Final Report by J S Lane Company, LLC

TABLE OF CONTENTS ! AREA!DIAGNOSTICS:!EXISTING!CONDITIONS!

Demographic!Trends! Pace!of!Growth! Racial!and!Ethnic!Compositions! Income! Education! Agriculture!and!River!Basins! FAMPO!Project!Study!Area! Policy!and!Context! Reducing!Congestion! Connectivity!and!Roadway!Functional!Classification! Supporting!Multimodal!Travel! Policy!Direction! Outreach! Steering!Committee! Stakeholders! Public!Engagement!

3! 3! 3! 3! 4! 5! 5! 6! 6! 7! 8! 10! 11! 11! 12! 13!

REGIONAL!NEEDS!AND!DEFICIENCIES!

17!

How!Recommendations!Happened! Land!Use!Choices! Travel!Demand!Model!and!Traffic!Forecasting!

17! 17! 19!

RECOMMENDATIONS!

23!

Land!Use!&!Development!Policy! General!Observations! General!Recommendations! Growth!Nodes!

23! 23! 23! 25!

! ! ! ! Roadways! Existing!+!Committed!Conditions!in!2040! Conditions!in!2040!with!Recommended!Projects! US!401!Corridor! Observations! Recommendations! Public!Transportation! Tier!I!V!Short!Range!Transit!Initiatives!2014V2019! Tier!II!V!MidVRange!Transit!Initiatives!2020V2030! Tier!III!V!LongVRange!Transit!Initiatives!2030V2040! Active!Modes:!Bicycle!and!Pedestrian!Travel! Observations! Recommendations! Hot!Spots!and!Growth!Nodes!

28! 30! 30! 31! 31! 31! 33! 33! 34! 34! 38! 38! 38! 41!

PRIORITIZATION!

51!

Overview!of!Prioritization! In!the!View!of!the!Public!and!Steering!Committee! Prioritizing!SystemULevel!Improvements!

51! 51! 51!

IMPLEMENTATION!“ACTION!PLAN”!

63!

Roadway!Policies!and!Best!Practices! Public!Transportation!Policies!and!Best!Practices! Bicycle!and!Pedestrian!Policies!and!Best!Practices!

63! 64! 65!

APPENDIX A. ACCESS MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES A-1

DEDICATION. The word meant something to Moses Mathis, aka, “The Bicycle Man.” Mr. Mathis dedicated 22 years to refurbishing old bicycles and giving them to at-risk children, sometimes more than 1,000 bikes in a single year. He passed away in July 2013, the same month as this Plan was adopted by the FAMPO Transportation Advisory Committee. On that day, the consulting firm of J S Lane Company, on behalf of the Fayetteville Area MPO and our Steering Committee, dedicated this plan in his name and made a $200 donation to the Bicycle Man Community Outreach Project. May the wind be ever at your back. Go to www.thebicycleman.com to find out more.

OUR VISION for the south and western precincts of Hoke and Cumberland Counties is to create a transportation system that is responsive to existing needs, and anticipates the needs of an area that is rapidly growing in population and complexity. By initiating and continuing this dialogue among many interests, we will create opportunities for urban and small-town lifestyles that distill the essence of this complexity in our towns and crossroads, while still preserving green spaces and a respect for rural lifestyles that make our place special.

Area Diagnostics: Existing Conditions This section of our Plan will begin to describe the demographic character of the study area, as well as the two counties (Hoke and Cumberland) in which the study area resides. The enormous influence of the Fort Bragg Military Reservation creates a unique atmosphere and level of dynamism that otherwise the area would not possess. Its rural charm is being acted on even faster than other places because of the influx of military personnel in recent years, and the pace of change has only slowed temporarily due to the recent national recession and ongoing recovery. After a discussion of the demographic sense of place, the policy context of the study will be broached. Understanding the positioning of the towns and counties inside the study area now can help to lead to a better understanding of the directions to take for the future.

Demographic Trends

The pace of development in Cumberland and Hoke Counties has altered the demographic characteristics of the project study area. The United States Decennial Census was used as a basis for understanding the changes between the years 2000 and 2010 with particular respect to demographic changes in race, income, housing, and population size. Hoke and Cumberland Counties differ substantially in terms of population size and industry type. As the project study area spans both counties, information from both counties will be helpful to understand the transformation occurring in the study area. The following sections expand on trends found in Cumberland and Hoke Counties. Pace!of!Growth! Cumberland County has a population of 319,431 people and is predominantly urban and suburban in character (Table 1). The County is home to the City of Fayetteville and the Fort Bragg Military Reservation. The County has twelve townships, Eastover, Falcon, Fayetteville, Fort Bragg, Godwin, Hope Mills, Linden, Pope Army Airfield, Spring Lake, Stedman, Vander and Wade. In addition to 11 townships and nine municipalities, Cumberland County has a number of County Cumberland County, North Carolina Hoke County, North Carolina

2000 302,963 33,646

2010 319,431 46,952

Percent Change 5.4% 39.6%

Table 2. County Growth, 2000 - 2010

diverse population. In 2000, Cumberland County had a white population at 55.2%. In 2010, the population of whites decreased by eight percent (8%). In 2000, the County had a racial makeup of 34.9% Black / African-Americans, which increased to 36.7% in 2010. In addition, minority populations increased in diversity. Cumberland County saw an increase in the Hispanic / Latino population of 44.3%. The Asian population increased from 1.90% to 2.2% during the same time period. In contrast, Hoke County presents a different narrative. While there was a modest increase in the white population from 44.5% to 45.3% between 2000 and 2010, there was a decrease in the black / African-American percent, which fell from 37.6% in 2000 to 33.5% in 2010. However, a major increase in the Hispanic / Latino percentage occurred during this time period in Hoke County, with the population increasing from 7.2% to 12.4%. It is also beneficial to note that there was a decrease in the Native American Population from 11.4% to 9.6% between 2000 and 2010. As the Cumberland County population increased, there was a shift toward increased diversity, but also a steady decrease in the white population. In Hoke, white population increased, albeit minimally, while minority communities also continued to expand. The racial groups of “Hispanic and Latino” and “Other” demonstrated particularly high growth rates in Hoke County, while other minority groups also grew in both counties, although by less dramatic rates. Table 2 provides more information.

Race/Ethnicity White Hispanic or Latino African-American American Indian Asian Other Total

Cumberland County 2000 2010 % Change 146,174 133,874 -8.4% 20,919 30,190 44.3% 105,731 117,117 10.8% 3,449 5,140 49.0% 5,694 7,090 24.5% 20,996 26,020 23.9% 302,963 319,431 5.4%

2000 12,567 2,415 12,664 3,852 278 1,870 33,646

Hoke County 2010 % Change 15,449 22.9% 5,823 141.1% 15,716 24.1% 4,512 17.1% 484 74.1% 4,968 165.7% 46,952 39.6%

large universities, technical schools, and colleges, including Fayetteville State University, Methodist University, and Fayetteville Community College. This county has, according to the 2010 census, seen a 5.4% population increase since 2000. Hoke County, on the other hand, is primarily rural in character with a 2010 population of 46,952. According to the 2010 US Census, Hoke County has seen a 39.55% increase in population since the 2000 US Census, marking a trend towards suburbanization and greater levels of development. Hoke is impacted greatly by the presence of the Fort Bragg Military Reservation, covering nearly the entire northern half of Hoke County north of the study area. There are, however, seven townships in Hoke: Ashley Heights, Bowmore, Dundarrach, Five Points, Raeford, Rockfish, and Silver City. Of the seven townships in Hoke County, only Raeford, Rockfish, and Silver City are within the project study area. Racial!and!Ethnic!Compositions!! Concurrent with a rapid increase in population in Cumberland and Hoke Counties over the last 10 years, the racial makeup of the two counties has changed substantially toward a more

Income! In Cumberland County, the trends indicate that less than 31% of residents are making more than $40,000 a year. Jobs in Cumberland are highest in Health Care and Social Assistance (17.2%), Educational Services (12.4%), Retail Trade (13.9%), and Accommodation and Food Services sectors (11.5%). The table on the following page (Table 3) shows the jobs by major industry sector and the percentage of people working those jobs in Cumberland County. In terms of Hoke County incomes, 30.5% of those who work in Hoke County make more than $40,000/year, while those who both live and work in Hoke County who make more than $40,000/year account for 27.2% of the population. Hoke County has a high percentage of jobs in Manufacturing (32.5%); Health Care and Social Assistance (10.7%); Professional, Scientific, and Technical services (11.0%); and Construction (10.4%).

Persons below Poverty Level, 2011

Table 1. County Race and Ethnicity, 2000 - 2010

25% 20% 16.6% 15% 10% 5% 0%

20.9% 16.1%

Both Hoke and Cumberland counties see residents entering, leaving, and staying within their respective county to work. However, there is a much higher percentage of workers that both live Jobs by Industry Sector Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction Utilities Construction Manufacturing Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Transportation and Warehousing Information Finance and Insurance Real Estate and Rental and Leasing Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services Management of Companies and Enterprises Administration & Support, Waste Management Educational Services Health Care and Social Assistance Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation Accommodation and Food Services Other Services (excluding Public Administration) Public Administration

HOKE Count Share 99 1.2% 0 0.0% 32 0.4% 833 10.4% 2,590 32.5% 135 1.7% 421 5.3% 117 1.5% 15 0.2% 81 1.0% 137 1.7% 881 11.0% 3 0.0% 734 9.2% 111 1.4% 851 10.7% 13 0.2% 371 4.6% 147 1.8% 409 5.1%

CUMBERLAND Count Share 169 0.2% 1 0.0% 312 0.3% 4336 4.4% 7,909 8.0% 2,739 2.8% 13,809 13.9% 3,892 3.9% 1,239 1.2% 2,015 2.0% 1,553 1.6% 5,338 5.4% 495 0.5% 6,331 6.4% 12,310 12.4% 17,109 17.2% 794 0.8% 11,404 11.5% 2,892 2.9% 4,771 4.8%

be commuting to, the US 401 corridor is a large employment draw now and is likely to remain so well into the future. Education! The statistics for educational attainment in Cumberland County reveal that those who work in the County and those who reside in Cumberland County are very similar. The comparison of Hoke County’s statistics, however, exposes the differences in the level of educational attainment between the two counties. Of those who work but do not reside in Cumberland County 16.5% have received a Bachelor’s degree or advanced degree and 16.3% who live and work in Cumberland County have received a Bachelor’s degree or advanced degree (Figure 1).

Table 3. Jobs by Industry Sector

Figure 1. Jobs by Worker Educational Attainment, 2011

The educational attainment levels in Hoke County are much lower in comparison to Cumberland County. Of those who work, but do not live, in Hoke County, only 12% have a Bachelor’s or other advanced degree. In comparison, of those who live in Hoke County only 13.8% have a Bachelor’s or other advanced degree.

and work in Cumberland County compared to Hoke. Over 61% of the workers that live in Cumberland County stay in their home county for work. In contrast, workers in Hoke County aged between 30 and 54 who work in the County but reside elsewhere make up 56.6% of the workforce. Nearly three-quarters of the workers in Hoke County arrive to work each day from outside the County. Over 82% of the workers residing in Hoke County travel outside the County to reach their workplace. The 2011 data shown in the Longitudinal Employment Data maps on this page illustrates the number of people who leave Hoke County to work elsewhere. While there are many employment centers these residents could

Housing Housing levels have grown in both Hoke and Cumberland counties (Figure 2). Hoke County had the highest percentage (38%) of households with a problem (as defined by HUD), although the number of owner-occupied housing has been increasingly rapidly. Nearly half (47%) of occupied housing units in Cumberland County were used by renters, whereas only 27% are renters in Hoke County.

Judging from the county demographic information, the project study area is in transition. Rapid increases in population have led to increased development, while employment is shifting from a more rural agrarian economy to a service-based economy. According to data from 2011 (http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/), the most common jobs of workers who live in the FAMPO project study area are: Health Care and Social Assistance (17%), Retail Trade (13%), Educational Services (10%), Accommodation and Food Services (10%), and Manufacturing (10%). The employment and residential numbers suggest that the FAMPO Study Area has high employment centers from Raeford to Fayetteville along Route 401. Of the 10,095 people that work in the Study Area, 7,793 people commute from outside to work, while 2,302 people both live and work in the FAMPO project study area. More than double the number of people who work in the study area (24,084) live in the project study area but commute elsewhere for work, presumably in Fayetteville and at the Fort Bragg Military Reservation. From a transportation perspective, US 401 will continue to carry much of the eastwest through traffic generated by any new development, so planning should incorporate mitigation of the effects of increased congestion. More information on this subject is presented in the following section, as well as specific recommendations later in the document.

Figure 2. Housing Units, Cumberland and Hoke Counties, 2000-2010

Agriculture!and!River!Basins! Cumberland and Hoke Counties are considered part of the Sandhills Region of the Carolinas. The Sandhills is the section of land nestled between the coastal plain and the piedmont regions of North Carolina. This section of land is rich in long leaf and loblolly pines, leading to a strong timber industry. Soybean, corn, and cotton continue to be produced here, although at reduced levels than in days past. Poultry (both turkey and chicken) is also a leading farm product. (Source: Working Lands Protection Plans for Hoke and Cumberland Counties.) The western half of Hoke County falls within the Lumber River Basin, while the eastern half and all of Cumberland County is contained within the Cape Fear River Basin. FAMPO!Project!Study!Area! The FAMPO study area straddles both Cumberland and Hoke Counties, with the majority of the area located in Hoke County. The following figure (Figure 3) shows the study area location overlaid with employment density. The larger dots represent more jobs, while the darker shading indicates the density of jobs within a certain area. Jobs are located along the US 401 Corridor in areas close to the Fort Bragg Military Reservation and are also congregated around Raeford and towards Fayetteville. This graphic illustrates very well one of the major transportation and land use challenges in the Study: there are many more employment destinations east of the Cumberland / Hoke County line leading to a large, peak period flow of traffic. While commutation accounts for only about 20% to 25% of all trip-making, a disproportionate share of those trips occur in two short bands of time, creating the peak period traffic problems that exist today.

Figure 3. Job Location Densities (US Bureau of the Census, 2011)

Policy and Context

! Unified Development Ordinance and City of Raeford 2030 Land Use Plan – January 1,

The following is a summary of the Study Area as seen through the eyes of our stakeholders, our staff, and our public. Additional details on how we engaged the public are contained elsewhere in this report; this section simply highlights how we view the current situation and context.

! Fayetteville UDO effective July 1, 2011 ! Cumberland County Land Use Policies Plan – Cumberland County, Hope Mills, Spring Lake,

The study team conducted a thorough review of the existing plans, policies and practices conducted by local governments. The reason why is simple: as our area grows and develops, the single most important factor for how our place will look, function, and satisfy our vision for the future is the policies that direct private (and public) investment. For example, when there are too many driveways allowed on a street, that street is more prone to accidents, congestion, and vehicle delay – all of which then require significant infusions of taxpayer dollars to fix – than if the street capacity is preserved. Figure 4 indicates the main ways that a policy-driven approach can help resolve issues before they require expensive capacity improvements through managing access points and signal timing; improving connectivity; and improving design and travel options. Often, these actions seem to be “common sense,” but the reality is that there is a persistent disconnect between decisions made about land development and transportation investment decisions. Sometimes, the individual actions seem insignificant – but still add up to a congested, dysfunctional roadway.

2010 Eastover, Stedman, Wade, Falcon, Linden, And Godwin – January 2009 ! Cumberland County 2030 Growth Vision Plan – November 2008 ! Cumberland County 2030 Growth Strategy Map - 4/20/2009 ! Cumberland County Land Use Policies Plan - 7/23/2009 ! Hope Mills Ordinance Zoning Ordinance – 10/20/2008 ! Hope Mills Subdivision Regulations - 10/19/2009 ! Draft Southwest Cumberland County Land Use Plan - 3/16/2012 ! Small Area Study of Cumberland County ! RULAC, Sandhills GIS, and the Green Growth Toolbox ! Sustainable Sandhills

Figure 4. Primary Ways of Addressing Traffic Congestion

Obviously, the decisions about regulating development are sensitive and should be debated openly: in a later section we provide additional “best practice” recommendations tailored to what we’ve seen in our communities as well as from soft spots identified in the following review. The following documents were included in this review; while not all-inclusive and subject to becoming out-of-date as new or updated plans and policies are adopted, this list is comprehensive and was developed in conjunction with the staffs of each of the main governmental entities in the study area. ! Hoke County Zoning Ordinance, current version - as amended on their website ! Ordinance amending The Subdivision Regulations of Hoke County - as amended on their

website

! Hoke County Land Use Plan – Adopted April 4, 2005 ! City of Raeford 2030 Land Use Plan – effective date of September 8, 2008.

Reducing!Congestion! Most communities wanted to preserve and protect existing community character while accommodating new development. However, protecting the rural identity may not accommodate desired new development; for example: ! no zoning of farm parcels; ! western and southern portions of the County should be low-density residential areas; ! discourage commercial and industrial use of the land which would substantially interfere with

the development or continuation of agriculture; and ! preserve rural roads for agricultural uses.

Only a few jurisdictions specifically recognized economic development in their land use documents. However, the economic benefits of Fort Bragg Military Reservation were quite evident, being cited in a number of places. All of the documents accepted the responsibility to

prevent the encroachment of incompatible land uses into areas that may compromise the military mission of Fort Bragg. The Base itself recognizes Agricultural and Conservation Districts as some of the best uses for land immediately adjacent to the Base. While many of the land use plans seem to focus on restrictions, it is certain that the larger intent is to attract business that buys into the community character rather than allow economics to dominate the land use decisions. The language in the studies implies that the communities are interested in using land as well as the traffic flow to reinforce a “highest and best use” planning philosophy. Almost all the documents made some reference to reducing congestion. Some emphasized dispersing the population and traffic to avoid congestion and overcrowding. Others advocated containing sprawl to combat traffic congestion. Anti-sprawl is more consistent with the land use strategy for only allowing the highest density in areas with all the urban services already existing. There is no doubt that commercial growth is attracted to the exposure that high traffic volumes present, so linear growth will continue to occur along arterial corridors. Where commercial growth might threaten the functional purpose of the arterial roadway, some planners have proposed “marginal access streets.” When imposed, these regulations suggest that the local government may require a developer to provide a ‘frontage’ or ‘backage’ street parallel to the highway, which eliminates the intrusion of property driveways directly onto the thoroughfare, thereby reducing the number of new conflict points, the degree of crash potential, and maintaining uninterrupted traffic flows. Almost all the communities endorse ‘rural strategies’ to steer commercial development to designated nodal points along the highway, as opposed to ‘strip commercial development’, and to limit sprawling development patterns that induce longer trips. Strip developments, while common enough inside the study area along major thoroughfares, were consistently thought to be unattractive, reduce road capacity, and create

Connectivity!and!Roadway!Functional!Classification! Property must have direct vehicular access to and from one or more public streets, or private streets with public access. Therefore, most of the documents called for adequate street networks to carry the intended traffic and described forms of road hierarchy at several levels. For example, highway commercial district retail and services can be located and designed in such a manner so as to promote aesthetics, the safe and efficient movement of traffic, and not unduly burden adjoining thoroughfares. High density residential was recommended for parcels within ¼-mile of an existing major or minor thoroughfare with direct access to a collector street, whereas medium-density residential within two miles of an existing major or minor thoroughfare. The planned street layout of a proposed subdivision should be compatible with existing or proposed streets and their classifications on adjoining or nearby tracts. Alleys may be required to the rear of nonresidential lots, as well as behind townhouses along public streets to avoid curb cuts. Alleys should be of a width that is useable by service vehicles. These are examples of a graduated intensity of land use being integrated into a network of roadway that has functional requirements beyond the immediate developments being served. Fayetteville established a ‘Land Use Policies Location Criteria Matrix’, which includes a road hierarchy. Several of the smaller jurisdictions use a ‘connectivity index’ to measure the adequacy of the road network at the subdivision level. Zoning codes often include qualifying statements like “minor residential streets shall be laid out so as to discourage through traffic” to address the need for enhanced connectivity. One document went beyond vehicular traffic to address separation of vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic. Added benefits to buffers in streetscape and motor vehicle use areas are: abate

NCDOT Complete Streets Program NCDOT has adopted a new strategy for building streets that… …Evaluates the existing and future users of the street and determine how to make the facility safe and accessible for all users regardless of how they are traveling, and …Concludes that six street types (with three levels of hierarchy) can serve nine separate types of the built environment. This multi-modal congestion study will benefit greatly by adopting these NCDOT principles into their land use ordinances, subdivision regulations, and zoning strategies. safety issues. All of the land use plans advocate conformity to adopted general street plan and/or major thoroughfare plan of the town, but at a minimum all meet the NCDOT Construction Standards for Subdivision Roads North Carolina Secondary Roads, Policies, and Procedures. Most of the jurisdictions adopted the NCDOT Standards by reference as the major and minor thoroughfare construction standards.

glare, filter dust, provide shade, attenuate noise, preserve open space and reduce the visual impact of pavement. One community mandates that street trees shall be planted on both sides of all new streets. Setbacks offer a way to preserve land for expansion of the future transportation network. Most of the jurisdictions encourage deep front yard setbacks (i.e., 25’ or more) except in Central Business District (CBD) where there is desire for an urban edge to frame the streetscape environment. Inclusions like minimum block spacing (i.e. 1,800’) and maximum intersection size (i.e. circumference no larger than 4,000’) placed in some subdivision regulations essentially fixes neighborhood designs, hopefully they are well thought-out as semi-permanent fixtures of the community.

Other special zoning language recognizes not only the vehicular attractions to the site but also the internal movement within the site. This might make a classification like a Light Industrial District with minimal exterior movement of vehicles be considered in what would otherwise appear to be an incompatible use. Regulatory citations like this help to establish a broader mix of land use possibilities. Supporting!Multimodal!Travel! Bicycle'and'Pedestrian' Fayetteville’s new UDO gives an excellent example of promoting a bicycle and pedestrian friendly environment. Within Traditional Neighborhood Districts – mixed-use, small-lot, pedestrian-oriented communities where residents can meet some of their employment, shopping, and recreation needs within the same development – 80% of all residential dwelling units must be within a five-minute walk of a neighborhood center. Most communities required sidewalks (4’to 5’) to be installed along both sides of all streets, within subdivisions and along the major thoroughfare for commercial development, where a curb-and-gutter street cross-section exists. Raeford’s Land Use Plan cited the serious lack of sidewalks and streetlights as a deterrent to walking. A developer is generally required to pay the cost inside the development and sidewalks along public streets as a shared cost (one study specified 50/50). The Americans with Disability Act (ADA) accessibility standards were universally specified for sidewalk construction. In one town a 5’ sidewalk was required on one side of the street for all subdivisions and/or other pedestrian amenities such as trails and greenways, which provide equal or better performance. Provision of pedestrian corridors was referenced throughout the documents in unlikely places like mobile home parks and more commonly in parking areas and sidewalks along building facades; walks installed adjacent to parking areas should protect against vehicular bumper overhang. All the communities emphasized ‘access to parks’ (playgrounds, schools and other public places) via streets or walkways, with dedicated pathways ranging from 10 to 20 feet in width. Open space should be contiguous wherever possible. Many plans referenced specific complimentary greenway, bicycle and pedestrian plans; one of which included bike lanes as part of street construction standards. Raeford’s Land Use Plan cited a need to develop pedestrian and bicycle plans for the City. Buffering is used to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, 10’ to 40’ beyond the right-of-way with select landscaping with safety and security concerns in mind. A secure bicycle rack is a requirement in several commercial zoning district descriptions, i.e. for all parking lots greater than 50 spaces and parking spaces shall be less than 100 linear feet from the primary building entrance; one space per each 10 off-street parking spaces; maximum of ten bicycle spaces. Public'Transportation' Transit benefits from creating high density stop opportunities by zoning Community Commercial along growth corridors identified in City plans, with larger horizontal mixed-use development. For example, high density residential within one-half mile of a neighborhood, community, or regional shopping center and be located in vertical mixed use development and Downtown Municipal Service Districts, with a mix of uses (including more high-density residential development) to promote a stronger pedestrian-oriented environment (with a reduced need for parking). Levels of adequate off-street parking appear to rely on minimum standards set by traffic impact study rates. Only one document specified no minimum off-street parking requirements in the central business district (CBD) while another recognized the value of parking as a traffic reduction strategy. The combination of high-density attractions and restricted parking

is an illustration of the type of carrot-and-stick approach needed for transit to penetrate the choice rider market. Land use references that specifically supported transit service were rare and usually tangential in the documents that were reviewed, i.e. there should be minimal walking to transit stations in high-priority corridors, and control parking supplies to promote alternative modes of travel to the single-occupant vehicle. While the jurisdictions all defer to NCDOT roadway design guidelines, they also tended to reiterate some consistent traffic safety requirements, listed below. ! Intersecting streets shall be laid out so as to intersect as nearly as possible at right angles

(almost every subdivision regulation included this sentence) ! No driveway shall be closer than 20’ from any intersection, measured from the right-of-way

line ! No obstruction to visibility of vehicles shall be erected, planted, maintained, or allowed

within 2-10’ of a corner lot. Fences and walls should not obstruct the vision of motorists or pedestrians, or otherwise create a safety hazard (includes sight triangle dimensions) ! Street offsets should be minimalized, as they create dangerous sets of multiple turns as opposed to four-way intersections that have only fewer points of conflict ! Corner radii at street intersections shall be rounded with a reasonable radius (i.e. 25’) ! All off-street parking and loading areas shall be arranged for convenient access and safety of pedestrians and vehicles While these may not seem to be congestion mitigation strategies, they do in fact make travel safer as well as provide quicker response times by emergency vehicles attending to an incident. With incidents contributing as much as half of all automobile travel delay (capacity constraints and other non-recurring incidents like construction or weather account for the other half) – designing for road safety is paramount. More detailed safety features such as signage, landscaping, and buffering can be incorporated at the time the conceptual site plan is developed. Areas'of'Special'Interest' A trend in land use planning is to require all the base requirements of a particular zoning classification and then add an ‘overlay’ of extra requirements that address a specific user and/or restriction, such as Airport, Hospital, River, Historic/Landmark, or Road Corridor. For example, a highway overlay corridor district might establish design and access standards for development and include gateway features. Rural area land use plans might provide similar controls through a specific “Access Management Plan” for example, the Raeford Road/US 401 North overlay district advocates controlled commercial nodes at: US 401 and Rock Fish, Davis’ Bridge, Wayside and East Hoke. Conservation area overlays were the primary focus of the recent Sustainable Sand Hills Study that identified natural and wildlife resources down to the upland habitat environments that rare species of animals rely on, and not just their immediate nesting grounds. Other recognized corridors for rural commercial development included: South Hoke, Andrews Rd., Hawkeye Sands, Cope Rd., Dunarrach, Five Points, 15/501 and Army Rd. The ‘Old Ammo Supply Point’ is Fort Bragg's last large tract of undeveloped land. This 600 acres, now being called Patriot Point, will serve the military population working and/or living on the Base that could reach 12,000 people. The remaining western 804 acres will be preserved in wetlands. The planned road, utilities, offices, barracks and motor pool construction is estimated to cost $370 million. In late 2005, the North Carolina Department of Transportation completed a $16 million project to widen Cliffdale Road to two lanes in each direction west of Reilly Road. The section of Cliffdale along Patriot Point is a divided, four-lane road with a grassy median and a 50mph speed limit. In 2010, NCDOT acquired approximately 100 acres of the 600-acre Sanders’ Homestead property for the planned Outer Loop, for $15.8 million. State plans call for

an interchange connecting the loop to Cliffdale Road, just south of Patriot Point and is funded for construction with a completion year of 2016. When implemented, the Fort Bragg Military Reservation desires an additional access gate from Cliffdale Road directly into Patriot Point. 1 Based on stakeholder conversations, the remaining 500 acres associated with the Saunders’ property is most likely intended for intense commercial use with a mix of office, institutional and apartments. The Joint Land Use Study between the Fort Bragg Military Reservation and Cumberland County (May 2003) first proposed a one-mile buffer between the civilian and military activities, which would be achieved via purchase of property or restriction on all development impacted by the Noise and Accident Potential Zones (NAPZ's) around Fort Bragg Military Reservation, Pope Army Airfield, Simmons Army Airfield, and Fayetteville Regional Airport. The ordinance recommends developments comply with the adopted NAPZ for Cumberland County.

Evaluating'Policy'Adherence' The choice of wording in a zoning ordinance or policy is crucial: “must” and “shall” have a different meaning than “should” or “prefer.” While the policy guidance presented in this Plan provides a source of best practice material that may be incorporated later through the government’s typical review and modification processes, the actual language that is adopted – as well as understanding how hard it may be to avoid compliance through variances, determination by planning/zoning boards, or other avenues – provides a good indication of the “strength” of the commitment to creating a good policy environment. The following figure (Figure 5) provides an illustration of the key policy areas and each

value 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4

Figure 5. Policy Adherence Evaluation (value of wording used to generate scores shown at right)

1 Source: Fayetteville Observer, March 18, 2012.

key(word require: shall:* significant: control:* prohibit:* encourage: preferred:* promote: should:* support: discourage:* adequate:* allow,*permit,* authorize:* may:* reasonable,* reasonably:*

interpretation(of(control(level to*mandate*something mandatory,*not*optional;*a*more*formal*term*for*“will” important;*determined*by*quantity*or*relative*impact to*regulate*or*direct not*allowed,*period;*to*totally*prevent to*favor*or*foster*(also*see*support) the*favored*course*among*alternatives*but*does*not*preclude*other*options to*proactively*encourage,*to*take*positive*steps preferred*or*recommended*but*not*mandatory to*foster;*may*imply*financial*support to*not*favor;*to*dissuade sufficient*to*achieve*the*intended*purpose*or*prevent*harm official*action*to*let*something*happen provides*the*option,*but*not*required;*permissive practical,*just*enough*to*do*the*job;*not*extreme

jurisdiction’s level of adherence to that policy area. By using key words instead of a purely subjective measure based on opinion, this policy analysis indicates which areas the communities in the Study Area are providing a greater level of control in various policy areas. Generally, larger cities have more need to exert a greater control over development practices to ensure conformity both with existing developments as well as to satisfy the expectations of urban residents in complex built environments. This statement appears to be true in our study area as well, with Fayetteville having a substantially higher level of control on average than the other communities, including Fort Bragg. It should be noted that greater control can also have a chilling effect on some forms of development at certain times, which in turn may push development to fringe areas just outside the reach of municipal controls. This effect contributes to sprawling development and traffic congestion as well as increased costs of public services and taxes to pay for them. However, the lasting impact that private development and public development actions have on the quality of the built environment for future generations demands that close attention be paid to policies. The solution to achieving this balance is to communicate regularly among jurisdictions to ensure that regulatory practices do not get substantially more rigorous than in other, nearby locations. The development of Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs), joint citizen committees, and working through regional bodies like FAMPO and councils of government become critical tools that have to be wielded frequently to produce the desired results. These discussions must also include the private development community as well, not only because they are the ones most immediately Policy Direction Development Checks and Balances Evolution – newest 1) Develop a flexible, but consistent, road hierarchy framework tools to move steadily a) Respect Rural vs. Urban character forward b) Codify the vision, i.e. formed based planning c) Complete Streets – multimodal with contextual design Think of roadway as a 2) Support the relationship between transportation and land use piped utility – to flow a) Access control – appropriate to the roadway function smoothly; need bends, b) Building Setback – to allow for roadway expansion valves, gates and c) Circulation - channelize flow all the way to the destination insulation d) Parking – to support alternative transportation/multimodal e) Mobility - pass through, regional and local traffic service needs f) Safety – minimize traffic delay due to incidents Logical and safe yet 3) Protect the designation and recognition of corridor character and comfortable and purpose convenient a) Parcel access – consistent with “highest and best” use of land b) Mix use – livable communities with alternative transportation c) Concentrated development – nodal centers along corridor d) Overlays - Historic/Cultural/Scenic/etc. Make it make business 4) Maintain economic viability sense a) Respect existing property values b) Grow the tax base c) Diversity of opportunity and agglomeration potential Ecological common 5) Support cultural and environmental resources sense a) Preserve open space b) Protect natural resources –avoidance and mitigation Tools to make 6) Create programs to make it work together adjustments a) Adopt technology b) Way-finding signage c) Enforcement d) Education Table 4. Development Checks and Balances

impacted by many forms of policy changes, but also because their input can be invaluable to achieving the goals of regulation without incurring undue hardships to local economies. Policy!Direction! Based on the review of policies, plans, and ordinances from government agencies throughout the study area, a number of potential policy directions were identified (Table 4). These policy directions should be promulgated for review by the public and steering committees, as well as local planners, engineers, and public officials before proceeding in the development of policy guidance. List'of'Implementation'Directions' ! The development patterns should not compromise the primary function of the roadway and

vice versa. Land use plans provide the guiding principles for the jurisdictions’ codes and ordinances – in all cases they call for adequate roadway connectivity to support the proposed land uses. While NCDOT largely determines major roadway design, the local jurisdiction can influence the traffic flow by regulating: land use intensity, building setbacks, connectivity, access control points, advertisement and parking provisions, which ultimately determines traffic impedance. With the FAMPO / NCDOT Comprehensive Transportation Plan in progress and many road expansion and improvements already in the NCDOT pipeline, roadway design is almost a given. However, NCDOT has stated that they are open to discussing new ‘Complete Streets’ roadway features. ! Channelization is necessary to funnel outside traffic from the highway to local destinations, whereas the day-to-day functions of the local traffic, such as shopping or banking, can be circuitous and dispersed to avoid bottlenecks during peak load periods. This can be achieved by adequate spacing standards for primary and secondary collector streets and providing multiple access points to regional attractions. Additional trip reduction can be achieved by creating livable communities with a full complement of amenities. ! The image of the community changes with time and new updated regulatory language and design ordinances need to be updated for the community to stay responsive and economically vibrant. Newer codes tend to use the same base language of the past, but incorporate allowances for mixed uses through special use permitting processes and establishing overlays to address rapidly changing economic conditions and environmental issues. ! There is impressive language to support alternative transportation in the existing land-use plans. Pedestrian and bicycle plans are more fully integrated into land use plans than transit, which is rarely mentioned. Alternative transportation needs to build a track record of success before it can be considered a viable alternative to the automobile. Communities can petition for bike, transit and pedestrian features being added within the ROW and/or decide to require them through other means: grants, planned unit development, subdivisions, payments in lieu of provisions, and so forth. ! Most of the safety issues related to congestion can be handled by deferring to NCDOT roadway design standards. However, there are opportunities to build safer environments through land use design outside of the roadway that will reduce the number and severity of crashes inside the roadway. An obvious solution is providing adequate space and buffering for safe pedestrian and bicycle travel. Additional crash reduction can come from clustered commercial development at designated nodes that are engineered to be safer; traffic calming measures like bollards at crosswalks; and narrow lane widths where alternative forms of transportation are encouraged, and intensity that warrant traffic signals. ! Open space and farmland will remain under development pressure as long as both Cumberland and Hoke counties remain prime locations for residential growth. Hoke County was the single fastest-growing North Carolina county leaping ahead by almost 5% between

2010 and 2011. Cumberland County ranks fifth on the list for least amount of negative home equity out of 386 urban counties in the United States. Only 4.2% of homeowners in Cumberland County were stuck in an unfavorable mortgage situation in the fall of 2011; by comparison Buncombe County has 6.4% of mortgages “under water.” ! Fort Bragg Military Reservation is the economic engine for the Region, and Fayetteville residents are generally grateful for the expansions that have occurred there in recent years. Yet Fort Bragg officials are sensitive to important “good neighbor” issues. One example is maintaining equity of Fort Bragg Military Reservation transportation improvements in relation to others in the region. Another is the assumed impact of Fort Bragg Military Reservation mobile and point source pollutant emissions on regional air quality conformity. And others include the impacts of numerous military retirees on land use development and traffic” 2 . Another preservation success was announced by Sustainable Sandhills Project Director, which transferred 390 acres in Cumberland County to the Carvers Creek State Park.3

Policy'Principles' Step 1: Visioning – ‘refresh’ your community image - use the ‘intentional’ transportation network to market this image. Gateways are important. Step 2: Adopt Complete Streets Policy Standards – set up educational sessions with NCDOT to learn more about their ‘contextual’ road design vision. Determine if there is need for a more granular land use and/or road classification for your community. Remember changes must be incorporated into local regional plan before complete streets features can be considered in NCDOT projects. Step 3: Model the traffic impact of the existing planned land uses – establish a base case scenario for the study area. Step 4: Develop a more sophisticated local roadway hierarchy for the study area based on the model run traffic volumes, determine what ‘complete street’ elements may need to be added, i.e. main street features incorporated into designated commercial nodes of rural development. Revisit current projects in the NCDOT pipeline and decide if they are truly meeting all the needs for the future, not just what we can foresee now. Step 5: Review the land use regulations to ensure they are consistent with the roadway network and complete street features being proposed. Step 6: Adopt some common standards (road connectivity index, unified planning ordinances, growth management principles, road typologies, etc.) to strengthen the Region’s position in the North Carolina and global marketplace to ensure its competitive standing for attracting new, young employees and job creators.

Outreach Outreach to the community was a significant part of the Southwestern Cumberland County and Northeastern County Multimodal Congestion Plan. This outreach took many forms and spanned the life of the project. Goals and Vision The Vision for the Southwestern FAMPO area was developed in concert with three main groups, a Steering Committee, Stakeholder Committee, and the general public. The collective vision for the area is summarized by the planning factors adopted by FAMPO and encoded in federal legislation:

2 NCSU, TRANSIMS EDP modeling pilot study, August 2000. 3 Debbie Crane, Director of Communications for the North Carolina Chapter of The Nature Conservancy, 11/26/11.

! Support the economic vitality of the Fayetteville Metropolitan Area, especially by enabling

global competitiveness, productivity and efficiency; ! Increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users; ! Increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and non-motorized users; ! Increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight; ! Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve quality of life,

and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns; ! Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight; ! Promote efficient system management and operations; and ! Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.

The Vision of the Planning process is taken directly from the stakeholder involvement process and was developed throughout that process, not as an uninformed or vague declaration of values created prior to reviewing the data or hearing from the public or stakeholders. This Vision can be summarized as follows: Our Vision for the south and western precincts of Hoke and Cumberland Counties is to create a transportation system that is responsive to existing needs, and anticipates the needs of an area that is rapidly growing in population and complexity. By initiating and continuing this dialogue among many interests, we will create opportunities for urban and small-town lifestyles that distill the essence of this complexity in our towns and crossroads, while still preserving green spaces and a respect for rural lifestyles that make our place special. The engagement of a Steering Committee and Stakeholder Committee was integral development of this Plan, and helped us shape this Vision along Name with the public that attended meetings throughout the 18-monthJerry Bradley long planning process. Will Deaton Will Denning Jim Dougherty Steering!Committee! John Ellis The Steering Committee members are the primary contact Robert Farrell person and liaison between the project team and the members’ Conrad Garrison respective agency or group. Members are responsible for Richard Hancock providing the project team with any planning documents relative Karen Hilton to the study, set a course for the study process, and providing Lee Jernigan review and guidance throughout the study. Members are also Felicia Locklear responsible for identifying stakeholders to participate in the Bobby McCormick process and sharing the study progress and options to other Neil Perry members within their agencies. Finally, steering committee Jean Powell members will assist the project team in presenting the final Glen Prillaman document to their agencies for adoption. The steering committee Tim Shea was comprised of the people listed in Table 5. Scott Shuford Rob Stone Darius Sturdivant Janet Robertson Mike Rutan Roy Turner James Upchurch Frank West Mike Wood

to the Organization/Affiliation NCDOT City of Fayetteville Cumberland County Planning Board Ft. Bragg Regional Land Use Adv. Committee Town of Hope Mills Hoke County Hoke County NCDOT City of Fayetteville City of Fayetteville Town of Raeford FAMPO City of Fayetteville Hoke County Commissioners Fort Bragg Fort Bragg City of Fayetteville NCDOT NCDOT Lumber River Council of Governments Cumberland County Cumberland County Planning Board NCDOT NCDOT Town of Raeford

Table 5. Steering Committee Membership

The Steering Committee provided valuable information about and plans for their respective organizations that were incorporated into this plan. The Committee also provided key direction for the plan. The planning process and notable steering committee activities are shown in Figure 6, and detailed as follows.

Six stakeholder meetings were held throughout the process, two in Cumberland County and two in Hoke County. Stakeholders were also invited to attend the public meetings held as part of the process. The stakeholder meetings were held on: ! May 22 – Cumberland County ! May 23 – Hoke County ! August 29 – Cumberland County ! August 30 – Hoke County ! June 18 – Hoke County ! June 20 – Cumberland County

! March 7, 2012- Introduce the project team, discuss the overall purpose of the project, define

the study area, identify problems to be addressed

! May 10, 2012- Summary of initial public involvement, review of survey results, review of

existing conditions analysis, discussion of existing policies, overview of existing land uses Development of preferred land use scenario.

! July 26, 2012 – Discussion of trends, and planned land use scenarios.

Figure 6. Study Process via the Steering Committee

! October 16, 2012 – Overview of preferred land use scenario.

Discussion of modeling results, discussion of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit elements, roadway cross section exercise ! March 5, 2013 – Discussion of recommendations ! June 20th, 2013 – Presentation and review of final report Stakeholders! Stakeholders are individuals that will be directly or indirectly affected by the recommendations in the Plan, typically landowners, business owners, or members of community organizations. Stakeholders have a vested interest in the plan and their input is vital for ensuring that the plan has the support of the community and that the Herb Beckwith Charlie L Grimes Yvonne Horedia recommendations in the Plan contain elements that Elizabeth Blevins Pat Hall Lisa Ann-Cruz support their individual strategies and plans within the Cynthia Bracey Sharen Whart Mitchell White Laretta Dunmore greater context of the Region. Stakeholders are Brenda Cameron Keri Palma Dale A Schram Amy Rich responsible for promotion of the Plan within the Daniella Clause A Cook Thomas Payne Julie Carver community, particularly with respect to the public John Patrycja Cotto Shanelle Bullock Mendez Frir meetings, Stakeholders are also asked to be present William Dadek William Perry Mike Barron when the Plan is presented to various public agencies Elizabeth Derouin Lucinda Sowell-Monroe Brandi Foos Walter Dees Nicole Perry to show public support for the plan and to Wayne Egan William Perry Don Porter demonstrate that the public has been integrally Lori Faust Novella Gaskins Anthony Monroe Frances Jackson involved throughout the planning process. Gavia Christine Rose Leandry Evelyn T Mcnair Jean Gibbs

Morgan Rich

The stakeholders that participated in the process Table 6. Stakeholder Listing (Partial) included those shown in Table 6.

Linda Revels

Chip Hessler Jim Huggins Michelle Lane Richard Davenport Sharon Lewis Greezel Suarez Raymond E Ward David Averette R. Dahlin Conrad Garrison Carmela Mckeller-Smith Allen Skinner Agnes Smith Fallody Moonga

Eloise Sahlstrom Shaun West Maurice Wren Sharon Lewis Dorothy Drake George Hatcher Christopher Evans Pat Edwards Douglas B Modde Lisa Waring Jackie Warner Tifany Williams Joyce Riggans Michael D Mitchell

Breez Roseberry Yvette Gordon, Betsy Bailey Harold Brock Don Needham Nancy Maxwell Viola Mcallister Amy Parker Andy R Pope Chad Pullins Brian Schmidt Sandra Settles Gary Moss

Public!Engagement! It was also important throughout the development of this plan to reach out and interact with members of the general public, to inform them, gather their feedback, and to invite them to be members of the steering committee meeting. The engagement with the general public took four main forms, described in the following paragraphs. Public'Meetings' Three sets of public meetings were held throughout the study process. The first set of meetings held in March and April of 2012 took place at the opening day of baseball season in Hope Mills, at the Hokee Pokee Festival in Raeford, and at the Dogwood Festival in Fayetteville. The purpose of these meetings was to reach out to the public, inform them of the study, and to get their feedback on land uses and transportation facilities that they desired within the study area. The second set of meetings was held at the East Hoke Middle School and the Hope Mills Recreation Center in October of 2012. The purpose of these meetings was to gather feedback on the preferred land use scenario and the resulting transportation needs within the study area as well as to gather feedback on “hot spots,” areas of localized, specific concern. The final set of public meetings was also held at the East Hoke Middle School and the Hope Mills Recreation. These meetings, in June of 2013 focused on presenting the recommendations contained within the study.

Newsletter' The project team also developed a newsletter to highlight progress on the study and to bridge the gap between public meetings. This newsletter detailed the preliminary recommendations and was posted on the website and emailed to all individuals who previously participated in a steering committee meeting or public meeting. Public'Survey' Finally, the project team developed an online public survey to gather comments and information from members of the public. Some of these questions depended on answering a specific question about one of four subareas, as shown in the figure below. Surveys were conducted on-line and distributed in paper form as well, in some instances in locations with high concentrations of minority and low-income populations (e.g., grocery stores. Many of our 84 survey respondents have lived inside the study area for more than 10 years. Less than 5% of respondents said that they do not live inside the study area at all, suggesting that the people surveyed are highly familiar with at least one of the subareas. Responses to survey questions are summarized on the following pages.

Project' Website' Throughout the life of the planning process, the study team developed and maintained a project website, www.congestionplan.com. The website contains news and announcements, a library of project reports and maps, information on upcoming meetings, a section to provide comments, and a link to contact the project team. The website was also linked with a Facebook page to provide information across multiple online arenas. Sample comments received website include:

through

the

! "Land use needs to be higher density. Strip commercial with each their own points of access

is out of control. There are loads of derelict lots in this study area that need to be reused or held to a certain condition standard." ! "Less government housing" ! “More Bicycle routes" ! "A cut-through connector street should be constructed between Camden and Rockfish Roads" ! "Turn Lanes" ! "Bicycle lanes / Education"

Figure 7. Four Subareas Used in Survey

The first question indicated that Main Street (Hope Mills) and Rockfish and Camden Roads were deficient streets that needed to be improved. However, the tendency for selecting streets in the Hope Mills area may also be due to the larger number of people in the Hope Mills area that likely took the survey. Rockfish Road, which serves as the primary east-west alternative to US 401 to the north, as well as intersections along Rockfish Road, were common responses to several questions about roadway deficiencies.

The intersections of most concern were again weighted in the areas that have grown the fastest in recent years, and again showed a bias towards the Hope Mills area. Rockfish/Camden and Camden/Main Street (Hope Mills) are both in the southeast portion of the study area. This question, along with feedback from the steering committee, figured prominently in the determination of â&#x20AC;&#x153;hot spotâ&#x20AC;? studies that are described in the recommendations section of this report.

Please tell us which roadways need to be improved (adding through lanes/turn lanes). Please select your top THREE choices.

Please tell us which intersections needs to be improved to allow faster and/or safer traffic flow. Please select your top three choices.

US 401/Cliffdale Rd Raeford Rd/Cliffdale Rd Other Dundle Rd/Stoney Point Rd Main St (Raeford)/US 401 Rockfish Rd/Camden Rd Camden Rd/N Main St

25%

50%

75%

100%

When asked how often they walked or rode a bicycle, the respondents stated that they most often did so for exercise; however, the great majority of respondents said that they never cycled (93%) or walked (67%) for transportation purposes. Most respondents walked or biked for recreational purposes and exercise.

How often do you walk or bike NOW?

When asked how often they would like to be walking or biking, a slightly different picture emerges. Many more people would like to be biking or walking more than they do now. Nearly 38% said that they would like to walk for exercise or recreation every day, and nearly onequarter (23%) said that they would like to walk to work or bicycle for recreation every day. Only four respondents (less than 10%) said that they would like to bicycle to work each day, although nearly 43% said that they would like to bike to work at least a few times each month. The types of roadways and intersections that predominate in the study area are generally not conducive to cycling or walking for any reason. Many of them do not have sidewalks or even wide shoulders to safely accommodate novice or moderately skilled cyclists. When asked which roads they would most like to see improved for walking and bicycling travel, respondents listed the following roadways.

How often would you LIKE to do the following activities?

! Camden Road ! Rockfish Road ! Golfview Road ! Hope Mills Road ! Main St (Hope Mills) ! Raeford Road ! Hwy 301 ! Cliffdale Road ! Stoney Point Road

These responses overlapped significantly with the responses provided to the question about which roadways were deficient for automobile travel as well. One additional roadway cited for improvements for auto travel was the two-lane portion of Lakeview Road. The survey also asked respondents about the types of land uses they would prefer to see more (or less) of in the study area in the future. Again, these responses were broken out by subarea (1-4) so that the existing differences exhibited in the study area could be fairly represented, as well as respecting the level of familiarity that each respondent may have with portions of the large study area. Perhaps not surprisingly, West Hoke County respondents cited medical facilities as being very important additional land uses (a new hospital being constructed on US 401 halfway between Raeford and the Cumberland County line will help to address this deficiency). Generally, Parks and Open Space ranked highly, more so in Cumberland County than elsewhere. Shopping consistently ranked highly as a land use where “more was needed,” even in Cumberland County with more existing retail land uses already present. Farmland typically ranked low – many people in the study area are probably disconnected from their food sources and place a lower value on locally grown products (although this sentiment is changing at a national level). Single-family homes on large and small lots generally ranked as being of lower importance in the future compared to Apartments and Townhomes.

Which land uses would you like to see more of, stay about the same, or see less of? (note: bars indicate relative strength of “need more” as opposed to “stay the same” plus “need less”)?

Regional Needs and Deficiencies How Recommendations Happened This section addresses how recommendations about transportation improvements were created. The initial land use scenarios were â&#x20AC;&#x153;fedâ&#x20AC;? into a computer model that estimated future traffic volumes in the year 2040. Based on these forecasts, roadway recommendations were created with the assistance of professional planning and engineering staff from around the Region, as well as the North Carolina Department of Transportation. Land!Use!Choices! When we submitted our surveys to people in the study area, they told us some consistent things about what the area should do to develop better. ! More parks and open space ! More medical treatment choices ! More shopping ! Some more apartments ! Keep single-family homes at current levels ! We would like to bike and walk more often, and there are streets and intersections that

need positive changes to make that possible.

The Steering Committee was central to developing our recommendations in many ways. Initially, we worked with this committee to create a set of typologies that combined both land use and transportation elements (see graphic this page). The Committee members were asked to develop a worksheet for each type of street that was in their planning jurisdiction; each typology sheet had checkboxes for street elements (e.g., sidewalks, streetscaping, lighting) and land use types (e.g., office, low-density residential, wildlife habitat).

At a subsequent Steering Committee meeting, six different street typology sheets had been created (refer to figures at bottom of this page). Each typology sheet had both characteristics of land use and transportation features that had been identified at the previous Steering Committee meeting. Each street typology – listed below – included a description and set of performance measures that generally described its impacts on various human and natural environmental systems (refer to sample description at right). The Steering Committee was asked to assign every major street with which they were familiar to one of these typologies. This exercise was done in groups so that streets that overlapped jurisdictional boundaries had to have a commonly agreed upon typology. Once each street had been classified, the project team used that information to begin to code both the travel demand model network and a set of land use assumptions. The land use assumptions are critical for transportation considerations, since the configuration, density, type, and proximity of complimentary uses (e.g., retail and residential) will significantly impact how streets are used. The project team identified three probably land use scenarios, as described in Figure 8. Example of Typology Description: Bright Lights This district is like its small-town counterpart, “Small Town Downtown,” but the structures and streets are larger, more oriented towards office space, and more likely to accommodate parking structures, public transit hubs, and other institutional or government uses. Transportation does feature the best-connected transit opportunities, as well as wide sidewalks, street furniture, pedestrian-scale lighting, and other amenities to make employees, tourists, and visitors feel welcome on foot - at least outside of rush hours.

Figure 8. Land Use Scenarios, as Presented to the Steering Committee

The preferred (“All for One”) scenario was the scenario that was the most adjusted by the Steering Committee during the scenario planning process. Inputs from the public were central in this decision-making, as was a review of current planning documents and in-depth knowledge of development trends. The Steering Committee directly contributed to the preferred scenario by offering their comments directly, but also participating in a building block “game” at one meeting (Figure 9). This same exercise was conducted with the public that attended our open house meetings. The scenarios were input to CommunityVizTM software for further analysis, as well as being used as inputs into the FAMPO travel demand model. Statistics on land consumption as well as preliminary future land use maps were produced and reviewed by the Steering Committee. Once the future land use scenario was deemed acceptable, the final adjustments were made to the demographic information fed into the travel demand model and new forecasts for traffic volumes were created for the year 2040 (“horizon” year).

project. Expansion of the FAMPO model into a new area and updating to 2010 socioeconomic data has allowed for analysis of the project study area in a comprehensive manor. The 2010 base model and future year scenarios were analyzed using this computer model. The following describes the results of the model testing. Existing'Conditions' The 2010 existing network scenario takes the socioeconomic data from the Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) from 2010 and applies it to the existing network to determine the estimated trips on a roadway. This will be important to have a direct comparison for the future scenarios. Table 7 shows some important performance measures for the 2010 base year scenario. These same MOEs were also used in the future scenarios.

Performance Measure Vehicle-Miles-Traveled Vehicle-Hours-Traveled Vehicle-Hours-Delay Average Congested Speed Model Lane Miles ! LOS E Lane Miles ! % LOS E Lane Miles

Table 7. Travel Model Outputs (2010 Existing) Figure 9. Steering Committee Adjusting Land Uses and Resulting Recommendations

The final piece of information provided by the Steering Committee was the selection of preferred “Hot Spots” and “Growth Nodes.” A hot spot is a location, usually an intersection, inside the study area that is acknowledged as a being a safety hazard or a bottleneck for traffic. Growth nodes are simply locations where the Steering Committee and professional staff suspected that a high rate of growth, or an intensive type of growth, was likely to occur between now and the horizon year of 2040. Growth nodes were identified as Commercial, Mixed Use, or Town Centers. Generally, both the hot spots and growth nodes were located along major roadway corridors or in areas where there is already substantial growth occurring. The one exception may be the “town center” growth node on Arabia Road. Twelve of the 15 hot spots are located along the Cumberland-Hoke County border or are inside Cumberland County. Each hot spot and growth node were conceptually redesigned based again on the input of comments from the public and Steering Committee, as well as anticipated land use trends and best design practices. Each growth node was categorized as a Town Center, Mixed Use Center, or Commercial Center based on its location and growth trends (Figure 10 on the following page). Collector streets proposed for the project study area are also shown in this figure, connecting the growth nodes to major roadways and each other. Travel!Demand!Model!and!Traffic!Forecasting! The model used for this study was originally developed for the Fort Bragg Regional Alliance (FBRA) by expanding the current FAMPO travel demand model. The purpose of the FBRA model was to forecast future travel demand in the area surrounding Fort Bragg Military Reservation. This model was, in turn, expanded in Hoke County to better analyze the study area for this

Scenario 2010 Existing 1,044,524.88 40,856.38 14,665.09 25.57 354.18 12.86 3.63%

The existing network shows just over one million vehicle miles traveled across the 354 lane miles in the model network. These vehicles travel for 40,856 hours through the study area. Along the network, travelers experience delay of 14,665 hours. This delay slows the travel speed on the network to an average of 25.57 mile per hour. While the delay seems high, placing the segments into a level of service (LOS) conversation shows a different picture. As shown in model image below, the number of roadways that have an LOS of E or worse (red segments) is 12.86 lane miles (only 3.6% of the network). Most of these miles are in Cumberland County, which has

higher population levels and more attractors for trips originating from around the Region. A network segment at Level-of-Service (LOS) â&#x20AC;&#x153;Eâ&#x20AC;? is defined as being at capacity. Traffic flow becomes irregular and speed varies rapidly because there are virtually no spaces to maneuver in the traffic stream. The congested speed rarely reaches the posted speed limit. Any incident under these kinds of congested conditions will create long delays. A driver's level of comfort becomes poor.

Figure 10. Location of Hot Spots & Growth Nodes

While few existing roads are at or above capacity now, the growth trend in the study area will begin to expose deficient areas in the roadway network which will need improvements in the future. Those roadways at LOS “C” and “D” currently are major corridors like US 401, Camden, Cliffdale, and Lindsay. Most of the hot spot locations are in the eastern portion of the study area, and therefore received additional analysis and discussion. Future'Year'Conditions'(2040)' The 2040 “No Build” scenario uses the preferred 2040 socioeconomic data on the 2010 existing network. This scenario shows what will occur if growth trends continue without any improvements to the roadway network to deal with the traffic and congestion. The 2040 recommended scenario uses the same 2040 socioeconomic data, but the network has been modified with new roadway projects and widening. These improvements help alleviate the congestion on the network and benefit the traffic flow in the study area.

MOE Vehicle-Miles-Traveled Vehicle-Hours-Traveled Vehicle-Hours-Delay Average Congested Speed Lane Miles LOS E Lane Miles % LOS E

2010 Existing 1,044,524.88 40,856.38 14,665.09 25.57 354.18 12.86 3.63%

Scenario 2040 No Build 2,105,145.35 142,332.95 88,553.05 14.79 354.18 112.46 31.75%

Table 8. Travel Model Outputs (All Scenarios)

Compared to the 2010 Existing network, the growth over the next 30 years (out to 2040) shows a large growth in congested conditions. The percent of roadway lane miles at or above capacity rose from 3.63 percent to 31.75 percent (Table 8). The 2040 No build scenario reveals a lot of deficiency areas. The majority exists in the southeast portion of the study area. This region is heavily residential and targeted for future growth. The existing 2-lane facilities that carry vehicles into/from Fayetteville are above capacity (LOS F) since there are a limited number of routes and lane miles. A number of other over-capacity routes, such as Lindsay Rd and Wayside Rd, Stoney Point Rd, and Gillis Hill Rd, carry traffic north/south to larger arterial highways like US 401. The City of Raeford also experiences network deficiencies in the western portion of the study area. The junction of US 401 and the 401 Bypass shows a high volume to capacity, resulting in a LOS of “F.” This delay is likely due to the general increase in vehicles, but also the commercial development in this area resulting in more trip destinations to this area. To avoid delays, the model shows an increasing reliance on US 401 Bypass. However, this roadway achieves LOS of “E” on a few segments in 2040. This growth in traffic is relieved by recommended projects in this Plan. Table 8 shows the future network after estimating the trips using the 2040 socioeconomic data. There is an increase of lane miles to over 556 and, most noticeably, the addition of the Outer Loop (I-295) in the future network. While the recommended 2040 model still shows deficient areas (Figure 11), these were determined to be more operational issues than created by a strict lack of roadway through capacity. Offset roadway intersections like Wayside Road and Lindsay Road at US 401 incur delays because of restricted turning movements or inadequate intersection capacity. The model cannot give specific detail on these kinds of intersection issues, so a more detailed review is required, represented by the discussion of intersection hot spots later in this Plan. The Recommendations Section that follows provides more information on the hot spots, as well as an overview of all the physical (infrastructure) recommendations incorporated in this analysis. It begins with a discussion of overall policy objectives that will shape the implementation of the Plan’s recommendations.

Figure 11. Congested Roads in 2040 No Build (top) and under Plan

2040 Plan 2,505,637.45 75,233.24 25,942.03 33.30 556.10 33.36 6.00%

Recommendations The recommendations of the Southwestern Cumberland and Northeastern Hoke County MultiModal Congestion Plan fall into several categories: ! Land Use & Development Policy ! Roadways ! US 401 Corridor ! Transit ! Active Modes ! Hot Spots

Each category of recommendation described in the following paragraphs provides a description of the observations learned through the planning process, followed by the specific recommendations for infrastructure and basic policy principles. Policies suggested here do not take the form of regulatory language, nor are they intended to replace any specific ordinance or regulatory requirement already “on the books.” Instead, policy information in this Plan takes the form of recommended best practice. Municipalities and counties in the study area should use this Plan as a resource to adopt and modify the best practices to suit their own specific context.

Land Use & Development Policy The policy recommendations surrounding land use are both general as well as policies that have an affect on several areas identified as growth nodes. The following observations and recommendations are therefore described as either “general” or “growth node.” General!Observations! Throughout the planning process it was clear that the community, stakeholders, and Steering Committee desired a very different land use pattern than the one that is currently developing, particularly in the rural portions of the study area. All groups desired a more dense development pattern that was clustered around existing activity centers and crossroads. This denser development (and more diverse, better designed development pattern) would provide multiple benefits including reduced trip lengths, better support for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, increased viability of transit, and provision of sufficient housing such that land around the natural features in the study area could be reserved as green space or working farms. The community also desired more retail developments along the US 401 corridor, but with a focus on better managing access so that US 401 can be maintained as the primary commuter corridor through the study area. General!Recommendations! The recommended land uses are shown in the “Preferred Scenario” map on the following page (Figure 12 on the next page). Hoke and Cumberland Counties define their land use development practices slightly differently, with medium-density residential development in Cumberland County, for example, reaching 15 units per acre while the closest corollary in Hoke County reaches five units per acre. It should also be noted that the current zoning ordinance for Hoke County designates 97% of the land area low-density residential.

Based on a review of current policies as well as public and steering committee inputs, key features of the preferred scenario included the following. ! Concentration of Commercial and Office land uses along the US 401 corridor concomitant

with the need to preserve the capacity of this central corridor ! Promotion of commercial and office uses at the major crossroads in the area to help create

more jobs and serve as magnets for future retail, higher-density residential, and institutional (e.g., schools, medical clinic) growth and development ! The development of a Mixed-Use Center at the future I-295 Strickland Bridge Road interchange to take advantage of the dramatically increased levels of accessibility that these future interchange areas will have once I-295 is completed ! The development of a Commercial Center at the future I-295/Camden Road interchange ! Preservation of lands in the primarily rural southwestern portions of the study area featuring green corridors that connect the study area east and west ! Promotion of medium-density residential development in the vicinity of US 401 and along Rockfish Road where development is already increasing in pace and density ! Expansion of the current industrial area in the southwestern portion of the study area to help reclaim this area as a viable node of industrial development and job creation Individual areas with a high probability of growing rapidly were entitled “growth nodes.” Observations and recommendations on these nodes of development are presented in the next section.

Figure 12. Recommended Land Use Pattern

Growth!Nodes! Land use serves as the foundation of the built environment. It defines the type, mix, and general location of uses. While land use planning traditionally has been a stand-alone process, it does not exist in a vacuum. Land use patterns and transportation systems tend to influence each other in a cyclical pattern. The land use connection to transportation represents the “demand” side of the equation while transportation is best described as the “supply” side. The ways in which transportation infrastructure influences the use of land is less obvious, and often realized in a much longer-term timeframe. Because of this relationship between land use and transportation, our Plan must strive to strike a delicate balance. Seventy-five percent of the available land within the study area is prime for development. Therefore, the decisions (plans, policies and programs) that we make for transportation must preserve safe and convenient mobility, while the land use decisions (development and protection of open space) must enhance the community character and create a “sense of place.” The following Growth Nodes and descriptions represent those areas identified through the Scenario Planning exercise. They are defined as activity nodes were future development is most likely to occur. Each recommendation describes the scale, character and development features for a preferred development pattern that is supportive of sustainability principles.

Growth Node Recommendation: I-295 Mixed Use Growth Node (Exhibit A) The I-295 corridor (once built) will represent a high development potential for the study area. Many times these areas are left unplanned and erode under the daily pressures of development and poor access control. This area benefits from being a major point of access for the traveling public. Therefore, a mixed use development (i.e., residential and non-residential), built at higher densities is recommended. The General Development Performa is best represented by a healthy mix of commercial/retail, residential (on the periphery), neighborhood park, and some office. The scale of development tends to be two – three story buildings (commercial/Retail) with enhanced walkability through an interconnected street system. Densities would be supportive of a high-quality type of transit service and transit center.

General Development Performa Type: Suburban Mixed Use Center Relative Size: 730 acres Street Network Connectivity*: 1.4 Typical Block Length: 800’ - 1,000’ General Land Use Pattern: Mix of Uses (residential, neighborhood park, commercial, office) Prevailing Building Height: 3 stories Pedestrian Infrastructure: High (sidewalks, crosswalks, ped-count down) Bicycle Infrastructure: Medium (greenway, bike lanes) Public Transit Infrastructure: High (routing, bus shelters, potential hub) *Number of street segments (no Cul-de-sacs) divided by the number of intersections. Scores greater than 1 mean better access and livability.

General Development Performa Type: Commercial Node Relative Size: 335 acres Street Network Connectivity*: 1.0 Typical Block Length: 1,000’ - 1,200’ General Land Use Pattern: Predominantly commercial activity surrounded by residential uses Prevailing Building Height: 3 stories Pedestrian Infrastructure: High (walkable commercial center, sidewalks) Bicycle Infrastructure: Medium (greenway, bike lanes) Public Transit Infrastructure: High (bus shelters, potential hub)

Growth Node Recommendation: I-295 Commercial Growth Node (Exhibit B) This I-295 corridor interchange will ultimately be surrounded by single-family residential homes. This development pattern lends itself well to a Commercial Growth Node that caters services to the surrounding area. With quick access to I-295, the development character would reflect “convenience shopping” for travelers going through the area or live in proximity which in turn would provide a greater range of retail and service products than otherwise would be the case. The General Development Performa can be described as medium-density commercial/retail, open space park (amphitheater style), and residential (on the peripheral) infill. This “park once” mentality works well for visitors who would like to dine out, convenience shop or be entertained at the amphitheater. The scale of development tends to be two- or three-story buildings (commercial/retail) anchored by a grocery store. Walkability is a must in this environment supported by an interconnected street system, enhanced transit stop, sidewalk system, and bikefriendly environment.

*Number of street segments (no Cul-de-sacs) divided by the number of intersections. Scores greater than 1 mean better access and livability.

Growth Node Recommendation: US 401 Mixed Use Growth Node (Exhibit C) US 401 carries between 15,000 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 23,000 vehicles per day, many of them commuters and visitors traveling through the area. This strategic corridor is the major east-west traffic artery in the study area. For this reason, the protection of the mobility, safety is a priority as well as encouraging supportive sustainable development. This area benefits from being a major point of access for the traveling public. A healthy mixed-use growth node along the US 401 corridor would represent a community in itself with a mix of uses (residential and non-residential), built at higher densities. The General Development Performa would include a mix of commercial/retail, residential (single- multi-family), and some office. A main street design and gateway entrance where retail shops, restaurants and specialty stores would front the street and transition into an open Green Park area. The Green Park would cater to special events like, theater in the park, sports, and local bands/concerts. The scale of development tends to be two â&#x20AC;&#x201C; three story buildings (commercial/Retail) with enhanced walkability through an interconnected street system. Densities would be supportive of a high quality transit service or transit center.

General Development Performa Type: Suburban Mixed-Use Center Relative Size: 158 acres Street Network Connectivity*: 1.8 Typical Block Length: 600' - 750' General Land Use Pattern: Mix of Uses (residential/apartment, open/green space, retail, office) Prevailing Building Height: 3 stories Pedestrian Infrastructure: High (sidewalks, crosswalks, ped-count down) Bicycle Infrastructure: High (greenway, bike lanes) Public Transit Infrastructure: High (bus shelters, potential hub) *Number of street segments (no Cul-de-sacs) divided by the number of intersections. Scores greater than 1 mean better access and livability.

General Development Performa Type: Town Center Relative Size: 145 acres Street Network Connectivity*: 1.0 Typical Block Length: 1000’ – 1,500’ General Land Use Pattern: Commercial/Public Uses (surrounded by residential, town green) Prevailing Building Height: 2 stories Pedestrian Infrastructure: High (sidewalks, crosswalks, ped-count down) Bicycle Infrastructure: Medium (bike lanes) Public Transit Infrastructure: High (bus pullout/shelters) *Number of street segments (no Cul-de-sacs) divided by the number of intersections. Scores greater than 1 mean better access and livability.

Growth Node Recommendation: Arabia Town Center Growth Node (Exhibit D) The Arabia and Golf Course Roads intersection is a crossroads community that is one of the most rural locations in our study area. Surrounded by sparse, single-family development, the residents of this area are required to drive far for daily needs and services. The idea behind the Town Center Growth Node is to provide basic amenities and convenience shopping for local residents, ultimately creating a healthy and active town center environment. The General Development Performa would support Service oriented environment, including commercial / convenience businesses (drug store, pharmacy, coffee shop, etc.) include a special retail shops wrapped around a town green space / farmers market. The scale of development tends to be smaller than in the other, more urbanized growth centers, comprised mostly of twostory buildings fronting the street, parking in the rear, and connections to the surrounding single family residential through a network of greenway connections. The town green/farmer’s market concept would be an active centerpiece venue that would cater to local events and fresh food market. Transit service would be a low priority investment including a bus pullout or shelter for deviated fixed route system or equivalent.

Roadways Transportation and land use planning are inherently linked. With this in mind, one of the chief priorities of this Plan was to consider highway transportation recommendations in conjunction with our land use recommendations in order to create a cohesive, holistic plan addressing both land use and transportation concerns. The identification of growth nodes and hot spots also refined our understanding of the transportation issues in the area and provided a key input into our transportation infrastructure improvement decision-making. Overall, these highway recommendations support our land use recommendations both on a system level as well as on a more granular (i.e. intersection-specific) level. Considering the future strains on the transportation system, including the growing influence of the Fort Bragg Military Reservation on development patterns to the north of US 401 as well as in the study area at large, the study team employed a modified version of the FAMPO travel demand model to identify those roadways with high traffic volumes in the base year of 2012 and in 2040. Using the model to run a number of scenarios to better understand the effect of the proposed infrastructure improvements on traffic volumes, two model runs were especially important to this project. First, the scenario modeling traffic volumes in 2040 using only the existing and committed projects provided important information about where highway infrastructure improvements were most crucial. Second, after the study team had identified the roadways with the most pressing needs for improvements, an additional scenario was conducted illustrating the levels of congestion with all of the recommended projects. The results of these modeling analyses are presented on the following page (Figure 13).

Figure 13. Roadway Recommendations

It is important to note that all of the proposed infrastructure changes to the roadway network are based on cross-sections from the North Carolina Department of Transportation Complete Streets Planning and Design Guidelines. These guidelines were released recently with the intention of encouraging the development of complete streets (e.g., multimodal choices) across the state. While all of these cross-sections contain facilities for all modes, planners and engineers should be aware that the cross-sections herein recommended are not meant to explicitly define the exact design for each roadway, but rather to provide a general idea of the desired roadway composition as well as supply a flexible design solution. Taking the context into account, planners and engineers may decide that one or all of on-street parking, sidewalks, and bicycle infrastructure is not applicable to the specific location. Before moving ahead with any infrastructure projects, the area in question should be scrutinized in detail and its role in the overall local and regional transportation system evaluated to ensure that infrastructure is provided in the most cost-effective, but also holistic, way. Naturally, providing infrastructure for all modes would be ideal, but the authors recognize that this may not be prudent or feasible based on local and regional transportation considerations. Existing!+!Committed!Conditions!in!2040! The existing and committed projects model run, which analyzed how the existing and committed projects would perform under 2040 traffic conditions, illustrated the scope of congestion in the area, with many of the roads on the west side of Fayetteville showing unacceptably high levels of congestion (Level-of-Service “E” or “F,” equating to a 0.91 Volume to Capacity ratio or greater). In particular, Camden Road, parts of Rockfish Road, Fisher Road, Lindsay Road, and Cliffdale Road had very high levels of congestion. Other roads, especially those in the rural area between Fayetteville and Raeford, were not close to capacity even in 2040. A small amount of congestion was present in and around Raeford, mostly on Fayetteville Road (Highway 401) and on Highway 401 Business leading into and out of the City. Conditions!in!2040!with!Recommended!Projects! Conditions improved substantially in the model run illustrating congestion in 2040 with all of the recommended projects (2040 Preferred Scenario). Most notably, none of Route 401 was congested whatsoever, while areas along the southern boundaries of the study area, such as Camden Road and most of Rockfish Road, were much less congested. Some congestion was still evident, though less severe, along Stoney Point Road, Cliffdale Road, and Lindsay Road. Gillis Road was severely congested in both scenario model runs. Note, opportunities for access management or operational improvements may be warranted along facilities that experience a some level of congestion. These and other applications are discussed for specific corridors.

across the entire study area, the 2040 Preferred Scenario reduced the amount of vehicle hours by 47% from 142,333 in the 2010 on Existing Network scenario to 75,233. In a related metric, vehicle hours of delay were reduced by 70% from 88,553 in the 2010 on Existing Network scenario to 25,942 in the 2040 Preferred Scenario. The average speed in both scenarios also demonstrates the breadth of the improvements. Speeds improved from 14.8 to 33.3 between scenarios, a doubling of the average vehicular speeds. Finally, the most profound improvement is the decrease of roads with a Level-of-Service rating “E” or “F” from 31.7% in the 2010 on Existing Network scenario to 6% in the 2040 Preferred Scenario. Overall, we recommended a number of upgrades from the predominant roadway type in the area, the rural two-lane road. The preferred access plan (driveway consolidation, cross access, alternative intersection design, collector street connectivity, etc.) for US 401 accounted for slightly more than 23 miles, while other roadways were recommended to use the urban/suburban boulevard, rural village main street, and rural avenue cross-sections more than any others. Table 9 provides more information on the number of lane miles added through new location streets and by typical cross-section.

Cross-Section Type Urban/Suburban Boulevard Urban/Suburban Avenue Rural Village Main Street Rural Road Rural Parkway Rural Boulevard Rural Avenue Preferred Access Plan

Roadway Miles 37.48 3.40 20.83 10.42 4.65 8.89 16.02 23.11

Table 9. Roadway Lane Miles (New+Expanded)

Examining the entire roadway network following both model runs, the 2040 Preferred Scenario provided substantial benefits in many different categories. In terms of the vehicle hours traveled The 2040 conditions with the recommended improvements (left) and without (right).

US 401 Corridor Observations! Today, US 401 is a high-speed arterial with remnants of a historic past at the edges. Driveways, some unpaved, dot the corridor on both sides. the typical cross-section is a four-lane, divided highway with limited numbers of “crossovers.” Limiting the number of access points not only preserves the scarce capacity of the most critical roadway in the Study Area, but also reduces the frequency of crashes (which in turn lowers the amount of delay still further). Development intensities increase on the east end of the corridor, although access control is stronger. The west end of the corridor (past the 401 Business intersection) narrows to a two-lane roadway without a median; access points in this area are much more common.

Recommendations!! In order to achieve a safer, more mobile US 401, access controls in the form of U-turn and leftturn prevention; driveway consolidation or elimination; and requiring and creating opportunities for cross-access between properties that limit the number of times that entry onto US 401 is necessary are suggested in this graphic. Just as relevant are the creation of parallel, low-speed (25mph - 30mph) collector streets. These collector streets allow movement in this corridor without impinging on US 401, and are designed to take maximum advantage (where possible) of existing “stub-out streets,” pairing existing land uses to minimize property value impacts, and obeying constraints presented by streams, wetlands, and terrain issues. The typical collector street is represented in the graphic at right (NCDOT Complete Streets Planning & Design Guidelines, Rural Road). These streets should be designed for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit use as well, to help promote these modes of travel particularly in the proposed future activity centers. Finally, our study is also concerned with short-term improvements at 15 key locations, or “hot spots.” Each hot spot was reviewed and provided with conceptual designs that speak to improving safety and mobility, while reducing crashes and minimizing harm to adjacent properties.

Figure 14. US 401 Access Management Plan

Public Transportation For many residents in the Hoke and Cumberland Counties, taking transit is not a choice, it is a necessity. Residents with access to private vehicle rely on the rural transit services provided by each county. These individuals depend on these services to access jobs, professional services and medical trips. As the Region grows, these services as well as additional transit choices are going to become more important to maintaining mobility options and a high quality of life for the Region. Based on community discussions, many people stated that they would use transit more often if certain services that were convenient, clean and reliable were provided. The following section provides tiered approach to transit integration. Tier I recommendations can be implemented within the next five years and focus on efforts to improve or expand existing services. Tier II recommendations can be implemented over the next 15 years and include services to those underserved with in the region. Tier III recommendations should be implemented within a 25year timeframe, while focusing on new services and choice riders. As the Region grows and congestion increases, it will be important to provide alternatives to single-occupant private vehicle travel. Tier!I!Y!Short!Range!Transit!Initiatives!2014Y2019! Observations: This phase of the plan includes the transit recommendations of the recently approved HATS Comprehensive Transportation Service Plan (CTSP) published in 2012, as well as the preliminary plans for the FAST reorganization of services in horizon year 2020. Over the next seven years many physical transit improvements in the fiscally constrained plans can be made. This is also the period to initiate land use and regionalization planning changes needed to create sustainable high-density communities for the future. The groundwork for securing funding for future transit services must also begin during the short-range planning period. Recommendation: Hoke County Short Range Initiatives Deviated Fixed Route hourly service from Downtown Raeford to the Raeford Club Pond Road Wal-Mart, as recommended in the Hoke County CTSP, should be initiated within the next few years. This initial phase is an 11.5-mile bus service that would begin in Western Raeford (near Food Lion / CVS Pharmacy shopping area) and traverse the downtown on Central Avenue to a temporary terminal on Main Street. From the terminal it would continue on US 401 Business to Wal-Mart. The deviated fixed route return trip from Wal-Mart would follow Club Pond Road and Rockfish Road to serve the higher density neighborhoods shown along this corridor. All other HATS trips should be planned to feed this new deviated fixed route; including the routing of the daily subscription trips past the planned bus stops along Fulton and Main. Businesses along the loop route should be canvassed with a full complement of travel demand management opportunities: ! Information (schedule, timing, frequency, cost, etc.) about the new transit services, ! Opportunities and incentives to participate in carpool / vanpool programs, ! Employment transportation assistance programs (JARC, etc.), and ! Transit ticket purchase and voucher options.

Recommendation: US 401 Express Bus Service This express route would run from Raeford to Cliffdale Wal-Mart transfer point to Cross Creek Mall on 60-minute headways during weekday morning and afternoon peak periods (six trips a day). The concept includes a transfer center at the junction of US 401 and Rockfish Road, which could accommodate a small 40 vehicle Park-and-Ride for commuters from Raeford and subdivisions to the south. First stop would be at the Club Pond Road Wal-Mart, which already

has a Park-and-Ride. The second stop would be in the vicinity of Pittman Grove Church Road, with the third stop would be at the Wal-Mart Superstore at near Cliffdale. Additional stops at the two new hospitals should also be programmed, as well as a FAST connection to the new VA Medical Center. Access to medical facilities and new medical facilities were clear priorities to the public. The first FAST trip out of the Wal-Mart Superstore leaves at 5:30 AM and arrives at Cross Creek Mall at 6:26 AM, where several other FAST routes make synchronized connections. Eventually, the US 401 Express Bus service will travel along the proposed NCDOT superstreet improvements, therefore careful consideration of bus passenger crossings must be considered in the superstreet design; other transit provisions may be warranted. Recommendation: Fayetteville Area System of Transit Short-Range Initiatives During this period, FAST should continue to explore private-public partnerships, using relationships with local colleges and universities, Veteranâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Administration and other organizations to purchase services in order to improve services to these clients. The specific intent of this outreach should be to foster greater regional transit awareness that supports transit choices to potential customers across the study area. In the short term, improvements that can be made to FAST routes 15, 17, and 18 should be done in conference with HATS. Fayetteville should take the lead in incorporating transit friendly provisions into the Urban Development Ordinance, like establishing a Transit Corridor District Overlay that defines: the road design, access control, roadside design provisions and traffic signal priorities to improve the transit experience. Raeford Road (US 401) is a potential candidate for a Transit Corridor District Overlay pilot implementation project. Recommendation: Hope Mills Short Range Initiatives The most direct link to connect Hope Mills to the FAST transit network would be to run a FAST service up Bingham/Bunce Road and connect with FAST service; this would require a 12-mile round trip service. Further study is needed to determine if this connection could be extended to serve the transit center at Cross Creek Mall; specifically to determine if funding for a full 17mile round trip is feasible. This bus service lies just outside of the study area and therefore not included in the transit cost tables. If a cross-town bus route like Skibo/Pamalee/Country Club Drive is initiated as a part of the FAST Transit Development Plan (and referenced in the Bragg Boulevard Redevelopment Study) then this proposed Bingham Road service could easily be connected to the proposed high frequency route between Fayetteville CBD and Fort Bragg. Recommendation: Fort Bragg Military Reservation Transit Short-Range Initiatives A dozen base shuttle routes now serve the Fort Bragg Military Reservation. The transportation planners at Fort Bragg have already established a sustainable transit growth plan. In the short run they will continue to improve the stops within their shuttle network, control parking, promote carpool/vanpool options and coordinate with FAST on synchronizing services. Recommendation: Vanpooling and Carpooling Vanpooling is still a relatively unexplored congestion management tool within the FAMPO planning region, which should be developed. Incentives could be built into community initiatives and ordinances that encourage the car sharing way of life (i.e. parking requirement reductions, preferred parking locations, etc.). There are big advantages to formalizing the commuter trip sharing into vanpools, as those rider statistics will then be attributed to the sponsoring agency and thereby included in calculations for future funding apportionments. The business community must also be recruited to participate in establishing carpooling and vanpooling at the workplace. !

Tier!II!Y!MidYRange!Transit!Initiatives!2020Y2030! Observations: This is the period to implement land use and regionalization planning changes through incentives to allow for transit oriented development within the study area. The broad set of bikeway and greenway connectivity planned for the study area needs to be fully integrated with transit, so that bikes can become an integrated part of the multimodal trip. Secure and safe bike storage will have to be provided to customers at key stop locations. Recommendation: Hoke County Mid-Range Initiatives The next step for Downtown Raeford is to establish some Complete Street segments that define a limited pair of cross streets as human scale environments that are intentionally pedestrian, bike and transit friendly environments. The current growth pattern suggests a short local bus segment (approximately 1.5 miles) running north-south along Main Street in the downtown commercial area as a prime candidate. The transit contribution could be service at a 15-minute peak hour frequency - where a car becomes unnecessary or somewhat inconvenient; e.g. after additional parking restrictions are applied. This high-intensity transit area would feed passengers to the Deviated Fixed Route (CVS/Food Lion to Wal-Mart) established in the short-range initiatives discussed previously. Business leaders can partner with local government and could help fund some low cost items if found to be mutually attractive, such as bike storage, shelters, benches and potentially a business trolley circulator. Recommendation: FAST Mid-Range Initiatives A rapid form of transit service from Downtown Fayetteville to the Fort Bragg Military Reservation remains the biggest gap in the region’s bus service. This can best be achieved by creating a high-intensity bus corridor (such as Bus Rapid Transit) running directly northwest from Downtown Fayetteville to the Fort Bragg Military Reservation. While this transit service is outside of the study area, it will create a vital anchor for all public transportation in the region. Transit routes can feed this spine from the east, west and south, as well as, some Cross Town Routes that do not require access to downtown (i.e. suggested Pamalee Drive/ Country Club Drive Cross Town Route). Recommendation: Fort Bragg Military Reservation Mid-Range Initiatives All American Gate - by 2020 the key transit transfer of civil employment should be taking place at the All American Access Control Point. Secure transfer will probably entail having picture ID, which is the current protocol. Progress is being made on having FAST carry workers to employment centers inside the military reservation. Plank Road Transit Shuttle is recommended to improve access directly from Hoke County. This service would be operated by Fort Bragg as a military shuttle service. A public Park-and-Ride facility would be needed, with a security clearance set up before departure, so that the shuttle buses can enter the base without additional security being required. The Park-and-Ride should also be bike friendly and provide amenities for persons arriving by bicycles, i.e. secure bike storage.

Recommendation: Hope Mills Mid-Range Initiatives Service should be established to connect Hope Mills to Cross Creek Mall. Tier III - Long-Range Transit Initiatives 2031-2040 Observation: This final phase of the plan is for modernizing transit to make it more competitive with automobile trips. This is the period to invest in technology, advanced vehicle types and transit exclusive roadway design that gives priority to transit. Tier!III!Y!LongYRange!Transit!Initiatives!2030Y2040! Observations: The final time period will require considerably more coordination to realize, particularly between the two counties and Fort Bragg Military Reserve. These recommendations are the most visionary, but the development pace and magnitude will make them seem much more realistic as the area fills in with people and employment opportunities. Long-term policy decisions made earlier will come to fruition in the final phase of recommendations. Recommendation: Hoke County Long-Range Initiatives A rubber-tired trolley is recommended to preserve the walkable atmosphere of the ‘Rural Main Street’ of City of Raeford. The assistance of the Community Development Corporations should be solicited to help market this vision. Ideally the East-West line would replace the segment of deviated fixed route service that starts at Food Lion in Western Raeford and ends at the newly established transfer center / park-and-ride at the junction of Rockfish Road and US 401 Business. To take full advantage of development opportunities (for example, private sector participation) the Trolley line should start just south of Palmer Road and travel north to 5th Street. This shorter, 1.3-mile Trolley line would redefine Downtown Raeford as a regional Small Town destination. The use of Johnson Mill as part of the US 401 Express Bus Route may also provide some opportunity for providing a “local bus segment” with safer crossings within the limited stop Express Bus service – this deviation might be run every other trip and/or only in the eastbound direction. Recommendation: FAST Long-Range initiatives Hopefully, FAST transit ridership and the intentional high-density development will have evolved to a level where a Cross Town Routes become a fundamental part of the FAST network and may be ready for more High-Intensity Transit Corridor treatments. Recommendation: Fort Bragg Military Reservation Long-Range Initiatives With a solid history of successful transit service, the Fort Bragg Military Reservation will be in a position to investigate modern transit options like Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) that will even further reduce the need for private automobiles entering the Military Reservation.

Recommendation: A transit-oriented corridor overlay district (refer to text box on the following page) should be considered for Rockfish Road – where all day local transit service could collect and distribute passengers coming from the higher density residential units that would be designed to cluster in nodes along this corridor. The goal would be to create parallel all day Fixed Route Bus services on both US 401 and Rockfish Road, in order to form collection areas where residents would be no more than a 1.5-mile bike ride from a cross county bus route. Some additional local bus service is recommended on key roads, such as Club Pond, Pittman Grove Church Road, to connect the parallel routes and feed the US 401 Express Bus stops. Two key intersections on the Rockfish Road Local Bus Route are Parker Church and Lindsay Roads; these intersections need to be transit friendly with: queue jump lanes, transit priority and far side bus stops with pull outs and a full complement of next bus information and amenities provided. In the furthest out years (2025-2030) a bike-share program may actually be stationed at these intersections that provide access via bikeways to final destinations within a two-mile radius.

Personal Rapid Transit’s zone coverage at Fort Carson, Colorado. PRT was estimated to have a benefit/cost ratio of $2.35 return on every dollar of investment. In the financial assumptions, a fare of under $2.00 per ride covered both operating costs and annualized capital costs.

Table 10 provides a high-level summary of the main recommendations in each term of implementation.

Short Range – 2014-2020 HATS initiates Deviated Fixed Route from CVS/Food Lion in Raeford to Club Pond Rd. Wal-Mart. HATS studies financing options for Club Pond Rd. Wal-Mart to Cross Creek Mall Express. Fort Bragg continues Shuttle Service improvements and advocacy for vanpool and bicycling. Fayetteville UDO adopts a Transit-Oriented Corridor District Overlay pilot project. Hope Mills & FAST study funding for a Bingham/Bunce Road Route to Cross Creek Mall. Table 10. Summary of Transit-Oriented/Land Use Recommendations

Mid-Term – 2020-2030 Complete Street local bus segment on Main Street in Raeford – with transit to feed Deviated fixed route. HATS adds Cross Creek Mall Express. Hoke County adopts Transit Oriented Corridor District Overlay. Lindsay/US401/Rockfish and Parker Church/US401/Rockfish intersections are designed as transit-friendly intersections. Fort Bragg moves closer to establishing entry for FAST buses through the All-American Access Control Point directly to work locations. Studies advanced security technology to improve sustainability of FAST on-base activity, if needed beyond the current picture ID presentation. Fayetteville establishes a Bus Rapid Transit directly to Fort Bragg jointly with Fort Bragg and funded by Fort Bragg. Studies a Cross Town Routes. Hope Mills Bingham/Bunce Road Bus Route is established based on FAST mid-term plans. Route.

Long Range – 2030-2040 Raeford sets up a North-South Trolley segment to feed the strengthened eastwest transit services. US 401 All Day Fixed Route plus the Rockfish Road Local Bus service is added to complete a pair of cross-county alternative routes. Johnson Mill Road becomes a “local segment of service”. Improve bicycle access to bus. A Wayside Road/Plank Road shuttle route and P&R. Fort Bragg studies future fixed guideway, i.e. Personal Rapid Transit. FAST establishes network of transit corridors and cross-town routes as the system expands outward to cover the entirety of Cumberland County. Local routes are established to link Hope Mills to Rockfish Community.

Description: Transit Corridor Overlay District

As the transportation system (or transportation supply) for the project study area becomes more robust with mobility choices, the land use (transportation demand) must be supportive. We must continue to encourage and in some case provide incentives for transit-oriented and transit-ready development. One of the tools currently being offered to regulate transit-oriented development is the use of a Transit Corridor Overlay. Overlay zoning is a regulatory tool that is used to create a special zoning “layer,” which is placed over an existing base zoning district. Overlay zones build on the underlying zoning, by establishing additional or stricter standards and criteria; the standards of the overlay zone apply in addition to those of the underlying zoning district. Overlay Zoning does not require the “rewriting” of municipal code; in fact, both counties have overlay zoning language already in their code. An overlay zone may be used near a certain intersection or street which is served by transit, in order to increase the amount of housing to support that transit corridor. Overlay zones could also be used to allow affordable housing as a use-by-right in select areas. Justification'for'a'Transit'Corridor'Overlay' ! The transit corridor overlay is more linear than the common transit oriented development overlay, which is

nodal (station/stop) in nature. The transit-oriented development lies within a five-minute walk of the transit stop, or about a quarter-mile from stop to edge. For major stations offering access to frequent high-speed service this catchment area may be extended to the measure of a 10-minute walk. (source: Inam, 2011) ! Transit is a nationally recognized traffic congestion mitigation tool and should be rewarded for its contribution – moving more people in less space than private vehicles. ! Transit corridors can be economic engines if it given appropriate priority and accommodations. ! Transit is eco-friendly and should be marketed as a contributor to the community it serves. Purpose'of'a'Transit'Corridor'Overlay' ! A balanced mix of development uses to generate 24-hour ridership. There are places to work, to live, to

learn, to relax and to shop for daily needs. ! Complements the larger functional roadway design; sub-component of the Complete Streets environments ! Implements a specific vision or plan for an area and develops and enforces specific requirements to achieve

the vision or plan, such as; building setbacks, lot widths, buffers, screening, block spacing, open space and even plant materials. ! Encourages the use of first floors as retail in downtowns with appropriate façade designs. ! Encourages pedestrian environment and circulation and promotes innovative site design, such as: clustering, zero lot lines, mixed uses, green design and pedestrian connections between buildings. ! Institutes performance standards (i.e. maximum parking standards) that promote the transit eco-friendly philosophy ! Promotes increased densities of development and reduction in urban “footprint” and associated infrastructure extension costs ! Controls points of conflict; on-street loading, parking, access to properties and driveway spacing ! Encourages gateway treatments - all the way down to the entranceway design level ! Improves channelization of movements through signage and special lane designation

Transit'Corridor'Overlay'Features' ! Dedicated bus rights-of-way along a variable percentage of the route. ! Queue-jump lanes at intersections with right turn lanes ! Signal priority to give buses priority through key intersections where queue-jumping is not feasible. ! Crosswalks and signalized pedestrian crossings that are upgraded beyond minimum standards. ! Minimum number of curb cuts and on-street parking spaces between bus stops.

Accelerated)transit)service) ! High-frequency transit service within the corridor, i.e. at least every 20 minutes in the peak period. ! Low-floor buses assigned to the route to make boarding easier. ! Off-board fare collection to speed up boarding at key stops. ! Identifiable transit corridor and wayfinding signage with a gateway at the beginning and end of

the overlay section. Integrated with multi-use and bike paths network. Comfort)and)Conveniences) ! Stations and/or shelters at all transfer locations along the corridor. Secure and fully enclosed

bicycle storage is provided. ! All street lighting improvements will be made to accommodate bus stop locations. ! The overlay should include Transit-Oriented Development Guidelines around major transit stations

and stops, e.g. complete Street environment where traffic is calmed, with roads design features to limit speed to 30 mph on major streets and 20 mph on lesser streets. ! Buffers, medians and islands to channelize and segregate vehicular and pedestrian flows. Parking)constraints) ! Minimum parking requirements are supplemented with maximum parking requirements; for

example, for every 1,000 workers no more than 500 spaces and as few as 10 spaces are provided. ! Full market rates are charged for all parking spaces (merchants may validate parking for shoppers). ! Off-street parking is at the rear or side of the building; provide streetfront entrances closer to transit stops. Oversight) ! Formation of a business owners Transit Corridor Overlay Association. ! Performance monitoring system to ensure corridor planning and design is continually upgraded, i.e.

set goals for pass verse cash fares, goals for development intensification along the corridor.

Figure 15. Primary Public Transportation Recommendations, 2040 Full Build-Out

Active Modes: Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel Observations! Many of the roadways the project team considered for bicycle and pedestrian treatments looked very similar: two lanes, no paved shoulder to speak of, and relatively low population and driveway densities. However, we know that these roads will get widened; that people want alternatives to on-road bicycle and pedestrian travel; and that connecting schools, neighborhoods and other trails are priorities. A previous bicycle and pedestrian improvement plan was also referenced in the creation of these recommendations to help ensure a measure of consistency with this Plan. Recommendations! The cross-sections described in the figure on the following page are the same as those used in the NCDOT Complete Streets Planning and Design Guidelines (July, 2012). The long greenways proposed shown on Figures 16 and 17 are certainly long-term prospects, but not impossible, and tend to follow stream features that have offsets from existing development. Some crossings, like that shown at proposed Rockfish Creek and Phillipi Church Road, are deserving of special attention as well. Other crossings will ultimately require either a separate tunnel to go under a major roadway or, perhaps, a bridge to go over a road. Sidewalks are currently fairly sparse inside the study area, and seldom is there a contiguous segment of sidewalk that connects schools (for example) to residential areas. Promoting more walking and bicycling to schools helps reduce pressure on overcrowded drop-off points, but also creates opportunities for exercise, independent thought, and companionship with parents and fellow schoolmates. As important as infrastructure is to the short-time cycling and pedestrian environment, governmental policies, like Hoke County requiring one secure bicycle parking spot for every 50 vehicular parking spaces, equally influence the long-term walk- and bike-friendliness of our communities. The Growth Nodes are particularly important with respect to sound design for implementing designs that consider and favor pedestrian and cycling modes. Designing parking lots is a great example of how a simple change can greatly influence the outcomes of how a place functions. Parking lots should include bicycle parking, enhancements for street connectivity, and requiring set-asides for greenways as well as sidewalk construction for all new or redeveloped private and public construction. Our Policy Guide section in this Plan illustrates how to assemble several policy areas for inclusion in local ordinances.

Figure 16. Bicycle Recommendations

Figure 17. Pedestrian Recommendations

Hot Spots and Growth Nodes Hot Spots were identified by member of the public, the steering committee, and the stakeholders as areas where there are current traffic or development concerns. The project team also examined the existing and future roadway network and traffic volumes to identify areas where a specific focus was needed to provide safe and efficient traffic movements and to promote land uses in keeping with the vision outlined for the study area. The following Hot Spots were identified through this process.

EXHIBIT 1-A KEY POINTS •CONTINUE 4-LANE DIVIDED HIGHWAY WESTWARD ALONG US 401 •PROVIDE SIGNAL AT INTERSECTION

US 401 / US 401 Business The existing intersection of US 401 and US 401 Business east of Raeford is a channelized, STOP-controlled intersection. Future traffic volumes and traffic analysis indicate that this intersection will warrant signalization in the future. To provide for more efficient traffic flow and increased safety, the channelization is proposed for removal from the intersection, and US 401 widened to a four-lane divided facility with auxiliary turn lanes and signal control. A future connection to Wal-Mart (bottom figure) will create the fourth leg to this intersection.

EXHIBIT 1-B KEY POINTS •CONTINUE 4-LANE DIVIDED HIGHWAY WESTWARD ALONG US 401 401 / 401 BUSINESS IN RAEFORD •PROVIDE SIGNAL AT INTERSECTION •PROVIDE FUTURE CONNECTION TO WALMART DEVELOPMENT

NC 211 / Turnpike Road The existing alignment of turnpike road creates an offset intersection at NC 211 with the northern leg skewed at an approximately 45-degree angle. This alignment creates safety and congestion issues. This area has also experienced some development with several gas stations and a nursery on the north side of NC 211. To provide for more efficient traffic flow, to increase safety, and to provide additional room for future development, this plan proposes to realign the northern leg of Turnpike Road to intersect with Gable Drive at a signalized intersection. A new access is proposed to be provided to the existing gas station and to provide access to potential commercial development between NC 211 and the existing railroad track.

US 401 / Wayside Road Wayside Road currently intersects US 401 with an approximately 45 degree skew. Additionally this area is surrounded by lands that are planned to be commercial development. As Wayside Road is a key connection to Plank Road and Fort Bragg Military Reservation, future traffic volumes suggest that signalization will be warranted at this intersection in the future. There is also a limited distance between Wayside Road and Lindsay Road, which is a major north-south connector through the study area. To accommodate these traffic volumes and to provide clear and concise access for future developments, Wayside Road is proposed to be relocated west to intersect US 401 directly across from Forrest Woods Drive. The new 4-leg intersection is proposed to be signal controlled with auxiliary turn lanes. A new roadway is proposed to provide access to the existing gas station, and the existing gas station driveways are proposed to be removed. Any future commercial developments in the area should have right-in-right-out only access to US 401 and full movement access to Wayside Road or Forest Woods Drive.

US 401/Parker Church Road and US 401/Hobson Road The intersections of Parker Church Road and Hobson Road with US 401 are currently very closely spaced, causing localized congestion for north-south travel. Hobson Road is a major north-south access to Plank Road and provides access to Fort Bragg Military Reservation and Parker Church Road is a major north-south roadway connecting US 401 with Johnson Mill Road and Rockfish Road. The preferred land use plan indicates that commercial development is also planned for this area, necessitating good access management along US 401. Future year traffic analysis indicates that a signalized directional crossover (superstreet) intersection would function extremely well for this area and would eliminate the need to align Parker Church Road and Hobson Road. This design would also function to provide access for future commercial developments utilizing right-in-right-out intersections (figure at right). This design would require the construction of median U-turn locations west of Hobson Road and East of Parker Church Road as well as the elimination of several existing turn lanes.

Rockfish Road / King Road / Swift Creek Road The Rockfish Road / King Road / Swift Creek Road intersection serves as a southern gateway into the Rockfish community and is expected to experience significant traffic volumes in the future with the planned land use scenario. Traffic analysis indicates that a STOP controlled intersection will not be sufficient to provide a reasonable level of service, particularly for travelers along King Road. Two options were identified for this intersection, a signalized intersection and a roundabout (figure at right). The roundabout option would negate the need for auxiliary turn lanes and would provide an attractive gateway into the Rockfish community. A signalized intersection would require auxiliary turn lanes, would be cheaper to construct than the roundabout, and would provide better traffic flow along Rockfish Road than the roundabout option.

Davis Bridge Road / Pittman Grove Church Road / Camden Road The confluence of three major east-west roadways; Camden Road, Pittman Grove Church Road and Arabia Road and Davis Bridge Road creates localized congestion that will increase as development in the study area increases. Future traffic analysis indicates that a two-lane section on Davis Bridge Road is not sufficient to handle the future traffic volumes on this section of roadway, but is sufficient north of Camden Road and South of Arabia Road. The proposed roadway system provides a four-lane section with auxiliary turn lanes on Davis Bridge Road from Camden Road to Arabia Road. A new traffic signal is proposed to be located at the intersection of Arabia Road and Davis Bridge Road, while the remaining two intersections are proposed to be STOP controlled. This proposed system will require the widening of the bridge between Arabia Road and Pittman Grove Church Road.

Rockfish Road / Camden Road The heavily skewed intersection of Rockfish Road and Camden Road currently creates congestion in the AM and PM peak hours, which is expected to increase with future development. These intersections provide two additional connections between Rockfish Road and Camden Road, one east of the intersection, and one west of the intersection. This configuration will allow for the removal of left turns from the main intersection and the conversion of this signal to twophase operation, providing more efficient traffic operations and better safety for vehicles and pedestrians. This would also provide room in the existing east and west quadrants for an entry feature.

Stony Point Road / Rockfish Road / King Road / Lakewood Drive Rockfish Road/Stoney Point Road is proposed in this document to be a 4-lane median divided facility. Additionally the surrounding community indicated a desire for more pedestrian facilities to connect the residential developments along King Road with the commercial developments east of the subject intersection.

Lakewood Drive / Fisher Road The Lakewood Drive / Fisher Road intersection is expected to experience considerable delays in the future under STOP control. Additionally the surrounding community indicated that sidewalks and bike lanes were desired in this area to better connect the surrounding communities with the E Melvin Honeycutt Elementary School.

The proposed plan for this area includes the widening of Rockfish Road / Stoney Point Road to a four-lane, divided section and modification of the existing traffic control signal to accommodate the additional lanes. Sidewalks are proposed along King Road with a pedestrian crossing on the Rockfish Road leg of the subject intersection. A pole mounted advance signal head is also recommended due to the curvature of King Road approaching the traffic control signal.

The proposed plan for this intersection includes a roundabout at the intersection of Lakewood Drive and Fisher Road along with the addition of bike lanes and sidewalks along both sides of each road. The roundabout will help calm traffic along Fisher Road and will serve as a gateway to the E Melvin Honeycutt Elementary School and residential areas to the south of Fisher Road. A final recommendation for this hot spot is to conduct a traffic flow study in cooperation with the elementary and middle schools, which present serious safety concerns related to loading/unloading periods conflicting with through traffic around the school properties.

Rockfish Road / Golfview Road Rockfish Road is proposed in this document to be a 4-lane median divided facility. This expansion will require the modification of the existing traffic signal at the subject intersection. Additionally the surrounding community has requested the addition of sidewalks to better connect the surrounding dense residential community.

Camden Road / NC 59 (Hope Mills Road) Camden Road is currently a two-lane roadway east of the subject intersection and is proposed in this document ot be a 4-lane divided facility. While significant congestion currently exists at this intersection and this congestion is expected to worsen in the future, the existing constraints around the intersection limit the scope of any potential roadway improvements.

The proposed design shows the provision of the four-lane median divided section with auxiliary turn lanes and crosswalks at the intersection of Rockfish Road and Golfview road as well as he addition of sidewalks on Golfview Road and Rockfish Road.

The proposed design shows the construction of a four-lane median divided facility on the western leg of the intersection as well as an auxiliary westbound right turn lane to serve the developments in the northwest quadrant of the intersection.

Strickland Bridge Road / Fisher Road Strickland Bridge Road is proposed to be a 4-lane facility in the vicinity of the intersection with Fisher Road. Additionally the residents of the surrounding intersections indicated the desire for bicycle lanes along Fisher Road and Strickland Bridge Road. This intersection is expected to function with unacceptable levels of delay in future conditions under STOP control. The proposed design shows the construction of Strickland Bridge Road as a four-lane, mediandivided facility with median breaks at Fisher Road and Summerwood Court. A traffic signal is proposed for the intersection with Fisher Road and new bike lines are proposed for both sides of Fisher Road and Strickland Bridge Road.

US 401 / Strickland Bridge Road Strickland Bridge Road is proposed to be a 4-lane facility in the vicinity of the intersection with US 401. The roadway is also planned to extend across US 401 to provide access to existing and future residential areas. The proposed design shows the construction of Strickland Bridge Road as a four-lane, divided section with auxiliary turn lanes extending across US 401. The current traffic signal will need to be modified to support four-way operations.

Prioritization Overview of Prioritization

In our planning studies, we often have to assume initially that costs aren’t a true factor in the development and selection of important transportation projects since we can only estimate costs later once the alignments and various types of amenities (e.g., bus shelters) and construction factors (for example, width of pavement) are known. However, as we begin to think more closely about our priorities, the realization that we cannot – or choose not to – afford every project comes home to us. Transportation projects have impacts on environmental and social resources, some of which are relatively straightforward to estimate, and others which involve a wide range of externalities (cost elements not normally associated with the direct financial burden of construction) that can be difficult, if not impossible, to calculate with accuracy now, much less in 30 years from now.

In the View of the Public and Steering Committee Open house events in Hoke and Cumberland Counties, as well as a parallel event for the Steering Committee, asked each participant to rate several priority factors for bicycle / pedestrian, public transportation and roadway projects. The results are shown as Figure 18 on the following page. Note several people in the Cumberland County meeting were “against” shorter trips; and that the Steering Committee was much more in favor of improving lowerincome population mobility and access to jobs as roles for public transportation than the public at-large.

Connect to other walkways 20% Reduce traffic

Connect to schools

15% 10% 5%

Improve safety

When the topic of prioritization comes up, so does performance measurement. Metropolitan Planning Organizations like FAMPO are required to measure the performance of their plans and actions in accordance with federal law passed during the last surface transportation bill (MAP-21). Performance measurements – at least the good ones – have to achieve the following: ! Be Available – you can’t measure it if you don’t have the data in an accessible format; ! Be Replicable – measuring progress over time is important to assess direction; and ! Be Relatable to the Goals and Vision of the Organization – a performance measure that

doesn’t measure what you are looking for isn’t useful. The performance metrics at right provide the beginnings of a “dashboard” to compare both the current and forecasted conditions now, and later (2040) with and without the proposed improvements suggested by this Plan.

Prioritizing System-Level Improvements In considering roadway improvements in the FAMPO Study Area, Tobler’s first law of geography – namely that everything is related to everything else but near things are more related than distant things – proved a helpful tenet. During our prioritization process, it was clear that individual roadways could not be evaluated separately, but had to be understood in the context of the larger system-wide roadway network. Importantly, roadways had to be prioritized in such a way that roadways near key growth nodes and or containing safety hotspots were given especial The closer the dot/marker to consideration and that regional connectivity and accessibility was the label, the more people that considered across the board. voted for (circle) or against (square) the priority factor. For example, 15% of votes in Cumberland County were cast “for” Connecting to parks as a preferred priority factor.

Connect to parks

Hoke (for) Provide options

Shorten trips

Cumberland (for) Cumberland (against) Steering Committee (for)

Improve lowerincome mobility

Access to jobs

Figure 18. Opinions on Project Priorities, Public and Stakeholder Committee

Steering Committee (against)

Percent'of'Study'Area'at'LOS'E' 3.63%% Percent%

31.75%% 6.00%%

Current Year Future Year – No Build Future Year – With Plan

For US Highway 401, the primary road from Raeford into Fayetteville, we recommend improvements to access management along the roadway based on FAMPO’s understanding of the safety problems, the large traffic volumes along this roadway, and the focus on 401 as an important corridor for development. As such, the improvements along Route 401 were agreed upon apart from the prioritization process undertaken for every other major roadway in the Study Area. However, Route 401 is the backbone of the transportation network in this area and any improvements on Route 401 will be absolutely crucial to the overall vitality of the system into the future. As such, this project is arguably the top priority in the area. Complete street cross sections are a useful tool to understand how all users can be safely accommodated on any given roadway segment. With the recent release of the Complete Streets Planning and Design Guidelines in North Carolina, a set of defined cross-sections was created to support the development of Complete Streets across the state. Using the cross sections in the Complete Streets guidance, we categorized all of the major roadway segments in the FAMPO Study Area to a specific Complete Streets type and estimated its cost based on the proposed right-of-way width and the design features provided within that width. In using these cross-sections, it is vital to note that these standards are not always “ideal” or “best” for the surrounding land uses and may not be feasible within the defined constrained right-of-way. In particular, many of the cross sections contain on-street parking, bike lanes, and sidewalks, one or all of which may not be ideal, depending on the context of the roadway. It will be very important to evaluate the context of the roadway, the surrounding area, and indeed the entire network to understand the multi-modal needs of the roadway. ! Priority!Factors! The vitality of the highway system is often discussed in terms of safety and congestion. For the Southwestern Cumberland County and Northeastern Hoke County Multi-Modal Congestion Plan, the terms “hot spot” and “growth nodes” denote areas of key safety concern and future growth, respectively. A variety of evaluation or priority factors were assessed with the public and Steering Committee; the following are descriptions of how each priority factor was applied to create the rankings shown in the priority tables that follow. Roadway'Priority'Factors' ! Congestion (Volume-to-Capacity Ratio) – In evaluating the level of congestion on collectors,

arterials, and highways in the FAMPO study area, current congestion levels estimated through the FAMPO Regional Travel Demand Model were utilized to provide figures for both volume of traffic as well as roadway capacity for every roadway in the system. This exercise provided information about where traffic volumes approached or exceeded capacity as well as about where traffic volumes might not necessitate any roadway improvements. Using this and stakeholder input as a basis, we assigned cross-sections to each roadway. This same approach was used to identify priorities based on congestion levels. Using the volume to capacity map, we assigned point values to roadway segments in the FAMPO Study Area. If any part of the roadway demonstrated a volume to capacity ratio (V/C) between 0.75 and 0.9 (Level-of-Service D), a half-point was awarded, while roadways with a V/C exceeding 0.9 (Level-of-Service E and F) earned one point. If the roadway V/C was less than 0.7, no points were awarded. In instances where the V/C ratio changed along the roadway, the higher ratio was used. ! Hot Spots – Hot Spots were selected and evaluated based on input received from the public and steering committee. When roadways are improved, the hot spot recommendations are also implemented as part of the larger / longer roadway project. For each hot spot crossed by a project, one point was awarded.

! New Streets – A number of participants cited “shorter trips” as being important to them, but

not as much in Cumberland County as in Hoke County. Therefore, 1.5 points were allocated to each new location roadway project proposed in Hoke County; and one point was allocated to each new location roadway project in Cumberland County. Public'Transportation'Priority'Factors' ! Growth Nodes – As with the safety-oriented hot spots, growth nodes were identified through

stakeholder outreach, discussions with planners, engineers, and city/county officials, and via the project steering committee. Growth nodes, as either commercial centers, mixed use centers, or town centers, are likely to generate differing levels of traffic. However, for this process, all nodes are assumed to generate the same level of traffic. For the purposes of project prioritization, for each growth node or existing employment center accessed by a project, one point was awarded. ! Low-Income Zone – Public transportation disproportionately serves people that have lower incomes and less access to a private automobile. To account for this important factor for transit, U.S. Census data (2006-2010) was gathered at the block group level for median household incomes to help identify the lowest-income areas in the study area. Each time a transit project passed through a block group that represented the lowest quintile (20%) of incomes in the State, one point was awarded. ! Length of New Route (Miles) – The ability of transit routes to connect the relatively far-flung study area was important, therefore each mile of new route associated with a project resulted in that project receiving a point.

Bicycle'and'Pedestrian'Priority'Factors' ! Intersections (Nodes) – Providing connectivity in the study area is a key concern: existing

sidewalks and bicycle facilities are typically few and disconnected now, severely limiting their utility and that of the overall bicycle and pedestrian network. A point was awarded every time a project crossed an existing or proposed pedestrian/bicycle facility. ! Access to Schools – If a project connected (or came within a ¼-mile of a school, then one point was awarded to help reflect the importance of children reaching school safely. ! Access to Parks – If a project accessed or came within a ¼-miles of a park or recreation facility, then one point was awarded. Recreational facilities are popular destination points for people traveling by bicycle or on foot; creating a safer, more connected system can help facilitate these trips. Additionally, there was a strong desire by many of those surveyed to be able to ride their bicycles or walk more often for recreational purposes. To reach a final project priority “score” the sum of the points awarded in the system described previously was weighted (divided by) the project’s estimated cost value. In the case public transportation projects, the first-year operating costs as well as the initial start-up costs were applied.

The Role of Project Costs Project costs can and usually do involve engineering design, preliminary planning/coordination, right-of-way acquisition, construction and operations/maintenance (particularly true in the annual operating costs associated with public transit service provision). The project costs shown on the following pages for roadways, public transportation services, pedestrian and bicycle projects were developed utilizing a unit cost model to estimate generalized costs per unit of length. Additional items were estimated and added separately, including intersection treatments, bridge structures, and lighting. The total score for each project was therefor weighted by the estimate of probable cost for the project to produce a unit benefit per unit of monetary cost for the project. It was this final, cost-weighted value that produced the final project priority ranking. The implementation of projects is the subject of the next section, but it is important to bring into the discussion of priorities that, in the real world, our top priority is often not the first project to be built. Private development interests are responsible for extending streets and providing the second tier of connectivity between major streets, as well as constructing lengths of sidewalk or reserving and constructing greenway facilities. For shopping centers and major residential developments, new transit stops may also be required if the property is on an existing or proposed transit route. Hence, it is important not to have a sequential set of 1 through n priorities, but instead to have all the projects clearly delineated in terms of their location, crosssection, and features so that when private development does occur the resulting transportation improvements are part of a coordinated effort rather than a disjointed set of disparate actions. The figures and tables on the following pages list and prioritize the projects from this Plan.

PRIORITY FACTORS USED New Street (Counties Weighted Differently) Number of “Hot Spots” Crossed Volume-to-Capacity Ratio (Current)

Table 11. Roadway Project Priorities

Figure 19. Roadway Priorities

PRIORITY FACTORS USED Length of New Route Number of Growth Nodes or Employment Centers Accessed Number of Lower-Income Zones Crossed / Accessed

Table 12. Public Transportation Project Priorities

Figure 20. Public Transportation Priorities

PRIORITY FACTORS USED Number of “Nodes” (intersections) Crossed Projects Accessing or Near to Schools Projects Accessing or Near to Parks

Table 13. Pedestrian Project Priorities

Figure 21. Pedestrian Priorities

PRIORITY FACTORS USED Number of “Nodes” (intersections) Crossed Projects Accessing or Near to Schools Projects Accessing or Near to Parks

Table 14. Bicycle Project Priorities

Figure 22. Bicycle Priorities

Implementation “Action Plan”

Implementation “Action Plan” Financial planning in the current fiscal environment is particularly challenging given the relatively flat sales tax revenues and steadily declining fuel tax revenues of recent years (Table 15). Intelligent policies have to constantly be adapted to fit changing demands, political perceptions, and the economic vitality of an area. The following policies are suggested for inclusion in future plan updates, but also as the starting point for further development into ordinances that our communities can use to augment existing design practices. Since our Plan has identified “growth nodes” that are expected to develop in a more rapid, intensive, or diverse manner than other parts of our study region, the following recommendations that have particular importance to these growth areas are connoted with an orange bullet symbol (!).

Roadway Policies and Best Practices Pedestrian lighting should be considered at mid-block crossings, near transit stops, commercial parking lots, mixed-use areas, or locations where pedestrian and cycling activity is likely. ! Limiting accessibility on avenues, parkways and boulevards helps increase capacity and reduce crashes; increasing accessibility between parcels through the use of local, parallel access roads, and collector streets does the same thing - both should be requirements on all streets and developments and are described below. ! Increasing accessibility is accomplished by: limiting block sizes (2,000 feet in urban/suburban areas); requiring connectivity between adjacent commercial parcels and improving connectivity between residential and commercial spaces with greenways and sidewalks; and constructing developments that rely on alleyways and local streets to reach nearby shopping and office centers. ! Decreasing accessibility means limiting the number of driveways to 1,000’ or greater on major arterials; using median-divided cross-sections to limit the number of left-turning opportunities (particularly out of driveways); and consolidating driveways while improving access off of side streets. Appendix A to this report describes a set of access management policies that can be modified and adopted by any town in the project study area. ! Sidewalk width should typically be at least 10’ unobstructed in a main street, 6’ minimum (8’ preferred) along a boulevard or avenue. A multi-use path is also recommended where available. ! Green space in rural location should be 4’-12’ without a median and 6’-10’ if a median exists. Green zones may include trees, lighting, furniture or other multi-modal amenities. Median widths vary based on cross-section widths, which in turn are usually based on right-of-way constraints imposed by utilities, structures, or natural elements (e.g., streams). ! Shared lanes bicycle facilities are typical on roads with low speeds (<35 mph). In this case, travel lanes should be 13’ -14’wide to allow for maneuvering and opening car doors. If a bicycle lane is provided, it should be at least 4’ wide (5’-6’ is preferred) and the motor vehicle lane should be narrowed to 10’ while controlling posted speeds. On roadway cross-sections with curb-and-gutter, the gutter pan is not considered part of the bicycle and/or motor lane width. ! Parking is expected in most urban settings, but can vary by location. Angle parking is allowed; preferably reverse-angle parking in downtown areas. !

Region and State

1977

1982

1997

2002

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

United States................................................................................. 9,163,553 10,619,673 16,156,344 22,958,092

28,094,363

33,044,249

34,943,572

35,766,701

36,979,404

37,849,041

38,960,918

37,833,373

37,879,755

North Carolina................................................................................. 289,692 372,161 554,254 861,487

997,217

1,209,386

1,272,612

1,338,403

1,494,367

1,608,984

1,582,400

1,515,944

1,551,660

Table 15. Fuel Tax Revenues for NC and U.S., Selected Years

1987

1992

Comparison

Public Transportation Policies and Best Practices A critical future element in the provision of transit services inside the study area will be how the area develops in terms of its land use, densities, and design that support public transport. Lowdensity development will not, by itself, provide a good foundation for public transportation services. However, if the activity centers (growth nodes) develop in a fashion that includes minimum three-story buildings; achieve a density of 10-20 dwelling units per acre for residential development; and are well connected to complimentary land uses (shopping to homes to workplace) then the study area will have a viable opportunity for high-quality service. In addition to the recommended amenities for bus stops based on proposed (or existing) development sizes/types shown in Figure 23, there are several other important issues that should be addressed during the development of the study area public transit system. ! Transit stops should always be placed on the far side of a traffic signal to allow bus vehicles

an opportunity to safely merge back with traffic. ! Transit â&#x20AC;&#x153;landingâ&#x20AC;? pads should permit people to reach a bus door without stepping into dirt;

other requirements for passengers with limited mobility should also be enforced. Park-and-Ride areas should be well-lit and well-marked to make it easy and safe for patrons. ! Marketing of transit services is the often-overlooked key to success in building ridership; based on anticipated congestion levels, there will be a market for transit, but it must be continuously emphasized and promoted. !

Figure 23. Public Transit Stop Features, by Development Size

Bicycle and Pedestrian Policies and Best Practices ! New and rehabilitated/reconstructed streets or other public travelways should include

All new public and private construction will be assumed to meet the standards in the adopted NCDOT Complete Streets Planning & Design Guidelines, and include sidewalks on at least one side of the road, on-road bicycle facilities, and indicate existing and planned greenways - any exceptions should be documented as to why these provisions cannot be physically constructed ! All new traffic signals will have a pedestrian countdown signal at all four legs of the intersection, and crosswalk markings designed in accordance with expected volumes of pedestrians and automobiles (Figure 24). ! The many two-lane, rural routes should be widened to include a minimum 4-foot (recommended: 5-foot) striped shoulder added as part of all repaving, rehabilitation, and new construction ! All site design review submittals will include the location of parks, schools, shopping centers, and other destinations within 1/2-mile of the proposed development perimeter, and show all bicycle, pedestrian and greenway facilities ! Traffic Impact Assessments/Studies (TIAs/TISs) will include a review of pedestrian signal timing, connectivity, and safety implications for cyclists and pedestrians, as well as describe access to transit stations/stops ! New or expanded schools should explicitly consider how connections to neighboring residential communities are to be achieved !

treatments to meet or exceed the standards stipulated by the Americans with Disabilities Act and ADAAG ! Bridges will accommodate cyclists and pedestrians on both sides ! Bicycle parking requirements will be enforced at the rate of two parking slots for the first 50 vehicle parking spaces, and two additional parking spaces for every 50 vehicle parking spaces thereafter ! Connectivity in the growth nodes is critical to encouraging efficient and non-motorized modes: recommend maximum 500’ block faces in non-residential areas; 1000’ block faces in singlefamily residential ! Eliminate sidewalk “gaps” and promote wide shoulders by setting aside capital funding in small increments each year so that future road projects can be matched with local dollars to provide those facilities during reconstruction/rehabilitation ! Work with NCDOT and schools to create a bicycle safety course for all elementary and middle schools

Figure 24. Common Crossing Treatments