Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard minutes 082113Approved 9/18/13 1 MINUTES 2 ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD 3 AUGUST 21, 2013 4 5 MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Guthrie, Chapel Hill Township; Jeff Charles, Bicycle Advocate; Alex Castro, Bingham 6 Township; Annette Jurgelski, Eno Township; Jeff Miles, Pedestrian Access & Safety Advocate; Andrea Rohrbacher, 7 Planning Board Representative; Sam Lasris, Cedar Grove Township; Ted Triebel, Little River Township; Amy Cole, 8 Transit Advocate; Gary Saunders, CFE Representative 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 MEMBERS ABSENT: Susie Enoch, Cheeks Township; Hillsborough Township - Vacant; Economic Development Commission -Vacant STAFF PRESENT: Abigaile Pittman, Transportation /Land Use Planner; Bret Martin, Transportation Planner; Tina Love, Administrative Assistant II OTHERS PRESENT: Meredith Stewart, Orange County Health Dept. AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL AGENDA ITEM II: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JUNE 19, 2013 The June 19, 2013 OUTBoard Minutes were approved with corrections by consensus. AGENDA ITEM III: CONSIDERATIONS OF ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA AGENDA ITEM IV: REGULAR AGENDA a. State and MPO Project Prioritization. i. Review effect of changes to State and MPO project prioritization methodology on County projects, and ii. Consider and recommend new projects in the Burlington- Graham Metropolitan Organization ( BGMPO) planning boundary for the 2016 -2022 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) OUTBoard Action: To receive the information from Orange County planning staff and provide comments and recommendations for new projects in the BGMPO planning area for the 2016 -2022 TIP. Bret Martin: We are setting the stage for the bi- annual prioritization for the state to go through the process of updating its Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. We are working on putting together projects for the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, to be adopted by the North Carolina Department of Transportation in July 2015, and approved by the Federal Highway Administration in October 2015. We will need to submit projects to each of the transportation planning organizations within Orange County to prioritize at a regional level so the projects that the OUTBoard and the BOCC want to be scored will be scored by the state using their new criteria, and then they will be considered for addition in the statewide transportation improvement program. (Bret reviewed the Abstract). Alex Castro: DOT is divided up into divisions. What role do these divisions play in this planning process? Approved 9/18/13 Bret Martin: The money that is being divided up throughout the state for divisions is 30% of the state's transportation money and will go to capital projects. There is a statewide scoring methodology that applies to all projects but all the division projects will be ranked at the division level and then the MPO /RPO level. Alex Castro: We are in division 7, Orange County, less the MPO, Durham is in Division 5 so you have cross - jurisdictional conflicts, how do you resolve that when the Chapel Hill Durham MPO is partially in Division 7 and partially in Division 5. Do they have to be coordinated by both divisions? Bret Martin: Yes, they will. Paul Guthrie: Why don't you go through the description because there are other questions? Bret Martin: (Continued presentation). Paul Guthrie: If you look at our previous materials from the Triangle Transit, you notice there is a commuter rail link that starts in Raleigh and stops in Durham County which is part of a longer plan. One of the motivations is because that is the line where the district ends. I think that is a manifestation of what we will see as we go along with the plan and we need strategy as to how we deal with that. Bret Martin: Some of the criticism regarding the equity formula will pop up with this. (Continued presentation). Jeff Charles: In this formula, decisions are made at the district level for some things and on a regional level for other things. At the district level, we are competing with Greensboro and Burlington /Graham . At the regional level, we are competing with Winston Salem and a whole list of towns down to Charlotte. Most of our contacts are now to the east, we are at a disadvantage in being able to fully incorporate ourselves in the Research Triangle under this formula. Bret Martin: That is a fair statement. Paul Guthrie: When were these divisions set up? Bret Martin: Many decades ago to coordinate with prison labor to deal with road maintenance. (Continued presentation). Jeff Charles: Do bicycle facilities fall under this? Bret Martin: Yes. Jeff Charles: The division needs the SR routes which are the regional ones where we want the bike lanes for the most part. Bret Martin: I will get to that in a moment. There are specific changes that apply to that. Paul Guthrie: 25% of the 50% is local input and the other 25% is DOT Engineer input. The 50% is really 25 %. Bret Martin: 25% is the division rank and 25% is the local input. The division rank means, how did the project score according to the same criteria within the division as opposed to against. (Continued presentation). Jeff Charles: If DOT is going to have 100% statewide; 50% plus the division DOT Engineer's 25 %, that is 75% regional control and then in the sub regional they get 50% plus another 25 %. It seems the MPO /RPO rank is 0 at the statewide region and 25% at the sub - regional. Ted Triebel: Minimal influence. Bret Martin: This is what we worked off of before. At the division level, the MPO /RPO rank has always been a hefty 40% which is profound. For quantitative data, this is the scoring criteria. Approved 9/18/13 Ted Triebel: I appreciate your excellent presentation. Regarding the economic competitiveness under the Statewide Mobility Formula, I understand they are pushing to make that 15% to 20% instead of 10 %, have you heard that? The Board of Transportation chair wanted to get that 15% to 20% and this has not yet been approved on Jones Street. Bret Martin: I didn't know that. Paul Guthrie: It occurs to me that since so many of the projects will require federal involvement and a fairly significant financial investment, has anyone determined if this will pass the environmental impact test? Bret Martin: The NEPA process is project level. One of the things I was concerned about was that the original proposal was to do 40/40/20 instead of 40/40/30, and I stated I don't think it is legally possible to do that under federal laws governing what could be done with the portions provided to the states from the federal highway trust fund. That was changed at the division level because a large part of the money they get from the federal government must be divided up by population. They changed it from 40/40/20 to 40/30/30. 1 don't know how the NEPA process would impact any of this. Paul Guthrie: Obviously on a project by project basis. Bret Martin: Part of the NEPA process requires for a need and purpose to be established for each project and there has to be a case made before you can use federal money. Paul Guthrie: I have a map produced on the daily traffic volumes of US interstate highway systems across the United States and the highest travel routes that I would like to share. 1 -40/85 from Durham to Winston -Salem is one of the highest peak highway interstate traffic problems in the country from the standpoint of this map. I don't think we are dividing up the money on this formula with that in mind. Jeff Miles: How often are the division rank and the MPO /RPO that different? Bret Martin: Every MPO /RPO has an internal ranking process. Typically, they have tried to make their scoring methodology similar to that of the state because they don't want to have criterion that works against the state. The division rank is the same criteria as what you see here. (Continued presentation). Jeff Charles: DOT controls 75% and the division rank of 25 %. The MPO /RPO had 35% before and now it has only 25 %. From my perspective we have less input under the new system. Bret Martin: The division ranking criteria can change. Regions and divisions can devise their own methods. Jeff Charles: How do we get our division to do this? Bret Martin: We need to get all the MPOs and RPOs in our division to agree to it. You can adopt a variation of scoring factors. Abigail Pittman: Do we have to wait until 2015? Jeff Charles: Because we didn't do it soon enough we have to wait until 2015. Paul Guthrie: We are not be able to change it now but if we wish to get it changed and make an argument at that time that these are the factors we should be using to score the projects we should be funding and be loud enough, it might be effective. Bret Martin: Scoring criteria have to be approved by the Board of Transportation. Part of the reason they set a deadline is because they tried to say these are the rules, no more changing. (Continued presentation). Jeff Miles: Does the `no right -of -way rule only apply to projects that cost less than a million dollars or for all bike and ped projects? Approved 9/18/13 Bret Martin: It is for bike /ped projects. Those over a million dollars, that doesn't apply. Those that are over a million dollars are submitted as highway projects, and they will not score well enough to be funded. Jeff Charles: Unless we change regionally the way we rank projects in the system. Alex Castro: The costs that will no longer be borne by the DOT, what percentage are we talking of a contract? Bret Martin: That depends on the projects. Alex Castro: 5% to 10% might be a good figure. Bret Martin: (Continued presentation). Paul Guthrie: Do you have an opinion of how the NC 86 North project would rank? Bret Martin: I don't think that is in their system. I know it is a strategic highway. Abigail Pittman: I don't believe it was every scored. Bret Martin: There is a widening project that has been submitted for NC 86 at the intersection of NC 57. That project will actually rank a little lower. Next month we will come to you with other projects from TARPO and DCHC, and TARPO has already indicated that if we do not have a local match for bike /ped projects under one million dollars that we are not to submit those projects. Jeff Charles: Basically the BOCC has to put a new line item in the budget specifically for bike /ped matching funds? Bret Martin: Yes. Some local government in Orange County has to pay. Jeff Charles: Basically rural Orange County projects will go by the wayside. Jeff Miles: How does transit fit into this? 199 Bret Martin: Our transit system will not be that affected by this. 200 201 Paul Guthrie: Numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 are basically correlations with the interstate highway access and to the east the 202 future industrial zone which has Orange County implications. My personal opinion is that I see no problem with 203 particular projects. If they don't make this on any state list, at least three could be justified on necessary 204 improvements to the interstate highway system. 205 206 Bret Martin: The last project on Lebanon Road is to construct four foot bicycle lanes, that is likely over a million 207 dollars so it would need to be submitted as a highway project. 208 209 Jeff Charles: Take if off the list. 210 211 Abigail Pittman: There is a potential new elementary school site related to this project. 212 213 Jeff Charles: That is fine. 214 215 Motion made to approve the recommended projects in the Burlington- Graham Metropolitan Planning Area as listed 216 and proposed by staff. Seconded by Jeff Charles. 217 218 Vote: Unanimous 219 220 AGENDA ITEM V: STAFF UPDATES Approved 9/18/13 221 a. OUTBoard Appointments and Reappointments 222 b. OCBRIP public outreach for bus planning 223 OUTBoard Action: Receive updates 224 225 Abigaile Pittman: I have handouts. The first is from the TARPO meeting. NCDOT passed out a list of active projects 226 in Orange County. Reviewed handout. The next topic is OUTBoard appointments and reappointments. We still 227 have two vacant positions. We need a representative from the Economic Development commission and Hillsborough 228 Township. 229 230 AGENDA ITEM VI: UPCOMING AGENDA ITEMS OF INTEREST ON OTHER REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION RELATED 231 BOARD AGENDAS 232 OUTBoard Action: Receive information as a handout 233 234 Abigaile Pittman: Reviewed information in the handout. 235 236 AGENDA ITEM VII: MEETING SCHEDULE -Next meeting will be September 18, 2013 237 a. Continuation of State and MPO Project Prioritization 238 b. Discussion with Dale McKeel, Bicycle & Pedestrian Coordinator, Department of 239 Transportation, City of Durham /DCHC MPO regarding regional bicycle routes, and the 240 designation of St. Mary's Road as a regional bicycle route. 241 242 Abigaile Pittman: Chuck Edwards did agree to meet with the OUTBoard but he will need an agenda of questions. 243 244 Jeff Charles: One of the key things with Dale McKee should be to address the issues we have talked about with the 245 new transportation prioritization and funding formula. How will he help us address so that we become more like 246 regions one and four. That is high priority. Another question should be, what does he view is the future of 247 recreational cycling under this new rule versus as commuter based cycling. This is a very important issue. 248 249 Abigaile Pittman: On the agenda next month, I have the Eno Economic Development Access Management Plan to 250 show the recommendations I am making for access criteria. The BOCC would like the OUTBoard's feedback on it. 251 2552 AGENDA ITEM VIII: BOARD COMMENTS 253 OUTBoard Action: Receive comments 254 255 256 AGENDA ITEM IX: ADJOURNMENT 257 258 The meeting was adjourned by consensus. 259 Paul Guthrie, Chair