Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-05-1995 - X-B O R A N G E C 0 U N T Y BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: September 5. 1995 Action Agenda Item # X-A SUBJECT: ANNUAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS (STIP & MTIP) DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes x No ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT: Slade McCalip Extension 2595 - DCHC URBAN AREA MAP TELEPHONE NUMBERS: - 1994 TIP REQUEST Hillsborough-732-8181 - STATUS OF' 1994 TIP REQUEST Durham -688-7331 - 1997-2003 ( 1995) POSSIBLE TIP REQUESTS Mebane -227-2031 Chapel Hill -967-9251 PURPOSE: To receive a report on the N.C. Department of Transportation' s (NCDOT) annual State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the Durham-Chapel Hill- Carrboro Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP) and to assist staff in the identification of transportation needs for possible inclusion in upcoming STIP and MTIP requests. BACKGROUND: Every year the N.C. Board of Transportation (BOT) adopts a multi-year STIP specifying needed transportation improvements across the state. If a project is outside the DCHC Urban Area, then the County can request directly of the BOT that the project be included in the STIP. In the development of the STIP, a series of statewide public hearings is held in each of the state' s 14 highway divisions (Orange County is located in Division Seven) . The purpose of these public hearings is for the BOT to get input from the public and elected officials on the existing STIP ( 1996-2002) projects and proposed projects for the next STIP ( 1997-2003) . The date and location for this year' s public hearing has not been set but it is expected to be in late October. If a project is inside the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) Urban Area, then that project has to be coordinated with the other DCHC local jurisdiction requests, also known as the MTIP. In the development of the MTIP, a series of meetings is held by the DCHC TAC and TCC to develop regional transportation priorities. This year' s process begins with the local jurisdictions submitting their transportation priorities to the DCHC TCC by October 15, 1995. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the Board receive as information and identify, as appropriate, transportation needs for possible inclusion in the County' s 1997-2003 STIP and MTIP Requests by October 2, 1995. , i DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO (DCHC) METROPOLITAN AREA BOUNDARY GROVE TWA UTTLE RIVE TWR 1 C. 7 J _ r� �o Crum 3 TWR b H SROROLlGH e R W 1 M 'N B1,HF HILLSBOROUGH .0 '•t Ug�E Q� INCH 7we 7 � O Mt Sinai e Rd, !vr ur ,� d e� Old 56 Euboe pe. e Nom d Rd r BOUNDARY Old Grannxboro Rd. � DCHC � Approved by TAC ca February 10,1993. 3. ORANGE COUN'T'Y COMMISSIONERS P.O. Box 8181 HILLSBOROUGH, N.C. Moses Carey, Jr. 27278 Alice M. Gordon 732-8181 Stephen H. Halkiotis 968-4501 Verla I. Insko 688-7331 Don Willhoit 227-2031 644-3004 (Fax) October 25, 1994 Dr. Gorman Gilbert DIVISION 7, At-Large Member NC Board of Transportation P.O. Box 25201 1 South Wilmington Street i Raleigh, NC 27611 y y Dear Dr. Gilbert: � Enclosed with ..this Metyou .wi1"1-find this: year's "Orange County Transportation Priority-Li-st:;for: Consideration of Funding in The North Carolina Transport`atIian -Improvement Program. Also enclosed is a copy of a^�re;solut-ion: (,dated -June 28, 1994) by the Orange County Board of %County-;,Commissioners concerning the 1995- 2001 S77IP project 173306 0w de ii:4� '.of_.I-40- to -six. lanes from I-85 in Orange County` to"NC X1-`476 'in�hiirham-.`County) A:: you will notioe�,in.-both'--the :Orange; County Transportation Priority List and the A _,4, 24012;-;.TIP ;Resolution:` there is strong opposition to project 1 33.06. Xith,._thii etter the Board of County Commissioners for Orange:County :request•-that you convey this to the Board of Transportatriony,,and, ;also1.-,request that this project be removed from the 1996=2,002-;TIP' or' reduced in scope to a feasibility study for HOV lanes,., �., Thank you for your, time and consideration of Orange County's transportation needs. If=you would likeLto discuss this matter in detail, please contact Beverly Blythe, Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners at (919) 732-8181, extension 2130. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Sincerely. Moses Carey, Jr. , 7at YOU COUNT IN ORANGE COUNTY ! 4. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE OCTOBER 25, 1994 ,! ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PRIORITY LIST The list is introduced by commending NCDOT Division 7 staff that have been very responsive to requested intersection improvements . The transportation needs list is divided into three sections; 1) projects within the DCHC planning area, 2) projects outside of the DCHC planning area, and 3) projects countywide. PROJECTS WITHIN THE DCHC PLANNING AREA: I) U-2805 : Homestead Road Widening - This project remains Orange County's top priority for new road projects requested from TIP funds (includes bicycle and pedestrian facilities) . II) I-305 : widening of I-85 to six lanes and reconstruction of interchanges from Orange Grove Road to Durham County Line - Two types of requests; a) requests made last year that have not been addressed (three) , and b) specific infrastructure improvements to support the I-85/US 70 Economic Development District (five) . III) I-3306: widening of I-40 to six lanes from I-85 in Orange County to NC 147 (Buck Dean Freeway) in Durham County - Orange County requests that this project be removed from the 1996-2002 TIP or reduced to a feasibility study for HOV lanes. PROJECTS OUTSIDE THE DCHC PLANNING AREA: I) I-304 : widening of I-85 to eight lanes and reconstruction of interchanges from NC 54 (in Alamance County) to Dimmocks Mill Road - Two types of requests; a) requests made last year that have not been addressed (one) , and b) specific infrastructure improvements to support the I-85/Buckhorn Road Economic Development District (three) . PROJECTS COUNTYWIDE: I) Intersection Improvements - Twelve requests; intersections that have been identified by NCDOT as having high accident rates (includes those ' identified last year and have not yet been improved and those identified this year) . II) Railroad Improvements - Three types of requests; a) at-grade railroad crossings countywide (plus three specific locations) , b) a Feasibility Study for an AMTRAK Station in Hillsborough, and c) improvements to rail facilities in the I-85/Buckhorn and I-85/US 70 Economic Development Districts. III) Transit Improvements - One request; a Twenty Year Transit Development Plan for Orange County. IV) Bridge Improvements - Two types of requests; a) bridge maintenance, and b) support of bridge replacement projects (six) . 5. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PRIORITY LIST FOR CONSIDERATION OF FUNDING IN THE NORTH CAROLINA TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PRESENTED AT THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 25, 1994 Orange County appreciates the opportunity to participate in the North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program process. Like so many jurisdictions across the state, we have transportation needs we feel are necessary to provide our citizens with a safe and efficient multi- modal system throughout the County. Although our needs are extensive, we have concentrated on those projects we feel are most critical to all in Orange County. We would also like to commend the North Carolina Department of Transportation's Division 7 staff to include specifically the Division Engineer, Mr. John Watkins and Division Traffic Engineer, Mr. Vance' Barham. Orange County would also like to recognize Mr. T. J. Dyer, District Engineer. Mr. Dyer's office has been very responsive and has performed exceedingly well with Orange County staff. We are very appreciative of their efforts and are looking forward to working with them in -the future. Our transportation needs list is divided into three sections. The- first section deals with selected projects within the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro metropolitan planning area. The second section deals with projects in the remaining portions of Orange County which lie outside of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro metropolitan planning area. And the third section is concerned with Countywide transportation improvement issues. ORANGE COUNTY PROJECTS WITHIN THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREA As a member- of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization, Orange County will continue to work with the Transportation Advisory Committee (DCHC TAC) to develop a complete list of project priorities for the portion of Orange County that lies inside the urbanized area boundary. However, there are selected projects in Orange County which we would like to address now because they have been the subject of discussions between the TAC and the Department of Transportation. I) U-2805 : Homestead Road Widening - This project remains Orange County's top priority for new road projects requested from TIP funds. The County appreciates the fact that- project limits were expanded in the 1995-2001 TIP from Seawell School Road (SR 1843)_ east: to Airport Road (NC 86) so that the project scope now includes Homestead Road from High School Road (SR 1834) to Airport Road. This requested project continues to include bicycle and pedestrian facilities. 1 6. Homestead Road (SR 1777) continues to be a priority project because it: - is a connector facility between Carrboro and Chapel Hill, - provides primary access to Chapel Hill High School, - has safety problems associated with turning movements along its total length, - has sight distance problems at major intersections, and - has forecasts of substantial increases in traffic. Orange County urges the North Carolina Board of Transportation to continue to include this project in the 1996-2002 TIP. II) I-305 : widening of I-85 to six lanes and reconstruction of interchanges from Orange Grove Road to Durham County Line - Orange County requests that the following infrastructure improvements be made to the I-85/US 70 Economic Development District: a) Erosion Control Measures - At this time the erosion control measures for this project are to be designed in 2001. Orange County requests that permanent erosion control measures be included in the 1996-2002 TIP as a line item. b) Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities - Project planning for this facility is scheduled to begin in April, 1998. Orange County requests that its staff be allowed to participate in the determination of where and what type of facilities are to be included in this project. Among the features requested for inclusion are sidewalks and bike lanes (see the Regional Bicycle Plan for Durham and Orange Counties) and adequate guardrails on overpasses. c) Wildlife Corridor Under I-85 - Orange County requests that its staff be allowed to participate during this part of the planning stage and that this issue be brought to the attention of the NCDOT Staff Biologist. Constructing this wildlife corridor is one of the recommendations presented in the "The New Hope Corridor Open Space Master Plan: Proposals for Linking Duke Forest and Eno River State Park. " d) Intersection of Pleasant Green Road (SR 1567) & Mt Herman Church Road (SR 1713) - This intersection has recently been studied by the NCDOT Division 7 Traffic Engineers. The NCDOT Traffic Engineers recommend that this intersection be included as a part of I-305 because of its proximity to the I-85/US 70 interchange. The entire intersection needs to be realigned so that Pleasant Green Road can intersect US 70 at a 90 degree angle. e) US 70 from NC 751 to University Station Road (SR- 1712)- - Due to the needs of the Pleasant Green Road\US 70 intersection, Orange County requests that US 70, from NC 751 to University Station Road, be upgraded to provide for a suitable transition from/to I- 85. 2 f) Mt Herman Church Road (SR 1713) - Preliminary plans by the Planning & Environmental Branch, Division of Highways of NCDOT indicate that this road is to be relocated as part of I-305 . 'Orange County requests that this road be designed with 12 ' wide travel lanes and 4 ' wide bicycle lanes, total paved width of 321 . g) Old NC 10 (SR 1710) - Preliminary plans by the Planning & Environmental Branch, Division of Highways of NCDOT indicate that this road is to be relocated as part of I-305 . Orange County requests that this road be designed with 12 ' wide travel lanes and 4 ' wide bicycle lanes, total paved width of 321 . h) Park and Ride Facilities - Project planning for this facility is scheduled to begin in April, 1998 . Orange County requests that its staff be allowed to participate in the determination of where and what type of facilities are to be included in this project. III) I-3306: widening of I-40 to •six lanes from I-85 in Orange County to NC 147 (Buck Dean Freeway) in Durham County - Orange County requests that this project be removed from the 1996-2002 TIP or reduced to a feasibility study. Orange County cannot support this project because of the following: It was not programmed cooperatively with the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) as required by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, The TAC requested only a study to examine the feasibility of adding high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on I-40 from NC 86 to NC 147 and this project's priority listing (41st) is below that of the top two DCHC Regional Priorities, US 15-501 and I-85, and There were no preliminary corridor studies performed or traffic forecasts developed to support this study (if there were, they weren't disseminated to the DCHC or local governments) . ORANGE COUNTY PROJECTS OUTSIDE THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREA Orange County would like to give priority to identified safety needs on existing roads and bridges and to other transportation projects which foster alternatives to automobile travel. The County also endorses environmentally responsible construction of all transportation projects. Finally, the County supports adequate maintenance for existing transportation facilities. 3 8. I) I-304 : widening of I-85 to eight lanes and reconstruction of interchanges from NC 54 (in Alamatce County) to Dimmocks Mill Road Orange County requests that the following infrastructure -improvements be made to the I-85/Buckhorn Road Economic Development District: a) NCDOT has installed temporary erosion control measures according to NCDOT standards. NCDOT currently has no plans for erosion control measures after completion of construction. Orange County requests that permanent erosion control measures be included in the 1996-2002 TIP as a line item to ensure optimal protection of the Sevenmile Creek watershed. The Upper Eno watershed, of which Sevenmile Creek is a sub-basin, has been designated a WS-II watershed; thus the County is committed to protect the water quality by working with NCDOT to implement the strongest protection measures available. b) Widen'Buckhorn Road to 24 feet (two 12 ' travel lanes) . c) Improve the Southern Railway / Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) railroad crossing. d) Improve the Intersection of Buckhorn Road and US 70 to include turn lanes and improved turning radii. COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION ISSUES I) Intersection Improvements - Orange County recognizes that intersection improvements provide immediate safety benefits without the environmental impact of cost of full roadway improvements. a) We request the following intersections be programmed either through Transportation Improvement Program funding or Safety Program funding for improvements as soon as possible. 1) NC 86 / NC 57, and 2) US 15-501 / Mt Carmel Church Road (SR 1008) . b) The following intersections are listed on the NCDOT 1993 HIGH ACCIDENT LOCATION ANALYSIS (from last year's request) for Orange County. NCDOT has studied these intersections and improvements are recommended; Orange County requests that funding be made available for: 1) NC 54 / Southern Drive (SR 2016) , 2) NC 86 / US 70 Bypass, and 3) Carr Store Road (SR 1352) / Efland Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004) . 4 9. c) 'These intersections are listed on the NCDOT 1994 POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS LOCATIONS INVENTORY for Orange County and are currently scheduled to have traffic safety analyses performed. Orange *Cou.nty requests that funding be made available for the improvements recommended as determined by the completed traffic safety studies for: 1) I-40 / NC 86, 2 ) I-40 / Old NC 86 (SR 1009) , 3) I-85 / Old NC 86 (SR 1009) , 4 ) NC 86 / Coleman LP (SR 1332 ) , 5 ) Smith Level Road (SR 1919) / BPW Club Road (SR 1967 ) , 6) US 70 / Miller Road (SR 1555) , and 7 ) US 70 / Lawrence Road (SR 1561) . II) Railroad Improvements - There are several at-grade railroad crossings throughout the County which are in need of improvements, from track crossings to grade work on the roadway facility. The main line of the Southern Railway traverses the entire County. Motorists travelling roadway facilities which cross the railway encounter a multitude of signs warning of dangerous grade crossings. An inspection of existing crossings Countywide indicates sight-distance problems, potential "bottoming out" grade problems, intersection grade problems, and substandard warning devices. a) Orange County requests railroad crossings Countywide be improved to provide for safer travel conditions. Improvements are again requested for the following railroad crossings: 1) Southern Railway / Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) , 2) Southern Railway / Mt. Willing Road (SR 1120) , and 3) Southern Railway / Mt. Herman Church Road (SR 1713) . b) Orange County requests, as a result of preliminary findings of the Triangle Fixed Guideway Study, a Feasibility Study for an AMTRAK Station in Hillsborough. c) Orange County also requests that County staff be involved in the planning of improvements to rail facilities in the I- 85/Buckhorn and I-85/US 70 Economic Development Districts. III) Transit Improvements - It is increasingly evident, through the Triangle Fixed Guideway Study and other research, that Orange County needs to begin Transit Planning to include a Twenty Year Transit Development Plan for Orange County that would coordinate local transit planning with the Triangle Fixed Guideway Study recommendations. Orange County requests that the NCDOT Public Transportation and Rail Division develop a Twenty Year Transit Development Plan for Orange County. 5 110, IV) Bridcre Improvements - Orange County has several bridges that clearly need painting. Orange County requests that NCDOT paint those bridges in the County that are clearly rusting. The Orange County Board of Commissioners continue to support the following TIP projects programmed in our jurisdiction. We hope to see them completed in a timely manner. 1) B-2598 - NC 157 Bridge Replacement - FY 1995, 2 ) B-2852 - SR 1734 Bridge Replacement - FY 1997, 3 ) B-3010 - SR 1352 Bridge Replacement - FY 1998, 4) B-3218 - SR 1538 Bridge Replacement - FY 2000, 5) B-3219 - SR 1540 Bridge Replacement - FY 2000, 6) B-3359 - SR 1538 Bridge Replacement - FY 2001. Thank you for your consideration of these requests. Submitted this 25th day of October, 1994 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD COMMISSIONERS by- Moses Carey, Jr. d6air 6 STATUS OF ORANGE COUNTY'S PRIORITY LIST PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION ON OCTOBER 25, 1994 PROJECTS WITHIN THE DCHC PLANNING AREA: I . Homestead Road Widen"- The project construction schedule was delayed from 2001 to 2002. SOURCE: 1996-2002 STIP II. 1-305 : widening of I-85 to six lanes and reconstruction of interchanges from Orange Grove Road to Durham County Line - This project is now listed as an "Identified Future Need" with no scheduled dates for planning or construction. SOURCE: 1996-2002 STIP III. -3-3306: widening of I-40 to six lanes from I-85 in Orange County to NC 147 (Buck Dean Freeway) in Durham County - This project is still scheduled for construction to begin in 2001. SOURCE: 1996- 2002 STIP PROJECTS OUTSIDE THE DCHC AREA: I. 1-304 : widening of I-85 to eight lanes and reconstruction of interchanges from NC 54 (in Alamance County) to Dimmocks Mill Road - No change from previous STIP. SOURCE: 1996-2002 STIP PROJECTS COUNTYWIDE: I. =tersection Improvements - Countywide - A letter has been sent to NCDOT to request the status of each of the 12 intersections that were in last year' s Orange County Transportation Priority List. II. Railroad Grade Crossing Improvements - Countywide - See attached November 21, 1994 letter from D.R. Adams, NCDOT. III. Transit Improvements - See attached March 1, 1995 letter from Carol Carter, NCDOT. IV. Maintenance of Bridges - See attached October 31, 1994 letter from Jimmy Lee, NCDOT. D.midae Replacement Projects - Two changes in the program; 1) Bridge Project B-2598 has been completed, and 2) Bridge Project B- 3497 will be completed in FY 2002. '12. ,�.�. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAXAUEL HUNT I[[ GOVERNOR P.O.BOX 25201.RALEIGH.N.0 27611-5201 SECRETAPy !o �emb r 21, 1994 Mr. Slade S. McCalip , AICP Transportation Planner II Orange County Planning Department. 30EF Revere Road Hillsborough, North Carolina 272713 Dear Mr. McCalip: This is in regard to your letter of October 27, 191?4 concerning the railroad crossings located on SR 1114, SR 1120 and SR 1713_ As I indicated to you over the phone, each of these crossings are equipped with railroad signals and gates and there is no accident history at any of the crossings since signals and gates were installed. Therefore, all of these locations are very low on the priority list used to determine which railroad crossings qualify for our Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Safety Program. We appreciate your interest in railroad-highway safety and taking time to express your concerns. Please let us know if you need additional information. Yours truly, ,,,, /v" D. R. Adams Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Safety Engineer DRA 13. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION JAMES B. HUNT, JR. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION&RAIL DIVISION R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I GOVERNOR P.O.BOX 25201,RALEIGH.N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY March 1, 1995 Mr. Slade S. McCalip, AICP Transportation Planner II Orange County Planning 306-F�Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 _SL11A - Dear Mr. MC 'C ari p: The Public Transportation Division of the North Carolina Department of Transportation has reviewed your letter of February 7, 1995. We believe your proposal for a long range county-wide transportation plan outlining more detailed transit needs is both innovative and meritorious. Indeed, the development of more comprehensive transportation plans rather than pure thoroughfare plans is one of the requirements of ISTEA. NCDOT Statewide Planning and the Public Transportation Division are working cooperatively in the planning process to ensure the incorporation of a transit element in the overall transportation plan. The DCHC Urban Area, of which Orange County is a member, is in the process of developing such a plan. The Public Transportation Division feels that much of the workplan you are proposing should be part of the normal "3C" planning process of the MPO' s. We also feel that because approximately 80% of Orange County is included in the DCHC Metropolitan Area Boundary, the bulk of the study should be funded through the urban planning grants made available to the MPO on an annual basis. The outcome of the study should also be incorporated into the DCHC Comprehensive Transportation Plan. We recommend you pursue funding through the DCHC MPO in the form of Section 8 Planning Funds, Section 9 Planning Funds, or PL 104 funds. These funds are allocated annually to the Lead Planning Agency and distribution takes place trough the TCC/TAC process. The FY 95-96 funds have already been distributed to the Lead Planning Agency and the Planning Work Program is in the final stages of development. - We feel , at this time, the TCC and TAC should address the funding-issue.— Once-you--have successfull-y arranged-- - -----. funding from your MPO, we will be available to lend staff assistance to your project. We would also discuss funding for the rural portion of Orange County through our Section 18 funds. Again, we feel your proposal has merit. We look forward to hearing from your discussions with the TCC and TAC. PHONE (919)733-4713 FAX (919)733-1391 14. March 1, 1995 Page 2 If you have any questions , or need additional information, please feel free to call me at 919-733-4713 ext. 226. Sincerely, Carol A. Carter Manager, Urban Section CC: Dr. Gorman Gilbert, Member, North Carolina Board of Transportation Marvin Collins, Planning Director, Orange County Roger Waldon, Planning Director, Orange County Roy Williford, Planning Director, Carrboro Margaret Hauth, Planning Director, Hillsborough Mark Ahrendsen, DCHC TCC Chairman 15. F• �sug STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF T�A.NSPORTATION JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT II l GOVERNOR October 31, 1994 SECRETARY Mr. Slade S. McCalip Transportation Planner II Orange County Planning Department 306F Revere Road Hillsborough, NC 27278 Dear Mr. McCalip: This is a follow-up to our telephone conversation today concerning Orange County's TIP request which included a request that the DOT paint bridges that are clearly rusting. I understand the concern relates to bridges which have never been painted. We have been using"weathering steel" in the construction of bridges located in inland environments for many years. Oxygen and moisture must be available for steel to rust. 'Phis type of steel forms a dense oxide coating which does not allow oxygen to reach the base material. The rusting stops when this coating develops since oxygen is not available. The first bridge using this type of material was built in 1974 over I85 in Cleveland County. The performance has been excellent. The benefit is that no maintenance painting is required which results in a significant reduction in long maintenance costs. Attached is a list of bridges in Orange County which are constructed of weathering steel. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Timmy D. Lee, P•E. State Bridge Maintenance Engineer JDL/lb cc: Dr. Gorman Gilbert Mr. C. A. Gardner, Jr., P.E. Mr. Al Avant a16. BRIDGES IN ORANGE COUNTY WITH WEATEERING STEEL 10-31-94 BRIDGE # FEATURE INTERSECTED FACILITY CARRIED LOCATION DIV 67048 SR1005 NC54 @ JCT. SR1005 07 67079 I-40 & I-85 SR1134 @ JCT I40 & I85 07 67258 I40 SR1734 0 . 7 MI .N.JCT SR1733 07 67259 I40 SR1732 0 . 3 MI . N. JCT. SR1733 07 67260 I40 SR1723 @ JCT. I40 07 67266 I40 NC86 @ JCT. I40 07 67268 I85 I40 WBL @ JCT. I85 07 67282 CREEK US15-501 0 . 2 MI .S .JCT.SR1750 07. 67286 SR1919 NC54 WBL 1 . 9 MI . S . JCT. NC54 BUS 07 / 17. V ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING To: Gene Bell, Plann&r III From: Slade S. McCali , Transportation Planner II Date: August 14, 1995 Subject.: 1997-2003 Possible TIP Requests As you will recall, on March 29, 1995 1 sent out a memo to the entire Planning & Inspections Department requesting possible transportation projects for consideration by the Planning Board for inclusion in this year's Orange County Transportation Priority List. I also sent out a memo on April 18, 1995 to.each of the Orange County Township Advisory Committee Members to request their suggestions for projects. To date this is the list of candidate TIP requests: 1) Orange County Bicycle Route Map - This would include insets of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and UNC bicycle routes. Depicted on this map would be the results of the Orange County Bicycle Suitability Analysis. 2) Jerry Passmore, Director of the Dept. on Aging &-Transportation, has requested that a park Sz ride lot be planned north of Hillsborough on NC 86. 3) Jerry has also requested that bus pull-offs be considered for both sides of NC 86 at the Northern Human Services Center. 4) A recommendation of the Orange County Bicycle Routes Study- Pilot Study is that six foot bicycle lanes (paved shoulders) be added to NC 86 from Whitfield Road north of 1-40 (and Chapel Hill) to US 70 Business in Hillsborough (north of I-85). 5) Install bicycle safe bridge railings on bridges along the bicycle routes over I-85 and I-40. These candidate projects will be submitted to the Planning Board on August 21, 1995 for their consideration in the development of this year's Orange County Transportation Priority List.