Transportation Plan for
Yadkin County Yadkin County Transportation Plan Technical Report
Prepared by the:
Transportation Planning Branch North Carolina Department of Transportation
In Cooperation with:
Yadkin County Northwest Piedmont Rural Planning Organization The Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation
July, 2005
Scott Walston, P.E. Acknowledgements
Persons responsible for this report:
Transportation Planning Engineer: Adam Snipes, EIT Triangle Planning Unit Head: Scott Walston, PE Western Planning Group Manager: Dan Thomas, PE Transportation Planning Branch Manager: Mike Bruff, PE Engineering Technician: Jim Neely TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
RECOMMENDATIONS 11
2.1 HIGHWAY MAP 11 2.2 PRIMARY ROUTE IMPROVEMENTS 12 2.3 OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS 16 2.4 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS 17 2.5 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND RAIL MAP 18 2.6 BICYCLE MAP 18 2.7 PEDESTRIAN MAP 18
3. POPULATION, LAND USE, AND TRAFFIC 19
3.1 POPULATION 19 3.2 LAND USE 19 3.3 EXISTING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 20 3.4 TRAFFIC COLLISION ANALYSIS 21 3.5 EXISTING CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES 22 3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENING 29 3.6.1 Wetlands 33 3.6.2 Threatened and Endangered Species 34 3.6.3 Historic Sites 35 3.6.4 Archaeological Sites 36 3.6.5 Educational Facilities 36
4. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 37
4.1 OVERVIEW 37 4.2 STUDY INITIATION 37 4.3 PUBLIC MEETINGS 37 4.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS 37
5. CONCLUSION 39 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Location Map...... 3 Figure 2, Sheet 1: CTP Adoption Sheet ...... 5 Figure 2, Sheet 2: CTP Highway Map...... 7 Figure 2, Sheet 4: CTP Bicycle Map...... 9 Figure 3: Example of Proposed Improvements to US 601...... 14 Figure 4: Yadkin County Population Growth ...... 19 Figure 5: High Collision Locations within Yadkin County ...... 22 Figure 6: Existing Capacity Deficiencies ...... 23 Figure 7: Future Capacity Deficiencies ...... 25 Figure 8: Level of Service Descriptions...... 28 Figure 9: Environmental Data ...... 31 Figure 10: Threatened or Endangered Species...... 34
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: DOT CONTACTS
APPENDIX B: TRANSPORTATION PLAN CATEGORY DEFINITIONS
APPENDIX C: ROAD INVENTORY
APPENDIX D: CROSS SECTION EXAMPLES
APPENDIX E: DEFINITIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS CODES Yadkin County Transportation Plan
Introduction
An area’s transportation system is its lifeline, contributing to its economic prosperity and social well being. The importance of a safe and efficient transportation infrastructure cannot be overstressed. This system provides a means of transporting people and goods from one place to another quickly, conveniently, and safely. A well-planned system will meet the existing travel demands, as well as keep pace with the growth of 1 the region.
Officials of Yadkin County, with assistance from the Northwest Valuable Piedmont Rural Planning Organization (RPO), requested that the Information North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Term Definitions Transportation Planning Branch cooperatively develop a More Information on Web Comprehensive Transportation Plan for Yadkin County. Document Reference Yadkin County is located in the northwestern part of North Carolina. The geographical location of the county is Acronyms shown in Figure 1. NCDOT – North Carolina Department of Transportation This report documents the development of the 2004 Yadkin County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) RPO – Rural Planning Organization shown in Figure 2. In addition, this report presents recommendations for each mode of transportation.
A comprehensive transportation plan is developed to CTP ensure that the transportation system will be CTP stands for Comprehensive progressively developed, meeting the needs of the Transportation Plan. This new format county. It will serve as an official guide to providing a replaces the thoroughfare plan as the official document mutually adopted by the well-coordinated, efficient, and economical transportation local areas (municipality, MPO, or county) system utilizing all modes of transportation. This and the Department of Transportation. document will be utilized by local officials to ensure that planned transportation facilities reflect the needs of the public, while minimizing the disruption to local residents, businesses, and the environment.
The purpose of this study is to examine present and future transportation needs of the county and develop a Comprehensive Transportation Plan to meet these needs. The
1 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
plan recommends those improvements that are necessary to provide an efficient transportation system within the 2004-2030 planning period.
Initiative for the implementation of the Transportation Plan rests predominately with the policy boards and citizens of the county. Yadkin County and the North Carolina Department of Transportation share the responsibility for any proposed construction. The needs throughout the state exceed available funding; therefore, it is imperative that the county aggressively pursues funding for desired projects.
The proposed Transportation Plan is based on the projected growth for the county as coordinated with the county officials. It is possible that actual growth patterns will differ from those logically anticipated. As a result, it may be necessary to accelerate or delay the development of some recommendations found on the plan. Some portions of the plan may require revisions in order to accommodate unexpected changes in urban development. The best use of this plan is to make sure that any changes made to one element of the transportation plan are consistent with the other elements.
2 VIRGINIA C u Alleghany r C ri Gates a tu Ashe m c Surry P d k Stokes Warren Northampton a e Rockingham Caswell s n Person Vance P q e u r Granville Hertford q o u ta i n Halifax m k E Watauga a n E C s S Wilkes h o S Yadkin w E Mitchell Forsyth a N Avery Guilford Alamance Franklin n N Orange Bertie Durham E Caldwell Nash T Yancey Alexander Davie Edgecombe Madison Tyrrell Martin Washington Dare Iredell Davidson Burke Wake Randolph Chatham Wilson McDowell Catawba Buncombe Haywood Rowan Pitt Swain Beaufort Hyde Johnston Lincoln Greene Graham Rutherford Lee Henderson Cabarrus Jackson Harnett Wayne Cleveland Stanly Polk Gaston Montgomery Moore Craven Cherokee Macon Transylvania Mecklenburg Lenoir Clay Pamlico Cumberland Jones Richmond Sampson N GEORGIA Union Anson Hoke Duplin A E Scotland C Onslow Carteret O
SOUTH CAROLINA Bladen Robeson Pender C TI New N Hanover A Columbus L T A Brunswick
601
Jonesville Boonville East Bend
601
77 Yadkinville 421
PREPARED BY: FIGURE 1 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BRANCH
GEOGRAPHIC IN COOPERATION WITH: LOCATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION YADKIN COUNTY NORTHWEST PIEDMONT RPO YADKIN COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
BASE MAP DATE: June 2003 Yadkin County, North Carolina ) 3 00 1 R S
( Comprehensive
m
a
o l i S Transportation Plan 3) 00 1 R 601 (S 67 n w Plan date: August 12, 2004 to ith m S
) NOTES: 85 15 R (S h F rc or Sheet 1 Adoption Sheet hu bu C sh ve (S ro R G 1 n 5 F Sheet 3 Not-included, no Public Transportation io l n 7 in U 0 t ) H Sheet 2 Highway Map ill or Rail in Yadkin County. R (S S o R u c 15 g k 49 a et 4) ) Format for Sheet 5 Pedestrian map is pending. P rt t 158 Sheet 3 Public Transportation o ( R i S lo w
t n
V
(
S i and Rail Map e w R
C 1 5 h 1 u 0 rc ) 21 C h 77 (S Sheet 4 Bicycle Map e R n 1 te 51 r 0) ( S R
Sheet 5 Pedestrian Map 1
3 421 3 Old 421 (SR 1605) 1
)
Old 421 (SR ) Legend
77 1314) 1 1
7
1
421 R S
( Schools
m o tt o B s in k Roads in D 601 R 1001 e (S ) vill ts Rivers and Streams un -H ey ) n 2 rt 00 u 1 o R C City Boundary (S y or ick Lone H Planning Area Boundaries
County Boundary
Miles 0 0.5 1 2 3
) 2 0 1 Sheet 1 of 5 1 R S ( Base map date: June, 2003
d R y tr n u o C Refer to CTP document for more details Highway Map
)
3
) 3 9 5 2 1 H 5 ( Yadkin County, u 1 r R t ( S R R d d 7) S 36 S ( 1 R SR d ) R d . R s North Carolina er R ( iv 3 d R g 1 k 0 W n R 3 c i 0 6 r ) o o 1 4 m 6 E od p c ) R a 4 k r S R u R o 5 f e S l d f y Comprehensive i 1 S R l R m l ( ( d i S o ( 13 S L R 5 H Jonesville 3 R Boonville S ) ( 1 R 3 d 6 e S R 6 m e Transportation Plan ) s it l c h t a e o N w o 67 e n R b o R R h d d S ( d ) R S S 4 S R R F 5 S . East Bend o ( ( 5 3 l R 1 1 Plan date: August 12, 2004 i c R 5 d 1 ( C 8 8 D 5 n R en ( k 3 4 te t 5 R S r R ) a 1 d f 1 S 1 l ) d R 601 H ( 1 o 1 R 3 o 3 5 R 1 5 ) Moxley Rd SR( 1371) r a i i d 1 b d 1 l n R l o Freeways 0 e
2 S d S R R e
) c N R a N O d ( d M ak . Ridg ) 1 e C S hurch Rd SR ) 5 Existing ( h 8 R ) 137 S 0) 5 rc ( 1 8 F R 8 u o ) ( 3 5 h r 1 1 C b 5 ) 1 3 u 7 d R e s 0 5 Needs Improvement 1 v R S h 4 o h ( r R c 9 ) G d r R u ) S n . 4 o ) h S i R Recommended 7 n l C d 3 6 U 0 ( e 8 1 1 5 h R 3) 1 t 7 3 37 ( R e 15 0 n 1 R B B ) ( S ( S . 0 R 3 R R t R w S S i 6 S n Expressways d o o 0 1 M ( 1 R c ( t d k 5 S 3 b k 5
g m l R 1 e 8 1 o e ( w c t 4 ( n l ( t F Ho C S e R y Existing a o r R l R R S ( i d R n L e o n S C S . n h ) R 1 t
d C d t o 3 ) e S H
u 1
R 3 S S r r 5 i e 1 n 5 Needs Improvement l
R R 6 a R ) l e t ) 4 n ( d r . 5 R F 3 ( k e y 1 9
. d 1
0 S
) a d R 5 1 R C 1 R (
H R . air l e Rd SR( 138 0 5 Recommended 0) c 1 ) T d ) l R u 2 h 7
6 ( o a . ) c 1 b 6 S
5 n ) R 3 r y 1 3 9 6 )
21 1 R u l 3 d S ( 0 0 R o R h 1 S d 5 0 r d R d d
( R 1 C C . R Boulevards o R h ) . rn p e o ) l R l s ) iu r a R 99 s d R s 5 Rd c e 1 S l S ( l S o R R( r S 1 S 77 r d 57 A Existing d R 2) a lls R C Mi R M ( n k S 1 o R t SR( 1605) i SR 1605 1 Needs Improvement e E Main S 60 5 n (O 5 421 e 1 Rd.) ld 42 6 h U (Old 42 1 6 ( Rd C Yadkinville .)) 08) Recommended R( 11 d.) S Rd S SR 1314 (Old 421 R hack Wells Bro F town ) wn Rd 0 la Rd 5 SR( 111 t SR 0 2) R #1198 SR( 1198) ( 114 6 Other Major Thoroughfares o G 0SR 6) 1 c ( k 0 a SR r R C n (O 16 Existing h 0 ld 05 S u e H 42 5 r r o 0 1 0 c R ots 421 R h R ) d.) 6 R d d S . 1 Needs Improvement S R ) d # C d ( 1 33 1 R R rater R S R 1 17 0 d SR R 50 R( 1 e S ( 1116 ( ) 33 d S 7 g ) ( 1 17 R 1 Recommended 1 R ge id 1 1 S Sta) R r 2 4 ld d. B 0 O R S 6 e B r 17) ) ) g e derson Rd SR( 11 ta r Hen S a e ) p Minor Thoroughfares ld w 2 (O S 3 l ( e 1 y Existing 1 W .) in ( R d d 1 ) s d o R 0 R r 0 7 e R S l 21 S 1 l 1 Needs Improvement d i S v 7 R R R d S ts ( H 1 ( n 1 u R 601 1 0 nt u ( in 1 0 g d H ) - R l 7 Cr 02 y ) Recommended e o ) B e 0 3 e S 6 k ) n 1 . 0 n C a 5 t d ) r 1 hu r R 6 d r R 3 i ) u 7 c S 1 t h A y o R r 1 6 y 1 R o C d 1 ( k ( ) ( SR ic 1 R o Existing Interchange ( R 2 y H R 1 ( d 10 e S 2 0 n R S W ) S 7 o d (L S 1 d R R d ( R w ( R R
o 1 n e S n s 7 l o S d t 2 Proposed Interchange E g 3 R
n ) ic i
s m s r E a F Existing Grade Separation
Proposed Grade Separation
Miles 0 0.5 1 2 3
Sheet 2 of 5 Base map date: June, 2003
Refer to CTP document for more details Bicycle Map
) 3 00 1 R
S
(
m a Yadkin County
o l i
S
3) 00 1 R 601 (S Comprehensive 67 n w to ith m S Transportation Plan ) 85 15 R (S h F rc or hu bu C s ve h ( ro SR G 1 n 5 F io 7 l Plan date: August 12, 2004 n in U 0 t ) H i ll R (S S o R c 1 u k 5 g e 49 a t 4) ) P r t 158 to ( SR i On Road lo w
t n
V
(
S i e Existing w R
C 1 5 h 1 Needs Improvement u 0 21 rc ) C h 77 (S e R n 1 Recommended te 51 r 0) ( S R
1
3 421 3 Old 421 (SR 1605) 1
) Off Road
Old 421 (SR ) 77 1314) 1 1 Existing
7
1
421 R Needs Improvement S
(
m o tt Recommended o B s in k in D 601 R 1001 le (S ) vil 2 ts un -H ey ) tn 02 r 0 u 1 o R C (S y or ick Lone H
*Part of North Carolina Bicycle Route #2 "Mountains to the Sea" 4
t
Miles e 0 0.5 1 2 3 e ) h 2
0 S 1 1 R , S Sheet 4 of 5
( 2
d R e
y r tr Base map date: June, 2003 n
u u o C g i
Refer to document for more details F Yadkin County Transportation Plan
Recommendations
This chapter contains recommended improvements based on the ability of the existing system to serve existing and anticipated travel desires as the area continues to grow. The recommended plan represents a system of transportation elements including highways and bicycle facilities, which will serve the anticipated traffic and land development needs for the county. The primary objective of this plan is to reduce traffic congestion and improve 2 safety by eliminating both existing and projected deficiencies in the transportation system.
2.1 Highway Map Capacity The number of vehicles that can pass The recommended highway element of the comprehensive a given point during a specified period transportation plan (CTP) for the county is presented on under prevailing roadway, traffic, and control conditions. This assumes that Figure 2, Sheet 2. This plan includes roadways within there is no influence from the county that fall into five categories: freeways, downstream traffic operation, such as expressways, boulevards, other major thoroughfares, and a backing up of traffic into the analysis point. (Highway Capacity Manual, minor thoroughfares. See Appendix B for a more 2000) detailed description of each category and Appendix C for a highway inventory of the recommendations.
The process of determining and evaluating recommendations for those roads in the transportation plan involves many considerations including the goals and objectives of the public in the area, existing roadway properties, identified roadway capacity deficiencies, environmental impacts and existing and anticipated land development. Consideration of these factors led to the cooperative development of several recommended improvements. A description of each recommendation is given below.
11 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
2.2 Primary Route Improvements
I-77 Upgrades • Project Recommendation: It is recommended that I-77 be upgraded from a four-lane freeway to a six-lane freeway throughout Yadkin County. The total cost of this project, including construction and right of way, from the Iredell County line to the Surry County line is $49,428,000. • Transportation Demand: The construction of this project is needed to improve north-south highway transportation from Cleveland, Ohio to Columbia, South Carolina. Besides being important on a regional level, I-77 provides citizens of Yadkin County access to Virginia, South Carolina, and the Charlotte Metropolitan area. The traffic on I-77 is expected to increase to 46,900 vehicles per day (vpd) in the southern part of the county and 59,000 vpd in the north. • Capacity: The average annual daily traffic (AADT) for all studied corridors was based on the 2002 AADT volumes. Based on historical AADT records, traffic volumes were projected for the future planning year of 2030. The projected average daily traffic volumes along I-77 range from 46,900 vpd to 59,000 vpd. Based on these projected volumes, there would be capacity deficiencies in the northern part of Yadkin County where traffic volumes are higher. This increase in volume is larger due to traffic coming from US 421 and heading north on I-77. The recommended improvement to six lanes will increase the capacity to maintain an adequate level of service for 2030, and beyond. Safety Issues: The interchange of I-77 with US 421 is listed among the high collision locations within Yadkin County. If no improvements are made to I-77, the resulting increase in congestion will result in the potential for increased collision rates due to high numbers and close proximity of vehicles in the traffic stream. The recommended improvements to I-77 will provide increased capacity, and greater maneuverability, resulting in safer driving conditions. • Social Demands/ Economic Development: This project will improve interstate travel and access from the north-central states of the Unites States (Michigan, Ohio, etc.) to the southeastern coast of the United States ending in the South Carolina. Improved access to North Carolina should have a positive impact on economic development, and improve automobile transportation. • System Linkage: I-77 is already a part of the nationwide Eisenhower Interstate System. By using I-77 residents of Yadkin County can access cities, such as: Charleston, WV, Cleveland and Akron, Ohio, Charlotte, NC, and Columbia, SC.
12 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
• Relationships to Other Plans: The recommendation to upgrade I-77 was first included in the 1993 Iredell County Thoroughfare Plan, where traffic volumes were projected to reach 80,800 vpd by 2015. This upgrade was also recommended in the 1997 Statesville Thoroughfare Plan. The 1992 Thoroughfare Plan for the Elkin-Jonesville-Arlington area made no recommendations for improving I-77. The recommendation to upgrade I-77 in Yadkin County is not included in the 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program. • Modal Relationships: The proposed improvements to I-77 have been coordinated with the Bicycle Element of the Yadkin County Comprehensive Transportation Plan. No impacts are anticipated to the bicycle recommendations as a result of the I-77 improvements.
US 21 As the incident management detour route for I-77, US 21 could be heavily burdened in the event of an unexpected detour of traffic off I-77. US 21 also provides a north-south connection for local Acronyms traffic and for travelers between areas such as Elkin TIP – Transportation and Statesville. At present this road has deficient lane- Improvement Program widths for the volume that it normally carries (3500 vpd) and is ill prepared for higher volumes if a large amount of traffic is diverted from I-77. To improve safety and capacity it is recommended that US 21 be improved to 12-foot lanes, 2 foot paved shoulders, and median turn-lanes at key intersections. This recommendation is not included in the 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
US 601 (Davie County to Southern Yadkinville Planning Boundary) Current Projects: TIP Project R-3427 is scheduled More Information on Web for construction in Fiscal Year More information about the NCDOT’s Transportation 2005. This project will widen Improvement Program and project R-3427 is available at: the lanes to 12 feet, install http://www.ncdot.org/planning/development/TIP/ turn lanes, and install a traffic signal at the intersection of US 601 and SR 1001(Courtney-Huntsville Rd.).
13 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
Figure 3: Example of Proposed Improvements to US 601
US 601 (Northern Yadkinville Planning Boundary to Surry County)
Project Recommendation: It is recommended that the following improvements be made to US 601 from the northern Yadkinville Planning Boundary, north to the Surry County line: Widen travel lanes to 12 feet, and add a 2 foot paved shoulder. Install turn lanes at key intersections Install passing lanes on sections of roadway where there are few existing opportunities to pass. Transportation Demand: US 601 serves as a primary north-south connector route within Yadkin County, providing access to the municipalities of Yadkinville and Boonville, and to Davie and Surry Counties. Capacity: Currently US 601 is a two-lane facility, providing capacity levels from 6000 to 9600 vpd. The 2002 AADT volumes range from 3700 to 6100 vpd and the 2030 volumes range from 7300 to 9800 vpd. Without improvement, the current capacity would not be adequate to carry the projected average daily volumes on all locations of US 601. Safety Issues: This section of US 601 is located in rolling terrain and contains long stretches of highway where there are few passing opportunities. Combined with the volume of trucks and other slow-moving
14 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
vehicles, the lack of passing opportunities leads to congestion and increases the risk of collisions. The addition of passing lanes and turn lanes at major intersections will help to increase capacity, maneuverability, and increase travel speed while offering safer driving conditions. Social Demands and Economic Development: As identified in the Yadkin County Land Use Plan, the US 601 corridor is expected to be a focal point of development in the future. The recommended improvements to US 601, in addition to accommodating the expected traffic increase, may also help to spur additional economic development in this area. Economic development in any portion of the county will increase the tax base, which can be used to improve public services throughout the county, thereby inducing other industries to locate in the county. System Linkage: Improving the operational efficiency and safety of US 601 is imperative because of its significance in serving intracounty travel, providing a connection between Yadkinville and Boonville, and providing access to Davie and Surry Counties. Relationship to Other Plans: The improvements for US 601 for this section of roadway correspond with the improvements recommended by the 2002 Surry County Thoroughfare Plan. The plan identified the need to widen the travel lanes on US 601 to 12 feet from the Yadkin County line to NC 268. This recommendation is not part of the 2004-2010 Transportation Improvement Program.
NC 67
NC 67 serves as a primary east-west connector across northern Yadkin County, joining the Elkin-Jonesville area to Boonville to East Bend and continuing on to Forsyth County and Winston-Salem. Currently TIP project R-3415 is in progress, and involves widening the lanes on NC 67 to 12 feet, adding a paved shoulder, and installing turn-lanes from SR 1355 (Messick Road) near Jonesville to US 601 in Boonville. Due to the high truck volumes on this facility, the current lack of paved shoulder, and narrow lanes, this project should be extended to the full length of NC 67 in the county.
The section of NC 67 that connects East Bend to Forsyth County will be carrying projected volumes around 11,000 vehicles per day in the future year of 2030. Coordination with the transportation plans of Forsyth County/Winston-Salem should be considered in future updates to assure that recommendations for NC 67 are consistent. The current Winston-Salem Thoroughfare Plan does not call for the future widening of NC 67, and at this time the projected volumes do not merit the additional lanes in Yadkin County. As travel demand increases, the addition of passing lanes between East Bend and Boonville should be studied.
15 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
2.3 Other Recommendations
Widening Projects The following facilities have been identified as having travel lanes less than 12-feet wide. As travel volumes on these roadways increase, the need may arise to widen these facilities to include lane widths of 12 feet.
SR 1001 (Courtney-Huntsville Rd.) SR 1002 (Lone Hickory Rd.) SR 1300 (Swan Creek Rd.) SR 1314 (Old 421 Rd.) SR 1331 (Center Rd.) SR 1502/1503 (Country Club Rd.) SR 1509 (Union Cross Church Rd.) SR 1510 (Rockford Rd./ Sugartown Rd.) SR 1549 (Flint Hill Rd.) SR 1570 (Nebo Rd/ Forbush Rd.) SR 1579 (Mt. Bethel Church Rd.) SR 1583 (Nebo Rd.) SR 1595 (Union Cross Church Rd.) SR 1600 (Falcon Rd.) SR 1605 (Old 421 Rd.) SR 1711 (Speer Bridge Rd.) SR 1733 (Old Stage Rd.)
Prior to any roadway improvements to roads that are a part of State Bicycle Route #2, the NCDOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation should be consulted on the most appropriate cross-section. Roads that are part of State Bicycle Route #2 (Mountains to the Sea) seen in Figure 2, Sheet 4: SR 1001 (Courtney-Huntsville Rd.) SR 1002 (Lone Hickory Rd.) SR 1165 (Fish Brandon Rd.)
These routes should be widened to two 12-foot lanes, and considered for additional improvements as recommended by the Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation.
16 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
2.4 Intersection Improvements
The following intersections are recommended for improvements related to increasing mobility and continuity within Yadkin County. None of these intersections were identified as high-collision locations. NC 67 and SR 1541 (Smithtown Road)/ SR 1645 (Pride’s Road) Realign roadways at the intersection of SR 1541 (Smithtown Rd.)/SR 1645 (Pride’s Road) and NC 67 to eliminate the offsetting intersection condition. This improvement will form a single intersection with continuous through movement. Additionally, SR 1541 (Smithtown Rd.)/ SR 1645 (Pride’s Rd.) should be realigned to improve horizontal deficiencies and increase sight distances. These improvements will provide increased visibility and greater maneuverability, resulting in safer driving conditions. SR 1003 (Siloam Rd.), SR 1541 (Smithtown Road)/ SR 1533 (Holly Springs Road) Currently these roads intersect in two offset T-intersections (3-legged intersections). These intersections should be realigned to make SR 1003 (Siloam Rd.) the through route at both intersections. SR 1003 (Siloam Rd.) provides a link across the Yadkin River to Surry County and provides a route to Yadkinville by connecting with SR 1570 (Nebo Rd.) at NC 67. These improvements will provide a more direct route from Yadkinville to Surry County by improving maneuverability and a more continuous route.
A continuous route can be created from Yadkinville to Surry County by altering the configuration of intersections along a combination of SR routes. The following routes can be connected, and when joined together, provide a link from Yadkinville to the intersection of SR 1003 (Siloam Rd.) and NC 67. The following improvements should be made along this route: Realign the intersection of SR 1503 (Country Club Rd.) and SR 1506 (Rockford Rd.) to make the connection between SR 1503 (Country Club Rd.) and SR 1506 (Rockford Rd.) and the continuous traffic movement instead of SR 1503 (Country Club Rd.). Realign the intersection of SR 1506 (Rockford Rd.)/ SR 1585 (Union Grove Church Rd.) and SR 1510 (Sugartown Rd.) to make SR 1506 (Rockford Rd.)/SR 1585 (Union Grove Church Rd.) the through movement. In order to improve commuter travel between East Bend and Yadkinville, the intersections of SR 1584 (Rockett Rd.) and SR 1579 (Mt. Bethel Church Rd.) with SR 1570 (Forbush Rd.) should be considered for future realignment to form one four- legged intersection.
17 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
2.5 Public Transportation and Rail Map
There is no fixed route Public Transportation or any active, or inactive rail corridors within Yadkin County. Therefore, a map of this element is not included in the CTP.
2.6 Bicycle Map
The NCDOT envisions that all citizens of North Carolina and visitors to the state should be able to walk and bicycle safely and conveniently to their chosen destinations with reasonable access to roadways. Information on events, funding, maps, policies, projects, and processes dealing with these modes of transportation can be accessed at the Division’s web site.
The recommended bicycle element of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan for the county is presented in Figure 2, Sheet 4. This plan includes on-road facilities and consists of the existing North Carolina Bicycle Route #2 (Mountains to the Sea). The Bushy Mountains section of NC Route #2, which runs from Manteo to More Information on Web Murphy, enters Yadkin county from More information about the NCDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian division can be found at: http://www.ncdot.org/transit/bicycle/ the east on SR 1001 (Courtney- Hamptonville Rd.), then heads west to SR 1165 (Fish Brandon Rd.) before connecting with SR 1002 (Lone Hickory Rd.), and continuing on into Iredell County.
The process of determining and evaluating recommendations for the bicycle element of the transportation plan involves many considerations including the goals and objectives of the area, existing properties, environmental impacts, and existing and anticipated land development. There are no recommendations at this time.
2.7 Pedestrian Map
The format for the Pedestrian Map is still under development; therefore no map was included.
18 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
3. Population, Land Use, and Traffic
In order to fulfill the objectives of an adequate thirty-year transportation plan, reliable forecasts of future travel patterns must be achieved. Such forecasts depend on careful analysis of the following items: historic and potential population changes; significant economic trends, character and intensity of land development; and the ability of the existing transportation system to meet existing and future travel demand. Secondary items that influence forecasts include the effects of legal controls such as 3 zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations, availability of public utilities and transportation facilities, and topographic and other physical features of urban areas located within the county.
3.1 Population Since the volume of traffic on a roadway is related to the size and distribution of the population that it serves, population data is used to aid the development of the transportation plan. Future population estimates typically rely on the observance of past population trends and counts. Figure 4 presents the population trends for Yadkin County and North Carolina. This data was provided by the North Carolina State Data Center.
Figure 4: Population Growth Location 1970 1980 1990 2000 2030 North Carolina 5,082,059 5,881,766 6,628,637 8,046,485 12,447,597 Yadkin County 24,599 28,439 30,488 36,348 56,173 Figure 4: Yadkin County Population Growth
3.2 Land Use
Land use refers to the physical patterns of activities and functions within an area. The generation and attraction of trips created by the land use along a particular transportation facility are related to the types of land use adjacent to that facility and the intensity of land use affects the traffic patterns for multi-modal facilities. For example, a shopping center generates larger traffic volumes than a residential area. The spatial distribution of varying land uses is the predominant determinant of when, where, and why congestion occurs. The attraction between different land uses and their association with travel varies with the size, type, intensity, and spatial separation
19 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
of each land use. When dealing with transportation planning, land use is divided into the following classifications:
¾ Residential – All land is devoted to the housing of people, with the exception of hotels and motels.
¾ Commercial – All land is devoted to retail trade including consumer and business services and their offices; this may be further stratified into retail and special retail classifications. Special retail would include high-traffic establishments, such as fast- food restaurants and service stations; all other commercial establishments would be considered retail.
¾ Industrial – All land is devoted to the manufacturing, storage, warehousing, and transportation of products.
¾ Public – All land is devoted to social, religious, educational, cultural, and political activities; this would include the office and service employment establishments.
3.3 Existing Transportation System
An important stage in the development of a transportation plan is the analysis of the existing roadway system and its ability to serve the area’s travel desires. Emphasis is placed not only on detecting the existing deficiencies, but also on understanding the causes of these deficiencies. Travel deficiencies may be localized, resulting from problems with inadequate pavement width, intersection geometry, or intersection controls. Travel deficiencies may also result from system problems, such as the need to construct missing travel links, bypass routes, loop facilities, or additional radial routes.
An analysis of the roadway system looks at both current and future travel patterns and identifies existing and anticipated deficiencies. This is usually accomplished through a traffic collision analysis, roadway capacity deficiency analysis, and a system deficiency analysis. This information is used to analyze factors that will impact the future system, including population growth, economic development potential, and land use trends.
20 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
3.4 Traffic Collision Analysis
Traffic collisions or “crashes” are often used as an indicator for locating congestion problems. While often the result of drivers or vehicle performance, collisions may also be a result of the physical characteristics of the roadway. Roadway conditions and obstructions, traffic conditions, and weather may all lead to a collision. While some collisions are the fault of the driver, others may be prevented with physical design changes or traffic control changes such as the installations of stop signs or traffic signals.
Collision data for the period from January 1999 to December 2001 was studied as part of the development for this report. The collision analysis considered both collision frequency and severity. Collision frequency is the total number of reported collisions, while collision severity is the collision rate based upon injuries and property damage incurred. These two factors helped to determine the high collision intersections within the county that are summarized in Figure 5.
21 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
Figure 5: Intersections with 15 or more collisions in a Three Year Period (By Collision Type) (Jan. 1999-Dec. 2001) Rear- Side- Left- Head Run-Off Intersection Angle Other Total Severity End Swipe Turn -On Road US 421 and I- 23 2 10173.47 77 US 421 and SR 1125 212 2 1 187.64 (Asbury Church. Rd.)* Figure 5: High Collision Locations within Yadkin County *This intersection will be converted to an overpass (no ramps) with the widening of US 421.
The NCDOT is actively involved with investigating and improving many of these intersections. While the scope of this study does not include areas within the Extra- Territorial Jurisdictions of the municipalities within the county, it should be noted that there are several high-accident locations on US 601 between US 421 and SR 1605 (Main St.) in Yadkinville. This section is a 4-lane undivided section, serving a primarily highway business area, including gas stations, fast-food restaurants, and convenience stores. It is recommended that this area of US 601 be studied further to address the safety and congestion problems on this roadway. To request a more detailed analysis for any of the locations listed in Figure 5, or other intersections of concern, the county should contact the Division 11 Traffic Engineer. Contact information for the Division 11 Traffic Engineer is included in Appendix A.
3.5 Existing Capacity Deficiencies
Roadway capacity deficiencies occur wherever the travel demand volume of a roadway is close to or more than the capacity of that roadway. Travel demand volume is the total number of travelers that wish to use a roadway on a daily basis. The existing travel demand volumes Traffic Count Data for the county are based upon traffic count data taken Traffic count data can be found at: annually by the NCDOT Traffic Surveys Unit. Volume to http://www.ncdot.org/planning/statewide /traffic_survey/ Capacity ratios have been calculated for the 2003 plan year and are shown in Figure 6. The projected 2030 travel demand volume to capacity ratios, which are based upon historic and anticipated population, economic growth patterns, and land use trends, are shown in Figure 7.
22 Figure 6: 2003 Capacity Deficiencies
)
3 ) 3 9 5 2 1
H 5 ( u 1 r R t ( S R R d d 7) S 36 S ( 1 R SR d ) R d . R s er R ( iv 3 d R g 1 k 0 W n R 3 c i 0 6 r ) o o 1 4 o m 6 E d p c ) R a 4 k r S R u R o 5 d f e S l f y i 1 S R l R m l ( ( d i S o ( 13 S L R 5 H Jonesville 3 R Boonville S ) 6200( 1 R 3 d 6 e S R 6 m ) e s it l 8000 c h t a e Yadkin County o N w o 67 e n R b o R h d R d S ( d )
R S S 4 S R R EastF Bend 5 o S ( . ( 5 3 R 1 l 1 1 i c R 5 d ( C 8 8 D 5 n R en ( k 3 4 te t 5 R r R ) a 1 S d S 1 f 1 l ) d R 601 H ( 1 o 1 R 3 o R 31 ( 1371) 5 5 ) Moxley Rd SR r a i i 1 b d 1 d R l n 6400 0 l o e 2 S d S R Comprehensive R e
) R c N a N d ( d M Oa . k R 1 8000 idge ) Church 5 S Rd SR( ) 8 R ) 137 h 0) 5 rc ( S 1 8 F R 8 u o ) ( h 3 5 r 1 1 C b 5 1 Transportation Plan 3 u 7 R e s 0 ) 5 1 S v d o h 4 ( r R R G h 9 R ) d n . c ) 4 io ) r S 7 n u 6 U h d 3 0 ( C ) 1 5 l R 3 1 e 8 37 ( R h 7 n 1 t R S 5 B ) R( ( S e 1 w 3 R R B 6 S S i S d . n o 0 o t R 1 t R d 1 c S k R 3 b 5 k 5 (M g m l R 1 e 8 1 o e ( Plan date: August 12, 2004
c 4 n l t F 1 ( o ( S t e y o H C r R 3 R l R R S ( i
e d R L o n 0 S C S . n h ) R 1 t 0 d d t o 3 ) e S H
R 3 u S 1 ( r S 5 S i 1 n 5 l a R R 6 ) R l w t ) 4
n ( d r . 5 R 3 F
( e y 1 9
a . 1 d 0 ) S a d R 5 1 n C 1 R (
H R a l ire R . d SR( 138 0 5 0) c 1 ) T l
R C u 2 h 7
( o a ) b c 1 6 S 5 n r R 3 r y
e 3 9 6 )
21 1 R u l
S ( 0 d 0 R o e SR h d 5 0 r k d R d d
R . 1 C C o R R h ) . rn R
e o lp s 9) ) liu r a R 9 s d R 5 R c d s 1 d e ( S l l S R R( . r o S 1 S 5 A ) 77 r Rd 72) a ills R Legend C M M ( n S 1 o R t SR( 1605) i 1605 1 E Main S SR 60 5 n (O 5 421 Rd.) ld 42 6 U (Old 421 1 6 ( Rd 13900 Yadkinville .)) 08) R( 11 d.) S Rd S SR 1314 (Old 421 R hack ells Br 13800 tow ) W own Rd n Rd 5 Near Capacity SR( 11 SR 0 12) ( 114 6 6) 1 SR ( (O 16 R ld 05 S 42 5 1 R 0 Over Capacity 421 .) d 6 d .) 1 R # Crat 1 R er Rd 1 m S SR( 1 7 116) to 1 t 33 o Streams and Rivers SR 17 R S B 7) s Henderson Rd SR( 111 in ) d.) k (Old Stage R n 2 i 3 (D 1 City Boundaries W 1 .) in ( d ds 1 ) o R 0 R r R 0 e 7 21 S 1 ll 1 d i S R v 7 R d ts ( H S 1 1 u R 601 n 1 n ( 00 tin u Planning Area Boundaries ) g d H l - R Cre 02 y e o 0 ) e S k 1 .) 0 n C n d ) t h r R 6 r d urc S R 1 3 u h A ry 6 o R R 1 d ko ( 1 (C S c o R i R 1 ( 1 H ( y 1 e S Yadkin County Boundary 00 n R ) W Lo d S ( R d w R o n e S ls E
Miles 0 0.5 1 2 3
Base map date: June, 2003 Figure 7: 2030 Capacity Deficiencies Without Improvements
)
3 ) 3 9 5 2 1
H 5 ( u 1 R rt ( S R R d d 7) S 36 S ( 1 R R S d ) R d . R s er R ( iv 3 d R g 1 k 0 n R 3 W i c 0 6 r ) o o 1 4 o p 6 E d m c ) R a 4 k r S R 8200 u 5 R o f e l d f y S i 1 S R l R m l ( d i S ( o ( 13 8000 S L R 5 H Jonesville 3 R Boonville S ) ( 13 R d 6 e S R 6 m e s ) it l c h t a e o N w o 67 e n R b o R R h d d d S ( ) R S S 4 S R R F 5 . East Bend 5 o S ( ( l 3 R 1 1 c 5 d 1 i ( C R 8 8 D 5 n R e ( n k 3 4 te t S 5 R r R ) a 1 d
S 1 f 1 l d R 601 ) H ( 13 o 1 900R0 3 5 o R 1 1371) 5 Yadkin County ) Moxley Rd SR( r a i i 1 b d l 1 d n R l o 0 e 2 S d R S R R ce ) 8000 N a N O d ( d M ak Ridg . 1 e C ) S hurch Rd SR ) 5 ( h 8 ) R ) 137 S 0) 5 rc (F R 1 d 8 8 u o ) R ( 3 5 h r 1 7700 1 C b 5 h 1 3 u 7 c R e s 0 r 5 1 v u S h 4 o h ( r R 8000 G C 9 Comprehensive ) d l R ) S n . 4 o ) e 8 S i h R 7 n t 7 e 5 d 3 6 U 0 ( B 1 1 ) 1 5 R 3 1 t. R 3 37 ( R M S 0 n 1 ( B ) ( R S ( S 0 R 3 R R w S S i Transportation Plan 6 n d o 0 o ( 1 R 1
t d c k S 3 b 5 k 5 g m R e 8 l 1 ( 1 o e w lc 4 ( n o ( S tt F H C e y a R o r R l R R S ( i n L e o d R n S C S . n h R 1 ) t
d C d t o
3 ) e S H
R 3 u 1 S S 5 r r i e 1 n 5 l a R R 6 ) R l e t ) 4 n ( d 5 r . R
F 3 ( k e . y 1 9 d 1 0 S ) a d
R 5 1 R C 1 R ( Haire R l R . d SR( 1 0 5 380) c 1 ) T d l R
h 7 u 2 o ( a . ) 1 b c 5 6 S ) 3 r n y
R 6 Plan date: August 12, 2004 3 9
) 21 1 R u l ( d S 0 R 0 o SR h d 5 0 r
R d d d
R 1 C C . o R R h ) . rn
p e o l s 9) ) liu r a R 9 s d R s 5 Rd c e ( 1 S l l S R R( r o S 1 S 5 A 77 r Rd 72) a ls R C il M M ( n 6200 S o R 1 SR( 1605) i R 1605 1 E Main St S 60 5 n (O 5 421 8010 R0d.) ld 42 6 U (Old 42 1 6 ( Rd 6600 .)) 8) Yadkinville Legend ( 110 d.) S Rd SR SR 1314 (Old 421 R hack ells Br 8000 tow ) W own Rd n Rd 5 SR( 1 SR 0 112) ( 11 6 46) 1 SR ( (O 16 R ld 05 S 42 5 1 0 421 ) R 6 Near Capacity . d d 46600.) 1 R # Crater 51200 1 R Rd SR( 1 1 m 56600 S 116) 7 to 1 t 56600 SR 1733 R o S B Over Capacity ) 7500 s Henderson Rd SR( 1117 in ) .) k (Old Stage Rd n 2 8000 i 3 (D 1 W 1 .) ind ( d Streams and Rivers s 1 ) o R 0 R r 0 e 7 R 21 S l 1 l 1 d i S R v 7 R d S ts ( H n 1 11 u R 601 00 ntin u ( ) g d -H Cr l 2 y R e o 0 ) CityBoundaries e 0 e S k 1 ) 0 n C n d. ) t h r R 6 r d ur S R 1 3 u c A o h ry 1 6 R R d ko ( 1 (C S c o R i R 1 ( 11 H ( y 00 e S R ) n W Lo d S ( R Planning Area Boundaries d w R o n e S ls E YadkinCountyBoundary
Miles 0 0.5 1 2 3 Base map date: June, 2003 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
Capacity is the maximum number of vehicles that can pass over a given section of roadway during a given time period under prevailing roadway and traffic conditions while still maintaining a service level that is acceptable to drivers. Many factors contribute to the capacity of a Capacity roadway, including: • Geometry of the road, including number of lanes, The number of vehicles that can pass a given point during a specified period horizontal and vertical alignment, and proximity of under prevailing roadway, traffic, and perceived obstructions to safe travel along the control conditions. This assumes that there is no influence from downstream road; traffic operation, such as a backing up of • Typical users of the road, such as commuters, traffic into the analysis point. recreational travelers, and truck traffic; (Highway Capacity Manual, 2000) • Access control, including streets and driveways, or lack thereof, along the roadway; • Development of the road, including residential, commercial, and industrial developments; • Number of traffic signals along the route; • Peaking characteristics of the traffic on the road; • Characteristics of side-roads feeding into the road; and • Directional split of traffic or the percentages of vehicles traveling in each direction along a road at any given time.
27 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
The relationship of travel demand volume to roadway capacity determines the level-of- service (LOS) of a roadway. Six distinct levels-of-service are possible, with letter designations ranging from LOS A, which represents the best operating conditions, to LOS F, which represents the worst operating conditions. LOS D indicates “practical capacity” of a roadway, or the capacity at which the public begins to express dissatisfaction. The six levels of service are illustrated in Figure 8.
Figure 8: Level of Service Descriptions
Design requirements for roadways vary according to the desired capacity and level-of- service. Recommended improvements and overall design of the Transportation Plan were based upon achieving a minimum LOS D on existing facilities and a LOS C on new facilities.
28 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
3.6 Environmental Screening
In recent years, the environmental considerations associated with transportation construction have come to the forefront of the planning process. Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for projects that have a significant impact on the environment. The EIS includes impacts on wetlands, wildlife, water quality, historic properties, and public lands. While this report does not cover the environmental concerns in as much detail as an EIS would, consideration for many of these factors was incorporated in to the development of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. These factors were also incorporated into the recommended improvements. Environmental features found in the county are shown in Figure 9.
29 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
30 Figure 9 Environmental Data
1529 (L R im S e R o c k ) 601 R d d R r R ) ive d m a 1 (R ) R 36 7 o S il
S
1 (
SR 5 2 7 ( 3 Ric 0 h 0 ) S m d R S 1 o n R 1 R d 3 R Hi s
6 l l 1 l S 6 (W C 3 a o h ove C r h o o 6 u y G u d 7 r d rch R h r ( c a d u S h h S f u ) ( f n S s R ( JONESVILLE ELEM R et 8 6 S D d 53 4 ) R 1554 (A d r Rd p ) ) ) 1 5 d Yadkin County ) n SR BOONVILLE ELEMENTARY tow 1 R p l t h il e i R H r m n s S o ( S o 3 i n 0 n R 0 U d 1 ( SR FALL CREEK ELEM ) Comprehensive 15 0 83 R 5 ( S N 5
e 1 S b R 1331 (Ce o R n R te d) r S S R 67 R EAST BEND ELEMENTARY ) 1 Transportation Plan d d 3 S ) 7 R R 0 n 1 d) i (N 5 R ta d) l oun O 8 a M a h R 1 ( D le k R S c S itt idge C r R hu R u L rch h ( R 1 S 50 ) d) 1 C 5 R 13 d Rd ve 7 5 Hill ) ro 0 ( R 11 d F (R n ou G o n n rb o u w ni sh ) Plan Date: August 12, 2004
o d t U 85 ( R h R g 15 d rc S ) n R u o S h R L C 1 ( l 5 STARMOUNT HIGH e 4 8 n h 9 ra berry R ) S t ( 3 C d) d e F ) ( R R l 3 3 b B in d 3 4 t t 1 1 m 1 M H R S ( ill R o 5 R S lc d) R o tt R 8 d a H 601 R 8 e 7 ) S ( 4 n 3 1 ck e 13 7 5 ( R o 5 R R 1 1 ( S 0 S 6 R R ( S 1 1 S 5 3 6 2 (S as F u p e e Legend 1 ) r SR 1334 d g ry a R (W R R S hi r r d ta ke 11 t ) ) SR 34 o d ( D w R
arler Rd) o n s b n M Rd) R ( h b d e lp h Schools 21 a i ) 3 R n c ( t 0 s
) 5 u
1 M d 3 H
1 3 ( S 1 R i R l S R l 7 ) k R 9 S R d e 5 R 13 d n R 81 e (Boog w S e 1 SR ) 1 r o Hazardous Disposal Sites h 13 t 33 S 5 m R o C w 7 lo ( ( a FORBUSH HIGH (B 77 I S 0 6 r m e p ( 9 1 l YADKINVILLE ELEM B 6 a R S 3 a R n 5 16
d l 05 (
1 S 1 S
t R d ) S R 13 R R i m # R d 1 1 14 ) 6 0 5 (SR# ore R 6 Discharge Sites S 1 0 (S S R# 60 R 5 13 5 d ) 14 ) ) R ) 31 4) ells d) WEST YADKIN ELEM (SR # 1 (W 14 SR 110 8 S SR 1 3 S R 31 ) SR 1 R ) 1 4 (SR#1314 1 5 FORBUSH ELEMENTARY 112 (B row S 4 1 SR 0 Ambient Water Monitor Site n Rd R 5 (Beam 1 5 6 ) er Rd) 6 0 (S 1 50 R 1 1 1150 (SR#11 ) SR #1 # 2 SR 1146 (Sh 60 R 6 ) a 5 ( d c ) ( S F R 1150 ( kt d) 6 5 la SR H 421 o wn R SR 1 0 S t y o R R t S o 1 t ts 10 o R R Solid Waste 7 c e d) k P 1 ( ( 1 J C 3 o 6 6 S ) h 2 R h u ( 1710 S d 1 H (W n R 1 1 r R 1 a s 16 (Crater R R c e t h S k on d R l t d) ) i y on R d d n National Wetlands Inv. (Line) R ) d 73 3 ( Ol S R s e ) 1 ta e d l g ) l R R S d a ) ( T SR 112 0 le Rd National Wetland Inv. (Area) ) svil ) d unt R y-H ) e ld ) d n o d t S r R n R u R r Co 1 e h ( 10 ll A c 0 i ( r 1 (W v u 0 Pilot Mountain State Park in 2 0 d n h 1 so to 3 C ) R r 1 l R p e d S d 1 R ) m h a t y H R r ( e ko S c ) 2 B i 0 H d 1 ( ) R n e d 1 6 R COURTNEY ELEMENTARY ) State Owned Complexes 6 Lo e ( d R 1 ls 1 w rgia Rd) S 2 E o R o ( R 0 S e S 0 n R n SR 1 S 3 172 (G ( 0 o t 0 6 ( 7 1 W g 6 y 1 1 o n i 1 7 1 R R City Boundary S 1 d m R ) r R a S
S F (
6 1
7
1
Yadkin County
R
S Planning Area Boundary
0 1 2 3 Miles Base map date: June, 2003 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
3.6.1 Wetlands
Wetlands are those lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor in determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its surface. Wetlands are crucial ecosystems in our environment. They help regulate and maintain the hydrology of our rivers, lakes, and streams by storing and slowly releasing floodwaters. Wetlands help maintain the quality of water by storing nutrients, reducing sediment loads, and reducing erosion. They are also critical to fish and wildlife populations by providing an important habitat for approximately one-third of the plant and animal species that are federally listed as threatened or endangered.
The National Wetlands Inventory showed several wetlands throughout the county. See Figure 9 for more information.
33 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
3.6.2 Threatened and Endangered Species
The Threatened and Endangered Species Act of 1973 allows the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to impose measures on the Department of Transportation to mitigate the environmental impacts of a transportation project on endangered animal and plant species, as well as critical wildlife habitats. Locating any rare species that exist within the county during this early planning stage will help to avoid or minimize impacts. A preliminary review of the Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in the county was completed to determine what effects, if any, the recommended improvements may have on wildlife. Mapping from the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources revealed occurrences of threatened or endangered plant and/or animal species in the county, which are summarized in Figure 10. These species are not impacted by any recommendations found in the Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
Figure 10 Threatened or Endangered Species within the County Species Common Name Major Group Status* NC Federal Moxostoma robustum Robust redhorse Fish SR FSC
Alasmidonta varicosa Brook Floater Mollusk E SC Creeper Strophitus Mollusk T - Figure 10: Threatened or Endangered Species
* See appendix E for definitions and further information.
34 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
3.6.3 Historic Sites
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires the Department of Transportation to identify historic properties listed in, as well as eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The NCDOT must consider the impacts of transportation projects on these properties and consult with the Federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. N.C. General Statute 121-12(a) requires the NCDOT to identify historic properties listed on the National Register, but not necessarily those that are eligible to be listed. The NCDOT must consider the impacts and consult with the N.C. Historical Commission, but is not bound by their recommendations.
The location of historic sites within the county was investigated to determine any possible impacts resulting from the recommended improvements. This investigation identified the following properties listed on the NRHP:
• Davis Brothers Store (East Bend) • Donnaha Site (Archaeology) (East Bend vicinity) • Durrett-Jarratt House (Enon Vicinity) • Glenwood (Enon vicinity) • Richmond Hill Law School (Rockford vicinity) • Second Yadkin County Jail (Yadkinville) • The White House (Sofley House) (Huntsville)
None of the locations are impacted by the recommendation presented in this plan.
35 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
3.6.4 Archaeological Sites
The location of recorded archaeological sites was researched to determine the possible impacts of proposed roadway projects. This initial investigation identified one site within Yadkin County. The Donnaha Archeological Site is located along the Yadkin River, and is being studied by Wake Forest University.
However, archaeological sites are often difficult to identify without actual field excavation. As a result, possible sites may not be identified during the initial planning process; therefore, each proposed project should be evaluated individually prior to construction.
3.6.5 Educational Facilities The location of educational facilities in the county was considered during the development of the transportation plan. No proposed facilities or improvements shall displace any school or other educational facility.
36 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
4. Public Involvement
4.1 Overview Since the passage of the Federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), the emphasis on public involvement in transportation has taken on a new role. Although public participation has been an element of long range transportation planning in the past, these regulations call for a much more proactive approach. The NCDOT’s Transportation Planning Branch has a long history of making public involvement a 4 key element in the development of any long-range transportation plan, no matter the size of the city and/or county. This chapter is designed to provide an overview of the public involvement elements implemented into the development of the transportation plan for the county.
4.2 Study Initiation The Yadkin County Transportation Plan study was requested on April 1, 2003 by way of a letter from the Northwest Piedmont RPO. The Transportation Planning Branch met with the County Planning Board on July 8, 2003 to identify the primary transportation concerns and to define the scope of the study.
4.3 Public Meetings One public drop-in session was held during the development of Yadkin County Transportation Plan on February 24, 2004. This meeting was held in the County Commissioners meeting room in Yadkinville. The Northwest Piedmont RPO distributed flyers and other forms of advertising for this meeting, however there was no public attendance.
4.4 Public Hearings
August 2, 2004 An informational meeting was held in the Yadkin County Board of Commissioners meeting room during the Commissioners meeting. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the findings from the study including deficiencies, improvements, and recommendations and the new comprehensive transportation plan format. One suggestion was made by Commissioner Myers to include SR 1733 (Old Stage Rd.) on the list of minor thoroughfares to be widened to 12 foot lanes. There were no other concerns, and copies of the proposed CTP were left for review.
37 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
August 16, 2004 A public hearing was held in the Yadkin County Board of Commissioners meeting room during the commissioners meeting. A new set of maps was presented to the Board, including the change requested by Commissioner Myers. The Commissioners had no further concerns, and opened the floor to questions from those in the audience. There was one question fielded from the audience about the widening of US 421 to six lanes. The questioner was informed that I-77 was recommended to be widened to six lanes, not US 421. There were no other questions. The Board adopted the Transportation Plan by a vote of 5-0.
38 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
5. Conclusion
Yadkin County is a growing community that will require improvements to their transportation systems over the next thirty years. It is the responsibility of the County to take the initiative for the implementation of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. It is imperative that the local area aggressively pursues funding for desired projects. Questions regarding funding, projects, planning, and modes of transportation should be addressed to the appropriate branch within NCDOT. Appendix A includes contact information for these Branches. If changes are required for any 5 element of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan, then all other elements must be reviewed for resulting impacts.
39 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
40 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
Appendix A: DOT Contacts
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Customer Service Office 1-877-DOT4YOU (1-877-368-4968)
Secretary of Transportation 1501 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1501 (919) 733-2520
Board of Transportation Member Contact Information for the current Board of Transportation member may be accessed from the NCDOT homepage on the Internet at: http://www.ncdot.org/board/ or by calling 1-800-DOT4YOU.
A-1 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
Highway Division 11 Division Engineer P.O. Box 250 Contact the Division Engineer with general questions North Wilkesboro, NC 28659 concerning NCDOT activities within Division 11. (336)-667-9111 Division Construction Engineer P.O. Box 250 Contact the Division Construction Engineer for North Wilkesboro, NC 28659 information concerning major roadway improvements (336)-903-9117 under construction.
Division Traffic Engineer P.O. Box 250 Contact the Division Traffic Engineer for information North Wilkesboro, NC 28659 concerning high-collision locations. (336)-903-9129
District Engineer P.O. Box 558 Contact the District Engineer for information Elkin ,NC 28621 regarding Driveway Permits, Right of Way (336) 835-4241 Encroachments, and Development Reviews.
County Maintenance Engineer 1636 Shacktown Rd. Contact the County Maintenance Engineer with any Yadkinville, NC 27055 maintenance activities, such as drainage, repaving, (336) 667-2242 dead animals, or roadway conditions.
Centralized Personnel Transportation Planning Branch 1554 Mail Service Center Contact the Transportation Planning Branch with Raleigh, NC 27699-1554 long-range planning questions. (919) 733-4705
Secondary Roads Office 1535 Mail Service Center Contact the Secondary Roads office for information Raleigh, NC 27699-1535 regarding the Industrial Access Funds Program, (919) 733-3520 information about paving priorities, or how to get a road added to the state Maint. system. Program Development Branch 1534 Mail Service Center Contact the Program Development Branch for Raleigh, NC 27699-1534 information about current TIP projects, or the (919) 733-2039 current Roadway Official Corridor Maps. Geographic Information Systems Unit (GIS) 3401 Carl Sandburg Ct Contact GIS to order County Road maps and for Raleigh, NC 27610 other available maps. Online ordering available at: (919) 212-6000 http://www.ncdot.org/planning/statewide/gis/
A-2 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
Appendix B: Comprehensive Transportation Plan Definitions
Highway Map Category Definitions
X Freeways Functional purpose – high mobility, high volume, high speed Posted speed – 55 mph or greater X section – minimum four lanes with continuous median Multi-modal elements – High Occupancy Vehicles/High Occupancy Transit lanes, busways, truck lanes, park-and-ride facilities at/near interchanges, adjacent shared use paths (separate from roadway and outside ROW) Type of access control – full control of access Access management – interchange spacing (urban – one mile; non-urban – three miles); at interchanges on the intersecting roadway , full control of access for 1,000’ or for 350’ plus 650’ island or median; use of frontage roads, rear service roads Intersecting facilities – interchange or grade separation (no signals or at- grade intersections) Driveways – not allowed X Expressways Functional purpose – high mobility, high volume, medium-high speed posted speed – 45 to 60 mph X section – minimum four lanes with median Multi-modal elements – High Occupancy Vehicle lanes, busways, very wide paved shoulders (rural), shared use paths (separate from roadway but within ROW) Type of access control –limited or partial control of access; Access management – minimum interchange/intersection spacing 2000’; median breaks only at intersections with minor roadways or to permit U- turns; use of frontage roads, rear service roads; driveways limited in location and number; use of acceleration/deceleration or right turning lanes Intersecting facilities – interchange; at-grade intersection for minor roadways; right-in/right-out and/or left-over or grade separation (no signalization for through traffic); Driveways – right-in/right-out only; direct driveway access via service roads or other alternate connections
B-1 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
Boulevards Functional purpose – moderate mobility; moderate access, moderate volume, medium speed Posted speed – 30 to 55 mph X section – two or more lanes with median (median breaks allowed for U- turns per Driveway Manual Multi-modal elements – bus stops, bike lanes (urban) or wide paved shoulders (rural), sidewalks (urban - local government option) Type of access control – limited control of access, partial control of access, or no control of access Access management – two lane facilities may have medians with crossovers, medians with turning pockets or turning lanes; use of acceleration/deceleration or right turning lanes is optional; for abutting properties, use of shared driveways, internal out parcel access and cross- connectivity between adjacent properties is strongly encouraged Intersecting facilities – at grade intersections and driveways; interchanges at special locations with high volumes Driveways – primarily right-in/right-out, some right-in/right-out in combination with median leftovers; major driveways may be full movement when access is not possible using an alternate roadway.
Other Major Thoroughfares – Functional purpose – balanced mobility and access, moderate volume, low to medium speed Posted speed – 25 to 55 mph X section – four or more lanes without median Multi-modal elements – bus stops, bike lanes/wide outer lane (urban) or wide paved shoulder (rural), sidewalks (urban) Type of access control – no control of access Access management – continuous left turn lanes; for abutting properties, use of shared driveways, internal out parcel access and cross-connectivity between adjacent properties is strongly encouraged Intersecting facilities – intersections and driveways Driveways – full movement on two lane with center turn lane as permitted by the Driveway Manual
B-2 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
Minor Thoroughfares – Functional purpose – balanced mobility and access, moderate volume, low to medium speed Posted speed – 25 to 45 mph X section – ultimately three lanes (no more than one lane per direction) or less without median; Multi-modal elements – bus stops, bike lanes/wide outer lane (urban) or wide paved shoulder (rural), sidewalks (urban) ROW – no control of access Access management – continuous left turn lanes; for abutting properties, use of shared driveways, internal out parcel access and cross-connectivity between adjacent properties is strongly encouraged Intersecting facilities – intersections and driveways Driveways – full movement on two lane with center turn lane as permitted by the Driveway Manual
B-3 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
Other Definitions
Existing – Roadway facilities that are not recommended to be improved. Needs Improvement – Roadway facilities that need to be improved for capacity, safety, or system continuity. The improvement to the facility may be widening, other operational strategies, increasing the level of access control along the facility, or a combination of improvements and strategies. “Needs improvement” does not refer to the maintenance needs of existing facilities. Recommended – Roadway facilities on new location that are needed in the future. Interchange – Through movement on intersecting roads is separated by a structure. Turning movement area accommodated by on/off ramps and loops. Grade Separation – Through movement on intersecting roads is separated by a structure. There is no direct access between the facilities. Full Control of Access – Connections to a facility provided only via ramps at interchanges. No private driveway connections allowed. Limited Control of Access – Connections to a facility provided only via ramps at interchanges (major crossings) and at-grade intersections (minor crossings and service roads). No private driveway connections allowed. Partial Control of Access – Connections to a facility provided via ramps at interchanges, at-grade intersections, and private driveways. Private driveway connections shall be defined as a maximum of one connection per parcel. One connection is defined as one ingress and one egress point. These may be combined to form a two-way driveway (most common) or separated to allow for better traffic flow through the parcel. The use of shared or consolidated connections is highly encouraged. No Control of Access – Connections to a facility provided via ramps at interchanges, at-grade intersections, and private driveways.
B-4 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
Bicycle Map Category Definitions
On Road-Existing – Conditions for bicycling on the highway facility are adequate to safely accommodate cyclists. On Road-Needs Improvement – At the systems level, it is desirable for the highway facility to accommodate bicycle transportation; however, highway improvements are necessary to create safe travel conditions for the cyclists. On Road-Recommended – At the systems level, it is desirable for a recommended highway facility to accommodate bicycle transportation. The highway should be designed and built to safely accommodate cyclists. Off Road-Existing – A facility that accommodates bicycle transportation (may also accommodate pedestrians, i.e. a greenway) and is physically separated from a highway facility usually on a separate right-of-way. Off Road-Needs Improvement – A facility that accommodates bicycle transportation (may also accommodate pedestrians, e.g. greenways) and is physically separated from a highway facility usually on a separate right-of- way that will not adequately serve future bicycle needs. Improvements may include but are not limited to: widening, paving (not re-paving), improved horizontal or vertical alignment. Off Road-Recommended – A facility needed to accommodate bicycle transportation (may also accommodate pedestrians, e.g. greenways) and is physically separated from a highway facility usually on a separate right-of- way. This may also include greenway segments that do not necessarily serve a transportation function but intersect recommended facilities on the highway map or public transportation and rail map.
XEvery effort will be made to ensure that all facilities identified by the Strategic Highway Corridor Map will be a Freeway or Expressway on the Comprehensive Transportation Plan.
B-5 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
Blank
B-6 2002 CONDITIONS 2030 CONDITIONS NUMBER CURRENT 2002 NUMBER PROPOSED 2030 Rec. Facility & Section DIST RDWY ROW OF CAPACITY AADT RDWY ROW OF CAPACITY AADT Cross MI FT FT LANES (VPD) (VPD) FT FT LANES (VPD) (VPD) Section I-77 Iredell Co. toUS 421 4.71 48 350 4 56600 26000 72 ADQ 6 87400 46900 L US 421to US 21 5.20 48 300 4 56600 31000 72 ADQ 6 87400 54300 L US 21 to NC 67 2.91 48 260 4 56600 32000 72 ADQ 6 87400 57300 L
NC 67 to Surry Co. 0.91 48 290 4 56600 33000 72 ADQ 6 87400 59000 L Appendix C:Current and Future Road Inventory
US 21 Iredell Co.toSR 1002 1.25 20 60 2 6000 3000 24 ADQ 2 9600 5100 K SR 1002toSR 1171 3.48 22 60 2 6800 3100 24 ADQ 2 9600 4100 K Yadkin County Transportation Plan SR 1171toSR 1314 0.66 36 60 3 9600 2800 36 ADQ 2 9600 4100 H SR 1314toSR 1103 2.94 22 60 2 6800 1500 24 ADQ 2 9600 5100 K SR 1103toSR 1347 1.45 21 60 2 6800 3500 24 ADQ 2 9600 5300 K SR 1347toI to77 1.66 20 100 2 6000 3500 24 ADQ 2 9600 5300 K
US 421 Forsyth Co. to SR 1711 2.30 48 240 4 56600 22000 48 ADQ 4 56600 54600 A SR 1711 to SR 1710 2.49 48 275 4 56600 19000 48 ADQ 4 56600 47200 A SR 1710 to US 601 3.73 48 275 4 56600 18000 48 ADQ 4 56600 44700 A US 601 to US 21 6.48 48 295 4 56600 18000 48 ADQ 4 56600 44700 A C-1 US 21 to I-77 2.37 48 295 4 56600 16000 48 ADQ 4 56600 39700 A I-77 to Wilkes Co. 3.83 24 250 2 9600 13000 48 ADQ 4 56600 32300 A
US 601 Davie Co. to SR 1002 1.28 20 80 2 6000 3900 24 ADQ 2 11000 7400 K1 SR 1002 to PAB Yadkinville 3.63 20 80 2 6000 6100 24 ADQ 2 11000 9400 K1 PAB Yadkinville to SCL Boonville 4.03 22 60 2 6800 5700 24 ADQ 2 11000 9800 K1 SCL Boonville to NC 67 0.50 29 60 2 8800 6100 29 ADQ 2 9600 9400 K NC 67 to SR 1367 0.30 38 100 2 9600 5000 38 ADQ 2 9600 7500 I SR 1367 to NCL Boonville 0.54 20 100 2 6000 4400 24 ADQ 2 9600 7400 K NCL Boonville to Surry Co. 2.05 20 100 2 6000 3700 24 ADQ 2 11000 7300 K1
NC 67 Jonesville PABto SR 1366 2.52 20 80 2 6000 6200 24 ADQ 2 11000 10800 K SR 1366 to US 601 0.78 36 80 2 8000 7100 36 ADQ 2 9600 9300 I US 601 to Transou Ave. 0.30 40 60 2 8800 7600 40 ADQ 2 9600 6800 I Transou Ave. to ECL Boonville 0.40 20 100 2 6000 7600 24 ADQ 2 9600 6800 K ECL Boonville to SR 1510 2.25 20 100 2 6000 4800 24 ADQ 2 11000 5700 K1 SR 1510 to WCL East Bend 7.76 20 100 2 6000 4200 24 ADQ 2 11000 4700 K1 WCL East Bend toSR 1548 0.38 22 100 2 6800 6500 24 ADQ 2 9600 7200 K SR 1548 to High St. 0.60 36 100 3 9600 6800 36 ADQ 3 9600 8800 H High St. ECL East Bend 0.67 22 100 2 6800 6800 24 ADQ 2 9600 8800 K ECL East Bend to Forsyth Co. 3.62 20 100 2 6000 7100 24 ADQ 2 11000 10600 K1 2002 CONDITIONS 2030 CONDITIONS NUMBER CURRENT 2002 NUMBER PROPOSED 2030 Rec. Facility & Section DIST RDWY ROW OF CAPACITY AADT RDWY ROW OF CAPACITY AADT Cross MI FT FT LANES (VPD) (VPD) FT FT LANES (VPD) (VPD) Section SR 1001 (Courtney Huntsville Rd.) US 601 to SR 1725 1.19 23 50 2 8000 2200 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 2900 K2 SR 1725 to SR 1711 4.42 19 50 2 6000 1600 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 2100 K2 2
SR 1711 to SR 1716 2.06 19 50 2 6000 1200 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 1600 K Appendix C:Current and Future Road Inventory SR 1716 to Forsyth Co. 1.20 19 50 2 6000 1600 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 2200 K2
SR 1002 (Lone Hickory Rd.) US 601 to SR 1159 3.49 20 Maintained 2 6000 2200 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 2900 K2 Yadkin County Transportation Plan SR 1159 to US 21 2.78 20 Maintained 2 6000 1200 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 1700 K2
SR 1003 (Siloam Rd.) Surry Co. to SR 1541 3.71 20 60 2 6000 1100 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 1400 K SR 1541 to SR 1527 1.12 18 60 2 5600 1400 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 1900 K SR 1527 to NC 67 0.45 18 60 2 5600 2600 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 3500 K
SR 1165 (Joyner Rd.) 2
C-2 SR 1002 to Iredell Co. 0.60 20 60 2 6000 650 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 750 K
SR 1165 (Fish Brandon Rd.) US 601 to SR 1002 1.80 18 60 2 5600 700 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 800 K2
SR 1300 (Swan Creek Rd.) Jonesville PAB to SR 1314 3.28 20 Maintained 2 6000 2000 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 2700 K
SR 1314 (Old 421 Rd.) Yadkinville PAB to SR 1331 0.20 22 Maintained 2 6800 4900 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 6600 K SR 1331 to US 21 4.25 20 Maintained 2 6000 2300 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 3000 K US 21 to SR 1103 2.78 18 Maintained 2 5600 2600 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 3500 K SR 1103 to SR 1300 2.67 18 Maintained 2 5600 1000 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 1400 K SR 1300 to Wilkes Co. 0.68 18 Maintained 2 5600 800 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 1000 K
SR 1331 (Center Rd.) SR 1314 to SR 1381 0.85 18 Maintained 2 5600 1900 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 2500 K SR 1381 to SR 1368 2.61 18 Maintained 2 5600 2700 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 3600 K SR 1368 to Jonesville PAB 4.05 18 Maintained 2 5600 2900 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 3900 K 2002 CONDITIONS 2030 CONDITIONS NUMBER CURRENT 2002 NUMBER PROPOSED 2030 Rec. Facility & Section DIST RDWY ROW OF CAPACITY AADT RDWY ROW OF CAPACITY AADT Cross MI FT FT LANES (VPD) (VPD) FT FT LANES (VPD) (VPD) Section SR 1502 (Country Club Rd.) Yadkinville PAB to SR 1503 1.04 20 60 2 6000 2200 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 3000 K
SR 1503 (Country Club Rd.) SR 1502 to SR 1506 1.03 20 60 2 6000 1400 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 1800 K
SR 1506 (Rockford Rd.) Appendix C:Current and Future Road Inventory SR 1503 to SR 1510 0.60 20 60 2 6000 2200 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 3000 K
SR 1509 (Union Cross Church Rd.)
SR 1605 to SR 1510 1.10 18 Maintained 2 5600 1900 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 2500 K Yadkin County Transportation Plan SR 1510 to SR 1584 2.50 18 Maintained 2 5600 1400 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 1800 K
SR 1510 (Rockford Rd.) NC 67 to SR 1506 2.86 20 60 2 6000 1500 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 2000 K
SR 1510 (Sugartown Rd.) SR 1506 to SR 1509 3.20 20 60 2 6000 1100 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 1400 K
SR 1510 (Pilot View Church Rd.)
C-3 SR 1509 to SR 1599 1.40 18 60 2 5600 1100 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 1400 K SR 1599 to SR 1605 1.00 20 60 2 6000 1400 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 1800 K
SR 1549 (Flint Hill Rd.) SR 1605 to SR 1562 2.69 18 Maintained 2 5600 2600 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 3500 K SR 1562 to SCL East Bend 3.31 18 Maintained 2 5600 2200 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 3000 K SCL East Bend to NC 67 0.35 18 Maintained 2 5600 4000 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 4600 K
SR 1570 (Nebo Rd. ) NC 67 to SR 1583 0.85 20 Maintained 2 6000 2900 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 3800 K
SR 1570 (Forbush Rd.) SR 1583 to SR 1600 4.90 20 Maintained 2 6000 1200 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 1500 K
SR 1578 (Mt. Bethel Church Rd.) SR 1579 to SR 1549 2.80 18 60 2 5600 750 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 1000 K
SR 1579 (Mt. Bethel Church Rd.) SR 1570 to SR 1578 0.80 18 60 2 5600 650 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 800 K
SR 1583 (Nebo Rd.) SR 1585 to SR 1570 0.60 20 60 2 6000 2900 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 3800 K 2002 CONDITIONS 2030 CONDITIONS NUMBER CURRENT 2002 NUMBER PROPOSED 2030 Rec. Facility & Section DIST RDWY ROW OF CAPACITY AADT RDWY ROW OF CAPACITY AADT Cross MI FT FT LANES (VPD) (VPD) FT FT LANES (VPD) (VPD) Section SR 1584 (Rockett Rd.) SR 1509 to SR 1595 0.50 18 var. 2 5600 1400 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 1800 K SR 1595 to SR 1570 1.90 18 var. 2 5600 650 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 800 K
SR 1585 ( Union Grove Church Rd.) SR 1583 to SR 1510 2.60 20 var. 2 6000 1900 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 2500 K Appendix C:Current and Future Road Inventory
SR 1595 (Union Cross Church Rd.) SR 1583 to SR 1584 1.80 19 Maintained 2 5800 1400 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 1800 K Yadkin County Transportation Plan SR 1600 (Falcon Rd.) SR 1570 to SR 1637 2.60 20 var. 2 6000 2700 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 3600 K SR 1637 to SR 1605 0.10 36 var. 2 9600 2700 ADQ ADQ 3 9600 3600 H
SR 1605 (Old 421 Rd.) Forsyth Co. to SR 1549 1.47 22 Maintained 2 6800 4300 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 4800 K SR 1549 to SR 1146 5.30 22 Maintained 2 6800 2200 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 3000 K SR 1146 to SR 1637 0.50 22 Maintained 2 6800 2200 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 3000 K SR 1637 to End Turn Lanes 0.48 32 Maintained 3 9600 3600 ADQ ADQ 3 9600 4400 H
C-4 End Turn Lanes to SR 1510 1.62 22 Maintained 2 6800 3300 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 4100 K SR 1510 to Yadkinville PAB 2.35 20 Maintained 2 6000 2200 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 3000 K
SR 1711 (Speer Bridge Rd.) SR 1605 to SR 1001 2.50 20 60 2 6000 1600 ADQ ADQ 2 8000 2100 K
1Includes construction of passing lanes, capacity is 9600 without. 2 Paved shoulders should be considered to accommodate bicycle traffic.. *Maintained Right of Way would be the width that DOT has been maintaining on a specific road for a period of time. Example" Ditch to Ditch". Information provided by NCDOT Division 11 Right of Way Unit. Yadkin County Transportation Plan
Appendix D
TYPICAL HIGHWAY CROSS SECTIONS
Cross section requirements for highways vary according to the desired capacity and level of service to be provided. Universal standards in the design of highways are not practical. Each street section must be individually analyzed and its cross section requirements determined on the basis of amount and type of projected traffic, existing capacity, desired level of service, and available right-of- way. Typical cross section recommendations are shown starting on page D-5. These cross sections are typical for facilities on new location and where right-of- way constraints are not critical. For widening projects and urban projects with limited right-of-way, special cross sections should be developed that meet the needs of the project. The recommended typical cross sections shown in Appendix D were derived on the basis of projected traffic, existing capacities, desirable levels of service, and available right-of-way. On all existing and proposed highways delineated on the Transportation plan, adequate right-of-way should be protected or acquired for the ultimate cross sections. Ultimate desirable cross sections for each of the highways are listed in Appendix C. Recommendations for “ultimate” cross sections are provided for the following:
1. Highways which may require widening after the current planning period 2. Highways which are borderline adequate and accelerated traffic growth could render them deficient 3. Highways where an urban curb and gutter cross section may be locally desirable because of urban development or redevelopment.
A - Four Lanes Divided with Median – Freeway/Expressway
Typical for four lane divided highways in rural areas which may have only partial or no control of access. The minimum median width for this cross section is 46 ft, but a wider median is desirable.
B - Seven Lanes - Curb & Gutter This cross section is not recommended for new projects. When the conditions warrant six lanes, cross section “D” should be recommended. Cross section “B” should be used only in special situations such as when widening from a five-lane section and right-of-way is limited. Even in these situations, consideration should be given to converting the center turn lane to a median so that cross section “D” is the final cross section.
D-1 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
C - Five Lanes - Curb & Gutter Typical for major thoroughfares, this cross section is desirable where frequent left turns are anticipated as a result of abutting development or frequent street intersections.
D - Six Lanes Divided with Raised Median - Curb & Gutter E - Four Lanes Divided with Raised Median - Curb and Gutter These cross sections are typically used on Expressways and Boulevards where left turns and intersection streets are not as frequent. Left turns would be restricted to a few selected intersections. The 16-ft median is the minimum recommended for an urban boulevard type cross section. In most instances, monolithic construction should be utilized due to greater cost effectiveness, ease and speed of placement, and reduced future maintenance requirements. In special cases, grassed or landscaped medians result in greatly increased maintenance costs and an increase danger to maintenance personnel. Non- monolithic medians should only be recommended when the above concerns are addressed.
F - Four Lanes Divided – Expressway/Boulevard, Grass Median Recommended for urban boulevards or expressways to enhance the urban environment and to improve the compatibility of major thoroughfares with residential areas. A minimum median width of 24 ft is recommended with 30 ft being desirable.
G - Four Lanes - Curb & Gutter This cross section is recommended for major thoroughfares where projected travel indicates a need for four travel lanes but traffic is not excessively high, left turning movements are light, and right-of-way is restricted. An additional left turn lane would probably be required at major intersections. This cross section should be used only if the above criteria is met. If right-of-way is not restricted, future strip development could take place and the inner lanes could become de facto left turn lanes.
H - Three Lanes - Curb & Gutter In urban environments, thoroughfares which are proposed to function as one-way traffic carriers would typically require cross section “H”.
I - Two Lanes - C&G, Parking both sides J - Two Lanes - C&G, Parking one side Cross section “I” and “J” are usually recommended for urban minor thoroughfares since these facilities usually serve both land service and traffic service functions.
D-2 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
Cross section “I” would be used on those minor thoroughfares where parking on both sides is needed as a result of more intense development. K - Two Lanes - Paved Shoulder This cross section is used in rural areas or for staged construction of a wider multi-lane cross section. On some thoroughfares, projected traffic volumes may indicate that two travel lanes will adequately serve travel for a considerable period of time. For areas that are growing and future widening will be necessary, the full right-of-way of 100-ft should be required. In some instances, local ordinances may not allow the full 100-ft. In those cases, 70 ft should be preserved with the understanding that the full 100-ft will be preserved by use of building setbacks and future street line ordinances.
L - Six Lanes Divided with Grass Median – Freeway/Expressway Cross section “L” is typical for controlled access freeways/expressways. The 46 ft grassed median is the minimum desirable median width, but there could be some variation from this depending upon design considerations. Right-of-way requirements would typically vary upward from 228 ft depending upon cut and fill requirements.
M - Eight Lanes Divided with Raised Median - Curb & Gutter This cross section may be recommended for expressways/boulevards going through major urban areas or for routes projected to carry very high volumes of traffic.
General The urban curb and gutter cross sections all illustrate the sidewalk adjacent to the curb with a buffer or utility strip between the sidewalk and the minimum right- of-way line. This permits adequate setback for utility poles. If it is desired to move the sidewalk farther away from the street to provide additional separation for pedestrians or for aesthetic reasons, additional right-of-way must be provided to insure adequate setback for utility poles. The right-of-ways shown for the typical cross sections are the minimum right-of- way required to contain the street, sidewalks, utilities, and drainage facilities. Cut and fill requirements may require either additional right-of-way or construction easements. Obtaining construction easements is becoming the more common practice for urban thoroughfare construction.
D-3 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
D-4 APPENDIX D:
TYPICAL HIGHWAY CROSS SECTIONS
A CL
150' - 200' (URBAN)
W
/ W
/ 250' - 300' (RURAL)
R R 12' 12' 12' 46' MINIMUM 12' 12' 12' MEDIAN 6' 6' 4' - 10' P.S. 4' - 10' P.S. VARIABLE 4' 4' P.S. P.S. VARIABLE
6:1 6:1
FOUR LANES DIVIDED WITH MEDIAN
Freeway / Expressway
B CL
120' (MIN.)
W W
/ /
R R 10' 2' 12' DES. 12' DES. 12' DES. 12' DES. 12' DES. 12' DES. 12' DES. 2' 10' 11' MIN. 11' MIN. 11' MIN. 11' MIN. 11' MIN. 11' MIN. 11' MIN. 5' 3' 3' 5'
SIDEWALK SIDEWALK
Y
Y
T
T
I
I
L
L
I
I
T
T
U U
SEVEN LANE - CURB & GUTTER 2'-6" CURB 2'-6" CURB AND GUTTER Other Major Thoroughfare AND GUTTER
C CL
100' (MIN.)
W
W
/
/
R R 10' 2' 12' DES. 12' DES. 12' DES. 12' DES. 12' DES. 2' 10' 11' MIN. 11' MIN. 11' MIN. 11' MIN. 11' MIN. 5' 3' 3' 5'
SIDEWALK SIDEWALK
Y Y
T T
I I
L L
I I
T T
U U
2'-6" CURB FIVE LANE - CURB & GUTTER 2'-6" CURB AND GUTTER Other Major Thoroughfare AND GUTTER
D
CL
150' (MIN).
W
/
W
/
R R 10' 2' 12' DES. 12' DES. 12' DES. 23' DES. 12' DES. 12' DES. 12' DES. 2' 10' 11' MIN. 11' MIN. 11' MIN. 16' MIN. 11' MIN. 11' MIN. 11' MIN. 5' 3' 3' 5'
SIDEWALK SIDEWALK
Y
Y
T
T
I
I
L
L
I
I
T
T
U U
1'-6" CURB AND GUTTER 2'-6" CURB 2'-6" CURB AND GUTTER AND GUTTER SIX LANES DIVIDED WITH RAISED MEDIAN - CURB & GUTTER Expressway / Boulevard
D-5 APPENDIX D:
TYPICAL HIGHWAY CROSS SECTIONS
E CL
110' (MIN).
W
W
/
/
R R 10' 2' 12' DES. 12' DES. 23' DES. 12' DES. 12' DES. 2' 10' 11' MIN. 11' MIN. 16' MIN. 11' MIN. 11' MIN. 5' 3' 3' 5'
SIDEWALK SIDEWALK
Y
Y
T
T
I
I
L
L
I
I
T
T
U U
1'-6" CURB 2'-6" CURB AND GUTTER 2'-6" CURB AND GUTTER AND GUTTER FOUR LANES DIVIDED WITH RAISED MEDIAN - CURB & GUTTER Expressway / Boulevard
CL
F 120' - 135'
W
W
/
/
R R 10' 2' 12' DES 12' DES 30' - 46' 12' DES 12' DES 2' 10' 11' MIN 11' MIN 11' MIN 11' MIN 6' 6' 5' 3' 3' 5' SHLD. SHLD.
SIDEWALK SIDEWALK Y
Y 2'- 4' 2'- 4'
T
T
I
I L
L P.S. P.S.
I
I
T
T
U U 6:1 6:1
2'-6" CURB 2'-6" CURB AND GUTTER FOUR LANES DIVIDED - GRASS MEDIAN AND GUTTER
Expressway / Boulevard
G CL
90' (MIN).
W
W
/
/
R R
10' 2' 12' DES. 12' DES. 12' DES. 12' DES. 2' 10' 11' MIN. 11' MIN. 11' MIN. 11' MIN. 5' 3' 3' 5'
SIDEWALK SIDEWALK
Y
Y
T
T
I
I
L
L
I
I
T
T
U U
2'-6" CURB FOUR LANES - CURB & GUTTER 2'-6" CURB AND GUTTER AND GUTTER Other Major Thoroughfare
H CL
80' (MIN).
W
W
/
/
R R 10' 2' 12' DES. 12' DES. 12' DES. 2' 10' 11' MIN. 11' MIN. 11' MIN. 5' 3' 3' 5'
SIDEWALK SIDEWALK
Y
Y
T
T
I
I
L
L
I
I
T
T
U U
2'-6" CURB THREE LANES - CURB & GUTTER 2'-6" CURB AND GUTTER AND GUTTER Other Major Thoroughfare
D-6 APPENDIX D:
TYPICAL HIGHWAY CROSS SECTIONS
I CL
80' (MIN).
W
/
W
/
R R 10' 2' 8' 12' DES. 12' DES. 8' 2' 10' PARALLEL 11' MIN. 11' MIN. PARALLEL PARKING PARKING 5' 3' 3' 5'
SIDEWALK SIDEWALK
Y
Y
T
T
I
I
L
L
I
I
T
T
U U
2'-6" CURB TWO LANES - CURB & GUTTER 2'-6" CURB AND GUTTER AND GUTTER PARKING ON EACH SIDE Minor Thoroughfare
J CL
70' (MIN).
W
/
W
/ R
10' 2' 8' 12' DES. 12' DES. 2' 10' R PARALLEL 11' MIN. 11' MIN. PARKING 5' 3' 3' 5'
SIDEWALK SIDEWALK
Y
Y
T
I
T
I
L
I
L
I
T
T
U U
2'-6" CURB TWO LANES - CURB & GUTTER 2'-6" CURB AND GUTTER AND GUTTER PARKING ON ONE SIDE Minor Thoroughfare
K CL
70' - 100'
W
W
/
/
R R
10' 12' DES. 12' DES. 10' 11' MIN. 11' MIN. 2' - 4' 2' - 4' P.S. P.S.
TWO LANES - PAVED SHOULDER
Minor Thoroughfare
D-7 APPENDIX D:
TYPICAL HIGHWAY CROSS SECTIONS
L CL
300' (MIN)
W
W
/
/
R R 12' 12' 12' 12' 46' MINIMUM 12' 12' 12' 12' MEDIAN 6' - 12' SHLD. 6' - 12' SHLD. VARIABLE VARIABLE 4' - 10' P.S. 4' 4' 4' - 10' P.S. VARIABLE P.S. P.S. VARIABLE
6:1 6:1
SIX LANES DIVIDED WITH GRASS MEDIAN
Freeway / Expressway
C M L
160' (MIN).
W
/ W
/
R R 10' 2' 12' DES. 12' DES. 12' DES. 12' DES. 23' DES. 12' DES. 12' DES. 12' DES. 12' DES. 2' 10' 11' MIN. 11' MIN. 11' MIN. 11' MIN. 16' MIN. 11' MIN. 11' MIN. 11' MIN. 11' MIN. 5' 3' 3' 5'
SIDEWALK SIDEWALK
Y
Y
T
I
T
I
L
I
L
I
T
T
U U
1'-6" CURB AND GUTTER 2'-6" CURB 2'-6" CURB AND GUTTER AND GUTTER EIGHT LANES DIVIDED WITH RAISED MEDIAN - CURB & GUTTER Expressway / Boulevard
D-8 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
Appendix E: Definitions of Environmental Status Codes Definitions of Environmental Status Codes: Natural Heritage Program Plant List*
North Carolina Status Description E Endangered “Any species or higher taxon of plant whose continued existence as a viable component of the States flora is determined to be in jeopardy” (GS 19B 106: 202.12). (Endangered species may not be removed from the wild except when a permit is obtained for research, propagation, or rescue which will enhance the survival of the species).
T Threatened “Any resident species of plant which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range” (GS 19B 106: 202.12). (Regulations are the same as for Endangered Species).
SC Special Concern “Any species of plant in North Carolina which requires monitoring but which may be collected and sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of [the Plant Protection and Conservation Act]” (GS 19B 106:202.12). (Special Concern species which are not also listed as Endangered or Threatened may be collected from the wild and sold under specific regulations. Propagated material only of Special Concern species which are also listed as Endangered or Threatened may be traded or sold under specific regulations.)
C Candidate Species which are very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction (and sometimes also by direct exploitation or disease). These species are also either rare throughout their ranges (fewer than 100 populations total) or disjunct in North Carolina from a main range in a different part of the country or world. Also included are species which may have 20-50 populations in North Carolina, but fewer than 50 populations worldwide. These are species which have the preponderance of their distribution in North Carolina and whose fate depends largely on their conservation here. Also included are many
* Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plants of North Carolina. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990 (with amendments 1993).
E-1 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
species known to have once occurred in North Carolina but with no known extant occurrences in the state (historical or extirpated species); if these species are relocated in the state, they are likely to be listed as Endangered or Threatened. If present land use trends continue, candidate species are likely to merit listing as Endangered or Threatened.
SR Significantly Species which are very rare in North Carolina, generally Rare substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction (and sometimes also by direct exploitation or disease). These species are generally more common somewhere else in their ranges, occurring in North Carolina peripherally to their main ranges, mostly in habitats which are unusual in North Carolina. Also included are some species with 20- 100 populations in North Carolina, if they also have only 50- 100 populations rangewide and are declining. W Watch List Any other species believed to be rare and of conservation concern in the state but warranting active monitoring at this time. P Proposed A species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern, but has not yet completed the legally mandated listing process.
United States Status Description E Endangered A taxon “which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” (Endangered Species Act, Section 3).
T Threatened A taxon “which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range” (Endangered Species Act, Section 3).
C1 Candidate 1 “Taxa for which the [Fish and Wildlife] Service has on file enough substantial information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support proposals to list them as endangered or threatened. Development and publication of proposed rules on these taxa are anticipated; however, because of the large number of Category 1 taxa, it will take several years to clear the backlog.”
C2 Candidate 2 “Taxa for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but for which there are not enough data to support listing proposals at this time... Further biological research and field study usually will be necessary to ascertain the status of
E-2 Yadkin County Transportation Plan
[these taxa]... It is likely that some category 2 candidates will not warrant listing, while others will be found to be in greater danger of extinction than some taxa in category 1.”
3A Candidate 3a “Taxa for which the Fish and Wildlife Service has persuasive evidence of extinction. If rediscovered, such taxa might acquire high priority for listing.”
3B Candidate 3b “Names that, on the basis of current taxonomic understanding ... do not represent distinct taxa...”
3C Candidate 3c “Taxa that have proven to be more abundant or widespread than previously believed and/or those that are not subject to any identifiable threat. If further research or changes in habitat indicate a significant decline in any of these taxa, they may be reevaluated for possible inclusion in categories 1 or 2.
P Proposed “Taxa already proposed to be listed as” endangered or threatened. Taxa formally proposed as endangered or threatened receive some legal protection. Species listed as proposed candidates are species which are in the process of being added to the federal candidate list.
* Possibly Extinct Taxa with no known extant occurrences.
E-3