HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard agenda 022118AGENDA
Orange Unified Transportation Board
February 21, 2018
6:30 p.m.
You can bring your laptops /tablets if you would like to use them.
Conference Room 004 (Lower Floor) Orange County West Campus
131 West Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
Time Item Title
6:30 1. Call to Order and Determination of Quorum
6:32 2. Approval of Minutes from November 15, 2017
6:33 3. Consideration of Additions to the Agenda
4. Special Presentations
6:35 5. Transit Advisory Services /Orange County Public Transportation (OCPT)
This section of the agenda is addressed jointly by the OUTBoard and supplemental
staff from other County departments (Aging; DSS; Housing, Human Rights and
Community Development, Health, Child Support Enforcement, and the Library) to
address transit services.
OCPT Quarterly Operational Updates (Theo Letman)
5.a. i. Introductions of new employees with OCPT: TeLeishia Holloway, Transit
Administrator, and Katrina Wall, Transit Operation Supervisor ; and
5.b. ii. Major operational update on new fixed route, the Alamance Mid -Day
Connector.
5.c. OCPT Rebranding and Marketing (Theo Letman)
OUTBoard /Transit Advisory Services Action: Receive and review information,
provide comments.
Transit Advisory Services (TAS) Comments /Questions (Theo Letman): Opportunity
for TAS members to offer transit related comments and ask questions regarding
issues not on the agenda.
OUTBoard /Transit Services Action: Provide comments and questions, receive
feedback.
6.0 Regular OUTBoard Agenda (Action Items)
7:20 6.a. Bicycle Safety Implementation Subcommittee Report (Art Menius, Abigaile Pittman)
OUTBoard Action: Receive the information and provide any comments or direction
that the Board might have.
1
7:30
7:40
7:50
8:25
6.b. Orange County Transportation Projects Map and Website Update (Nish Trivedi)
OUTBoard Action: Receive the information and provide any suggestions that the
Board might have.
6.c. Discussion about OUTBoard Orientation Materials (Abigaile Pittman)
OUTBoard Action: Receive the information and provide any suggestions that the
Board might have.
7.0 Informational Items
8.0 Staff Updates
8.a. NC 54 Corridor Study Update (Nish Trivedi)
8.b. SPOT 5.0 Local Input Points for TARPO, DCHC and B -G MPO (Nish Trivedi)
8.c. B -G MPO Updates (Abigaile Pittman)
8.d. Orange County & NCDOT Highway (Division 7 & District 1) Luncheon Meeting
Notes, November 30, 2017 (Abigaile Pittman)
8.e. NCDOT Project Updates (handout)
8.f. 2018 Regular Meeting Calendar (handout)
OUTBoard Action: Receive updates
9.0 Board Comments
10.0 Adjournment — The next regularly scheduled meeting date is March 21, 2018.
Charge of the OUTBoard (from Section 1, Part C of the adopted Rules and Procedures)
1. The OUT Board is charged with advising the Board of County Commissioners on the
planning and programming of transportation infrastructure improvements and other
County transportation planning initiatives, as directed by the Board.
2. From time to time the OUT Board may be directed to provide input on regulations on
which the Planning Board has primary statutory and local ordinance advisory duties. In
such instances, the OUT Board shall serve in an advisory capacity to the Planning Board.
Meetings (from Section IV, Part C of the adopted Rules and Procedures)
C. Date, Time, and Location of Regular Meetings
3. Regular meetings of the OUT Board shall be held as needed to address items that
require Board action consistent with its Charge and Duties identified herein. Meetings are
held on the third Wednesday of the month. The start time and location of the meeting
shall be included on the agenda and shall typically be 6:30 p.m. at the Orange County
West Campus Office Building located at 131 West Margaret Lane, Hillsborough. The OUT
Board Chair, in consultation with staff, shall have the authority to change the start time
and location of a regular meeting to meet any special circumstances, provided the
information is included on the distributed agenda.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
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
DRAFT MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY OUTBOARD
NOVEMBER 16, 2017
REGULAR MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT: Heidi Perry (Chair), At -Large Representative; David Laudicina, Cheeks Township
Representative; Alex Castro (Vice- Chair), Bingham Township Representative; Ted Triebel, Little River Township
Representative; Jenn Sykes, At- Large; Erle Smith, Chapel Hill Township Representative; Donna Musson, Eno
Township Representative; Ed Vaughn, Cedar Grove Township Representative; Brantley Wells, Hillsborough
Township Representative; Gary Saunders, At -Large Representative;
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jeff Charles, At -Large Representative; Justin Miller, At- Large Representative; Art Menius, At-
Large Representative; Alyson West, At -Large Representative;
TRANSIT ADVISORY SERVICES MEMBERS PRESENT: Janice Tyler, Aging Director; Lisa Berley, Transportation Specialist;
STAFF PRESENT: Abigaile Pittman, Transportation /Land Use Planner; Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Planner; Allyson
Coltrane, Transportation Demand Manager; Theo Letman, Transit Director; Meredith Kern, Administrative Assistant.
OTHERS PRESENT FOR TRANSIT ADVISORY SERVICES: Matt Day, Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO);
Cheryl Sadgrove, Minutes Preparer.
AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND DETERMINATION OF QUORUM
Heidi Perry called the meeting to order at 6:38 p.m. and confirmed the presence of a quorum.
AGENDA ITEM 2: APPROVAL OF MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2017, MEETING
MOTION by Alex Castro to approve the September 20, 2017, OUTBoard Minutes. Seconded by Ted Triebel.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
AGENDA ITEM 3: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA
There were none. Heidi Perry asked the board and staff to introduce themselves.
AGENDA ITEM 4: SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
There were none.
AGENDA ITEM 5. TRANSIT SERVICES /ORANGE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION (OPT)
AGENDA ITEM 5A. INTRODUCTION OF ALLYSON COLTRANE, TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGER (TDM) FOR
ORANGE COUNTY
Theo Letman introduced Allyson Coltrane, Orange County Transportation Demand Manager.
54 AGENDA ITEM 513. POTENTIAL INITIATIVES FOR ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS FOR ORANGE COUNTY
55 (ALLYSON COLTRANE)
56
57 Allyson Coltrane gave a brief overview of what she will be doing in her new position as the TDM Coordinator. She
58 said one of her tasks is to lessen congestion during peak hours, which are 6 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 to 7 p.m. She will
59 be focused on encouraging carpools to alleviate traffic in the Hillsborough "hotspot" identified by the Triangle J
60 Council of Governments ( TJCOG), which includes the Orange County Campus of Durham Tech, UNC Hospitals at
61 the Hillsborough Campus and Orange County Schools.
62
63 Erle Smith asked what demand meant to Allyson Coltrane. Allyson Coltrane answered that it is from the perspective
64 of commuters and it is the demand for something better than bumper -to- bumper traffic.
65
66 Ted Triebel asked if there is supporting data. Allyson Coltrane answered affirmatively.
67
68 Jenn Sykes checked that Allyson Coltrane is focused on the demand in Hillsborough and not the demand
69 commuting out to the Triangle. Allyson Coltrane answered the primary focus is people commuting into Hillsborough.
70
71 Allyson Coltrane continued her presentation, reviewing the modes of commuting and the key players for transit in
72 Orange County. She reviewed that commuters can use Share the Ride NC to help find co- workers with whom they
73 can carpool. She said she can facilitate carpool parties by visiting places of work and helping people connect with
74 potential carpool matches in person.
75
76 Donna Musson asked whether someone who has a disability can use Share the Ride NC. Allyson Coltrane answered
77 affirmatively and said that a person can sign up to always be a rider and never a driver.
78
79 Allyson Coltrane continued with her presentation and explained that with Vanpool (organized by GoTriangle), a
80 person can choose to be a driver or a back -up driver. There can be up to six back -up drivers in a VanPool group.
81
82 Allyson Coltrane reviewed biking, walking and the Circulator route as alternatives to driving. She said she also plans
83 to work with the Bicycle Safety Task Force.
84
85 Allyson Coltrane also reviewed events she plans to launch including: Lighten Up (a TJCOG program that provides
86 lights for cyclists and pedestrians), New Year New Commute (which involves making a pledge to carpool a certain
87 number of times), Telework Week (to encourage a department to test telecommuting), Bike Month, and Think Transit
88 (which helps people learn to ride a bus).
89
90 Abigaile Pittman said Think Transit would be useful for clients of the human resource agencies such as the
91 Department on Aging.
92
93 Ted Triebel asked when Think Transit would take place because it sounded particularly helpful. Allyson Coltrane
94 answered next fall, and Lighten Up and New Year New Commute would happen early in 2018. Ted Triebel said he
95 thinks Think Transit should be first. Gary Saunders said Think Transit is usually in the month of September and
96 other organizations do it then as well.
97
98 Heidi Perry asked about the possibility of employers charging for parking in an effort to make public transit more
99 appealing. She also asked if Allyson Coltrane would be encouraging employers to give employees credit for choosing
100 alternative commuting methods. Allyson Coltrane answered that eventually employers will probably move toward
101 non -free parking. Allyson Coltrane said with GoPerks, commuters can earn money for free rides.
102
103 Jenn Sykes said at UNC Hospitals in Chapel Hill, staff already has to pay to park. A lot of nursing staff live in the
104 northern part of Orange County and commute through Hillsborough to get to the hospital in Chapel Hill. She thinks
105 alternatives would be helpful. Allyson Coltrane said Chapel Hill Transit controls access to the northern Hillsborough
106 hotspot. Heidi Perry suggested focusing on vanpools. Jenn Sykes said UNC offers intranet carpool boards.
M
107
108 AGENDA ITEM 5C. ORANGE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION (OPT) QUARTERLY OPERATIONAL UPDATES (THEO LETMAN)
109
110 i. New Service Date Projections
111 Theo Letman reviewed that there will be a new midday route by the end of the month. OPT may start a route at
112 Scotswood Boulevard by the Food Lion in the Churton Grove Shopping Center.
113
114 Alex Castro asked if the stops would be the same as the GoTriangle peak hour stops. Theo Letman answered yes,
115 except the OPT stops would stay on U.S. 70 because there are apartments and a subdivision not currently being
116 served by GoTriangle.
117
118 Alex Castro suggested that GoTriangle information be added to the OPT bus service information so that potential bus
119 riders realize there are several optional times for starting and completing their journey by bus. Heidi Perry supported
120 this idea.
121
122 Ted Triebel asked when the new midday route will start. Theo Letman answered he is hoping at the end of
123 November. And he added that the Efland commuter loop will start in December or early January.
124
125 Theo Letman said an on -call bus or van is being considered for the GoTriangle route. Heidi Perry noted GoTriangle is
126 doing that in Research Triangle Park.
127
128 Alex Castro said some congregation parking lots could serve as a park- and -ride. Heidi Perry said we need to find out
129 from employers where that church parking lot needs to be located for the employees to use it. Alex Castro noted the
130 community center in Cedar Grove has a bus shelter. Theo Letman said the Dollar General is a central point.
131
132 Lisa Berley asked Theo Letman if he thinks people would use a park- and -ride at the Food Lion in the Churton Grove
133 Shopping Center. Theo Letman answered affirmatively and added that the park- and -ride will be moved to the new
134 State Employees Credit Union parking lot on U.S. 70 once the new bank site is open.
135
136 ii. New Positions posted for Orange County Public Transportation (OCPT)
137 Theo Letman said in terms of staffing, two positions are open. An administrative assistant has been hired and a part -
138 time bus driver has asked to become a full -time driver. Ted Triebel asked what the pay is for a bus driver. Theo
139 Letman answered he thought it was around $15 per hour.
140
141 Alex Castro asked if OCPT has minivans. Theo Letman answered there will be three on order for delivery in June
142 2018.
143
144 iii. Community presentations by GoTriangle
145 Theo Letman reported there was a community presentation in Hillsborough the previous evening. Another will be
146 held November 21 at Cedar Grove Community Center and in January in Efland. This is an opportunity to see the big
147 transit plans. Heidi Perry asked for a way to share the information about the meetings on social media.
148
149 Janice Tyler said she can share the information with her lists of congregations or share her contact lists.
150
151 Theo Letman passed out transportation surveys for OUTBoard members to fill out.
152
153
154 AGENDA ITEM 6: REGULAR OUTBOARD AGENDA (ACTION ITEMS)
155
156 6A. BICYCLE SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT (ART MENIUS, ABIGAILE PITTMAN)
157
158 Abigaile Pittman shared a written report of the subcommittee's most recent meetings. She said this subcommittee
159 has been meeting every three weeks and has narrowed the logo choices to a few finalists. An online survey will go to
160 the OUTBoard, everyone on the previous bicycle safety task force, and a few other people. She said there will be a
161 video contest, partnering with the video class at Cedar Ridge High School. The contest will be for students to make
162 15- second videos. Abigaile Pittman said the intention is for the video to feature local celebs from different categories
163 (Spanish- speaking, young kids, teens, political /public figures, sports figures, people in the arts, etc.).
164
165 Heidi Perry said the subcommittee viewed example videos made in Australia that humanize the people on the
166 bicycles. The plan is to share the videos through social media. Abigaile Pittman said the winning video will be used in
167 the launch in May.
168
169 Ted Triebel suggested filming Bob Strayhorn, Bob Nutter or Andy Gates because they are known in rural Orange
170 County.
171
172 Jenn Sykes suggested using Duke and UNC celebrities.
173
174 Abigaile Pittman reviewed the list of collaboration and community relation opportunities for promoting the bicycle
175 safety campaign. Upon the suggestions of this board, she added WHOP -FM radio and the Department on Aging
176 congregation lists.
177
178
179 6B. DURHAM - CHAPEL HILL - CARRBORO METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION 2045 METROPOLITAN
180 TRANSPORTATION PLAN PREFERRED OPTION - PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD (NISHITH TRIVEDI)
181
182 Nishith Trivedi reviewed the purpose of the Metropolitan Planning Organization, goals and objectives of the plan, and
183 the draft plan. He mentioned the plan includes the Hillsborough commuter station going to Durham, light rail from
184 Chapel Hill to Carrboro, and bus transit from the Eubanks Park -n -Ride to the Southern Village Park -n -Ride.
185
186 Alex Castro said one concern he has is that the Hillsborough station will be online in several years and Amtrak
187 service only runs two or three times a day. He asked why the plan does not extend the commuter rail from Durham to
188 Hillsborough.
189
190 Nishith Trivedi shared the bike /pedestrian portion of the plan.
191
192 Heidi Perry asked about why there is less funding toward the final years of the plan. Matt Day answered that the
193 transit costs are front - loaded in the plan.
194
195 Nishith Trivedi shared the financial plan. He reviewed that the plan is scheduled for adoption at the next DCHC MPO
196 Board meeting.
197
198 Ted Triebel noted funding for bike /pedestrian options is not increasing.
199
200 Nishith Trivedi asked for comments to forward to the Orange County Board of Commissioners and Metropolitan
201 Planning Organization.
202
203 Ed Vaughn said he would like to see a bike /pedestrian pathway between Hillsborough and Carrboro for safety. He
204 noted Durham is working on the Ellerbe Creek Trail. David Laudicina suggested exploring using the right of way that
205 allows for a water line from Hillsborough to Orange Water and Sewer Authority for a greenway that would connect to
206 Carrboro. Heidi Perry noted there is a bike path by Morris Grove Elementary School and a 600 -foot gap to the Lake
207 Hogan Farms neighborhood. Once that gap is connected, then that greenway could be part of a plan. She also
208 suggested for requesting an easement for a greenway from the Settlers Point developers. Ed Vaughn said there will
209 be a desire for people from Carrboro to have a greenway to get to Mountains -to -Sea Trail in Hillsborough.
210
211 Nishith Trivedi noted two changes to the map: a road improvement to N.C. 86 North and an improvement to the
212 intersection with that road and U.S. 70.
213
214 Heidi Perry said one can never get ahead of congestion by accommodating more cars.
215
216 Jenn Sykes said that is where the affordable housing is located. Heidi Perry said we need to get them on transit. Alex
217 Castro said he likes David Laudicina's point of using an existing right of way.
218
219 Nishith Trivedi noted that for the N.C. 54 corridor, the plan calls for a modernization and not a widening.
220
221 Nishith Trivedi concluded his presentation.
222
223 6c. ANNUAL REPORT AND WORK PLAN (ABIGAILE PITTMAN)
224
225 Abigaile Pittman reviewed the activities she anticipated this board would be working on in 2018, located on Page 115
226 in the agenda packet.
227
228 Heidi Perry asked for the timeframe for the N.C. 54 plan. Matt Day answered the work is scheduled to take place in
229 the spring.
230
231 Alex Castro thanked the staff for putting together this document.
232
233 Heidi Perry expressed concern over not having a sidewalk along Orange Grove Road to Cedar Ridge High School
234 because students walk along the road. Abigaile Pittman said there is a need to determine whether there is sufficient
235 right -of -way. Also, funding has to be identified and it has to be determined which government entity would maintain
236 the sidewalk. The Town of Hillsborough is not enthusiastic about taking over maintenance when the town does not
237 have jurisdiction or extraterritorial jurisdiction in this area, she said. When asked by a board member, Abigaile
238 Pittman said the desired sidewalk in this area would be around 3/4 mile, including along the frontage of New Grady
239 Brown Road but not including the bridge over Interstate 40. She noted that on Page 116 of the agenda packet there
240 is language in the annual work plan to indicate this board cares about Safe Routes to School.
241
242 Alex Castro said the Master Aging Plan was presented to the Town of Chapel Hill and the Town of Carrboro.
243 Walkability and transportation are two areas in the plan. He said maybe we can get some representation from this
244 board. Abigaile Pittman said she serves on two committees for implementation of the Master Aging Plan. Alex Castro
245 said it is another avenue for coordinating with other jurisdictions.
246
247 Heidi Perry asked about Number 2 on Page 115, specifically how the Burlington- Graham MPO Bicycle and
248 Pedestrian Master Plan connects to Orange County. Matt Day said Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization
249 ( TARPO) assumes the MPO work would coordinate with them and match up to their Bicycle Master Plan. Abigaile
250 Pittman said she does not have all the details on the MPO project yet but will keep the OUTBoard informed. Heidi
251 Perry said it would be good to see the TARPO plan and how they connect.
252
253 Abigaile Pittman asked if there is anything else to add, especially under emerging issues.
254
255 Jenn Sykes suggested adding working with employers on alternatives to commuting. The board worked on the
256 wording for the document and decided to add: "Promote alternative transportation modes during peak hours via
257 public - private partnerships through collaboration with the OC TDM Coordinator."
258
259 MOTION by Alex Castro to approve the Annual Report and Work Plan with addition. Seconded by Ed Vaughn.
260 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
261
262 AGENDA ITEM 7: Informational Items
263 None.
264
265 AGENDA ITEM 8: STAFF UPDATES (ABIGAILE PITTMAN)
7
266 8 a. Orange County staff letter to Burlington- Graham MPO Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) and
267 Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) regarding process for submitting projects to NCDOT for review and
268 scoring.
269
270 Abigaile Pittman reported that a letter was signed by Orange County Planning Director Craig Benedict expressing the
271 concerns of Orange County staff and commissioners on the process for the project evaluation and scoring in the
272 Burlington- Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization. There are concerns about the criteria and the process.
273 Orange County staff attended the last Burlington- Graham MPO Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC) meeting
274 and expressed these concerns, and requested a subcommittee be formed to review for the next cycle. The TCC
275 voted to accept that subcommittee. Several other jurisdictions wanted to participate as well. Then Orange County
276 staff went to the Burlington- Graham MPO's Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC), which is the voting group, and
277 the TAC authorized the subcommittee to move forward. So, the TCC staff representatives on the subcommittee have
278 scoped out what it wants to review and are reviewing other criteria in search of good examples, one of which is
279 TARPO's criteria.
280
281 8b. NCDOT project updates
282 Abigaile Pittman noted the project updates are in the agenda packet for the board members to review.
283
284 Nishith Trivedi said the intersection of Buckhorn Road and West Ten Road will get a four -way stop.
285
286 Abigaile Pittman reported the fencing for the bridge over Interstate 40 on Orange Grove Road went out to bid and the
287 bids were over budget so NCDOT has put it out to bid again. Heidi Perry asked how much over it was. Abigaile
288 Pittman said she did not know. Brantley Wells said that is public information and probably on the NCDOT website.
289 Heidi Perry said it is very frustrating to see kids cross the unsafe bridge.
290
291
292 AGENDA ITEM 9: ADMINISTRATIVE
293
294 9A. ELECTION OF NEW CHAIRNICE- CHAIR: THE TERMS FOR THE CURRENT CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR ARE CONCLUDING; NEW
295 APPOINTMENTS ARE NEEDED.
296 Heidi Perry proposed putting off elections until the next meeting. Abigaile Pittman said the elections have to be done
297 before the end of the year, and that she would like to include the election results in her report to the Orange County
298 Board of Commissioners.
299
300 MOTION by Alex Castro to reappoint Heidi Perry to Chair of the OUTBoard. Seconded by Brantley Wells.
301 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
302
303 MOTION by Erle Smith to reappoint Alex Castro to Vice -Chair of the OUTBoard. Seconded by Heidi Perry.
304 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
305
306 913. 2018 REGULAR MEETING CALENDAR
307 Abigaile Pittman noted the 2018 meeting calendar had been created.
308
309 AGENDA ITEM 10: BOARD COMMENTS
310 Heidi Perry mentioned she attended the state bike convention and AARP representatives spoke and shared a list of
311 grant sources.
312
313 AGENDA ITEM 11: ADJOURNMENT
314 Alex Castro made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:38 p.m. Erle Smith seconded the motion. The
315 OUTBoard meeting was adjourned by consensus.
316
317
n.
Heidi Perry, Chair
10
Item 5.a.
ORANGE COUNTY
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD (OUTBoard)
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 21, 2018
SUBJECT: OCPT Administrative Updates
DEPARTMENT:
Orange County Public Transportation
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Transit Administrator Bio
2. Transit Operations Supervisor Bio
Action Agenda
Item No. 5.a.
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Theo Letman, Transit Director
919- 245 -2007
PURPOSE: To receive an update of OCPT major administrative / staffing updates
BACKGROUND:
New Employees: Orange County Public Transportation (OCPT) has added two new staff
members to the leadership team: TeLeishia Holloway, Transit Administrator (01.22.18) and
Katrina L. Wall, Transit Operations Supervisor (12.23.17).
RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends the OUTBoard:
1. Receive and review the information; and provide feedback.
11
Theo Letman, Transit Director
Attachment 1
Oratriic:��, 0,
PUW. ii C•m°is. A iNS Poa7rxrm
ANNOUNCEMENTS
PO Box 8181, 600 HWY 86N
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(Phone): 919.245.2007
I am pleased to announce the addition of our new Transit Administrator: Ms.
TeLeishia Holloway.
Her role will be to oversee all transit bus operations, and manage all transit operations
personnel. This is an important managerial staff position within our department,
providing much needed oversight, and meeting regulatory compliance, grants and
human resource management, operational and fiscal reporting requirements.
TeLeishia Holloway, a Washington, DC native, is a seasoned professional in the
industries of Transportation Operations and Human Capital Management. TeLeishia
holds two Bachelor's degrees and one Master's degree. Throughout her professional
career, she has over 15 years of progressively responsible experience leading the
implementation of HR. programs and transit systems operations from North Carolina
to Atlanta, to Washington, DC. While attending undergraduate studies at North
Carolina Central University, she worked at Durham Area Transit Authority (now known
as Go Durham) and quickly exceled from Customer Service Rep to HR. Coordinator.
Most recently in transportation, she has served as the Assistant General Manager on
three multi - million - dollar metro Atlanta contracts, with the U.S. leader in
transportation contracting, First Transit. Safety was the primary component to
running extremely successful, safe, timely, and dependable service to the riders in
those areas.
In her spare time, TeLeishia enjoys volunteering in the community, traveling the globe,
reading, and dancing.
Posted: 14 February 2018
12
Theo Letman, Transit Director
Attachment 2
ANNOUNCEMENTS
PO Box 8181, 600 HWY 86N
Hillsborough, NC 27278
(Phone): 919.245.2007
I am pleased to announce the position Transit Operations Supervisor has been
filled by Ms. Katrina Wall.
Her role will be to supervise all transit bus operations, transit dispatching and all
transit bus drivers. This is an important direct supervisory staff position within our
department, providing much needed oversight, and meeting compliance,
reporting and billing requirements.
Katrina began with OCPT in June 2010, as a part time temporary bus operator. In
2013, she became a full -time permanent bus operator. She assisted office staff
with dispatching, scheduling and billing. Katrina later became interim
dispatch /scheduler until 2016. She brings a strong background in route planning,
transportation logistics, safety, and customer service.
Katrina Wall is a native of Anson County, currently residing in Burlington NC. She
has been in transportation for 12 years: 4 years with Alamance County School
System and 8 years in public transit (1 year — Triangle Transit, 7 years - Orange
County Public Transportation).
Posted: 12 December 2017
13
14
- etaIM72a
ORANGE COUNTY
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD (OUTBoard)
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 21, 2018
Action Agenda
Item No. 5.b.
SUBJECT: OCPT Operational Updates
DEPARTMENT:
Orange County Public Transportation
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. Orange Alamance Advertisement Slide Theo Letman, Transit Director
2. Orange Alamance Transit Sweethearts Day Flyer 919 - 245 -2007
PURPOSE: To receive an update of OCPT major operational updates
BACKGROUND:
New Service: Orange County Public Transportation (OCPT) currently operates three fixed
routes: Hillsborough Circulator, Orange — Chapel Hill Mid -Day Connector, and Orange —
Alamance Mid -Day Connector.
The Orange — Alamance Mid -Day Connector was implemented December 18, 2017.
Marketing of the new service is currently being broadcast on the county -wide information
monitors (e.g., DSS, Public Library, OC Visitors Bureaus, Passmore and Seymour Senior
Centers, etc.). The following link is to a Google map for the AO Route.
https: / /oo.l /maps /h 8r9dZd 2 . Transit Sweethearts Day was the initial promotional
advertisment for the new service at a fare free event on Monday, February 12th to celebrate
Valentine's Day.
New Web Link: .orange n nc.gov/ ransi gives Orange County residents,
customers and community partners a more direct link to access bus routes /schedules,
passenger registration details, and contact information for reservations and general
operational content.
RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends the OUTBoard:
1. Receive and review the information; and provide feedback.
15
Attachment 2
17
iu.*
Item 5.c.
ORANGE COUNTY
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD (OUTBoard)
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 21, 2018
Action Agenda
Item No. 5.c.
SUBJECT: OCPT Rebranding and Marketing
DEPARTMENT: Orange County Public Transportation
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Bus 2006 Photo
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Theo Letman, Transit Director,
919- 245 -2007
PURPOSE: To receive an update on marketing and rebranding effort undertaken to establish
Orange County Public Transportation's identity as a new department within Orange County
government and to increase awareness of our services throughout the County.
BACKGROUND: OCPT fleet is currently in the installation phase of affixing the OCPT logo on
all vehicles. Currently six paratransit buses have been wrapped.
RECOMMENDATION: The OCPT staff recommends the OUTBoard:
1. Receive and review the information; and provide feedback.
19
Attachment 1
ORANGE COUNTY
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 21, 2018
SUBJECT: Bicycle Safety Implementation Subcommittee Report
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Final Campaign Logo Options
Action Agenda
Item No. 6.a.
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Abigaile Pittman, Transportation /Land
Use Planner, 919 - 245 -2567
PURPOSE: Receive a report on the activities of the Bicycle Safety Implementation
Subcommittee
BACKGROUND: The subcommittee met several times during November and December, and
earlier today.
Highlights of our work include:
• Production of Campaign Videos - Through the auspices of Peter Leousis, whose son is a
student there, we have secured the video club at Cedar Ridge High School to storyboard,
shoot, and edit our videos featuring notable people in the community. Art, Abigaile, and
Heidi met with the club in early December. We shall provide funding for this work since
the club will need to rent audio and video equipment to shoot and record at the quality we
need. Heidi has drafted excellent scenarios for the videos. The students have presented
four storyboards for our review. Sheriff Blackwood, Chief of Police Duane Hampton and
Mayor Tom Stevens have agreed to participate. Commissioner Renee Price has agreed
to participate and Commissioner Earl McKee has also been approached and is
considering the request. We need further outreach to potential participants. We are
coordinating with NCDOT for the use of a public road to film the videos on two weekend
days in late March and early April.
• Campaign Logo and Marketing Survey — With the release of a survey on January 31, we
have reached the final stage of testing potential logos for our work representing our Ride
Safely, Drive Safely theme. The final logo should be decided by the time of the
OUTBoard meeting.
• Campaign Website - We have decided on the desired content and menu system for the
campaign website working with county staff. Art Menius will design the site with
WordPress, with content populated by the subcommittee members. The site will be linked
to the county's website.
21
• Campaign Signage - We have preliminary permission to place our signs on NCDOT right -
of -way, but we may not post on the same support as their signs. Our campaign signs will
be metal and will present the campaign logo. Ultimately, encroachment agreements will
be required for the NCDOT road signs. The number of signs will be determined by the
budget.
Yard signs are also proposed, and will also present the campaign logo. Yard signs will
be limited to 9 square feet in area and will be of a non -metal material, perhaps plasticized
cardboard like the county uses for its rezoning signs.
Final sign sizes are being decided and unit quotes from two vendors will be provided.
• Community Events, Swag /Loot and Tabling — Abigaile has a list of county events for 2018
from the Visitors Center. The subcommittee will identify which events we would like to
attend. Swag /loot will be purchased for the events.
• Bike Rodeo /Bicycle Helmet Initiative — Sheriff Blackwood has numerous bicycle helmets
obtained from NCDOT and other grant sources. He has agreed to assist the
subcommittee with a Bike Rodeo this year. The exact date and details are still to be
worked out.
• Campaign Launch — We are aiming for May. There will likely be a presentation to the
BOCC prior to the launch date. Abigaile is still discussing the logistics with other staff.
• Campaign Budget. Sequencing of Events and Total Timeline — The sequencing of
events, Campaign budget and timeline is being discussed in greater detail on the
February 21 meeting (3:00 -5:00 p.m.). Additional information will be provided at the
OUTBoard meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATION(S): Staff recommends that the OUTBoard:
1. Receive an information; and
2. Provide any comments or direction that the Board might have
22
Attachment 1 - Final Campaign Logo Options
IIIVI, ��� 1 I u�, a 11 1111
/
IIIIIIIIIP IIIIIIIIIII 1111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII III 1p
J II
111
/
�IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII 1111111 III
�IIII�i�JJii�/Illlll���i lul! °I I I �
:.. W, a . .
....
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII pluul
I� �„ 11111
O%////%%%%%/%/ O%%///// O%%%// / % % / / / % % / / / % % % % % % % % % % / % % % % % % %%% %ROOD 11
0I)p
1111111 IIIIIIIIIII 1111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII I X111
��1 IVY
O% i % % % % % % % % % % % % / / /D % % % % % %D / / % % ///
.n
23
Bicycle Safety Campaign
Logo Survey Results
Logo Option 1
Logo Option 2
Logo Option 3
Logo Option 4
Number of Votes
M
2/S/2018
Orange County Bike Logo Survey - Google Forms
An��d'1i|'[>��|{�[)OODleDfsO0f���|(]O[)d��'ODs?
� �� � `'
Torn between the waving and not waving logos, One is friendly and sends a good message, but the other seems safer with
two hands un the handle bars. The gender makes no difference to me. Perhaps one gender could be used for a vertical
version of the logo, and the other gender could be used for a horizontal version of the logo.
The hands raised don't look that friendly or like they are greeting each other. I think it kind of looks like they are gestures of
frustration.
Thanks for all your hard work, Abigaile!
3 and 4 have hand up as if looking at something. Not a good design as this could be seen as a distraction.
| like the designs with the waving people, yet they could convey that taking your hands off the steering wheel and taking
your eyes off the road is okay ... even though we do that anyway.
Logos 3 and 4 look like the rider and driver are frustrated with each other!
Jeff Charles' comment was: |cannot vote for any nf these logos because the rider is positioned to the right
of the car, in the cars blind spot.
25
bupo0doco.gooQleonm8onne/d/lxnvoRTGz*vsosxuosius gqo/e uit?ts= W f8d4 8#responses 212
P
ORANGE COUNTY
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 21, 2018
SUBJECT: OC Transportation Projects Map and Website Update
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S):
Action Agenda
Item No. 6.b.
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Planner,
919- 245 -2582
PURPOSE:
Receive information on the Orange County Transportation Projects Map and website update
from Orange County Transportation Planning staff and provide any input that the Board might
have for internal Staff consideration.
BACKGROUND: The Transportation Projects Map is used as an internal and external
information tool identifying all transportation planned and funded projects from concept through
construction. The map is divided into planned and funded projects for the various regional
transportation planning organizations in Orange County.
Planned Projects:
Projects must first be illustrated as a line on a map, in order to be considered for any Federal or
State funds, especially in the adopted Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP). Projects with
detailed scope, termini, cost, administration etc... advance into the agency's financially
constrained Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). These projects are also identified on the
map, with the exception of TARPO, who is not required to adopt an MTP.
Funded Projects:
The map also identifies state approved projects that are scheduled to receive funding through
North Carolina Strategic Transportation Investment (STI) Law. These projects are illustrated as
adopted 2018 -2027 Strategic Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Projects awaiting
funding approval through 2020 -2029 STIP are also illustrated on the map as submitted projects.
Other significant projects relevant to Orange County are also illustrated but not submitted due to
STI process restrictions.
You can access this map from the following link:
ht ap
This map is currently being made user friendly so general public and various departments are
kept informed of transportation efforts throughout the county. Future improvements will seek to
include ways public can submit comments on any project
27
Planning division's website has been updated based on four sections:
1. Agencies — lists all governments responsible for transportation projects.
a. Links are updated and moved to the first section.
2. Projects — resources all current projects in process.
a. Listed with the current one in process and others that are in the works.
3. Resources — list various state, regional and local plans and programs.
a. List only those of significance other links are on the agency's website.
4. Web links — lists additional online resources for the general public.
a. Made consistent with each other.
Next Steps
• Consolidate layers to simplify Transportation Projects Map and add public comment tool.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATION(S): Staff recommends that the OUTBoard:
1. Receive an update; and
2. Discuss as appropriate and provide any input for Staff consideration.
PW
ORANGE COUNTY
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 21, 2018
Action Agenda
Item No. 6.c.
SUBJECT: Discussion About OUTBoard Orientation Materials
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: (919)
Abigaile Pittman, Transportation /Land
Use Planner, 919 - 245 -2567
PURPOSE: Discuss OUTBoard Orientation Materials with Orange County
Planning staff and provide any input that the Board might have for internal Staff
consideration.
BACKGROUND: Planning Staff is working to review and revise the orientation
materials for the OUTBoard. The proposal is to bring all information up to date, to
add new topics that have arisen over the past several years, and to provide
orientation materials that would be most helpful to Board members. Below is the
Orientation Agenda topics previously addressed for OUTBoard orientations:
1. Introductions
The OUTBoard has an assigned Planning staff member to
facilitate its meetings. There are thirteen OUTBoard members
representing both townships and areas of transportation- related
concerns. (Refer to OUTBoard Membership and Contact List.)
2. Background and Rules of Procedure for the OUTBoard
The OUTBoard was established in 2005 as an advisory board to
the Board of County Commissioners. The Board meets once a
month (or less) and is guided by adopted rules of procedure.
(Refer to 2014 OUTBoard Meeting Schedule; and Orange County
Advisory Board Policy (Amended 2 -21 -2012) and OUTBoard
Rules of Procedure (Amended 11 -8- 2012.))
3. Brief Overview of Federal Transportation Legislation
Transportation Planning in Orange County is guided by federal
legislation that requires the state to carry out a continuing,
cooperative, and comprehensive statewide multimodal
transportation planning process that facilitates the safe and
efficient management, operation, and development of surface
transportation systems. (Refer to Federal Title 23 and 49 USC and
Transportation Planning Regulations.)
W
4. North Carolina Transportation Legislation
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NC DOT),
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), and Rural Planning
Organizations (RPOs) have an established framework for
collaboration, the purpose of which is to achieve seamless
transportation planning for North Carolina. (Refer to Table of
Contents for North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 136
Transportation.)
5. Transportation Planning Organizations
Orange County is a member of the Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro
Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO); the Burlington -
Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BG MPO); and the
Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO). (Refer to
Overview of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and
Rural Planning Organizations (RPOs), and map of NC MPOs and
RPOs created by NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch.)
6. Orange County Transportation Plans and Maps
Orange County, in coordination with the North Carolina
Department of Transportation ( NCDOT), is developing a
Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP). This transportation
plan will be adopted by both the Board of County Commissioners
and the NCDOT. However, for portions of the County located
within a MPO, the development of a comprehensive transportation
plan must take place through the metropolitan planning
organizations. (Refer to Overview of Transportation Plans for
Orange County, NC December 2013.)
7. Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)
Orange County endorses a list of priority projects for federal /state
funding and submits it to the regional transportation planning
agencies (MPOs and RPOs) who then submit it to the North
Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT). With the
assistance of Planning staff, the OUTBoard is charged with
providing recommendations to the BOCC on the development and
prioritization of potential transportation projects to be included into
the State TIP. (Refer to Transportation Improvement Program
Process (TIP), and an example of a TIP: the Draft 2014 -2020
Transportation Improvement Program for the Triad Area Rural
Planning Organization.)
8. Orange County Plans that Provide Guidance for
Implementation
Implementation of Orange County transportation plans also occur
through adopted documents that guide and regulate development.
These documents include the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and multiple Small Area
Plans. (Refer to Links to Planning Documents; Orange County
2030 Comprehensive Plan Chapter 9: Transportation Element, and
30
Table of Contents for Orange County Unified Development
Ordinance.
9. The Language of Transportation
The transportation world is positively brimming with complex terms
and acronyms and can become very confusing. To assist with
transportation translations, Planning staff is providing you with a list
of definitions and a list of acronyms. (Refer to Transportation
Acronyms and Transportation Terms.)
Additionally, as an alternate general example, Staff has reviewed orientation
materials for the Durham - Chapel Hill- Carrboro Metropolitan Planning
Organization (DCHC MPO) Board. Not all of the information required for a MPO
Board is relevant for the OUTBoard, but the general outline of categories of
topics may be useful. Below is the outline for the MPO's materials:
Section 1 Introduction
• Introduction & History
• DCHC MPO Board
• DCHC MPO Technical Committee
• DCHC MPO Members
• Map of DCHC MPO Area
• MPO 101 Presentation
• Example Actions (Resolutions & Letters)
Section 2 Governing Documents
• Memorandum of Understanding
• Bylaws
• State Government Ethics Act
• 2013 Ethics Update
• Public Involvement Policy
Section 3 MPO Planning Processes & Requirements
• The Transportation Planning Process Key Issues
Section 4 DCHC MPO Major Work Activities
• Relationship Between Major Planning Activities
• Comprehensive Transportation Plan
• Metropolitan Transportation Plan
• Triangle Regional Model Protocol
• Transportation Improvement Program
• Unified Planning Work Program
• Environmental Justice Report
Section 5 Resources
• Definition of Acronyms
• Funding Resources & Definitions
• Contacts & Resources
31
Planning Staff would like the OUTBoard to review the above orientation agenda
examples and provide input regarding best format (i.e. digital, online or paper):
what information is most useful and relevant: and what information might need to
be deleted or added. When considering its input, OUTBoard members should
keep the primary Board charge in mind from Section 1, Part C of the adopted
Rules and Procedures:
The OUT Board is charged with advising the Board of County
Commissioners on the planning and programming of
transportation infrastructure improvements and other County
transportation planning initiatives, as directed by the Board.
2. From time to time the OUT Board may be directed to provide
input on regulations on which the Planning Board has primary
statutory and local ordinance advisory duties. In such instances,
the OUT Board shall serve in an advisory capacity to the
Planning Board.
Additionally, Staff is considering an alternative way to present this information,
incrementally at the end of OUTBoard meetings later this year, rather than all at
once in a long session. Depending upon the OUTBoard's preferred format, staff
could provide a three -ring binder with section separations that can be added to or
revised overtime.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact associated with
this item.
RECOMMENDATION(S): Staff recommends that the OUTBoard:
Discuss as appropriate and provide any input that the Board might have
for internal Staff consideration
32
ORANGE COUNTY
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 21, 2018
SUBJECT: NC 54 West Corridor Study
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S):
1. Presentation
Action Agenda
Item No. 8.a.
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Planner,
245 -2582
PURPOSE:
Receive a presentation on the NC -54 West Corridor Study from Orange County Transportation
Planning staff.
BACKGROUND: The NC -54 corridor from Carrboro to Graham is currently going through a
comprehensive analysis and feasible improvements will be identified. The consultants selected
by Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) for this
corridor study are:
• VHB — local engineering and planning firm & Rose & Associates — market analysis
The studv team includes-
Durham-Chapel Hill - Carrboro Metropolitan
Burlington- Graham Metropolitan Planning
Planning Organization DCHC MPO
Organization BG -MPO
Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization
TARPO
NC Department of Transportation
Orange County and Alamance County
Town of Carrboro and City of Graham
The project is broken down into four phases and is scheduled for completion late 2018
• Phase 1 —Existing Conditions and Market & Economic Assessment -Fall 2017
• Phase 2 — First Community Meeting and Long -Range Forecasts - Early 2018
• Phase 3 —Second Community Meeting and Draft Report— Spring 2018
• Phase 4 — Draft Report — Summer 2018, and Final Report — Fall 2018
A website with an interactive map has been created for the project at www.nc54west.com
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATION(S): Staff recommends that the OUTBoard:
1. Receive the presentation
33
34
Attachment I
Study Tearin
DCHC MPO* NCDOT* Town of Graham* Orange County*
Town of Carrboro* BGMPO Alamance County TARPO
Piroject Puiqpose
Traffic volurnes expected to increase
More residential development in Alarnance County
Chapel I ]ill/Can,boro area (UNQ increasing employment destination
NC 54 alternative to I-40/NC 86
Differing visions for conido�
Widening vs. bicycle- friendly
Study to help identify solutions giat appeal to different visions
2/14/2018
35
�NC 54 West Cor-ridoir
Roadway Characteristics
Traffic Volumes & Crashes
0
A/
o..
2/14/2018
�NC 54 West Cor-ridoir
Linvil a oni—, in W11 Coun -II Con-II ills
ZI
J I I
Dr-lopi—IM PI -suivs
�H, i1g[lway Seginneint AnMyMs 11
ra
CP
J10
LO—S' DAC OD OJEF -W--ItI.IA'—PMi III
2 -lane V/C is typically in 0.5 -0.6 range
Poor LOS is duo to high Percent Tirre Spent I ollowing
Extierne diiectional imbalances
More i zones vs. addod thiough lanes?
Bicycle LOS is generally , wigs sorne E east of Dodson Cilossiloads
36
l'un °teirsec °d oin AiinMysk
ra 41 $
� � .t
o a � °¢ r`
LOS
AM E D7 A SE -F SE -E E` SE -E D7
Count
I' „W,- 2 0 h 6 ii 24 9 21
I1''e+.t,9, 9 '/ 9 0 "I 0 0 4.41
LOSA �)AC "D E -F 'POYent al q— ingpobl —, NNO
Od:llheir IPur jects
2/14/2018
2¢L n" a Pn
F�co a'e p
37 3
TaIpestiiry Seginneintafioin
MSA
County
CJty/fown
Burlington
Alamance County
Graham
Durham-Chapel Hill
Orange
Carrboro
F
ht�t .,d t.tMt,tw
�Nod�es
® Econoinnic
Woody Dr
Old Fayetteville Rd.
• Locall
NC 119 114
• Conservabon/Heiritage
Orango Govo Rd.
z
Mt. Willen Rd.
Mebane Oaks Rd
[?,Othol lickory Govo
Church Rd.
Low
2/14/2018
Pairball List
County Cornrnissioners, Planning Boards, Technical Coordinating
Committee (TCC) rnernbers
Orange County Community Relations & Economic Development
Orange Lhiified Transportation Board (OUT Board)
UNC Chapel Hill cornrnuter alternatives pmgrarn (CAP)
Orange Water & Sewer Auffiority (OWASA)
Police & Fire
K-72 schools
Builders/Developers
Bicycle advocates
Project website self identified stakeholders
linteiracfive IM alp
Piroject Wel,-)sfte
NC
2/14/2018
Wd--Mee NC 5--o&� Sl,,dyW k , T'., 1,(,"
htti)://www.nc54west.com
39 5
2/14/2018
2/14/2018
41
42
ORANGE COUNTY
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 21, 2018
Action Agenda
Item No. 8.b.
SUBJECT: SPOT 5.0 Local Input Point Process — TARPO, DCHC MPO and B -G MPO
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. TARPO Process Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Planner,
2. DCHC MPO Process 245 -2582
3. BG MPO Process
PURPOSE:
Receive an update on SPOT 5.0 local input point process for Triangle Area Rural Planning
Organization ( TARPO), Durham - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
(DCHC MPO), and Burlington- Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BG MPO) from
Orange County Transportation Planning staff.
BACKGROUND: TARPO, DCHC MPO and B -G MPO have unique local input point
processes for Strategic Transportation Prioritization (SPOT). These processes must first be
adopted by their corresponding boards before they are submitted to North Carolina
Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) for state approval. State law requires a 21 day public
comment period prior to DCHC MPO and TARPO board adoption.
In an effort to satisfy the quantitative prioritization portion of the local input point process,
TARPO, DCHC MPO, and B -G MPO have elected to accept NCDOT quantitative scores and
project data. Member jurisdiction agencies will accept the raw scores, scheduled for release
late March 2018, as determined by NCDOT. However, because the qualitative portion varies
between the three agencies, a brief summary describing their unique processes is provided
below.
TARPO Local Input Point Process
Orange County transportation projects will be ranked according to NCDOT scores. Within each
county, the top two scoring projects will be allocated 100 points each (Region and Division).
Subsequently ranked projects (regardless of County) will also be allocated 100 points each
until 1,400 points, for TARPO as permitted by NCDOT, have been distributed.
43
County
Quantitative
Total Score (100)
Recommended for 100
Project
County
Rank
Points 50
Local Points
ID
Points
50
Regional
Division
Regional
Division
Regional
Division
A000001
County
50
N/A
40.59
N/A
90.59
Yes —
43
The final list and point allocation will be provided to the TARPO Board for final approval.
TARPO will also post the list on its website at html and a
public hearing will be conducted by the TARPO Board.
Attachment 1 - TARPO process - provides additional details.
DCHC MPO Local Input Point Process
Points will be allocated to the projects that help achieve the adopted Metropolitan
Transportation Plan goals and align with the MPO's priorities. Public involvement and
collaboration with NCDOT also play an important part in the qualitative process. Coordination
with NCDOT Division Engineers will help ensure priority projects in the MPO have the best
funding opportunity in the next Strategic Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
DCHC MPO has already received NCDOT guidance for crafting an approvable input point
process which involves two qualitative criteria to determine how points will be allocated. The
first step is ranking DCHC MPO projects based on the following six -point scale
B
County 8
#1
County
Yes —
8000003
D
50
N/A
34.14
N/A
84.14
County D
#1
County
Yes —
Yes —
H000001
A
50
29.34
32.35
79.34
82.35
County A
County A
#1
#1
County
Yes —
Yes —
H000002
C
45
33.36
33.19
78.36
78.19
County C
County C
Project planned for near -term (by MTP 2025
2
Threshold
Project planned for mid -term (by MTP 2035 Threshold)
#1
#1
The final list and point allocation will be provided to the TARPO Board for final approval.
TARPO will also post the list on its website at html and a
public hearing will be conducted by the TARPO Board.
Attachment 1 - TARPO process - provides additional details.
DCHC MPO Local Input Point Process
Points will be allocated to the projects that help achieve the adopted Metropolitan
Transportation Plan goals and align with the MPO's priorities. Public involvement and
collaboration with NCDOT also play an important part in the qualitative process. Coordination
with NCDOT Division Engineers will help ensure priority projects in the MPO have the best
funding opportunity in the next Strategic Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
DCHC MPO has already received NCDOT guidance for crafting an approvable input point
process which involves two qualitative criteria to determine how points will be allocated. The
first step is ranking DCHC MPO projects based on the following six -point scale
..
MTP Prioritization
Project planned for near -term (by MTP 2025
2
Threshold
Project planned for mid -term (by MTP 2035 Threshold)
1
Project planned for long -term (by MTP 2045
0
Threshold)
Consistent with Adopted Regional or Local Plan
2
Preliminary Engineering or Engineering Study Completed
1
or Underway
Allocation of local tax revenues through a DCHC- member
1
1
jurisdiction voter supported referendum
DCHC- member jurisdiction demonstrates local funding
1
towards progress in project
Project complements non-highway transportation facility
1
1
Project supports Environmental Justice Community of
1
1
Concern
TOTAL MAXIMUM
6
6
..
NCDOT has been granted 1,800 points to allocate for Regional Impact and Divisional Needs
and is allowed to assign a minimum of 4 points to a maximum of 100 points to each project.
The point distribution below is designed to reflect the MPO's adopted MTP funding goals.
NCDOT allows deviation from adopted and approved methodology provided it is documented.
The MPO allows deviation only if any of the following occur:
• A project costs more than the funding available in that category
• A project will not be competitive within its Region or Division even with the application of
Local Input Points
• Coordination with the Division Engineer or a neighboring MPO or RPO deems a project
should not receive points, or will receive points from another MPO, RPO, or Division
• The DCHC MPO Board, based on a recommendation from the Technical Committee (TC),
determines that a lower ranking project is of greater priority and therefore should be
assigned points (or more points than assigned through application of the Methodology)
• The DCHC MPO Board determines that a higher ranking project is of lesser priority and
therefore should be assigned fewer, or no, points than assigned through application of the
Methodology
• The DCHC MPO Board determines that projects in another mode are of higher priority
• The DCHC MPO Board determines that points should be awarded to a particular project to
support geographic equity
• Based on public input, the DCHC MPO Board decides to deviate from the project rankings
Using the above process, the MPO Board will release the draft priority ranking and local input
point allocation for public comment and hold a public hearing at an MPO Board meeting in
accordance with the MPO Public Involvement Policy. The MPO Board will approve the final
allocation based on the following:
• The final score and list of initial projects using the process described above;
• The likelihood of receiving funding through STI considering the amount of funding available
within each Division or Region, historical funding levels for the mode, and the normalization
limitations that NCDOT has adopted;
• The number of eligible projects within the MPO within each funding mode, project type,
category;
• The priorities of the current MTP including the adopted distribution of funding between
modes and the air quality horizon year of projects;
• The effect that receiving funding for a project may have on the likelihood of other projects
being funded in the Division or Region considering the limitations set by the STI legislation;
• If the project is located within an area of overlapping Environmental Justice Communities of
concern identified in the MPO's 2014 Environmental Justice Report;
• Geographic and jurisdictional balance
45
• Coordination with the Division Engineers and neighboring MPOs and RPOs on the
assignment of points;
• Public input and support as evidenced through public comments submitted to the MPO, the
MPO's public hearing, public involvement efforts of local governments, and local referenda;
• The MPO Board members' knowledge of the urban area and the policies of their
communities; and
• Other factors as identified. If the MPO Board varies from the recommended allocation of
points, MPO staff will document the rationale and will post the documentation on the MPO's
website.
Attachment 2 - DCHC MPO process - provides additional details.
B -G MPO Local Input Point Process
The Burlington- Graham MPO is allocated a total of 1,300 points to allocate to each Region and
Division project. The final point assignment will be made by the BGMPO Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) after public review and recommendation by the Technical Coordinating
Committee (TCC). The TAC will consider projects for local input point assignment based on
the following criteria-
1 . Prioritization scoring results — Candidate projects will be rank ordered based on their
respective NCDOT prioritization scoring results.
2. Consistency with local and regional plans — Candidate projects must be consistent and
included within locally adopted comprehensive plans and the adopted Comprehensive
Transportation Plan (CTP) and the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP).
3. Public Involvement — Consideration of public comments by the TAC before assigning local
input points to the rank ordered project list.
4. Point Assignment — The TAC will assign the maximum 100 points to the top ranked
projects.
Per the NCDOT and STI regulations, 1,300 points is available to assign to Region level
projects and Division level projects.
The TAC may exercise its option of sharing or allocating unassigned local input points to
increase the "scoring" of regional transportation projects (regional being more than one county)
with an adjacent MPO. This process is accomplished via an informal agreement between the
MPOs and notification to NCDOT.
The ranked list of the highest scoring projects will be submitted to NCDOT for further
evaluation. Final project submittal will also occur via online process with NCDOT.
Attachment 3 — B -G MPO process - provides additional details.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no immediate financial impact associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATION(S): Staff recommends that the OUTBoard:
1. Receive the update
M.
Attachment 1
Prioritization 5.0 Local Point
Methodology for Triangle Area RPO
r
sm
I ri t'l oc h,i c t i� 0 11.
The following methodology has been developed by the Triangle Area Rural Planning
Organization ( TARPO) for the purpose of determining regional priorities for transportation
funding, as carried out through the State of North Carolina's Strategic Transportation
Investments (STI) law and the associated Prioritization 5.0 process. This methodology is
intended to incorporate both measurable data and information about priorities from local
jurisdictions, to ensure a process that is both data - driven and responsive to local needs. The
Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization serves Lee and Moore Counties, as well as the
portions of Chatham and Orange Counties that are not within the planning area of a
Metropolitan Planning Organization. This methodology has been developed to meet the
requirements of Session Law 2012 -84, which requires that MPOs and RPOs have a process for
determining project prioritization.
STI divides available state and federal transportation funding into three categories: Statewide
Mobility, Regional Impact, and Division Needs. For each category, NCDOT calculates
quantitative scores based on a variety of criteria. In the Statewide Mobility category, projects
are selected for funding based entirely on the NCDOT quantitative score. However, in the
Regional Impact and Division Needs categories part of the final score is based on local points
assigned by the MPO or RPO and /or the NCDOT Division Engineer in that area. The local input
points assigned by TARPO (and other MPOs and RPOs) represent 15% of the final score for
Regional Impact projects and 25% of the final score for Division Needs projects. Points
assigned by NCDOT Division Engineers are also worth 15% of the Regional Impact score and
25% of the Division Needs score.
In the TARPO area, the following types of projects are eligible for each category of project:
Statewide
Highway: Improvements to US 1, US 64, US 15 -501 (only the portion north
Mobility
of US 64), US 421 (only the portion north of or overlapping NC 87), NC 87
(only the portion south of or overlapping US 421), NC 24 -27*
Rail: Improvements to NS or CSX freight lines
All Other Modes: None
Regional
Highway: Improvements to any NC or US Routes
Impact
Rail: Improvements to NS or CSX freight lines, non - station passenger rail
projects
Transit: Multi- county transit routes
All Other Modes: None
Division Needs
All Modes: All projects
*NC 24 -27 is only eligible at the Statewide Mobility level for four -lane widening projects. Other
types of projects on NC 24 -27 are only eligible for Regional Impact and Division Needs.
TAWPOTriangle Area Rural Planning Organization - A program of Triangle J Council of Governments
It should be noted that projects from higher categories are able to "cascade down" for eligibility
in lower categories as well, should they be unsuccessful in getting selected for funding at the
higher category. Thus all Statewide projects are also eligible in the Regional and Division
competitions, and all Regional projects are also eligible in the Division competition.
TARPO has 1400 local input points to assign in both the Regional Impact and Division Needs
categories. This document describes the method for selecting projects to which to assign these
points.
The local prioritization process consists of three parts: (1) ranking of projects at the countywide
level; (2) quantitative scoring of projects; and (3) ranking of scored projects for assignment of
points. Each of these is discussed in more detail below.
D e s c t i 1G,') i o ri
Countywide Ranking of Projects
Within each TARPO county, all the local jurisdictions (including the county and any
municipalities within the county) must work together to develop a single ranked list of projects in
all modes to submit to TARPO for use in the prioritization process. This list must be based on
the list of projects that have been previously submitted to NCDOT —new projects cannot be
added at this point in the process. These projects should be ranked in order from highest
priority ( #1) to lowest ( #10). If there are more than ten projects within a county, then only the
top ten should be ranked. It is up to the local jurisdictions, working together, to determine the
best method for achieving this within each county; however, the following general rules apply:
• All jurisdictions should be given an opportunity to participate in the development of their
county's ranked project list if they choose
• The process must include at least one meeting open to the public that allows for public
comment
There must be written documentation stating the reasoning behind the selected project
ranking (this must be submitted to TARPO and will be posted online along with the
project list)
These local ranked priority lists should be developed and submitted to TARPO by May 15,
2018, after NCDOT releases its draft quantitative scores for projects. Once submitted to
TARPO, the local priority lists will be posted online and made available for additional public
comment prior to the TARPO RTAC's approval of local input points on projects.
All projects will receive 50% of their total TARPO score based on the ranking assigned to that
project by local officials in the above - described countywide rankings. This applies to all modes.
These points will be assigned as follows:
# 1 Priority in County
50 points
# 6 Priority in County
25 points
# 2 Priority in County
45 points
# 7 Priority in County
20 points
# 3 Priority in County
40 points
# 8 Priority in County
15 points
# 4 Priority in County
35 points
# 9 Priority in County
10 points
# 5 Priority in County
30 points
#10 Priority in County
1 5 points
* All other projects (ranked lower or unranked) receive 0 points for this item.
r
The remaining 50% of the TARPO score is based on the NCDOT quantitative score. T he
elements that make up these quantitative scores are defined by NCDOT as follows for each
mode and category (see NCDOT's I ,ir;ii,p,ir;ii„ ii , ,tJ!..o,n ,l.Res0,LI,ir; c..e s. website for more information):
Regional Impact
Because all NCDOT regional quantitative scores are on a 70 point scale, the final results are
multiplied by 0.7143 to convert them to a 50 point scale for use in TARPO scoring.
Highway ,
Congestion
Benefit -cost
Safety
Freight
Accessibility/
Connectivity
Total (multiply sum
by 0.7143
20 pts max
20 pts max
1 10 pts max
1 10 pts max
1 10 pts max
50 pts max
Rail
Benefit -cost
System
Opportunities
Safety
Capacity and
Diversion
Economic
Competitiveness
Total (multiply sum
by 0.7143)
25 pts max
10 pts max
15 pts max
10 pts max
10 pts max
50 pts max
Transit— Motility
Impact
Demand /Density
Efficiency
Cost Effectiveness
Total (multiply sum
by 0.7143
15 pt s max
1 20 pts max
10 pts max
1 25 pts max
50 pts max
Transit —Demand
Response
Impact
Demand/ Density
Efficiency
Cost Effectiveness
Total (multiply sum
by 0.7143
10 pts max
1 20 pts max
15 pis max
1 25 pts max
50 pts max
Transit — Facilities
Impact
Demand / Density
Efficiency
Cost Effectiveness
Total (multiply sum
by 0.7143
20 pt s max
I 10 is max
15 pts max
1 25 pts max
50 pts max
Note: No ferry projects or regional - eligible aviation projects are located in the TARPO area, and bicycle /pedestrian projects are
ineligible for the Regional Impact category.
Division Needs
NCDOT division quantitative scores are reported on a 50 point scale, so unlike the regional
category above, no rescaling of scores is necessary.
Highway
Congestion
Benefit -cost
Safety
Accessibility/
Connectivity
Total (sum)
15 pts max
15 pts max
15 pts max
5 pts max
50 pts max
Rail
Benefit -cost System
Opportun ities
Safety
Capacity and
Diversion
Economic
Competitiveness
Total (sum)
10 pts max 15 pts max
10 pts max
10 pts max
5 pts max
50 pts max
Transit— Motility
Impact Demand /Density
Efficiency
Cost Effectiveness
Total (sum)
10 pt s max 10 pts max
10 pts max
1 20 pts max
50 pts max
Transit —Demand Response
Impact Demand/ Density Efficiency
Cost Effectiveness
Total sum
10 pts max 15 pts max 10 pts max
15 pts max
50 pts max
Transit — Facilities
Impact I Demand / Density
Efficiency Cost Effectiveness Total sum
15 is max 10 is max
10 pts max 15 pts max 50 pts max
Bicycle & Pedestrian
Safety Access
Demand/ Density
Connectivity
Cost Effectiveness
Total sum
15 pts max 10 is max
10 pts max
10 pts max
5 pts max
50 pts max
Aviation -
NCDOA Project
Rating
FAA ACIP Rating
Non -state
Contribution Index
Benefit -cost
Total (sum)
25 pts max
10 pts max
5 pts max
10 pts max
50 pts max
TAR� PQ
49
Note: TARPO is located in Divisions 7 and 8, both of which use the same "alternative" scoring
criteria that differ from NCDOT's standard scoring criteria for the highway mode in the Division
Needs category. These alternative criteria will also be used for TARPO's scoring of projects.
" 11 ° cH " 11 1 (.., z I rl d 111r o j e c t 11 k.zl l °de", i1 Ik iK a A 1p) ll) ir'o zi ctii 111 o i in t A s s i a In r n e In
1111,, oc es
Once all projects in each mode have been scored according to the criteria above, TARPO staff
will develop a ranked list of projects within each county and within the region as a whole based
on the outcome of the scoring. This ranked list of all projects in all modes will be used to
develop the recommended point assignments that are presented to the public for comment and
to the RTCC and RTAC for approval. There will be separate rankings for the Regional Impact
category and the Division Needs category.
The recommendation will call for the two top- scoring projects within each county (regardless of
mode) to be allocated 100 points each. Additionally, the six next - highest scoring projects within
the region (regardless of county and mode) will also be allocated 100 points each, to reach
TARPO's total point allocation of 1400 points. In the event that a county does not have at least
two eligible projects, then additional projects will be selected from the top of the list of remaining
projects in the other counties. This allows for geographic equity of projects in the region.
No projects with a DOT quantitative score less than 10 will be recommended for points.
Any project that local jurisdictions specifically request not be assigned points during the
countywide project ranking process will not be recommended for points.
An example of the ranking process is shown on the next page.
r
Example - The projects in the Example RPO are ranked as follows:
Project
ID
County
County
Rank
Points
(50)
Quantitative Points
(50)
Total Score (100)
Recommended for 100 Local Points
Regional
Division
Regional
Division
Regional
Division
A000001
County 8
50
N/A
40.59
N/A
90.59
Yes - County 8 #1
8000003
County D
50
N/A
34.14
N/A
84.14
Yes - County D #1
H000001
Count A
50
29.34
32.35
79.34
82.35
Yes - County A #1
Yes - County A #1
H000002
County C
45
1 33.36
33.19
78.36
78.19
Yes - County C #1
Yes - County C #1
8000001
County C
50
N/A
26.23
N/A
76.23
Yes - County C #2
H000008
County D
45
26.02
28.73
71.02
73.73
Yes - County D #1
Yes - County D #2
8000002
County 8
45
N/A
27.86
N/A
72.86
Yes - County 8 #2
A000002
County C
40
N/A
32.67
N/A
72.67
Yes - Rem. #1
H000003
Count A
45
25.65
27.15
70.65
72.15
Yes - County A #2
Yes - County A #2
H000010
County D
40
1 30.59
31.65
70.59
71.65
Yes - County D #2
Yes - Rem. #2
A000003
County C
35
N/A
32.67
N/A
67.67
Yes - Rem. #3
8000004
County D
35
N/A
29.16
N/A
64.16
Yes - Rem. #4
8000007
County 8
40
N/A
24.06
N/A
64.06
Yes - Rem. #5
8000005
County C
25
N/A
38.00
N/A
63.00
Yes - Rem. #6
H000005
Count A
40
N/A
20.63
N/A
60.63
H000006
County 8
35
21.04
23.02
56.04
58.02
Yes- County 8 #1
A000004
County D
30
N/A
27.35
iTA
57.35
H000011
Count A
25
29.18
31.34
54.18
56.34
Yes - Rem. #1
H000004
County C
30
23.74
25.77
53.74
55.77
Yes - County C #2
H000007
Count A
35
N/A
18.17
N/A
53.17
8000006
County 8
30
N/A
22.41
N/A
52.41
H000017
County D
25
24.87
27.21
49.87
52.21
Yes - Rem. #2
8000010
County C
20
N/A
31.69
N/A
51.69
8000008
C unty C
15
N/A
36.60
N/A
51.60
H000019
County D
20
25.31
26.22
45.31
46.22
Yes - Rem. #3
H000012
County 8
25
N/A
20.59
N/A
45.59
H000020
Count A
20
23.42
24.96
43.42
44.96
Yes - Rem. #4
H000009
Count A
30
N/A
13.06
N/A
43.06
8000009
County 8
20
N/A
20.44
N/A
40.44
H000021
County D
15
21.89
24.15
36.89
39.15
Yes - Rem. #5
8000011
County C
10
N/A
24.88
N/A
34.88
H000015
County 8
15
14.81
16.75
29.81
31.75
Yes - County 8 #2
H000024
County D
10
19.51
20.63
29.51
30.63
Yes - Rem. #6
H000014
County C
0
27.85
28.72
27.85
28.72
A000005
County C
0
N/A
24.97
N/A
24.97
H000026
County D
5
20.14
19.89
25.14
24.89
H000025
C unty 8
0
23.52
23.70
23.52
23.70
H000016
County C
0
23.06
23.07
23.06
23.07
8000012
County 8
10
N/A
11.79
N/A
21.79
H000028
County D
0
20.69
20.92
20.69
20.92
H000027
County D
0
18.46
19.72
18.46
19.72
H000013
County C
5
N/A
12.57
N/A
17.57
H000022
County 8
5
9.55
11.27
14.55
16.27
8000013
County D
0
N/A
15.71
N/A
15.71
H000023
County C
0
13.89
13.70
13.89
13.70
H000018
County C
0
N/A
12.19
N/A
12.19
H000029
County D
1 0
1 13.17
1 11.76
13.17
11.76
H000028
County D
1 0
1 N/A
1 11.67
N/A
11.67
In this example:
County A would receive points on 4 Regional Impact projects and 2 Division Needs projects.
County 8 would receive points on 2 Regional Impact projects and 3 Division Needs projects.
County C would receive points on 2 Regional Impact projects and 5 Division Needs projects.
County D would receive points on 6 Regional Impact projects and 4 Division Needs projects.
r
Deviations from Methodolo
These recommended point assignments will be presented to the RTCC and RTAC for their
review and approval. The RTCC retains the discretion to make recommendations to the RTAC
regarding changes to the list. The RTAC has the final discretion regarding assignment of local
points, and retains the flexibility to make changes to these point assignments if it is able to
document a reason for doing so. These changes must be documented and made available to
the public via the TARPO website.
Cascading Projects
TARPO will submit its Regional Impact local point assignments separately from its Division
Needs local point assignments, and will be able to learn which projects are funded in the
Regional Impact category before assigning points in the Division Needs category. As a result, if
there are projects funded in the Regional Impact category that would otherwise be in line to
receive Division Needs points as a result of this methodology, those Division Needs points will
instead be assigned to the next - highest scoring eligible project that has not received points
(subject to the rules requiring that at least two projects from each county receive points). This
process will be clearly explained as part of the public outreach process, and the list of "next in
line" projects that could potentially be affected by this rule will be presented at the same time the
initial point assignment recommendations are presented.
Point Sharin
On projects that cross outside of the TARPO planning boundary, TARPO must coordinate with
its neighboring organizations on the allocation of points. By right, TARPO may only assign the
number of points equal to the percentage of the project that is located within the TARPO
boundary —for example, TARPO could assign a project that was 48% located within its
boundary only 48 points by right. However, TARPO will coordinate with its neighboring
organizations to "share" points to ensure that these projects reach a point total of 100 points —in
the example above, TARPO would share 52 points with its neighbors to ensure the project
receives 100 points. In the event that point sharing is not necessary on these projects, either
because the neighboring organization already plans to assign its full amount of points for the
project or because the neighboring organization rejects TARPO's offer to share points, TARPO
will only assign the points for the portion within its boundary and the remaining points will be
allocated to the next - highest scoring project on the project list that did not already receive full
points.
z'l ri c i 111 i,l 11 11 it C 0 i,u lk. °ezi ctll M z'l 1 i " "I'll "J 111 � " "I Ir"i ri j,1 u
Public Participation in Project Scoring Process
As part of this project scoring process, TARPO will post the list of projects being submitted for
Prioritization 5.0, the county -level priority lists, the results of the quantitative analysis, the
recommended draft local input point assignments, and the final approved local input point
assignments at the following website: " " J.air p..:.pir,q/ rJ ii / fi r h u ll. The public is invited to
submit comments via the website, email, phone, or mail, as well as in person at RTCC and
RTAC meetings at any point throughout the process. Additionally, at least one public meeting
will be held to gather comments at a time after the initial staff - recommended scoring is
TAR PQ
developed based on this scoring methodology, but before the RTCC and RTAC vote on the
assignment of points. Any comments provided by the public will be reviewed by the RTCC and
RTAC before the vote on the assignment of points and those discussions will be documented in
the meeting minutes.
Proposed Schedule for Implementation of Policy in Prioritization 5.0
RTCC & RTAC adoption of project list to submit to NCDOT — occurred on August 17, 2017
Adoption of this policy — February 8, 2018 (with public hearing at beginning of RTAC meeting)
NCDOT provides quantitative scoring information to TARPO — end of March 2018 (this
information will be posted on the TARPO website once available)
Each county, working jointly with its municipalities, approves a ranked list of its top ten projects
and submits this list to TARPO — April /early May 2018 (due to TARPO no later than May 15,
2018; this information will be posted on the TARPO website once available)
TARPO staff calculates scores for local point assignment and posts the scores and draft
recommended point assignments on the TARPO website — late May 2018
Public workshop(s) to present local point assignments and gather input — late May /early June
2018
RTCC & RTAC adoption of Regional Impact category local point assignments — June 14, 2018
(final point assignments will be posted on the TARPO website following meeting)
RTCC & RTAC adoption of Division Needs category local point assignments — October 11, 2018
(final point assignments will be posted on the TARPO website following meeting)
NCDOT releases Draft Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) — January 2019
(this information will be posted on the TARPO website once available)
A motion was made by and seconded by
adoption of this policy, and upon being put to a vote it was duly adopted on
Chair, Triangle Area RPO RTAC Secretary, Triangle Area RPO RTAC
r
for the
Attachment JDCHC MPO 12/20/17
RECOMMENDED ALLOCATION OF THE MPO'S LOCAL INPUT POINTS
Overview
As previously explained in this Methodology, DCHC MPO will utilize the NCDOT Prioritization 5.0 scoring
criteria to preliminarily rank MPO projects for submission to NCDOT for quantitative evaluation. Upon
submission to NCDOT, projects within the MPO will be evaluated according to NCDOT's quantitative
ranking methodology.
DCHC MPO will receive the results of the NCDOT quantitative evaluation scoring process and the project
data used by NCDOT to develop the scores. NCDOT's raw quantitative scores will be reviewed by the
DCHC MPO and staff of MPO member jurisdictions and agencies. The NCDOT's raw quantitative scores
serve as the quantitative basis for the MPO's prioritization of projects.
The allocation of the DCHC MPO's Local Input Points to high priority projects serves as the qualitative
component of the prioritization process. The DCHC MPO's Local Input Points will be allocated to projects
that aim to achieve the goals of the adopted Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and align with the
priorities of the DCHC MPO.
The DCHC MPO's project ranking process and subsequent allocation of Local Input Points must capture
the goals of DCHC MPO and not just be purely based on the results of data - driven processes. The
process and results should also capture input received from citizens, elected officials, and stakeholders
in the DCHC MPO area. It is important to consider the needs of all communities that are located in the
DCHC MPO area in the allocation of Local Input Points to priority projects.
Collaboration with NCDOT Divisions is also an important component of DCHC MPO's allocation of Local
Input Points. Projects that receive the MPO's Local Input Points and Division Engineer Points will have an
overall better score than projects that don't receive points from both the MPO and a Division Engineer.
Coordinating with NCDOT Division Engineers will ensure that priority projects in the DCHC MPO area
have the best possible chance to be funded in the next NCDOT STIP and MPO TIP.
It should be noted that projects in the Statewide Mobility category are not eligible for DCHC MPO Local
Input Points, and therefore will not be reviewed and prioritized by DCHC MPO as part of the process for
allocation of Local Input Points. DCHC MPO will prioritize and allocate Local Input Points to eligible
projects in the Regional Impact and Division Needs funding categories.
Ranking Processes for the Allocation of Local Input Points
Per the guidance that was provided by the NCDOT SPOT Office, at least two qualitative criteria will be
used for the purpose of allocation of local points. The table below shows the criteria to be used to rank
projects for assignment of local points. Projects will be ranked based on a six -point scale.
54
DCHC MPO 12/20/17
Criteria
Maximum Points
Points
MTP Prioritization
(Highway)
(Non-Highway)
Project planned for near -term (by MTP 2025 Threshold)
2
Project planned for mid -term (by MTP 2035 Threshold)
1
Project planned for long -term (by MTP 2045 Threshold)
0
Consistent with Adopted Regional or Local Plan
2
Preliminary Engineering or Engineering Study Completed or
1
Underway
Allocation of local tax revenues through a DCHC- member
1
1
jurisdiction voter supported referendum
DCHC- member jurisdiction demonstrates local funding towards
1
progress in project
Project complements non - highway transportation facility
1
1
Project supports Environmental Justice Community of Concern
1
1
TOTAL MAXIMUM
6
6
All projects will be ranked based on their score using the rubric above. The rankings will be used to
inform TC and Board members regarding allocation points using the method described in the next
section.
Allocation of Local Input Points
Projects deemed to be of top priority to the MPO will be assigned the requisite amount of points
necessary in order to maximize the project's chances of receiving funding through the SPOT process.
NCDOT assigns the number of local prioritization points for each MPO, RPO, and Division based on the
area's population. DCHC MPO has been allocated 1,800 points for both the Regional Impacts (Regional)
and Division Needs (Division) categories for Prioritization 5.0. Each MPO, RPO, and Division can assign a
maximum of 100 points and a minimum of 4 points to each project.
For the MPO's 1,800 Regional Local Input Points, DCHC MPO will assign points to Regional projects
among modes and project types according to the distribution below. The distribution below has been
structured to reflect the funding goals of the MPO's adopted MTP and the number of eligible Regional
category projects in each mode. Statewide projects that cascade down to the Regional category will
generally not be assigned Regional Local Input Points unless the project cost is less than $5 million. The
MPO Board and TC may deviate from this policy on a case -by -case basis.
• 800 points to Highway
• 500 points to Public Transit
• 500 points could be assigned to any mode and project type
For the MPO's 1,800 Division Local Input Points, DCHC MPO will assign points among modes and project
types according to the distribution below. The distribution below has been structured to reflect the
funding goals of the MPO's adopted MTP and the number of eligible Division category projects in each
mode. Statewide and Regional projects that cascade down to the Division category will generally not be
assigned Division Local Input Points unless the project cost is less than $5 million. The MPO Board and
TC may deviate from this policy on a case -by -case basis.
2 Use designations in 2045 MTP as it will be adopted by the time local allocation points are assigned.
s For the purposes of this Methodology, an Environmental Justice Community of Concern is an Overlapping
Community of Concern as identified in the 2014 DCHC MPO Environmental Justice Report.
55
DCHC MPO 12/20/17
• 300 points to Highway
• 500 points to Public Transit
• 500 points to Bicycle and Pedestrian
• 500 points could be assigned to any mode and project type
Deviations from this methodology may be made if any of the following occur:
• A project costs more than the funding available in that category
• A project will not be competitive within its Region or Division even with the application of Local
Input Points
• Coordination with the Division Engineer or a neighboring MPO or RPO deems a project should
not receive points, or will receive points from another MPO, RPO, or Division
• The DCHC MPO Board, based on a recommendation from the Technical Committee (TC),
determines that a lower ranking project is of greater priority and therefore should be assigned
points (or more points than assigned through application of the Methodology)
• The DCHC MPO Board determines that a higher ranking project is of lesser priority and therefore
should be assigned fewer, or no, points than assigned through application of the Methodology
• The DCHC MPO Board determines that projects in another mode are of higher priority
• The DCHC MPO Board determines that points should be awarded to a particular project to
support geographic equity
• Based on public input, the DCHC MPO Board decides to deviate from the project rankings
Should a project receive Local Input Points through a deviation, the Board will note the reason for the
deviation and that reason shall be published after final adoption.
Approval of the Allocation of Local Input Points
The DCHC MPO Board will release the draft Project Priority Ranking and application of Local Input Points
for public comment and hold a public hearing at an MPO Board meeting. The initial list of projects
proposed to receive Local Input Points will be based on the process described above. After review and
public comment, the MPO Board will approve the final application of Local Input Points. The MPO
Board's approval will be informed by the following:
• The final score and list of initial projects using the process described above;
• The likelihood of receiving funding through STI considering the amount of funding available
within each Division or Region, historical funding levels for the mode, and the normalization
limitations that NCDOT has adopted;
• The number of eligible projects within the MPO within each funding mode /project
type /category;
• The priorities of the current MTP including the adopted distribution of funding between
modes and the air quality horizon year of projects;
• The effect that receiving funding for a project may have on the likelihood of other projects
being funded in the Division or Region considering the limitations set by the STI legislation;
• If the project is located within an area of overlapping Environmental Justice Communities of
Concern identified in the MPO's 2014 Environmental Justice Report;
• Geographic and jurisdictional balance;
56
DCHC MPO 12/20/17
• Coordination with the Division Engineers and neighboring MPOs and RPOs on the
assignment of points;
• Public input and support as evidenced through public comments submitted to the MPO, the
MPO's public hearing, public involvement efforts of local governments, and local referenda;
• The MPO Board members' knowledge of the urban area and the policies of their
communities; and
• Other factors as identified. If the MPO Board varies from the recommended allocation of
points, MPO staff will document the rationale and will post the documentation on the
MPO's website.
After the DCHC MPO Board approves the allocation of Local Input Points to projects in the DCHC MPO
area, MPO staff will submit the projects with the Local Input Points applied to NCDOT for use in
Prioritization 5.0.
Public Involvement
All public involvement for this process will be conducted in accordance with the DCHC MPO's Public
Involvement P ®lice. As is the MPO's standard practice for all DCHC MPO Board and TC agenda items, all
relevant materials, documentation of this process, and TC and MPO Board meeting materials and
minutes will be posted on the DCHC MPO's website, www.dchcm�o.or .
The DCHC MPO Public Involvement Policy sets a minimum 21 -day public comment period for this
process and requires a public hearing at an MPO Board meeting. This public comment period and public
hearing will be advertised in accordance with the Public Involvement Policy. Public comments will be
documented, summarized, and responses will be provided. In addition, all DCHC MPO Board and TC
meetings are public meetings and include the opportunity for public comment. Comments provided at
any meeting will be considered.
The DCHC MPO web site will include the following on its Local Methodology tab for the FY2020 -2029 TIP
web page:
• Link to the NCDOT STI Prioritization Resources web site
• Updated drafts of the Methodology as they are available
• Schedule for adoption of the Methodology and Local Points
• Schedule of milestones in the Methodology and Local Input Points adoption process
• Preliminary and final local input point assignment sheets
DCHC MPO will follow the schedule below for public comment and adoption of this Methodology:
December 2017 — Draft Methodology reviewed by the DCHC MPO TC (materials published online for
public review); TC recommends that DCHC MPO Board release Draft Methodology for public comment
January 2018 — DCHC MPO Board reviews Draft Methodology and releases for 21 -day public comment
period; TC has second review and makes recommendation to the Board
February 2018 — Board holds public hearing, reviews public comments, and adopts Methodology
(including any changes based on public comment); DCHC MPO staff submits the Methodology to NCDOT
57
DCHC MPO 12/20/17
Review Committee; TC reviews comments from NCDOT Review Committee and recommends changes to
Methodology, if necessary
March 2018 — Board adopts revised Methodology, if necessary
Comments on the DCHC MPO's Methodology for Identifying and Ranking TIP Project Requests or any
information contained within may be submitted in writing to the DCHC MPO using the contact
information below. Comments may also be offered during any DCHC MPO Board or DCHC MPO TC
meeting. All meetings are open to the public and meeting schedules are available on the DCHC MPO's
website www.dch=o.org.
Aaron Cain, AICP
Senior Transportation Planner
DCHC MPO
City of Durham DOT
101 City Hall Plaza
Durham, NC 27701
(919) 560 -4366 x36443
email: aaron.cain@durhamnc.gov
Attachment 3
BURLINGTON - GRAHAM
METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION
METHODOLOGY FOR IDENTIFYING AND RANKING NEW
TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT REQUESTS
Introduction
NCDOT developed project prioritization as a collaborative, data - driven, approval process for the State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) in 2009. Significant changes were made to the process prompted by House Bill 817 also
known as the Strategic Transportation Investments (STI). The bill established funding tiers (Statewide, Regional, and
Division) and allocations across all modes. The outcome of the STI process is the draft State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP). The STI legislation applies uniformly across the state regardless of the boundaries of MPOs. STI requires
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to develop and adopt a local project ranking process for all modes of
transportation. In 2017, NCDOT developed new standards based on the findings and recommendations in the Local
Input Point Process Verification Report and observed best practices from Strategic Prioritization (SPOT) 3.0 and 4.0.
SPOT 5.0 includes the creation of a NCDOT review process that ensures each MPO complies with developing a process
for approving Local Input Point methodology used in prioritization. Each MPO must develop, adopt and implement a
methodology that maintains criteria transparency, process documentation and maximizes the opportunity for public
review and comment.
The Burlington- Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization ( BGMPO) Methodology for Identifying and Ranking TIP
Project Requests describes the processes that the BGMPO will follow to identify projects that will be submitted for
evaluation to NCDOT during the NCDOT Strategic Prioritization Office of Transportation's (SPOT) Prioritization process.
When the results of the SPOT Prioritization process are made available, the BGMPO will follow this Methodology to rank
projects and assign Local Input Points to high priority projects. This Methodology is designed to address the federal
requirement that the TIP be consistent with the projects and investment priorities of the MPO's MTP while being
compatible with the state's STI process.
The BGMPO retains the authority to develop the TIP for the MPO area as required by federal regulations. Participation in
the STI process through submitting projects for evaluation and /or allocating Local Input Points to projects does not
require the MPO to include these projects in the TIP.
Objective
The Methodology described herein is designed to address multi -modal transportation needs, ensure regional balance,
and prioritize projects that are needed based on technical criteria. The goal is to produce a project priority ranking which
satisfies MPO goals, is simple enough for project -level analysis without requiring unnecessary data collection, and is
understandable by the general public.
The BGMPO's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) will use the methodology to generate a list of priority projects to
submit to the NCDOT SPOT for quantitative scoring. While the methodology is designed to comprehensively address the
BGMPO's transportation needs, there will always be factors that are not easily measured but should still be considered
in the development of the BGMPO's priorities. The BGMPO TAC will make its recommendation for the prioritization of
projects based on the methodology described in this document and in accordance with the BGMPO's adopted Public
Involvement Policy.
Description of Criteria and Weights
NCDOT ranks projects based on two types of criteria: quantitative data - a data - driven, numerically -based measurement
(i.e. accidents, congestion, safety, etc.) and, qualitative data - a non - numerically driven measurement. Examples of
qualitative data include (but are not limited to):
Draft — December 2017
59
• Local /regional plan consistency
• Multimodal accessibility
• Public input
• Local input points (or policy committee input)
• Connectivity /accessibility
• Economic development
• Environmental justice
• Land use and development support
NCDOT requires MPOs to use at least two criteria (with one being qualitative) when ranking projects. Statewide projects
are only scored quantitatively, therefore local input is only provided for projects included at the regional and division
levels (maximum of 100 points).
Project Type
Statewide
Regional
Division
Quantitative Scoring%
100
70
50
Local Input Scoring%
N/A
30
50
Total Score
100
100
100
Highway Projects
Highway projects may be scored and funded by any of the three funding categories (Statewide, Regional, or Division).
NCDOT has developed a different highway project scoring process for each of the three funding categories. The BGMPO
will utilize the scoring processes developed by NCDOT to preliminarily rank projects to be submitted to NCDOT SPOT for
evaluation. A project that is eligible for the Statewide funding category but is not funded under that category can
cascade down to the Regional category for evaluation and possible funding. If the project is not funded under the
Regional category, the project may cascade down to the Division category for evaluation and possible funding.
For Prioritization 5.0, Division 7 adopted a set of alternate criteria for highway projects (alternate criteria was not an
option for non - highway projects). Those alternate criteria are shown below:
Funding
Category
Quantitative Data
Local Input
Division
MPo
Input
Input
Benefit /Cost = 25%
Measurement of travel time savings and safety benefits the project is expected to provide over 10
years compared to the cost of the project to NCDOT.
Congestion = 30%
Measurement of the Peak ADTtraffic volume on the roadway compared to the existing capacity of
the roadway, weighted by the total traffic volume along the roadway.
•60% Existing Volume /Capacity Ratio •40% Existing Volume
Economic Competitiveness = 10%
Statewide
Measurement of the estimated number of long -term jobs and the % change in economic activity
Mobility
within the county that the project is expected to provide over 10 years.
N/A
N/A
Safety = 10%
Measurement of the number, severity, and density of crashes along the roadway and calculate
future safety benefits.
Freight= 25%
Measurement of existing truck volume and whether or not the roadway is part of a future
interstate highway.
Total = 100%
Draft — December 2017
60
Public Transportation Projects
Public Transportation projects may be scored and funded within the Regional or Division funding categories. Different
types of public transportation projects (vehicle, passenger facility, administrative /maintenance /operations facility, and
fixed guideway) have different scoring processes for the Regional and Division categories.
Public Transit Scoring (Demand Response)
Funding
Category
Quantitative Data
Local Input
Funding
Quantitative Data
Division
MPO
Category
Input
Input
Input
Benefit /Cost = 20%
Measurement of the total projected passenger trips compared to the cost of the project to the state
Measurement of travel time savings and safety benefits the project is expected to provide over 10
and lifespan of the project.
years compared to the cost of the project to NCDOT.
Demand /Density = 20%
Congestion = 20%
Regional
Measurement of the number of service hours devoted to the project compared to the service
Measurement of the Peak ADT traffic volume on the roadway compared to the existing capacity of
Impact
population.
15%
the roadway, weighted by the total traffic volume along the roadway. • 80% Existing Volume/
Efficiency = 15%
Capacity Ratio • 20% Existing Volume
Measurement of the vehicle utilization ratio.
Safety = 10%
Impact = 10%
Regional
Measurement of the number, severity, and density of crashes along the roadway and calculate future
Measurement of the number trips affected by the project.
Impact
safety benefits.
15%
15%
Accessibility /Connectivity = 10%
Measurement of county economic distress indicators and whether the project upgrades how the
roadway functions. Goal of improving access to opportunity in rural and less- affluent areas and
improving interconnectivity of the transportation network.
Freight = 10%
Measurement of existing truck volume and whether or not the roadway is part of a future interstate
highway.
Total = 70% (Division and Local Input Points account for remaining 30 %)
Benefit /Cost = 15%
Measurement of travel time savings and safety benefits the project is expected to provide over 10
years compared to the cost of the project to NCDOT.
Congestion = 15%
Measurement of the Peak ADT traffic volume on the roadway compared to the existing capacity of
Division
the roadway.
Needs
Safety = 15%
25%
25%
Division 7
Measurement of the number, severity, and frequency of crashes along the roadway.
Accessibility /Connectivity = 5%
Measurement of county economic distress indicators and whether the project upgrades how the
roadway functions. Goal of improving access to opportunity in rural and less- affluent areas and
improving interconnectivity of the transportation network.
Total = 50% (Division and Local Input Points account for remaining 50 %)
Public Transportation Projects
Public Transportation projects may be scored and funded within the Regional or Division funding categories. Different
types of public transportation projects (vehicle, passenger facility, administrative /maintenance /operations facility, and
fixed guideway) have different scoring processes for the Regional and Division categories.
Public Transit Scoring (Demand Response)
Funding
Category
Quantitative Data
Local Input
Division
MPO
Input
Input
Cost Effectiveness = 25%
Measurement of the total projected passenger trips compared to the cost of the project to the state
and lifespan of the project.
Demand /Density = 20%
Regional
Measurement of the number of service hours devoted to the project compared to the service
Impact
population.
15%
15%
Efficiency = 15%
Measurement of the vehicle utilization ratio.
Impact = 10%
Measurement of the number trips affected by the project.
Total = 70% (Division and Local Input Points account for remaining 30 %)
Draft — December 2017
61
Funding
Category
Quantitative Data
Local Input
Division
MPO
Measurement of the total projected passenger trips compared to the cost of the project to the state
MPO
Input
Input
and lifespan of the project.
Cost Effectiveness = 15%
Impact = 20%
Measurement of the total projected passenger trips compared to the cost of the project to the state
Regional
Measurement of the number trips affected by the project.
and lifespan of the project.
Impact
Efficiency = 15%
Demand /Density = 15%
15%
and lifespan of the project.
Division
Measurement of the number of service hours devoted to the project compared to the service
Demand /Density = 20%
Needs
population.
25%
25%
Measurement of the ridership growth trend for the previous five years.
Efficiency = 10%
Impact
Impact =15%
Total = 70% (Division and Local Input Points account for remaining 30 %)
Measurement of the vehicle utilization ratio.
Number of trips affected by the project.
Cost Effectiveness = 15%
Impact = 10%
Efficiency = 10%
Measurement of the total projected passenger trips compared to the cost of the project to the state
Measurement of the number trips affected by the project.
Total number of trips as a ratio of the total revenue seat hours.
and lifespan of the project.
Total = 50% (Division and Local Input Points account for remaining 30 %)
Total = 70% (Division and Local Input Points account for remaining 30 %)
Public Transit Scoring (Facilities)
Public Transit Scoring (Mobility)
Cost Effectiveness = 25%
Local Input
Funding
Quantitative Data
Measurement of the total projected passenger trips compared to the cost of the project to the state
MPO
Category
and lifespan of the project.
Impact = 20%
Input
Regional
Measurement of the number trips affected by the project.
Impact
Efficiency = 15%
15%
15%
and lifespan of the project.
Measurement of efficiency of the project.
Demand /Density = 20%
Demand /Density = 10%
Regional
Measurement of the number of total trips as a percentage of the service population.
Measurement of the ridership growth trend for the previous five years.
15%
Impact
Impact =15%
Total = 70% (Division and Local Input Points account for remaining 30 %)
Number of trips affected by the project.
Cost Effectiveness = 15%
Efficiency = 10%
Measurement of the total projected passenger trips compared to the cost of the project to the state
Total number of trips as a ratio of the total revenue seat hours.
and lifespan of the project.
Total = 70% (Division and Local Input Points account for remaining 30 %)
Impact = 15%
Division
Measurement of the number trips affected by the project.
Needs
Demand /Density = 10%
25%
25%
and lifespan of the project.
Measurement of the ridership growth trend for the previous five years.
Demand /Density = 10%
Efficiency = 10%
Division
Measurement of the number of total trips as a percentage of the service population.
Measurement of efficiency of the project.
25%
Needs
Impact = 10%
Total = 50% (Division and Local Input Points account for remaining 50 %)
Public Transit Scoring (Mobility)
Draft — December 2017
62
Local Input
Funding
Quantitative Data
Division
MPO
Category
Input
Input
Cost Effectiveness = 25%
Measurement of the total projected passenger trips compared to the cost of the project to the state
and lifespan of the project.
Demand /Density = 20%
Regional
Measurement of the number of total trips as a percentage of the service population.
15%
15%
Impact
Impact =15%
Number of trips affected by the project.
Efficiency = 10%
Total number of trips as a ratio of the total revenue seat hours.
Total = 70% (Division and Local Input Points account for remaining 30 %)
Cost Effectiveness = 20%
Measurement of the total projected passenger trips compared to the cost of the project to the state
and lifespan of the project.
Demand /Density = 10%
Division
Measurement of the number of total trips as a percentage of the service population.
25%
25%
Needs
Impact = 10%
Number of trips affected by the project.
Efficiency = 10%
Total number of trips as a ratio of the total revenue seat hours.
Total = 50% (Division and Local Input Points account for remaining 50 %)
Draft — December 2017
62
Bicycle and Pedestrian (Non - Highway) Projects
Bicycle and pedestrian projects are scored and funded within the Division Needs funding category; therefore NCDOT
utilizes only one scoring process for bicycle and pedestrian projects. BGMPO will utilize the scoring processes developed
by NCDOT to preliminarily rank projects to be submitted to NCDOT SPOT for evaluation.
The NCDOT SPOT process limits the number of projects that MPOs may submit. In the event that more new project
requests are received than the MPO can submit, the BGMPO will apply the scoring criteria developed by the NCDOT that
reflect the SPOT 5.0 Workgroup recommendations that were submitted to the NCDOT Board of Transportation in June
2017. This will provide a set of preliminary scores that can be used to rank projects.
Funding Category
Quantitative Data
Local Input
Division
MPO
Input
Input
Safety = 15%
Measurement of number of bicycle and /or pedestrian crashes, speed limit, and
safety benefits to determine adequacy of safety for users of the project.
Access = 10%
Statewide
Measurement of the quantity and significance of destinations associated with the
Mobility (Class I
project as well as the distance to the primary destination.
N/A
N/A
Freight Only)
g y)
Demand = 10%
Measurement of the density of population and employment within a walkable or
Division Needs
bike -able distance of the project.
25%
25%
Connectivity = 10%
Measurement of the degree of bike /ped separation from the roadway, whether or
not the project is part of or a connection to a national, state, or regional bike route,
and connectivity to a similar or better project type.
Cost Effectiveness = 5%
Measurement of combined user benefits of Safety, Access, Demand, and
Connectivity criteria compared to the cost of the project to NCDOT.
Total = 50% (Division and Local Input Points account for remaining 50 %)
Rail Projects
Rail projects may be scored and funded within any of the three funding categories (Statewide, Regional, or Division). The
MPO will coordinate closely with the NCDOT Rail Division on the identification, prioritization, and submission of rail
projects. BGMPO will follow the criteria developed by the SPOT 5.0 Workgroup that were submitted to the NCDOT
Board of Transportation in June 2017.
Funding Category
Quantitative Data
Local Input
Division
MPO Input
Input
Benefit -Cost = 35%
Measurement of monetized benefits compared to the project cost to NCDOT.
Safety = 30%
Measurement of potentially hazardous rail crossings and other safety benefits.
Statewide
System Opportunities = 15%
Mobility (Class I
Measurement of accessibility and connectivity provided by the project, and
N/A
N/A
Freight Only)
g y)
connections to multimodal opportunities.
Capacity and Diversion = 10%
• Volume /Capacity = 75% • Highway Diversion = 25%
Economic Competitiveness = 10%
Measurement of economic benefits of the project.
Total = 100%
Draft — December 2017
63
Total Score and Proiect Ranking Approach
The process proposed for use by the BGMPO for SPOT 5.0 includes six key steps:
1) Identification of candidate projects
2) Evaluation of candidate projects
3) Submittal of candidate projects to NCDOT for prioritization scoring
4) Ranking and assignment of Local Input Points by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
5) Public Involvement
6) Submittal of TAC approved project list to NCDOT
In order to meet the BGMPO scoring criteria and for the TAC, Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC), and general
public to fully evaluate each project, candidate project submittals must include complete project descriptions, assurance
of local contribution (if applicable), demonstrate local stakeholder support and consistency with local and regional
comprehensive plans. The NCDOT SPOT process limits the number of projects that MPOs may submit. In the event that
more new project requests are received than the MPO can submit, the BGMPO will apply the scoring criteria developed
by the NCDOT that reflect the SPOT 5.0 Workgroup recommendations that were submitted to the NCDOT Board of
Transportation in June 2017. This will provide a set of preliminary scores that can be used to rank projects.
Each MPO can submit up to 12 projects and one project per 500 centerline miles, in addition to one project per 50,000
in population within the MPO's boundary. For SPOT 5.0, the BGMPO is eligible to submit up to 17 projects per mode
(highway, public transportation, bicycle /pedestrian, aviation and rail) for evaluation and local ranking or resubmit
Holding Tank projects. Holding Tank projects are projects categorized as Carryover from prior Prioritizations but were
unfunded.
BGMPO staff reviews the candidate project list to ensure projects meet eligibility requirements and competitiveness
based on the NCDOT prioritization process and criteria. The draft project submittal list is available for public review and
presented to the TAC for approval and then entered into the SPOT system for scoring.
Point Assignment Process
The STI process is data driven to identify the most beneficial transportation projects within the MPO region. The
Burlington- Graham MPO is allocated a total of 1,300 points to allocate to each Region and Division project. The final
point assignment will be made by the BGMPO TAC after public review and recommendation by the TCC. The TAC will
consider projects for local input point assignment based on the following criteria:
1. Prioritization scoring results — Candidate projects will be rank ordered based on their respective NCDOT
prioritization scoring results.
Draft — December 2017
Z
Benefit - Cost = 25%
15%
15%
Measurement of monetized benefits compared to the project cost to NCDOT.
Safety = 15%
Measurement of potentially hazardous rail crossings and other safety benefits.
System Opportunities = 10%
Regional Impact
Measurement of accessibility and connectivity provided by the project, and
connections to multimodal opportunities.
Capacity and Diversion = 10%
•Volume/Capacity =75% -Highway Diversion = 25%
Economic Competitiveness = 10%
Measurement of economic benefits of the project.
Total = 70% (Division and Local Input Points account for remaining 30 %)
System Opportunities = 15%
Measurement of accessibility and connectivity provided by the project, and
connections to multimodal opportunities.
Benefit -Cost = 10%
Measurement of monetized benefits compared to the project cost to NCDOT.
Division Needs
Safety = 10%
25%
25%
Measurement of potentially hazardous rail crossings and other safety benefits.
Capacity and Diversion = 10%
• Volume/Capacity =75% -Highway Diversion = 25%
Economic Competitiveness = 5%
Measurement of economic benefits of the project
Total = 50% (Division and Local Input Points account for remaining 50 %)
Total Score and Proiect Ranking Approach
The process proposed for use by the BGMPO for SPOT 5.0 includes six key steps:
1) Identification of candidate projects
2) Evaluation of candidate projects
3) Submittal of candidate projects to NCDOT for prioritization scoring
4) Ranking and assignment of Local Input Points by the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
5) Public Involvement
6) Submittal of TAC approved project list to NCDOT
In order to meet the BGMPO scoring criteria and for the TAC, Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC), and general
public to fully evaluate each project, candidate project submittals must include complete project descriptions, assurance
of local contribution (if applicable), demonstrate local stakeholder support and consistency with local and regional
comprehensive plans. The NCDOT SPOT process limits the number of projects that MPOs may submit. In the event that
more new project requests are received than the MPO can submit, the BGMPO will apply the scoring criteria developed
by the NCDOT that reflect the SPOT 5.0 Workgroup recommendations that were submitted to the NCDOT Board of
Transportation in June 2017. This will provide a set of preliminary scores that can be used to rank projects.
Each MPO can submit up to 12 projects and one project per 500 centerline miles, in addition to one project per 50,000
in population within the MPO's boundary. For SPOT 5.0, the BGMPO is eligible to submit up to 17 projects per mode
(highway, public transportation, bicycle /pedestrian, aviation and rail) for evaluation and local ranking or resubmit
Holding Tank projects. Holding Tank projects are projects categorized as Carryover from prior Prioritizations but were
unfunded.
BGMPO staff reviews the candidate project list to ensure projects meet eligibility requirements and competitiveness
based on the NCDOT prioritization process and criteria. The draft project submittal list is available for public review and
presented to the TAC for approval and then entered into the SPOT system for scoring.
Point Assignment Process
The STI process is data driven to identify the most beneficial transportation projects within the MPO region. The
Burlington- Graham MPO is allocated a total of 1,300 points to allocate to each Region and Division project. The final
point assignment will be made by the BGMPO TAC after public review and recommendation by the TCC. The TAC will
consider projects for local input point assignment based on the following criteria:
1. Prioritization scoring results — Candidate projects will be rank ordered based on their respective NCDOT
prioritization scoring results.
Draft — December 2017
Z
2. Consistency with local and regional plans — Candidate projects must be consistent and included within locally
adopted comprehensive plans and the adopted Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) and the Metropolitan
Transportation Plan (MTP).
3. Public Involvement — Consideration of public comments by the TAC before assigning local input points to the
rank ordered project list.
4. Point Assignment —The TAC will assign the maximum 100 points to the top ranked projects.
Per the NCDOT and STI regulations, 1,300 points is available to assign to Region level projects and Division level projects.
The TAC may exercise its option of sharing or allocating unassigned local input points to increase the "scoring" of
regional transportation projects (regional being more than one county) with an adjacent MPO. This process is
accomplished via an informal agreement between the MPOs and notification to NCDOT.
Total Score and Proiect Ranking Approach
The ranked list of the highest scoring projects will be submitted to NCDOT for further evaluation. Final project submittal
will also occur via online process with NCDOT.
Material Sharing
Any rationale for point assignments made by the TAC or via public input which deviate from this methodology will be
placed on the BGMPO website. The public input process may be adjusted to meet NCDOT imposed deadlines or data
requirements. The MPO will release the draft list of proposed STI projects and the proposed local ranking methodology
for a public review and comment period according to the schedule below. The existing SPOT projects with the previous
scores will also be included in the materials and available for review at the BGMPO office and posted on the BGMPO
website at www.bgmpo.org. The BGMPO will publish the information and announce a public meeting in the general
circulation media outlets and also on the BGMPO website. All public comments received will be submitted to TAC for
review and used in the selection of local projects to submit to the SPOT office for technical analysis and score
development. A record of all public comments received (through the BGMPO website, public meetings, etc.) will be
maintained through adoption of NCDOT's Final STIP by the Board of Transportation.
Schedule and Public Outreach
January 2017- MPO initiates project submittal process
February 28, 2017 — Pre - submittal Projects due to NCDOT
June 29, 2017 - NCDOT Board of Transportation approves P5.0 criteria, measures, and weights
July to September 2017 - SPOT On!ine opens for submitting new projects
August 2017 — Existing Project Deletions and Modifications due to NCDOT
August 31, 2017- Candidate project deadline for submittal to MPO for evaluation
September 2017- MPO analysis and identify projects for submittal
September 2017 - TAC review and approval of Draft List of Project Submittals
September 2017 — Submit candidate projects to NCDOT for evaluation/ Deadline for Alternate Weights for Regional
Impact and Division Needs scoring
November 2017 — Public review of MPO project submittals
December 1 to January 17, 2018 —TCC /TAC /Public review and approval of Local Input Point Methodology
March 31, 2018— Quantitative Scores and Draft list of Programmed Statewide Mobility Projects released
April to June 2018— Local Input Point Assignment Window for Regional projects
May 16, 2018 —TAC approval of Regional Project List /results posted to BGMPO website for public comment
August 2018— Draft list of Programmed Regional Projects released
September to October 2018— Division Needs Local Input Point Assignment Window
October 2018 —TAC approval of Division Needs Project List /results posted to MPO website for public comment
January 2019 — Draft 2019 -2029 STIP released
Draft — December 2017
65
M.-
ORANGE COUNTY
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 21, 2018
Action Agenda
Item No. 8.c.
SUBJECT: Burlington- Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (B -G MPO) Update
DEPARTMENT: Planning and Inspections
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Abigaile Pittman, Transportation /Land
Use Planner, 919 - 245 -2567
PURPOSE: Receive an update on recent B -G MPO Technical Coordinating Committee (TCC)
Subcommittee activities of the BG MPOs SPOT 6.0 Criteria and Process.
BACKGROUND: In November, 2017 Orange County staff expressed concerns regarding the
process for submitting and scoring transportation projects within the B -G MPO for the NCDOT
SPOT process. Specifically, staff was concerned with the following process issues:
1. Infrequent meetings restricted review of projects prior to NCDOT submission (four times
a year);
2. Being too dependent on NCDOT scores alone; and
3. Local input, plans and criteria were not being given due consideration.
Orange County staff proposed a TCC SPOT Subcommittee to address these concerns for
SPOT 6.0 cycle as SPOT 5.0 projects had already been submitted to NCDOT. The SPOT 6.0
Subcommittee was approved by the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) and meetings
began in December, 2017. In addition to Orange County staff, Graham, Mebane, Burlington,
and Alamance County are also represented on the Subcommittee.
The following revisions have already been made to the B -G MPO planning process:
1. TCC and TAC will meet more frequently, ten times a year rather than quarterly; and
2. A full -time staff person has been hired as MPO staff, where previously it was contractual.
In December, the Subcommittee reviewed previously approved identical SPOT 4.0 and 5.0. The
subcommittee reviewed several other MPO /RPO SPOT processes and selected TARPO and
Fayetteville MPO processes due to their consideration of local input, plans and criteria,
presentation and process clarity. Wilmington MPO process was added to the list January 30th.
These three processes will be studied in greater detail at the March 8t" Subcommittee
meeting. MPO staff will take some B -G MPO SPOT 5.0 projects through all three processes and
compare the results with the B -G MPO process.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATION(S): Staff recommends that the OUTBoard: Receive the update
67
Item 8.d.
Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon Meeting Notes
Division 7 and District 1
November 30, 2017 12:00 p.m.
John M. Link, Jr. Government Services Center
Lower Level Meeting Room, 200 South Cameron Street, Hillsborough
F, iftft 10 9
I. INTRODUCTIONS
Present: Penny Rich, Orange County Commissioner, Vice Chair; Commissioner
Barry Jacobs, Orange County Commissioner; Bonnie Hammersley, Orange
County Manager; Travis Myren, Orange County Deputy Manager; Chuck
Edwards, NCDOT District Engineer; Pat Wilson, NCDOT Project Delivery
Engineer; Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director; Tom Altieri, Orange
County Comprehensive Planning Supervisor; Abigaile Pittman, Orange County
Land Use /Transportation Planner; Nish Trivedi, Orange County Transportation
Planner; Theo Letman, Orange County Public Transit Director; David Stancil,
Orange County DEAPR Director; Margaret Hauth, Town of Hillsborough Planning
Director /Assistant Town Manager; Tom Stevens, Town of Hillsborough Mayor;
and Brian Lowen, Hillsborough Town Commissioner.
Commissioner Penny Rich, Vice Chair welcomed all and introductions were
made.
Penny Rich asked if there were any additions to the agenda. She added a
question from Commissioner Mark Marcoplos regarding the new NC 86 bridge
over 1 -85; and a discussion about communications with the southern part of the
County (Chapel Hill and Carrboro).
RIGHT -OF -WAY TOPICS
a) Public right -of -way dedication of Strouds Creek Road at Pathways
Elementary (New Issue) (Chuck Edwards, Craig Benedict)
Chuck Edwards stated that the road is only served by an easement, not right -
of -way. The solution was to have the owner of the property sign a right -of-
way agreement with NCDOT. When this agreement is recorded NCDOT can
move forward with the road to serve Pathways Elementary.
Craig Benedict noted that the right -of -way dedication is needed for the road
and the school. The present easement situation preceded the subdivision
construction. The road is stubbed out and there is potential for a northern
connection.
Status: Private road easement to public dedication (Craig Benedict/NCDOT)
b) Road Additions to the State Maintained System (Updates) ( Abigaile Pittman,
Chuck Edwards)
.•
Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon Meeting Notes
Division 7 and District 1
November 30, 2017 12:00 p.m.
Perry Hills Subdivision — Road addition for Paylor Street
Abigaile Pittman stated that Perry Hills Subdivision was recorded in August,
1965. This section of Paylor Street is an extended section of dirt road (.08
mile /422 ft.) that has not previously been added to the State road system for
maintenance. Discussions have been ongoing this year regarding Paylor
Street and a few other roads, or portions of roads, within the Subdivision that
have not been accepted into the State system.
Following the addition of Paylor Street into the State system it will first be
graveled as a two -lane road under the Unpaved Road Program, and NCDOT
will also improve the drainage ditches and pipes, and remove some trees and
uncontrolled vegetation and any unauthorized encroachments. Future paving
of this section of Paylor Street by NCDOT will occur under the Secondary
Road Construction Program, or with some other funding source such as State
Contingency Funds. As for the subdivision roads currently in the State
Maintained Secondary Road System, NCDOT maintenance staff recently
performed pavement repairs, and the State maintained streets in the
subdivision were resurfaced. Future paving of this section of Paylor Street by
NCDOT will occur as prioritized by NCDOT (possibly in 2018). Paving of
existing State roads in Perry Hills Subdivision occurred recently.
Buckhorn Ridge Subdivision
Abigaile Pittman stated that Buckhorn Ridge Subdivision (recorded in 2001) is
located off Yarborough Road in the western part of the County, east of
Mebane Oaks Road and west of Buckhorn Road, in Cheeks Township.
Buckhorn Ridge Road and Twelve Point Trail were designed to public road
standards but have been private roads in the interim, intended to become a
public road when conditions met NCDOT criteria.
There is an additional road in the subdivision, Little Doe Lane, which is not
eligible for addition to the State Maintained Secondary Road System because
it does not meet the density requirement of 4 developed properties.
The Reserve Subdivision
Abigaile Pittman stated that the Reserve Subdivision is located off Parker
Road in the southeastern part of the County, in Chapel Hill Township. It is
located within the Town's ETJ and was developed and approved subject to
the Town's zoning and subdivision regulations, but it was not annexed by
Chapel Hill.
70
Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon Meeting Notes
Division 7 and District 1
November 30, 2017 12:00 p.m.
The final plats for the subdivision were recorded between 1993 and 1995. This
request includes a petition for five road additions to the State System:
Serrano Way, Madera Lane, Umbrio Lane, Majestic Court, and Chimeneas
Place, which were designed to public road standards.
There are two additional roads in the subdivision, Bolinas Way and Bolinas
Court, which were platted as private roads and therefore not eligible for
addition to the State System. Another road in the subdivision, Rhododendron
Drive (SR 2060), is already in the State System.
Status: Abigaile Pittman stated that the three NCDOT petitions for road
addition are going forward to the December 4 BOCC agenda. The
recommendation for all the petitions is for the BOCC to forward the Petition
for Addition to the State Maintained System to the NCDOT recommend the
DOT accept the roads for maintenance as State Secondary Roads.
c) Arthur Minnis Road (Update) (NCDOT /Craig Benedict)
Right -of -way Acquisition: Begin acquisition process for Orange County funds
necessary for NCDOT implementation and compensation (2018 -19)
Safety Improvement: Steps toward paving the unpaved section of Arthur
Minnis Road between New Hope Church Road and Orange Grove Road.
Chuck Edwards, NCDOT stated that this unpaved section of Arthur Minnis
Road has been in its present unpaved condition and discussed for over thirty
years, and has been on NCDOT's hold list because additional right -of -way is
needed to pave the road in front of four houses where right -of -way has not yet
been obtained. He noted that NCDOT does have majority of the right -of -way
and was able to obtain dedicated right -of -way from one property owner but
does not have the necessary connectivity to the road. He stated that the last
negotiation efforts NCDOT had with the remaining property owners was in
September, 2016, but that they had had no response from any of them as of
today.
Chuck Edwards stated that NCDOT has the legal ability to condemn properties to
acquire the necessary right -of -way in accordance with North Carolina General
Statute 136 -44.7 which states "if one or more property owners have not
dedicated the necessary right -of -way and at least 75 percent of the owners
adjacent to the project and the owners of a majority of the frontage (i.e. greater
than 50 %) must have dedicated the necessary property for the right -of -way;
These conditions are currently met on the subject section of Arthur Minnis Road
since NCDOT currently has 76 percent of the properties. Also, required funds to
cover condemnation costs must be provided. The cost for condemnation would
be maximum $2,500 per parcel plus any damages identified by any appraisal as
per 19A NCAC 02C.0108. NCDOT could fund and pave the road if the right -of-
way and fees are available.
71
Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon Meeting Notes
Division 7 and District 1
November 30, 2017 12:00 p.m.
There was a general discussion noting that the County could also consider
putting some funds in the budget to pay the expenses. Tom Altieri noted that
assistance from the County Attorney's Office to determine what party needs
to request condemnation, the County or the property owners and if the
County can sponsor the fees.
Chuck Edwards and Barry Jacobs notes that there are various reasons that
the remaining four property owners have not been willing to dedicate the
needed right -of -way so that the road can be paved: fear of speeding cars;
preferring the rural character of the unpaved road; etc. Chuck Edwards noted
that the Orange County Fire Department has sent a letter regarding its
concerns pertaining to response times, safety, etc. Barry Jacobs suggested
that NCDOT send another letter stating that the road now meets the
standards for condemnation.
Barry Jacobs asked whether a two -way stop sign could be installed on the
road. Chuck Edwards stated that he could look at options but had concerns
about the stop sign suggestion, but he would look at construction limits.
Craig Benedict asked if a property owner could be the lead in a condemnation
request. Chuck Edwards said this would be an area to consult legal but it
may be that petition and fees will need to come from property owners. If
that's the case, he thought that property owner Bob Nutter might be the
friendliest petitioner on the road.
Status: Consider options and criteria for NCDOT to proceed with any
condemnation based on NCDOT guidance, noting that the assistance of the
County Attorney's Office is necessary to determine how to proceed.
III. PEDESTRIAN /SIDEWALK TOPICS
a) Pedestrian project implementation — Maintenance, local match, and local
administration (Update) (Tom Altieri /Craig Benedict)
Tom Altieri stated that there will be a work session in 2018 that is to include
some discussion of a County sidewalk policy. The County has multiple
adopted plans supporting sidewalks but no formal policy: The Orange Grove
Road Access Management Plan; the Safe Routes to School Plan; and County
Transit Plan. In addition to the need for a County sidewalk policy, there is no
ability to compete for grants without a local match; and without determining
how a sidewalk project would be administered. SPOT scoring cannot be
done on a proposed sidewalk project without a local match. Answers are also
needed to maintenance questions. In 2011 the BOCC did not have interest in
maintaining sidewalks but interest may now be resurfacing due to the SRTS
Plan and Transit Plan. Responding to a question from Travis Myren, Tom
Altieri confirmed that a 20 percent local match, a maintenance plan for Right-
72
Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon Meeting Notes
Division 7 and District 1
November 30, 2017 12:00 p.m.
of -Way encroachment, and a decision on how sidewalk projects would be
administered through construction would be needed. Craig Benedict added
that the Twin Peaks park sidewalk project had required $80,000 - $100,000 for
project administration.
Barry Jacobs added that within the context of the Efland Small Area Plan
planning process, sidewalk maintenance was voted down so there wasn't an
opportunity to discuss sidewalks any further in downtown Efland. Efland
sidewalks would be in NCDOT right -of -way where suburban meets urban. He
reinforced that Orange County needs to have a sidewalk policy. He recalled
that the OUTBoard had requested that the BOCC and Hillsborough work
together on a sidewalk policy and maintenance agreement.
Chuck Edwards stated that subdivision streets not located within corporate
limits can have homeowners associations maintain sidewalks. NCDOT does
not maintain sidewalks, however, encroachments might be allowed within
subdivisions. As a rule, sidewalk encroachments have not been allowed
outside subdivisions.
Dave Stancil said that the County park staff could perform the required
sidewalk maintenance upon the direction of the BOCC.
Craig Benedict noted that there may also be need for some sidewalks at
OCPT bus stops that are located on the fringe of County and corporate limits.
Bonnie Hammersley stated that the staff work group to prepare for the work
session should include Craig Benedict, Tom Altieri, Jeff Thompson, and Dave
Stancil. The results of the staff group will feed the sidewalk policy, and help
determine costs for maintenance and construction. A decision will need to be
made as to whether sidewalks are a funding priority.
Penny Rich added that the timing question for the work session will be up to
Staff. Funding prioritization will be talked about at the BOCC Retreat.
Status: The County is pursuing a work session to include discussion on
sidewalks, among other items.
b) Orange Grove Road Bridge fencing and conceptual design options for a
pedestrian bridge (Update) (Chuck Edwards, NCDOT)
Chuck Edwards said that there is a chain link fence being installed on the
Orange Grove Road Bridge over 1 -40. The funds have been secured. The
first bids were all over the funding estimate, so the second bid opens next
week. The reason for the exceeded estimates points to costs of traffic
management, and preparing the bridge for fencing. The project is supposed
73
Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon Meeting Notes
Division 7 and District 1
November 30, 2017 12:00 p.m.
to begin in January and be completed by next April. Pat Wilson said that the
project will be around 30 percent over the original funding estimate.
Barry Jacobs asked about the possibility of getting a pedestrian bridge over I-
40. Pat Wilson responded that there had been a previous feasibility study to
evaluate a pedestrian bridge and that there is a constructability issue. Craig
Benedict suggested that possibly a new bridge accommodating pedestrians
could be built along with the larger 1 -40 project in the future.
Status: For informational purposes, no County action required. Focus on
receiving sidewalks for a future pedestrian bridge.
IV. POLICIES, PROGRAMS, NEW PROJECTS
a) NCDOT Encroachment Agreement (Update) (Theo Letman)
Theo Letman reviewed the $10,000 AARP grant received in August for 15
Simme -Seats for OCPT bus stops. The grant was applied for by the Aging
Department. About a third of the seats were installed by AMS in November;
however, encroachment agreements and permits are needed for the
semiseats. The remaining seats will be installed after site specific locations
are identified and sketches prepared to obtain municipal permits and ROW
Encroachment Agreements from NCDOT. A discussion regarding
encroachment agreements /permits followed between Theo Letman, Penny
Rich, Margaret Hauth, and Bonnie Hammersley.
Tom Altieri asked NCDOT staff about the site - specific materials needed for
encroachment agreements. Chuck Edwards advised that the County speak
with Deangelo Jones with NCDOT for guidance. The focus for the process will
be on safety at each location.
Bonnie Hammersley asked if all the Simme -Seats were orange and Theo
replied that they are.
Status: Encroachment agreements and permits are being pursued for bus
stop improvements. NCDOT /OCPT safety reviews also need to be
performed.
b) Mountains to Sea Trail Segment 11 (Update) (David Stancil)
David Stancil passed out a map for the Proposed Mountains -to -Sea Trail
(MST) Segment 11 (copy attached to meeting notes). He stated that
everyone should focus on the red dashed line on the map. David Stancil
reviewed the route options of Segment 11. He noted that the proposed
Segment 11 line ends on the south side of the river, not the north side. He
also stated that Chuck Edwards, NCDOT has been part of the discussion
74
Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon Meeting Notes
Division 7 and District 1
November 30, 2017 12:00 p.m.
regarding the route options for Segment 11 because in some locations the
trail intersects with NCDOT roads.
Penny Rich stated that they need a map with all of the segments for the MST.
STAFF NOTE: Maps depicting proposed MST route segments have been
attached to these meeting notes.
Status: To be determined
c) Safety Improvements
i. Consideration of the signal warrant analysis for the Cates Creek Parkway/
Lafayette Drive /S Churton Street intersection (Update) (Brian Lowen and
Mayor Stevens)
Margaret Hauth asked how many more warrants would need to be satisfied
for the warrant analysis at this intersection, and if Waterstone would be
responsible for a signal at this intersection when the warrant is met.
Chuck Edwards stated that a traffic impact analysis and traffic signal
warrant analysis were performed at the time of the development of
Waterstone based on national traffic control standards. The requested
traffic signal did not meet NCDOT's warrant requirements at that time. The
peak hours signal warrant were met but this is insufficient on its own, other
issues including safety and congestion are also factored into the warrant.
Additionally, Waterstone is still under development NCDOT does not
recommend a traffic signal at this time. He further noted that there are
opportunities within Waterstone for motorists to get to signalized
intersections.
Brian Lowen asked what warrant primarily drives a traffic signal. Chuck
Edwards replied that the predominant factor is traffic volumes. In this case
he felt that a signal analysis would depend on how much and how quickly
development will occur in Waterstone. Nish Trivedi added that SPOT
safety factors are included in the signal warrant analysis. Chuck Edwards
and Pat Wilson agreed, and stated that SPOT safety is a funding type
designed to correct a safety problem.
Chuck Edwards noted that the site has not developed as quickly as
originally anticipated, and stated that NCDOT is not in a position to require
the developer of Waterstone to pay for a traffic signal when it becomes
warranted because the original warrants were not met. Although there is
an issue of maintaining the network the State does not have any leverage
to require a traffic signal. Margaret Hauth added that the traffic volume on
75
Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon Meeting Notes
Division 7 and District 1
November 30, 2017 12:00 p.m.
Churton Street has been increasing more than from just the traffic from
Waterstone.
Barry Jacobs stated that fees should be put aside when developments are
reviewed, for the future time when traffic signals and other improvements
are needed. Chuck Edwards noted that in the case of Waterstone, a traffic
signal was not warranted at the time of development approval (using
NCDOT Traffic Signal Warrant guidelines). He noted that it is difficult to
find the money needed for future improvements at the time of development
approval.
Status: To be determined.
V. NEW INQUIRIES FROM COMMISSIONERS (Including additions at the meeting)
a. Merritt Mill updates on road, bike and pedestrian path - where is the $350K
coming from? Is there a local match needed? ( NCDOT)
Chuck Edwards and Pat Wilson, NCDOT stated that the Franklin Street at
Merritt Mill Road project is in the current adopted STIP (U -5847) but the
project estimate has grown to $5 million so an alternative project has been
submitted for the current round of SPOT 5.0 projects. The new project is
bike /pedestrian improvements totaling $350,000 with half provided by
NCDOT. The other half must be provided locally and there must be an
agreement between Chapel Hill and Carrboro as to what is to be done at the
intersection. Penny Rich stated that Chapel Hill wants a roundabout but
Carrboro does not. There should be an agreement between Chapel Hill and
Carrboro boards before the project moves forward, but the project should be
delivered in 2019. Penny Rich wondered if the MPO might have some block
grant funds, and she asked that NCDOT keep Orange County informed as to
progress and the timeline.
b. Mt. Carmel Church Rd. roundabout update. Re- striping - how has this helped
traffic /who is collecting that data? ( NCDOT)
Chuck Edwards and Pat Wilson, NCDOT stated that the right -of -way for the
project has already been acquired and that construction should begin in June,
2018. There was a recent October 2017 traffic study with recommendations
for two exclusive right -turn lanes, which should be a substantial improvement.
c. Alternate routing around Hillsborough (Barry Jacobs)
Barry Jacobs introduced the issue of finding alternatives to a bypass around
Hillsborough (other than Elizabeth Brady Road). He made a general inquiry
of whether we want to look at Lawrence Road as a route around Hillsborough,
along with the 1 -85 project and other streets in western and eastern
76
Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon Meeting Notes
Division 7 and District 1
November 30, 2017 12:00 p.m.
Hillsborough area. Should we set of a work group to discuss this issue, with
representatives from NCDOT, staff, and elected officials? Perhaps we could
develop a proposal to go back to the MPO.
Mayor Tom Stevens stated that the Hillsborough Board is interested in
discussing this issue. In the past the dialog has been about bypasses, and
Hillsborough is more interested in connectors and how to smooth road
connections. Margaret Hauth stated that one main concern would be how to
install usable road signage since connector routes will have multiple turns.
d. Communications in the southern part of the County, with Chapel Hill and
Carrboro (Penny Rich)
Penny Rich had a brief discussion with Chuck Edwards ( NCDOT) and Orange
County staff about the process for communications with Chapel Hill and
Carrboro.
e. Inquiry from Mark Marcoplos regarding the new NC 86 bridge over 1 -85.
1 -85 at NC 86 interchange upgrade is in the adopted 2018 -2027 STIP (I-
5984), right -of -way 2024, construction 2026, total cost $16,488,000.
VI. PENDING PROJECTS (Updates)
a) TIP projects ( NCDOT); and
b) Resurfacing and /or bridge replacements ( NCDOT)
Chuck Edwards reviewed the NCDOT list of Project Updates (list attached)
b) NCDOT High Impact/Low Cost Program (Nish Trivedi / NCDOT)
Nish Trivedi stated that Orange County in coordination with Town of
Hillsborough recently submitted a four potential projects under a new NCDOT
Low Cost/High Impact Program. As a result, NCDOT has selected NC -86 at
US -70 intersection improvements for Board of Transportation (BOT) approval.
This will extend the northbound right turn lane onto eastbound US 70, which
may involve some minor road widening. Presently, northbound vehicles
stopped at the traffic light quickly stack beyond the existing right turn slip lane
preventing access to anyone attempting to head eastbound on US 70
Bypass. Because this project is solely in Hillsborough's jurisdiction and is
estimated to cost over $250,000, the Town will be submitting a Support
Resolution to NCDOT in December. This will bring the project before the BOT
in January 2018 for approval. NCDOT will have one year from BOT approval
to get this project under contract or implemented. They anticipate completing
this project within the existing right -of -way.
77
Orange County & NCDOT Highway Luncheon Meeting Notes
Division 7 and District 1
November 30, 2017 12:00 p.m.
Craig Benedict noted that an information item pertaining to this project will be
on the Commissioners' December 12 agenda, and on Hillsborough's
December 11 agenda for approval of the Support Resolution for the project.
Status: For informational purposes, no County action required.
W
to
1 z
eQ 0
z
0
0
z
Attachment 1
ro
79
b)
-15
19
0'
0
C,
8
L
>
'0
31
3:
0
r
z
I co
0
0 G 0
G
0
0
0
0
10-1
f.
o
4)
E
to
v
r-
L)
0
z
.0
85
0
z
AD
CL
CL
D
000000000
Po
0
0
S
gYn
CO
�R
Co
E
-F-
Z5
0)
A
r
cma
CU
(D
0
z
ri
(D
Q2
LL
0
X
000000000
ro
79
b)
0
cJ
0
P4
o
0
0
A
.4
EP
P4
0
14
ZP cli
rd 0 O� 0
( P,
uo, CJl N N, 0) 0
off G. o
M o
o to 0 rd
w
0
x 0
0 (d
0 A =
tn (d a)
;> Ea
T3
'4 00 4)
o t3) 0 co w 0 0
Id r;l
r
r. 0 tn w
m �a cd il
N cd �-4 cd a) M A W tv
(1) PI , 7� 'd 2 W
a) o 4 o
g (D .1 0
cd
Y to
cd
0 d)
a) cd
Q 0
0 0
0
c (d 0
0 rd
41 r L) 0 0 0 0
' to
> 0 o
A , g —
'S2 0 w p vs rig W
o 0 cn
to L)
(1) 0) Cj oa En
0)
to N d 0
o 'a) 01 C43 0)
0 0 u 4)
cd d) a) 0 b)
A $, 0
b)
0 W
o
� V2 4) 1-1 al .,4 U)
: 0 9 P;
tn . w 0 ix o
rs 94 �4
0 ca 0 P4 L)
o 0 1 0
E 14
(d 0 cd o o F-1 x 0 r. 0 x x
E- — ;J �t N E� W Luc �4 1 q (d ()
EMI
0
:6
0
2 cD
12
0
C
r
0
w
C,
w
-
0
0
CL 4)
o
U)
p I--
z
(L 0
f
va
c
0
0
m
0
ED
ca
m
6-
O W L
0
= C
-a
CL 0
- m
C:
as
D
0)
0
0
E LUI
o 0
m
o c
a
CL
U) m
4)
0)
0
-j
EMI
O
0
o
d) �4 w a)
0 cd V —
ry 0 o
u) H �4
9 0
to 0 0 0 cd 0 0 g
(d P.
0 P,
0 to
En 0 U1 0
M — 78
rd a)
P� a, t3l cd Tf
En a) Q r.
0 -(� 11
V W 0 0 aY
lul
;j cc
0 6) 14 ul 0 �4 0 0
:z �-, r� :j 0
0
0.2 2
P.
� En to o
b(1) cd
E- 0
) * 4
0 to (d cd
Cd w I
U) cd 0 a) En 0
0 �4 Cd
0 0 cd Ea 0
cd a) cd u 0 rd
ca di
o tn w P;
�4 W
(D o 0) a)
cd u E- 03 ca
0 tj 0 0 0 ul 0 0 0
ILI) 0 0 P, f'd 0
o (a
0
40 C� 9 0
(d 0
q) H o
4 w
0 0 z o
A P4 z 0 (d 0 w U) En
z
a) E- -M 0 - (d rd r'.
m b) ri (D 5
4) o A
a) u)
Za to
0 a) M
0 0 - g to
a) u) - .2 .,, '(d 0
0 to
'd 'd
0 fd 0
0 ul 2
0
'd 'D L) r6
'4- A W ;.
,4 �.4 0
b) w cd 0 0
0 74 1-, n )� u w 2
0 o .2 Z (d 0 0
0 P, 0, g '0"4;6 - P,
u, 4 w 04 0 U) 0
.4 �4
E-
a.*
ID
•
0
0
-0
CL 4)
c
z
:D
;F
(L 0
M
c
D m
0
U
a
to
W
Co 0
co
(o
CL
c
0
-6
0
0
CL
o
0
s
2 cp
E
E
0
U) 0
CL
0
E W
o a)
4)
C (n
a
M
U)
QM f-
Cn
0)
_5
a.*
Attachment 2
ORANGE County and NCDOT Quarterly Meeting 11/28/2017
Project Updates
Secondary Road Bridge Replacements
Recently Completed:
Gray Rd — Completed August 2017
St. Mary's Road — Completed September 2017
Arthur Minnis Rd — Completed November 2017
Edmund Latta Rd — Completed August 2017
Lib Rd — Completed November 2017
Atkins Rd — Completed August 2017
Old Greensboro Road (east of Crawford Dairy Road)— Completed November 2017
Future Proiects:
Bradshaw - Quarry Rd — Anticipated Start April 2018, Anticipated Completion August 2018
University Station Road (near Old NC 10) — Anticipated Start TBD 2018, Anticipated Completion
TBD 2018
Old Greensboro Road (between Hatch Road and Neville Road) — Anticipated Start January 2018,
Anticipated Completion July 2018
Buckhorn Road (between Bradshaw Quarry Road and Orange Grove Road) —Anticipated Start
2018 TBD, Anticipated Completion 2018 TBD
Private Rail Crossing Closures:
Recently Completed:
Gordon Thomas Drive (Paschal Road) — Completed June 2017
Greenbriar Drive — Completed June 2017
Under Construction:
Byrdsville Road- Anticipated Completion April 2018
Small Construction and Safety Improvements:
Recently Completed:
South Greensboro Street Drainage Improvements at NC 54 in Carrboro — Completed July 2017
EM
Upgrade Existing Pipe Old NC 86 South of Eubanks Road- Completed June 2017
Install All -Way Stop on Buckhorn Road at West Ten Road- Completed November 2017
Revise Stop Control Traffic Pattern Mt. Willing Road /Forest Avenue /Railroad Crossing -
Completed November 2017
Revise Traffic Pattern to provide dual right turn lanes on Mt. Carmel Church Road at US 15-501 -
Completed October 2017
Current Projects:
Installation of Chain Link Fence on Orange Grove Road Bridge Over 1 -40 — (Re- Advertised) Bid
Opening Dec., 7 2017. Availability January 2018, Completion April 2018
Install Traffic Signal on NC 54 at Mebane -Oaks Road- Under Construction- Anticipated
Completion February 2018
Install Traffic Signal on US 70 at Buckhorn Road- Under Construction- Anticipated Completion
January 2018
Improve Horizontal Alignment Efland Cedar Grove Road North of Highland Farm Road (includes
vertical grade change to accommodate West Fork of Eno River Reservoir expansion) -
Future Projects:
Revise Lane Markings and Overhead Signs on 1 -40 Westbound at US 15 -501- Spring 2018
Install advance warning flasher and channelization on NC 86 at Carr Store Rd. /Sawmill Rd. -
Construction Summer 2018
Significant STIP Protects:
Current Projects:
U -5549- Churton Street Access Improvements- Under Construction- Completion Dec 2017
C -5184- Town of Hillsborough Riverwalk Phase III- Bid Opening 11 -30 -2017, Anticipated Start
April 2017- November 2017
U -5854- Construct Roundabout on Mt. Carmel Church Road at Bennett Road- R/W Underway -
Anticipated Start Construction June 2018
Future Projects:
R -5821- Operational Improvements Including Bike Ped Accommodations on NC 54 From Old
Fayetteville Road to Orange Grove Road- R/W FY 2020, Construction FY 2022
1- 3306A- Interchange Improvement 1 -40 at NC 86- R/W FY 2021, Construction FY 2023
1- 5967 - Interchange Improvements 1 -85 at South Churton St. -R /W FY 2022, Construction FY 2024
U -5848- Extend Orange Grove Road from South Churton Street to US 70 A, R/W FY 2021,
Construction FY 2023
U -5845 - South Churton Street from 1 -40 to Eno River, Widen to Multi- Lanes, R/W FY 2022,
Construction FY 2024
P -5701- Hillsborough Passenger Rail Station- Construction FY 2021
B -4962- Replace Bridge #46 over the Eno River R/W FY 2018, Construction FY 2019
Notable Resurfacing Protects:
Recently Completed:
DG00319 — Widen and Resurface St. Mary's Road and Schley Road — Completed September
2017
DG00360- Resurface US 70 from NC 86 to Durham County Line- Completed August 2017
DG00331— Resurface 17 Sections of Secondary Roads and Widen and Resurface 4 sections of
Secondary Roads (incl. Hurdle Mills Road, McDade Store Road, Orange Clover- Garden Road and
Mattress Factory Road) — Completed September 2017
Under Construction:
DG00371— Resurfacing of 9 roads in Orange County (Buckhorn Road, Shambley Road, Redman
Road, Mace Road, Lancaster Road, Paylor Street, Perry Road, Redman Crossing Road and Alpha
Drive) —Anticipated Completion November 2018
Future Projects:
C204025 — Resurfacing 1- 40/1 -85 from NC 54 to Buckhorn Road — Anticipated Start TBD 2018,
Anticipated Completion TBD 2018
DG00393 — Preservation (AST Seal) of 20 roads in Orange County — Anticipated Start April 2018,
Anticipated Completion October 2018
Under Development:
North Churton Street from NC 86 to US 70A- Construction Summer 2018
South Churton Street /Old NC 86 - 2018/2019
US 70/1 -85 Connector- 2018/2019
Buckhorn Road - 2018/2019
US 70 West- 2019/2020
E.Q.
Item 8.f.
Orange Unified Transportation Board
2018 Calendar
(Regular meeting dates subject to change by Chair in consultation with Staff)
DATE TIME LOCATION
January 17, 2018
6:30 P.M.
Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus
131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
February 21, 2018
6:30 P.M.
Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus
131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
March 21, 2018
6:30 P.M.
Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus
131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
April 18, 2018
6:30 P.M.
Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus
131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
Nay 16, 2018
6:30 P.M.
Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus
131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
.tune 20, 2018
6:30 P.M.
Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus
131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
July 18, 2018
6:30 P.M.
Board vacation - no meeting
August 15, 2018
6:30 P.M.
Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus
131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
September 19, 2018
6:30 P.M.
Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus
131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
October 17, 2018
6:30 P.M.
Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus
131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
November 21, 2018
6:30 P.M.
Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus
131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
December 19, 2018 6:30 P.M. Conference Room 004, Lower Level Orange West Campus
131 W. Margaret Lane, Hillsborough
[date OUTBoard /Transit Advisory Services (TAS) meeting dates
th