Tweetsie Railroad is a family oriented railroad theme park located on US 321 between Boone and Blowing Rock, in Watauga County, NC  In additional to a three-mile ride aboard an authentic steam locomotive, the theme park features amusement rides and other attractions geared toward families with children. In 2006-2007, Tweetsie Railroad, Inc. proposed to build a mixed-use development on land adjacent to the Tweetsie Railroad Amusement Park. The development proposed a variety of shopping and entertainment uses with hotels and restaurants. Davenport Transportation Consulting (DTC, JDE) was contracted to complete a traffic impact analysis (TIA) for the proposed development.  The scope of the TIA included:

• Analysis of existing attendance data
• Projection of trip generation for the proposed and existing sites. 
• Trip distribution for the projected trip generation
• Projection of internal traffic flow patterns between the developments
• Analysis of the existing and proposed access points
• Determination of lane configuration, storage and taper requirements, and signalization phasing for the proposed access points.
• Analysis year was 2017
• Analysis conducted based on NCDOT standards.

The Tweetsie Railroad amusement park had one full access point on US 321 just south of Middle Fork Road.  When the park is open a traffic signal is also in operation at this access point.  However, when the park is closed for the winter, the signal is taken down, and the intersection operates unsignalized. Initial discussions with NCDOT indicated that the concept of realigning Middle Fork Road with Tweetsie Drive be considered, as well as permanent signalization of the new intersection. The site plan proposed a second access point on US 321. Initial discussions held with NCDOT indicated that this intersection should be considered as a directional left-over; however, initial meetings with the client and a review of the anticipated trips for this project indicated a possible need for a full access point at this location. Our analysis considered both possibilities.
 
Our analysis indicated that either access scenario would provide adequate access for the proposed project.  The key difference between the two scenarios was primarily constructability.