Within the study area, US 301 is a two-lane undivided roadway with one 12-foot travel lane in each direction, paved shoulders and no sidewalks. The existing right-of-way is generally 100 feet wide and the posted speed limit ranges from 45 to 55 miles per hour.
The recommended includes widening US 301 to a 4-lane divided roadway. Two possible roadway designs (typical sections) are being proposed and both will require additional right-of way on the east side of the existing corridor.
The first typical section will extend from the future SR 56 intersection to Chancey Road. This proposed roadway will have two 12-foot travel lanes in each direction separated by a 54-foot wide grassed median, as well as 7-foot paved shoulders (also buffered bicycle lanes) and 5-foot sidewalks on both sides. In the future, this roadway could be expanded to 6 lanes by adding two lanes on the inside and reducing the median width.
The second typical section will extend from Chancey Road to the realigned SR 39 intersection. This proposed roadway will have two 11-foot travel lanes in each direction separated by a 33-foot to 54-foot wide grassed median, as well as 7-foot paved shoulders (also buffered bicycle lanes) and 5-foot sidewalks on both sides. This option would serve as a transition to the ultimate 4-lane section of US 301 that begins just north of the realigned SR 39 intersection.
In addition to the recommended build alternative, the no-build, or do-nothing, alternative is considered a viable alternative and will remain so for the duration of this study. Under the No-Build alternative, no improvements would be made to US 301 and only routine maintenance and preservation efforts would be made. Even though there are no design, right-of-way or construction costs associated with the no-build alternative, operating conditions are anticipated to worsen with time, while further increasing travel delays and traffic congestion. This will create an unacceptable level of service and a delay in safety related improvements. In addition, there will be an increase in emergency evacuation time. Therefore, the no-build alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the project. Although, the no-build alternative is not consistent with local transportation plans, this alternative forms the basis for comparison to the viable study alternatives analyzed for this study.