HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 09-07-1993 - VII-A 1
ORANGE C O U N T Y
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 7 , 1993
Action Agenda
Item # Z-
SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP)
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Yes x No
ATTACHMENT(S) : INFORMATION CONTACT:
- County Objective specific to TIP Carol Carter, Ext. 2595
- Draft 8-16-93 PB Minutes Gene Bell, Ext. 2589
- Orange County 1992 TIP Request
- Report on TIP TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Hillsborough - 732-8181
Durham - 688-7331
Mebane - 227-2031
Chapel Hill - 967-9251
PURPOSE: To receive a report on the N.C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) annual Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) and assist staff in the
identification of transportation needs for possible
inclusion in the upcoming TIP request.
BACKGROUND: The N.C. Board of Transportation adopts annually a
multi-year TIP outlining needed transportation
improvements and the method and schedule for funding
such projects. Prior to adopting the program, a
series of statewide public hearings are held in each
of the state's 14 highway divisions to obtain advice
from local officials and citizens. Orange County is
located in Division Seven along with Alamance,
Guilford, Rockingham, and Caswell counties.
Historically, the County Commissioners have received a
report immediately before the TIP hearings and have
endorsed an Orange County statement. For many years,
the County's statement was primarily an endorsement of
municipal requests in the County. Passage of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA) in 1991 has prompted the County to become more
active in the TIP process. The TIP request endorsed
by the County Commissioners on November 2, 1992 and
presented at the Division Seven hearing on November
13, 1992 represented the County's most intensive
effort-to-date on a TIP request.
Page 1 of 2
2
The County has made a strong commitment to
transportation planning through the creation of the
Transportation Planner position and the adoption of a
goal (and attendant objectives) specific to
transportation. An expectation for the 1993-94 fiscal
year is greater involvement in the TIP process,
especially in terms of identifying needs, exploring
funding possibilities under ISTEA, and obtaining input
from advisory boards and the public.
The Planning Board received a report on the TIP
process on August 16 and identified several items for
consideration in the County's upcoming TIP request.
These items included safety improvements at railroad
crossings, the wildlife corridor at the I-85/US 70
interchange identified by UNC planning students, and
intersection sight distance improvements at Efland-
Cedar Grove Road and Carr Store Road.
The Planning Board also identified two areas of
concern inside the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC)
urban area and requested that they be coordinated
through the proper channels. These items were
widening and safety improvements to Homestead Road and
intersection improvements to Erwin Road and Dobbins
Drive.
In addition to the above concerns, planning staff as
well as the chair of the Transportation Advisory
Subcommittee feels that highway improvements within
the proposed economic development districts are worthy
of consideration. Staff will be meeting shortly to
compile a preliminary list of such projects. TIP
requests for such improvements could be made in
conjunction with interchange improvements contained in
the I-85 widening projects.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive as information and identify, as appropriate,
transportation needs for possible inclusion in the
County's TIP request.
DK15:TIP9-7 .DOC
Page 2 of 2
3
7/8/93
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
GOAL - ESTABLISH A COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS
FOR ORANGE COUNTY
OBJECTIVE 1
Establish a planning process which presents Orange County's requests to
NCDOT in a timely manner and coordinates those requests with other
jurisdictions, as appropriate.
PLAN OF ACTION
A. Establish procedures for the preparation of Orange County's annual
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) recommendations for County
jurisdiction outside the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan
Area Boundary.
1. Obtain copy of draft State TIP. July 1993
Prepare report which summarizes
previous County requests, status
of requests in draft TIP, and
identifies possible projects for
inclusion in upcoming TIP request.
Coordinate preparation of report
with municipalities so as to
identify projects of mutual interest
and support.
2 . Present report to Planning Board August 1993
and solicit possible projects for
inclusion.
3. Present report to BOCC and solicit September 1993
possible projects for inclusion
(BOCC may wish to conduct public
hearing on possible projects during
course of regular meeting) .
4. Presentation of proposed County TIP October 1993
request to BOCC for official action.
5. Presentation of County request at November 1993
DOT Division Seven public hearing.
B. Establish procedures to coordinate Orange County efforts
to improve secondary roads with those of NCDOT, including the
scheduling and presentation of the annual Secondary Roads
Improvements Program at public hearing.
DRAFT 8-16-93 Planning Board Minutes 4
14
includes information paragraphs on the State
mandate for watershed protection and Orange
County's approach for implementing that mandate.
Land Use Element maps recognizing the new
watersheds are also proposed for amendment.
The complete information and sections of the Land
Use Element proposed for amendment are on file in
the Planning Department.
b. Zoning Atlas
( 1) Little River and Cedar-Grove Townships
c. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments
( 1) Article 4 .2 .27
(2) Article 6.23
( 3) Article 22
(4 ) Appendix
d. Subdivision Regulations Text Amendments
( 1) Section IV-B-9
(2) Section V-C
( 3 ) Section V-D
( Items 8 b, c, d were presented at 7/1993 meeting)
AGENDA ITEM #10: PLANNING BOARD ITEMS
a. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
Gene Bell noted that the Commissioners ' Goals and
Objectives for FY 1993-94 contain many
transportation items. With one of those items being
for the County to become more involved in the
State's Transportation Improvements Program, the
Transportation Planner position was approved by the
Commissioners. This item is to inform the Planning
Board of the process and give opportunity for
comments, recommendations and questions.
Bell introduced Transportation Planner, Carol Carter
who made the presentation.
(The abstract information, Transportation Planning
Goal and Objective and Plan of Action, and
memorandum from Carol Carter explaining the process
and the TIP for Orange County are attachments to
these minutes on pages . )
Carter began by explaining the TIP program and the
5
15
process. She summarized the material included in
the agenda information. She noted that Orange
County is a member of the Durham-Chapel Hill-
Carrboro (DCHC) Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) . This is an urban area delineated by the
Federal Highway Administration, Members of the
urban area are mandated to participate in the
federal transportation planning process in order to
receive federal funding for transportation
improvements . The urban fringes of Orange County
surrounding Hillsborough, Chapel Hill and Carrboro
are included in this designated area.
As a goal to better inform and involve the Planning
Board of transportation activities in the County,
the Comprehensive Planning staff has elected to
update the members of the 1992 Orange County
requests as well as solicit input for projects which
may be appropriate for inclusion in the 1993
Priority Request List. Carter reviewed the priority
list for 1992 beginning with Homestead Road. In
conjunction with requests from Chapel Hill and
Carrboro, Orange County requested widening and
bicycle facilities improvements for Homestead Road
from High School Road to NC 86. This request
includes shoulder widening improvements, the
installation of turn lanes where appropriate and
sight distance improvements.
Carter continued that the only section of Homestead
Road that was funded was the section from High
School Road to Seawell School Road which is only . 6
miles.
The second request was the paving of rural roads.
Orange County requested funding to be appropriated
to speed up the Secondary Roads Improvement Program.
NCDOT's position remains that the Secondary Roads
Improvements Program receives its funding only from
Highway Trust Fund revenues.
The third request made by Orange County was two-fold
dealing with I-85 Corridor projects. One of the
requests was that NCDOT allocate funding for best
management practices during and after the I-85
widening. It is not listed in the TIP and it is
unlikely that separate funding can be allocated for
that.
The second part of this request was for a
bicycle/pedestrian facility along I-85 crossings.
The 1994-2000 TIP includes provisions for bicycle
safety improvements at the Churton Street
interchange with I-85 in the Bicycle Program.
6
16
The recommendations by the Planning Staff for this
year's TIP Priority List are:
•
Homestead Road
Paving of Rural Roads
Projects in the I-85 Corridor
Improvements to various railroad crossings
intersection improvements
Carter reviewed and summarized those items. The
NCDOT Board of Transportation will be holding public
hearings in November to accept the priority lists
for jurisdictions throughout the State. Orange
County will need to identify and forward such a
list. If coordinated efforts are needed with
jurisdictions within the DCHC MPO, this will need to
be accomplished during the next month. Any
recommendations the Planning Board may have in
regard to this issue will be analyzed and forwarded
to the Board of County Commissioners.
Cantrell asked when the paving of the . 6 mile
segment of Homestead Road is scheduled to begin.
Carter responded that it is scheduled on the TIP to
begin in 1998 and noted that there is sufficient
time to expand the scope of the project.
Waddell asked if Staff had considered taking the
information and questions to the Township Advisory
Councils. Carter responded that the time factor is
such that next year would be the time to get the
Township Advisory Councils involved. Waddell
agreed. Bell noted that the State schedule would be
back "on track" next year and that would allow
sufficient time to solicit input from the TAC's.
Eidenier asked, regarding the paving of rural roads,
if there is a list and, how does an alternative to
requesting general funding for unpaved roads affect
the list. Carter responded that there is a list
prepared by the State annually based on a rating
system. If the county felt there are roads/
improvements on the list of higher significance or
priority than as rated by NCDOT, then those
questions must be considered before asking for
alternative funding.
Eidenier expressed concern that identifying several
roads needing paving and improvement might change
the priorities and those citizens who had been on
the waiting list for paving would be further
delayed. Carter responded that NCDOT brings the
list to the Board.of Commissioners indicating the
number of projects that can be funded. However,
7
17
NCDOT is the agency that determines which roads to
pave, the County can only make requests/
recommendations.
Eidenier referred to the "bottoming out" sign at
the railroad crossing on Buckhorn Road that Carter
had mentioned. She noted that there are several
more such signs in the County. She also noted that
the funding for railroad crossings comes from a
different allocation than that of paving rural
roads. There is also a fund for bridges and another
for improving intersections in urban areas. She
felt that all of these requests should be presented
to NCDOT, particularly, since these are different
requests and would not be included in the same
funding. Carter agreed that the list could be as
long as the County wanted it to be and NCDOT prefers
that it be as detailed as possible. The Secondary
Roads Program is a separate fund from ISTEA funding.
Barrows asked about the reference to congestion
management and clean air conformance included in
intersection improvements. Carter responded that
one of the highest contributors to pollution is
backup at intersections. There are several options
to alleviate backup or standstill at intersections.
The entire facilities could be widened and right and
left turn lanes could be added. This would funnel
the traffic through much faster.
Questions were asked regarding the work on the
widening of I-85/I-40. Carter explained that this
project was not a single project, but three. Bell
note that there will be more opportunity for County
involvement in the portion of the widening to the
east.
Carter indicated that this item is to be presented
at the Board of Commissioners meeting on September
7 , 1993 and asked for input/concerns from the
Planning Board.
Reid noted that the Chapel Hill Township Advisory
Council is very concerned about the Homestead Road
project and indicated he would like them to receive
and comment on this information. Bell responded
that the time frame was very tight, but that he
would see what he could do.
Jobsis asked that the intersection of Erwin Road and
Dobbins Drive be added to the list. Bell responded
that is in Chapel Hill's jurisdiction, but that he
would make them aware of the problem.
8
18
Boland noted that the intersection of Efland Cedar
Grove Road and Carr Store Road is an intersection
that should be added to the list.
•
9
ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
P.O, Box 8181
HILLSBOROUGH, N.C.
27278
Moses Carey,Jr. 732-8181
Alice M. Gordon
968-4501
Stephen H. Halkiotis
688-7331
Verla I. Insko
Don Willhoit 227-2031
644-3004 (Fax)
STATEMENT TO THE N.C. BOARD OF TRANSPORTATION
PRESENTED BY ORANGE COUNTY ON NOVEMBER 13 , 1992
Orange County's transportation requests are specific to
two areas; the paving of rural secondary roads and widening
projects in the I-85 corridor. The County also wishes to
endorse previous requests , as presented in April 1991 .
I . Paving of Rural Roads
A program very important to the citizens of Orange
County and one which the County Commissioners have
actively supported •is the State's Secondary Road
Improvement Program. There are currently about 150
miles of unpaved rural roads in Orange County on the
State's Priority Paving Schedule. Over the last four
years the State has averaged. paving slightly over 10
miles per year of rural unpaved roads .
The County recognizes that the Secondary Roads Paving
Program is independent of the TIP process and thus , not
an item normally requested through the TIP. However, a
highly touted feature of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) is funding
flexibility. In this regard, the County requests that
the State consider freeing up all, or a portion of the
$10 ,775, 000 of Highway Trust Fund money allocated to
project I-304 (eight laning I-85 in western Orange
County) and allocating it to the expedited paving of
rural roads in the County. A worthy goal would be to
double the average mileage of secondary road paving to
20 miles per year. At this rate, practically all
eligible rural roads would be paved by the year 2000 .
Under ISTEA flexibility provisions, the Trust Fund money
allocated to secondary roads would be replaced with
ISTEA Interstate and National Highway System funds .
II . I-85 Widening Projects
A. Project I-305
Project I-305 , widening I-85 to six lanes and
reconstructing interchanges and structures from
Orange Grove Road to the Durham County line is a
project in the State 's 1992-98 TIP. The portion of
1
YOU COUNT IN ORANGE COUNTY !
10
this project from just west of University Station
Road to the Durham County line is in the Durham-
Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) Urban Area. The DCHC
Transportation Advisory Committee has requested that
this project include bicycle and pedestrian
facilities on streets that cross I-85 and design for
bikeways/greenways that cross I-85 . The potential
funding source for this is Interstate and National
Highway System funds. Orange County requests that
the same facilities be considered for the portion of
I-305 west of the DCHC Urban Area.
B. Project I-304
The eight-laning of I-85 through the Sevenmile Creek
basin (project I-304 ) in Orange County has been a
long-standing concern. The County wishes to request
that "transportation enhancement funds" provided
under the Surface Transportation Program of the
Intermodal Surface Transportation- Efficiency Act
(ISTEA) be allocated to address two areas of
particular concern; continued access under I-85 and
the provision of best management practices (BMPs) to
address highway run-off.
1. Continued Access Under I-85 and Related Concerns
A component of eight-laning I-85 is the
construction of a multi-directional interchange
east of Efland at the US 70 connector. Existing
overpasses to the east will be removed and access
between West Ten Road and Ben Johnson Road will be
severed. To offset this disruption, Ben Johnson
Road is to be extended to the US 70 connector.
The connector will be extended through the new
interchange to tie in with West Ten Road to the
south.
Continued access under I-85 between Ben Johnson
Road and West Ten Road is a recommendation in the
Regional Bicycle Plan for Durham and Orange
Counties. The Town of Hillsborough has also
passed a resolution requesting ISTEA enhancement
funds to maintain non-motorized access under I-85
through the provision of a culvert. Orange County
concurs with the Town and requests that
enhancement funds be allocated for continued
access under I-85.
If the provision of a culvert is not deemed
feasible, the provision of wider lanes for
bicycles on the extended US 70 connector between
Ben Johnson Road extension and West Ten Road is
requested. Previous discussions between DOT and
2
11
County officials indicate two foot bike lanes
would be provided on this road. Lanes a minimum
of four feet wide as recommended in the
Regional Bicycle Plan are requested since they
would provide greater safety for cyclists
traversing the 1 ,500 feet of US 70 connector
between Ben Johnson Road and West Ten Road.
2 . Best Management Practices for the Sevenmile Creek
Basin
Widening I-85 to eight lanes through the Sevenmile
Creek basin has raised concerns about the
degradation of water quality due to run-off from
additional pavement as well as possible spills.
The Sevenmile Creek basin has been identified as a
possible future water supply and Orange County
desires that the strongest protective measures
possible be implemented. The Upper Eno Watershed,
of which Sevenmile Creek is a sub-basin, has been
designated WS-II. In that " . . .mitigation of water
pollution due to highway runoff. . . " ' is a purpose
for which enhancement funds can be allocated,
Orange County requests that structural BMPs, as
necessary, be provided on the tributaries of
Sevenmile Creek affected by I-85 widening.
III . Endorsement of Previously Requested Projects
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.
A. Safety Improvements to Dangerous Intersections
Based on the number and severity of accidents during
the period January 1986 - June 1989, the County
recommends that the following intersections be
improved.
1. I-85 / SR 1120 (Mt. Willing Road)
2 . I-85 / NC 86
3 . US 70 / SR 1002 (St. Mary's Road)
4 . NC 57 / NC 86
5. US 15 / SR 1008 (Mt. Carmel Church Road)
6 . I-85 / SR 1009 (South Churton Street)
B. Improvements to Deficient Bridges (the County
endorses the following projects listed in the 1992-98
TIP)
1. B-2598 (North Fork Little River; replace Bridge
#54 )
3
12
2 . B-2100 (Haw River; replace Bridge #101)
3 . B-2599 (Eno River; replace Bridge #185 )
C. Orange County Department on Aging
In support of its Human Services Transportation
programs, Orange County endorses the requests of the
Department on Aging as contained on pages PTR-19,
PTR-23, and PTR-29 of the 1992-98 TIP.
D. Funding for the Triangle Transit Authority
Orange County wholeheartedly endorses the concept and
mission of the Triangle Transit Authority and
requests a continued State commitment for this
purpose.
The Board feels that these projects will address
pressing needs in Orange County.
Since the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro TAC is still
preparing its TIP requests for the coming year, The County at
this time is working cooperatively with that group to develop
a coordinated request for the part of Orange County that lies
in the urbanized area.
Submitted this 13th day of November, 1992
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
By: i/&aeo p
Moses Carey,y, r. , 'air
4
13
M E M O R A N D U M
T0: Orange County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Carol Carter, Transportation Planner II
RE: TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (TIP)
DATE: August 25, 1993
There are two events during the year which play an integral role in
the North Carolina transportation funding process for jurisdictions
throughout the state. They are:
1) the release of the 1994-2000 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program Update, and;.
2) the annual North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program •
Public Hearing Process.
Although typically spaced six months apart, this year both events
are occurring during the July - November portion of the year. This
is due to several factors, including the adoption and conformance
process of the North Carolina Department of Transportation to the
1991 Highway Bill, titled the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) , a new North Carolina Board of
Transportation membership, and a slight time-lag in the
determination from federal levels of available funding for
transportation projects over the next several years.
The Transportation Improvement Program is an eight year planning
and budgeting program for all transportation projects in the State
of North Carolina. It is multi-modal in scope and is based on
transportation needs voiced by leaders of various jurisdictions .
It is prepared by the N.C. Board of Transportation and is subject
to a public review and comment process.
Historically, the County Commissioners have received a report
immediately before the TIP hearings and have endorsed an Orange
County statement. For many years, the County's statement was
primarily an endorsement of municipal requests in the County.
Passage of the ISTEA in 1991 has prompted the County to become more
active in the TIP process. The TIP request endorsed by the County
Commissioners on November 2 , 1992 and presented at the Division
Seven Public Hearing on November 13 , 1992 represented the County's
most intensive effort-to-date on a TIP request.
14
Orange County is unique in its opportunities to participate in this
program simply due to its population distribution. The County has
opportunities to evaluate its transportation priorities both
independently and through a formal transportation planning process.
Orange County is a member of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC)
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) . This is an urban area
delineated by the Federal Highway Administration. Members of the
urban area are mandated to participate in the federal
transportation planning process in order to receive federal funding
for transportation improvements. The urban fringes of Orange
County surrounding Hillsborough, Chapel Hill and Carrboro are
included in this designated area.
The DCHC is governed by the Transportation Advisory Committee
(TAC) . This committee is made up of elected officials appointed by
the governing boards of each member jurisdiction. Orange County is
represented by a County Commissioner. This representative
participates in a coordinated, comprehensive, and continuous
process which evaluates transportation needs for all jurisdictions
in the urban area.
Orange County also must evaluate its transportation needs for the
areas outside the DCHC MPO. Through the TIP process, the County is
able to request transportation improvements for areas not supported
by the multijurisdictional process.
As a goal to better inform and involve the Planning Board and
County Commissioners of transportation activities in the County,
the Comprehensive Planning staff has elected to update the members
• of the 1992 Orange County requests as well as solicit input for
projects which may be appropriate for inclusion in the 1993
Priority Request List.
Last year there were three major requests made by the Orange County
Commissioners for inclusion in the TIP. A brief description and
update of each follows. If necessary, a suggested strategy for
additional funding measures is included. Planning Board Comments
from the August 16, 1993 meeting are provided in italics.
Homestead Road
In conjunction with requests from both Chapel Hill and Carrboro,
Orange County requested widening and bicycle facilities
improvements for this roadway from High School Road to NC 86.
The scope of this request includes shoulder widening improvements,
the installation of turn lanes where appropriate and sight distance
improvements.
A background of this project indicates safety problems associated
with turning movements along the entire facility limits. Left
turns into driveways of large traffic generators such as the Duke
Power Building and the Brookstone residential development, as well
as at major intersections with Airport Road and High School Road
15
prove dangerous due to sight-distance problems in the existing
pavement design.
Substantial future traffic increases are expected on Homestead
Road. Several residential developments are under construction in
the vicinity of the Brookstone subdivision and the Southern Human
Services Complex.
This project was listed in the 1992-98 (project U-2805) TIP in a
"feasibility study and right-of-way protection" category. This
meant the project had been recognized by NCDOT, however, no funding
was available in that budget period.
The project continues to be listed in the 1994-2000 TIP, however
the project limits and exact funding allocation are still under
debate. The project description now indicates improvements only
for the section from High School Road (SR 1834) to Seawell School
Road (SR 1834) . This is only 0. 6 miles of the proposed project
request. However, the project funding is for $ 8 , 700, 000, which
would fund the entire project as requested by the County and DCHC.
A recent update from NCDOT indicates that the area Board Member
intends only to fund the 0. 6 miles of the project and the funding
allocation will be adjusted downward to correspond. The Update of
the STIP indicates funding of $ 1.25 million for the 0.6 mile
project.
Recent land use decisions in Chapel Hill have required a review of
the proposed request of a three lane improvement. The Chapel Hill
and Carrboro staffs are currently investigating the possibility of
upgrading potential improvements to the facility. Once a decision
is made they will inform the County staff of a final decision so
that all efforts for coordination can be made in the development of
the 1993 Priority List.
In the meantime, there is a serious issue regarding the funding of
this project in the present TIP. The project limits are apparently
going to be considerably reduced and a large portion of the funding
is going to be removed. A strategy to save this project with the
full amount of funding is to communicate that desire to the Board
of Transportation. A united message from Chapel Hill, Carrboro,
and Orange County, similar to last year's request may also prove
beneficial to this project. Finally, since this project is within
the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) Urban Area, Orange County
could request the TAC continue to support this complete project.
Paving of Rural Roads
A program very important to the citizens of Orange County and one
which the County Commissioners have actively supported is the
State's Secondary Road Improvement Program. There are currently
just over 140 miles of unpaved rural roads in Orange County on the
State's Priority Paving Schedule. Over the last four years the
State has averaged paving slightly over 10 miles per year of rural
unpaved roads. The Program is funded from North Carolina Highway
16
Trust Fund revenues and the mileage paved varies according to the
revenues generated from year to year. The 1993-94 program proposes
paving 12 miles of rural roads at a cost of $ 1. 2 million.
Assuming a continuing rate of 10-12 miles per year, it will take
almost 15 years complete the County' s paving needs .
A highly touted feature of the ISTEA legislation is the flexibility
of funding. Previous highway legislation has fixed funding for
roadway improvements according to federal road classification,
however, ISTEA allows for the funding of roads or other
transportation modes to be derived from one of many sources.
Last year Orange County requested the NC Board of Transportation
look at innovative ways to fund the Secondary Roads Paving Program
through the flexible funding process. The Program is independent
of the TIP process, however the need for completion is so great
that the County has felt it appropriate to request NCDOT look at
alternative funding formats. Although the legislation prohibits
the allocation of funds to local roads such as those on the
pavement schedule, the County requested NCDOT investigate
alternatives to reallocate ISTEA money in order to free up Highway
Trust Fund dollars.
The recommended alternative was to request NCDOT allocate some or
all of the Trust Fund money allocated to the I-85 widening project
to the Orange County Secondary Paving program. Under ISTEA
flexibility provisions, the I-85 Trust Fund money could be replaced
with Interstate or National Highway System funds . This alternative
could provide a possible completion of the rural road paving
program by the year 2000.
The 1994-2000 TIP has not addressed this proposal. The 1993-94
NCDOT Secondary Road Improvement Program continues to receive its
funding from Highway Trust Fund revenues at the same rate. There
have been no reallocation efforts.
I-85 Corridor Projects
Project I-305 , widening I-85 to six lanes and reconstructing
interchanges and structures from Orange Grove Road to the Durham
County line is a project in the State' s 1992-98 TIP. The portion
of this project from just west of University Station Road to the
Durham County line is in the DCHC Urban Area. The TAC requested in
1992 that this project include bicycle and pedestrian facilities on
roads that cross the Interstate and design for bikeways/greenways
that cross I-85. The County recommended funding for this proposal
come from National Highway System funds.
The 1994-2000 TIP includes provisions for bicycle safety
improvements at the Churton Street interchange with Interstate 85
in the Bicycle Program. One problem with this is that the NCDOT
Bicycle Program is not always coordinated well with roadway
projects which are already under construction or design.
It is recommended that Orange " County continue to request this
17
element be incorporated in the design plans for the I-85 project.
Because this project is within the Hillsborough Corporate Limits,
it may benefit from joint support.
Project I-304 , the eight-laning of I-85 through the Sevenmile Creek
basin, has been a long-standing concern to Orange County. Funds
allocated for "transportation enhancement activities" under ISTEA
may provide a means to address two areas of particular concern;
continued access under I-85 and the provision of best management
practices (BMPs) to address highway run-off.
A component of project 1-304 is the construction of a multi-
directional interchange east of Efland at the US 70 connector.
Existing overpasses to the east will be removed and access between
West Ten Road and Ben Johnson Road will be severed. To offset this
disruption, Ben Johnson Road will be extended through the new
interchange to tie in with West Ten Road to the south.
Last year Orange County requested that the access between West Ten
Road and Ben Johnson Road remain and that a bicycle facility be
constructed in the connection. After much meeting and discussion
with NCDOT, a compromise has been reached. Bike lanes will be
constructed on the 70 Connector Roadway being constructed in
conjunction with the project. Again, it is recommended that close
contact with NCDOT officials remain through to completion of this
project to ensure the construction of bike lanes.
Widening of I-85 to eight lanes has also raised concerns about the
degradation of water quality due to run-off from additional
pavement as well as possible spill. The County has consistently
requested NCDOT make provisions for BMPs in conjunction with the
project. To date no funding response has been offered by NCDOT.
It is again recommended that the County request enhancement funds
for the proper design and safeguard of erosion control during and
after the construction of improvements to I-85 .
Given the status of projects requested last year by the Orange
County Board of Commissioners for inclusion in the North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program, staff makes the following
recommendations for this year's TIP Priority List.
1) Homestead Road - As was the case last year, this project is
recommended for additional discussion by appropriate County and
Town officials and ultimate referral to the DCHC for action. The
issue of the project limits and scope should be determined as soon
as possible to facilitate a unified request.
2) Paving of Rural Roads - It is recommended that the County
continue to request additional funding for paving of rural roads.
An alternative to requesting general funding for unpaved roads may
be to identify several rural roads in need of not only paving
improvements but also grade and cross-section improvements. By
targeting individual projects, NCDOT may be better able to allocate
TIP dollars to this type of effort.
18
The Planning Board had concerns over any disruption to the NCDOT
priority road paving list for fear that the priorities may be
changed due to the choosing of one or two needed improvements.
Preferred at this time to "stick to the schedule. "
3) Projects in the I-85 Corridor - It is recommended that the
County continue to request for better coordination efforts through
both the funding of enhancements to the I-85 corridor as well as
through staff involvement in the design and review process for the
projects. An additional enhancement project which qualifies for
funding is that of landscaping and beautification efforts at
interchanges. Because the I-85 interchanges in Orange County are
located in various jurisdictions, this would involve a
multijurisdictional effort.
Additional projects which could be considered in the Orange County
TIP Priority List are as follows:
* improvements to various railroad crossings. There are
several at grade crossings which are in need of improvement,
from track crossing to grade work on the roadway facilities.
An example is Buckhorn Road. Buckhorn Road has an interchange
with I-85, therefore several trucks travel over the Southern
Railway crossing between US 70 and I-85 . The existing grade
of the tracks can cause many safety problems for trucks as
well as cars. Recommended improvements involve better
signalization and gradework to the road. Funding for this
type of improvement comes from money allocated especially for
rail improvements or could come from STP dollars.
The Planning Board agreed that there are several railroad
crossings in the county which warrant grade improvements.
They requested all crossings with the main Southern Railroad
line be addressed for the priority list.
Further investigation by staff indicates two rail crossing
projects with significant grade problems that also carry
a large amount of traffic. They are the crossing at Buckhorn
Road and the crossing at Mt. Herman Church Road. Both of
these crossings are also in the county's proposed Economic
Development Districts. They are also both in MPO jurisdic-
tions. The Mt. Herman Church Road crossing is in the DCHC
MPO, and the Buckhorn Road crossing is in the Alamance County
MPO. These may require some coordination efforts.
Other rail crossings for consideration include:
Mt. Willing Road in Efland
University Station Road
19
* intersection improvements - Intersection improvements
provide immediate safety improvements without the
environmental impact of full road improvements. Justification
for these projects include safety, congestion management and
clean air conformance. Funding for such improvements can come
from a variety of the ISTEA sources as well as some State
sources. Intersections along high-volume roads such as NC 86,
NC 54, NC 57, and US 70 should be studied and high accident
locations identified. Staff is in the process of working with
NCDOT to determine high accident locations in the County. It
is recommended that a list of individual intersections be
targeted for funding.
The Planning Board recommended two intersections to be
analyzed:
1) Efland Cedar Grove Road / Carr Store Rd - sight
distance improvements
2) Erwin Road / Dobbins Road - This is in Chapel Hill
jurisdiction. This should be relayed to the Town for
further analysis.
Finally, the Planning Board requested staff review the New Hope
Corridor Open Space Master Plan: Proposals for Linking Duke Forest
and Eno River State Park, a study prepared by the Planning
Department and ZINC-Chapel Hill . The request specifically noted
investigation of a wildlife corridor in the vicinity of the US 70/ •
1-85 interchange.
Summary
The North Carolina Board of Transportation will be holding public
hearings in November to accept the priority lists for jurisdictions
throughout the State. Orange County will need to identify and
forward such a list. If coordinated efforts are needed with
jurisdiction within the DCHC MPO, this will need to be accomplished
during the next month.
•
�A6--- 9 74-3
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD
HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278
zn
MEMORANDUM -
To: Or ge County Board of Commissioners
From: Ca rter, Transportation Planner II
Subject: Additional Information for Transportation Improvement
Program Consideration
Date: September 7, 1993
As a result of discussions with the Planning Director, staff has
investigated additional projects for possible inclusion in the
Orange County Transportation Improvement Program priority list.
Staff has investigated transportation improvement needs in the
three proposed Economic Development Districts. It has been
determined that some improvements are desirable in each district in
order that they may efficiently serve targeted development and the
surrounding community transportation needs. Also, these districts
will serve as "entrance-ways" and the recommended improvements will
enhance both the scenic and functional capacities of the roadways.
I-85/Buckhorn Road Economic Development District
1) Buckhorn Road from I-85 project terminus to US 70 - widening
improvements to same standards as I-85 portion of project (24 '
pavement on 120 ' right-of-way) which would provide for easy
installation of future turn lanes, grade improvements at Southern i
Railroad Crossing, intersection improvements including turn lanes
and improved turn radii for easier and safer truck turn movements
at US70 .
Old NC 86/I-40 Economic Development District
1) Old NC 86 - widen to a four lane divided facility from I-40 to
1-85 . Recommended cross-section would be four 12 ' travel lanes
with a landscaped median. Access should be limited with additional
controls placed on median openings. Bicycle facilities (4 ' paved
shoulders and signage) should also be incorporated with this
project as recommended in the Draft Regional Bicycle Plan.
US 7O/I-85 Economic Development District
1) US 70 from University Station Road to the Proposed Eno Drive -
widen to a four lane divided facility. Recommended cross-section
would be four 12 ' travel lanes.
2 ) Mt. Herman Church Road - shoulder and grade improvements from
the US 70 intersection to Old NC 10
3 ) Wildlife Corridor crossing under I-85 - request a culvert
crossing under I-85 as proposed in report prepared by UNC-CH
Department of City and Regional Planning study titled "New Hope
Corridor Open Space Master Plan: Proposals for Linking Duke Forest
and Eno River State Park. " (should be coordinated quickly so it can
be incorporated in I-85 widening project)
4 ) Pedestrian crossing linking residential development south of
site to Eno River State Park - request a feasibility study
addressing all possible alternatives including
a) culvert under I-85
b) replace/rehab existing bridge at Mt. Herman Church Road
c) pedestrian/sidewalk facilities along relocated Mt. Herman
Church Road
5) Old NC 10 - Provide 4 ' paved shoulders throughout study area
limits.
It should be noted that all three of the Economic Development
Districts are located in adjacent MPO's. The Buckhorn district is
located in the Alamance County MPO, and the other two are located
in the DCHC MPO. Any recommendations should be coordinated with
each MPO accordingly. Coordination with the Town of Hillsborough
will also be necessary since portions of Old NC 86 recommended for
possible widening are in the Town's jurisdiction.
Copies : John Link, County Manager
Marvin Collins, Planning Director
Gene Bell, Planner III, Comprehensive