DOCSLIB.ORG

North Carolina Transportation Network and Strategic Transportation Corridors Framework

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
North Carolina Transportation Network and Strategic Transportation Corridors Framework North Carolina Transportation Network and Strategic Transportation Corridors Framework AUGUST 2015 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................... i Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... ES-1 1. Overview ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Report Purpose and Organization......................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Context and Purpose............................................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Public Input Opportunities .................................................................................................................... 3 2. NC Transportation Network: Structure and Mobility Definitions ................................................................. 5 3. Strategic Transportation Corridors: Vision, Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures........................ 9 3.1 Vision, Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................................. 9 3.2 Strategic Transportation Corridor Performance Measures .................................................................. 9 4. Strategic Transportation Corridor Identification Process ............................................................................ 13 4.1 Corridor Identification Criteria............................................................................................................ 13 4.2 Corridor Criteria Application ............................................................................................................... 14 5. Strategic Transportation Corridors and Policy Foundation ......................................................................... 19 5.1 Recommended STC Network .............................................................................................................. 19 5.2 STC Profiles ......................................................................................................................................... 20 5.3 STC Policy ............................................................................................................................................ 23 5.4 STC Amendment Process .................................................................................................................... 23 5.4.1 Regular Update of the STC Policy and Network .............................................................................. 23 5.4.2 Revisions of the STC Network by Petition ....................................................................................... 27 5.4.3 Revision Request Procedures .......................................................................................................... 28 5.4.4 STC Administration ......................................................................................................................... 29 6. Application of NCTN and the STC Network Framework .............................................................................. 31 6.1 STC Master Plans ................................................................................................................................. 31 6.1.1 Master Plan Process ........................................................................................................................... 32 6.1.2 Potential Master Plan Implementation Strategies and Tools............................................................. 33 6.2 Sub-Corridor Alternatives Studies ...................................................................................................... 34 6.2.1 Essential Sub-corridor Study Elements ............................................................................................... 35 Page i 6.2.2 Optional Elements .............................................................................................................................. 38 6.2.3 Study Cost and Funding ...................................................................................................................... 39 6.3 Comprehensive Transportation Plans ................................................................................................. 40 6.4 Additional STC and NCTN Applications ............................................................................................... 40 6.4.1 Corridor Preservation ......................................................................................................................... 40 6.4.2 Access Management and Traffic Operations .................................................................................. 41 6.4.3 Land Use Planning ........................................................................................................................... 43 Appendix A: Corridor Identification Process ..................................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B-1: Activity Center Stratification ......................................................................................................B-1 Appendix B-2: Logistics Villages Preparedness and Economic Sector Participation Ratings .............................B-6 Appendix C: Strategic Transportation Corridor Profiles .................................................................................... C-1 List of Figures Figure 1: STC System Connectivity Elements ...................................................................................................... 16 Figure 2: STC Passenger and Freight Mobility Elements ..................................................................................... 17 Figure 3: STC Economic Prosperity Elements ..................................................................................................... 18 Figure 4: Strategic Transportation Corridors ...................................................................................................... 21 Figure 5: North Carolina STC Policy .................................................................................................................... 24 List of Tables Table 1: North Carolina Transportation Network Mobility Definitions ................................................................ 6 Table 2: Strategic Transportation Corridor Goals and Objectives ...................................................................... 10 Table 3: Potential STC Performance Measures .................................................................................................. 11 Table 4: STC Identification Criteria ..................................................................................................................... 14 Table 5: NC Strategic Transportation Corridors .................................................................................................. 22 Page ii THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK North Carolina Transportation Network and Strategic Transportation Corridors Framework Executive Summary The NCDOT has identified a network of key multimodal transportation corridors – called Strategic Transportation Corridors (STC) – that can support smart planning, help to set long-term investment decisions, and ensure that North Carolina’s economic prosperity goals are achieved. Complementing that effort, the Department has developed the North Carolina Transportation Network (NCTN), to define more clearly and consistently the role that all elements of the state’s transportation system play in providing for personal and freight mobility and land access services. The STC is intended to ensure transportation system connectivity, provide high levels of mobility, and improve access to important state and regional activity centers throughout the state. The NCTN builds upon the NC Multimodal Investment Network (NCMIN) developed in 2004 and is envisioned to be a tool to aid long-range transportation planning throughout North Carolina. In updating these planning tools to guide and support transportation investment decision-making, NCDOT seeks to provide long-term direction to the innovative Strategic Transportation Investment funding program established in 2013 and to support Governor McCrory’s 25-Year Vision for North Carolina. The North Carolina Transportation Network and Strategic Transportation Corridors Framework report documents the STC and NCTN development process and identifies policies and procedures by which these two planning tools will be implemented. The report is organized to present the following information: NCTN structure and mobility definitions STC vision, goals and objectives, and performance measures STC identification process and application STC network and policy, and STC and NCTN applications NC Transportation Network NC Transportation Network is itself a framework for defining the role of various elements of the state’s transportation system in providing varying levels of mobility and land
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 4 Environmental Consequences
    4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The discussion on environmental consequences summarizes the potential effects on the human, physical, and natural environments that may result from the construction and operation of the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) project. The existing environment within the project study area was described in Chapter 3. The impacts presented here are based on the proposed preliminary engineering designs for the rail and roadway alignments. Impacts are identified for each of the three alternative alignments within each of the 26 sections of the project. As discussed in Section 2.2, the endpoints of the 26 sections are in locations where the alternative alignments are in a common location. Therefore, alternatives can be evaluated section by section, with a preferred alternative selected for each section. These will be joined together to determine the “best-fit” preferred alternative for the entire study corridor. It should be noted that all persons, business, and non-profit organizations displaced as a result of the project would be compensated in a fair and equitable manner in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). 4.1 Water Resources Potential project impacts to streams, wetlands, and other jurisdictional waters are discussed in the following sections, followed by discussion of potential permits required. Clean Water Act Waters of the US, Clean Water Act Permits, Construction Moratoria, Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act regulations, North Carolina River Basin Buffer Rules, and Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters are addressed.
    [Show full text]
  • NATIONAL RIDESHARING DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM: August 1985 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION REPORT 6
    . UMT A-M A-06-0049-85-1 I R.5 . A3 7 no DOT- TSC- UMTA- National Ridesharing 85— 1 7 u.b.uepartment of Transportation Demonstration Program: Urban Mass Transportation Administration Comparative Evaluation Report UMTA Technical Assistance Program NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. , o HE S.ST I 7 ijj nO» p oT- T5C- Technical Report Documontation Pago 7 t. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient' * Catalog No. UMTA-MA- 06-0049-8 5-1 4y Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date NATIONAL RIDESHARING DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM: August 1985 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION REPORT 6. Performing Orgonizotion Code DTS-64 8. Performing Organization Report No. 7. Author^ s) DOT-TSC-UMTA-85- Rosemary, Booth, and Robert Waksman DEPARTMENT OF 1 17 r> - ! v h I r\ : y l n | T /n 9, Performing Orgonizotion Nome and Address TO. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) U.S. Department of Transportation UM527/R5631 25 1985 NOV 1. Research and Special Programs Administr ation' Contract or Grant No. Transportation Systems Center Cambridqe, MA 02142 LIBRARY Type of Report and Period Covered 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address U.S. Department of Transportati on Final Report January 1979-December 1981 Urban Mass Transportation Admini strati n Office of Technical Assistance Id.
    [Show full text]
  • Rail Profile with AECOM
    prepared for North Carolina Statewide North Carolina Department of Transportation Multimodal Freight Plan prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Rail Profile with AECOM February 7, 2017 report North Carolina Statewide Multimodal Freight Plan Rail Profile prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation prepared by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 730 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 500 Atlanta, GA 30318 with AECOM 701 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 475 Raleigh, North Carolina 27607 date February 7, 2017 North Carolina Statewide Multimodal Freight Plan Table of Contents 1.0 Overview ............................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Purpose ...................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Methods and Data Overview ..................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Section Organization.................................................................................................................. 1-2 2.0 Inventory ............................................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Facilities ..................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Railroad System ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Study Findings Preliminary Findings Page 438 of 513 FAST Network Team
    Page 437 of 513 Preliminary Study Findings Preliminary Findings Page 438 of 513 FAST Network Team Taruna Tayal, PMP Don Bryson, PE Chris Brasier, EI VHB | Project Manager VHB | Principal-in-Charge VHB | Transit Planner Roberta MK Fox, AIA, ASLA Sasha Pejcic, PMP Catalyst Design | Stakeholder Engagement Stantec | Innovative Solutions and Implementation Preliminary Findings Page 439 of 513 FAST Network Overview Business community framework for enhanced transit Expectation that cost-effective, useful travel options will be in place Pushing for rapid implementation of an effective, scalable, regional, multimodal transportation system Preliminary Findings Page 440 of 513 FAST Network Study Purpose Advance ideas for improving and accelerating regional connectivity Accelerate effective, all-day mobility along our freeway and street-system that can expand and improve over time Complement existing and emerging travel options Serve as a valuable template for other regions of the state Page 441 of 513 FAST study approach Preliminary Findings Page 442 of 513 Existing Conditions Regional Freeway System Preliminary Findings Page 443 of 513 Existing Conditions GoTriangle Network Preliminary Findings Page 444 of 513 Transit System Planned BRT Preliminary Findings Page 445 of 513 Transit System Planned Commuter Rail Preliminary Findings Page 446 of 513 Existing System Regional Linkage BRT: High frequency, subregional Commuter rail: Regional, low/moderate frequency FAST: • Provide complementary, effective, regional linkages • Accelerate creation of true
    [Show full text]
  • Clean Air Act Complaint: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA Case No. 1:19-cv-1179 CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL ) DIVERSITY and SIERRA CLUB, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) COMPLAINT ) UNIVERSITY OF NORTH ) CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, ) ) Defendant. ) ) NATURE OF THE CASE 1. Plaintiffs Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club (collectively, “Conservation Groups”) bring this citizen enforcement action to enforce repeated violations by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (“UNC”) of the permit issued under Title V of the Clean Air Act for the operation of air pollution sources on UNC’s campus. In violation of that permit and applicable law, UNC has burned more coal than the permit allows in its coal burning boilers and has failed to maintain records showing that emissions from those boilers and other sources are not causing violations of health- and public welfare-based national ambient air quality standards. 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq. 2. The air pollution that UNC emits can cause a wide variety of adverse impacts including asthma attacks, decreased lung function, especially among young 1 Case 1:19-cv-01179 Document 1 Filed 12/03/19 Page 1 of 18 people, and even premature mortality. See, e.g., North Carolina v. TVA, 593 F.Supp.2d 812, 822 (W.D.N.C. 2009) rev’d on other grounds, 615 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2010) (In tort case against coal-fired power plants “Court finds that, at a minimum, there is an increased risk of incidences of premature mortality in the general public associated with [air pollution] exposure”).
    [Show full text]
  • Future Interstate Designation Initiative Hampton Roads to Raleigh
    Future Interstate Designation Initiative Hampton Roads to Raleigh Wednesday, November 5, 2014 HRTPO TTAC ABOUT Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce The Hampton Roads Chamber of Commerce is the premier business organization in America’s First Region, serving Southeastern Virginia since 1801. The Chamber focuses on driving regional economic growth and enhancing our community’s quality of life via our Chesapeake, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Suffolk, and Virginia Beach divisions and at the regional level. Regional Transportation Alliance The RTA serves as the recognized regional business voice for transportation initiatives and policy for North Carolina’s Research Triangle region, representing 23 member chambers of commerce and more than 100 leading businesses. The RTA is a regional program of the Greater Raleigh Chamber of Commerce. HRTPO TTAC | Nov. 5, 2014 GOAL Secure a future interstate designation for the highway corridor from Hampton Roads to Raleigh via Elizabeth City and Rocky Mount, NC HRTPO TTAC | Nov. 5, 2014 FUTURE INTERSTATE INITIATIVE Hampton Roads and Raleigh-Cary are two of the largest east coast metropolitan regions served by a single primary Interstate route: • I-64 in Hampton Roads (I-264, I- 464, I-564, I-664, etc.) • I-40 in Wake County (I-440, I- 540, etc.) This initiative would create a second primary Interstate for both areas, and connect these two southern mid-Atlantic economic engines. HRTPO TTAC | Nov. 5, 2014 FUTURE INTERSTATE INITIATIVE Entire extent of the interstate corridor in Virginia would be within the City of Chesapeake HRTPO TTAC | Nov. 5, 2014 CONGRESSIONAL HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDOR Raleigh, N.C. – Norfolk, Va. corridor HRTPO TTAC | Nov.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael L. West, PGA Independence Golf Club, Midlothian, Virginia Mike
    Michael L. West, PGA Independence Golf Club, Midlothian, Virginia Mike was born June 24, 1960 in Burlington, North Carolina to Jack and Elsie West. He has one brother, David. Both of Mike’s parents and both of his grandfathers played golf. His father introduced him to the game at Shamrock Golf Club in Burlington when Mike was three years old. Mike later played at Piedmont Crescent, now Quarry Hills Country Club, in Graham, North Carolina. Mike’s father, Jack, along with Shamrock Golf Club’s Head PGA Professional Steve Walker, had a tremendous influence on Mike’s game at an early age. Father and son played numerous rounds together with Mike’s fondest memory being that of going to Pinehurst to play course #2 on Saturday mornings. Steve Walker had played collegiate golf at Wake Forest in the late 1960s and became like a big brother and mentor who introduced Mike to Wake Forest players such as Lanny Wadkins, Joe Inman, Jim Simmons, and Jack Lewis. Mike worked in the golf shop and on the outside at Piedmont Crescent while in high school. He picked the range in exchange for hitting practice balls. Mike graduated from the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill) with a degree in Business Administration. He played collegiate golf from 1978-1982, and won the 1980 Eastern Amateur, the 1982 North Carolina Amateur, and the 1982 Carolinas Amateur. Mike declared his professional status in 1983 and played in many PGA Tour and mini- tour events until 1988. He worked from 1989 to 1992 at Farmington Country Club in Charlottesville, Virginia for PGA Professional Bobby McIver and was elected to PGA membership while there in October of 1990.
    [Show full text]
  • Research Triangle Park
    Published on NCpedia (https://www.ncpedia.org) Home > Research Triangle Park Research Triangle Park [1] Share it now! Research Triangle Park by Wiley J. Williams, 2006 Computer under construction at an IBM production facility in Research Triangle Park, 1984. Photograph by Billy Barnes. North Carolina Collection, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Library. Research Triangle Park, the largest planned research center in the United States, was created in 1959 through the efforts of Governor Luther Hodges [2] and hundreds of scientists, politicians, and business leaders. Located between Raleigh [3] and Durham [4] and the Triangle's three acclaimed universities-the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill [5], Duke University [6], and North Carolina State University [7]-Research Triangle Park (RTP) in 2006 encompassed 7,000 acres and was home to more than 100 research and development organizations employing 38,000 North Carolinians. Smaller but highly successful research parks also existed in Charlotte [8], Greensboro [9], Rocky Mount, and elsewhere, playing an important role in the diversification of the state's economy. The need for a redirection of economic development away from traditional products such ast extiles [10], tobacco [11], and furniture [12] was envisioned in the early 1950s by some of North Carolina's morep rogressive [13] leaders. In 1952 Howard Odum, a renowned UNC-Chapel Hill sociologist and founder of the university's Institute for Research in Social Science [14], voiced a number of ideas about cooperative research centers that could benefit the state by combining the strengths of its three research universities. State leaders considered how these institutions could become a foundation for economic development.
    [Show full text]
  • 2040 Statewide Transportation Plan Challenges & Opportunities
    CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES SEPTEMBER 2011 Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... iii Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... ES‐i 1 Purpose of Report ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Planning Framework .............................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Study Goals ............................................................................................................................. 3 1.3 Report Organization ............................................................................................................... 4 2 North Carolina Transformation Reform Process (Policy to Projects) .................................................. 5 2.1 North Carolina Multimodal Investment Network .................................................................. 5 2.2 Level of Service and Investment Categories .......................................................................... 6 2.3 Organizational Performance Dashboard ................................................................................ 7 3 North Carolina Transportation System: A Snapshot ........................................................................... 9 3.1 Highways ...............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Research Triangle Park North Carolina
    RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK NORTH CAROLINA Located in the center of three tier one research KY universities, the Research Triangle Park (RTP) is the VA largest, and one of the most successful, research parks in the United States. Founded in the 1950s, TN Raleigh RTP is now home to more than 200 companies employing north of 50,000 people. Companies in the NC Port of Morehead City SC Park range from IT giants like IBM to entrepreneurial GA ventures hoping to commercialize the world’s next big idea. MAJOR EMPLOYERS Life Sciences n Bayer CropScience Duke University n Biogen 10 miles n GlaxoSmithKline n United Therapeutics Technology UNC Chapel Hill n IBM 12 miles n Cisco Systems RDU Int’l Airport n Freudenberg IT Adjacent n Lenovo n NetApp NC State University 14 miles Downtown Raleigh 17 miles NC Mountains 2.5 hours NC Beaches RTP 2 hours North Carolina FAST FACTS KEY INDUSTRIES n Created in 1959 n 7,000 Acres n Life Sciences n 22.5 Million Sq. Ft. of built space n Technology n 200+ companies employ 50,000 people n CleanTech n 4 of the 5 largest global Ag Biotech firms n Entrepreneurial Ventures The North American Bee Care Center at Bayer CropScience is dedicated to improving honey bee health. IBM became RTP’s first major tenant when they built their 600,000 square foot facility in 1965. The Frontier at RTP is an exceptional resource for entrepreneurs in the region. Companies located in RTP have 46% of the companies in received more than 3200 patents RTP are engaged in the and almost 2000 trademarks.
    [Show full text]
  • High Tech Down South by DOUG CAMPBELL
    RF Summer 2005 FINAL.ps - 7/12/2005 13:52 PM ECONOMICHISTORY High Tech Down South BY DOUG CAMPBELL t takes a good hour to tour University, and North Carolina State In the mid-1950s, Research Triangle Park (RTP) by University tentatively called Research Icar. Across this lush 7,000 acres, Triangle Park. few would have two miles wide and eight miles long, This struck Little as a superb idea. are more than 100 low-slung buildings, Even new to his job, he understood a imagined that home to some of the largest high-tech chief problem facing North Carolina’s companies on the globe. IBM, economy was that many of the science the North Carolina GlaxoSmithKline, and Cisco Systems and engineering graduates of its are just a sample of the firms employ- universities inevitably left for jobs pinelands would ing 38,000 well-paid professionals in large, often Northern cities. “I become home here. Forty-six years old, RTP is couldn’t do anything with my work in arguably the world’s premier research chemistry in North Carolina,” Little to a cluster of park, the envy of so many would-be says today at age 75. technology communities and the So Little packed his suitcase and high-tech firms, showpiece of North Carolina’s vaunt- went calling on captains of industry ed status in the New Economy. in New York. The reactions were but that was before All of which does not mask the sig- mostly positive, he recalls, but there nificant challenges facing RTP in the were no immediate takers.
    [Show full text]
  • City Plan 2030 TABLE of CONTENTS
    City Plan – 2030 Land Use & Comprehensive Master Plan City of Creedmoor, NC Adopted May 14, 2012 Creedmoor Board of Commissioners Mayor Darryl D. Moss Mayor Pro Tem John T. Stallings Commissioner Herman B. Wilkerson Commissioner Otha Piper, Jr. Commissioner Jimmy Minor Commissioner Larry Robinson Creedmoor Planning Board David Forsythe, Chair Mike Allen, Vice-Chair Steve Faucette Ed Gleason Mildred C. Goss Dennis Lester Neena Nowell Fay Ray City of Creedmoor Administration Thomas H. Mercer, City Manager Korena L. Weichel, City Clerk Robin E. Reif, Deputy City Clerk Scottie K. Cornett Wilkins, Economic & Transportation Projects Manager Jeff Brooks, Public Works Director Steven B. Colenda, Chief Building Inspector Brian M. Wilson, P.E., Public Works Engineer Thomas L. Currin, Esq., City Attorney Lori Dutra, Esq., City Attorney Technical Assistance Provided By: City of Creedmoor Planning Department Staff F. Richard Flowe, AICP, Planning, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator Randall K. Cahoon, AICP, City Planner Jana C. McMakin, AICP, City Planner Gary R. Fankhauser, ASLA, Urban Planner David C. Flowe, Planner, GIS Coordinator North Carolina Division of Community Assistance Oliver Bass, AICP, Chief Planner (Central Regional Office) Zachry Lee Nichols, AICP, Community Development Planner (Central Regional Office) Creedmoor City Plan 2030 TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 I. Purpose and Function ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]