Loading...
1998-06-29 Work Session NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26 WORK SESSION, JUNE 29, 1998 PAGE 559 ASSEMBLY The New Hanover County Board of Commissioners held a joint meeting with the Wilmington City Council and representatives of the University of North Carolina at Wilmington on Monday, June 29, 1998, at 7:00 p.m. in the New Hanover County Courthouse, 24 North Third Street, Wilmington, North Carolina. Members present were: Commissioners Buzz Birzenieks; Ted Davis, Jr.; Charles R. Howell; Vice-Chairman Robert G. Greer; Chairman William A. Caster; County Manager, Allen O’Neal; County Attorney, Wanda M. Copley, and Clerk to the Board, Lucie F. Harrell. Members present from the Wilmington City Council were: Mayor Hamilton E. Hicks, Jr.; Mayor Pro-Tem Katherine Bell Moore; Councilmembers Franks S. Conlon; Charles H. Rivenbark, Jr.; Harper W. Peterson, J. C. Hearne, II; Jim Quinn; City Manager, Mary M. Gornto; City Attorney, Thomas C. Pollard; and City Clerk, Penelope Spicer-Sidbury. Representatives present from the UNCW Board of Trustees were: Chairman Hanna G. Cage; Chairman-Elect Franklin Block; Robert Warwick, University of North Carolina Board of Governors; James R. Leutze, UNCW Chancellor; and Mark W. Lanier, Assistant Secretary to the UNCW Board of Trustees. Chairman Caster and Mayor Hicks called their respective boards to order. Mr. Bill Austin, Transportation Planner, reported the purpose of the meeting was to hear presentations and recommendations from URS Greiner, the transportation consultant, regarding alternatives for the Randall Parkway Extension east of College Road. The study began in the summer of 1997 with establishment of a committee consisting of members of the Wilmington City Council, New Hanover County Board of Commissioners and UNCW Board of Trustees. The Committee requested that an objective and unbiased study be performed to determine the need and location of the Randall Parkway Extension. Mr.Tim Keener and Scott Hoffeld, planners with URS Greiner, have spent five months examining the project. Four public meetings have been held to receive public input, and environmental and traffic modeling work has been completed on the project. The purpose of the Randall Parkway Extension project is both local and regional to assist with alleviating traffic at certain intersections in the area, particularly on College Road from Oleander Drive northward. The extension will also help to channel current and future traffic off the University campus and out of the College Acres Subdivision. The consultants have examined all alternatives as directed and another alternative received from public input. Mr. Austin advised that Mr. Hoffeld and Mr. Keener will present a technical summary of the work performed to date after which a question and answer period will follow. Mr. Hoffeld reported that an environmental feasibility study was performed, not an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment. The most problematic environmental issues will be developed and analyzed if a no-build alternative is recommended and pursued for construction with federal or state funding. A total of nine alternatives was reviewed. After evaluating each proposal, Alternatives A, B, and E were deemed reasonable with Alternative D added as a result of public comments. Conceptual design studies revealed that all building alternatives are feasible; however, each has limitations. After evaluating the four proposals, the two alternatives (A and E) connecting with Eastwood Road have greater benefits to the Wilmington transportation system than the Hooker Road proposal; however, the costs for these alternatives are greater because of the projected length of construction and the necessity of two stream crossings. Alternatives A and E would cross two residential neighborhoods and may require a longer noise wall than the other alternatives. Additionally, these two alternatives would affect land at the Duck Haven Golf Course and require the greatest acreage of undeveloped land. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26 WORK SESSION, JUNE 29, 1998 PAGE 560 Because of the number of residential relocations required with the Racine Drive Alternative (Alternative D) in the vicinity of the proposed connection with Randall Parkway, this alternative has the greatest projected right-of-way cost. However, this alternative would require the least amount of undeveloped land and would not require a pedestrian overpass. Alternatives A, B, and E, would follow a northern alignment just north of the UNCW property line and south of College Acres Drive. This option would require less undeveloped land but have the greatest number of residential displacements. Twelve to fifteen acres will be required from UNCW land for all alternatives except for the widening of Racine Drive (Alternative D) which will require about two acres. The impact on UNCW parking is the greatest with Alternatives A, B and E. No current UNCW buildings will be affected by any of the alternatives, and the footprint for only one future site will be impacted by Alternative C. All alternatives except D have assumptions for a pedestrian overpass. A pedestrian underpass was examined but was disregarded due to excessive cost. The total estimated cost of the project ranges from $6.5 million to $13.6 million. Transportation Benefits of the Alternatives on the Summary Table were discussed. TRANPLAN, a computerized transportation model that uses projected traffic needs, was used. Future traffic was simulated for the Hooker Road Alternative, Eastwood Road Alternative, Racine Drive Alternative, and the no-build alternative,. In every instance, traffic projections for all build alternatives were more favorable than for the no-build alternative in the year 2025. The purpose of the project is as follows: (1) to provide a highway street system with continuity to relieve traffic on College Road in the vicinity of Wrightsville Avenue and Oleander Drive; (2) to provide UNCW with a back-door access; and (3) to relieve traffic on Eastwood Road, Wrightsville Avenue and Oleander Drive. There is no single answer to the traffic problems that Wilmington is experiencing now or in the future. In evaluating continuity, the Hooker Road Alternative, furnishing an east-west link, provides better connection than another north-south link in this area. The Eastwood Road Alternative would benefit the Wrightsville-Oleander traffic more than the other alternatives. The Hooker Road Alternative would address the back-door access need for UNCW and accommodate traffic on Eastwood Road, Oleander Drive, and Wrightsville Avenue. Mr. Tim Keener presented the Alternative Scoring Table. This table is based on transportation, safety, environmental concerns, total costs, benefit to cost ratio, and public involvement with the College Acres community and UNCW. Each alternative was given a score of 1-9 in each of the categories. Each category was given a weight of about 14.3 percent based on the seven items considered. Mr. Keener noted that because public input had 2 columns, it increased the weight of the public to 28.5 percent of the vote. Public input was both verbal and written, and it resulted from the two meetings held with the College Acres community and two with UNCW. He noted that at all meetings, most of the comments were for the no-build alternative. Transportation issues were studied based upon the following items: (1) the overall transportation system in Wilmington; (2) the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP); (3) how the project would fit into plan; (4) vehicle miles and hours traveled; (5) savings for the build alternative versus the no-build alternative; and (5) the safety of each alternative. Concern was expressed that the no-build alternative received a poor safety rating compared to the other build alternatives which received better safety ratings. This was mainly due to the consideration of pedestrian traffic to and from parking lots without building anything, such as a pedestrian overpass. Alternative B, which would extend Randall Parkway to Hooker Road, had the best score, and thus would be the preferred alternative using the ranking system. The route was described on the display map. Regarding preferences, UNCW prefers the Racine Drive Alternative, which has the lowest cost-benefit ratio, but also has the lowest construction costs and probably the lowest right-of- way cost. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26 WORK SESSION, JUNE 29, 1998 PAGE 561 In closing, Mr. Keener stated this is a feasibility study to determine which alternative is the most feasible solution to relieving traffic problems. Considering the constraints mentioned earlier, URS Greiner recommends selection of a build alternative. Mr. Austin advised this concluded the presentation and stated that Mr. Hoffeld and Mr. Keener would be glad to answer any questions. Mayor Hicks asked if the cost of intersection improvements at Wrightsville Avenue had been factored into the plan. Mr. Keener explained that all alternatives included the widening of Wrightsville Avenue, but the cost had not been included in the plan. Mayor Hicks questioned what type of intersection was envisioned with Alternatives B and C at Rose Avenue and Mallard Street. Would there be a “no turn” right or left? Mr. Keener responded the only idea reviewed was four lanes in the area, and he stated a more detailed design would have to be studied in the future as part of the environmental assessment study. Mayor Hicks noted that the cost-benefit ratio reflected figures for the year 2025, and he asked if looking this far into the future was a standard methodology in studies of this type? Mr. Keener responded to the best of his knowledge the N. C. Department of Transportation does not have a standard methodology. He explained that a conservative rate of 7% was used in projecting all benefits and costs in lieu of using inflated dollars. Figures for the year 2025 were used because they were the only figures available. With the use of conservatively discounted figures, the methodology used should be sufficient for the study. Ms. Kimberly Hinton, a N. C. Department of Transportation Highway Planner, advised the department deals with at least 20-year projections in the design process in order to determine the thickness of pavement, required lighting, turn lanes, etc. Currently, the TRANPLAN computer program is being updated to reflect 20 to 25 year design projections; therefore, it would be logical to use the same projections for the study. Ms. Gage stated if an agreement is reached to select the preferred alternative at a cost of $13.5 million, a neighborhood will be ruined, a campus divided, and there will be no guarantee that in five to ten years traffic will not be bumper-to bumper in the same area. Mr. Keener advised he could not address the issue of traffic capacity in this area, but he could state that something must be done to relieve traffic congestion in this vicinity. URS Greiner fully recognizes that not one alternative will provide a solution to the traffic problems in Wilmington. Ms. Hinton noted it would be wonderful if the entire Thoroughfare Plan could be built at once, but this is not possible. One project will have to be completed at a time. Ms. Gage expressed concern for her question not being answered and she stated it appears that no one knows whether a significant difference in traffic will occur with the proposed Randall Parkway Extension. Also, there are many issues that have not been addressed, such as State budgeting for the project. Ms. Hinton stated she felt that completion of this project would be a major step in carrying out the overall Thoroughfare Plan. Mr. Warwick questioned whether a combination of A and B, or D and B were considered during the study? Mr. Keener responded no consideration was given to combining the alternatives. He explained when considering growth projections, including enrollment at UNCW, the planners were trying to resolve traffic problems. Land use was incorporated in the traffic projection model. During the public meetings, concern was voiced about the alternative that would facilitate redevelopment of the golf course into a high density residential area. After investigating this possibility, there is a potential for permitted higher density development because the golf course NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26 WORK SESSION, JUNE 29, 1998 PAGE 562 is zoned R-15 Residential and is privately owned. This means the owner could decide to redevelop the land at any time. The land use assumptions used were examined by URS Greiner as well as by the local planners. Mayor Pro-Tem Moore voiced concern about allowing high density and resolving the problem by asphalting the city. She asked if the road is extended, will the extension carry the present traffic, or is everyone anticipating more development in the area, which means we have accomplished nothing. Mr. Hoffeld responded that land use projections in the TRANPLAN model made some reasonable assumptions regarding land use. The alternative ranking the best overall, Alternative B, does not get close enough to the area to foster further development. Additionally, development in that area would be in the hands of county zoning. Mr. Warwick asked if pedestrian crossings and bicycle traffic through the apartment complexes for students had been investigated? Mr. Keener advised this item was of particular concern because Alternative D does not have a pedestrian overpass planned. Traffic projections in 20 to 25 years under the build alternative for Racine Drive are about the same as existing traffic projections. This is because widening projects in the area have assisted with better management of traffic. Alternative D provides a lower traffic volume in this area of Randall Parkway by routing traffic up to Eastwood Road via Racine Drive. The pedestrian crossing would be at Crews Drive, which would become a pedestrian facility under this option and would no longer be used for vehicular traffic. Councilmember Rivenbark noted the quickest way to get someone off a state highway onto a federal highway is the shortest point; therefore, he would envision using an in-place roadway which would not pass in front of one single-family residential dwelling, but would skirt seasonal and transient multi-family residential areas coming out in the middle of a heavy business area that needs this type of accessibility. The City Ordinance does not allow traffic generated from a commercial or office and institutional use to impact neighborhoods. The Eastwood Road project will be completed within the near future, the widening of the Military Cut-Off Road is on the Transportation Improvement Plan, and Wrightsville Avenue will be widened. It does not make sense to select any alternative that will have roads going through neighborhoods and the UNCW campus when there is an existing roadway that accomplishes this purpose. Mr. Hoffeld responded in determining transportation benefits, traffic on a road is reviewed and projected as increasing to a certain point at which time speed on the road decreases and vehicles choose another route. These are realistic assumptions that have been made in the model and table presented. The objective, purpose and need of the project is better addressed by the Hooker Road Alternative. The project should address the impacts and benefits for the entire Wilmington area, not one local area, since this is a public expenditure. UNCW Chancellor Leutze reported the University is interested in relieving traffic congestion in Wilmington. With 1,000 employees and almost 10,000 students, it is important for students to be able to move from point A to point B. Most universities have a major road running by or through the campus. The UNC system projects an increase of 50,000 students in the next few years, which is equivalent to two new universities. Only a few universities in the state can grow to accommodate these students because of land limits; however, UNCW has the available land and it is zealously interested in protecting it for future expansion. Residents of Wilmington should be aware that every student at UNCW brings in approximately $10,000 to the community. If the enrollment increases by 250 students, the Wilmington economy receives $3 million. The University is a growth industry at this point. Chancellor Leutze commented on Ms. Gage’s statement about URS Greiner not knowing the long-term impact of the proposed Randall Parkway Extension and he stated if the Hooker Road Alternative is selected, in 10 years the area could find itself in the same situation. NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26 WORK SESSION, JUNE 29, 1998 PAGE 563 Mr. Hoffeld responded that Eastwood Road traffic would be relieved by the Hooker Road extension, which is an important factor in the plan. He commented on traffic in ten years and stated there was no perfect solution to the problem. Chancellor Leutze summarized by saying there is no perfect answer, but the no-build option and the Racine Drive Alternative do have possibilities. Mr. Hoffeld disagreed and explained that a no-build option would not improve traffic, and the Racine Alternative would be marginal in better managing traffic and fitting into the Thoroughfare Plan for the entire area. There is no guarantee that future traffic problems will not be experienced; however, if something is not done, the area traffic will become worse. Mayor Hicks spoke on being realistic about funding of the Randall Parkway extension and stated with the northern by-pass being a funding priority, this project may not be funded for years. By that time, the demographics will have changed. Councilmember Peterson disagreed and stated he felt funding would be available for the Randall Parkway Extension project. He referenced the UNCW growth projections by Chancellor Leutze and stated if UNCW accepts that the University is part of the problem, the University should be willing to be part of the solution. If UNCW were self-contained and self-sufficient, the institution would not be adding to the problem. Growth expectations are going to create problems. If nothing is done, it is difficult to know what will happen in the next 10, 20, or 30 years. Mayor Pro-Tem Moore echoed the remarks by Mayor Hicks and questioned why are we taking such an aggressive route. According to the former Secretary of Transportation and the present Secretary of Transportation, this project is not funded and there are no plans to fund the project. The study began when members of the City Council, the Board of County Commissioners and officials at UNCW called a meeting to discuss the study performed by UNCW several years ago to address traffic needs of the University. It was found this study did not contain traffic projections or a cost- benefit ratio. Because of these technical problems, the same group decided to go ahead and address issues that were not included in the UNCW study. Mr. Warwick stated the primary need is to relieve traffic on College Road, and he suggested reviewing the most practical approach, which is widening Kerr Avenue to four lanes and tieing the road into I-40 at Sidbury Road or where the northern by-pass will connect. Mr. Austin responded the project must fit into the entire plan. Randall Parkway will connect into Independence Boulevard. Independence Boulevard is a north-south corridor which will soon be connected to Market Street. This project is funded and the right-of-way acquisition has begun. Completion of the project will provide a north-south corridor carrying traffic to Carolina Beach Road and eventually to the River Road. The number one priority of the urban area is the extension of Independence Boulevard to Smith Creek Parkway. This project will move traffic to Independence Boulevard, Independence Mall, Smith Creek Parkway, and provide one alternative to College Road. Chancellor Leutze noted that UNCW was located in New Hanover County because the people of the county levied a tax on themselves to bring an educational institution to this area He explained that the Racine Drive Alternative would take a considerable amount of the developed part of the campus, so UNCW was not asking to be totally unaffected. However, since UNCW is educating people from southeastern North Carolina, why should the University pay a price for fulfilling its mission. If everyone was convinced this plan would radically change traffic patterns and solve Wilmington’s traffic problems, UNCW would support any of the alternatives presented. Since it is difficult to project future growth and traffic demands, the cheapest, simplest alternative would be the best option with the least disruption to the campus and surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Mark Lanier advised that over the last 25 years many options had been reviewed to relieve the traffic problem on College Road. In the early 90's, the Department of Transportation NEW HANOVER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSBOOK 26 WORK SESSION, JUNE 29, 1998 PAGE 564 proposed connecting a road to Hooker Road. The UNCW Board of Trustees objected because of the loss of University property, the negative impacts to nearby neighborhoods, safety concerns, environmental concerns, the cost of the project, and lack of benefits. A possible alternative route would be the realignment of the College Road-Randall Parkway intersection and the use of College Acres Drive to Racine Drive. This option has not been fully evaluated in the URS Greiner Study. The stated purpose of the Randall Parkway Extension is to reduce traffic on College Road, Wrightsville Avenue and Oleander Drive. Since traffic counts were not stated during the meeting, this demonstrates that proposed objectives would not be met by connecting Randall Drive to Hooker Road. Also, a major factor to consider is safety. Chairman Caster asked what was the next step in the process? Mr. Austin responded the next step will be for URS Greiner to complete a final report and present it to the Transportation Advisory Committee. The Transportation Advisory Committee will make a recommendation on whether to pursue funding for the project. If the Committee decides to seek funding, the project will be placed on the TIP priority list. He stressed the importance of all parties working together to address traffic problems in the area. Funding for the project will depend upon a united effort from the community. Without complete support for the project, the funding may not be obtained. Mr. Caster commented on requesting N. C. Secretary of Transportation, E. Norris Tolson, to visit the area. He suggested selecting a time that would be convenient with Secretary Tolson and authorizing the two Clerks to work with the respective boards in securing a date to meet with him. ADJOURNMENT On behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, Chairman Caster expressed appreciation for the input received from the persons in attendance, and he adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lucie F. Harrell Clerk to the Board