway and Flood Boundary Map Panel 005 (dated 5/15/80). The crosshatched floodway
and blue-dotted floodplain fringe and aerial photography are from the DFIRM panel 9874, referenced
above.
13S1 -Replacement of an Existina Culvert on Cates Creek, all alternatives
The initial hydraulics studies determined that the existing culvert is undersized and US 70
Business is overtopped in a 50-year storm event. Abridge was recommended at this location
when it initially looked like a culvert would be too large to fit within the channel. However,
additional, more detailed hydraulic studies were conducted and it was determined that a double
12 x 8 culvert would be sufficiently sized to accommodate flood flows and would fit within the
channel. There was discussion of the channel characteristics at this location, the types of
structures upstream of US 70 Business, and the types of structures to be placed downstream.
Concurrence was reached on replacing the existing culvert with the proposed larger culvert.
14S1 -Replacement of Existing Bridge Over the Eno River, Alternative 6
It was pointed out that Alternative 6 would require widening US 70 Bypass between the junction
of the new road with US 70 Bypass and St. Mary's Road. This would include replacing the
existing bridge. It was noted that the current bridge is structurally deficient and was placed in
the 2006 - 2012 TIP for replacement. The question was raised whether the new bridge would
5

have piers in the stream channel like the current bridge. It is currently proposed to replace the
current structure with two bridge structures, removing the old bridge. The new structures would
not have any piers in the stream channel. Concurrence was reached on the bridge replacement
as proposed.
Additional Discussion
Mr. Chris Militscher noted that the stream impacts in Table 2 of the Information Package were
different from the total in Table 5. Mr. Smith indictated that the information in Table 2 was
correct and indicted that a revised table would be sent to the Merger Team. A revised Table 5
is attached.
Ms. Renee Gledhill-Early asked why there was not more of a difference in construction costs,
and in particular, why Alternative 6 was more expensive than Alternative 4. It was noted that all
of the Alternatives will require a new bridge over the Eno River. While Alternative 6 would have
the shortest bridge of the three, it is also the longest of the alternatives, requiring the widening
of a portion US 70 Bypass. It was also noted that the relocation report had not been completed
and that Alternative 4 has a larger number of relocations than Alternatives 3 or 6. The cost for
relocations and right-of-way could affect the relative costs of the alternatives.
Concurrence and Adjournment
Discussions were completed at approximately 10:10 am. The concurrence form was amended
to reflect that the final bridge length for Alternative 4 would be determined after the field review.
The final length of the bridge would be between 310 and 500 feet. The document was then
signed by the Merger Team. A copy of the concurrence form is attached.
Field Review and Revaluation of Bridge Location and Length
Afield review meeting for the Alternative 4 bridge over the Eno River was held on January 18,
2006. The purpose of the field review was to look at the proposed bridge crossing location and
to determine if a longer bridge should be considered.
During the field review, the resource agencies expressed concern over the amount of floodplain
fringe that would be crossed on fill. Their desire was to reduce the amount of fill within the
floodplain. No specific plan was developed while in the field.
Following the field review, NCDOT reviewed the plans and decided to evaluate shifting the Eno
River crossing location further to the east. This alignment shift placed the bridge crossing at a
location where the width of the floodplain was narrower. NCDOT evaluated a bridge length of
500 feet. This length of bridge would span the floodplain and comply with the Merger 2A
concurrence. The revised alignment would result in the relocation of an additional five
residences and probable noise impacts to the residences on the northeast side of Riverside
Drive (a revised noise analysis was not conducted to confirm, but the proximity of the new road
would make it probable). After evaluating the new bridge alignment option, NCDOT determined
that the additional impacts to the adjacent neighborhood would not warrant realigning the bridge
crossing.
NCDOT then evaluated two longer bridges on the original Alternative 4 crossing location. One
bridge was along-bridge that would effectively span the floodplain, similar to the first option.
The second bridge that was evaluated was a 500-foot long bridge. The long-bridge option had
6

an additional construction cost of $2,843,000 over the cost of the 500-foot long bridge. NCDOT
determined that the 500-foot long bridge constructed along the original alignment was the best
option.

4'' ~ -
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~~~ 1
- _.__~~.~_ __ .~~~~~ .r .~_.. ~ ~.. _ ~.. _ ~~~ .~__ ~~3 -7~~
,--- ~
PJr o0 ~~ ___ ~ ~(~ ~ 075 -- y~f
e.,n~ l~ lVr.~o-r = (~~.~d~tr ~Co
___
~- n~ ~o , ~J s - ~ ~~
!/(/y-~°1`v ~~ C ~ ~v ~~~
___._.____._.__ :~ _ _. ~_ ' w ~.~.~___~._.~. _..._.~~_~.~_d_ _ _ .. -._ .___.__. _ ~ _~__ _ __
(~ _
r*-...
__~:_:- _ _._- - -- _ ~-___ ti ~ as i~ I~~,C~ ~`l q- Zs~ - ~ 16
l ~ ...
v.._ _ _._._. _..~_~.~,~~~~ ?~..~ ~.. ,,~~fl!et ... ~r~~c~",.S'c:rv~tty ~iy-._z 5'~...`ft ~~
--- ___ .-----_ _ --~-- - - ~h~c_ __ _ _ /I~Cva_T_ u ~vne T - - ~ ~ 9~ ~o - y_ !S;
_ L
..
~er~Y _ ~ __`C~~~w. ~~osu _ _ _ Sly-~z~--rya.
se,e, Wl` ~ ~ VS~1C~-- ~~t~-ZS~-'~`tSZ
r
.. ~ __ ~ _
_ _ __
_ _.. ~ . , _
..
~` ~ _ _ l
.....~.___~~-Ranh-K. ~~ N~7`'- y~~ Ql ~ - 7!S -/.~~ ~ .
G?U ~iC NC, tJJy~( C..l u 1 ' " vU"v '~ ~~

6i
__.. __ ._
.~ ~'. t2~tJ
1 l~ /~~ ~_
'y' WGhT.T`' ~
p10 ~~9 ~. 0~ , ..
~.._'
~mm _ _ ~,' ~~NO 12~v ~i2 y~srr~c, ~l `j..;S~b 3.8~t
w .... _,, . _ _.. _ _ _ ___~___._ __
,~ - `~,
~ ~

.. ....~ _.. .. ._ .,~~ ... ._...,_.__. _ .. _. __ _......_....---..~...:..-____a ... ._... _,.. ,..
~. ,_. _.~..._.._...._... ____ _. _._. __..~_.
(" ~
~ ,..~ .. ti

;i
_~__ u ~ ~ ~ ~~~o~: ~~
r
___._
_-~
i^ ~ J
.= ~ ,.
F ~ ~~

NEPA /404 Project Merger Team Meeting
Concurrence Point No. 2a -Bridge and Alignment Review
Elizabeth Brady Road Extension
Project No. TIP Number
8.2501901 U-3808
Major Stream Crossings
The Table 1 below identifies the major stream crossings for the Elizabeth Brady Road Extension project,
the current structure if applicable, and the proposed new structure. Following the table is a map
identifying the location of the stream crossings.
Table 1. Major Stream Crossing for the Elizabeth Brady Road Extension.
Stream Stream Type of Required Structure
Designation Name Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 6~
3S1 Eno River 850' x 76' New Bridge - -
4S1 Cates 130' x 80' New Bridge - -
Creek
651 Eno River - New Bridge 310' - 500 x 87' ' -
9Sla UT Cates 8' x 8' x 200' Single-Barrel Box 8' x 8' x 200' Single-Barrel Box 8' x 8' x 200' Single-Barret Box
Creek Culvert Replacement Culvert Replacement Culvert Replacement
4Sib UT Cates - New 8' x 8' x 190' Single-$arrel New S' x 8' x 170' Single-Barrel
Creek Culvert Culvert
t3Sl Cates 12' x 8' x 210' Double-Barrel 12' x 8' x 210' Double-Barrel 12' x 8' x 210' Double-Barrel
Creek Box Culvert Replacement Box Culvert Replacement Box Culvert Replacement
14S1 Eno River - - 240' x 46' Bridge Replacement
`For alternative 4 the new bridge will be between 310 and 500 feet in length. Length to be determined in the field.
The Project Team has concurred on this date of November I7, 2005 with the proposed structures for the
Major Stream Crossings.
USACE ~~~,,_
~~' ~ - -<
USEPA
NCDW
Q
NCDOT~/
USFWS
_ .----
NCWRC
~ ~~
FHWA ~-~-'~ SHPO ~~
DCHC MPO

;r
s~°ad
~ ~a '~~; ,
® ,
0
® ~~~
c '`_
~ ~ ti~~4~
N
ti~ ~~~ ~~
Q"c~~
_ ® 70
~ ®~_
o ~,,~~`
a
~~ I .
®~ ®sGteew ® ~ -
` ~Qi~ T}
~~
~ ~ ~~i~
® OA
,
Legend
~~' Alternative 3 -Alignment and Right-0f--Way
Alternative 4 -Alignment and Right-of-Way Property Boundaries
Alternative 6 -Alignment and Rightof--Way Jurisdictional Stream
St. Marys Road Reatignment (Alternatives 3 and 4 only) ~ ~- ; Wetlands o o.os o.i2 o.is o.2a
~~ ~~^«° Pavement Removal (Alternatives 3 and 4 only) - Flow Direction Mlles
;~: ~";~ ~ d ~~, ;~,, , _,, rr .;~:;;.;:; d~ Wetlands & Streams
~? , ~ ~, _.

..
Table 5. Summary Impacts by Alternative
Evaluation Category Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 6
Length of Alternative 2.97 miles 3.41 miles 3.78 miles
Interchanges (number) 0 0 0
Construction Cost Estimate (as of 5/5/06) $23,273,000 $22,250,500 $20,683,000
Right of Way Cost Estimate $4,710,000 $5,865,000 $2,995,000
Estimated Utility Relocation Costs $263,000 $430,000 $525,000
Railroad Crossings (number) 0 0 0
Major Utility Crossings (number) 0 0 0
Potential Residential Relocations (number) 4 11 1
Potential Business Relocations (number) 0 0 1
Low Income Population Impacts (number of relocatees or communities) 0 0 0
Minority Population Impacts (number of relocatees or communities) 0 0 0
Schools Affected (number) 0 0 0
Churches Affected (number) 0 0 0
Cemeteries Affected(number) 0 0 0
Noise Receptors Where Noise Criteria is Exceeded (number) 8 8 6
Existing and Proposed Greenway Crossings (number)' None None None

Recreational Areas and Parks Affected (number) Bisects Occoneechee
Speedway Racetrack trail
(private)
0
OZ

Historic Properties Affected (number) Bisects Occoneechee-
Orange Speedway
NASCAR Racetrack site
0
0
Known Archaeological Sites Affected (number) 0 0 0
Federal Lands Affected 0 0 0
Section 4 (f) Impacts (number) 1 0 0
Delineated Wetland Impacts (number of crossings and acreage) 0 / 0 acres 1 / 0.02 acres 2 / 0.05 acres
Delineated stream impacts (number of crossings and length) 4 / 434 feet 7 / 1,293 feet 12 / 2,526 feet
Delineated stream shading impacts (number of crossings and length x
width) 1 / 80 x 130 feet
(4S1) 0 0
Riparian Buffer Affected Zone 1 /Zone 2 (linear feet) 1,316 / 1,425 2,641 / 2,598 4,801 / 3,602
Riparian Buffer Affected Zone 1 /Zone 2 (acres) 0.21 / 0.29 1.08 / 0.72 0.80 / 0.51
CAMA Areas of Environmental Concern (number of crossings and
acreage) 0 / 0 0 / 0 0 / 0
On-site Restoration Potential Not Evaluated Not Evaluated Not Evaluated
100 Year Floodplain Crossings 2 1 1
Federal Listed Protected Species Present Within Country3 4 4 4
State Listed Protected Species Present Within County4 18 18 18
Wildlife Refuges and Game Lands Affected 0 0 0
High Quality Resources (number of crossings) 0 0 0
Significant Natural Heritage Program Areas (number of crossings) 0 0 0
Forest Impacts (acres) 11.5 11.1 11.4
Prime & Unique Farmland (acreage) 9.3 7.5 1.3
Hazardous Materials Sitess 0 0 0
'The Mountain to Sea Trail follows back roads through Orange County and crosses NC 87. There is a concept to have the trail parallel the Eno River within the vicinity of
the project corridor.
2Two parcels of undeveloped sections of the Eno River State Park are in close proximity to the northern terminus of Alternative 6 at US 70 Bypass. The alternative does
not impact the park.
3Four federally protected species have been listed for Orange County, NC. These species are the red-cockaded woodpecker, dwarf wedge mussel, Michaux's sumac, and
smooth coneflower. The last recorded observation of the red-cockaded woodpecker was over 50 years ago. The date and location of the observation of the smooth
coneflower is uncertain. Suitable habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker does not exist within the project area. No Michaux's sumac or smooth coneflower were found
during field surveys of suitable habitat conducted in May 2005. The only suitable habitat for the dwarf wedge mussel is found in the Eno River and Cates Creek.
4Eighteen state protected species are listed for Orange County. Four are listed as federally endangered and two are listed as federal species of concern.
SAII of the alternatives would widen or construct adjacent to properties with underground storage tanks (USTs) or formerly had USTs. These sites are located at the
northern terminus at the intersection of St. Mary' and US 70 Bypass, one site east of St. Mary's that would potentially only impact Alternative 6, and at the intersection of
NC 86 and I-85 at the southern terminus of the alternatives.
17

--100
YEARS
June 8, 2004
Parsons 909 Aviation Parkway
Brinckerhoff Suite 1500
Quade & Morrisville, NC 27560
Douglas, Inc. 919-467-7272
Fax: [phone]
Mr. John Hennessy
DENR -Division of Water Quality/Wetlands W/E~ I
1621 Mail Service Center ~$~D~/$fjft~, :~,,
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 ~ "'~
JUN092~..
Re: Revised Alternatives Report, Elizabeth Brady Road (U-3808)~ATEhN~~~
~G ~ ~r~ ~
Dear Mr. Hennessy:
Attached is one copy of the revised Alternatives Report for Elizabeth Brady Road. The report
has been revised to reflect the results of the April 15, 2004 Merger Meeting where three build
alternatives were identified to be carried forward into the Environmental Impact Statement. The
report also contains a copy of the Merger Team Meeting Minutes and the Merger 2 concurrence
form.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Vince Rhea, NCDOT Project Engineer (919-733-
7844, Extension 261), or me (919-468-2129).
Sincerely,
PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF QUADE & DOUGLAS, INC.
~µ,~~~-
Douglas L. Smith, AICP
Project Manager
cc: Mr. Vince Rhea, NCDOT
Mr. Derrick Weaver, NCDOT
Over a Century of
Engineering Excellence

i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
ALTERNATIVES REPORT
Elizabeth Brady Road Extension
State Project No. 8.2501901
TIP Project No. U-3808
Orange County, North Carolina
WETLANDS 1401 GROUP'
JUN 0 9.2004
WATER QUALITY SECTION
Prepared for:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
P~~Ot µORTry C,~ G
O
y~
'^e O
9,PT~ PLP
~FOFiRAH5e0
Submitted by:
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
909 Aviation Parkway, Suite 1500
Morrisville, North Carolina 27560
May 17, 2004

ALTERNATIVES REPORT
Elizabeth Brady Road Extension
State Project No. 8.2501901
TIP Project No. U-3808
Orange County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
' 1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
P~~OF NOR7N ~qOG
y~
O
4
9'r LP
' ~FNTOF TRAN5~0~

Submitted by:
' Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
909 Aviation Parkway, Suite 1500
' Morrisville, North Carolina 27560

May 17, 2004

Table of Contents
' 1.0. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1. Proposed Action ................................................................................................. 1-1
'
1.2. Need for the Proposed Action ............................................................................ 1-3
' 1.3. Purpose of the Proposed Action ......................................................................... 1-4
2.0. Alternative Descriptions ............................................................................................... 2-1
3.0. Comparison of Alternatives ......................................................................................... 3-1
3.1. Alternative 1 - No-Build ...................................................................................... 3-1

3.2. Alternative 2 -Transportation System Management ......................................... 3-1
' 3.3. Alternative 3 -TIP Alternative ............................................................................ 3-1
3.4. Alternative 4 -Avoids Occoneechee Racetrack ................................................ 3-2
' 3.5. Alternative 5 -Lawrence Road Widening .......................................................... 3-2
' 3.6. Alternative 6 -Eastern Alternative that Avoids a New Crossing of the Eno
River ...................................................................................................................
3-2
3.7. Alternate 7 -Far Western Alternative ................................................................3-2
'
4.0. Envi romental Features and Potential Constraints ..................................................... ..4-1
4.1. General Description of the Project Area ........................................................... ..4-1
4.2. Historic Features .............................................................................................. ..4-1
' 4.3. Natural Features ............................................................................................... ..4-6
' 4.4. Parks and Recreational Areas .......................................................................... 4-11
4.5. Relocations ....................................................................................................... 4-12
' 4.6. Hazardous Materials and Waste Sites .............................................................4-18
5.0. Summary of Traffic Analysis ........................................................................................5-1
' 5.1. Year 2025 Travel Demand Analysis ................................................................... 5-1
' 5.2. Year 2025 Traffic Operations Evaluation ...........................................................5-1
5.3. Summary Evaluation ..........................................................................................5-2
' 6.0. Summary of Public and Agency Involvement ..............................................................6-1
Alternatives Report I

6.1. Scoping Meeting .................................................................................................6-1
6.2. NEPA/404 Merger Team Meeting ...................................................................... 6-1
6.3. Newsletters .........................................................................................................6-1
6.4. Public Officials ....................................................................................................6-1
6.5. Public Information Workshop .............................................................................6-2
Appendix A -Literature Cited .............................................................................................. A-1
Appendix B -Typical Sections ............................................................................................ B-1
Appendix C -Photographs ................................................................................................. C-1
Appendix D - NEPA/404 Merger Team Meeting Minutes & Concurrence Document ........ D-1
I Alternatives Report

' List of Tables

Table 3-1. Comparison Summary of Project Alternatives ...................................................3-3
Table 4-1. Natural Heritage Information for Hillsborough and Efland, North Carolina,
U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle Maps .................................................................4-16
Table 5-1. Comparison of Traffic Performance Measures ..................................................5-4
Table 6-1. Summary of Comments Received from Public Information Workshop . .............6-3
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Location of TIP Project Number U-3808, Hillsborough, Orange County,
NC .................................................................................................................................1-2
Figure 2-1. Proposed Alternatives ........................................................................................2-3
Figure 4-1. Location of Historic Sites Identified Within the Project Area .............................4-3
Figure 4-2. National Wetland Inventory Mapped Wetlands Within the Project Area
(map is not to scale) ......................................................................................................4-7
Figure 4-3. Portions of the Hillsborough and Efland USGS 7.5 minute topographic
maps showing the general project area (map is not to scale) .......................................4-9
Figure 4-4. Floodplain Map of Project Area ......................................................................4-13
Figure 4-5. Water Supply Watersheds in Orange County (map is not to scale) ...............4-15
Figure 5-1. Comparison of Traffic Performance Measures .................................................5-5
Alternatives Report lil

Iv Alternatives Report '

' 1.0. INTRODUCTION

1

An environmental document is being prepared for the proposed extension of Elizabeth
Brady Road in accordance with the requirements set forth in the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the implementing regulations promulgated by the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The FHWA
and North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) are the lead agencies for this
project.
The NCDOT and FHWA have entered into an agreement with the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers and other federal and state resource agencies to merge the Section 404' and
NEPA processes. This merger agreement includes consensus points at the conclusion of
each of four stages in the NEPA process. The stages are:
• Purpose and Need
• Alternatives for Detailed Study
• Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
• Avoidance and Minimization of Effects
This document describes the alternatives that were identified and considered for inclusion in
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) being prepared for this action. A preliminary
Alternatives Report was prepared in March, 2004, and distributed to the NEPA/404 Merger
Team prior to a meeting held April 15, 2004. At that meeting concurrence was reached on
alternatives to be carried forward into the EIS. Appendix D was added to the Alternatives
Report and contains the minutes from that meeting and a copy of the signed concurrence
form.
1.1. Proposed Action
As described in the NCDOT 2004 - 2010 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), the
NCDOT proposes to widen and extend Elizabeth Brady Road (SR 1879) from the
intersection of NC 86 with US 70 Business to north of US 70 Bypass at the intersection of
St. Mary's Road (SR 1002) (see Figure 1-1 ). The proposed project would involve the
construction of a 1.4-mile multi-lane road and possibly a new crossing of the Eno River.
Elizabeth Brady Road is presently atwo-lane road, 24 feet wide. The proposed action will
widen the existing section to five lanes and construct afour-lane median divided facility on a
100-foot wide right-of-way on new location.
The February 1998 NCDOT Feasibility Study describes the Elizabeth Brady Road cross
section as a four-lane, median divided facility with a 16-foot wide median, 72 feet wide from
face-to-face of curbs with berms 10 feet wide. The proposed bridge over the Eno River is
described as 72 feet wide and 260 feet in length. The recommended right-of-way width for
the median divided cross-section is described as 100 feet. The study cross section
accommodates bicycle traffic.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as amended, which regulates the deposition of fill into Waters of the United
States. Waters of the United States include rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands.
Alternatives Report 1-1

tr IWR~M GllOL~WI
GCFJiR~IY~AI~ Di ~RIINSiARrAr10N
~ 'PROJilC~ OC11CtAP1YiN~
'~ .'' a wvseaisrcN~aL,uwLYsis ~icn
Orange County.
Elizabeth 8rady~ Road Extension
TIP NO: U - 3805
Figure 1 -1
LEGEND
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a Thoroughfare Aligrmerrt
Figure 1-1. Location of TIP Project Number U-3808, Hillsborough, Orange County, NC.
1-2 Alternatives Report '

'
1.2. Need for the Proposed Action
' 1.2.1. Traffic Congestion and Deficient Level of Service
The Purpose and Need study documented that under current conditions, the intersection of
Churton Street at Margaret Lane experiences level-of-service (LOS) E conditions during the
AM and PM peak hour periods, with the heaviest congestion experienced by westbound left-
turning vehicles. Southbound queues extend to the King Street intersection and northbound
queues exceed 750 feet. The intersection of Churton Street at King Street would operate at
' LOS C in the AM and LOS B in the PM peak hours if it were an isolated signal with
adequate spacing between King Street and the adjacent intersections. However, field
observations indicate that the intersection operates at a worse level of service during peak
' periods. The primary reason for this deterioration in service is that Margaret Lane queuing
extends into the King Street intersection.
' Several unsignalized intersections are experiencing poor levels of service on the side
approaches. The intersection of Churton Street with the I-85 northbound ramps is operating
at LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours. The heavy single-lane mainline approaches
' (703 vehicles per hour (vph) southbound / 846 vph northbound) result in few gaps for left-
turning vehicles from the I-85 off ramp to merge onto Churton Street. Similarly, the left-turn
movements from both ramps at the NC 86 interchange operate at LOS E/F during both peak
' periods.
An analysis of roadway level of service for the study area indicates that Churton Street from
I-85 north to NC 86 is operating at LOS F under existing conditions. The congestion is most
severe in the downtown area between NC 86 and Tryon Street.
By 2025, US 70 Bypass at Churton Street will operate at LOS E. Seven other signalized
intersections along US 70 Bypass and Churton Street will operate at LOS F. These
intersections are:
' US 70 Bypass at Lawrence Road (SR 1709)
US 70 Bypass at St. Mary's Road
Churton Street/SR 1009 at US 70 Business/NC 86
Churton Street and King Street
Churton Street and Margaret Lane
Churton Street (SR 1009) at Orange Grove Road (SR 1006)
' Exit 164 -Churton Street at I-85 SB Ramps (north of I-85)
Churton Street will continue to operate at LOS F in 2025. It is anticipated that LOS F
' conditions will occur over longer periods throughout the day and not just during the AM and
PM peak commuting periods. The NC 86 and US 70 Business roadway sections between
I-85 at Exit 165 and the Churton Street / US 70 Business intersection are forecast to operate

' at LOS F compared with LOS B under existing conditions.
1.2.2. Distribution of Trips
' The data analyses indicate that approximately 50 percent of the vehicles using the Churton
Street Bridge over the Eno River are local trips bound for locations south of Hillsborough.
Approximately 20 percent use I-40 with the primary destinations being Chapel Hill and South

Alternatives Report 1-3

Durham. Of the remainder, approximately 30 percent use I-85 to reach Durham (20
percent) and Research Triangle Park or Raleigh (10 percent).
1.2.3. Traffic Safety
Approximately half of the roads evaluated in Hillsborough have accident rates exceeding the
statewide averages including Churton Street, NC 86, St. Mary's Road, Revere Road, West
Hill Avenue, Nash Street, and Allison Street/Eno Mountain Road. On roadways with high
total accident rates, the injury accident rates tend to be similar, with rear-end accidents
being the highest, followed by right and left-turn accidents.
1.2.4. Infrastructure Support for Economic Development
Orange County has established two Economic Development Districts south of the Town of
Hillsborough. Both of the districts are adjacent to interstate highways. One is in the area
surrounding the I-85 and NC 86 interchange south of Elizabeth Brady Road. The other
district is at the I-40 and Old NC 86 (Churton Street) interchange.
Development in these two Economic Development Districts will generate traffic within the
project area and along Churton Street. Consequently, the current and projected traffic
congestion along Churton Street and NC 86 could also affect the success of these two
districts.
1.3. Purpose of the Proposed Action
The purpose of the proposed project, as concurred by the NEPA/404 Merger Team, is to:
1. Reduce traffic congestion and improve the Level of Service (LOS) in the central
business district of the Town of Hillsborough, including Churton Street and Saint
Mary's Road.
2. Improve traffic safety along Churton Street and NC 86.
1-4 Alternatives Report

2.0. ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS
Seven alternatives were evaluated as potential alternatives to be included in the
Environmental Impact Statement. The alternatives were selected based upon the
comments and concerns that were raised at the original Scoping Meeting in December 2000
and subsequent meetings with Town of Hillsborough staff. The alternatives were selected to
provide options for an alignment that:
1. Follows the original alignment proposed in the Orange County Thoroughfare Plan
and NCDOT's TIP;
2. Avoids impacts to the former NASCAR racetrack site;
3. Avoids a new crossing of the Eno River;
4. Utilizes existing road corridors; and
5. Avoids or minimizes potential impacts to historic resources.
All of the alternatives were evaluated with regard to their ability to meet the project purpose
of reducing congestion and improving safety along Churton Street and St. Mary's Road.
The comparison of alternatives is found in the following section, Section 3.0.
The seven alternatives included five build-alternatives, the Transportation System
Management (TSM) alternative, and the No-Build Alternative. The alternatives are
described below and depicted in Figure 2-1.
1. Alternative 1 (No-Build) -The No-Build Alternative would forego any improvements
' to Elizabeth Brady Road, but includes routine maintenance, other NCDOT
programmed roadway improvements, and other roadway projects in the area that are
included in the adopted 2025 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) of the
' Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
such as widening of US 70 Bypass.
' 2. Alternative 2 (TSM) -TSM improvements involve increasing the available capacity of
the facility within the existing right-of-way with minimum capital expenditures and
without reconstructing the existing facility. This alternative would include small-scale

' intersection and signal timing improvements in addition to the programmed
improvements considered under the No-Build scenario. For the traffic analysis, the
underlying traffic projections were kept constant for Alternative 2, or the same as the
No-Build (see Section 5.0). This is due to the expectation that traffic travel patterns
will not change due to TSM improvements.
3. Alternative 3 -This alternative is essentially the original alignment identified in the
NCDOT's Transportation Improvement Program. The proposed alternative would
widen existing Elizabeth Brady Road and extend the road across the Eno River
intersecting with US 70 Bypass at St. Mary's Road.
' 4. Alternative 4 -This alternative avoids impacts to the former Occoneechee-Orange
Speedway NASCAR racetrack site, which is listed on the National Register of
' Historic Places (NRHP), by constructing a road on new alignment east of existing
Elizabeth Brady Road. After crossing the Eno River, the road would turn back
toward the west and intersect US 70 Bypass in approximately the same location as
Alternative 3.
Alternatives Report 2-1

5. Alternative 5 -This alternative would widen Lawrence Road and create a new t
interchange with I-85.
6. Alternative 6 -This alternative would avoid a new crossing of the Eno River. The '
new road would intersect US 70 Business east of the existing Elizabeth Brady Road
intersection and run northeast, intersecting US 70 Bypass east of the existing bridge

over the Eno River. '
7. Alternative 7 -This alternative would construct a new western alignment near
Dimmock Mill Road (SR 1134), west of downtown Hillsborough. This alternative ,
would also include a new Interchange at I-85.

1

1

2-2 Alternatives Report

~ ~ ~ !~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

'
3.0. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
' This section provides a comparison of the project alternatives; highlighting their respective
advantages and disadvantages. Table 3-1 provides a qualitative summary.
' 3.1. Alternative 1 - No-Build
The No-Build Alternative fails to meet the purpose and need for the project. Both local
' officials and the community strongly believe that there is a current need to reduce
congestion on Churton Street in downtown Hillsborough. Traffic studies have shown that by
2025 there will be a substantial increase in traffic congestion in downtown Hillsborough and
throughout the Hillsborough area. The increased congestion in the downtown central
' business district could cause adverse social and economic impacts to the town and local
businesses, as well as to the historic fabric of the town.
' The No-Build Alternative would result in no direct impacts to historic or archaeological
resources, the Eno River, or other natural systems. However, this alternative would lead to
increased social and economic impacts as a result of the increased congestion in downtown
Hillsborough. The increase congestion would directly affect downtown businesses. It would
also affect the normal movement within and through the downtown area by local residents,
such as transporting children to and from school.
' 3.2. Alternative 2 -Transportation System Management
' While the TSM alternative does provide some congestion relief, it fails to meet the projects
purpose and need. Overall intersection delays in downtown Hillsborough would only be
reduced by three percent, as compared with the No-Build Alternative. There would be no
' traffic volume reduction on Churton Street, and the overall number of intersections operating
at LOS E or F would not be reduced. However, the TSM alternative would improve the
volume to capacity ratio in downtown Hillsborough. Alternative 5 is the only build-alternative
' with a composite congestion score that is worse than Alternative 2 (see Table 5-1 ). It
should be noted that the TSM alternative could be incorporated into any of the build
alternatives.
Because TSM involves, at most, only minor road improvements (such as addition of turn
lanes), there would be minimal risk of impacts to historic or archaeological resources and no
additional impacts to the Eno River or other natural systems. Should Alternative 2, or any
' other alternative, result in widening US 70 business, there could be impacts to one or two
historic resources (Occoneechi Gate and White Furniture). White furniture may also have
hazardous or toxic materials associated with the site.
3.3. Alternative 3 -TIP Alternative
' This alternative meets the project's purpose and need. However, the alternative would
directly impact the Occoneechee Racetrack. Additionally, this alternative has a new
crossing of the Eno River and would probably result in the need to relocate a tire company
' and a gasoline station. This alternative would have minimal overall relocation impacts.

' Alternatives Report 3-1

3.4. Alternative 4 -Avoids Occoneechee Racetrack
This alternative meets the project's purpose and need. The alternative would avoid the
racetrack, but it still would require a new crossing of the Eno River. The alternative would
have similar impacts to the businesses at US 70 and St. Mary's Road, possibly requiring the
relocation of the tire company and the gasoline station. Alternative 4 would also require the
greatest number of relocations.
3.5. Alternative 5 -Lawrence Road Widening
This alternative fails to meet the project's purpose and need. This alternative, however,
widens an existing road and adds an interchange to I-85. The proposed location of the
interchange is somewhat problematic in that it is less than one mile from the next nearest
interchange. The alternative has the potential for impacting a house currently listed on the
NRHP. US 70 Bypass would need to be widened and the existing bridge on US 70 would
have to be replaced. In addition, like the No-Build Alternative, will not reduce congestion on
Churton Street. It is therefore conceivable that the worsening congestion could lead to
adverse economic impacts to downtown Hillsborough.
3.6. Alternative 6 -Eastern Alternative that Avoids a New Crossing of the
Eno River
This alternative would provide minimal congestion relief on Churton Street through
downtown Hillsborough. The alternative would also have to be constructed on steep terrain
paralleling the Eno River. In addition, US 70 Bypass would possibly need to be widened
and the existing bridge on US 70 replaced.
3.7. Alternate 7 -Far Western Alternative
This alternative would not meet the projects purpose and need. It would require a new
crossing of the Eno River upstream of Hillsborough's drinking water supply intake and
treatment plant.
3-Z Alternatives Report

Table 3-1. Comparison Summary of Project Alternatives.
Impacts

Alternative Meets

Project Cultural Resources
Water

Protected
Toxic or

Engineering Concerns/Cost
Purpose Streams Wetlands Supply Species Relocations Hazardous (millions)
. Watershed Materials
-Need
1 - No-Build No Potential secondary None None None None 0 None $0
impacts to downtown
due to lack of
congestion relief.
2 - TSM No Potential secondary None None to None None 0 None unless US 70 NA
impacts to downtown Minimal Business is widened
due to lack of past White Furniture
congestion relief.
Potential impacts to two
historic properties if US
70 business is widened.
3 -TIP Yes Would directly impact Crosses Minimal None Minimal 4 Probable relocation of Large span would be required for
Alternative the former NASCAR Eno River a fire sales and crossing the Eno River to avoid
racetrack site. service facility and a potential for increased flooding.
Alternative located gasoline station at US $y 9
across the river from 70 Bypass and St.
Ayr Mount historic site. Mary's Road
Close proximity would
probably result in a
determination of Affect.
4 -Avoids Yes Adjacent to former Crosses Minimal None Minimal 14 Probable relocation of Alignment would have to traverse
Occoneechee NASCAR site. Close Eno River afire sales and steep terrain paralleling the Eno
Racetrack proximity would service facility and a River.
probably result in a gasoline station at US $14.1
determination of Affect. 70 Bypass and St.
Mary's Road
5 -Lawrence No Rigsbee's Rock House Minimal Minimal Very Minor Minimal 3 Widening of US 70 No Cost Estimate was obtained. It
Road is located at the corner Bypass could impact is anticipated that this alternative
Widening of US 70 Business and one or both of the would require widening US 70
Lawrence Road. businesses on US 70 Bypass and widening the existing
Secondary impacts to Bypass and St.
' bridge over the Eno River on US
downtown due to lack s Road
Mary 70.
of congestion relief. NA

Table 3-1. Comparison Summary of Project Alternatives.
Impacts
Meets Cultural Resources
Alternative
Project

Streams

Wetlands Water

Supply
Protected

Relocations Toxic or

Hazardous
Engineering Concerns/Cost
Pur ose
p Watershed S ecies
p Materials `(millions)
& Need
6 -Eastern No Minimal Minimal Minimal None Minimal 3 Widening of US 70 Alignment would have to traverse
Alternative Bypass could impact steep terrain paralleling the Eno
That Avoids one or both of the River. It is anticipated that this
New Crossing businesses on US 70 alternative would require widening
of the Eno Bypass and St. US 70 Bypass and widening the
River Mary's Road existing bridge over the Eno River
on US 70.
$17.0
7 -Far No Potential secondary Crosses Minimal None Minimal 4 None Identified Alignment would require a new
Western impacts to downtown Eno River bridge over the Eno River.
Alternative due to lack of
NA
congestion relief.
li~l l~ l~ liiiiiiiiii~ li~^ iiiiiiiiiii~ lip liiiiiiiiii~ liiiiii~ lii~ lily li~^ lip l~ lip lii~ lii~ l~ liiiiiiiiii~

'
4.0. ENVIROMENTAL FEATURES AND POTENTIAL CONSTRAINT
S
' 4.1. General Description of the Project Area
' Orange County is in the North Central Piedmont region of North Carolina. The county lies
across the divides of three major river basins. The northern edge drains into the Roanoke
River Basin; the northeastern part drains into the Neuse River Basin; and the western and
southern parts drain into the Cape Fear River Basin. The Haw River, a tributary of the Cape
' Fear River, forms approximately three miles of the southwest boundary. The Elizabeth
Brady Road Extension project area is within the Eno River Watershed. The Eno River is a
tributary to the Neuse River.

Elevation within the county ranges from undulating terrain at 700 to 800 feet above mean
sea level (along the major river basin divides in the northern part of the county) to 230 feet
on the floodplains of Morgan Creek (in the southeastern part on the Cape Fear Watershed).
The highest point in the county is Occoneechee Mountain at Hillsborough; it has an
elevation of 860 feet.
Elizabeth Brady Road is within the Town of Hillsborough in central Orange County
Figure 1-1 ). Hillsborough, the Orange County seat, is immediately east of the junction of I-
40 and I-85, in the North Central Piedmont region (at the western edge of the greater
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area). The Town, founded in 1754, has an area of 3.91 square
miles and is approximately 12 miles west of Durham and 10 miles north of Chapel Hill.
Greensboro and Raleigh are within a 40-minute drive.
4.2. Historic Features
In March 2001 a Phase I reconnaissance survey for historic features was conducted within
the project area (Mattson & Alexander, 2001). The Phase I (reconnaissance) survey
followed the requirements set forth by the NCDOT. The methodology consisted of historical
research and fieldwork within the study area to identify properties on or eligible for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
During the research phase, the architectural survey files of the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) in Raleigh were searched for National Register and Study List
properties, as well as for other previously surveyed resources located in or around the study
area. Survey files of properties in Orange County located outside the Hillsborough town
limits are available at the Orange County Planning Department in Hillsborough. Ms. Tina
Moon, a county planner, provided information on the locations of historic resources around
the periphery of Hillsborough. For the Town of Hillsborough, Ms. Margaret A. Hauth,
Planning Director, provided information regarding the Hillsborough Historic District. Finally,
Mr. Bill Crowther made available historical data on the Occoneechee-Orange Speedway in
Hillsborough.
The fieldwork for the Phase I Survey consisted of adrive-through (windshield) survey of the
study area and site inspections of selected properties considered worthy of such analysis.
Properties listed on the NRHP or considered to be either definitely or potentially eligible for
the NRHP were photographed and keyed to the survey area map. The proposed National
Register boundaries for these properties were identified in a general manner (i.e., without
Alternatives Report 4-1

deed research). The fieldwork was conducted in November and December 2000 and 100
percent of the study area was examined.
The survey identified the Hillsborough Historic District and four additional properties listed
on the NRHP. Nine other resources were considered potentially eligible for the NRHP.
Figure 4-1 identifies the location of the identified historic resources. In the initial phases of
the project, the project area was defined broadly. As a result, several of the properties
identified in the report are far enough outside the current project area that they are not
discussed in this document. The following section discusses only those properties that
could be impacted by any of the alternatives under consideration.
4.2.1. Properties Listed or Eligible for Listing on the National Register of
Historic Places
Hillsborough Historic District
The Hillsborough Historic District encompasses the heart of historic Hillsborough as well as
adjacent plantation seats along the Eno River, including Ayr Mount, Poplar Hill, Burnside,
Highlands, and Over the River. One of the state's political and cultural centers prior to the
Civil War, it holds a remarkably intact collection of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century
residential, commercial, religious, and civic architecture.
Ayr Mount (1814-1817) is located on the east side of the historic district (marked as 1 on
Figure 4-1 ). The northern, southern, and eastern National Register boundaries of the estate
define the borders of the Hillsborough Historic District in this area. One of the finest
neoclassical houses in North Carolina, Ayr Mount was erected along the Eno River for
Hillsborough merchant William Kirkland. In its construction and plan, Ayr Mount stands
apart from other plantation houses of the Piedmont. While other residences of the period
typically have weatherboard exteriors and rectangular forms reflecting regional building
patterns, Ayr Mount is distinguished by its brick construction and Palladian-inspired tripartite
plan. Now handsomely restored, Ayr Mount embodies the high craftsmanship and great
wealth that shaped the finest houses of the state in the early nineteenth century.
Rigsbee's Rock House (#2)
Built in 1929, this rustic country estate was the home of Mac and Julie Rigsbee. The
Rigsbees gained notoriety in the 1920s for their bootlegging activities, which contributed to
Orange County's reputation as one of the premier moonshining counties in the state. The
house is a handsome example of twentieth-century rustic architecture. The sprawling, story-
and-a-half residence is constructed of rubble white quartz. The wooded, two-acre grounds
include a swimming pool, a low wall, and two six-foot-high planters that are all constructed
of white quartz (see Appendix B).
4.2.2. Properties Potentially Eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places
Blackwelder's Service Station (#3)
This site is located east of Lawrence Road and is unlikely to be affected by the project. The
site is a fine example of 1920s roadside architecture in Orange County. The frame
Alternatives Report

/ ~ J.L. Brown House \
l~ error Burke Grave
•
N
E
Maple Hill
S
Sunnyside
Alt
It 7
~ '
~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ .Alt
~ ~ ~
' , ~ ~~`"""""-"~'dnt n is Hous v Occ aches-oran Speedwa
'~ x I I `~ • ;;_ . ! .- Alt \.. ~' ,; Altematlve 4
/\/ Altematlve 6
~ ! ° •~ ~ / Altematlve 5
' ` Altematlve 3
cc echi to
~ ~ ~ ~ Streets
` /'~ <` Railroads
State h~ f ~,
White~t~miture Company _ Rivers and Streams
' 4 ~j'88 ,~~ Alt 5 ~ Lakes
~ Historic sites
"' '~~ lackwelder Service S ~ OcconeecheeArangeSpsedway
q'~ ®Hillsborough Natlonal Register Historic District
' Rigs y Rack House 0 Cltles and Towns
~ ,-,
~ 'I
~ ,
~_~
/~>
.~
4
~~
t~
y„k~
1 0.7 0 0.7 1.4 Miles
Figure 4-1. Location of Historic Sites Identified Within the Project Area

rectangular building has a canopied service bay, nine-over-nine windows, and attic dormers.
The first owner not only sold gas, but also ran a petting zoo. The metal bear cage still
remains on the property. The property has since been converted to a residence.
Occoneechi Gate (#4)
The Occoneechi Gate is the only surviving remnant of what was once the prosperous estate
known as Occoneechi Manor, owned by Julian Carr. The unusual, eight-foot-high rock entry
gate features vertical stones atop an undulating base. There are some eight round columns
capped by three round stones. The gate now leads into a modern residential subdivision.
Julian Carr was one of the state's preeminent tobacconists and entrepreneurs of the late
nineteenth- and early twentieth-centuries, whose fortune was primarily made in the Durham,
North Carolina, tobacco factories and textile mills. The Carr residence in Durham, Somerset
Villa, no longer survives. The site is located on the north side of US 70 Business, midway
between Elizabeth Brady Road and Churton Street.
White Furniture Company (#5)
' This substantial, early twentieth-century factory complex was established as a branch plant
for the White Furniture Company of Mebane, North Carolina. The main two-story building
has a corrugated metal facade and rows ofsix-over-six wood-sash windows. Metal vents
pierce the principal roof ridge. The site is located across US 70 Business from Occoneechi
' Gate.

' Occoneechee Speedway (Occoneechee NASCAR Racetrack) (#6)
Established east of Hillsborough in 1947, this stock car speedway was the site of the third
race ever sanctioned by NASCAR. Hailed at the time as the finest speedway in the country,
it was the only one-mile racetrack between Atlanta and Philadelphia, and included
grandstands to seat 10,000 spectators and sloped hillsides to hold an additional 25,000
fans. The racetrack was host to some of the greatest names in stock car racing, including
' Richard Petty, Junior Johnson, and Louise Smith, the first female driver in NASCAR. After
two decades of racing, the track closed in 1968, and the events were moved to the Alabama
International Motor Speedway (Talladega Super Speedway).
' In 1997 Preservation North Carolina purchased the property owned by Enoch Stanley and
Bill France. The property acquisition was the remaining 165 acres; however, after the
property was acquired it was surveyed and the surveyed area came out to 192 acres. Of
' the 192 (165) acres, 44 acres comprise the Occoneechee Speedway National Register site.
The site, which includes the main racetrack, is currently being renovated through the
support of the Classical American Homes Preservation Trust, owners of Ayr Mount. At
present the site has a number of trails and interpretive signs (see Appendix B).
After acquiring the property, Preservation North Carolina placed deed restrictions on the
' property in order to preserve it and transferred the title to Classic American Homes
Preservation Trust, the current property owner. These restrictions include development
restrictions, which limit development to walking trails.
'
The 192 acres owned by Classic American Homes Preservation Trust also includes
approximately 20 acres on the north side of the Eno River, behind the homes on Riverside
' Drive (the location for Alternative 4).
Alternatives Report

4.3. Natural Features
4.3.1. Streams and Wetlands
Waters of the United States
Because of the large size of the project area, no wetland determination or delineation has
been conducted. The National Wetland Inventory maps for the project area identify only a
few small, scatter wetlands. Based on this information, it is likely that wetland impacts can
be avoided or minimized for all alignment alternatives.
The Eno River and Cates Creek are the only blue-line perennial streams, as shown on the
U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute topographic maps (Figure 4-3), .that would be crossed by
any of the alternatives. New crossings of the Eno River would be required by Alternatives 3,
4, and 7. Alternative 3 would also cross Cates Creek. Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 would each
cross at least one intermittent unnamed stream.
Water Quality2
The Falls of the Neuse Reservoir (Falls Lake) Watershed includes the cities of Durham and
Hillsborough. The Flat, Eno, and Little Rivers drainages of Falls Lake are in the Slate Belt
Ecoregion. A narrow band of Triassic basin rocks run through the middle of this area,
including Ledge, Beaverdam, and Lick Creeks. Smaller streams in the Slate Belt and
Triassic regions are especially susceptible to lack of flow during dry periods. This natural
stress may obscure some of the effects of point and non point source runoff.
Overall, biological sampling showed no evidence of major changes in water quality for this
sub-basin between 1995 and 2000. Of the 23 stream sites sampled for benthic
invertebrates, fish, or both in 2000, 16 (70 percent) rated either Good or Excellent. Of the
18 sites sampled in both 1995 and 2000, seven (39 percent) retained the same bio-
classification, seven (39 percent) increased by one bio-classification, and four (22 percent)
decreased by one bio-classification. None of the eight lakes sampled in 2000 indicated any
significant change in water quality between 1995 and 2000.
High water quality is found in the Eno, Flat, and Little Rivers systems. This is due to a
combination of Slate Belt geology and a general lack of disturbance. Macroinvertebrate and
fish collections produced Good or Excellent ratings for most sites on these rivers.
The Stream Classification for the Eno River in the vicinity of the project area is: Aquatic Life,
Secondary Recreation (C) and Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW)3.
z Source: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Basinwide Assessment '
Report, Neuse River Basin, November 2001, Executive Summary, pages 16-17.
s Source: NCDENR Division of Water Quality, Stream Classification Descriptions
(http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies/ClassificationDescriptions.pdf). '
Alternatives Report '

~ Q
0
o°
0
~ n 0
0

~ e Alt 2 \
D
~ 0
r
o
Alt 2
a
D
° ~ Alt 6
'~~ o~
~ 9~IY
~~
~ ~ / ~ r
0
~"~'
Figure 4-2. National Wetlands Within the Project Area (map not to scale
O o ~ D
d ~ ~
c
D
1
~ \ \ _ O
v
\ _. 900 0 1,800 Feet
W
N
~E
S
Legend
Streams
o Wetlands
Streets

cn'
m
W
O
~_
O
O
2
O
O
C
v
Q
m
v
a
c
G~
3
~~
m
0
0
v
~~
v
0
~~
s
c~
cn
m
v
0
`m'
rr
0
r-f
0
n

' 4.3.2. Floodplains
' All of the alignment alternatives will cross the Eno River floodplain (see Figure 4-4).
4.3.3. Water Supply Watersheds
' The majority of the project area lies within an unprotected portion of the Lower Eno
Watershed (Figure 4-5). Only the northern half of Lawrence Road lies within the protected
' portion of the Lower Eno Watershed.
Water Treatment Facilities4
' The Town of Hillsborough maintains a water intake and treatment facility on the Eno River,
up-stream from the proposed TIP project corridor, on Dimmock Mill Road (SR 1134). The
water treatment plant has the capacity to treat 3.0 million gallons per day (MGD). In 1998
' the town erected two water storage tanks, one 750,000 gallons and one 500,000 gallons.
To accommodate short-term water needs, the Town has interconnections with three
adjoining water systems.
' The main water source for the Town is the West Eno Reservoir, west of Hillsborough. The
reservoir contains 786 million gallons and has a safe yield of 1.8 MGD. Hillsborough has
plans for an expansion of the West Eno Reservoir when it is needed. The planned
expansion will increase the reservoir's depth by 10 feet (to 53 feet total), its volume to 1.72
billion gallons, and its capacity to a safe yield of 3.0 MGD. The Town also maintains a
' wastewater treatment facility on Elizabeth Brady Road that discharges treated water back
into the Eno River
.
4.4. Parks and Recreational Areas
'
4.4.1. Parks
' Occoneechee Mountain State Natural Area
Occoneechee Mountain State Natural Area is a 124-acre park located within the general
project study area. The Natural Area is located west of Orange Grove Road, between I-85
' to the south and Eno Mountain Road and the Eno River to the north. None of the
alternatives under consideration would impact the Natural Area.
' Occoneechee Village
Occoneechee Village is a reconstructed replica of an Occoneechee village. The village is
' located in the Town of Hillsborough along the banks of the Eno River.
Exchange Club Park
'
Exchange Club Park is a privately owned park which is opened to the public. The park is
located on Exchange Park Lane, north of Orange Grove Road and west of South Churton
' Street.
a Source: Orange County (http://www.co.orange.nc.us/shaping/profile1/watersupply.htm).

Alternatives Report
4-11

Occoneechee Golf Club
Occoneechee Golf Club is a privately owned golf course located adjacent to Lawrence
Road.
4.4.2. Bicycle Paths
There are no designated bicycle paths or trails that would be affected by any of the
proposed alignment alternatives. The original TIP alignment was proposed as part of
Hillsborough's bike-path system.
4.4.3. Protected Species
There are 18 protected species identified as potentially present and 11 species that have
historically occurred within the area covered by the Hillsborough and Efland U.S. Geological
Survey 7.5 minute topographic maps (Table 4-1 ). Of these 29 species, one is listed as
federally threatened (bald eagle) and three are listed as federally endangered (dwarf
wedgemussel, smooth coneflower, and Michaux's sumac).
4.5. Relocations
A relocation study will be conducted as part of the Environmental Impact Statement process.
At this stage of the project, detailed alignments have not been developed. As a result, it is
not possible to determine accurately the exact number of houses and businesses to be
impacted by each alternative. However, Orange County's interactive GIS database was
reviewed and an estimate of the number of relocations was made for each alternative. All of
the build alternatives (Alternatives 3 through 7) would require relocations.
Alternatives 3 and 4 would both impact the businesses and residences near the intersection
of St. Mary's Road and US 70 Bypass. Alternative 4, however, has the greatest number of
potential relocations. To avoid impacts to the former NASCAR racetrack site, the alignment
would cross the Eno River east of the racetrack and then parallel the river. As a result, most
of the homes located along Riverside Drive and at the end of Ivy Road would require
relocation. Four relocations are estimated for Alternative 3 and 14 relocations for Alternative
4.
It is likely that Lawrence Road (Alternative 5) can be widened to the west, between US 70
Bypass and US 70 Business, without requiring the relocation of any homes or impacting the
golf course. However, the Rigsbee's Rock House, a residence listed on the NRHP, is
located on the southwest corner of Lawrence Road and US 70 Business. There is also
another home on the southeast corner of the intersection. Widening this intersection may
require the relocation of one home. In addition, the proposed interchange associated with
Alternative 5 may require the relocation of homes along Jefferson Drive and Lannie Drive,
which parallel I-85. Three relocations are estimated for Alternative 5.
Alternative 6 may require the relocation of three to four homes along Poplar Lane in the
Poplar Ridge subdivision. As with Alternative 4, this alternative would parallel the river,
crossing relatively steep terrain. Three relocations are estimated for Alternative 6.
4-12 Alternatives Report

Legend
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
--~~~~ Alternative 7
Streets
~ 100- Year Floodplain Zones
~ A- No Base Flood Elevation Determined
o AE -Base Flood Elevation Determined
~ X500 - Areas of 500-Year Flood
N
W
S
2 0 2 4 Miles
E
Figure 4-4. Floodplain Map of Project Area.

nd:
Protected
watershed
areas
Water yuaC~~y
critical ar~ar
Municipal
City Limits
Watershed
boundary
Basin divide
Streams
Roads
o,
.~
;\ ..
~J
Figure 4-5. Water Supply Watersheds in Orange County (map is not to scale).
ange County
ing Ilepartme~lt
Coleman, 1211!j~~ t
Alternatives Report 4-15

Table 4-1. Natural Heritage Information for Hillsborough and Efland, North Carolina, U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle Maps.

Major Group Scientific Name
(Habitat Link)
Common Name State
Status' Federal
Status2 State
Rank3 Global
Rank^ Status /Quad
Vascular Plant Buchnera Americana American Bluehearts SR-P - SH G5? Historic -Efland
Vascular Plant Echinacea laevigata Smooth Coneflower E-SC E S1 G2 Historic -Hillsborough
Vascular Plant Fothergilla major Large Witch-alder SR-T - S2 G3 Current -Hillsborough
Vascular Plant Hexalectris spicata Crested Coralroot SR-P - S2 G5 Current -Hillsborough
Vascular Plant Monotropsis odorata Sweet Pinesap SR-T FSC S3 G3 Historic -Hillsborough
Vascular Plant Panicum flexile Wiry Panic Grass SR-P - S1 G5 Historic -Hillsborough
Vascular Plant Platanthera peramoena Purple Fringeless Orchid SR-P - S1 G5 Historic -Hillsborough
Vascular Plant Rhus michauxii Michaux's Sumac E-SC E S2 G2 Historic -Efland
Vascular Plant Thermopsis mollis sensu
stricto Appalachian Golden-banner SR-P - S2 G3G4Q Historic -Hillsborough /
Efland
Vascular Plant Trichostema brachiatum Glade Bluecurls SR-P - S1 G4G5 Historic -Hillsborough
Source: North Carolina Natural Heritage Database (www.ncsparks.net/nhp/quad.html). Information updated May 2003.
'State Status Codes: E =Endangered, T= Threatened, SC =Special Concem, C =Candidate, SR =Significantly Rare, EX = Extirpated, P =Proposed (used only as a qualifier).
ZFederal Status Codes: E =Endangered, T= Threatened, EXN =Endangered, non-essential experimental population, T (S/A) =Threatened (similarity of appearance), C =Candidate, FSC =Federal
Species of Concem, PE =Proposed Endangered, PD =Proposed Delisted.
3State Rank: S1 =Critically Imperiled in NC, S2 =Imperiled in NC, S3 =Rare or Uncommon in NC, S4 =Apparently Secure in NC, S5 =Demonstrably Secure in NC, SA =Accidental or Casual, SH = Of
Historic Occurrence, SR =Reported without Persuasive Documentation, SX =Believed to be Extirpated, SU =Possibly in Peril in NC, S? =Unranked or Uncertain, S_B =Rank of Breeding (migratory
species only), S_N = Rank of Non-Breeding (migratory species only), SZ_ =Species is not of Significant Conservation Concern.
°Global Rank: G1 =Critically Imperiled Globally, G2 =Imperiled Globally, G3 =Very Rare and Local Throughout Its Range or Found Locally in Restricted Areas, Globally, G4 =Apparently Secure
Globally, G5 =Demonstrably Secure Globally, GH =Historic Throughout Its Range, GX =Believed to be Extinct, GU =Possibly in Peril Globally, G? =Unranked or Rank Uncertain, G_Q = Of
Questionable Taxonomic Status, S_T_ =Status of Subspecies or Variety (G Rank for Species as a Whole, T Rank for Sub-species).

Alternative seven, which would parallel Dimmock Mill Road (SR 1134), will likely impact
several homes along Dimmock Mill Road (SR 1134) and US 70 Bypass. Four relocations
are estimated for Alternative 7.
4.6. Hazardous Materials and Waste Sites
A Phase I reconnaissance and Environmental Site Assessment will be conducted for this
project during the Environmental Impact Statement phase of the project. Three potential
hazardous materials sites have been identified to date. White Furniture Company is
identified by the Center for Geographic Analysis' BasinPro database as having toxic or
hazardous materials. This site would not be impacted unless the project entailed widening
US 70 Business. There also is a service station located on the northeast corner of the
intersection of US 70 Bypass and St. Mary's Road. Finally, located across the street, on the
southeast corner of the intersection, is a tire dealership. No other sites have been identified.
4-18
Alternatives Report

1
5.0. SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
' In December 2003 a traffic analysis for the project area was completed. The traffic analysis
involved atwo-step process:
' 1. Year 2025 travel demand analysis using the Subarea Demand Model; and
2. Year 2025 AM and PM peak hour traffic operational analysis using the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) procedures in Synchro (Version 5).
' 5.1. Year 2025 Travel Demand Analysis
The future travel demand analysis step involved coding an alternative configuration in the
Subarea Demand Model and preparing a traffic assignment based on future vehicle trips for
three time periods - AM Peak period, PM peak period and off-peak period. The traffic
assignment results from the three time periods were combined to prepare the daily traffic
volume projections. The Elizabeth Brady Road Extension is projected to carry
approximately 12,600 vehicles per day (vpd) in 2025 if Alternative 3 is selected. The
projected volume goes down as the roadway alignment shifts to the east, to approximately
' 8,000 vpd for Alternative 6.
Each of the proposed alternatives cause some degree of traffic shifts in the project area,
resulting in traffic increases and decreases at various locations. With the No-Build
Alternative, there would be significant future traffic volumes along east-west facilities in the
area, such as US 70 Business and US 70 Bypass, to and from the I-85 interchange. The
' build alternatives provide additional north-south capacity, thereby increasing the
attractiveness of the I-85 interchanges with NC 86. Overall, the daily traffic shifts are
expectedly low, within plus or minus 20 percent. However, for specific locations, shifts are
' higher than 20 percent due to the network improvements proposed by an alternative. For
example, the Lawrence Road widening alternative (Alternative 5) would result in substantial
shifts in traffic around the proposed new interchange, and the various Elizabeth Brady Road
Extension alternatives cause significant traffic shift at St. Mary's Road east of US 70
' Bypass.

' In terms of future traffic diversion from downtown Churton Street, Alternatives 3 and 4
showed the greatest potential. The traffic diversion from Churton Street due to Alternatives
3 and 4, during peak commute hours, is generally higher than what has been shown as daily
shifts. This is due to the fact that peak hour congestion along Churton Street is more
' severe, making an alternative route even more attractive as a reliever route.
5.2. Year 2025 Traffic Operations Evaluation

The future traffic operational analysis step of the alternatives analysis process involved the
following major tasks:
' Estimatin
eak hour turnin
movement volumes from the Hillsb
AM
rou
h Sub
r
a
g
g
p
g
o
a
e
Demand Model for key intersections in the study area;
• Estimating PM peak hour turning movement volumes from the Hillsborough Subarea
' model for key intersections in the study area;

' Alternatives Report

Analyzing AM peak hour traffic operational performance using Synchro's Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) procedures and computing future AM peak hour Level of
Service (LOS), delays and volume to capacity (V/C) ratios;
Analyzing PM peak hour traffic operational performance using Synchro's HCM
procedures and computing future AM peak hour LOS, delays and V/C ratios; and
Evaluating the effectiveness of each of the proposed alternatives.
In conducting the traffic operational analysis, it was assumed that intersections along US 70
Business will be signalized by year 2025. Also, future signal timings were optimized using
the Synchro model. The traffic operational characteristics of each alternative were
compared with the 2025 No-Build Alternative to evaluate the effectiveness of each of the
proposed alternatives.
5.3. Summary Evaluation
The alternatives analysis results were summarized in terms of six key traffic performance
measures. These measures were defined based on year 2025 PM peak hour conditions, as
afternoon commute hour represents the worst rush hour traffic condition for the project area.
These six measures were:
1. Reduction of average delay along downtown Churton Street intersections;
2. Reduction of area-wide average delay;
3. Reduction of average V/C ratio along downtown Churton Street intersections;
4. Reduction of area-wide V/C ratio;
5. Reduction of peak hour traffic volume on Churton Street; and
6. Reduction in the number of intersections with poor LOS (E and F).
The first performance measure indicates how much an alternative helps to reduce traffic
delay at the major bottleneck intersections in downtown Hillsborough. The second measure
evaluates the system wide benefit of alternatives in terms of reduced average traffic delays.
The third measure evaluates alternatives in terms of capacity utilization along the Churton
Street intersections in downtown Hillsborough. The fourth provides a system wide snapshot
of capacity utilization under different alternatives. The fifth performance measure evaluates
how alternative alignments could help in diverting peak hour traffic away from Churton
Street. The last measure is to address the total number of traffic hot spots in terms of the
number of intersections where LOS is either near or at failing grades (i.e., LOS E and F). In
addition to these criteria, evaluation weights were assigned to compute a simplistic
"composite congestion score" to convert the individual criteria measures into a single value
for a quick comparison. This weighted-average composite score provides an overall
performance picture for each of the proposed alternatives.
Table 5-1 presents a comparison of traffic performance measures among the seven
alternatives evaluated for the project. The table presents absolute values for Alternative 1
(2025 No-Build) and percentage reductions for Alternatives 2 through 7 as compared to the
No-Build, for the six traffic performance measures. The same data is plotted in Figure 5-1
for a visual presentation of the comparative assessment. The traffic analysis results show
that Alternatives 3, 4 and 6 have clear advantages over Alternatives 2, 5 and 7.
Alternatives 5 and 7 did not perform well in solving the future projected traffic congestion in
the project area, despite the new freeway interchanges and widened corridors that were
assumed as part of these two alternatives. The improved capacities and accessibilities of
Preliminary Alternatives Report

' Alternatives 5 and 7 did not cause sufficient traffic shifts away from Churton Street to trigger
major traffic redistribution within the project area. Consequently, reductions in delay and
' V/C ratios, compared to the No-Build Alternative, ranged from two to 15 percent. Overall,
average congestion reduction potential was low (five percent for Alternative 5 and six
percent for Alternative 7) based on the composite congestion score.
'
Alternative 2 performed well in reducing the area-wide V/C ratio, but the overall congestion
relief potential is expectedly in the low range (six percent) based on the composite
congestion score.
Alternative 6 showed average traffic performance characteristics, with overall congestion
reduction potential in the medium range (nine percent). However, for some individual
performance measures, Alternative 6 performed in the high range such as the 27 percent
reduction in area-wide average delay.
' Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 showed superior traffic performance. Based on the
composite congestion score, Alternative 3 reduced overall traffic congestion by 20 percent
and Alternative 4 reduced traffic congestion by 17 percent. Based on individual measures,
' these two alternatives show high performance, with up to 37 percent reduction in traffic
congestion. These two alternatives cause traffic shifts away from Churton Street, and
provide capacity enhancements which will substantially reduce future traffic congestion.
t

1

1
Alternatives Report 5-3

Table 5-1. Comparison of Traffic Performance Measures.
ALT. 1
(No- ALT.2* ALT.3 ALT.4 ALT.5 ALT.6 ALT.J
Performance Measure Time Period Evaluation Build)
Weight
value Difference Difference Difference 'Difference Difference Difference
Downtown Churton Street Intersections Average 2025 PM

Delay, Seconds/Vehicle'*
Peak Hr 23.3% 885 -3% -28% -21% -7% -11% -9%
Area-wide Avera a Dela , Seconds/Vehicle
g y 2025 PM 10%
186 °
-16 /o o
-37 /o °
-34 /o o
-15 /o 0
-27 /o 0
-8 /o
Peak Hr
Downtown Churton Street Intersections Average 2025 PM

V/C Ratio""
Peak Hr 23.3% 3.63 -20% -21 % -14% -2% -3% -5%
Area-wide Average V/C Ratio 2025 PM 10% 1.42 -14% -19% -18% -10% -11 % -3%
Peak Hr
Churton Street Traffic Volume (VPD) South of 2025 PM

Margaret Lane
Peak Hr 23.3% 3,930 0% -11 % -8% -4% -5% -4%
Number of Intersections at LOS E and F 2025 PM 10% 7 0% 0% -14% 0% -14% 0%
Peak Hr
100%
Composite Congestion Score 486 458 390 405 462 441 457
Change from No-Build -6% -20% -17% -5% -9% -6%
* ALT. 2 is a TSM scenario and optimizes the same No-Build traffic flow thru minor intersection improvements.
'* Based on King Street and Margaret Lane intersections.
i~ i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ ~ i~ i~ ~ i~ i~ iiiiiiiiiiii~ iiiiiiiiiiii~

i~ iiiii~ iii ~ i~ i~ i~ iiii~ i~ ~ iii ~ iii ~ it i~ iiiiiii~ i. lllll~
N
w
a
z
w
J
Q
Figure 5-1. Comparison of Traffic Performance Measures.
__ _ _
- _ ---_
ODowntown Churton Street Intersections Average Delay, Sec/Veh *'` ^Areawide Average Delay, Sec/Veh
ODowntown Churton Street Intersections Average V/C Ratio "" DAreawide Average V/C ratio
Churton St Traffic Volume, s/o Margaret Ln ^ Number of Intersections at LOS E and F

Alternative 7 ~_
Alternative 6
Alternative 5

-;: ~ , x.
Alternative 4

~~`~a,,~~ ~, ~_~~~,_
Alternative 3

Alternative 2

-40% -35% -30% -25% -20% -15%
Difference from No-Build
-10% -5%
0%
5-5

5-6 Alternatives Report '

'
MMARY OF PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
6 0 SU
' 6.1. Scoping Meeting
In December 2000, a Scoping Meeting was held for the proposed Elizabeth Brady Road
Extension at the North Carolina Department of Transportation Building. In addition to
NCDOT staff and project consultant, there were two representatives from the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO), one from the Orange County Planning Department, one from
the Hillsborough Planning Department, the Mayor of Hillsborough, and a representative from
Ayr Mount (an historic property adjacent to the proposed project corridor). The purpose of
the meeting was to provide background information to the key project stakeholders.
'
The NCDOT Project Engineer acknowledged the controversial nature of the project. The
project's consultant provided an overview of the project, including the following topics:
purpose and need, planning schedule, other TIP projects in close proximity to the project,
' existing conditions, a description of the proposed project, and possible constraints. It was
pointed out that the major purpose of the project was to relieve congestion in downtown
Hillsborough and, in order to accomplish this, it was important that a detailed study of
current and future traffic in the area be completed. This would allow NCDOT to identify the
specific problems and potential solutions.
! 6.2. NEPA/404 Merger Team Meeting
In June 2001, the project's Statement of Purpose and Need was presented to the NEPA/404
Merger Team for concurrence (Concurrence Point 1). After some discussion, concurrence
was reached on the project's purpose:
1. Reduce traffic congestion and improve the Level of Service (LOS) in the central
business district of the Town of Hillsborough, including Churton Street and St. Mary's
Road.
2. Improve traffic safety along Churton Street and NC 86.
6.3. Newsletters
In June, 2003, a project newsletter was distributed to everyone on the project mailing list,
which included representatives from the NEPA/404 Merger Team, local officials, community
groups/organizations, and anyone from the general public that had indicated a desire to be
' placed on the mailing list. The June newsletter was intended to be the first of several
periodic newsletters to be distributed. The intent of the newsletters is to provide an update
on the project's status and to announce any upcoming public meetings. This first newsletter
was distributed approximately four weeks prior to the July 2003 Public Information
Workshop (see Section 6.5).
6.4. Public Officials
Periodic meetings have been held with Town officials (principally the Town's planning staff)
in order to collect information, as well as to provide updates on the status of the project.
In December 2002, the Town of Hillsborough passed a resolution in support of the project.
The resolution:
Alternatives Report 6-1

1. Acknowledged the extreme sensitivity of the corridor and requested that NCDOT
employ the highest quality of design standards to the selected option;
2. Requested that the alignment shown in the original plan be included in the 2025
Long Range Transportation Plan; and
3. Recommended that the road configuration include four lanes, unless two lanes are
demonstrated to be adequate for the projected traffic volumes in 2025.
On July 7, 2003, a Public Officials Meeting was held to update local officials from the town,
county, and state on the status of the project. The meeting was held in the afternoon,
immediately prior to the Public Information Workshop for the general public. The same
information was presented at both meetings.
6.5. Public Information Workshop
On July 7, 2003, a Public Information Workshop was held from 4:00 - 7:00 PM in the
County Courthouse in Hillsborough. Ninety-eight people recorded their attendance on the
sign-in sheets. The purpose of the meeting was to update the community on the status of
the project and show the corridors under consideration. The comments received during the
meeting were relatively wide-ranging and included:
• Most of the people attending wanted to see something happen to relieve their traffic
problem.
• Many of the citizens expressed the opinion that the original alignment for the project
was the best alternative.
• Several of the citizens commented that none of the present alternatives were good.
• There were several comments suggesting that the former Occoneechee-Orange
Speedway NASCAR racetrack site should not be considered historic and that the
NCDOT should not reject the racetrack alternative.
• There were many concerns expressed about the Eno River, and many stated that
adding any new river crossings should be avoided.
There were no comments in support of the widening of Churton Street. There
seemed to be a consensus that this alternative should be thrown out altogether.
• There was expressed concern for the historic structures along Churton Street and St.
Mary's Road.
• Several people felt that the alternatives on the extreme west of the project area or
the extreme east (i.e. Lawrence Road) would not meet the Purpose and Need of the
project.
Twenty-seven written responses were received following the meeting. Table 6-1
summarizes these comments. It should be noted that many of the people commenting
made multiple suggestions. In addition, several people provided ranked preferences for
alternatives in their comments.
6-2
Alternatives Report
1

Table 6-1. Summary of Comments Received from Public Information Workshop.
Comment Number
Supports the Elizabeth Brady Road Extension project 13
Supports Alternative 1, No-Build 4
Supports Alternative 2 (TSM) (includes comments to use existing roads and
bridges) 4
Supports Alternatives 3 or 4 (the TIP alignment or alignment missing racetrack) 11
Supports Alternative 5, Lawrence Road (including more general comments that
improvements are needed on Lawrence Road) 3
Opposes Alternative 5 (Lawrence Road) 2
Opposes Alternative 6 (alternative that avoids new crossing of the Eno River) 8
Opposes Alternative 7 (western alternative) 3
Specifically opposes protecting the former NASCAR racetrack site or does not
believe the racetrack site should be designated as historic 5
Specifically supports protection of the racetrack site 1
Opposes any new crossings of the Eno River 4
Supports avoiding other sensitive natural areas (e.g., Poplar Ridge) 2
Supports upgrading US 70 Bypass 1
Supports giving the money for the project to the Town for street and sidewalk
improvements 1
Supports providing pedestrian facilities on Churton Street 1
Alternatives Report
6-3

1

6-4 Alternatives Report '

' APPENDIX A -LITERATURE CITED
' Mattson, Richard and Frances Alexander. March 2001. Phase I Reconnaissance Historical
Architectural Survey and Report, Elizabeth Brady Road Extension. North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC. 14 pages.
' NCDENR. November 2001. Basinwide Assessment Report, Neuse River Basin. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC. 278 pages.
Parsons Brinckerhoff. September 2001. Statement of Purpose and Need, Elizabeth Brady
Road Extension Project, Town of Hillsborough, Orange County, North Carolina. North
' Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC. 41 pages.
Parsons Brinckerhoff, January 2004. Technical Memorandum on Traffic Analysis, Elizabeth
' Brady Road Extension. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC. 125
pages.

' Alternatives Report A-1

Alternatives Report '

1

APPENDIX B -TYPICAL SECTIONS
Alternatives Report
B-1

1

B-2 Alternatives Report '

VAR.
2:1 T 0 4:1
10' 2' 24' 20'
.02 .02
GRADE
POINT
24'
.02
10'
.02
I
24' 12' 24'
2,~ .02 .02 2~
VAR.
'L~ 2.%
GRADE
POINT
VAR.
VAR.
2:1 TO 4:1
B-3
Preliminary Alternatives Report

1

B-4 Alternatives Report '

1

APPENDIX C -PHOTOGRAPHS
Preliminary Alternatives Report
C-1

1

1
1

Preliminary Alternatives Report '

..
___ - . -:.
*; ~
...~.
~~.r„ ,.
~.~
~. ~•
Ei~zaoetn Eraay Koad, looking north, from intersection of NC 86 & US 70 Business.
Preliminary Alternatives Report C-3
Occoneechee-Orange Speedway Racetrack.

L-4 Preliminary Alternatives Report '
Path leading to the racetrack.
Grandstands at Occoneechee-Orange Speedway Racetrack.

Preliminary Alternatives Report C-5
Occoneechee-Orange Speedway ticket office.
Rigsbee Rock House at the intersection of Lawrence Road and US 70 Business.

f ,
~ ~ ,:y s ~~~} ~,~
a {
~~a~
~ :'7
t~-~,
~ ` . ' i' ,
r ~q' p.
Y~-fem.^."4~ ` '~~"S, w~ tf!:.. ~ ! .fie*' :'~1
C-6 Preliminary Alternatives Report
Typical home on Riverside Drive. The Eno River is located behind the house.
Riverside Drive. Alternative 4 would be located behind the homes on the left.

~E
I
i ~t
i(~
Intersection of US 70 Bypass and St. Mary's Road looking southwest from BP gasoline
service station.
.. __
,_...
..--
t_ _ ~ _..
._. _ _ u_
BP gasoline service station at US 70 Bypass and St. Mary's Road.
Preliminary Alternatives Report C-

!i-~
~ VVV ~ ~,
:~
____ ,
a
upF 7 #; .. J a
M
Downtown Hillsborough, intersection of Churton Street and Margaret Lane facing north.
Preliminary Alternatives Report

~. ~ ..i,
i"
~
_~ ''~
t~

~. °
^~ '
~~
`ti...~ ~ r,.~i.~ ,. - .. - ... .
._ .
""+~
,::
w..t ~
Entrance to the new Wal-Mart Super Store on NC 86 at I-85.
Preliminary Alternatives Report
Intersection of US 70 Business and Churton Street, south of downtown, facing west.
rte,
~A

Ayr Mount.
0 Preliminary Alternatives Report ,
Eno River from the Poet's Walk on the grounds of Ayr Mount.

1

1

1

1

APPENDIX D - NEPA/404 MERGER TEAM MEETING MINUTES &
CONCURRENCE DOCUMENT
Alternatives Report
D-1

1

1

D-2 Alternatives Report '

MINUTES
NEPA / 404 Merger Team Meeting
April 15, 2004
Concurrence Point 2 -Elizabeth Brady Road Extension
TIP Project No. U-3808, State Project No. 8.2501901
Opening and Introductions
The Merger Team meeting was convened at 9:00 by Derrick Weaver, NCDOT. Derrick then
introduced himself and Vincent Rhea. Derrick indicated that Vincent was now the Project
Engineer for the project and that the Merger Team would be hearing from Vincent in the future.
Derrick then asked for everyone to introduce themselves. A copy of the attendance list is
appended to this document.
Prior to the start of the meeting, copies of the meeting agenda and the PowerPoint slides to be
used to discuss the project were distributed to those in attendance (copies of the agenda and
handout are appended to this document). Additionally, several 1:7,200-scale (1 inch = 600 feet)
aerial photographs with the proposed alignment corridors were laid out on the table for
reference by the Merger Team. A smaller scale version of the map was included as part of the
PowerPoint slide handout.
Description and Comparison of Project Alternatives
Douglas Smith, the Project Manger for the consultant preparing the Environmental Impact
Statement then provided an overview of the process used to identify the six build alternatives
being considered. Following Mr. Smith's presentation, Mr. Rhea provided a comparison of the
alternatives that were evaluated and then opened the meeting to general discussion.
General Discussion'
Renee Gledhill-Earley (NC SHPO) indicated that the evaluation table was misleading because
Alternatives 3, while avoiding the historic Ayr Mount site would have an impact. Similarly,
Alternative 4 would have an impact on the Occoneechee racetrack even though it would not
traverse the site. Derrick Weaver and Vincent Rhea indicated that the table would be amended
accordingly.
' John Thomas (US Army Corps of Engineers) asked when the traffic counts that were used for
the traffic model were conducted and whether the modeling took into consideration the new
shopping area at the intersection of I-85 and NC 86. Traffic counts were conducted in 2001.
t The modeling did account for the new shopping area. The consultant had contacted the Town
of Hillsborough and had included all approved developments in the model.
John Thomas also asked if there had been any determination of the amount of forested land
that would be impacted by the various alternatives. It was indicated that no estimates had been
developed but would be during the next phase of the study. This information would be made
' available to the Merger Team for the next Merger Team meeting.
' 'The questions and discussion items are not presented in the exact order they came up in the meeting. This section has been
reorganized to improve readability and understanding of the general discussion.

Gary Jordan (US Fish and Wildlife Service) asked how close Alternative 4 came to the Eno
River. Roland Robinson (PB) indicated that the alignment had been placed on the plateau area
above the river. The centerline of the road was approximately 500 feet from the river. This area
was in the backyards of a row of homes and would necessitate relocating the residents of those
homes. It was noted that the edge of the 500-foot corridor did come within approximately 250
feet of the river. The total footprint of the road would be approximately 89 feet.
Travis Wilson (NC Wildlife Resources Commission) asked why there was so much difference in
the effectiveness of Alternative 6 as compared with Alternatives 3 and 4 when they shared at
least one common terminus. It was explained that the model identified the shortest or easiest
route in assigning traffic. It was likely that part of the difference is due to the introduction of a
new T-intersection on US 70 Bypass. It was noted that for this analysis, a T-intersection was
assumed; however, there are intersection designs that would reduce the intersection delay and
improve the effectiveness of the road.
John Hennessey (NC Division of Water Quality) asked if a wetland delineation had been
conducted. When it was indicated that a delineation had not been conducted he asked why. It
was explained that we wanted to wait until the number of alternatives had been reduced. Mr.
Hennessey acknowledged that in this area the NWI maps would be relatively accurate.
Christopher Militscher, US Environmental Protection Agency, indicated that he had driven the
are several times and had not seen anything not depicted on the NWI maps.
Mr. Militscher (US Environmental Protection Agency) asked if the purpose of the meeting was to
eliminate the alternatives that they could all agree to eliminate. Derrick Weaver indicated that
was the goal. He then asked, based on a statement in the Preliminary Alternatives Report, if
inclusion of TSM improvements could and would be made part of any alignment alternatives
that were considered. Derrick Weaver indicated that they would be included.
Consensus of Alternatives to be Carried Forward for Detailed Evaluation
Mr. Militscher indicated that he could agree to dropping Alternative 2 as long as TSM options
were included with other alternatives. He also indicated that he was willing to drop Alternative
7. He was then asked about Alternative 5. Mr. Militscher indicated that he had driven Lawrence
Road several time and that he could not see how that alternative would reduce traffic
congestion in downtown Hillsborough and he was willing to drop that alternative also.
Ms. Gledhill-Earley expressed reservation about dropping Alternative 5. She pointed out that
Alternative 4, with a new bridge immediately adjacent to the historic site, would be impacted by
noise from the new road. She also pointed out that Alternative five could be constructed so as
not to directly take the historic property at the intersection of US 70 Business and Lawrence
Road. It was pointed out by Mr. Militscher that he felt that even widening Lawrence Road to the
opposite side would impact the Rock House historic site.
Vincent Rhea then asked if it was agreed that Alternatives 2, 5, and 7 would be dropped and
Alternatives 3, 4, and 6 would be carried through into the Environmental Impact Statement for
detailed evaluation. It was pointed out that Alternative 1, No-Build, would also be considered.
There was consensus. Ms. Gledhill-Earley indicated that she would accept dropping Alternative
5. Based upon the verbal concurrence, the Merger Agreement document was revised to reflect
the decision, printed, and circulated for signature.
The meeting adjourned at 10:00 as the document was circulated.

1

1

ATTACHMENTS

ATTENDANCE SIGN-IN SHEET
NEPA / 404 Merger Team Meeting
April 15, 2004
Concurrence Point 2 -Elizabeth Brady Road Extension
TIP Project No. U-3808, State Project No. 8.2501901
Name Affiliation ~ Ad
d
ress Phone E-Mail
n I+
IV ~ vC ~ : ~ ~l~
l
~~-J n" ~ /~T~~C ~ 4 ! 1 /`~'- ~~~~.~ 2~ ~..~,; e~v L°~-~~~cib~c.~~ P ~

1~2.G ~1-E~EY..., t~IC, C~O~ ~jT~Jc~-~-~.,.~.^D~'~lcar,I
P.Z. :. 0;~~. `~'` ~~ • f G , V S

)(ZI S
~
.~~ ~ ~ ~Vf~i~~~
,
~~~
~ ~~ - ~~~ -
J+~-~ ~ /~'~-c.. 1V G~oT ~~... ; .~ , s.J '7 3 ~ ~i ~-- nom- • us
9i9
_ J
~l ~ r`o r-~ a /V i yc /~C .l~D T ~~~ obi-au~ c s (~i-/~ ZSo -~/oo ~~i~ ~ Doi e fic
,()S

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l~ ~ ~ ~

Name Affiliation 8~ Address Phone E-Mail
~,~.~~f,~~ t ~~~ P~)c ~ o r -- r ~ ~ ~ 3~
s
~~
t~ -~t~at~rll~l
~c C~.~v~-a.~,cc~l C~-~:co~.rM ~c~D `13~, 6~P'~
~~
"~reSGVU4.T~ ri. 1JC' ~ /q~ rh ~1esJe~+c~ 'i ~~r~snc,. o rs~
Myritk F~w~.~ +~0 8dx ~.'r64~ 832-3~Sz J

l aa.~5~s l~ r~H.~~~iiv ~{
I ~,,,
~(~S~ I~QUR ~14ff/'~~
~bq ~'~/i~.~a~- J~~f/~-S'~.•~ /.S`Do 9/9 - ~f 6~ -
2/ r~ ~~hNt~sG~
33 ~o4~or~~.C~rv~
p
~~rr%st1j~~ J 1V ~ 2 7J`~ o
~/f~/d vt~ /~' ~i''`/S„v/
r . -' ~~~SO.tis' ~l%y tk`Y~U~~, ~/ ~1 -y~.2 ~'d vl i ~~.~ ~e/ /r
~ / ~/S },6 r,~~, ~/~1, ~o .~
~~
~i/1- %~~ ~i9/moo ,~ j ~-. •./~ ~ ~~~'/ o f'~
~
~ S c P A ~ } ~t - M i ~ i is cl~;~ ~-, C..~r-. s Jr~ c,~ cc _ c~~
~i-121 S ,`~i ~ H c JZ ~ .
M~Lt`i5~,t~`v2 ~ o Fi-{ ~.~ ~
3iu:`Jt~ ~~~ ~~e. P ~~ b ~ `fdo~ ~~ 1; }~s cLv. r ~ dpi-. ~~~~i-e.
KC7J.K.is~~ ~ ~1 ,L:. ~-~~oC3~
a ~,~
fc. lf!

Name Affiliation & Address Phone E-Mail

c ~ `~.~

~o,r~a~
~
r U5 F~s1~ ~ W,~Idi~~. 5~r~~~e
p~
~ (}. l~eX 337~.(o gl9-g.~6 - 'fS~-o [~7 vey_ jdre~ah ~ ~ws•~v~r
RA~tig~ /I/G Z7(o3~o X.32
d6~j~ ~~U }~ wS ~«~~ h UC.~ 4 ~~ 7~~ ~'e/~ o~iCs~.
~
~ (~~ ~~jn. 7 %l~ts . ~~~
~
~ ~ U~y~
~ s~: ~Zd
s
t~ D ~l ~ ~~ ~~y ~
~ ~ .
S~ G/G 2 . ~lS~ ~~~
Q~ ~~ 1 >vc 2 ~~~ ~ ~~ 25 ~,

~ThAd ~ ~~ N Cad., QT
~~~w ~~~
q-~-~so- ~~i~
~fd~,~a...~~a~. s~k.~~.

~Y~~ M~ ~'~~ dV'c ~ ~ 7'
/Zcact~cc~~c.,~l ~ ~~/~
~/ /q ~~'~l~ i
b f moo r~~,G~at,S~C.t~YK~ U ~
~on ~//en /1leD©?'
~oac~~aY ,des;~~ qi9 ~n-~®~6 ra//~~@ ~o ~ s~a~e.~ac.u:
.~~~1..~ ~ ~ ~/ ~ ~f"~ /Gl~'4~ ~ g " I g~~ 'C~~F7`7.~517 ..~'.~~c;~ ~ G'C~,vi ~r~, c~r ~i-KWrc..... .

I>• I>• ~ ~ I>• ~ Il• ~ I>• I>• I>• l~ I>• ~ l~ I>• I>• I>• Il•

~ t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ f• i~ l~ i l~ ~ i~ ~ l~ i i~
Name Affiliation ~ Address Phone E-Mail

G~~~~C~~a'1~%~ ~~~ ~~~~~
Esc.
q~~/~~3 -
r~~~~l~ti~//~~`~~

r/ lL,.S"v j~~,~ -C.d~rr i.~~c;~ Gjici - ~~ `~-s' ~%~ ~-~ tj

~..~..Y~'Yl (~'1 i ~ ~~19~'lc~ ~ ~ ~/ ~
j 1' i %~ /Y~ r, /~ '`h ~ "~~ G~~r~GlLs~ J~'~~. ~Fi:~ ~.~~Yt.nr 1/-'~i
[ ~.~ ~ ~~
,,}} '~l t~~~OfQL{ /~'`l ~~~it{'tb'lf1n. ~~l"i~L~f""r- ~-tl:~ t'4('~!"~. ~~L~~~'~-
"
13
x

y~~r ,~. ,,l/,1.~K ~~ ~~ 60,E ~ ~~'
~~z`T~

~~G~~,CC~ V ~~ n C U~ G2., ~ ~ ~~ °71 ~~ ~ 1 ~ ~ : ~1 L . v5
'~ ,^,t' p r ~ C ~ ~ ~, ~ ~„
".~~^~ S

t~-~1~~ ~~fo~S ~ a~~~ ka~ ~
/~

MERGER PROJECT TEAM MEETING AGREEMENT
Concurrence Point No. 2. Alternatives to be Studied in Detail in the NEPA Document
Project Name/Description: Elizabeth Brady Road Extension (SR-1879), Hillsborough, Orange County
TIP Project No.: U-3808
State Project No.: 8.2501901 .
Federal Project No.: STP-07I 1(1)
Pur ose of the Pro osed Action:
The purpose of the proposed project is to:
1. Reduce traffic congestion and improve the Level of Service (LOS) in the central business district
of the Town of Hillsborough, including Churton Street and Saint Mary's Road.
2. Improve traffic safety along Churton Street and NC 86.
Alternatives to be Studied in Detail:
Alternative 1 (No-Build}
Alternative 3 (TIP Alignment)
Alternative 4 (avoid historic NASCAR track)
Alternative 6 (avoid new crossing of Eno River) '
Concurrence
The Project Team has concurred on this date of Apri] 15, 2004, with the alternatives to be studied in detail
for the proposed project as stated above with the condition that Alternate 2, the TSM alternative- will be
studied for inclus`on with all these.
.r.
USACE ~- NCDOT
p~ ~ ~,~~,
USE ~ "'----~ USFWS
NCDCR ~ ` NCDWQ
FHWA`~ -~~"
DCHC MP Gti~~
O
NCWRC ~~%~

{~
JM SfATFy
~~~
•~ Owrn ~•
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
March 16, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Thomas
Gary Jordan
Felix Davila
John Hennessy
Renee Gledhill-Earley
Mike Mills
Brenda L. Moore
Thad Duncan
Jerome Nix
Quang Nguyen
Elizabeth Lusk
Ted Bisterfeld
David Cox
Felix Nwoko
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
US Army Corps of Engineers ~r ~. ~ ' ~ '' ~;~
US Fish & Wildlife Service
FHWA ~~i~ ~ ~ 2004
NCDENR-DWQ
'~=....~. ~ ~!~....,s , ~~s ~ a~~r
NCDOT -Division 7
NCDOT- Roadway Design
NCDOT- Roadway Design
NCDOT -Hydraulics
NCDOT -Structures
NCDOT - PDEA- ONE
Environmental Protection Agency
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO
FROM: Vincent J. Rhea, P.E.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
SUBJECT: Hillsborough, Elizabeth Brady Road Extension, from south of US 70
Business to north US 70 Bypass at SR 1002 (Saint Mary's Road), Orange
County, Federal-Aid Project No. STP-0711 (1), State Project No.
8.2501901, TIP Project No. U-3808
Attached for your information is the "Preliminary Alternatives Report" and "Summary of
Evaluation Factors" for the Concurrence Point 2 Merger Team Meeting to be held April
15, 2004 at 9:00 am, in the BOT meeting room.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 733-7844,
extension 268.
VJR
Attachment
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 27899-1548

Rk.
Summary of Evaluation Factors
Alternatives Alternative 2 - TSM
Alternative 3 -Original TIP Alignment Alternative 4 -Avoids
Alternative 5 -Widen Lawrence Road Alternative 6 -Avoid flew Crossing of Alternative 7 -Western
Factors Improvements NASCAR Track Eno River Alignment ;
P&N MeetsPurpose and Need No Yes Yes No No No
Length of Alignment Not Applicable 1.3 miles 1.4 miles 2.3 miles (including US 70 improvements) 1.9 miles (including US 70 1.6 miles
improvements)
o Roadway Construction Costs Not Available $12,000,000 $14,100,000 Not Available $17,000,000 Not Available

c~
~ # of Interchanges 0 0 0 1 0 1
LL
o
Y # of RR Crossings 0 0 0 0 0 1
# of New Bridges (length) 0 1(260 ft.) 1(220 ft.) 0 0 0
o # of Bridge Replacements 0 0 0 1 {240 ft.) 1(240 ft) 1 (NA)

~ Other Stream Crossing NA 3 4 3 3 2
Major Utility Crossings 0 0 0 0 0 1
Relocations 0 4 14 3 3 4
c
m Churches 5 0 0 0 0 0

. Cemeteries 0 0 0 0 0 0
E
~~ Historic Sites 1 1 0 1 0 0
o~
w ~
Low Income? Minority Populations
No
No
No
No
No
No
Greenways f Bike Paths No No No No No No
•~
0
~ Section 4(F) Impacts No Yes No No No No
.Federally Protected Species
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus IeucocephalusJ No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect
(Treatened) -
Dwarf Wetlgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodori) No Effect N6 Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect
(Endangered)
N
d
U
~ NWI Wetland Impacts. 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
N
°'
a: Stream Impacts
m Number of crossings 0 3 4 3 3 2
' Length of crossing Impacts 309 feet (one intermittent crossing length 236 feet. 240 feet (two intermittent crossing lengths 256 feet. Length of crossings
z unknown), unknown). unknown.
Bufferlmpacts Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Floodplain Impacts No Yes Yes No No Yes
Water Supply Critical Areas No No No No No Yes

~,
~ ', Ri
. ,. / <.t~ ,. r~
.'a-aF: .~j ~ ZOI~a
PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES REPORT
Elizabeth Brady Road Extension
State Project No. 8.2501901
TIP Project No. U-3808
Orange County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
P OF NORIfI CgROG
b~
i 2
O
P
9~~~~OF 1RANSpO~`
Submitted by:
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
909 Aviation Parkway, Suite 1500
Morrisville, North Carolina 27560
March 8, 2004

i

Table of Contents
1.0. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1. Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 1-1
1.2. Need for the Proposed Action .......................................................................... 1-3
1.3. Purpose of the Proposed Action ....................................................................... 1-4
2.0. Alternative Descriptions ............................................................................................ 2-1
3.0. Comparison of Alternatives ....................................................................................... 3-1
3.1. Alternative 1 - No-Build ................................................................................... 3-2
3.2. Alternative 2 -Transportation System Management ........................................ 3-2
3.3. Alternative 3 -TIP Alternative .......................................................................... 3-2
3.4. Alternative 4 -Avoids Occoneechee Racetrack ............................................... 3-3
3.5. Alternative 5 -Lawrence Road Widening ......................................................... 3-3
3.6. Alternative 6 -Eastern Alternative that Avoids a New Crossing of the Eno
River ................................................................................................................ 3-3
3.7. Alternate 7 -Far Western Alternative .............................................................. 3-3
4.0. Enviromental Features and Potential Constraints ..................................................... 4-1
4.1. General Description of the Project Area ........................................................... 4-1
4.2. Historic Features .............................................................................................. 4-1
4.3. Natural Features .............................................................................................. 4-6
4.4. Parks and Recreational Areas ........................................................................ 4-11
4.5. Relocations .................................................................................................... 4-12
4.6. Hazardous Materials and Waste Sites ............................................................ 4-18
5.0. Summary of Traffic Analysis ..................................................................................... 5-1
5.1. Year 2025 Travel Demand Analysis ................................................................. 5-1
5.2. Year 2025 Traffic Operations Evaluation .......................................................... 5-1
5.3. Summary Evaluation ........................................................................................ 5-2
6.0. Summary of Public and Agency Involvement ............................................................ 6-1
Preliminary Alternatives Report

6.1. Scoping Meeting ...............................................................................................6-1
6.2. NEPA/404 Merger Team Meeting .................................................................... .6-1
6.3. Newsletters .....................................................................................................: .6-1
6.4. Public Officials ................................................................................................. .6-1
6.5. Public Information Workshop ........................................................................... .6-2
Appendix A -Literature Cited ............................................................................................ A-1
Appendix B -Typical Sections .......................................................................................... B-1
Appendix C -Photographs ............................................................................................... C-1
ii Preliminary Alternatives Report

1

1
List of Tables
Table 3-1. Comparison Summary of Project Alternatives .................................................. 3-4
Table 4-1. Natural Heritage Information for Hillsborough and Efland, North Carolina,
U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle Maps ............................................................... 4-16
Table 5-1. Comparison of Traffic Performance Measures ................................................. 5-4
Table 6-1. Summary of Comments Received from Public Information Workshop ............. 6-3
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Location of TIP Project Number U-3808, Hillsborough, Orange County,
NC .............................................................................................................................. 1-2
Figure 2-1. Proposed Alternatives ..................................................................................... 2-3
Figure 4-1. Location of Historic Sites Identified Within the Project Area ............................ 4-3
Figure 4-2. National Wetland Inventory Mapped Wetlands Within the Project Area
(map is not to scale) ................................................................................................... 4-7
Figure 4-3. Portions of the Hillsborough and Efland USGS 7.5 minute topographic
maps showing the general project area (map is not to scale) ..................................... 4-9
Figure 4-4. Floodplain Map of Project Area .................................................................... 4-13
Figure 4-5. Water Supply Watersheds in Orange County (map is not to scale) ............... 4-15
Figure 5-1. Comparison of Traffic Performance Measures ............................................... 5-5
Preliminary Alternatives Report ill

IV Preliminary Alternatives Report '

1
1.0. INTRODUCTION
' An environmental document is being prepared for the proposed extension of Elizabeth
Brady Road in accordance with the requirements set forth in the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the implementing regulations promulgated by the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The FHWA
' and North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) are the lead agencies for this
project.
The NCDOT and FHWA have entered into an agreement with the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers and other federal and state resource agencies to merge the Section 404' and
' NEPA processes. This merger agreement includes consensus points at the conclusion of
each of four stages in the NEPA process
The sta
es are:
.
g
• Purpose and Need
• Alternatives for Detailed Study
• Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative

' • Avoidance and Minimization of Effects
This document describes the alternatives that have been identified and are being
considered for inclusion in the Environmental Impact Statement being prepared for this
' action.
1.1. Proposed Action
'
As described in the NCDOT 2004 - 2010 Transportation Improvement Program TIP ,the
( )
NCDOT proposes to widen and extend Elizabeth Brady Road (SR 1879) from the
' intersection of NC 86 with US 70 Business to north of US 70 Bypass at the intersection of
St. Mary's Road (SR 1002) (see

' Figure 1-1 ). The proposed project would involve the construction of a 1.4-mile multi-lane
road and possibly a new crossing of the Eno River. Elizabeth Brady Road is presently a
two-lane road, 24 feet wide. The proposed action will widen the existing section to five
lanes and construct afour-lane median divided facility on a 100-foot wide right-of-way on
' new location.
The February 1998 NCDOT Feasibility Study describes the Elizabeth Brady Road cross
' section as a four-lane, median divided facility with a 16-foot wide median, 72 feet wide from
face-to-face of curbs with berms 10 feet wide. The proposed bridge over the Eno River is
described as 72 feet wide and 260 feet in length. The recommended right-of-way width for
' the median divided cross-section is described as 100 feet. The study cross section
accommodates bicycle traffic.

' Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as amended, which regulates the deposition of fill into Waters of the United
' States. Waters of the United States include rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands.
' Preliminary Alternatives Report 1-1

R
!R7lNCM
:Orange' Cbt,n~y
lizabeth Brady Road Eactension
TIP NO: U-.
Fig~ace 1-1
LEGEND
~ tw a';~ u ~ .~' ~ 7hi-r+oughfar~e hNgnnerrt
Figure 1-1. Location of TIP Project Number U-3808, Hillsborough, Orange County, NC.
~ "1 Preliminary Alternatives Report

1

1.2. Need for the Proposed Action
1.2.1. Traffic Congestion and Deficient Level of Service
The Purpose and Need study documented that under current conditions, the intersection of
Churton Street at Margaret Lane experiences level-of-service (LOS) E conditions during the
AM and PM peak hour periods, with the heaviest congestion experienced by westbound left-
turning vehicles. Southbound queues extend to the King Street intersection and northbound
queues exceed 750 feet. The intersection of Churton Street at King Street would operate at
LOS C in the AM and LOS B in the PM peak hours if it were an isolated-signal with
adequate spacing between King Street and the adjacent intersections. However, field
observations indicate that the intersection operates at a worse level of service during peak
periods. The primary reason for this deterioration in service is that Margaret Lane queuing
extends into the King Street intersection.
Several unsignalized intersections are experiencing poor levels of service on the side
approaches. The intersection of Churton Street with the I-85 northbound ramps is operating
at LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours. The heavy single-lane mainline approaches
(703 vehicles per hour (vph) southbound / 846 vph northbound) result in few gaps for left-
turning vehicles from the I-85 off ramp to merge onto Churton Street. Similarly, the left-turn
movements from both ramps at the NC 86 interchange operate at LOS E/F during both peak
periods.
An analysis of roadway level of service for the study area indicates that Churton Street from
I-85 north to NC 86 is operating at LOS F under existing conditions. The congestion is most
severe in the downtown area between NC 86 and Tryon Street.
By 2025, US 70 Bypass at Churton Street will operate at LOS E. Seven other signalized
intersections along US 70 Bypass and Churton Street will operate at LOS F. These
intersections are:
US 70 Bypass at Lawrence Road (SR 1709)
US 70 Bypass at St. Mary's Road
Churton Street/SR 1009 at US 70 Business/NC 86
Churton Street and King Street
Churton Street and Margaret Lane
Churton Street (SR 1009) at Orange Grove Road (SR 1006)
Exit 164 -Churton Street at I-85 SB Ramps (north of I-85)
Churton Street will continue to operate at LOS F in 2025. It is anticipated that LOS F
conditions will occur over longer periods throughout the day and not just during the AM and
PM peak commuting periods. The NC 86 and US 70 Business roadway sections between
I-85 at Exit 165 and the Churton Street / US 70 Business intersection are forecast to operate
at LOS F compared with LOS B under existing conditions.
1.2.2. Distribution of Trips
' The data analyses indicate that approximately 50 percent of the vehicles using the Churton
Street Bridge over the Eno River are local trips bound for locations south of Hillsborough.
Approximately 20 percent use I-40 with the primary destinations being Chapel Hill and South
' Preliminary Alternatives Report 1-3

Durham. Of the remainder, approximately 30 percent use I-85 to reach Durham (20
percent) and Research Triangle Park or Raleigh (10 percent).
1.2.3. Traffic Safety
Approximately half of the roads evaluated in Hillsborough have accident rates exceeding the
statewide averages including Churton Street, NC 86, St. Mary's Road, Revere Road, West
Hill Avenue, Nash Street, and Allison Street/Eno Mountain Road. On roadways with high
total accident rates, the injury accident rates tend to be similar, with rear-end accidents
being the highest, followed by right and left-turn accidents.
1.2.4. Infrastructure Support for Economic Development
Orange County has established two Economic Development Districts south of the Town of
Hillsborough. Both of the districts are adjacent to interstate highways. One is in the area
surrounding the I-85 and NC 86 interchange south of Elizabeth Brady Road. The other
district is at the I-40 and Old NC 86 (Churton Street) interchange.
Development in these two Economic Development Districts will generate traffic within the
project area and along Churton Street. Consequently, the current and projected traffic
congestion along Churton Street and NC 86 could also affect the success of these two
districts.
1.3. Purpose of the Proposed Action
The purpose of the proposed project, as concurred by the NEPA/404 Merger Team, is to:
1. Reduce traffic congestion and improve the Level of Service (LOS) in the central
business district of the Town of Hillsborough, including Churton Street and Saint
Mary's Road.
2. Improve traffic safety along Churton Street and NC 86.
1-4 Preliminary Alternatives Report '

' 2.0. ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTIONS
' Seven alternatives were evaluated as potential alternatives to be included in the
Environmental Impact Statement. The alternatives were selected based upon the
comments and concerns that were raised at the original Scoping Meeting in December 2000
' and subsequent meetings with Town of Hillsborough staff. The alternatives were selected to
provide options for an alignment that:
' 1. Follows the original alignment proposed in the Orange County Thoroughfare Plan
and NCDOT's TIP;
2. Avoids impacts to the former NASCAR racetrack site;
' 3. Avoids a new crossing of the Eno River;
4. Utilizes existing road corridors; and
5. Avoids or minimizes potential impacts to historic resources.

1

1
All of the alternatives were evaluated with regard to their ability to meet the project purpose
of reducing congestion and improving safety along Churton Street and St. Mary's Road.
The comparison of alternatives is found in the following section, Section 3.0.
The seven alternatives included five build-alternatives, the Transportation System
Management (TSM) alternative, and the No-Build Alternative. The alternatives are
described below and depicted in Figure 2-1.
Alternative 1 (No-Build) -The No-Build Alternative would forego any improvements
to Elizabeth Brady Road, but includes routine maintenance, other NCDOT
programmed roadway improvements, and other roadway projects in the area that are
included in the adopted 2025 Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) of the
Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
such as widening of US 70 Bypass.
2. Alternative 2 (TSM) -TSM improvements involve increasing the available capacity of
the facility within the existing right-of-way with minimum capital expenditures and
without reconstructing the existing facility. This alternative would include small-scale
intersection and signal timing improvements in addition to the programmed
improvements considered under the No-Build scenario. For the traffic analysis, the
underlying traffic projections were kept constant for Alternative 2, or the same as the
No-Build (see Section 5.0). This is due to the expectation that traffic travel patterns
will not change due to TSM improvements.
3. Alternative 3 -This alternative is essentially the original alignment identified in the
NCDOT's Transportation Improvement Program. The proposed alternative would
widen existing Elizabeth Brady Road and extend the road across the Eno River
intersecting with US 70 Bypass at St. Mary's Road.
4. Alternative 4 -This alternative avoids impacts to the former Occoneechee-Orange
Speedway NASCAR racetrack site, which is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP), by constructing a road on new alignment east of existing
Elizabeth Brady Road. After crossing the Eno River, the road would turn back
toward the west and intersect US 70 Bypass in approximately the same location as
Alternative 3.
Preliminary Alternatives Report 2-1

5. Alternative 5 -This alternative would widen Lawrence Road and create a new
interchange with I-85.
6. Alternative 6 -This alternative would avoid a new crossing of the Eno River. The '
new road would intersect US 70 Business east of the existing Elizabeth Brady Road
intersection and run northeast, intersecting US 70 Bypass east of the existing bridge

over the Eno River. '
7. Alternative 7 -This alternative would construct a new western alignment near ,
Dimmock Mill Road (SR 1134), west of downtown Hillsborough. This alternative
would also include a new Interchange at I-85.

1

1

1
2-2 Preliminary Alternatives Report

' Figure 2-1. PrQpQSe~ Alternatiues_ _ __

' 3.0. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES

1

' Preliminary Alternatives Report 3-1

3.0. COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
This section provides a comparison of the project alternatives; highlighting their respective
advantages and disadvantages. Table 3-1 provides a qualitative summary.
3.1. Alternative 1 - No-Build
The No-Build Alternative fails to meet the purpose and need for the project. Both local
officials and the community strongly believe that there is a current need to reduce
congestion on Churton Street in downtown Hillsborough. Traffic studies have shown that by
2025 there will be a substantial increase in traffic congestion in downtown Hillsborough and
throughout the Hillsborough area. The increased congestion in the downtown central
business district could cause adverse social and economic impacts to the town and local
businesses, as well as to the historic fabric of the town.
The No-Build Alternative would result in no direct impacts to historic or archaeological
resources, the Eno River, or other natural systems. However, this alternative would lead to
increased social and economic impacts as a result of the increased congestion in downtown
Hillsborough. The increase congestion would directly affect downtown businesses. It would
also affect the normal movement within and through the downtown area by local residents,
such as transporting children to and from school.
3.2. Alternative 2 -Transportation System Management
While the TSM alternative does provide some congestion relief, it fails to meet the projects
purpose and need. Overall intersection delays in downtown Hillsborough would only be
reduced by three percent, as compared with the No-Build Alternative. There would be no
traffic volume reduction on Churton Street, and the overall number of intersections operating
at LOS E or F would not be reduced. However, the TSM alternative would improve the
volume to capacity ratio in downtown Hillsborough. Alternative 5 is the only build-alternative
with a composite congestion score that is worse than Alternative 2 (see Table 5-1). It
should be noted that the TSM alternative could be incorporated into any of the build
alternatives.
Because TSM involves, at most, only minor road improvements (such as addition of turn
lanes), there would be minimal risk of impacts to historic or archaeological resources and no
additional impacts to the Eno River or other natural systems. Should Alternative 2, or any
other alternative, result in widening US 70 business, there could be impacts to one or two
historic resources (Occoneechi Gate and White Furniture). White furniture may also have
hazardous or toxic materials associated with the site.
3.3. Alternative 3 -TIP Alternative
This alternative meets the project's purpose and need. However, the alternative would
directly impact the Occoneechee Racetrack. Additionally, this alternative has a new
crossing of the Eno River and would probably result in the need to relocate a tire company
and a gasoline station. This alternative would have minimal overall relocation impacts.
3-2 Preliminary Alternatives Report '

' 3.4. Alternative 4 -Avoids Occoneechee Racetrack
' This alternative meets the project's purpose and need. The alternative would avoid the
racetrack, but it still would require a new crossing of the Eno
River. The alternative would have similar impacts to the businesses at US 70 and St. Mary's
' Road, possibly requiring the relocation of the tire company and the gasoline station.
Alternative 4 would also require the greatest number of relocations.
' 3.5. Alternative 5 -Lawrence Road Widening
This alternative fails to meet the project's purpose and need. This alternative, however,
' widens an existing road and adds an interchange to I-85. The proposed location of the
interchange is somewhat problematic in that it is less than one mile from the next nearest
interchange. The alternative has the potential for impacting a house currently listed on the
' NRHP. US 70 Bypass would need to be widened and the existing bridge on US 70 would
have to be replaced. In addition, like the No-Build Alternative, will not reduce congestion on
Churton Street. It is therefore conceivable that the worsening congestion could lead to
t adverse economic impacts to downtown Hillsborough.
3.6. Alternative 6 -Eastern Alternative that Avoids a New Crossing of the
' Eno River
This alternative would provide minimal congestion relief on Churton Street through
downtown Hillsborough. The alternative would also have to be constructed on steep terrain
' paralleling the Eno River. In addition, US 70 Bypass would possibly need to be widened
and the existing bridge on US 70 replaced.
3.7. Alternate 7 -Far Western Alternative
This alternative would not meet the projects purpose and need. It would require a new
crossing of the Eno River upstream of Hillsborough's drinking water supply intake and
treatment plant.

' Preliminary Alternatives Report 3-3

Table 3-1. Comparison Summary of Project Alternatives.
Impacts

Alternative Meets Cultural.
Water
Toxic or
.Project Resources
Streams
Wetlands
Supply Protected
Relocations
Hazardous Engineering Concerns/Cost
Purpose
Watershed ` Species
Materials (millions)
& Need
1 - No-Build No Potential secondary None None None None 0 None $0
impacts to
downtown due to
lack of congestion
relief.
2 - TSM No Potential secondary None None to None None 0 None unless US 70 NA
impacts to Minimal Business is widened
downtown due to past White Furniture
lack of congestion
relief.
Potential impacts to
two historic
properties if US 70
business is
widened.
3 -TIP Yes Would impact the Crosses Minimal None Minimal 4 Probable relocation of Large span would be required for
Alternative former NASCAR Eno River afire sales and service crossing the Eno River to avoid
racetrack site. facility and a gasoline potential for increased flooding.
Alternative located station at US 70 $9 9
across the river Bypass and St. Mary's
from Ayr Mount Road
historic site.
4 -Avoids Yes Adjacent to former Crosses Minimal None Minimal 14 .Probable relocation of Alignment would have to traverse
Occoneechee NASCAR site. Eno River afire sales and service steep terrain paralleling the Eno
Racetrack facility and a gasoline River.
station at US 70 $14 1
Bypass and St. Mary's
Road

Table 3-1. Comparison Summary of Project Alternatives.
Impacts

Alternative Meets

Project Cultural

Resources
Water

Protected
Toxic or

Engineering Concerns/Cost

Purpose Streams Wetlands. Supply ,
Species Relocations Hazardous
(millions)

Watershed
Materials .
& Need
5 -Lawrence No Rigsbee's Rock Minimal Minimal Very Minor Minimal 3 Widening of US 70 No Cost Estimate was obtained. It is
Road House is located at Bypass could impact anticipated that this alternative would
Widening the corner of US 70 one or both of the require widening US 70 Bypass and
Business and businesses on US 70 widening the existing bridge over the
Lawrence Road. Bypass and St. Mary's Eno River on US 70.
Secondary impacts Road NA
to downtown due to
lack of congestion
relief.
6 -Eastern No Minimal Minimal Minimal None Minimal 3 Widening of US 70 Alignment would have to traverse
Alternative Bypass could impact- steep terrain paralleling the Eno
That Avoids one or both of the River. It is anticipated that this
New Crossing businesses on US 70 alternative would require widening
of the Eno Bypass and St. Mary's US 70 Bypass and widening the
River Road existing bridge over the Eno River on
US 70.
$17.0
7 -Far No Potential secondary Crosses Minimal None Minimal 4 None Identified Alignment would require a new
Western impacts to Eno River bridge over the Eno River.
Alternative downtown due to NA
lack of congestion
relief.

3-6 Preliminary Alternatives Report '

'
4.0. ENVIROMENTAL FEATURES AND POTENTIAL CONSTRAINTS
' 4.1. General Description of the Project Area
Orange County is in the North Central Piedmont region of North Carolina. The county lies
across the divides of three major river basins. The northern edge drains into the Roanoke
River Basin; the northeastern part drains into the Neuse River Basin; and the western and
southern parts drain into the Cape Fear River Basin. The Haw River, a tributary of the Cape
Fear River, forms approximately three miles of the southwest boundary. The Elizabeth
Brady Road Extension project area is within the Eno River Watershed. The Eno River is a
tributary to the Neuse River.
1

1

Elevation within the county ranges from undulating terrain at 700 to 800 feet above mean
sea level (along the major river basin divides in the northern part of the county) to 230 feet
on the floodplains of Morgan Creek (in the southeastern part on the Cape Fear Watershed).
The highest point in the county is Occoneechee Mountain at Hillsborough; it has an
elevation of 860 feet.
Elizabeth Brady Road is within the Town of Hillsborough in central Orange County
Figure 1-1). Hillsborough, the Orange County seat, is immediately east of the junction of I-
40 and I-85, in the North Central Piedmont region (at the western edge of the greater
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area). The Town, founded in 1754, has an area of 3.91 square
miles and is approximately 12 miles west of Durham and 10 miles north of Chapel Hill.
Greensboro and Raleigh are within a 40-minute drive.
4.2. Historic Features
In March 2001 a Phase I reconnaissance survey for historic features was conducted within
the project area (Mattson & Alexander, 2001). The Phase I (reconnaissance) survey
followed the requirements set forth by the NCDOT. The methodology consisted of historical
research and fieldwork within the study area to identify properties on or eligible for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
During the research phase, the architectural survey files of the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) in Raleigh were searched for National Register and Study List
properties, as well as for other previously surveyed resources located in or around the study
area. Survey files of properties in Orange County located outside the Hillsborough town
limits are available at the Orange County Planning Department in Hillsborough. Ms. Tina
Moan, a county planner, provided information on the locations of historic resources around
the periphery of Hillsborough. For the Town of Hillsborough, Ms. Margaret A. Hauth,
Planning Director, provided information regarding the Hillsborough Historic District. Finally,
Mr. Bill Crowther made available historical data on the Occoneechee-Orange Speedway in
Hillsborough.
The fieldwork for the Phase I Survey consisted of adrive-through (windshield) survey of the
study area and site inspections of selected properties considered worthy of such analysis.
Properties listed on the NRHP, or considered to be either definitely or potentially eligible for
the NRHP, were photographed and keyed to the survey area map. The proposed National
Register boundaries for these properties were identified in a general manner (i.e., without
Preliminary Alternatives Report 4-1

deed research). The fieldwork was conducted in November and December 2000 and 100
percent of the study area was examined.
The survey identified the Hillsborough Historic District and four additional properties listed
on the NRHP. Nine other resources were considered potentially eligible for the NRHP.
Figure 4-1 identifies the location of the identified historic resources. In the initial phases of
the project, the project area was defined broadly. As a result, several of the properties
identified in the report are far enough outside the current project area that they are not
discussed in this document. The following section discusses only those properties that
could be impacted by any of the alternatives under consideration.
4.2.1. Properties Listed or Eligible for Listing on the National Register of
Historic Places
Hillsborough Historic District
The Hillsborough Historic District encompasses the heart of historic Hillsborough as well as
adjacent plantation seats along the Eno River, including Ayr Mount, Poplar Hill, Burnside,
Highlands, and Over the River. One of the state's political and cultural centers prior to the
Civil War, it holds a remarkably intact collection of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century
residential, commercial, religious, and civic architecture.
Ayr Mount (1814-1817) is located on the east side of the historic district (marked as 1 on
Figure 4-1). The northern, southern, and eastern National Register boundaries of the estate
define the borders of the Hillsborough Historic District in this area. One of the finest
neoclassical houses in North Carolina, Ayr Mount was erected along the Eno River for
Hillsborough merchant William Kirkland. In its construction and plan, Ayr Mount stands
apart from other plantation houses of the Piedmont. While other residences of the period
typically have weatherboard exteriors and rectangular forms reflecting regional building
patterns, Ayr Mount is distinguished by its brick construction and Palladian-inspired tripartite
plan. Now handsomely restored, Ayr Mount embodies the high craftsmanship and great
wealth that shaped the finest houses of the state in the early nineteenth century.
Rigsbee's Rock House (#2)
Built in 1929, this rustic country estate was the home of Mac and Julie Rigsbee. The
Rigsbees gained notoriety in the 1920s for their bootlegging activities, which contributed to
Orange County's reputation as one of the premier moonshining counties in the state. The
house is a handsome example of twentieth-century rustic architecture. The sprawling, story-
and-a-half residence is constructed of rubble white quartz. The wooded, two-acre grounds
include a swimming pool, a low wall, and two six-foot-high planters that are all constructed
of white quartz (see Appendix B).
4.2.2. Properties Potentially Eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places
Blackwelder's Service Station (#3)
This site is located east of Lawrence Road and is unlikely to be affected by the project. The
site is a fine example of 1920s roadside architecture in Orange County. The frame
4-2 Preliminary Alternatives Report '

T
J. L. Brown House /
Burke Grave
i
N

W
Maple Hill
S
It 7 '.
~~ ~--,
4,i' A ~
' ~//11
A~
u~

l
l; . ~ l
White Furniture Company ~""~ °t~~e y
WY 86
' ' Rigsby Rock House
-~
~fl ~
E
Altemative 4
Altemative 6
Alternative 5
Alternative 3
Streets
Railroads
Alt [
J Rivers and Streams
'Lakes
Historic Sites
<welder Service Sl [_~, Occoneechee-0range Speedway
Hillsborough National Register Historic District
Cities and Towns
~
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
~ ~ ~ x
~
~
Figure 4-1. Location of Historic Sites Identified Within the Project Area i~ ~ ~ ~ ~
4 Miles
0.7 0 0.7

'
rectangular building has a canopied service bay, nine-over-nine windows, and attic dormers.
The first owner not only sold gas, but also ran a petting zoo. The metal bear cage still
' remains on the property. The property has since been converted to a residence.
Occoneechi Gate (#4)
The Occoneechi Gate is the only surviving remnant of what was once the prosperous estate
known as Occoneechi Manor, owned by Julian Carr. The unusual, eight-foot-high rock entry
gate features vertical stones atop an undulating base. There are some eight round columns
' capped by three round stones. The gate now leads into a modern residential subdivision.
Julian Carr was one of the state's preeminent tobacconists and entrepreneurs of the late
' nineteenth- and early twentieth-centuries, whose fortune was primarily made in the Durham,
North Carolina, tobacco factories and textile mills. The Carr residence in Durham, Somerset
Villa, no longer survives. The site is located on the north side of US 70 Business, midway
between Elizabeth Brady Road and Churton Street.

White Furniture Company (#5Z
' This substantial, early twentieth-century factory complex was established as a branch plant
for the White Furniture Company of Mebane, North Carolina. The main two-story building
has a corrugated metal facade and rows of six-over-six wood-sash windows. Metal vents
pierce the principal roof ridge. The site is located across US 70 Business from Occoneechi
' Gate.
' Occoneechee Speedway (Occoneechee NASCAR Racetrack) (#6)
Established east of Hillsborough in 1947, this stock car speedway was the site of the third
race ever sanctioned by NASCAR. Hailed at the time as the finest speedway in the country,
' it was the only one-mile racetrack between Atlanta and Philadelphia, and included
grandstands to seat 10,000 spectators and sloped hillsides to hold an additional 25,000
fans. The racetrack was host to some of the greatest names in stock car racing, including
' Richard Petty, Junior Johnson, and Louise Smith, the first female driver in NASCAR. After
two decades of racing, the track closed in 1968, and the events were moved to the Alabama
International Motor Speedway (Talladega Super Speedway).
' Although portions of the original 216-acre speedway site have been sold in recent years,
approximately 165 acres remain under the ownership of Enoch Staley and Bill France, the
' directors of the racetrack. The abandoned speedway site is now overgrown and no
grandstands or related buildings appear to survive. However, the oval track and
embankments remain.
' A 44-acre tract, which includes the main racetrack, is currently being renovated through the
support of the Classical American Homes Preservation Trust, owners of Ayr Mount. At
present the site has a number of trails and interpretive signs (see Appendix B).

' Preliminary Alternatives Report 4-5

4.3. Natural Features
4.3.1. Streams and Wetlands
Waters of the United States
Because of the large size of the project area, no wetland determination or delineation has
been conducted. The National Wetland Inventory maps for the project area identify only a
few small, scatter wetlands. Based on this information, it is likely that wetland impacts can
be avoided or minimized for all alignment alternatives.
The Eno River and Cates Creek are the only blue-line perennial streams, as shown on the
U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute topographic maps (Figure 4-3), that would be crossed by
any of the alternatives. New crossings of the Eno River would be required by Alternatives 3,
4, and 7. Alternative 3 would also cross Cates Creek. Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 would each
cross at least one intermittent unnamed stream.
Water Quality2
The Falls of the Neuse Reservoir (Falls Lake) Watershed includes the cities of Durham and
Hillsborough. The Flat, Eno, and Little Rivers drainages of Falls Lake are in the Slate Belt
Ecoregion. A narrow band of Triassic basin rocks run through the middle of this area,
including Ledge, Beaverdam, and Lick Creeks. Smaller streams in the Slate Belt and
Triassic regions are especially susceptible to lack of flow during dry periods. This natural
stress may obscure some of the effects of point and non point source runoff.
Overall, biological sampling showed no evidence of major changes in water quality for this
sub-basin between 1995 and 2000. Of the 23 stream sites sampled for benthic
invertebrates, fish, or both in 2000, 16 (70 percent) rated either Good or Excellent. Of the
18 sites sampled in both 1995 and 2000, seven (39 percent) retained the same bio-
classification, seven (39 percent) increased by one bio-classification, and four (22 percent)
decreased by one bio-classification. None of the eight lakes sampled in 2000 indicated any
significant change in water quality between 1995 and 2000.
High water quality is found in the Eno, Flat, and Little Rivers systems. This is due to a
combination of Slate Belt geology and a general lack of disturbance. Macroinvertebrate and
fish collections produced Good or Excellent ratings for most sites on these rivers.
The Stream Classification for the Eno River in the vicinity of the project area is: Aquatic Life,
Secondary Recreation (C) and Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW)3.
2 Source: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) Basinwide Assessment
Report, Neuse River Basin, November 2001, Executive Summary, pages 16-17.
s Source: NCDENR Division of Water Quality, Stream Classification Descriptions '
(http://h2o.enr.state. nc.us/bims/reports/basinsandwaterbodies/ClassificationDescriptions. pdf).
4-6 Preliminary Alternatives Report '

b c ~ D ,
o ~ ___
0
Q p o
,-
d ' Alt 2
~~ 1 a
AI 7 --
~ ~ i
/~ Alt 2
a

a
o~
~ ~ i
~~ ~
d
o
Q
i '
c \~
0
i
r
Fi ure 4-2. National Wetlands Within the Pro'ect Area (ma not to scale).
1
~ ~~
d
i
Ah 6
Alt 5
1
o ~;
~ D
O~
r ~ -
~ C
v
s
900 0 1,800 Feet
N
W
S
E
Legend
Streams
o Wetlands
Streets

4.3.2. Floodplains
All of the alignment alternatives will cross the Eno River floodplain (see Figure 4-4).
4.3.3. Water Supply Watersheds

The majority of the project area lies within an unprotected portion of the Lower Eno
Watershed (Figure 4-5). Only the northern half of Lawrence Road lies within the protected
portion of the Lower Eno Watershed.
Water Treatment Facilities4
' The Town of Hillsborough maintains a water intake and treatment facility on the Eno River,
up-stream from the proposed TIP project corridor, on Dimmock Mill Road (SR 1134). The
water treatment plant has the capacity to treat 3.0 million gallons per day (MGD). In 1998
the town erected two water storage tanks, one 750,000 gallons and one 500,000 gallons.
To accommodate short-term water needs, the Town has interconnections with three
adjoining water systems.
' The main water source for the Town is the West Eno Reservoir, west of Hillsborough. The
reservoir contains 786 million gallons and has a safe yield of 1.8 MGD. Hillsborough has
' plans for an expansion of the West Eno Reservoir when it is needed. The planned
expansion will increase the reservoir's depth by 10 feet (to 53 feet total), its volume to 1.72
billion gallons, and its capacity to a safe yield of 3.0 MGD. The Town also maintains a
wastewater treatment facility on Elizabeth Brady Road that discharges treated water back
into the Eno River.
4.4. Parks and Recreational Areas
4
4
1
P
k
.
.
.
ar
s
' Occoneechee Mountain State Natural Area
Occoneechee Mountain State Natural Area is a 124-acre park located within the general
project study area. The Natural Area is located west of Orange Grove Road, between I-85
' to the south and Eno Mountain Road and the Eno River to the north. None of the
alternatives under consideration would impact the Natural Area.
' Occoneechee Village
Occoneechee Village is a reconstructed replica of an Occoneechee village. The village is
' located in the Town of Hillsborough along the banks of the Eno River.
Exchange Club Park
Exchange Club Park is a privately owned park which is opened to the public. The park is
located on Exchange Park Lane, north of Orange Grove Road and west of South Churton
' Street.
a Source: Orange County (http://www.co.orange.nc.us/shaping/profiles/watersupply.htm).

' Draft Preliminary Alternatives Report 4-11

Occoneechee Golf Club
Occoneechee Golf Club is a privately owned golf course located adjacent to Lawrence
Road.
4.4.2. Bicycle Paths
There are no designated bicycle paths or trails that would be affected by any of the
proposed alignment alternatives. The original TIP alignment was proposed as part of
Hillsborough's bike-path system.
4.4.3. Protected Species
There are 18 protected species identified as potentially present and 11 species that have
historically occurred within the area covered by the Hillsborough and Efland U.S. Geological
Survey 7.5 minute topographic maps (Table 4-1). Of these 29 species, one is listed as
federally threatened (bald eagle) and three are listed as federally endangered (dwarf
wedgemussel, smooth coneflower, and Michaux's sumac).
4.5. Relocations
A relocation study will be conducted as part of the Environmental Impact Statement process,
At this stage of the project, detailed alignments have not been developed. As a result, it is
not possible to determine accurately the exact number of houses and businesses to be
impacted by each alternative. However, Orange County's interactive GIS database was
reviewed and an estimate of the number of relocations was made for each alternative. All of
the build alternatives (Alternatives 3 through 7) would require relocations.
Alternatives 3 and 4 would both impact the businesses and residences near the intersection
of St. Mary's Road and US 70 Bypass. Alternative 4, however, has the greatest number of
potential relocations. To avoid impacts to the former NASCAR racetrack site, the alignment
would cross the Eno River east of the racetrack and then parallel the river. As a result, most
of the homes located along Riverside Drive and at the end of Ivy Road would require
relocation. Four relocations are estimated for Alternative 3 and 14 relocations for Alternative
4.
It is likely that Lawrence Road (Alternative 5) can be widened to the west, between US 70
Bypass and US 70 Business, without requiring the relocation of any homes or impacting the
golf course. However, the Rigsbee's Rock House, a residence listed on the NRHP, is
located on the southwest corner of Lawrence Road and US 70 Business. There is also
another home on the southeast corner of the intersection. Widening this intersection may
require the relocation of one home. In addition, the proposed interchange associated with
Alternative 5 may require the relocation of homes along Jefferson Drive and Lannie Drive,
which parallel I-85. Three relocations are estimated for Alternative 5.
Alternative 6 may require the relocation of three to four homes along Poplar Lane in the
Poplar Ridge subdivision. As with Alternative 4, this alternative would parallel the river,
crossing relatively steep terrain. Three relocations are estimated for Alternative 6.
4-12 Preliminary Alternatives Report '

Air ~ an z
ar
Alt 6
AID 5
r
Legend
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Alternative 5
Alternative 6
Alternative 7
Streets
~ 100- Year Floodplain Zones
~ A- No Base Flood Elevation DeterminF~ ~~
o AE -Base Flood Elevation Determined
~ X500 - Areas of 500-Year Flood
N
W
S
2 0 2 4 Miles
F,
Figure 4-4. Floodplain Map of Project Area.

;_~
,.~ ,,
•II1 C'U CREEh} ~O[JTfa #IY( t) ~ '~ _` ~ ' -- i ,
CREED ~ •.~ ~ ~ Y -
- -- ~ ~ - .
~~ -~
~,r , .,.~. _. , t
«-
-f ~ -- V - ~ f 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i
~ _ ~
`~ ~ ~ ` _ _ - ~ i I
~~7~- - `~, ~ _~\ LI'I"I'LERIPER'- ' ~ s..ls,.s~ f 1
., _ 1
'mil; -~,~~ J ~. ~'; `,~,: ~i ~ - ' . ~ ~ `.
i. ~,e _ ~ ~~' ~ t;~i
IJPP~R Ely{-~- , C ~ ~E~sf~ ~~', --+--~ -~
'~- _
r -- - ~~- v ~` -""~"' . `~ O~ ~+ -~ I.()~vElt NOSY ~ 1 Legend:
- _ ;
~~: ~IIA~F ~--~y' ~7~ _ '~tect~d ~ - i ~~' (Protect ~ f
. i : ~ .~-~` ''`~ i Protected
C ~~ ~ '~~ ;-~ r, v, ~;'j- watershed
\ ~i *. ~ t ~~,~f areas
'.
;- ., .
~~ _. ~ ; •- - ~~.. ~_t-/`-- - _.f Water etuah~`l
_ _ ~"
~ '..J ' ~-% ~ _-~, - critical ar~a~
ti _ ~ ~~
"- ~ ~ { ;~ ~ 1lunicipal
~~E CR~I:B ~ ~ ~~- - ',~ I _- -iY ~' City Limits'
_~.~ ~r ~~,.. _ - ~ ,l, ~- ~'' .~ Watershed
/ ~•'` ~ boundary
~~ ~ ~
,- u~ Basin divide
't , ~ ~ Y" ;
.-.: .:
7
•"~ ---- ' ~ _ C1~f~E~iEAR .~ Streams
., t-. - ~~•'r, --~~ ~ ~ ! N Roads
-~ UTTI~`~ RSiTY
•. ~ +; ~ V' ~ ~ s
n • _ '~"~ ice. ~~
.. ;
~--'~-4 -'H.~W RI~'F~F2 ~ ~ ' - L ~ ;
(protected) ~ .
~~ ~ : , ~ •~_ ` ` ^` ~.' ~.~ ~1 ~jf-• Orange Cuunty
__ _. __ _ ~ !~`~ ~., ~: 1~c~~D~~v., Planning Uepartmetr!
---- '
---- --- - - •~ ,-~,-, -. ~~' ~'' YAICIb' Miriam Coleman, IZl15~" ~
Figure 4-5. Water Supply Watersheds in Orange County (map is not to scale).
Draft Preliminary Alternatives Report 4-15

Table 4-1. Natural Heritage Information for Hillsborough and Efland, North Carolina, U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle Maps.
Major Group Scientific Name
(Habitat Link) Common Name State
Status' Federal
Status1 State
Rank3 Global
Rank' Status /Quad
Bird Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned Hawk SR - S2B, S4N G5 Historic -Hillsborough
Bird Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle T T (PD) S3B, S3N G4 Current -Efland
Amphibian Hemidactylium scutatum Four-toed Salamander SC - S3 G5 Current -Hillsborough
Amphibian Necturus lewisi Neuse River Waterdog SC - S3 G3 Current -Hillsborough
Fish Ambloplites cavifrons Roanoke Bass SR - S3 G3 Current -Hillsborough
Fish Etheostoma Collis pop 2 Carolina Darter -eastern Piedmont
Population SC FSC S2 G3T30 Historic -Hillsborough /
Efland
Fish Lythrurus matutinus Pinewoods Shiner SR FSC S3 G3 Current -Hillsborough
Mollusk Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf Wedgemussel E E S1 G3 Current -Efland
Mollusk Alasmidonta undulate Triangle Floater T - S2 G4 Current -Hillsborough
Mollusk Alasmidota vericosa Brook Floater E FSC S1 G3 Current -Efland
Mollusk Fusconaia masoni Atlantic Pigtoe E FSC S1 G2 Current -Hillsborough Ij
Mollusk Lampsilis cariosa Yellow Lampmussel E FSC S1 G3G4 Current -Hillsborough
Mollusk Lampsilis radiate conspicua Carolina Fatmucket T - S1? G5T2Q Current -Hillsborough /
Efland
Mollusk Lasmigona subviridis Green Floater E FSC S1 G3 Current -Hillsborough /
Efland
Mollusk Strophitus undulatus Squawfoot T - S2S3 G5 Current -Hillsborough /
Efland
Mollusk Villosa constricts Notched Rainbow SC - S3 G3 Current -Hillsborough /
Efland
Insect Fixsenia favonius Ontario Northern Oak Hairstreak SR - S3? G4T4 Current -Hillsborough
Vascular Plant Asplenium bradleyi Bradley's Spleenwort SR-P - S1 G4 Current -Hillsborough
Vascular Plant Berberis Canadensis American Barberry SR-T - S2 G3 Historic -Efland

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~
Table 4-1. Natural Heritage Information for Hillsborough and Efland, North Carolina, U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle Maps.

Major Group Scientific Name
(Habitat Link)
..:Common Name State
Status' Federal
Status State
Rank3 Global
Rank ~,m,~r-~__~
...Status /Quad
Vascular Plant Buchnera Americana American Bluehearts SR-P - SH G5? Historic -Efland
Vascular Plant Echinacea laevigata Smooth Coneflower E-SC E S1 G2 Historic -Hillsborough
Vascular Plant Fothergilla major Large Witch-alder SR-T - S2 G3 Current -Hillsborough
Vascular Plant Hexa/ectris spicata Crested Coralroot SR-P - S2 G5 Current -Hillsborough
Vascular Plant Monofropsis odorata Sweet Pinesap SR-T FSC S3 G3 Historic -Hillsborough
Vascular Plant Panicum flexile Wiry Panic Grass SR-P - S1 G5 Historic -Hillsborough
Vascular Plant P/atanthera peramoena Purple Fringeless Orchid SR-P - S1 G5 Historic -Hillsborough
Vascular Plant Rhus michauxii Michaux's Sumac E-SC E S2 G2 Historic -Efland
Vascular Plant Thermopsis mollis sensu
stricfo Appalachian Golden-banner SR-P - S2 G3G4Q Historic -Hillsborough /
Efland
Vascular Plant Trichostema brachiatum Glade Bluecurls SR-P - S1 G4G5 Historic -Hillsborough
Source: North Carolina Natural Heritage Database (www.ncsparks.net/nhp/quad.html). Information updated May 2003.
'State Status Codes: E =Endangered, T= Threatened, SC =Special Concern, C =Candidate, SR =Significantly Rare, EX = Extirpated, P =Proposed (used only as a qualifier).
2Federal Status Codes: E =Endangered, T= Threatened, EXN =Endangered, non-essential experimental population, T (S/A) =Threatened (similarity of appearance), C =Candidate, FSC =Federal
Species of Concern, PE =Proposed Endangered, PD =Proposed Delisted.
3State Rank: S1 =Critically Imperiled in NC, S2 =Imperiled in NC, S3 =Rare or Uncommon in NC, S4 =Apparently Secure in NC, S5 =Demonstrably Secure in NC, SA =Accidental or Casual, SH = Of
Historic Occurrence, SR =Reported without Persuasive Documentation, SX =Believed to be Extirpated, SU = Possibly in Peril in NC, S? =Unranked or Uncertain, S_B = Rank of Breeding (migratory
species only), S_N =Rank of Non-Breeding (migratory species only), SZ_ =Species is not of Significant Conservation Concern.
°Global Rank: G1 =Critically Imperiled Globally, G2 =Imperiled Globally, G3 =Very Rare and Local Throughout Its Range or Found Locally in Restricted Areas, Globally, G4 =Apparently Secure
Globally, G5 =Demonstrably Secure Globally, GH =Historic Throughout Its Range, GX =Believed to be Extinct, GU =Possibly in Peril Globally, G? =Unranked or Rank Uncertain, G_O = Of
Questionable Taxonomic Status, S_T_ =Status of Subspecies or Variety (G Rank for Species as a Whole, T Rank for Sub-species).

Alternative seven, which would parallel Dimmock Mill Road (SR 1134), will likely impact
several homes along Dimmock Mill Road (SR 1134) and US 70 Bypass. Four relocations
are estimated for Alternative 7.
4.6. Hazardous Materials and Waste Sites
A Phase I reconnaissance and Environmental Site Assessment will be conducted for this
project during the Environmental Impact Statement phase of the project. Three potential
hazardous materials sites have been identified to date. White Furniture Company is
identified by the Center for Geographic Analysis' BasinPro database as having toxic or
hazardous materials.. This site would not be impacted unless the project entailed widening
US 70 Business. There also is a service station located on the northeast corner of the
intersection of US 70 Bypass and St. Mary's Road. Finally, located across the street, on the
southeast corner of the intersection, is a tire dealership. No other sites have been identified.
4-18
Preliminary Alternatives Report

5.0. SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
' In December 2003 a traffic analysis for the project area was completed. The traffic analysis
involved atwo-step process:
' 1. Year 2025 travel demand analysis using the Subarea Demand Model; and
2. Year 2025 AM and PM peak hour traffic operational analysis using the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) procedures in Synchro (Version 5).
5.1. Year 2025 Travel Demand Analysis

The future travel demand analysis step involved coding an alternative configuration in the
Subarea Demand Model and preparing a traffic assignment based on future vehicle trips for
three time periods - AM Peak period, PM peak period and off-peak period. The traffic
assignment results from the three time periods were combined to prepare the daily traffic
volume projections. The Elizabeth Brady Road Extension is projected to carry
approximately 12,600 vehicles per day (vpd) in 2025 if Alternative 3 is selected. The
projected volume goes down as the roadway alignment shifts to the east, to approximately
8,000 vpd for Alternative 6.
Each of the proposed alternatives cause some degree of traffic shifts in the project area,
resulting in traffic increases and decreases at various locations. With the No-Build
Alternative, there would be significant future traffic volumes along east-west facilities in the
area, such as US 70 Business and US 70 Bypass, to and from the I-85 interchange. The
build alternatives provide additional north-south capacity, thereby increasing the
attractiveness of the I-85 interchanges with NC 86. Overall, the daily traffic shifts are
expectedly low, within plus or minus 20 percent. However, for specific locations, shifts are
higher than 20 percent due to the network improvements proposed by an alternative. For
example, the Lawrence Road widening alternative (Alternative 5) would result in substantial
shifts in traffic around the proposed new interchange, and the various Elizabeth Brady Road
Extension alternatives cause significant traffic shift at St. Mary's Road east of US 70
Bypass.
In terms of future traffic diversion from downtown Churton Street, Alternatives 3 and 4
showed the greatest potential. The traffic diversion from Churton Street due to Alternatives
3 and 4, during peak commute hours, is generally higher than what has been shown as daily
shifts. This is due to the fact that peak hour congestion along Churton Street is more
severe, making an alternative route even more attractive as a reliever route.
5.2. Year 2025 Traffic Operations Evaluation
The future traffic operational analysis step of the alternatives analysis process involved the
following major tasks:
• Estimating AM peak hour turning movement volumes from the Hillsborough Subarea
Demand Model for key intersections in the study area;
• Estimating PM peak hour turning movement volumes from the Hillsborough Subarea
model for key intersections in the study area;
Preliminary Alternatives Report 5-1

Analyzing AM peak hour traffic operational performance using Synchro's Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM) procedures and computing future AM peak hour Level of
Service (LOS), delays and volume to capacity (V/C) ratios;
Analyzing PM peak hour traffic operational performance using Synchro's HCM
procedures and computing future AM peak hour LOS, delays and V/C ratios; and
Evaluating the effectiveness of each of the proposed alternatives.
In conducting the traffic operational analysis, it was assumed that intersections along US 70
Business will be signalized by year 2025. Also, future signal timings were optimized using
the Synchro model. The traffic operational characteristics of each alternative were
compared with the 2025 No-Build Alternative to evaluate the effectiveness of each of the
proposed alternatives.
5.3. Summary Evaluation
The alternatives analysis results were summarized in terms of six key traffic performance
measures. These measures were defined based on year 2025 PM peak hour conditions, as
afternoon commute hour represents the worst rush hour traffic condition for the project area.
These six measures were:
1. Reduction of average delay along downtown Churton Street intersections;
2. Reduction of area-wide average delay;
3. Reduction of average V/C ratio along downtown Churton Street intersections;
4. Reduction of area-wide V/C ratio;
5. Reduction of peak hour traffic volume on Churton Street; and
6. Reduction in the number of intersections with poor LOS (E and F).
The first performance measure indicates how much an alternative helps to reduce traffic
delay at the major bottleneck intersections in downtown Hillsborough. The second measure
evaluates the system wide benefit of alternatives in terms of reduced average traffic delays.
The third measure evaluates alternatives in terms of capacity utilization along the Churton
Street intersections in downtown Hillsborough. The fourth provides a system wide snapshot
of capacity utilization under different alternatives. The fifth performance measure evaluates
how alternative alignments could help in diverting peak hour traffic away from Churton
Street. The last measure is to address the total number of traffic hot spots in terms of the
number of intersections where LOS is either near or at failing grades (i.e., LOS E and F}. In
addition to these criteria, evaluation weights were assigned to compute a simplistic
"composite congestion score" to convert the individual criteria measures into a single value
for a quick comparison. This weighted-average composite score provides an overall
performance picture for each of the proposed alternatives.
Table 5-1 presents a comparison of traffic performance measures among the seven
alternatives evaluated for the project. The table presents absolute values for Alternative 1
(2025 No-Build) and percentage reductions for Alternatives 2 through 7 as compared to the
No-Build, for the six traffic performance measures. The same data is plotted in Figure 5-1
for a visual presentation of the comparative assessment. The traffic analysis results show
that Alternatives 3, 4 and 6 have clear advantages over Alternatives 2, 5 and 7.
Alternatives 5 and 7 did not perform well in solving the future projected traffic congestion in
the project area, despite the new freeway interchanges and widened corridors that were
assumed as part of these two alternatives. The improved capacities and accessibilities of
5-2 Preliminary Alternatives Report '

' Alternatives 5 and 7 did not cause sufficient traffic shifts away from Churton Street to trigger
major traffic redistribution within the project area. Consequently, reductions in delay and
' V/C ratios, compared to the No-Build Alternative, ranged from two to 15 percent. Overall,
average congestion reduction potential was low (five percent for Alternative 5 and six
percent for Alternative 7) based on the composite congestion score.
' Alternative 2 performed well in reducing the area-wide V/C ratio, but the overall congestion
relief potential is expectedly in the- low range (six percent) based on the composite
' congestion score.
Alternative 6 showed average trafflc performance characteristics, with overall congestlon
reduction potential in the medium range (nine percent). However, for some individual
performance measures, Alternative 6 performed in the high range such as the 27 percent
reduction in area-wide average delay.
' Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 showed superior traffic performance. Based on the
composite congestion score, Alternative 3 reduced overall traffic congestion by 20 percent
and Alternative 4 reduced traffic congestion by 17 percent. Based on individual measures,
these two alternatives show high performance, with up to 37 percent reduction in traffic
' congestion. These two alternatives cause traffic shifts away from Churton Street, and
provide capacity enhancements which will substantially reduce future traffic congestion.

' Preliminary Alternatives Report 5-3

Table 5-1. Comparison of Traffic Performance Measures.
ALT. 1
{No- ALT. 2*' ALT.3 ALT.4 ALT. 5 ALT.6 ALT.7
Performance Measure Time Period Evaluation Build)
Weight
Value Difference Difference Difference. Difference Difference Difference
Downtown Churton Street Intersections Average 2025 PM

Delay, SecondsNehicle**
Peak Hr 23.3% 885 -3% -28% -21% -7% -11% -9%
Area-wide Average Delay, SecondsNehicle 2025 PM 10% 186 -16% -37% -34% -15% -27% -8%
Peak Hr .
Downtown Churton Street Intersections Average 2025 PM

V/C Ratio**
Peak Hr 23.3% 3.63 -20% -21% -14% -2% -3% -5%
Area-wide Average V/C Ratio 2025 PM 10% 1.42 -14% -19% -18% -10% -11% -3%
Peak Hr
Churton Street Traffic Volume (VPD) South of 2025 PM

Margaret Lane
Peak Hr 23.3% 3,930 0% -11%
-8 /°
-4 /°
-5 /° °
-4 /°
Number of Intersections at LOS E and F 2025 PM 10% 7 0% 0% -14% °
0 /° - °
14 /° °
0 /°
Peak Hr
100%
Composite Congestion Score 486 458 390 405 462 441 457
Change from No-Build -6% -20% -17% -5% -9% -6%
ALT. 2 is a TSM scenario and optimizes the same No-Build traffic flow thru minor intersection improvements.
'* Based on King Street and Margaret Lane intersections.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Figure 5-1. Comparison of Traffic Performance Measures.
Downtown Churton Street Intersections Average Delay, Sec/Veh ** ^Areawide Average Delay, Sec/Veh
ODowntown Churton Street Intersections Average V/C Ratio ** ®Areawide Average V/C ratio
^Churton St Traffic Volume, s/o Margaret Ln ^ Number of Intersections at LOS E and F
N
W
f
Q
Z
OC
W
H
J
Q
-40% -35% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5%
Difference from No-Build
0%
5-5

Preliminary Alternatives Report '

'
6.0. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
' 6.1. Scoping Meeting
In December 2000, a Scoping Meeting was held for the proposed Elizabeth Brady Road
' Extension at the North Carolina Department of Transportation Building. In addition to
NCDOT staff and project consultant, there were two representatives from the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO), one from the Orange County Planning Department, one from
' the Hillsborough Planning Department, the Mayor of Hillsborough, and a representative from
Ayr Mount (an historic property adjacent to the proposed project corridor). The purpose of
the meeting was to provide background information to the key project stakeholders.
' The NCDOT Project Engineer acknowledged the controversial nature of the project. The
project's consultant provided an overview of the project, including the following topics:
purpose and need, planning schedule, other TIP projects in close proximity to the project,
t existing conditions, a description of the proposed project, and possible constraints. It was
pointed out that the major purpose of the project was to relieve congestion in downtown
' Hillsborough and, in order to accomplish this, it was important that a detailed study of
current and future traffic in the area be completed. This would allow NCDOT to identify the
specific problems and potential solutions.
6.2. NEPA/404 Merger Team Meeting
In June 2001, the project's Statement of Purpose and Need was presented to the NEPA/404
' Merger Team for concurrence (Concurrence Point 1). After some discussion, concurrence
was reached on the project's purpose:
' 1. Reduce traffic congestion and improve the Level of Service (LOS) in the central
business district of the Town of Hillsborough, including Churton Street and St. Mary's
Road.
' 2. Improve traffic safety along Churton Street and NC 86.
6.3. Newsletters
' In June, 2003, a project newsletter was distributed to everyone on the project mailing list,
which included representatives from the NEPA/404 Merger Team, local officials, community
groups/organizations, and anyone from the general public that had indicated a desire to be
' placed on the mailing list. The June newsletter was intended to be the first of several
periodic newsletters to be distributed. The intent of the newsletters is to provide an update
on the project's status and to announce any upcoming public meetings. This first newsletter
t was distributed approximately four weeks prior to the July 2003 Public Information
Workshop (see Section 6.5).

6.4. Public Officials
Periodic meetings have been held with Town officials (principally the Town's planning staff)
in order to collect information, as well as to provide updates on the status of the project.
In December 2002, the Town of Hillsborough passed a resolution in support of the project.
The resolution:
' Preliminary Alternatives Report 6-1

1. Acknowledged the extreme sensitivity of the corridor and requested that NCDOT
employ the highest quality of design standards to the selected option;
2. Requested that the alignment shown in the original plan be included in the 2025
Long Range Transportation Plan; and
3. Recommended that the road configuration include four lanes, unless two lanes are
demonstrated to be adequate for the projected traffic volumes in 2025.
On July 7, 2003, a Public Officials Meeting was held to update local officials from the town,
county, and state on the status of the project. The meeting was held in the afternoon,
immediately prior to the Public Information Workshop for the general public. The same
information was presented at both meetings.
6.5. Public Information Workshop
On July 7, 2003, a Public Information Workshop was held from 4:00 - 7:00 PM in the
County Courthouse in Hillsborough. Ninety-eight people recorded their attendance on the
sign-in sheets. The purpose of the meeting was to update the community on the status of
the project and show the corridors under consideration. The comments received during the
meeting were relatively wide-ranging and included:
• Most of the people attending wanted to see something happen to relieve their traffic
problem.
• Many of the citizens expressed the opinion that the original alignment for the project
was the best alternative.
• Several of the citizens commented that none of the present alternatives were good.
• There were several comments suggesting that the former Occoneechee-Orange
Speedway NASCAR racetrack site should not be considered historic and that the
NCDOT should not reject the racetrack alternative.
• There were many concerns expressed about the Eno River, and many stated that
adding any new river crossings should be avoided.
• There were no comments in support of the widening of Churton Street. There
seemed to be a consensus that this alternative should be thrown out altogether.
• There was expressed concern for the historic structures along Churton Street and St.
Mary's Road.
• Several people felt that the alternatives on the extreme west of the project area or
the extreme east (i.e. Lawrence Road) would not meet the Purpose and Need of the
project.
Twenty-seven written responses were received following the meeting. Table 6-1
summarizes these comments. It should be noted that many of the people commenting
made multiple suggestions. In addition, several people provided ranked preferences for
alternatives in their comments.
6-2 Preliminary Alternatives Report '

Table 6-1. Summary of Comments Received from Public Information Workshop.
Comment Number
Supports the Elizabeth Brady Road Extension project 13
Supports Alternative 1, No-Build 4
Supports Alternative 2 (TSM) (includes comments to use existing roads and
bridges) 4
Supports Alternatives 3 or 4 (the TIP alignment or alignment missing racetrack) 11
Supports Alternative 5, Lawrence Road (including more general comments that
improvements are needed on Lawrence Road) 3
Opposes Alternative 5 (Lawrence Road} 2
Opposes Alternative 6 (alternative that avoids new crossing of the Eno River) 8
Opposes Alternative 7 (western alternative) 3
Specifically opposes protecting the former NASCAR racetrack site or does not
believe the racetrack site should be designated as historic 5
Specifically supports protection of the racetrack site 1
Opposes any new crossings of the Eno River 4
Supports avoiding other sensitive natural areas (e.g., Poplar Ridge) 2
Supports upgrading US 70 Bypass 1
Supports giving the money for the project to the Town for street and sidewalk
improvements 1
Supports providing pedestrian facilities on Churton Street 1
' Preliminary Alternatives Report 6-3

6-4 Preliminary Alternatives Report '

' APPENDIX A -LITERATURE CITED

Mattson, Richard and Frances Alexander. March 2001. Phase I Reconnaissance Historical
Architectural Survey and Report, Elizabeth Brady Road Extension. North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC. 14 pages.
NCDENR. November 2001. Basinwide Assessment Report, Neuse River Basin. North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC. 278 pages.
Parsons Brinckerhoff. September 2001. Statement of Purpose and Need, Elizabeth Brady
Road Extension Project, Town of Hillsborough, Orange County, North Carolina. North
Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC. 41 pages.
Parsons Brinckerhoff, January 2004. Technical Memorandum on Traffic Analysis, Elizabeth
Brady Road Extension. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC. 125
pages.
' Preliminary Alternatives Report A-1

A-2 Preliminary Alternatives Report

APPENDIX B -TYPICAL SECTIONS
' Preliminary Alternatives Report B-1

B-2 Preliminary Alternatives Report '

1
1
1
1
1
VAR.
2:1 TO 4:1
10' 2' 24' 20'
.02 .02
GRADE
POINT
24' _,2,_ 10'
I .02 ~ ~ .02
i
24' 12' 24'
<?y ( 2~
.02 .02
VAR.
'L~ 2,y
GRADE
POINT
VAR.
VAR.
2:1 TO 4:1
B-3
Preliminary Alternatives Report

1

' APPENDIX C -PHOTOGRAPHS

1

' Preliminary Alternatives Report C-1

1

1

1

1
C-2 Preliminary Alternatives Report ,

Preliminary Alternatives Report C-3
Occoneechee-Orange Speedway Racetrack.
Elizabeth Brady Road, looking north, from intersection of NC 86 & US 70 Business.

L-4 Preliminary Alternatives Report
Path leading to the racetrack.
Grandstands at Occoneechee-Orange Speedway Racetrack.

~ ~~
;~~
~

~,'.
e
__.~ ry
i
~ %~
~~
_-~
tel. ~ ~
3 /
~
'-~'.'~-~
J .. . S -~ ryr
~
_ ~ r* ~
'~ ~
yy '~' ~
32 ~. 1'~~4 P F ~ ~ .1 •J 4,~
L2~ ~ ~ 1 t.. .h

1 ~~ ~~
__
w~
~ 4C~7 ~aGFa
Z.~.. ,,kk.. ~.x ~ '.s
.ice `` "z
~„~y. ,,,o., f'.t
,q fig,
'~
<~ `'
~~ ~.~ .
Rigsbee Rock House at the intersection of Lawrence Road and US 70 Business.
Preliminary Alternatives Report C-5
Occoneechee-Orange Speedway ticket office.

l
~ ~
-sit+f~ '' ~ ~ _.~
_
~~ I ` ti
~ 1 .`
`! ~ } ` .
`
i t= ~~.
~
~ i.
Il
' q
-. '
. 'T f _
{
_~
.

•, .i ~~~i~~• > ~ ~ ~
Riverside Drive. Alternative 4 would be located behind the homes on the left.
C-6 Preliminary Alternatives Report
Typical home on Riverside Drive. The Eno River is located behind the house.

f
~~ ~
r,:§~
r .SIG
~, ~ ~~
Sara ~' ~ . ~::C `~- tf .
Intersection of US 70 Bypass and St. Mary's Road looking southwest from BP gasoline
service station.
4
.: a~
~ t Yf.
.-~~
4~~~~, ,'
_ ~
zF
;~
y,
~Y
Preliminary Alternatives Report C-7

R ~ ~ ~~.r`
~~;...
~ ~ e-
y.
j +~
r.
- ,~" ~ _ '~
-. < -- - --- 111 ,~
r
i9 w
~~ `~: ~'
~, ~.
t
:..
:.. f .. ..
~~.. _.
', ' ~.
S ~ _.
.. .. K:c.. 1~r"i _~.., ~_.. ..
Downtown Hillsborough, intersection of Churton Street and Margaret Lane facing north.
C-8 Preliminary Alternatives Report

~.v` ~~ `ter
s ,., ~'
e ,, .,~ ~ n
.. 1
;"
2 ~~
..
- _
~ _
~. _
:; _,.:
ar w.::
~,
~ ''~.:.
,... .,
.. _
~- ,
~.. .~ ~";k,=
~a ~~< ,.
..' "~ ~~ ' ~ .. , xk
v .~,' ~
Entrance to the new Wal-Mart Super Store on NC 86 at I-85.
Preliminary Alternatives Report C-9
Intersection of US 70 Business and Churton Street, south of downtown, facing west.

Ayr Mount.
C-10 Preliminary Alternatives Report
Eno River from the Poet's Walk on the grounds of Ayr Mount.

MERGER PROJECT TEAM MEETING AGREEMENT
Concurrence Point No. 2. Alternatives to be Studied in Detail in the NEPA Document
Project Name/Description: Elizabeth Brady Raad Extension (SR-1879), Hillsborough, Orange County
TIP Project No.: U-3808
State Project No.: 8.2501901
Federal Project No.: STP-0711(1)
.Purpose of the Proposed Action:
The purpose of the proposed project is to:
1. Reduce traffic congestion and improve the Level of Service (LOS) in the central business district
of the Town of Hillsborough, including Churton Street and Saint Mary's Road.
2. Improve traffic safety along Churton Street and NC 86.
Alternatives to be Studied in Detail:
Alternative 1 (No-Build) Alternative 4 (avoid historic NASCAR track)
Alternative 3 (TIP AIignment) Alternative 6 (avoid new crossing of Eno River)
Concurrence
The Project Team has concurred on this date of April I5, 2004, with the alternatives to be studied in detail
far the proposed project as stated above with-.the coirdition that Alternate 2, the TSM altevzzative will be
studiecfi for ir~ctus-c~n t?vitlt a!1 t~f these.
USACE `~` ~ NCDOT ~---_-..
P'~ '~ ~'
USE

-c,iy`"
FH WA
DCHC MP ~'~~%'~'
0
NCWRC < ~~~J(%

®RAFT
Statement of Purpose and Need
Elizabeth Brady Road Extension Project
Town of Hillsborough
Orange County, North Carolina
NCDOT T.I.P. Project No.: U-3808
State Project No.: 8.2501901
Federal Aid Project No.: STP-0711(1)
Submitted by
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade 8~ Douglas, Inc.
To the
North Carolina Department of Transportation
tiP~~OF NO NTIf ~tR ,y
i/ G
h !~ 7
*~ -~,~*
a ~, 2
~r ~~_
~Fk~OF TR A~SQO
June 2001
_~-~

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................. i
...
List of Tables ......................................................................................................................iii
List of Figures "'
1.0 Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................1-1
1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................1-1
' 1.2 Proposed Action .................................................................................................1-1
1.3 Need for the Proposed Action ............................................................................1-3
1.3.1 Traffic Congestion and Deficient Level of Service ...................................1-3
1.3.2 Distribution of Trips .................................................................................1-3
1.3.3 Traffic Safety . .1-4
1.3.4 Infrastructure Support for Economic Development ..................................1-4
1.4 Purpose of the Proposed Action .........................................................................1-4
' 2.0 Existing Conditions ....................................................................................................2-1
2.1
2.2 Project Location ............................................:....................................................2-1
Project History... ..2-1
2.3 Other Projects Listed in the 2001 - 2008 NCDOT TIP ..................................... ..2-3

' 2.4 System Linkage ................................................................................................
2.4.1 Existing Road Network ......................................................................... ..2-5
..2-5
2.4.2 Existing Road Characteristics ............................................................... ..2-5
2.4.3 Modal lnterrelationships ........................................................................ ..2-5
3.0 Tran sportation Demand ........................................................................................... ..3-1

' 3.1 Traffic Congestion ............................................................................................
3.1.1 Level of Service Criteria ........................................................................ ..3-1
..3-1
3.1.2 Existing Capacity Analysis .................................................................... ..3-3
3.1.3 Future Capacity Analysis ...................................................................... ..3-7
' 3.2 Traffic Safety .................................................................................................... 3-11
3.2.1 Corridor Accident Rate Analysis ........................................................... 3-11
3.2.2 High Accident Locations ....................................................................... 3-11
'
3.3 3.2.3 Accident Types .....................................................................................
Distribution of Trips . . 3-13
3-13
3.4 Economic Development ................................................................................... 3-15
4.0 Soci o-Economic Conditions ......................................................................................4-1
4.1 Land Use ............................................................................................................4-1
' 4.1.1 Elizabeth Brady Road .............................................................................4-1
4.1.2 Land Use for Surrounding Area ..............................................................4-1
4.2 Social and Economic Conditions ........................................................................4-1
' 4.2.1 Demographics ........................................................................................4-1
Elizabeth Bradv Road Extension Document Date: 6/12/2001
Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need Date Printed: 6/13/2001

4.2.2 Economic Development Plans and Trends .................4-5 '
............................
4.2.3 Other Social and Economic Conditions ...................................................4-5
4.3 Project Considerations and Issues .....................................................................4-6 '
5.0 References ..................................................................................................................5-1

Document Date: 6/12/2001 Elizabeth Brady Road Extension
it Date Printed: 6/i3/2001 Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need

LIST OF TABLES

1

Table 2-1. Projects within or near the project study area ...................................................2-3
Table 3-1. Existing Intersection Levels of Service .............................................................3-4
Table 3-2. Existing roadway Levels of Service ..................................................................3-6
Table 3-3. Future intersection Levels of Service ................................................................3-8
Table 3-4. Future roadway Levels of Service .................................................................. 3-10
Table 3-5. Crash rates along study area roads ................................................................ 3-12
Table 3-6. Highest crash locations within the study area ................................................. 3-13
Table 3-7. Type and number of accidents for each roadway segment ............................. 3-14
Table 4-1. Planned and ongoing developments in the Hillsborough area ........................ ..4-2
Table 4-2. 1990 Population, Race and Ethnicity in the project area using Census
Block Groups that have their center in the project area .................................. ..4-4
Table 4-3. Population and Employment by Traffic Analysis Zones whose center is in
the project area .............................................................................................. ..4-4
Table 4-4. 1990 Elderly, Median Income, Poverty Status, and Unemployment in the
project area .................................................................................................... ..4-4
Table 4-5. Commuting patterns of residents of the project area block group who's
center is the project area ................................................................................ ..4-5
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Elizabeth Brady Road project location map .....................................................1-2
Figure 2-1. Elizabeth Brady Road project study area ........................................................2-2
Figure 2-2. Projects identified in the 2002 - 2008 NCDOT Transportation Improvement
Program near Hillsborough ..............................................................................2-4
Figure 3-1. Location of traffic counts .................................................................................3-2
Figure 4-1. Planned and ongoing developments in and around the Town of
Hillsborough .....................................................................................................4-3
Elizabeth Brady Road Extension Document Date: 6/12/2001
Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need Date Printed: 6/13/2001 iii

1

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
1.1 Introduction
An environmental document is being prepared for the proposed extension of Elizabeth
Brady Road in accordance with the requirements set forth in the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, and the implementing regulations promulgated by the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The FHWA
and North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) are the lead agencies for this
project.
The NCDOT and FHWA have entered into an agreement with the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers and other federal and state resource agencies to merge the Section 404' and
NEPA processes. This merger agreement includes consensus points at the conclusion of
each of four stages in the NEPA process. The stages are:
• purpose and need
• alternatives for detailed study
• least environmentally damaging practicable alternative
• avoidance and minimization of effects
This document identifies and describes the purpose of the project and provides an
assessment of the project need.
1.2 Proposed Action
As described in the NCDOT 2002 - 2008 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), the
NCDOT proposes to widen and extend Elizabeth Brady Road (SR-1879) from the
intersection of NC-86 with US-70 Business to north of US-70 Bypass at the intersection of
Saint Mary's Road (SR-1002). The proposed project would involve the construction of a
1.4-mile (mi) (2.3-kilometer [km]) multi-lane road with a new crossing of the Eno River (see
Figure 1-1). Elizabeth Brady Road is presently atwo-lane road, 24 feet (ft) (7.3 meters [m])
wide. The proposed action will widen the existing section to five lanes and construct afour-
lane median divided facility on a 100-ft (30.5-m) right-of-way on new location.
The February 1998 NCDOT Feasibility Study describes the cross section as a four-lane,
' median divided facility with a 16-foot (4.9 m) wide median, 72 feet (21.9 m) wide from face-
to-face of curbs with berms 10 feet (3.0 m) wide. The proposed bridge over the Eno River is
t described as 72 feet (21.9 m) wide and 260 feet (79.3 m) in length. The recommended
right-of-way width for the median divided cross-section is described as 100 feet (30.5 m).
The study cross section accommodates bicycle traffic.

' Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as amended, which regulates the deposition of fill into Waters of the United
States. Waters of the United States include rivers, streams, lakes, and wetlands.
Elizabeth Brady Road Extension Document Date: 6/12/2001
1-1
' Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need Date Printed: 6/13/2001

N 1.5 7 0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 KM
~ 0
SCALE 1 MILES
O Come~ius st ~- E11iD PROJECT
GSA
peG ,u
ern sH+~°~ , ,
Ssms~1opZ li -~
S
I
Wv~
~/
s ~ _
tea.
~, o''.
%,
tc
1~
~ ~
a
° :
9`r
m I `'e :
\

` u
s
r
V o
~ • ,l
11 ~
~ L
r
~ ~
~ ~ N
~ r 5
~
• '~ ~l
,~
HILLSBOROUGH

~ ~ ''
^' j~ ~ "~
` ' ~ '° l
`//
~..~ z~ `aa a ~ ~~ ~~ i
/~ 0
1 ~~O O
' ~ ~~ , ~/
~
~~ =~-'S~ ~ _ 1 °° I ~ ~; 1 BEGl11l PROJEC ~
_. ~
~ 1 ~ ~

/
z
i
1 I~ j ~ ~

\S~oeUS

~ ~ ~ ~
I ~
~ l
1 ~r ~ ens

I ,
J -~' ~ ~
~ i
' ^

I _~
~ - -/ ,
~ ~- ~4,,
~
.~ _ ,..,.-.~. ,.. r
__ ` r '~
-
g.
.

~
` z
1
~
~ ~
~ "
~
~a en, ~ LEGEND
'
. ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ THOROUGHFARE ALIGNMENT
C
z
RA ~

a~~ ill
tnrr
u,ru~snu

~--+~w ~.
u N
! i ~

FIGURE 1-1. ELIZABETH BRADY ROAD
PROJECT LOCATION MAP

1.3 Need for the Proposed Action
' 1.3.1 Traffic Congestion and Deficient Level of Service
Under current conditions, the intersection of Churton Street at Margaret Lane experiences
LOS E conditions during the AM and PM peak hour periods, with the heaviest congestion
experienced by westbound left-turning vehicles. Southbound queues extend to the King
Street intersection and northbound queues exceed 750 feet (ft). The intersection of Churton
' Street at King Street would operate at LOS C in the AM and LOS B in the PM if it were an
isolated signal with adequate spacing between King Street and the adjacent intersections.
However, field observations indicate that the intersection operates at a worse level of
' service during peak periods. The primary reason for this deterioration in service is that
Margaret Lane queuing extends into the King Street intersection.
Several unsignalized intersections are experiencing poor levels of service on the side
' approaches. The intersection of Churton Street with the I-85 northbound ramps is operating
at LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours. The heavy single-lane mainline approaches
(703 vehicles per hour (vph) southbound / 846 vph northbound) result in few gaps for left-
' turning vehicles from the I-85 off ramp to merge onto Churton Street. Similarly, the left-turn
movements from both ramps at the NC-86 interchange operate at LOS E/F during both peak

' periods.
An analysis of roadway level of service for the study area indicates that Churton Street from
I-85 north to NC-86 is operating at LOS F under existing conditions. The congestion is most
severe in the downtown area between NC-86 and Tryon Street.
By 2025, US-70 Bypass at Churton Street will operate at LOS E. Seven other signalized
intersections along US-70 Bypass and Churton Street will operate at LOS F. These
intersections are:
• US-70 Bypass at Lawrence Road (SR-1709)
' • US-70 Bypass at Saint Mary's (SR-1002)
• Churton Street/SR-1009 at US-70 Business/NC-86
• Churton Street and King Street
• Churton Street and Margaret Lane
• Churton Street (SR-1009) at Orange Grove Rd (SR-1006)
' • Exit 164 -Churton Street at I-85 SB Ramps (north of I-85)
Churton Street will continue to operate at LOS F in 2025. It is anticipated that LOS F
conditions will occur over longer periods throughout the day and not just during the AM and
PM peak commuting periods. The NC-86 and US-70 Business roadway sections between I-
85 at Exit 165 and the Churton Street / US-70 Business intersection are forecast to operate
at LOS F compared with LOS B under existing conditions.

1.3.2 Distribution of Trips
' The data analyses indicate that approximately 50 percent of the vehicles using the Churton
Street Bridge over the Eno River are local trips bound for locations south of Hillsborough.
Approximately 20 percent use I-40 with the primary destinations being Chapel Hill and South

Elizabeth Brady Road Extension Document Date: 6/12/2001 1-3
Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need Date Printed: 6/13/2001

Durham. Of the remainder, approximately 30 percent use I-85 to reach Durham (20
percent) and Research Triangle Park or Raleigh (10 percent).
1.3.3 Traffic Safety
Approximately half of the roads evaluated in Hillsborough have accident rates exceeding the
statewide averages including Churton Street, NC-86, St. Mary's Road, Revere Road, West
Hill Avenue, Nash Street, and Allison/Eno Mountain Road. On roadways with high total
accident rates, the injury accident rates tend to be similar, with rear-end accidents being the
highest, followed by right and left-turn accidents.
1.3.4 Infrastructure Support for Economic Development
Orange County has established two Economic Development Districts south of the Town of
Hillsborough. Both of the districts are adjacent to interstate highways. One is in the area
surrounding the I-85 and NC-86 interchange south of Elizabeth Brady Road. The other
district is at I-40 and Old NC-86 (Churton Street) interchange.
Development in these two Economic Development Districts will generate traffic within the
project area and along Churton Street. Consequently, the current and projected traffic
congestion along Churton Street and NC-86 could also affect the success of these two
districts.
1.4 Purpose of the Proposed Action
The purpose of the proposed project is to:
1. Reduce traffic congestion and improve the Level of Service (LOS) in the central
business district of the Town of Hillsborough, including Churton Street and Saint
Mary's Road.
2. Provide a route alternative to Churton Street for local traffic.
3. Improve traffic safety along Churton Street and NC-86.
4. Provide transportation infrastructure support for economic development in and
around Hillsborough.
1-4 Document Date: 6/12/2001 Elizabeth Brady Road Extension
Date Printed: 6/13/2001 Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need

2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 Project Location
Elizabeth Brady Road is in the Town of Hillsborough in central Orange County (Figure 1-1 ).
Hillsborough, the Orange County seat, is immediately east of the junction of I-40 and I-85, in
the central Piedmont region at the western edge of the greater Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill
area. Hillsborough, founded in 1754, has an area of 3.91 square miles (1,013 square
hectares) and is approximately 12 miles (19 km) west of Durham and 10 miles (16 km) north
of Chapel Hill. Greensboro and Raleigh are within a 40-minute drive. Figure 2-1 shows the
Elizabeth Brady Road Extension Project study area designated for traffic analysis and
background studies in the preparation of this Purpose and Need document.
2.2 Project History
The Town of Hillsborough requested the project through the Durham/Chapel Hill/Carrboro
' (DCHC) Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). The stated purpose of the project was
to reduce traffic through the Hillsborough central business district by providing an alternative
route along the Elizabeth Brady Road corridor.
' The 1987 Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan (NCDOT, 1987) indicated that the "extension of
Elizabeth Brady Road (SR-1879) would serve as a north-south crosstown on the eastern
side, thereby providing needed relief to Churton Street." The plan called for protection of the
open space along the Eno River and recommended that access along Elizabeth Brady Road
be "greatly restricted."
The 1987 Thoroughfare Plan also called fora "Loop System" that would include Lawrence
Road (east of Elizabeth Brady), Baldwin Road and Miller Road (northeast of Hillsborough),
the Western Bypass (north and northwest of Hillsborough), King Edward (west of
' Hillsborough), Dimmock's Mill Road (southeast of Hillsborough), Davis Road (south of
Hillsborough), NC-86, and a portion of Old NC-10. The plan calls for widening the existing
roads to three or five lanes. The Western Bypass would be a new four-lane divided road.

The Hillsborough Town Board adopted the Transportation Plan for the Town of Hillsborough
(1997 Transportation Plan) (NCDOT, 1997a) on July 25, 1996. The 1997 Transportation
Plan updated the 1987 Thoroughfare Plan and identified Elizabeth Brady as one of the
proposed projects. The plan also identified Elizabeth Brady as part of the Town's future
bicycle and pedestrian route networks.
In February 1998, NCDOT completed a feasibility study for an extension of Elizabeth Brady
Road. The study proposed:
• Relocating approximately 600 ft (183 m) of NC-86 and approximately 400 ft (122 m)
of Elizabeth Brady Road at the southern project terminus;
• Widening both approaches on US-70 Business at the intersection of Elizabeth Brady
Road, NC-86, and US-70 Business;
Elizabeth Brady Road Extension Document Date: 6/12/2001
Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need Date Printed: 6/13/2001 2-1

~ a
~/ i Project Study~~u c~pr~T~~
s ~
~ •
~„" 1
~ ~
~* ~
~`~ ~ ,~ ~
1 - ~
{ Oran L Emanca ~ ~ ~
t r~ •
1 ~ ~
f !~ f
•~
Eland
~''kx Eno ive
t ,,
~ ~ ~ ~~
~~
t
~' Panthers
t Occo eec~
~`
r
~'
R
~~.. ._
~ 113
Legend
• • • Project Study Area
t 1
Figure 2-1. Elizabeth Brady Road project study area.
1 1 y
Project Study
\\ •
~ 101
Churton Street ~~,
•
•
•
Eno River
ShOC4U h ~Mountam V'iev~"`
~ US-70 Bypass „r.....-_,`
n„nr9. A;,~,o ~
Elizabeth Brady Rd. ~
•
•
s~ 7g ~
f US-70 Business ~„may r -~--~•
NC-86

• Widening approximately 0.2 mile (0.3 km) of existing Elizabeth Brady Road;
• Extending Elizabeth Brady Road approximately one mile (1.6 km) to the northern
project terminus, just north of US-70 Bypass at Saint Mary's Road;
• Constructing a bridge over the Eno River;
• Constructing additional lanes on US-70 Bypass at the northern project terminus; and
• Closure of SR-1002 (Saint Mary's Road) at US-70 Bypass.
The feasibility study also recommended revising the existing traffic signal at the US-70
Bypass intersection and proposed a new signal at the US-70 Business intersection.
Figure 2-1 shows the conceptual location for the Elizabeth Brady Road Extension Project
contained in the feasibility study, the 1997 Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan, and the State
2002 - 2008 Transportation Improvement Program.
2.3 Other Projects Listed in the 2001 - 2008 NCDOT TIP
The proposed extension of Elizabeth Brady Road is included in the NCDOT 2002-2008 TIP
as Project No. U-3808. Six additional projects in the NCDOT TIP are in the general vicinity
of the proposed action. Table 2-1 lists these projects and Figure 2-2 shows their general
locations.
Table 2-1. Projects within or near the project study area.

TIP 1
ROW
ConstructionZ
Number Route Number Description Acquisition Date
Date
B-4592 SR-1561 Bridge replacement (bridge #64) over FY 06 FY 07
(Lawrence the Eno River
Road)
B-4216 SR-1002 (Saint Bridge replacement (bridge #66) over FY 05 FY 06
Mary's Road) Strouds Creek
R-2825 US-70 Business, Widen the road to multi-lanes and Feasibility Feasibility
SR-1009 widen bridge #240 over the Norfolk Study3 Study
Southern railroad from SR-1192 to the
Eno River.
R-3438 New Route Hillsborough Western Bypass, US-70 PY PY
To NC-57. Two lanes on new location.
(Unfunded project)
I-305 I-85 Widen I-40 at Hillsborough to Durham PY PY
County line to six lanes and reconstruct
interchanges and structures.
I-3306 I-40 I-85 in Orange County to NC-147 in NA FY 02
Durham County, add additional lanes.
U-3808 SR-1879 Extension of Elizabeth Brady Road, FY 06 FY 08
(Elizabeth Brady south of US-70 Business to north of
Road) US-70 Bypass at SR-1002.
Scheduled fiscal year for initiation of right-of-way acquisition.
ZScheduled fiscal year for initiation of construction.
s Project is not scheduled, a feasibility study is underway or planned.
`Post Year -scheduled after fiscal year 2008.
Elizabeth Brady Road Extension
' Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need
Document Date: 6/12/2001 2-3
Date Printed: 6/13/2001

2.4 System Linkage
2.4.1 Existing Road Network

The Hillsborough Planning Area, which is roughly depicted in Figure 2-2, is served by two
interstates and several federal and state highways acting as radial routes. I-85 bisects the
planning area and intersects with I-40 west of Orange Grove Road, from which point they
run concurrently. NC-86 and US-70 Business combine south east of downtown (at the
intersection with Elizabeth Brady) and run through the center of Hillsborough on Churton
Street. The US-70 Bypass carries traffic around the north side of Hillsborough and NC-57
bears northeast from NC-86. Saint Mary's Road (SR-1002) is a minor thoroughfare that
runs northeast from downtown Hillsborough, crossing US-70 Bypass at the proposed
terminus of the Elizabeth Brady Extension.
2.4.2 Existing Road Characteristics
Elizabeth Brady Road is a 24-foot (ft) (7.3-meter [m]) wide two-lane road. The Statewide
Functional Classification System lists it as a minor urban arterial. The Hillsborough and
Orange County Thoroughfare Plans list it as a major thoroughfare.
Elizabeth Brady Road is approximately 1.2 miles (1.9 km) in length. It begins at US-70
Business and terminates in a commercial /light industrial development north of US-70
Bypass. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph) (55 km per hour [kph]).
Presently, there are no sidewalks or bicycle routes along Elizabeth Brady Road.
2.4.3 Modal Interrelationships

Bicycle/Pedestrian Networks
The Town of Hillsborough included plans for bicycle and pedestrian elements in their 1997
transportation plan so these elements would receive consideration when road projects were
funded and reached the project development stage. The bicycle plan includes 23 future
projects and the pedestrian plan includes 25 projects. Elizabeth Brady Road is included in
both the pedestrian and bicycle plans.
Railways
The North Carolina Railroad owns right-of-way in the southern portion of the project study
' area. Norfolk Southern operates freight service through the area. Amtrak runs passenger
service along this line, with the closest passenger station in Durham, east of Hillsborough.
' Ai
rports
The Town of Hillsborough is served by two major international airports. The Piedmont Triad
' International Airport in Greensboro is approximately 50 miles (80 km) west of Hillsborough
and the Raleigh/Durham International Airport is located approximately 30 miles (48 km)
east. The Horace T. Williams Airport, a smaller regional general aviation airport, is located
approximately 11 miles (18 km) south of Hillsborough off NC-86 in Chapel Hill.
Elizabeth Brady Road Extension Document Date: 6/12/2001 2-5
' Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need Date Printed: 6/13/2001

Transit
Orange Public Transportation, aDivision of the Orange County Department of Aging,
operates a bus service along NC-86 that has two stops in Hillsborough. The first is in
downtown and the second stop is in the retail area south of the railroad. Service areas also
include Chapel Hill, Durham, and Raleigh. This service is available to the public, regardless
of age or disability. The 1997 Transportation Plan identifies an expanded transit system,
along the NC-86.
2-6 Document Date: 6/12/2001 Elizabeth Brady Road Extension
Date Printed: 6/i3/2001 Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need

1

3.0 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND
3.1 Traffic Congestion
Traffic conditions within the Town of Hillsborough were evaluated using existing and
projected 2025 traffic volumes. The results of the traffic studies are documented in the
project report Capacity and Safety Analysis, Traffic Technical Memorandum, Elizabeth
Brady Road Extension Town of Hillsborough, NC (Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2001). Figure 3-1
identifies the locations where turning movement counts and tube counts were taken. In
addition, a brief analysis of traffic distribution patterns between Hillsborough and areas to
the east was conducted.
3.1.1 Level of Service Criteria
Level of service is a measure of the traffic-carrying adequacy of a roadway or intersection.
Level of service is measured on a scale of "A" through "F," with LOS A being the best
operating environment and LOS F being the worst. LOS C is generally considered the
minimally desirable operating condition; however, LOS D is acceptable in urban conditions.
Levels of service for signalized intersections are based on the average control delays
experienced by vehicles traveling through the intersections during the peak hour. "Control
Delay" is the portion of,total delay attributed to traffic control measures or devices such as
traffic signals (or stop signs). The Highway Capacity Manual (TRB, 2000) cites that
individual cycle failures are noticeable and the influence of congestion becomes more
noticeable at LOS D. At LOS F individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. A cycle
failure occurs when a single cycle length fails to serve all stopped vehicles.
Levels of service for unsignalized intersections are commonly reported with two
computations. As with signalized intersections, overall average control delay can be
computed. It is critical, however, to understand the traffic operations of the most-congested
approach since this movement must yield to the other traffic on the mainline. Operations for
this movement are controlled by gap acceptance since no "green" is provided for the
stopped movement. Typically, as increased traffic volumes reduce the number of gaps, it
becomes apparent that the installation of signals will be warranted at some point in the
future. LOS E is generally considered acceptable at unsignalized intersections if only the
side street encounters delay. It is not uncommon for side streets to function at a LOS F
during peak traffic periods. This is expected, since the low traffic volumes of the side street
often do not warrant the installation of a traffic signal to improve the traffic flow.
Levels of service are considered on three primary types of roadways in this traffic analysis -
two-lane roadways, multi-lane roadways, and arterials. Levels of service on two-lane
roadways are determined based upon the percent of time the average driver spends
' following another vehicle in a queue. Even at poor levels of service, operations on the
mainline can still be within 10 mph (16 kph) of the speed limit; the LOS F reflects that
greater than 85 percent of cars want to go faster than they are able to travel. On multi-lane
' roadways, vehicles can pass each other until traffic volumes are high enough to result in
increased density. Density is used to determine level of service since it impacts average
travel speeds.
Elizabeth Brad Ro d Extension Documen
y a t Date: 6/12/2001 3-1
' Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need Date Printed: 6/13/2001

i. '~ •. '
i / • ~!
$.
r a ...~ ~
Fir. •
i 1 Project, tud ound •
~ •
~~.
Churton Street
•
C."
• • •7 ;11
•
,

~~
0'
-:

4 t~rD~

•
..
~~ s~ •
. ~* •
Qa
•
- •
6
11Sb ~iMountain mew
otE)t~l~h
' •
•
est+ ilfsboro g 7Q Eno
River
~ •
•
T'~ 3 •
•
1 •
•
Elizabeth Brady Road •
g 13 1
~.. Poplar Ridge

Panders 1.1en •

•
•
Z3ccC+.ne~itee Nlountaln •
15 ` 12 •
•.,~ pig' •
g 165 7~s'1 •
1 ~ 1~ .
Legend ~} 10 •
•
• • • Project Study Area
~ •
•
Traffic Count Locations
•

Tube Count Locations •
•
•
~r
Figure 3-1. Location of traffic counts. ~ ~ '"~"~
~ i~ i~ r . ii ~ ~ ~ i~ ~ i~ ~ i~ ~ ~ ww i~ ~^

1

In contrast with two-lane and multi-lane highways, arterial level of service is controlled by
traffic signal operations and the impact of the signals on overall traffic speed. Vehicles are
forced to decelerate, wait, and accelerate at individual signals along the travel corridor.
Distances between signals, arterial type, and individual intersection level of service all
impact the level of service analysis of the arterial.
3.1.2 Existing Capacity Analysis
Existing Traffic Counts
Traffic volume data for ten separate roadway segments (Figure 3-1) were collected using
pneumatic (tube) counters. The counters were operated for a minimum of 24 hours during
weekdays (Tuesday through Thursday) during February through May of 2001. These tube
counts were used in conjunction with turning movement counts to develop average daily
traffic volumes for the area.
Peak period counts were collected at the signalized and unsignalized intersections. The
turning movement counts were conducted during the AM peak period (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM)
and PM peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM). Below is the list of intersections where turning
movement counts were collected. The numbers correspond to the numbers in Figure 3-1 for
each of the intersections. The traffic count and turning movement data collected are
detailed in the Traffic Technical Memorandum.
Signalized Intersections
1. US-70 Bypass at Lawrence Road (SR-1709)
2. US-70 Bypass at Saint Mary's (SR-1002)
3. US-70 Bypass at Churton Street
4. US-70 Bypass at Revere Road (US-70 Bus.)
5. Churton/SR-1009 at US-70 business/NC-86
6. Churton Street and King Street
7. Churton Street and Margaret Lane
8. Churton Street (SR-1009) at Orange Grove Rd (SR-1006)
9. Exit 164 - Churton Street at I-85 SB Ramps (north of I-85)
Unsignalized Intersections
10. US-70 Bypass at US-70 Business
11. US-70 Bypass at West Hill Avenue (SR-1161)
12. US-70 Business at Lawrence Road (SR-1709)
13. US-70 Business and Elizabeth Brady Road
14. Dimmocks Mill Road (SR-1134) at Ben Johnson Road (SR-1144)
15. Exit 165 - NC-86 at I-85 SB Ramps (north of I-85)
16. Exit 165 - NC-86 at I-85 NB Ramps (south of I-85)
17. Exit 164 - Churton Street at I-85 NB Ramps (south of I-85)
Signalized Intersections Analysis
As shown in Table 3-1, the majority of the study area's signalized intersections are currently
operating at acceptable overall levels of service (LOS C or better) during the peak periods.
Elizabeth Brady Road Extension Document Date: 6/i2/2001 3-3
Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need Date Printed: 6/13/2001

Table 3-1. Existing Intersection Levels of Service.
Intersection 2001 Level of Service
Signalized AM PM
1. US-70 Bypass at Lawrence Road (SR-1709) C B
2. US-70 Bypass at Saint Mary's (SR-1002) B B
3. US-70 Bypass at Churton Street B B
4. US-70 Bypass at Revere Road (US-70 Bus.) B B
5. Churton Street at US-70 Business/NC-86 B B
6. Churton Street at King Street C B
7. Churton Street at Margaret Street E E
8. Churton Street at Orange Grove Rd (SR-1006) C B
9. Exit 164 - Churton Street at I-85 SB Ramps
(north of I-85) B C
Intersection Overall LOS (Worst lane Group
LOST
Unsignalized AM PM
10. US-70 Bypass at US-70 Business A (SB-F)* A (SB-D)
11. US-70 Bypass at West Hill Avenue A (NBL-A) A (NBL-A)
12. US-70 Business at Lawrence Road (SR-1709) A (NB-B) A (NB-C)
13. US-70 Business at Elizabeth Brady Road A (SB-B) A (SB-C)
14. Dimmocks Mill Road (SR-1134) at Ben Johnson
Road (SR-1144) A (SB-B) A (SB-B)
15. Exit 165 - NC-86 at I-85 SB Ramps (north of I-
85) C (WBL-F) A (WB-D)
16. Exit 165 - NC-86 at I-85 NB Ramps (south of I-
85) A (EBL-E) C (EBL-F)
17. Exit 164 - Churton St. at I-85 NB Ramps (south
of I-85) D (EBL-F) D (EBL-F)
(lane group-LOS) (XXY-Z) XX = NB (northbound), SB (southbound), EB (eastbound), WB (westbound)
Y = L (left turns), T (through traffic), R (right turns)
Z =level of service A - F
e.g. (NBL-B) is northbound lefts operate at LOS B, (WBT-B) is westbound through traffic operate at LOS B
3-4 Document Date: 6/12/2001 Elizabeth Brady Road Extension
Date Printed: 6/13/2001 Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need '

1

Signalized intersections with capacity deficiencies include:
The intersection of Churton Street at Margaret Lane experiences LOS E conditions
during both the AM and PM peak periods, with the heaviest congestion experienced
by westbound left-turning vehicles. Southbound queues extend to the King Street
intersection and northbound queues exceed 750 feet (230 m).
The intersection of Churton Street at King Street would operate at LOS C in the AM
and LOS B in the PM if it were an isolated signal with adequate spacing between
King Street and the adjacent intersections. However, field observations indicate that
the intersection operates at a worse level of service during peak periods. The
primary reason for this deterioration in service is that Margaret Lane queuing
extends into the King Street intersection.
Unsignalized Intersections Analysis
As shown in Table 3-1, the majority of the study area unsignalized intersections are
operating at acceptable overall levels of service (LOS C or better) during the peak periods.
However, several intersections are experiencing failing levels of service on the side
approaches. For unsignalized intersections, level of service is reported for the worst
movement at the intersection. In comparison, signalized intersection analysis looks at the
average of all movements and is less conservative. Unsignalized intersections with capacity
deficiencies under existing conditions are:
The intersection of Churton Street with the I-85 northbound ramps is operating at
LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours. The heavy single-lane mainline
approaches (703 vph southbound / 846 vph northbound) result in few gaps for left-
turning vehicles from the I-85 off ramp to merge onto Churton Street.
Similarly, the left-turn movements from both ramps at the NC-86 interchange operate
at LOS E/F during both peak periods.
The connection of Palmer's Grove Road to the US-70 Business and US-70 Bypass
split east of town experiences poor levels of service during both peak periods. LOS
F is expected for southbound vehicles during the AM and LOS D is expected during
the PM. In addition, the other stopped approach, US-70 Business, experiences LOS
D conditions for both periods.
' Roadway Link Analysis
An analysis of roadway levels of service was also conducted for the study area. The
' capacity analysis was conducted using peak hour directional flows obtained from the tube
counts and turn movements collected at the intersections. The Florida Planning
Methodology (Florida Department of Transportation, 1995) was used to estimate level of
service on the different types of facilities. Table 3-2 describes the roadway sections
examined, the existing average daily traffic, and the AM and PM peak hour levels of service.
' The conclusions that can be drawn from Table 3-2 are:

Elizabeth Brady Road Extension Document Date: 6/12/2001 3-5
Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need Date Printed: 6/13/2001

Table 3-2. Existing roadway Levels of Service.
Existing Level of Service
Link Route Fr
m T
o o ADT AM PM
1 a Churton Street US-70 Bypass NC-86 / US-70 21,000 F F
Business
1 b Churton Street NC-86 / US-70 I-85 18
800 F F
Business ,
2 Revere Road / US-70 Bypass Churton Street 1,800 B B
Corbin Street
3A US-70 Business Churton Street NC-86 7,300 B B
3B US-70 Business NC-86 US-70 Bypass 4,500 B B
4 NC-86 US-70 I-85 6
700 B B
Business ,
5a US-70 Bypass I-40 / I-85 NC-86 9,800 C B
5b US-70 Bypass NC-86 US-70
Business 11,200 C C
6 Lawrence Road US-70 Bypass US-70 2,700 B B
(SR-1709) Business
7 Saint Mary's Road King Street US-70 4,700 B B
(SR-1002)

8 West Hill Avenue
US-70 Dimmocks Mill
1
400
B
B
(SR-1161) Road ,
9 Nash Street (SR- US-70 Calvin Street 2
200 B B
1156) Business ,

10 Allison/Eno Mtn Dimmocks Mill Orange Grove
3
100
B
B
Road (SR-1148) Road Road ,
11 Dimmocks Mill Ben Johnson Nash Street 1
800 B B
Road, (SR-1134) Road ,
12 Orange Grove I-85 Churton Street 3
600 B B
Road, (SR-1006) ,
3-6 Document Date: 6/12/2001 Elizabeth Brady Road Extension
Date Printed: 6/13/2001 Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need '

' Churton Street from I-85 north to NC-86 (Links 1 a and 1 b) is operating at LOS F
under existing conditions.
' The congestion is most severe in the downtown area between NC-86 and Tryon
Street.
• The majority of roads in the Hillsborough area are operating at LOS C or better.
3.1.3 Future Capacity Analysis
' Using the existing counts for the AM and PM peak periods as a base, future turning
movement projections were developed for the design year 2025. The growth rates for roads
in the study area were taken from the 2025 Triangle Regional Model.
t

Traffic Projections
The 2025 Triangle Regional Model (TRM) Version 2.0 was compared with the calibrated
1995 TRM to determine growth rates on specific roadway links in the Hillsborough area. A
comparison of the growth rates indicated that no single rate was applicable to all roadways -
the annual growth rates varied between one and four percent per year depending upon the
type of facility. The annual growth rates applied on each of the major roadway facilities
were:
• US-70 Bypass -1.75 percent per year
• US-70 Business - 3 percent per year
• Churton Street - 1.25 percent per year
• NC-86 from US-70 Business to I-85 - 3 percent per year
The growth rate was applied to the turning movements independently for each approach.
Future Level of Service
Traffic projections for the design year (2025) analysis were used to determine the future
level of service and congestion along the study area roadways.
Signalized Intersections Analysis
Table 3-3 shows that eight signalized intersections will operate at LOS E or F in 2025.
These intersections, located along US-70 Bypass and Churton Street, are:
• US-70 Bypass at Lawrence Road (SR-1709)
• US-70 Bypass at Saint Mary's (SR-1002)
• US-70 Bypass at Churton Street
• Churton Street/SR-1009 at US-70 Business/NC-86
• Churton Street and King Street
• Churton Street and Margaret Lane (LOS E under existing conditions)
• Churton Street (SR-1009) at Orange Grove Rd (SR-1006)
• Exit 164 -Churton Street at I-85 SB Ramps (north of I-85)
Elizabeth Brady Road Extension
' Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need

Document Date: 6/12/2001 3-7
Date Printed: 6/13/2001

Table 3-3. Future intersection Levels of Service.
Intersection 2025 Level of Service
Signalized AM PM
1. US-70 Bypass at Lawrence Road (SR-1709) F C
2. US-70 Bypass at Saint Mary's (SR-1002) F B
3. US-70 Bypass at Churton Street E C
4. US-70 Bypass at Revere Road (US-70 Bus.) C D
5. Churton Street at US-70 Business/NC-86 D F
6. Churton Street at King Street F E
7. Churton Street at Margaret Lane F F
8. Churton Street at Orange Grove Rd (SR-1006) F D
9. Exit 164 - Churton Street at I-85 SB Ramps
(north of I-85) C F
Intersection Overall LOS (Worst lane Group
LOS)
Unsignalized AM PM
10. US-70 Bypass at US-70 Business F (SB-F)* CA (SB-F)
11. US-70 Bypass at West Hill Avenue A (NBL-E) A (NBL-C)
12. US-70 Business at Lawrence Road (SR-1709) C (NB-E) F (NB-F)
13. US-70 Business at Elizabeth Brady Road F (NBL-F) F (NB-F)
14. Dimmocks Mill Road (SR-1134) at Ben Johnson
Road (SR-1144) A (SB-B) A (SB-B)
15. Exit 165 - NC-86 at I-85 SB Ramps (north of I-
85) F (WBL-F) F (WBL-F)
16. Exit 165 - NC-86 at I-85 NB Ramps (south of I-
85) F (EBL-F) F (EBL-F)
17. Exit 164 - Churton St. at I-85 NB Ramps (south
of I-85) F (EBL-F) F (EBL-F)
(lane group-LOS) (XXY-Z) XX = NB (northbound), SB (southbound), EB (eastbound), WB (westbound)
Y = L (left turns), T (through traffic), R (right turns)
Z =level of service A - F
e.g. (NBL-B) is northbound lefts operate at LOS B, (WBT-B) is westbound through traffic operate at LOS B
3-g Document Date: 6/12/2001 Elizabeth Brady Road Extension
Date Printed: 6/13/2001 Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need

' The only signalized intersection anticipated to operate at LOS D or better in 2025 is the
recently widened intersection of US-70 Bypass at Revere Road.
' The primary reason for the projected poor levels of service at the US-70 intersections in
2025 is the high volume of traffic at each intersection. On Churton Street, the high through
movements are combined with high turning movements. Future traffic operations on
Churton Street will be further worsened by the close spacing of the intersections.
' Unsipnalized Intersection Analysis
Table 3-3 shows that six unsignalized intersections will operate at LOS F (both worst
movement and overall level of service) in 2025. These intersections include:
1
• US-70 and US-70 Business
• US-70 Business at Lawrence Road (SR-1709)
• US-70 Business and NC-86/Elizabeth Brady Road
• Exit 165 - NC-86 at I-85 SB Ramps (north of I-85)
• Exit 165 - NC-86 at I-85 NB Ramps (south of I-85)
• Exit 164 -Churton Street at I-85 NB Ramps (south of I-85)
Two intersections will operate at an acceptable level of service in the future; US-70 Bypass
at West Hill Avenue and Dimmocks Mill Road (SR-1134) at Ben Johnson Road (SR-1144).
The overall level of service remains at LOS B or better at both intersections. The worst
movement, at the West Hill Avenue intersection, will operate at LOS E in the AM peak,

l which is typically acceptable in most urban areas.
Roadway Link Analysis
Future ADT volumes were developed for the Town of Hillsborough and are shown in Table
3-4. An analysis was conducted to determine future levels of service on various roadway
links. For the capacity analysis, peak hour directional flows obtained from the tube counts
and turning movements were utilized as a basis for future volumes. Table 3-4 identifies the
' roadway sections examined for this analysis, the future ADT, and the AM and PM peak hour
level of service.
' The conclusions drawn from the table are:
• Churton Street (Links 1 a and 1 b) will continue to operate at LOS F in 2025. It is
' anticipated that LOS F conditions will occur over longer periods throughout the day
due to the high ADT projections.
• The operating conditions on NC-86 and US-70 Business roadway links between I-85
at Exit 165 and the Churton Street/ US-70 Business intersection (Links 3a and 4) will
degrade from LOS B under existing conditions to LOS F.
• The US-70 Bypass is projected to operate at LOS F in 2025.
• US-70 Business (Revere/Corbin) between US-70 Bypass and Churton Street will
' operate at LOS D and all other roadways in the Hillsborough network are projected
to operate at LOS C or better in 2025.

Elizabeth Brady Road Extension Document Date: 6/12/2001 3-g
Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need Date Printed: 6/13/2001

Table 3-4. Future roadway Levels of Service.
Future Level. of Service
Link Route From To
ADT
AM
PM
1 a Churton Street US-70 Bypass NC-86 / US-70 28,000 F F
Business
1 b Churton Street NC-86 / US-70 I-85 25
000 F F
Business ,
2 Revere Road /
Corbin Street US-70 Bypass Churton Street 2,400 D D
3A US-70 Business Churton Street NC-86 14,800 F F
3B US-70 Business NC-86 US-70 Bypass 9,100 B C
4 NC-86 US-70 I-85 13
600 F F
Business ,
5a US-70 Bypass I-40 / I-85 NC-86 14,900 F C
5b US-70 Bypass NC-86 US-70
Business 17,000 F F
6 Lawrence Road US-70 Bypass US-70 3
300 B B
(SR-1709) Business ,
7 Saint Mary's Road King Street US-70 5
700 B B
(SR-1002) ,

8 West Hill Avenue
US-70 Dimmocks Mill
2
100
B
B
(SR-1161) Road ,
9 Nash Street (SR- US-70 Calvin Street 2
600 B B
1156) Business ,
10 Allison/Eno Mtn Dimmocks Mill Orange Grove 3 700 B B
Road (SR-1148) Road Road '
11 Dimmocks Mill Ben Johnson Nash Street 2
200 B B
Road, (SR-1134) Road ,
12 Orange Grove I-85 Churton Street 7
300 B B
Road, (SR-1006) ,
3-10 Document Date: 6/12/2001 Elizabeth Brady Road Extension
Date Printed: 6/13/2001 Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need

3.2 Traffic Safety
'
3.2.1 Corridor Accident Rate Analysis
In order to evaluate the safety of a roadway it is necessary to compare accident rate of the
' roadway with the accident rates of similar type roadways throughout the state. NCDOT
acquired crash data for each of the roadway links studied. Accident rates are calculated by
dividing the number of total accidents by a vehicle exposure rate. The exposure rate is
calculated by multiplying the length of the roadway segment times the product of the ADT
and the number of days in the analysis period. Accident rates are reported as accidents per
100 million vehicle-miles (acc/100mvm).
The three-year crash rate report summarized accidents occurring between April 1, 1997 and
March 31, 2000. These data are summarized in Table 3-5.
' An analysis of Table 3-5 indicates:
• Approximately half of the roads evaluated in Hillsborough have accident rates
exceeding the statewide averages for the same types of roads including Churton
Street (in the central business district), NC-86, St. Mary's Road, Revere Road, West
Hill Avenue, Nash Street, and Allison/Eno Mountain Road.
• On roadways with high total accident rates, the injury accident rates tend to be
similar. On Allison/Eno Mountain Road, however, a high percentage of accidents
involve injuries. As a result, the injury accident rate exceeds the statewide averages.
• A low accident rate was computed for Churton Street between NC-86 and I-85
(Section 1 B). Although it is possible that this is correct, it is more likely that some
accidents on this corridor were not included in the accident database.
' One fatal accident was recorded in Hillsborough for the three year period. The crash
occurred along US-70 west of Revere Road, which resulted in a 1.91 fatal crash rate for the
section. The computed fatal crash rate is zero for all other roadways examined. The
exposure rate (i.e., million vehicle miles traveled) for any of the roadways, however, is
statistically insignificant for determining the true fatal accident rates.
'
3.2.2 High Accident Locations
The total number of accidents at specific intersections on the corridor was also examined.
The results are summarized in Table 3-6 and include:
• The two highest frequency accident locations occur on Churton Street north of
' NC-86, and three of the top five locations are on Churton Street.
• Two US-70 Bypass intersections are also on the top five accident frequency list.
• The section of NC-86 between the I-85 ramps and US-70 Business also has a high
' frequency of crashes. Nineteen of the 28 total crashes within this section occurred at
the intersection with I-85 southbound ramps.
• The Orange Grove Road at Allison Road (SR-1148) intersection has a high accident
rate despite relatively low traffic volumes.
Elizabeth Brady Road Extension Document Date: 6/12/2001 3-11
' Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need Date Printed: 6/13/2001

Table 3-5. Crash rates along study area roads.
Accident Rates
inE Roadwa From To
_ y
Total Injury Fatal
1 a Churton Street US-70 Bypass NC-86 / US-70 412.23 146.57 0.0
Bus. / SR-1009
1 b Churton Street NC-86 / US-70 I-85 40
90 20
45 0
0
Business . . .
2 Revere Road / US-70 Bypass Churton Street 732.18 337.93 0.0
Corbin Street
3a US-70 Business Churton Street NC-86 295.20 120.76 0.0
3b US-70 Business NC-86 US-70 Bypass 308.37 94.88 0.0
4 NC-86 US-70 Business I-85 544.71 233.45 0.0
5* US-70 Bypass I-40 / I-85 US-70 Business 291.06 124.47 1.91
6 Lawrence Road
(SR-1709) US-70 Bypass US-70 Business 256.41 64.10 0.0
7 Saint Mary's
Road (SR-1002) King Street US-70 Bypass 384.95 226.44 0.0
8 West Hill Ave. US-70 Dimmocks Mill 410.53 21
164 0
0
(SR-1161) Road . .
Nash Street
~9 US-70 Business Calvin Street 560.62 160.18 0.0
(SR-1156)

10 Allison/Eno Mtn Dimmocks Mill Orange Grove
299.37
205.81
0
0
Road (SR-1148) Road Road .
NCDOT Average Two-lane US Highways (Urban) 290.84 120.35 1.10
(1996-98)
NCDOT Average
(1996-98) Two-lane NC Highways (Urban) 307.89 124.94 0.89
* Crashes for section were recorded between 12/1/1998 and 11/30/00
Note: Bold accident rates are locations that exceed the NCDOT Average Accident Rates
3-12 Document Date: 6/12/2001 Elizabeth Brady Road Extension
Date Printed: 6/13/2001 Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need

Table 3-6. Highest crash locations within the study area.
Rank Intersection Number
1 Churton Street @ US-70 Bypass 31
2 Churton Street @ King Street 19
2 NC-86 @ I-85 Ramps 19
4 US-70 Bypass @ Saint Mary's Road (SR-1002) 13
5 Churton Street @ US-70 Business/NC-86 10
5 Orange Grove Road @ Allison Road (SR-1148) 10
3.2.3 Accident Types
Table 3-7 summarizes the accident data by type of accident for each of the road segments.
Rear-end and turning accidents comprised 63 percent of all accidents along all study
roadway links. The segment. of Churton Street through the central business district had the
highest rate of rear-end collisions. This statistic may be a result of the congested and
queued conditions in the downtown area.
Along Nash Street and Revere Road, left-turning accidents comprised the largest number of
crashes.
3.3 Distribution of Trips
An important consideration in evaluating the need for this project is identifying which routes
vehicles use to enter or leave Hillsborough from the south. Distribution data is a factor to
consider in evaluating the willingness of traffic to divert to alternate routes. Using the turning
movement data collected for the three interchanges on I-85, as well as counts on US-70,
NC-86, and Churton Street, the travel patterns were analyzed and evaluated. The analysis
focused on identifying existing traffic patterns and the movement of traffic between
Hillsborough and destinations to the east, particularly Durham or Research Triangle Park.
Future analysis will focus on the potential for diverting traffic for each detail study alternative.
1 The data analyses indicate that approximately 50 percent of the vehicles using the Churton
Street bridge over the Eno River are local trips bound for locations south of Hillsborough.
Approximately 20 percent use I-40 with the primary destinations being Chapel Hill and South
Durham. Of the remainder, approximately 30 percent use I-85 to reach Durham (20
percent) and Research Triangle Park or Raleigh (10 percent).

Elizabeth Brady Road Extension Document Date: 6/12/2001 3-13
Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need Date Printed: 6/13/2001

Table 3-7. Type and number of accidents for each roadway segment.
Number of Accidents in Each Segment & Total
Percentage for Each Segment Crashes for-
Se
ment Route From To
g Run off Each
Rear-End t / Rt Tun Angle Road Other Segment
1 a Churton Street US-70 Bypass NC-86 / US-70 Bus. 52 18 10 2 8 90
/ SR-1009 °
57.8 /° °
20.0 /° °
11.1 /° °
2.2 /° °
8.9 /°
1 b Churton Street NC-86 / US-70 185 4 0 0 3 3
10
Business 40.0% 0% 0% 30.0% 30.0%
2 Revere Road / US-70 Bypass Churton Street 3 6 3 0 1 13
Corbin Street °
23.1 /° °
46.2 /° °
23.1 /° 0 /° °
7.7 /°
3 US-70 Business Churton Street US-70 Bypass 45
33.3% 20 0% 17 8% 8.9% 20 0%
4 NC-86 US-70 Business I-85 28
39.3% 28.6% 14 3% 7.1 % 10.7%
5 US-70 I-40 / I-85 Lawrence Road 65 28 10 7 42
152
42.8% 18.4% 6.6% 4.6% 27.6%
6 Lawrence Road US-70 Bypass US-70 Business 1 0 1 1 1 4
(SR-1709) °
25.0 /° 0 /° °
25.0 /° °
25.0 /° °
25.0 /°
7 Saint Mary's King Street US-70 6 6 2 2 1 17
Road (SR-1002) 35.3% 35.3% 11.8% 11.8% 5.9%
8 West Hill Ave. US-70 Dimmocks Mill Road 0 3 3 1 3 10
(SR-1161) 0% 30.0% 30.0% 10.0% 30.0%
9 Nash Street US-70 Business Calvin Street 4 7 2 0 1 14
(SR-1156) 28.6% 50.0% 14.3% 0% 7.1
10 Allison/ Eno Mtn Dimmocks Mill Road Orange Grove Road 5 2 1 4 4 16
Road (SR-1148) 31.3% 12.5% 6.3% 25.0% 25.0%
Total Number of Accidents for Each Accident Type 166 87 44 26 76 399
Percentage for Each Accident Type 41.6% 21.8% 11.0% 6.5% 19.0% 100%
~^r ~ r r . ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ i. ins i. . ~ i. ~ ~

It is estimated that approximately 35 percent of the vehicles crossing the NC-86 interchange
with I-85 are local trips bound for locations south of Hillsborough. Approximately 10 percent
follow NC-86 south to Chapel Hill. Of the approximately 55 percent using I-85, 35 percent
are bound for North Durham and 20 percent are bound for Central Durham, Research
Triangle Park, and Raleigh via the Durham Freeway.
Approximately 40 percent crossing the Churton Street interchange with I-85 are local trips
bound for locations south of Hillsborough. Approximately 35 percent follow NC-86 south to
Chapel Hill. Approximately 15 percent use I-40 to access South Durham, Research Triangle
Park, and Raleigh. The remaining 10 percent of vehicles use I-85 and are bound almost
exclusively for North Durham.
Approximately 40 percent of the Hillsborough traffic on I-85 just east of the US-70
interchange, would optimally use US-70 and 60 percent would prefer to use the NC-86
interchange based upon the 2025 Triangle Regional Model Version 2.0. The traffic counts
indicate that approximately 70 percent now use the US-70 interchange compared with the
Churton Street and NC-86 interchanges combined serving 30 percent of the movement.
Although further analysis is needed, this finding may indicate that it would be difficult to shift
more traffic to the US-70 interchange.
In 1993, NCDOT conducted an external origin and destination study (NCDOT, 1997) to
better understand the movement of people and goods in the Hillsborough planning area.
The study indicates that the total number of trips from the south and east are more than
double the number of trips from the west. In addition, the trips from the south and east tend
to use Churton Street as both a destination and a through route. In contrast, the majority of
trips from the west using Churton Street have a destination on or near Churton Street. The
trips from the west not bound for Churton Street tend to use I-85 to access south
Hillsborough and US-70 to access north Hillsborough. As a result a new facility intended to
divert traffic from Churton Street would more likely be successful if it is east of Churton
Street.

3.4 Economic Development
Orange County and the Town of Hillsborough are working together to develop two Economic
Development Districts within the project area, south of Hillsborough. The County has zoned
two areas around the interchanges at I-85 and NC-86, just south of Elizabeth Brady Road,
and the interchange of I-40 and Old NC-86 (SR-1009). The zones were developed to
encourage commercial and industrial development in the Hillsborough area and to aid in
managing that growth and development. In establishing these districts, the County and
Town recognized that the success of the Economic Development Districts will be dependent
on having adequate transportation. At the same time they will affect the local transportation
by developing areas that will attract and generate trips. With this recognition, an Economic
Development District Transportation Workgroup has been established. The Workgroup is
made up of County and Town planning staff, elected officials, developers, and community
groups. One of the group's missions is to recommend transportation improvements.

Elizabeth Brady Road Extension Document Date: 6/12/2001 3-15
Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need Date Printed: 6/13/2001

3-16 Document Date: 6/12/2001 Elizabeth Brady Road Extension
Date Printed: 6/13/2001 Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need

4.0 SOC10-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
' 4.1 Land Use
4.1.1 Elizabeth Brady Road
' The area immediately adjacent to Elizabeth Brady Road, south of the Eno River, is zoned
for commercial, industrial, and office use. Elizabeth Brady Road currently provides access
to a commercial/industrial complex. The road also provides access to a waste treatment
facility. North of the Eno River, the land is zoned for agriculture and residential use.
On the north side of the Eno River is Ayr Mount, a house and property listed on the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and the Hillsborough Historic District. On the south side
of the river is the location of the former Orange County Speedway, a NASCAR race track,
currently being consider for listing in the NRHP.
4.1.2 Land Use for Surrounding Area.
The majority of the area in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project is primarily zoned
agricultural/residential, residential, or general industrial. Commercial development is
generally near the interstate highways, along NC-86, and old NC-86. There are 21
developments being planned or implemented. Table 4-1 lists the planned developments in
' the Hillsborough area. Figure 4-1 shows the general location of these developments.
4.2 Social and Economic Conditions
4.2.1 Demographics
The population in the Elizabeth Brady Road Extension Project study area in 1990 was
5,692, according to the US Census. Most of the project area's population is white (80.7
percent). Less than 19 percent of -the population in the area is African-American, and less
' than one percent is another race. Approximately 15.1 percent of the population in the
project area is elderly (over the age of 65). Approximately 11.0 percent of the population
was below the poverty line, and only 2.3 percent were unemployed.
' The population in the project area is expected to grow over the next 25 years. Between
1995 and 2025, a 56.9 percent increase is anticipated. Likewise, employment is also
anticipated to increase, though at a slower rate than the population. Between 1995 and
2025, an 89.3 percent increase is expected.
Population increases in Orange County as a whole are anticipated as well. According to the
' Orange County Economic Development Commission the population for Orange County in

Elizabeth Brady Road Extension Document Date: 6/12/2001 4-1
Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need Date Printed: 6/13/2001

Table 4-1. Planned and ongoing developments in the Hillsborough area.
Map
#,
Development Name Residential
Units Non-
Residential
(ft) Anticipated
Trip ~
Generation
2 Beckett's Ridge 217 0 2,264
3 Burke's Meadow 106 0 1,060
4 Churton Grove 626 65,460 4,657
6 Corbin Downs 800 1,590,000+
assisted living
& hotel 17,791
7 Cornerstone Park 0 113,000 1,624
8 Elementary School 0 306
9 English Hill 36 0 360
10 Falcon Management 330 0 1,025
11 Gateway Oaks 0 800,000+ hotel
& 2 restaurants 6,685
12 Hampton Pointe 0 450,000 + 5 out
parcels 9,649
13 Hart's Mill 32 0 320
14 High School 0 5,000
16 The Preserve 611 0 6,646
17 Meadowlands 0 161,000 2,314
18 Old Mill Business Park 0 126,000 1,810
19 Owl's Wood 0 75,000 1,077
20 Summit 71 0 766
21 The Heritage 173 0 527
22 Windfall 22 0 210
23 Mixed Use Residential and Retail (100
acres [40 hectares]) NA NA NA
24 Mixed Use Residential and Retail (125
acres [51 hectares]) NA NA NA
Source: Town of Hillsborough, Planning Office.
'Numbers that are missing are developments that have been cancelled. The numbers correspond to the numbers in Figure 4-
1.
4-2 Document Date: 6/12/2001 Elizabeth Brady Road Extension
Date Printed: 6/13/2001 Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need

LEGEND
4
B Residential Developments ' ' -
22
Commercial Developments
a
~ School
~ _~_-.-_ 13-
'3
..
_..
f ~ .. yw
L
~~~ -
L e~~ ~' i~ ~ 4 »,~Fox Po
t,,
~ F~aiNF~
.Orange=Atamanee Lake
4a~n i
i r ~ Ben Jah son La e~Dam
~'°--- r Mountain Vi w~~
West~Hii sbo~rough Hi isbornUgh +~
F~~edmo Minerals
i` ` w- - n ~~, Dam f .... ` .. _..~
y _ ` Poplar Ricl .
PanttrersxLlen~-- -.~ ~ s
~_~2~ 7
Figure 4-1. Planned and ongoing developments in and around the Town of Hillsborough.
Elizabeth Brady Road Extension Document Date: 6/12/2001 4-3
Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need Date Printed: 6/13/2001

1998 was 109,288. Of that total, 5,182 were from the Town of Hillsborough. In the entire
six-county area (Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Metropolitan Statistical Area), the population
was estimated to be 1,082,977 in 1998. Population projections for Orange County are
anticipated to reach almost 150,000 by 2020 (Source: North Carolina Office of State
Planning, Estimates Released 1999).
Tables 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4 present the demographic data for the project area.
Table 4-2. 1990 Population, Race and Ethnicity in the project area using Census Block
Groups that have their center in the project area.
Population- Percent Percent Percent Percent
White Black Other Race Hispanic
Total 5,692 80.7 18.6 0.6 0.9
Table 4-3. Population and Employment by Traffic Analysis Zones whose
center is in the project area.
1995 2005 2025
Population 16,968 20,353 26,619
Employment 4,959 6,438 9,386
Median Income $30,483 $37,372 $51,150
Source: Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) data. TAZ forecasts were developed and adopted by the
Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro and the Capital Area MPOs in August 1998.
Note: If the center of a TAZ was found to be within the project area, its entire population was
included. This can result in a slight underestimation of population and employment.
Table 4-4. 1990 Elderly, Median Income, Poverty Status, and Unemployment
in the project area.
Percent Median. Percent
Elderly Income Below Unemployment
Poverty
Total 15.1 $30,180 11.0 2.3%
4-4 Document Date: 6/12/2001 Elizabeth Brady Road Extension
Date Printed: 6/13/2001 Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need

4.2.2 Economic Development Plans and Trends

In 1999, the median household income in Orange County was $41,169. In the Town of
Hillsborough, the median income was $35,652 (Source: Know the Neighborhood, March
2000; courtesy of www.co.orange.nc.us/ecodev/stats/demogrph.htm). The median
household income is expected to increase over the next 25 years to over $51,000 by 2025.
The unemployment rate in the project area was slightly lower than for the County as a whole
in 1990. Orange County had an unemployment rate of 2.4 percent in 1990. That rate has
either declined or remained the same since 1993. In 1999, the unemployment rate for
Orange County was 1.2 percent (Source: Employment Security Commission of North
Carolina; courtesy of www.co.orange.nc.us/ecodev/stats/emplwage.htm).
Orange County contains several large employers that provide numerous employment
opportunities for area residents. The largest of these employers are the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill (10,151 employees), UNC Hospitals (4,420 employees), Blue
Cross/Blue Shield of North Carolina (2,801 employees), Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
(1,600 employees), and Orange County Board of Education (907 employees) (Source:
www.co.orange. nc. us/ecodev/maiem pl/bysize00. htm).
1 4.2.3 Other Social and Economic Conditions
Travel Patterns
1 A majority of the residents of the project area work in Orange County (see Table 4-5).
However, a large number of project area residents works outside the county. The vast
majority of workers that live in the project area drive alone to work.

Table 4-5. Commuting patterns of residents of the project
area block group who's center is the project area.
Commuting Pattern Number' of
Residents
Work in Orange County 1,682
Work Outside Orange County 1,286
Drive Alone to Work 2,392
Carpool 449
Public Transit 0
Work at Home 34
Elizabeth Bradv Road Extension
' Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need
Document Date: 6/12/2001 4-5
Date Printed: 6/13/2001

Housing
The average purchase price for asingle-family home in Orange County was $218,875
($200,601 for existing homes and $247,661 for new homes) (Source: Tony Hall &
Associated, Triangle Multiple Listing Service; courtesy of www.co.orange.nc.us). The
average home sales price for the Town of Hillsborough, though, was $151,760 for 1999
(Source: Research Triangle Regional Partnership, 919-840-7372; courtesy of
www.co.orange.nc.us).
Orange County has issued over 1,000 new construction permits per year for the past few
years (1997, and 1998 - 1999 did not have a total count for the entire year) (Source: NC
Department of Labor Statistics, www.dol.state.nc.us/stats).
The property tax rates in Hillsborough are comparable to those in other municipalities in
Orange County. The total property tax rates, including county taxes, for Hillsborough are
$1.489 per $100 valuation (Source: www.co.orange.nc.us/ecodev/stats/taxstats.htm).
Community
The Town of Hillsborough, part of the greater Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area, is the
county seat of Orange County. It is an historic small town that features many historic
homes. Hillsborough boasts more than 100 structures of the late 18th and early 19tH
centuries in and around the town. A dozen of these are on the National Register of Historic
Places. Several of these historic homes are featured during the bi-annual Historic Home
and Garden Tour, held in the Spring, and the annual Christmas Candlelight Tour (Source:
www.co.orange.nc. us/ecodev/stats/golstat.htm).
The area's biggest annual event is Hillsborough Hog Day, held each June. Downtown
Hillsborough also hosts a popular Farmer's Market, and is home to the Orange County
Historical Museum and the new Occaneechi Indian Palisade. Daniel Boone Village in
Hillsborough is home to a number of antique shops. Hillsborough is also the home of the
Triangle SportsPlex, a community sports center, which offers two swimming pools, a
professional-quality ice hockey and skating rink, exercise rooms, and more (Source:
www.co.orange. nc. us/ecodev/stats/golstat. htm).
4.3 Project Considerations and Issues
Several concerns have been raised by the public that will be addressed and balanced with
other factors, including purpose and need and project cost, in developing the project
alternatives. Following is a list of some of the issues that were identified:
Ayr Mount - A property located immediately adjacent to the project corridor that is
listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
The Orange County Speedway -This is a former NASCAR racetrack located in the
project corridor, south of the Eno River. This site is eligible for the NRHP.
Eno River -The proposed project, as currently described in the NCDOT
Transportation Improvement Program, would require a new crossing of the Eno
River. The Eno River is part of the Neuse River basin and is subject to the
requirements of the Neuse River Basin Rules. In addition, there are local and
regional efforts to create a natural heritage corridor along the Eno River.
4-6 Document Date: 6/12/2001 Elizabeth Brady Road Extension
Date Printed: 6/13/2001 Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need

' Flooding -Concern was also expressed regarding the effects of a new river crossing
on flooding.
' Preservation of natural areas and open space -Interest was expressed in preserving
open space and the natural areas. Particular attention was directed toward the area
within the project corridor immediately north of the Eno River.

Elizabeth Brady Road Extension Document Date: 6/12/2001 4-7
' Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need Date Printed: 6/13/2001

i

4-8 Document Date: 6/12/2001 Elizabeth Brady Road Extension
Date Printed: 6/13/2001 Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need '

5.0 REFERENCES
Florida Department of Transportation, 1995. Florida's Level of Service Standards and
' Guidelines Manual for Planning. Tallahassee, FL.
NCDENR Division of Water Quality. 1998. Neuse River Basin Water Quality Plan. North
Carolina Department Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC.
NCDOT. 1998. Feasibility Study, Hillsborough, Elizabeth Brady Road (SR 1879) Extension
form US 70 Business to US 70 Bypass, Orange County. North Carolina Department
of Transportation, Raleigh, NC.

NCDOT. 1997. Hillsborough North Carolina, External Origin and Destination Traffic Survey
Report. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC.
NCDOT. 1997a. Transportation Plan for the Town of Hillsborough. North Carolina
Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC.
NCDOT. 1989. Hillsborough Thoroughfare Plan. North Carolina Department of
Transportation, Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, Raleigh, NC.
Parsons Brinckerhoff. 2000. Capacity and Safety Analysis, Traffic Technical Memorandum,
Elizabeth Brady Road Extension, Town of Hillsborough, NC. Parsons Brinckerhoff,
Morrisville, NC.
TRB. 2000. Highway Capacity Manual. Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council, National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1977.
The Soil Survey of Orange County, North Carolina.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1992.
North Carolina Technical Guide. Section II-iii-A.
Elizabeth Brady Road Extension Document Date: 6/12/2001 5-1
' Preliminary Statement of Purpose and Need Date Printed: 6/13/2001

~-
Elizabeth Brady Road Extension
Orange County
TIP Project No. U-3808
State Project No.: 8.2501901
Federal Project No.: STP-0711(1)
June 14, 2001
PURPOSE OF TODAY'S MEETING
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), the Federal Highway
Administration, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) have agreed that the proposed
Elizabeth Brady Road Extension should be a part of the NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team
process because of the possibility that the project may impact wetlands or other Waters of the
United States, requiring an Individual 404 Permit from the Corps. The purpose of today's
meeting is to submit information to the Merger Team so that we may reach concurrence on the
purpose of and need for the project (Concurrence Point 1).
TIP PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As described in the NCDOT Draft 2002 - 2008 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), the
NCDOT proposes to widen and extend Elizabeth Brady Road (SR 1879) from the intersection of
NC 86 with US 70 Business to north of US 70 Bypass at the intersection of Saint Mary's Road
(SR 1002). The proposed project would involve the construction of a 1.4-mile (mi) (2.3-
kilometer [km]) multi-lane road with a new crossing of the Eno River as shown in Figure 1-1.
Elizabeth Brady Road is presently atwo-lane road, 24 feet (ft) (7.3 meters [m]) wide. The
proposed action will widen the existing section to five lanes and construct afour-lane median
divided facility on a 100-ft (30.5-m) right-of-way on new location.
The February 1998 NCDOT Feasibility Study de_scrihes the ~ros~ SPCtinn as a four-lane medlar
divided facility with a 16-foot 4.9 m wide median, 72_feet 21.9 m wide fro - -
curbs wi erms 0 eet (3.0 m) wide. The proposed bridge over the Eno River is 72 feet (21.9
m wi a and 260 feet (79.3 m) in length. The recommended right-of-way width for the median
divided cross-section is 100 feet (30.5 m). The study cross section accommodates bicycle
traffic.
SUMMARY OF NEEDS FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
Traffic Congestion and Deficient Level of Service
Under current conditions, the intersection of Churton Street at Margaret Lane experiences LOS
E conditions during the AM and PM peak hour periods, with the heaviest congestion
experienced by westbound left-turning vehicles. Southbound queues extend to the King Street
intersection and northbound queues exceed 750 feet (230 m). The intersection of Churton
Street at King Street would operate at LOS C in the AM and LOS B in the PM if it were

i
N ,s a~ o o.s ,.~
o , ,~~
O come--us st ~- END PROJECT
a
GS ~o ec!'~ - ~ =
~~6 ew SsM~M,opZ
GS ~ s~ i~
5 a
.~`
in a~ ENS ~'
1 C
o y
~ I `c~t~' 1~1 .
I 9' 9P . S-
~ s
`\ r sus
V o
n • ~~
~r
N
~ ~
HILLSBOROUGH

..'~
l z-- O \ - ~ ~
~
a~- ~ %'
i
~' -
~o
ew G
N , `~~- ~~ eaaa ~ ~~ '
a~ Q p ~
' ~, ~~~- ~ ~~ - -

~o ~R .~ °.,
- ~ _. ~_~ L _ _ ~ ~

°° •--
l ~ 1 '
~ ~~

BEGIN

PRU,J
I ~ 1 t
~

/

1 \
Z
~l ~
~~ j ~ I

\S ~o

sUs
~ I ~ J ~

~ J ~
r I
1
~ 1 1 I I/ ~
~ - ' 85 , ~ ~ ~
I _~ ~ ~ it ~
eus
~'
~~
LEGEND
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ THOROUGHFARE ALIGNMENT
.~ RA
FIGURE 1-1. ELIZABETH BRADY ROAD
PROJECT LOCATION MAP

J
an isolated signal with adequate spacing between King Street and the adjacent intersections.
However, field observations indicate that the intersection operates at a worse level of service
during peak periods. The primary reason for this deterioration in service is that Margaret Lane
queuing extends into the King Street intersection.
Several unsignalized intersections are experiencing poor levels of service on the side
approaches. The intersection of Churton Street with the I-85 northbound ramps is operating at
LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours. The heavy single-lane mainline approaches (703
vehicles per hour (vph) southbound / 846 vph northbound) result in few gaps for left-turning
vehicles from the I-85 off ramp to merge onto Churton Street. Similarly, the left-turn movements
from both ramps at the NC 86 interchange operate at LOS E/F during both peak periods.
An analysis of roadway level of service for the study area indicates that Churton Street from I-85
north to NC 86 is operating at LOS F under existing conditions. The congestion is most severe
in the downtown area between NC 86 and Tryon Street.
By 2025 US 70 Bypass at Churton Street will operate at LOS E. Seven other signalized
intersections located along US 70 Bypass and Churton Street will operate at LOS F. These
intersections are:
• US 70 Bypass at Lawrence Road (SR 1709)
• US 70 Bypass at Saint Mary's (SR 1002)
• Churton Street/SR 1009 at US 70 Business/NC 86
• Churton Street and King Street
• Churton Street and Margaret Lane
• Churton Street (SR 1009) at Orange Grove Rd (SR 1006)
• Exit 164 -Churton Street at I-85 SB Ramps (north of I-85)
Churton Street will continue to operate at LOS F in 2025. It is anticipated that LOS F conditions
will occur over longer periods throughout the day and not just during the AM and PM peak
commuting periods. The NC 86 and US 70 Business roadway sections between I-85 at Exit 165
and the Churton Street / US 70 Business intersection are forecast to operate at LOS F
compared with LOS B under existing conditions.
The data analyses indicate that approximately 50 percent of the vehicles using the Churton
Street Bridge over the Eno River are local trips bound for locations south of Hillsborough.
Approximately 20 percent use I-40 with the primary destinations-being Chapel Hill and South
Durham. Of the remainder, approximately 30 percent use I-85 to reach Durham (20 percent)
and Research Triangle Park or Raleigh (10 percent).
Traffic Safety
Approximately half of the roads evaluated in Hillsborough have accident rates exceeding the
statewide averages including Churton Street, NC 86, St. Mary's Road, Revere Road, West Hill
Avenue, Nash Street, and Allison/Eno Mountain Road. On roadways with high total accident
rates, the injury accident rates tend to be similar, with rear-end accidents being the highest,
followed by right and left-turn accidents.

Infrastructure Support for Economic Development
Orange County has established two Economic Development Districts south of the Town of
Hillsborough. Both of the districts will be located adjacent to interstate highways. One is
located in the area surrounding the I-85 and NC 86 interchange south of Elizabeth Brady Road.
The other district is at I-40 and Old NC 86 (Churton Street) interchange.
The location of these two Economic Development Districts will increase traffic volumes within
the project area and along Churton Street. Consequently, the current and projected traffic
congestion along Churton Street and NC 86 could also affect the success of these two districts.
PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The purpose of the proposed project is to:
1. Reduce traffic congestion and improve the Level of Service (LOS) in the central business
district of the Town of Hillsborough, including Churton Street and Saint Mary's Road.
2. Provide an alternative north-south route to Churton Street for local traffic.
3. Improve traffic safety along Churton Street and NC 86.
4. Provide infrastructure support for economic development in and around the Town of
Hillsborough.
PROJECT SCHEDULE AND COSTS
Right of way acquisition for the project is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2006. Construction
will follow in fiscal year 2008.
The total project cost estimate is presented below.
Right-of-Way/Easement Costs $ 1,400,000
Construction Costs $10,200,000
TOTAL COST $11,600,000
PROJECT STATUS
12/14/00 - NCDOT Project Scoping Meeting
On December 14, 2000, NCDOT conducted a project scoping meeting to discuss the status of
the project and the scope of the studies to be conducted. In addition to representatives from
various NCDOT branches and the consultant, Parsons Brinckerhoff, representatives from other
interested agencies and organizations also attended. These included the Mayor of
Hillsborough, the Town of Hillsborough Planning Office, the Orange County Planning Office, the
Federal Highway Administration, the Corps of Engineers, the State Historic Preservation Office,
and a local historic preservation group.

The consultant provided an overview of the work being conducted including work on the purpose
and need statement, the overall planning schedule, other TIP projects in close proximity to the
project, existing project area conditions, a description of the proposed project, and possible
project constraints. The consultant also described the proposed locations for conducting traffic
counts. The meeting allowed time for a general discussion of the project, including a
presentation by the Mayor of Hillsborough.
4-10-01 -Hillsborough Area Economic Development District Traffic Committee Meeting
A committee composed of representatives from Orange County, the Town of Hillsborough,
developers, and local citizens has been established to look at the future transportation needs
associated with two Economic Development Districts that have been established near the
interchanges of NC 86 and I-85 and Old NC 86 and I-40. The committee asked that
representatives from NCDOT and their consultant make a brief presentation concerning the
proposed project at their April 10, 2001 meeting.

MERGER PROJECT TEAM MEETING AGREEMENT
Concurrence Point No. 1. Purpose and Need
Project Name/Description: Elizabeth Brady Road Extension (SR-1879), Hillsborough,
Orange County
TIP Project No.: U-3808
State Project No.: 8.2501901
Federal Project No.: STP-0711(1)
Purpose of the Proposed Action:
The purpose of the proposed project is to:
/~
---__ .
1. Reduce traffic congestion a d improve~tfz~~e~r-v-rce_(i-OS) try the central business
d si tact of the n o Hillsborough, including Churton Street and Saint Mary's Road.
2. Provide an alternative north-south route to Churton Street for local traffic.
3. Improve traffic safety along Churton Street and NC 86.
4. Provide infrastructure support for economic development in and around the Town of
Hillsborough.
The Project Team has concurred on this date of June 14, 2001, with the purpose and
need for the proposed project as stated above.
USACE NCDOT
USEPA USFWS
NCDCR NCDWQ
FHWA NCWRC
DCHC MPO

$
~ Mn
a~ Menem, a. a 1~ T~,~
~
J
~ ~
s
~ a yi
R
g
d
~ 9~

~ ~
~ !
< ~ au.~ary ~w
c` TunwBt
~ ~ ~ BYP

6 ~
!
BUS oektt

uax u
cobs
~
p. ~ Alms AW. R
S
3
$
E
lbra~
~
LL ~
+ ne W. CabM A ~ W. lyudn ~ ~
~^ R aenr 5 a
crne ~
!4 W ~ Unlm3tE

S
~ W, UBn a .
~
~- ~
~ ~
H9i {9 W °~ O IMen 6t W. Queen 6t E ~
£ s Bpeum
~F ~ S W' ~
~
BUS
P
P
urrner ~ W 3& nrn.n st ~dner et rayon ~' B. 4vai 8e
Bmxnvla Ax ~ ~ yp ~ BB @'
~
~ 9g
$ W E

~' lemM
~
~ 10N St ~WYby $ ~
W
L ~ ~ ~
~~ .
~ N w
MRM
In W

/
~ . ~ /
/

~~
e< , \
9pnry ~
S celdn 5 k.
'
& ~ A ~
~ ~ p~
&
BoUh ~ ~ ~ Uc `~
ed
~ £

n+ ~. Pb
F4"eS,Rd wn
Ar'~
~ 88
NO ~~ ~
gmnwd+

' Pd
~
~ ~
£
'O

rand
Dr.
a.

~a
LLSB~ROUG
~ POP. s,~

TUBE COUNT
LOCATION
O TURNING MOVEMENT
COUNT LOCATION

70
BUS
70
BYP
a.
~ \ f ~ 165 a
[164] ~ ~$
J BB
\ a
I ~ ~ ~ i
FIGURE 1: STUDY AREA AND COUNT LOCATIONS MAP