Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda - 02-24-2011 - 3
A+44z4om 3 -6 -1 Brady Alternatives 38 September 20, 2010 Page I of 6 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Stevens and Hillsborough Town Board members From: Margaret Hauth, Planning Director Date: September 20, 2010 RE: Alternatives to Elizabeth Brady Road Background: The Hillsborough Town Board of Commissioners withdrew its support for TIP (Transportation Improvement Program) project U -3808 (Elizabeth Brady Road Extension), a $33.9 million project, on December 14, 2009. After reviewing the environmental documents for the project, the Board realized the project yielded limited improvements in traffic congestion on Churton Street while posing significant impacts to the natural and social environment in the area of the project. During these discussions, Planning Department staff proposed a list of alternative projects that when taken in some combination may have similar or greater impacts on reducing Churton Street congestion. At the time of their decision, the Town Board expressed concern that withdrawing their support may cause the Town to lose the funding assigned to The Elizabeth Brady Road Extension project. Prior to NCDOT's (North Carolina Department of Transportation) withdrawal of the project entirely, it was partially funded in the STIP (State Transportation Improvement Program). While NCDOT would not commit to "swapping funding," the door was left open to work within the TIP process to assign the funds to new priorities. The DCHC -MPO (Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro - Metropolitan Planning Organization) has supported the concept of reassigning the funding to other Town projects that may achieve the goal of the Elizabeth Brady Road Extension project and assisted with the analysis of the substitute projects list to determine what combination of projects may be most effective. A copy of the DCHC -MPO report containing their analysis, The Churton Street Congestion Analy� is Report, is attached. The purpose of this document is to provide a framework for understanding that report and suggesting action options. Purpose of the Analysis: To assist with the TIP process, it is desirable to have a locally supported "package" of projects analyzed in a model that can be held up as having an impact on Churton Street congestion. This is needed in order to help persuade NCDOT that it is reasonable to reassign funding for the Elizabeth Brady Road Extension project to this package of projects as they would address the same need. When the selected package is run in the model, the Town will pick the same measures of effectiveness that were used in the Elizabeth Brady Road Extension project's EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) so the alternative projects can be compared fairly. The package must consist of projects that can be constructed quickly, and can be shown to effectively alleviate traffic congestion on Churton Street in downtown Hillsborough. Methodology: The TRM (Triangle Regional Model) DCHC -MPO staff used the TRM in performing their analysis. The TRM is a computer model built on SE (socio- economic) data for the communities within the DCHC -MPO and CAMPO (Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization). The model is most useful in analyzing regional impacts of large scale transportation and land use changes. Data is entered based on TAZs (Traffic Analysis Zones). TAZs are special areas delineated by state and/or local transportation officials for tabulating traffic- related data- especially journey -to- work and place -of -work statistics. A TAZ usually consists of one or more census blocks, block groups, or census tracts. TRM Weaknesses There are only 14 TAZs covering Hillsborough and the immediate vicinity (see map on page 3 of the DCHC- MPO report). This limits the effectiveness of using the TRM to analyze fine grain changes to the Hillsborough transportation network. For example, TAZ 1896 Brady Alternatives September 20, 2010 Page 2 of 6 What is SE Data and How Is It Used in the TRM? SE (socio- economic) data includes the number of dwellings, number of residents, and number of jobs by type within each TAZ. The number of residents is extrapolated from the number of dwellings. Each jurisdiction within the MVO tracks this data within their jurisdiction and updates it with each plan update or more often depending on local preferences. Using the SE data and actual traffic counts, the model projects traffic on various routes to estimate traffic flows and possible congestion. The model is checked against reality and equations assigning traffic are adjusted until the model can closely predict future conditions. includes the area bounded by South Churton Street, 1-85,140 and NC 86 South. This one TAZ includes all of the Waterstone, Hampton Pointe and Old Mill Business Park developments. This creates problems in predicting traffic flows to and from this TAZ because the route chosen depends on where within the TAZ you are going. Travel within a TAZ cannot be analyzed using the TRM. Project Analysis In November of 2009, Planning Department staff suggested 11 substitute projects be studied to determine if any one or more in combination would effectively reduce congestion on Churton Street in downtown Hillsborough. The projects that were able to be analyzed in the TRM are listed below with the alternative number that matches the DCHC -MPO report: 1. Update the Feasibility Study for the widening of South Churton Street (TIP project R- 2825) to include an assessment of the recommendations in the Town's adopted Churton Street Corridor Strategic Plan and the potential impacts of the Waterstone development. 4. Conduct a Feasibility Study for the construction of Orange Grove Road extension to US 70 Business (US 70 -A East). w Brady Alternatives 40 September 20, 2010 Page 3 of 6 5. Assess the viability of designating an alternate route as an NC 86 Bypass — including portions of I -40, I -85 and the US 70 Connector to I -85 west of the Town. 6. Provide additional operational support funding for an in -town circulating bus route (C -4932) for 5 additional years in a step -down manner to allow the Town and Orange County to absorb the cost and provide a quality service with short headways. 7. Install enhanced signage east, west, and north of Hillsborough to direct through traffic to use the US 70 Connector and Interstates rather than Churton Street. This includes signage in RTP (Research Triangle Park) to direct NC 86 North traffic to the Durham Freeway (NC 147),1-85, and US 70 Bypass, and includes the study of the improvement as well as installation of signage. Other staff suggested improvements that could not be modeled are listed below. Alternative actions for each are listed in the "Recommendations and Next Steps" section of this report: A. Conduct a downtown TDM (Traffic Demand Management) and efficiency assessment to include analysis of signalization, dedicated left turn lanes, other turn lanes, parking and traffic calming to both improve the flow of traffic while maintaining community character in the Town's historic downtown core. B. Assess the impacts and viability of extending US 70 -A to the west to connect with Exchange Park Lane. C. Conduct a community railroad crossing assessment. D. Assess the condition of the Eno River and railroad bridges on South Churton Street to determine an appropriate replacement schedule and necessary design changes to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian improvements. E. Conduct a Feasibility Study for the alignment of Eno Mountain Road and Mayo Street (TIP U- 3436). F. Update and modernization of I -85 interchange #165 at NC 86 South (The widening and reconfiguration of Hillsborough's two I -85 interchanges were included in the DCHC- MPO report as the baseline analysis). Additional Projects Analyzed.• DCHC -MPO staff analyzed the following projects because they are existing projects in the DCHC -MPO 2035 LRTP (Long Range Transportation Plan) that may impact congestion along Churton Street: I -40 widening I -85 widening NC 86 South widening between US 70 -A East and Old NC 10 Brady Alternatives 41 September 20, 2010 Page 4 of 6 • NC 86 North widening between US 70 Bypass and NC 57 In addition, DCHC -MPO staff modeled two additional projects to provide a parallel route to Churton Street: the Western Bypass and a western loop extending the Western Bypass south to the I- 40/I -85 split west of Town. The latter would provide a direct connection to the Interstate. Planning Department staff notes that these two projects exceed the intended scope of the analysis, but show that a parallel route might have a greater impact on relieving congestion. This will be explored further in the "Recommendations and Next Steps" section of this report. Model Results The results shown in the table on Page 32 of the DCHC -MPO report show the impact to number of vehicles (volume), travel time (in minutes), and congestion (V /C- Volume /Capacity) for 9 of the alternatives analyzed as compared to a base analysis that includes the interstate widening projects. The table analyzes each alternative independently, not in combination. As noted in the "Purpose of Analysis" section of this report, one of the primary outcomes sought by the Town is to be able to use the funding previously allocated for the Elizabeth Brady Road Extension project for a "package" of viable projects that can be constructed quickly and that will effectively alleviate congestion on Churton Street in downtown. Projects 1, 2, and 3 in the table below (matching the DCHC -MPO report) offer some improvement and can move forward with the least additional review and design. Project #4 (Orange Grove Road extension) in the list is new road and will require significant time for planning, design, and permitting. The impact of the intersection improvement created by the Eno Mountain Road/Mayo Street alignment cannot be reflected in the model because it adds no capacity and is located within a TAZ rather than as boundary points. However, this project is in a position to move forward more rapidly than others because of its inclusion in the DCHC -MPO 2035 LRTP. Additionally, this project improves a route that is parallel to Churton Street, which implies it may have a noticeable impact on Churton Street congestion. Funding Comparisons: In the Fiscal Year 2009 -2015 STIP, $33,994,000 was allocated for right -of -way, mitigation, and construction of the Elizabeth Brady Road Extension project beginning in FY 2010. Given the status of the project when Hillsborough withdrew support, the STIP schedule had already slipped by at least one year. The table below provides information on each individual alternative project, including their cost and funding commitment level. The alternative numbering is based on the alternative listing in the DCHC -MPO report. Brady Alternatives 42 September 20, 2010 Page S of 6 Alternative Project Cost Funding Commitment * I -85 Widening $212,582,000 Partial; beginning 2017 in draft FYI 1 -20 TIP * I -40 Widening $128,452,000 Partial; beginning 2019 in draft FYI 1-20 TIP 1 South Churton Street $22,750,000 None Widening 2 NC 86 South Widening $9,795,792 None; not identified in draft FYI 1-20 TIP between US 70 -A east and Old NC 10) 3 NC 86 North Widening $3,207,033 None; not identified in draft FYI 1-20 TIP between US 70 Bypass and NC 57 4 Orange Grove Road $30,000,000 None; not identified in draft FYI 1-20 TIP Extension to US 70 -A East 6 Downtown Transit $0 The route modeled was a direct shuttle route, not the funded CMAQI circulator route. The circulator route will be analyzed when finalized. 8 Western Bypass $7,450,000 None; identified in FYI 1-20 TIP; not in DCHC -WO 2035 LRTP Eno Mountain Road/Mayo $2,350,000 None; not identified in draft FYI 1-20 Street Alignment TIP; is in DCHC -MPO 2035 LRTP * = Projects not considered alternatives but included in baseline scenarios due to their funding status and likelihood of being completed in the future. 1CMAQ = Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality-a Federal grant program Recommendations and Next Steps: First and foremost, the Town needs to determine which alternatives it wants to present as a package. The more similar the benefits of the package of alternatives are with the estimated benefit from the Elizabeth Brady Road Extension project, the stronger position the Town will be in to offer the package as a substitute. The Town must also be prepared to discuss detailed schedules and coordinate Interstate improvements with NCDOT to maximize the impact of any funded improvements. There also needs to be a frank discussion about whether there will be real dollar- for - dollar recognition for the Elizabeth Brady Road Extension project and, if so, what that dollar figure will be as the estimates for the Elizabeth Brady Road Extension project and other road projects vary from year to year. In the longer term there are additional tasks the Town can undertake to support the projects that aren't well modeled, and to identify small projects that can be funded locally or outside of the TIP process. One of the first small projects could be undertaking a detailed downtown TDM study. The DCHC -MPO staff has contact some firms about undertaking this study. The estimated cost and timeframe for this study should be known by the Town Board workshop. This study could be funded by the Town or in cooperation with DCHC -MPO using planning funds the organization receives annually (20% local match required). Brady Alternatives 43 September 20, 2010 Page 6 of 6 The suggested downtown TDM study would include the following components: • Signals — synchronization, timing, and dedicated turns • Turn lanes — right or left turn lanes at certain intersections • On- street parking — the impact of removing on- street parking on Churton Street to create room for turn lanes and wider sidewalks • Traffic calming • Creation of loading zones • Potential of redesigning off - street parking lots The results of this study are likely to be small projects the Town could undertake itself or request discretionary funding from NCDOT rather than large scale TIP projects that require years of planning and preparation. Other alternatives not modeled: • Assess the impacts and viability of extending US 70 -A to the west to connect with Exchange Park Lane. • Conduct a community railroad crossing assessment. • Conduct a Feasibility Study for the alignment of Eno Mountain Road and Mayo Street (TIP U- 3436). The items listed above that could not be evaluated using the TRM lend themselves to a different tool or methodology. Planning Department staff is considering the effectiveness of developing and maintaining a finer grained local model that could inform more local decisions, but contain the same database as the TRM. Staff cannot recommend this option yet because they don't know whether such a tool could be maintained with current staffing, or whether the benefits would outweigh any maintenance costs. Investigation of this option will continue. If a local model proves untenable, a low technology sketch analysis can also be conducted using the same information a model would use, but skipping the equations and producing a more conceptual result. The community rail crossing assessment was also recommended in the recently adopted Rail Station Small Area Plan as a necessary component in advance of any new rail crossings being requested or consideration of closing existing crossings. This analysis would include impacts of rerouting traffic, convenience of access, safety during emergencies, and many other factors. The request to assess the condition of the Eno River and railroad bridges on South Churton Street to determine an appropriate replacement schedule can be made directly to the Bridge Division of NCDOT and should provide the Town with some advance warning of repair work for the bridges sufficient to integrate bicycle and pedestrian improvements. 44 Attachment 3 -b -2 — Churton Street Congestion Analysis Report Available electronically at www.co.oran_ge.nc.us under "Meeting Agendas" — Board of County Commissioners, Joint Meeting with Hillsborough — February 24, 2011 Churton Street Congestion Analysis Report Prepared for: The Town of Hillsborough Hillsborough, North Carolina By DCHC MPO September 9, 2010 I. Introduction The main purpose of this analysis is to assess current traffic congestion causes on Churton Street, and develop and evaluate alternatives to reduce congestion or maintain an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) on the street. - Since the 2010 data set is not available and the FY2035 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) has been developed on May, 2009, base and target analysis years are set as FY2015 and FY2035. In the Town of Hillsborough area, two coordinated signal corridors are maintained by NC DOT: 14 signals on Churton Street between NC 57 and Oakdale Dr. and 5 signals on NC 86 between US 70 business and Hampton Pointe Drive. Recently, NC DOT completed the re- timing, phasing, and coordinating work on the Churton Street corridor using on -site field observation methodology, and the NC 86 corridor will be completed soon. II. Triangle Regional Travel Demand Model (TRM) review 1. Socio- Economic data review It is important to understand socioeconomic (SE) data since travel demand forecasting results and the accuracy of the results are heavily dependent on the SE data. Two socioeconomic data sets are reviewed in this section: one estimated by the Town of Hillsborough and one used by the Triangle Regional Travel Forecasting Model. 1.1. Town of Hillsborough data TRM ID* TAZ 2005 2015 2035 Housing pop Employ Housing pop Employ Housing pop Employ 1882 330002 832 1973 144 932 2210 854 1232 2922 1590 1883 330003 386 915 6 560 1328 20 658 1560 25 1884 330004 323 766 604 403 956 936 528 1252 1354 1885 330005 267 633 369 352 835 666 409 970 998 1886 330006 239 567 15 264 626 53 314 745 63 1887 330008 471 1117 126 531 1259 263 631 1496 404 1891 330012 366 868 318 404 958 934 464 1100 995 1892 330013 369 875 226 1 540 1281 370 580 1375 499 1893 330014 192 455 398 207 491 1244 230 545 1451 1894 330015 207 491 1501 550 1304 2169 1 653 1549 2221 1895 330016 105 249 1182 125 296 1289 205 486 1457 1896 330017 555 1316 689 1095 2597 1696 1635 3877 2875 1897 330018 800 1897 543 899 2132 1215 1047 2483 1396 1977 376005 38 90 31 64 152 97 201 477 320 SUM 1 5150 12213 6152 6926 16425 11806 8787 20838 15648 *) The detailed Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) location is shown in section 1.5. 1.2. Compared with previous scenario data ( %) 1.3. TRM original data sets 2005 (FY051FY02) 2015 2015 (FY15 /FY05) 2035 (FY35 /FY25) TRM ID - TAZ Housing pop Employ Housing pop Employ Housing pop Employ 1882 330002 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.12 0.12 4.93 0.19 0.19 0.02 1883 330003 1.64 1.64 0.50 0.45 0.45 2.33 0.00 0.00 0.25 1884 330004 0.00 0.00 (0.44) 0.25 0.25 0.55 0.09 0.09 0.30 1885 330005 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.32 0.32 0.80 0.05 0.05 0.32 1886 330006 0.13 0.13 1.50 0.10 0.10 2.53 0.09 0.09 0.26 1887 330008 0.00 0.00 (0.21) 0.13 0.13 1.09 0.07 0.07 (0.17) 1891 330012 0.22 0.22 (0.43) 0.10 0.10 1.94 0.07 0.07 0.02 1892 330013 1.35 1.35 1 0.10 0.46 0.46 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.24 1893 330014 0.03 0.03 (0.63) 0.08 0.08 2.13 0.04 0.04 0.05 1894 330015 1.38 1.38 0.09 1.66 1.66 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 1895 1330016 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.19 0.19 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 1896 330017 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.97 0.97 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 1897 330018 0.04 0.04 (0.50) 0.12 0.12 1.24 0.05 0.05 0.05 1977 376005 0.00 0.00 2.10 0.68 0.68 2.13 0.13 0.13 0.88 1.3. TRM original data sets 2005 2015 2035 TRM ID - TAZ Housing pop Employ Housing pop Employ Housing pop Employ 1882 330002 855 1973 144 1099 2547 854 1250 2903 1114 1883 330003 481 1141 6 658 1560 20 658 1560 10 1884 330004 327 766 604 418 982 919 925 2182 1317 1885 330005 269 633 227 292 688 666 444 1048 519 1886 330006 240 567 15 460 1089 33 582 1377 45 1887 330008 472 1117 104 533 1262 173 785 1860 435 1891 330012 370 868 318 616 1451 954 618 1454 922 1892 330013 372 875 226 483 1138 345 484 1138 323 1893 330014 194 455 398 209 491 1244 211 493 1412 1894 330015 207 491 1501 651 1544 2169 714 1692 2597 1895 330016 105 249 883 107 254 1289 105 250 1457 1896 330017 569 1316 689 1006 2350 1596 1580 3703 2928 1897 330018 808 1897 543 908 2132 1195 960 2258 1314 1977 376005 38 90 21 64 152 27 194 460 33 SUM 5307 12438 5679 7504 17640 11484 9510 22378 14426 1.4. Comparison of TRM and Town of Hillsborough data ( %, TRM /ToH) *) the shaded cells indicate downtown area. I.S. TAZ map in TRM model 2005 2015 2035 RM ID - TAZ Housing pop Employ Housing pop Employ Housing pop Employ 1882 330002 0.03 (0.00) 0.00 0.18 0.15 0.00 0.01 (0.01) (0.30) 1883 330003 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.18 0.17 0.00 0.00 (0.00) (0.60) 1884 11891 330004 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.03 (0.02) 0.75 0.74 (0.03) 885* 330005'. 0.01 (0.00) (0.38) (0.17) ((3.18) "' 0.00 0.09 0 .08 (0.48) 1886 330006 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.74 (0.38) 0.85 0.85 (0.29) 1887 330008 0.00 0.00 (0.17) 0.00 0.00 (0.34) 0.24 0.24 0.08 330012 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.51 0.02 0.33 0.32 (0.07) 1892 330013 0.01 (11.00) 0.00 (0.11) (0.11) (0.07)' (0.17) (0.17) (0.35)', 1893 330014'. 0.01 (0.00) 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 (0.08) (0.10) (0.03) 1894 330015 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.18 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.17 1895 330016 0.00 (0.00) (0.25) (0.14) (0.14) 0.00 (0.49) (0.49) 0.00 1896 330017 0.03 (0.00) 0.00 (0.08) (0.10) (0.06) (0.03) (0.04) 0.02 1897 330018 0.01 (0.00) 0.00 0.01. 0.00 (0.02) (0.08) (0.09) (0.06) " 1977 376005 0.00 (0.00) (0.32) 0.00 0.00 (0.72) (0.03) (0.03) (0.90) sum 0.03 1 0.02 1 (0.08) 0.08 0.07 (0.03) 0.08 0.07 (0.08) *) the shaded cells indicate downtown area. I.S. TAZ map in TRM model 1.6. Summary of SE data comparison After reviewing an official version of TRM and Town of Hillsborough socioeconomic data, the Town of Hillsborough data is adopted for this analysis. Since TRM's SE data are produced by a Control Total Methodology, sometimes the TRM data is not the same as the original data provided by a jurisdiction. 1.7. Population versus Employment The numbers of population and employment in a TAZ are shown in the two figures below. It is important to understand the numbers in a TAZ since population is closely related with the amount of trip production and employment is associated with the amount of trip attraction in a TAZ. The Grey and Green colors indicate the population and employment, and the pie size represents the total amount of both numbers in a TAZ. 1.7.1.FY2015 4 1.7.2. FY2035 1.8. Employment Type Each employment type has different trip attraction rates by time of day in the TRM model. The differences are shown in the figures below: the color of Grey, Green, Yellow, Red, and Orange represents the amount of employment in the industrial, retail, highway retail, office, and service sectors. Again, the pie size indicates the total amount of employment in each TAZ. 1.8.1. FY2015 5 1.8.2.FY2035 2. Model Validation The TRM model is a regional demand forecasting model covering CAMPO and DCHC MPO areas. It is important to ensure that the model can be applicable for a subarea analysis. Using the recent NC DOT's Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) data, the model's capability is reviewed. The figure below shows two comparison links and the result is shown in the following table. It is noted that the AADT is usually based on consecutive 48 hours of data collection with adjustment rate, not on 365 days. In other words, the AADT is an estimated number. 2.1. FY2005 vs. Traffic Count * HAF: Hourly Adjustment Factor for converting TRM flow on PM peak period 3. Overview of existing and future conditions at the Town of Hillsborough 3.1. Six planned Projects with capacity addition by FY2035 in LRTP, 2009 Six projects providing capacity addition by FY 2035 in Long Range Transportation Plan are shown in the figure below with the project name and LRTP ID; this information will help the development of alternative scenarios to define which project or a combination of projects are crucial to relieve future congestion on Churton Street. Count TRM_FY05 TRM /Count ( %) HAF* Others Location Volume AM I PM Daily AM PM Daily AM PM Daily PM HWY Count (4h) (4h) (4h) (4h) (4h) (4h) ID ID NB 1651 2530 8150 1290 1546 5680 78% 61% 70% Churton 106% 3554 20670080 SB 1953 2430 8607 1255 1509 5608 64% 62% 65% St Tot 3604 4960 16757 2545 3055 11288 71% 62% 67% EB 223 403 1244 168 548 1622 75% 136% 130% US70 109% 10054 40670109 WB 357 386 1321 345 210 1441 97% 54% 109% BUS Tot 1 580 1 789 2565 1 513 1 758 1 3063 1 88% 1 96% 1 119% * HAF: Hourly Adjustment Factor for converting TRM flow on PM peak period 3. Overview of existing and future conditions at the Town of Hillsborough 3.1. Six planned Projects with capacity addition by FY2035 in LRTP, 2009 Six projects providing capacity addition by FY 2035 in Long Range Transportation Plan are shown in the figure below with the project name and LRTP ID; this information will help the development of alternative scenarios to define which project or a combination of projects are crucial to relieve future congestion on Churton Street. 3.2. Congestion review (v /c) Volume -to- Capacity ratio (V /C) is a good indicator of congestion during daily or specific peak - time periods. To examine the congestion levels among the base analysis year (FY2015, current demand and supply), target analysis year with no -build (FY2035 demand and current supply), and target analysis year with the six project cases (FY2035 demand and, new supply), multiple models were analyzed. The results on daily, AM & PM peak periods are shown in the figures below: the Green, Orange, Red, and Purple colors indicate the forecasted congestion levels in free flow, moderate, heavy, and stop & go conditions. 3.2.1. FY2015 3.2.1.1. Daily congestion 3.2.1.2. AM peak period (6-10 AM) 3.2.1.3. PM peak period (15:30 - 19:30) 3.2.2. FY2035 with No Build Scenario 3.2.2.1. Daily congestion Daily VOC — Free Flow (0.0 to 0.5) Moderate (0.6 to 0.75) i Heavy (0.75 to 1.0) M Stop & Go (above 1.0; 0 S 1 1.5 0 Miles Daily VOC -Free Flow (0.0 to 0.5) Moderate (0.5 to 0.75) mommism Heavy (0.75 to 1.0) Stop & Go (1.0 above) 0 .5 1 1.5 Miles i r 3.2.2.2. AM peak period (6 -10AM) 3.2.2.3. PM peak period (15:3019:30) UUI Peak Period VOC --Free Flow (0.0 to 0.5) Moderate (0.5 to 0.75) ® Heavy (0.75 to 1.0) Stop & Go (1.0 above) 0 .5 1 1.5 Miles Peak Period (4h), V, —Free Flow (0.0 to 0.5) Moderate (0.5 to 0.75) � Heavy (0.75 to 1.0) =Stop & Go (1.0 above) 0 .5 1 1.5 � 1 Miles 10 3.2.3.FY2035 with 6 capacity projects 3.2.3.1. Daily congestion W 3.2.3.2. AM peak period (6 -1OAM) Daily VOC Formula Field —Free Flow (0.0 to 0.5) �`• Moderate (0.5 to 0.751 ® Heavy (0.75 to 1.0) Stop & Go (above 1.01 0 .33 .67 1 0 Miles 11 t , ttc o � 'a '• e+ � t s x ' " i AM Peak Period VOC I Free Flow(0.0 to 0.51 .r" `- ,, - - -- Moderate (0.5 to 0.75) " smomm Heavy 10.75 to 1.0) -� -, Stop & GO (above 1.01 0 .5 1 1.5 5 J'` Miles 11 3.2.3.3. PM peak period (15:3019:30) 3.3. Desire Lines (Flows of vehicle from CBD) A desire line analysis was conducted to figure out where vehicles from the Hillsborough downtown area are going to or coming from within the region. The results are shown in the figures below. The line thickness in the figures represents relative traffic volume. The TRM model's results indicate that most vehicles are traveling between zones within the area. 3.3.1. FY2015 3.3.1.1. Daily desired lines 3.3.1.2. AM peak period desired lines 3.3.1.3. PM peak period desired lines FY2015, AM_ �a 0� 25 m 5 i3 N5, PM .................. im 1-11 3.3.1.4. Daily desired lines - Two highest activity zones 3.3.2. FY2035 3.3.2.1. Daily desired lines i WtMedl } im - 20.8 1 ? f o as 67 1 FY203i, Daily 14 3.3.2.2. AM peak period desired lines 3.3.2.3. PM peak period desired lines FY2035, AM w,aasas FY2035. PM ................... 15 3.3.2.4. Daily desired lines - Two most high activity zone ""VI _ �- �" l :'�i ' _� "•�ti. °`` ! it `� f 1 f Nl. lam: sp, 4 x Untided❑ \. 300 150 34.779188 0 33 67 1 3.4. OD path review A selected link analysis was also conducted to understand origin and destination (OD) of the passing vehicles on the selected link. This analysis provides a clue whether the congestion was caused by through traffic or inter - Hillsborough traffic, and provides an initial thought for alternative development. In the figures below, the red colored link and numbers represent the selected link location and the assigned directional traffic volumes during the PM peak -hour periods, which are between 4:30 to 7:30 PM. 16 3.4.1.N -S bound at Downtown (PM only) 3.4.1.1. FY2015 Downtown, PM FYI 1500 750 375 0 .33 .67 1 0 Miles 3.4.1.2. FY2035, no build scenario if Z ry Downtown, PM FY35 no build 3000 1500 750 0 .5 1 1.5 r� Miles F.: FY15 Capacity with FY35 Demand 17 3.4.1.3. FY2035 with 6 capacity addition projects i fr: tr rn \ ( i j Downtown, PM FY35 3000 1500 750 0 .5 1 1.5 Miles „ 1 f I FY35 wf 140, 85, ChhuR n St widening Pd. •� n. C!_ ......... 3.4.2.N -S bound at Northern area (PM peak period only) 3.4.2.1. FY2015 18 3.4.2.2. FY2035, no build scenario 3.4.2.3. FY2035 with 6 capacity addition projects Northern Area, PM FY35 Mr= 750 0 1 2 3 Miles 35 w! 140.85. Churtun Stwldenlna F 3.4.3.N -S bound on NC86 (not old 86), (PM only) 3.4.3.1. FY2015 3.4.3.2. FY2035, no build scenario NC86. PM FYI 1500 750 375 0 25 .5 95 0 Miles NC86, PM FY35 no build 3000 1500 750 0 .33 .67 1 0 Miles f15 Capacity with FY35 Demar 20 3.4.3.3. FY2035 with 6 capacity addition projects 3.4.4.W -E bound on 1 -85 (PM only) 3.4.4.1. FY2015 NG86, PM FY35 3000 1500 750 0 .5 1 1.5 Miles 1.85, PM FYI 7500 750 375 0 .33 .67 1 0 Miles 21 3.4.4.2. FY2035, no build scenario 3.4.4.3. FY2035 with 6 capacity addition projects 1-85, PM FY35 3000 1500 750 0 .5 1 1.5 Miles 22 3.4.5.W -E bound on US70 Business (PM peak period only) 3.4.5.1. FY2015 US70BUS, PM FY15 Flow Queryti 1500 750 375 — Fiow_QueryS 0 25 .5 .75 O MNes 3.4.5.2. FY2035, no build scenario Na US70 BUS, FM FY35 no build °� -- 3000 1500 750 0 .5 1 1.5 Miles t t 1 p FY15 Capacity with FY35 Demand t I f, 23 3.4.5.3. FY2035 with 6 capacity addition projects 3.4.6.W -E bound on US70 Bypass (PM only) 3.4.6.1. FY2015 US70 BUS, PM FY35 3000 1500 750 0 .5 1 1.5 Miles 5 wl 140.85. Churton St widening US70, PM FYI Flow_OueryS 1500 750 375 — Flow_Ouery6 0 .33 .67 1 0 Miles 24 3.4.6.2. FY2035, no build scenario 3.4.6.3. FY2035 with 6 capacity addition projects US70. PM FY35 no build 3000 1500 750 0 .33 .67 1 0 Miles Y15 Canaeily with FY35 Demar US70, PM FY35 3000 1500 750 0 .5 1 1.5 Miles FY35 wt Wo, 85, Churton Sc widening Prj. F- 4. Overview Summary S.E. Data: the Town of Hillsborough data is used for this analysis. Model Validation: On Churton St., TRM model estimates about 33% less on daily, and about 38% less during PM peak period. It is noted that, in an operational analysis aspect, actual congestion on the street is more severe than what the TRM model estimated. On US 70 Business, TRM model estimates about 19% more on daily, and about 4% less during PM peak period. - Traffic condition: PM peak period is the most congested period. On Churton St., three segments (downtown, US 70 Bypass and 1 -85) will be severely congested on year 2035 if no capacity is added in the Town of Hillsborough area. 26 III. Alternative Analysis 1. Development of alternatives 1.1. Candidate projects in LRTP list ID Road Name Project Limits Existing # Proposed # Distance LRTP ID AQ M5 of Lanes of Lanes (miles) Analysis From To 10 Advanced US70 @ I- US 70 10.5 Year 1 1 -85 1 -40 The 4 8 7.35 48 2025 Information Durham @ 1 -85 Exit Systems (ATIS) Co line 160 2 1-40 NC 86 1 -85 4 6 7.32 44 2035 3 Old NC 86 1 -40 US 70 BUS 2 4 7.20 86,87 2035 M9 (Churton St) Ln. Connector Park Ln. 4 NC 86 Old NC 10 US 70 BUS 2 4 1.0 80 2025 5 NC 86 US 70 NC 57 2 4 0.42 81 2025 Bypass 6 Orange Orange US70 0 2 0.4 89.3 2025 Grove Grove Rd 1 -40 US 70 and 0 3 L1 Connector Phase 1 W Hill Ave. 1.2. Candidate Droiects from olanners ID Road Name Project Limits Existing # Proposed Distance LRTP ID Other From To of Lanes # of Lanes (miles) 7 West Connector US 70 and 1 -40 Exit 0/2 3 M6 Lawrence 261 Rd. 9 Town circulating US70 Waterstone NA NA 3.4 M5 transit service Bypass Dr. 10 Advanced US70 @ I- US 70 10.5 M7 Traveler 85 Connector Information Exit170 @ 1 -85 Exit Systems (ATIS) 160 on US70 11 Exchange Park US 70 Exchange 0 2 0.04 M9 Ln. Connector Park Ln. 12 Downtown US70 Waterstone 2 2 3.4 M8 Traffic Bypass Dr Improvement Project 13 West Ring, 1 -40 US 70 and 0 3 L1 Phase 1 W Hill Ave. 14 West Ring, 1 -40 NC 86 and 0 3 L2 Phase 2 Coleman Loop Rd. 27 1.3. Proposed alternatives During the kick -off meeting and 1St project meeting, the following alternatives were selected for the further comprehensive review. o Base scenario should include 1 -40 and 1 -85 widening projects since their funding priorities / sources are more committed and different than other candidate projects in the previous table. o The Eno Mountain Rd. and Mayo St. alignment project (ID 8) is excluded since there is no supply change. It is expected that short link length, lane configuration, or signal phasing & timing change in TRM is not sensitive to the model output; however, the TRM model is sensitive to capacity change on links. o The Exchange Park Ln. connector project (ID 11) and Downtown TIP project (ID 12) are removed from the alternative list for an apple to apple comparison. The projects can be reviewed using other traffic operational analysis tools (i.e. TransModeler) if additional analysis time and data are available. 0 10 scenarios including base scenario will be analyzed. The scenarios are shown in the figures below. In the figure, each color and line has a different meaning; ■ Red color with solid line: a widening project, ■ Red color with dotted line: new project, ■ Green color with dotted line: Advanced Traveler Information System or signage with small improvement project, and ■ Purple color: bus route. 28 ►w 2. Analysis Methodology - Using TRM model with the modified year 2035 SE data, the predefined scenarios were analyzed. - Since the purpose of this analysis is to assess congestion relief on Churton Street or maintaining an acceptable congestion level on the street, the following five Measures Of Effectiveness on year 2035 PM peak period are selected: o Projected volume on Churton Street, o Travel time on Churton Street, o Average V/C on Churton Street, and 30 o VMT and Vehicle- Minutes - Traveled (VHT) for the Town of Hillsborough area (as defined in the figure below). For Advanced Traveler Information Systems (ATIS) projects, it is assumed that 10 % of direct through traffic on Churton Street from /to East, West, and North of Hillsborough will be diverted to the desired routes. The assumption is based on recent researches; Williams et al., http• / /www ncdot org/ doh /preconstruct /tpb/ research /download /2006- 13FinaIReport.pdf , 2008, and Horowitz et al., "Diversion from a Rural Work Zone with Traffic - Responsive Variable Message Signage System ", Transportation Research Record No. 1824, 2003. 3. Analysis Results 3.1.Summary o Summary ■ The figure below shows the analysis area; the blue colored links represent the surrounding area of the Town of Hillsborough. It is noted that Churton Street is divided by two parts to represent the constrained segments of a possible development; Red and Orange colors indicates the Northern and Southern parts of Churton St. The analysis results are shown in the following Table. The results indicate that the alternative 9, 4 and 1 will reduce the congestion on Churton Street. In addition, analysis of the Alternative 6 revealed that about 586 trips will use the planned transit services during PM peak periods. 31 St. Name MOE Dir Base AIt1 AIt2 AIt3 AIt4 AIt5 AIt6 AIt7 AIt8 AIt9 Churton Street (A +B) Volume (vehicles) NB 2,285 2,747 2,131 2,214 2,212 2,230 2,217 2,251 2,123 1,825 SB 2,181 2,612 2,161 2,176 2,192 2,102 2,181 2,164 2,041 1,787 Total 4,466 5,359 4,292 4,390 4,404 4,332 4,398 4,415 4,164 3,612 Travel Time (minutes) NB 6.9 62 6.4 6.4 62 6.8 6.5 6.8 6.2 4.9 SB 5.8 5.4 5.8 5.8 S.8 5.6 5.8 5.8 5.5 4.S Max 6.9 6.2 6.4 6.4 62 6.8 6.5 6.8 6.2 4.9 V/C N B 0.85 0.75 0.79 .0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.79 0.68 SB 0.81 0.70 0.80 0.81 0.81 0.78 0.81 0.80 0.76' 0.66 Max 0.85 0.75 0.80 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.79' 0.68 Volume (vehicles) NB 2,539 2,507 2,420 2,452 2,406 2,480 2,424 2,478 2,299 1,969 SB 2,157 2,299 2,184 2,156 2,204 2,098 2,163 2,127 2,015 1,847 Total 4,696 4,805 4,604 4,608 4,610 4,578 4,587 4,605 4,314 3,816 North Churton St. (A) Travel Time (minutes) NB 4.5 4.5 4.2 4.1 40 4.4 4.1 4.4 3.8 2.9 SB 3.4 3.7 3.5 3.3 34 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.1 2.6 Max 4.5 4.5 4.2 4.1 4.0 4.4 4.1 4.4 3.8 2.9 V/C NB 0.93 0.92 0.89' 0.90 0.89 0.91 0.89 0.91 0.85 0.73 SB 0.80 0.85 0.81'' 0.79 0.81 0.77 0.80 0.78 0.74 0.68 Max 0.93 0.92 0.89 0.90 0.89 0.91 0.89 0.91 0.85' 0.73 South Churton St. (B) Volume NB 1,958 3,057 1 1,760 1,908 1,962 1,909 1,951 1,958 1,898 1,641 SB 2,212 3,014 2,131 2,202 2,176 2,107 2,204 2,212 2,075 1,709 Total 4,170 6,071 3,891 4,110 4,139 4,015 4,155 4,170 3,972 3,350 Travel Time (minutes) NB 2.4 17 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4 1 2.3 2.1 SB 2.5 16 2.3 2.5 23 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.3 1.9 Max 2.5 17 2.3 > 2.5 23 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.1 V/C NB 0.73 0.52 0.66 0.71 0.73 0.71 0.73 0.73 0.71'' 0.61 SB 0.83 0.51 0.80 0.82 0.81 0.79 0.82 0.83 0.77 0.64 Max 0.83 0.52 0.80 0.82 0.81 0.79 0.82 0.83 0.77' 0.64 VMT, total 459,671 456,280 460,209 461,142 459,830 465,647 459,867 459,568 462,838 473,796 Region wide VHT, total 534,280 527,164 530,635 532,722 532,089 NA 532,993 NA 532,542 509,826 32 4. Discussion - Analysis of the alternative combination: in terms of feasible budget constraints o Package plan (To be discussed and updated) • Package A: Alternative 1, 2, 3, and 4 • Package B: Alternative 1, 2, 3,4, and 6 ■ Package C: Alternative 1, 2, 3, 4, and ATIS projects o Analysis schedule (To be discussed and updated) ■ End of October, 2010 - Even though the results of alternative 9 are superior, projects must be included in the Long Range Transportation Plan before funding can be requested or allocated. 33 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS A RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE NO -BUILD ALTERNATIVE FOR TIP PROJECT NUMBER U -3808, ELIZABETH BRADY ROAD EXTENSION AND SUPPORTING FUNDING FOR IMPROVING TRAFFIC FLOW IN HILLSBOROUGH WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation has released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Transportation Improvement Program Project Number U -3808, the Elizabeth Brady Road Extension; and WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement contains detailed studies for four alternatives for the project including a No -Build Alternative that would include other North Carolina Department of Transportation programmed roadway improvements and other roadway projects in the area that are included in the adopted 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan of the Durham - Chapel Hill- Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization but no improvements to Elizabeth Brady Road except for routine maintenance; and WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement indicates implementation of Build Alternatives 3, 4 or 6 would have greater negative impacts to area physical, cultural and human environments than the No -Build Alternative while reducing traffic delay on Churton Street by only 13% to 23 %; and WHEREAS, Orange County has previously submitted comments regarding the County's concerns with protecting the natural and cultural resources in the vicinity of the Elizabeth Brady Road project; and WHEREAS, Orange County has participated in several joint endeavors with the Town of Hillsborough to study transportation projects and develop plans recommending projects to address traffic congestion in and around Hillsborough; and WHEREAS, Orange County has included projects recommended by those joint studies in its priority list requests for programming in the Transportation Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, the Town of Hillsborough has developed a list of alternatives to replace construction of the Elizabeth Brady Road Extension project; and WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation will consider such things as safety, costs, traffic service, environmental impacts and public comments in making a recommendation for a Preferred Alternative Corridor for preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners Orange County endorses the No -Build Alternative for Transportation Improvement Program Project Number U -3808, the Elizabeth Brady Road Extension, and supports 46 programming of roadway improvements in the 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan of the Durham- Chapel Hill - Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization to alleviate traffic on Churton Street in downtown Hillsborough, including the following three projects on the Durham - Chapel Hill- Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Regional Priority List:. • Transportation Improvement Program Project Number R -2825, South Churton Street improvements (Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization priority project number 9); • Transportation Improvement Program Project Number U -3436, realignment of the intersections of Eno Mountain Road and Mayo Street at Orange Grove Road (Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization priority project number 20); and • Extension of Orange Grove Street to US 70 A (Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization priority project number 16). • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners Orange County urges the North Carolina Department of Transportation to consider funding a package of alternative improvements, which will be submitted consistent with Metropolitan Planning Organization processes. Up motio i of Commissioner _ seconded by Commissioner the foregoing resolution was adopted this the 1 EP day of December, 2009. I, Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on December 15, 2009, as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of said Board. WITNESS my hand eal of said County, this day of w..ew4,, 2009. �!:�,iKPSrt A ]l ,.•ka..wd Clerk to the oard of Commissioners h# ftl -3 -C, INTRA- HILLSBOROUGH CIRCULATOR ROUTE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA AND THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA This Memorandum of Agreement is entered into this day of , 2011, by and between the Orange County (Orange Public Transportation) and the Town of Hillsborough, N.C. (referred to collectively as the "Parties "). WHEREAS, Orange Public Transportation (hereinafter referred to as "OPT ") and the Town of Hillsborough are public entities of Orange County and are ineligible to enter into binding contractual relationship with one another- °' WHEREAS, the parties desire to enter into this Me ,morandum of Agreement (hereinafter referred to as Memorandum) in order to establish the mutually agreed upon conditions upon which OPT will provide certain transit services for the Town of Hillsborough, N.C.; and WHEREAS, the Town of Hillsborough, N.C. wishes to provide public transportation in and around the Hillsborough town limits; and " WHEREAS, OPT is a public tr, Government in Orange County, WHEREAS, OPT and the Town of Hillsliorc Hillsborough Circulator Route. NOW, THEREFORE, the following Memor, by OPT and -the.Town of Hillsborough, N.C. operated by Orange County a new Intra- of Agreement is hereby entered into FUNDING The route is funded by a Federal Highway Administration Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (hereinafter CMAQ) grant. The CMAQ grant provides 80% project funding and requires a local thatch of 20 %.'.F CMAQ grant term is three (3) years. The North Carolina Department of Transportation has committed to provide 20% local match for the first year of the project. After the'first year, the Town of Hillsborough, N.C, will provide 20% local match. The continuation of the transit services after CMAQ grant three -year term is contingent upon available new funding source(s). CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES OPT has provided the North Carolina Department of Transportation with certain Annual Certifications and Assurances as set forth on that certain document entitled "FEDERAL AND STATE CERTIFICATIONS AND ASSURANCES FOR COMMUNITY TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS ". Page 1 of 4 47 48 SERVICE GOVERNANCE OPT will operate the service and perform other responsibilities as outlined by this Memorandum. However, in the future, the governance of the new transit services might be affected by the recommendations of an ongoing OPT — Chapel Hill Transit Consolidation Study. Any governance changes shall be discussed with the Town of Hillsborough prior to implementation. ORANGE COUNTY RESPONSIBILITIES Orange County shall: • Provide public transportation services to the Town of Hillsborough following the attached route design. • Provide services on an eight -hour schedule per day; Monday through Friday. • Provide back -up drivers in case the assigned driver is not available. • Determine if services should be suspended/limited due to inclement weather. • Coordinate vehicle maintenance with Orange County Motor Pool to ensure vehicles are in safe operating order. • Review the public route design and bus stops to ensure efficiencies and provide any relevant information to the Town of Hillsborough. • Discuss the specific situation, and present evidence of cause, with the Town of Hillsborough staff prior to modification or termination of services. • Administer the CMAQ grant and p 'rovide'required reports to the Federal Transit Administration. • Provide and maintain adequate insu laws of the State of North Carolina. insurances shall meet all • Provide any information, data, documents, studies or reports given to or prepared or assembled under this Memorandum to North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Town of Hillsborough. Orange County acknowledges that in receiving, storing, procesIing,or otherwise dealing with any confidential information; OPT will safeguard and not further disclose the information except as otherwise provided in im • Provide a • Install and ing campaign in cooperation with the Town of the Town of Hillsborough on a quarterly basis. signage at route - designated bus stops. OF HILLSBOROUGH RESPONSIBILITES The Town of Hillsborough shall: • Provide required 20% local match for the second and third year of the project. • Provide payment on a quarterly basis based upon operating costs. • Keep bus stops and surrounding pedestrian amenities within the Town's boundaries cleared of snow during winter months. Page 2 of 4 • Ensure all bus stop locations are compliant with North Carolina Department of Transportation's specifications and with all Americans with Disabilities Act regulations. • Alert OPT of potential road closures or other obstructions that might affect transit service. • Develop and implement a marketing campaign in cooperation with Orange County. • Work with Orange County on developing route performance tracking and reporting mechanism. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS The parties to this Memorandum agree that the term of this memorandum is three (3) years unless terminated earlier by either party. This Memorandum shall be effective from to This Memorandum shall be reviewed at leasf annually, prior to March Ist and may be terminated by either party upon 90 days of written notice. The Memorandum contains the entire understanding pf the parties and shall not be altered, amended or modified, except in writing executed ,by both parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Memorandum to be signed by its Department Directors. FOR AND ON BEHALF OF' FOR AND ON BEHALF OF: ORANGE COUNTY TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH N.C. County Manager Date own Manager Date This Memorandum has been approved as to form and legal sufficiency. County Attorney's Office Date This instrument has been pre- audited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. Orange County Financial Director Page 3 of 4 49 This instrument has been pre- audited in the manner required by the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act. Town of Hillsborough Financial Director Page 4 of 4 50 51 PRESENTATION COMPONENTS > National Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Program > Orange County Planning Process > Final Draft Plan Components > Next Steps + Fewer kids are iking and walking. More parents a e driving. 1969: ■ 42% walked 2001: ■ 16% walked (cam, zms) Current: 52 E + Program Pu ■ "To enable and encou r those with disabilities, school; to make wal school safe and mo facilitate the plannin implementation of pr safety, and reduce tra and air pollution in th + Federal Safe Routes • Established as part of SAFETEA -LU • $612 million to States duri 2005 -2009 ose SafeRoutes Sdoo( ge childre , including CoWe" o walk an ing and bicycling to r appealing; and to development and sects that wi I im rove ffic, fuel consumption, vicinity of school ." • Funds infrastructure and n n infrastructure activities wi in 2 miles of schools grade -8 • Requires State SRTS Coordinators School Program More information: www.saferoutesinfo.org 53 3 Safe Routes to Sch of (SRTS) Orogram Sum mary ssues §afeRoute-s M e o s less children walking and biking to school .,IMa Q e 14`� ° P °''j NIek"�u; ...engineering 0 Ili- in ...education ..lack of pedestrian infrastructure Goals ...encouragement ..childhood obesity ...to im ove walking and ...enfo cement bicy ling conditions ...to inct ease physical ... eval ation acti ty ...to decease air pollution + Orange cou Study Schools Grady Brown El Cameron Park E Stanford Middle Action Planning Process 54 rd Action Planning Process 1: Kick -off Meeting 2: Data Collection /Assessment 3: Barriers & Solutions Meeting 4: Preliminary SRTS Action Plan 5: Client Review /Committee Meeting 6: Final SRTS Action Plan 55 5 I+ PUBLIC MEETING • Newsletters /flyers • Open house workshop - Cameron Pa Elementary (Walkable Hillsborough Day) - 50 people Map comments Boards Guided Walk SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL a ea�� of r �ror+•rwA. m seta ma saro� anti rr.i ra,a.: sw ma. ■setae. ®r..Hwmrmwa ms..e ©ae anoaeer eatxspaux� ! .mar `I SSYS Jgng V Csf :Jee �; ...- ai A E�l°I Ee3xni.ry, a�ta C�!f. F may_ � Sbm'xaM$CIOrN.h arAS p. R'C EF ti+'1[!' RIE h.•ir1P.6 ct � - U]vsa1M,ewY.CS, Gleryae- C� A.??i :'ale. 'xiP%+YtsE fe�.;II � Cs�a gextc Xel xt�x'1;Eh 4 4 aR4 AND tw:Mnwm9sres g✓.�F19G'S ,. EXISTING \�y' CONDITIONS;_ a!ova MS -tsx� sMi- k9."m„'.1gtF cr1;� - .1 m �. t,•X. r.R::as rti � �mn ca—e e�cr.9rYaucam 'co =c ^,si:'s ssrr. armess,:e. -. tt.-4, a*s ew-n r,5{�raotp sy: =X-war e�zea� pt3rlCl�r• GCSCRgr`d&TL ,+�.+ -. ANALYSIS Data Collection • Detailed Fieldwork • GIS Mapping • Parent Surveys/Student Tallies k • Review of existing planning efforts and policies I+ PUBLIC MEETING • Newsletters /flyers • Open house workshop - Cameron Pa Elementary (Walkable Hillsborough Day) - 50 people Map comments Boards Guided Walk SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL 56 nJ STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN anoaeer eatxspaux� ! .mar `I SSYS Jgng V Csf :Jee �; ...- ai A E�l°I Ee3xni.ry, a�ta C�!f. F may_ � Sbm'xaM$CIOrN.h arAS p. R'C EF ti+'1[!' RIE h.•ir1P.6 aasr a- ,cce:h arssi�r s�uiPi_iY U]vsa1M,ewY.CS, Gleryae- C� A.??i :'ale. 'xiP%+YtsE fe�.;II � Cs�a gextc Xel xt�x'1;Eh 4 4 aR4 AND tw:Mnwm9sres g✓.�F19G'S ,. l �vC2C kar .^.ilRq K'az 'IaD] 3i .bN:nr�•s xvm earr�et�xs.-i 1pi TWTiH?IkvJGFLUM LL•S.' 'aa.: \�y' wrc� eacae� a srem..sern ur -� caws amuYa �xxo-cmxss. r ma�tts�pr+x.+ffi >tw- =x a!ova MS -tsx� sMi- k9."m„'.1gtF cr1;� - .1 m �. t,•X. r.R::as rti � �mn ca—e e�cr.9rYaucam 'co =c ^,si:'s ssrr. armess,:e. -. tt.-4, a*s ew-n r,5{�raotp sy: =X-war e�zea� pt3rlCl�r• GCSCRgr`d&TL ,+�.+ -. •. acres] caaa:waka <+as m N� 56 nJ 'F ;V �u� NAL DRAFT ACTION PLAN > User - friendly, action - oriented document > Focus on solutions for school areas, areas of safety concern, connectivity gaps, significant road crossings > Comprehensive addressing engineering, programs, policies, and implementation 57 _ The 3 E's of Safe Routes to School >ns e SCHOQL sY -ay%.a csy�a� G pa FINAL DRAFT SRTS ACTION PLAN .: > The Five E's h, k'att . j ` yy le zaw„�.,o-xaw.zw r...u�a:.s � Pupic =M1.11MRR ' SPTS �"'l0° � Network 6 CuvectlNly NCDOT Y Tlp AUledor5 Ca,wYeeB I� SRTS NETWORK GOALS: CONNECTIVITY & SAFETY!! Corridor improvements: sidewalks, multi -use paths, bicycle lanes Crossing improvements: crosswalks, median refuges, signals On- campus facilities: bike parking Traffic calming 58 0 59 .1 10 Top Priority Program Education Integrate bike /ped education into Comprehensive campaign Encouragement Walking School Bus Mileage Contests Enforcement Expand crossing guard program Law enforcement techniques: ticN day peed trailers, etc. 61 11 M =1M FINAL DRAFT PLAN: IMPLEMENTATION > 21 Action Steps > Key step: Formation /continuation of SRTS Implementation - Advisory Committee =E j== ..'.° 61 11 FINAL DRAFT PLAN APPENDICES: > Public input summary > Federal and State policies • Funding • Design Guidelines CLIENT REVIEW > Committee review complete > Town and County staff review complete > NCDOT review 62 12 R� A iErt ROUTES TO SCHOOL strategic Action Plan ORANOR COONTT, NORTH CAROLINA FINAL ORANGE ok COUNTY SRTS ACTT N PLAN a > Visionary and practical plan > Action - oriented plan vGeaawga ew,m«'.a �- •�*Mf'•NC > Goal: Adoption and implementati n! > Increased federal funding for SRT! multi -modal transportation likely NEXT STEPS > Final Plan revisions > Plan adoption (pending final mino revisions) > Begin SRTS Committee Meetings > Implementationl 63 13 64 14