HomeMy WebLinkAboutOUTBoard agenda 030117
AGENDA
Orange Unified Transportation Board
March 1, 2017
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
6:35
6:40
1.
2.
3.
4.
Call to Order and Determination of Quorum
Approval of Minutes from January 18, 2016
Consideration of Additions to the Agenda
Regular OUTBoard Agenda (Action Items)
6:45
7:15
7:45
7:50
8:00
4.a.
4.b.
5.
5.a.
6.0
7.0
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Plan Implementation Next Steps (Abigaile Pittman)
This item is continued from the OUTBoard’s February 15 agenda.
OUTBoard Action: Review and comment, and take action
Bicycle Safety Task Force (BSTF) Final Draft Report (Abigaile Pittman)
OUTBoard Action: Review and comment, and take action
Informational Items
NCDOT Division 7 transportation projects located in the DCHC MPO planning area
(Max Bushell)
OUTBoard Action on all informational items: Receive information and provide any
comments that the Board might have.
Board Comments
Adjournment – The next regularly scheduled meeting date is April 19, 2017.
1
Charge of the OUTBoard (from Section I, 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.
2
DRAFT
MINUTES 1
ORANGE COUNTY OUTBOARD 2
JANUARY 18, 2017 3
REGULAR MEETING 4
5
6
MEMBERS PRESENT: Heidi Perry (Chair), At-Large Representative; Art Menius, At-Large Representative; Jeff Charles, 7
At-Large Representative; David Laudicina, Cheeks Township Representative; Brantley Wells, Hillsborough Township 8
Representative; Erle Smith, Chapel Hill Township Representative, Alex Castro (Vice-Chair), Bingham Township 9
Representative; Gary Saunders, At-Large Representative; Donna Musson, Eno Township Representative; Ted 10
Triebel, Little River Township Representative; Alyson West, At-Large; Justin Miller, At- Large; 11
12
MEMBERS ABSENT: John Rubin, At-Large Representative; Ed Vaughn, Cedar Grove Township Representative; 13
14
STAFF PRESENT: Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/Land Use Planner; Max Bushell, Transportation Planner; Meredith 15
Kern, Administrative Assistant. 16
17
OTHERS PRESENT FOR TRANSIT ADVISORY SERVICES: Nancy Baker, Walkable Hillsborough Coalition; Amy Cole, 18
Walkable Hillsborough Coalition; Julie Bollinger, Transportation Planning Branch (NCDOT) 19
20
AGENDA ITEM 1: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 21
22
Heidi Perry called the meeting to order. 23
24
AGENDA ITEM 2: INTRODUCTION OF NEW OUTBOARD MEMBERS 25
26
Abigaile Pittman introduced new members Justin Miller, Donna Musson, and Alyson West. 27
28
AGENDA ITEM 3: APPROVAL OF MINUTES 29
NOVEMBER 16, 2016 REGULAR MEETING 30
31
Art Menius pointed out revisions for line 57 to correct drive to drivers and line 110 to correct the courthouse location. 32
33
MOTION by Alex Castro to approve the November 16, 2016 OUTBoard Minutes with the two revisions. Seconded by 34
Art Menius 35
VOTE: UNANIMOUS 36
37
AGENDA ITEM 4: CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONS TO AGENDA 38
39
No additions. 40
41
AGENDA ITEM 5: REGULAR OUTBOARD AGENDA (ACTION ITEMS) 42
43
44
AGENDA ITEM 5A. DURHAM CHAPEL HILL CARRBORO METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (DCHC MPO) 45
COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (CTP) – (MAX BUSHELL) 46
47
Max Bushell Presented 48
49
Jeff Charles asked if they were taking into account the proposed LRT. Max Bushell confirmed they were. Jeff 50
Charles had inquiries about what would happen if the LRT is not approved, such as funding and changing the 51
plans. Max Bushell explained that it would be a drastic change that would require new evaluations of the travel 52
3
DRAFT
demand model to figure out how the capacities on the roads would change. He also explained as far as funding 53
goes that the MTP would have to be amended. He added that if the LRT were shut down there would be more 54
funding for different projects that could then make the cut. Jeff Charles asked about the funds that were being tied 55
up in the LRT and what kind of delay there would be to get those funds for other projects if the LRT is denied. 56
Abigaile Pittman stated that it would be a significant chunk of time while they amend the plan and decide what other 57
projects to invest in instead. Additionally, the sales tax that was added to fund this did not specify it was for Light 58
Rail Transit, it only specified that it was for Transit. And that if the funds did not go through for LRT it would have to 59
be voted on again as to what to do with the funds. 60
61
Heidi Perry inquired about viewing the trends from when the previous MTP was adopted in 2012, which is not 62
available in the current plan. Max Bushell explained she would have to look at the previous plan for past 63
projections. Matt Day mentioned that the information for the 2012 traffic reports should be available on NCDOT’s 64
website. Alex Castro asked if changes in technology and modes of transportation were being taken into 65
consideration, such as vehicle ownership declining. Julie Bollinger stated that they haven’t looked that much into it 66
yet but are happy to do so once they start seeing those changes. And Max Bushell explained that it was factored 67
into the MTP process. He added that he doesn’t see a change that big within 5-years but those kinds of changes 68
will be clearer as they’re happening with the MTP’s 5-year cycle. 69
70
Max continued presentation. 71
72
Alex Castro raised concerns regarding the overload of traffic on Churton Road and inquired about why the 73
connector going up from 86 and 70 wasn’t going to be done to fix the issue. Max Bushell explained that the 74
Occoneechee speedway and Ayr Mount, a historic home in Hillsborough, are recognized historic sites and are 75
protected under the US Department of Transportation Act of 1966 Section 4(f) from being impacted by 76
transportation projects. Alex Castro asked if there was any alternative plan to relieve traffic. Max Bushell informed 77
the Board that there is no proposed solution for Churton Road in the current CTP. Abigaile Pittman informed the 78
Board that it’s a recognized problem and with the revision they’re doing for the Buckhorn Economic Development 79
District Access Management Plan they’re looking for improvements at the connector road. She added that they’re 80
also considering a way for a future road coming north of US 70 to connect up to Efland Cedar Grove Road and 81
continue northward. Alex Castro mentioned the proposed improvement of I-85 and NC 86 would back up Churton 82
Road even more. He also mentioned the two major residential developments proposed, which are going to double 83
the population with no road improvements envisioned and thinks it’s a glaring deficiency in the plan. Erle Smith 84
suggested looking at enhancing Lawrence Road and Old NC 10 instead of Historical Hillsborough. Max Bushell 85
said it could be a possibility. Ted Triebel agreed with Alex Castro with regards to a statement needing to be made 86
that Churton Road is a problem. 87
88
Heidi Perry raised concerns with endorsing the plans in the CTP without having the proper time allotted to review 89
them. She would like to endorse the idea of the CTP without endorsing the plans until she’s had time to look at 90
them more closely. Jeff Charles seconded Heidi’s concern of not having the proper time to review this more 91
carefully. He added that this is an ongoing issue and would like that to be noted. Max Bushell informed the Board 92
that the public comment period would close February 24th, so they would have time to look at it before then. He also 93
informed the Board that this will go to the BOCC February 7th, and the OUTBoard is welcome to go speak at that 94
meeting to share visions or comments as a Board member or a citizen. 95
96
Max Bushell directed the Board’s attention to maps on the DCHC MPO website and advised them to look at the 97
specific project they’re interested in. The website maps will provide much more detailed information about the 98
proposed projects. 99
100
The Board decided to move this item to their next meeting on February 15th, but there were concerns of meeting 101
after the BOCC’s meeting on February 7th and not having their comments heard in time. Max Bushell clarified to 102
the Board that the key point is that the MPO and NCDOT, who will be the ones evaluating comments and making 103
the changes, get their comments. 104
4
DRAFT
105
Motion to endorse the CTP in principle as a replacement for the Thoroughfare Plan with the reservation that it has 106
not addressed mitigation of the traffic capacity issues on Churton Street through downtown Hillsborough, and 107
express reservations with insufficient time given for the Board to review such a detailed plan. Specific comments 108
will be provided at the February 15th meeting for consideration by the BOCC at its February 21st meeting. 109
110
Max advised the Board that where most of the focus should be is looking at specific facilities and understanding 111
what’s proposed there. 112
113
Heidi Perry asked to move the item to the next meeting, Feb 15th. 114
115
Motion by Art Menius to endorse the CTP as a replacement for the Thoroughfare Plan, but withhold 116
recommendations on any specific details until further review. Seconded by Gary Saunders. Abigaile suggested a 117
friendly amendment, namely to add that specific comments be submitted to the MPO and NCDOT. This 118
amendment was accepted by Art Menius and Gary Saunders. 119
Vote: Unanimous 120
121
AGENDA ITEM 5B. SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (SRTS) PLAN IMPLEMENTATION DISCUSSION – (ABIGAILE PITTMAN) 122
123
124
Abigaile Pittman Presented 125
126
Heidi Perry informed the Board that she’s been contacted by two different groups who were looking for projects that 127
were ready to do. She added that there are other funding options and ways to raise the match but is unsure of how 128
they’re going to get an engineer to assess the bridge. 129
130
Alex Castro suggested the Mayor and local governments need to meet together to address this issue jointly. Amy 131
Cole informed the Board that at the last MPO Board meeting she attended had representatives from the Hillsborough 132
Board, the Go Triangle Board, and the BOCC and everyone that was there supported this issue completely. She 133
added that there was no question of them not realizing this safety issue. Amy asked the Board to put this back on the 134
TIP and reprioritize it so it can score higher. She’s also advised the Board that there are some temporary options that 135
can be done in the meantime such as, putting a fence on the overpass, reducing speed during school hours, and 136
putting a light at the intersection. Abigaile Pittman added to Amy’s suggestions by informing the Board that the high 137
school is working on an expansion and there are some initial discussions to coordinate with the school to see if 138
there’s room in the budget for the school to include sidewalks along the road frontages. She’s going to follow up with 139
that possibility. 140
141
Alex Castro suggested putting in a strobe light that can be activated by bicyclists or pedestrians to cross the street 142
like Chapel Hill did. He added that it would be minimal monetary impact and would basically close it to vehicular 143
traffic when people are crossing. Amy Cole said she would fully support that, but is unsure how the rest of the County 144
citizens would feel. 145
146
Justin Miller asked when the overpass was built. Amy Cole believes it was around 1984. She added that it wasn’t due 147
for any sort of maintenance, but even though it was built to code then it’s not up to standard code now. Justin Miller 148
informed the Board that if a complaint is brought forward and it’s not up to code now they should go ahead with the 149
plan to get it safe and eliminate the risk of falling. 150
151
Ted Triebel asked about the side railing that was suggested. Amy Cole answered that there were two different people 152
who are supposed to be looking into that but she hasn’t gotten an update yet, one being Jim Crawford who is the 153
State DOT representative, the other being Ed Lewis who is the Division Planning Engineer. 154
155
5
DRAFT
Abigaile informed the Board that the next thing they need to do is have Staff create a resolution for the Board that 156
addresses exactly what they want them to do. She added that some of those would be petitioning NCDOT since the 157
overpass is not up to code on the height and safety issues, petitioning NCDOT to reduce the speed in that location, 158
and petitioning NCDOT to put in a temporary light at that intersection. Heidi Perry had concerns because these things 159
were already being considered. Abigaile answered that formal action from the OUTBoard and then formal action from 160
the BOCC is going to add a lot more input than a phone call. Alex Castro stressed that the resolution needs to have 161
strong wording so it’s fully understood that the consequences of not getting this taken care of immediately could be 162
fatal. 163
164
Heidi Perry requested that Ed Lewis be contacted to ensure that he has a response for them at the next meeting. 165
166
The OUTBoard and Walkable Hillsborough Coalition agreed that the preparation of a resolution for the OUTBoard’s 167
consideration is acceptable. 168
169
AGENDA ITEM 6: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 170
171
172
6A. NCDOT DIVISION 7 TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS LOCATED IN THE DCHC MPO PLANNING AREA – (MAX BUSHELL) 173
174
Max Bushell presented. 175
176
Art Menius asked Max when the Churton Street access improvement was supposed to be going released. Max 177
Bushell answered that he thinks it already went out and it was scheduled to be complete by early 2018. 178
179
Jeff Charles asked Max Bushell to get an update about the bridge work near Borland. 180
181
AGENDA ITEM 7: BOARD COMMENTS 182
183
Abigaile Pittman informed the Board that they have a new Transit Direct for OPT named Theo Lettman. She also 184
informed the Board that the meeting in February will be the Transit Advisory Services updates. Since the February 185
agenda looked like it was going to be very full, the OUTBoard agreed that they could do a pre-meeting preview of the 186
Safe Routes to School resolution. 187
188
AGENDA ITEM 8: ADJOURNMENT 189
190
OUTBoard meeting was adjourned by consensus. 191
192
193
____________________________________
Heidi Perry, Chair
6
ORANGE COUNTY
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD (OUTBoard)
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 1, 2017
Action Agenda
Item No. 4.a.
SUBJECT: Safe Routes to School Plan Implementation Next Steps
DEPARTMENT: Planning
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. SRTS Plan Next Steps Resolution Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/
Land Use Planner, 245-2567
Max Bushell, Transportation
Planner, 245-2579
PURPOSE: Discussion and approval of next steps for Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Plan
implementation, and forwarding of a Resolution to the BOCC for its consideration.
BACKGROUND:
This item is deferred from the OUTBoard’s February 15, 2107 agenda.
A SRTS Plan BOCC Update was presented to the BOCC and the OUTBoard in the fall of
2016. Since late summer 2016 the Walkable Hillsborough Coalition has been in
discussions with the OUTBoard, NCDOT, the Town of Hillsborough, Orange County
Schools, and the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
regarding options for identifying specific Plan projects and taking next steps towards
implementation.
At its September, October, November, and January meetings the OUTBoard received
presentations from representatives from the Walkable Hillsborough Coalition regarding the
group’s support for moving forward with the following SRTS Plan projects associated with
Grady Brown Elementary School and Cedar Ridge High School:
Sidewalks along Orange Grove Road from Churton Street to Grady Brown Road;
Improving safety on the I-40 bridge side railings, which are approximately 30 inches
high in violation of federal code guidelines of 42 inches for bridge structures;
Crosswalks on Grady Brown Road and on Orange Grove Road;
Flashing light at Grady Brown Road and Orange Grove Road;
Pursuing a local match for Federal funding; and
Clearly identifying next steps;
The Walkable Hillsborough Coalition petitioned the OUTBoard to support the identified
projects of the SRTS Plan as a priority and to present this request to the BOCC. At its
January 18 meeting, the OUTBoard unanimously supported the projects and requested
7
Planning Staff to provide recommended next steps at its February 15 meeting, to be
reviewed and forwarded along with the project list in the form of a resolution.
Orange Grove Road Access Management Plan
Concerns regarding pedestrian safety along Orange Grove Road were first formally
addressed in the Orange Grove Road Access Management Plan (AMP), which was the
product of the Joint Hillsborough/ Orange County Transportation Group that met from 2002-
2004. In 2003 the BOCC approved the recommendations of the Transportation Group as
stated in the AMP. Multiple recommendations of the Plan were embraced and included in
other plans, including the SRTS Plan. An online link to the plan is provided below:
http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/planning_and_inspections/Orange%20Grove
%20Road%20Access%20Management%20Plan.pdf
Both the Orange Grove Road AMP and the SRTS Plan recommendations identify the need
for pedestrian improvements on Orange Grove Road and New Grady Brown School
Road. These recommendations have been discussed and identified many times since;
including a pedestrian bridge over I-40, but the project did not score well under the
quantitative process to evaluate regional transportation funding priorities.
Cedar Ridge High School Expansion Project
The NCDOT has encouraged the County to continue efforts to create a pedestrian network
beginning at the schools and extending to I-40 and farther along Orange Grove Road, as
an initial step to advancing the pedestrian bridge project. NCDOT has indicated that the
needed pedestrian walkway on the bridge will not occur until the bridge is replaced in the
future. There are currently no plans to replace the bridge. If and when it is ever replaced, in
order to have pedestrian accommodations on the bridge there must be receiving sidewalks
on either side of the bridge.
A potential opportunity to create a portion of the pedestrian network may be provided with
the upcoming planned expansion and improvements at Cedar Ridge High School. This
project may offer an opportunity to include the installation of sidewalks along the frontage of
the school campus up to I-40, on school property.
Next Steps
The OUTBoard and Planning Staff have identified a number of actions that can feasibly be
undertaken at this time. These actions are included in the attached Resolution (Attachment
1), prepared by Staff for the OUTBoard’s consideration, and ultimately, the BOCC’s. These
next step activities acknowledge the current limited project funding, the evaluation criteria
which prioritizes highway projects, and the current lack of local matching funds. These
actions will demonstrate the County’s commitment to the adopted SRTS Plan and the
projects along Orange Grove Road and Grady Brown Road; and will serve to advance the
future NCDOT bridge pedestrian project, which scored poorly in the SPOT P3.0 (2016-
2025) STIP Process and was subsequently not carried forward to SPOT P4.0.
8
LINKS TO ADDITIONAL MATERIALS:
Adopted SRTS Plans (2014)
http://www.orangecountync.gov/document_center/Transport/Adopted_Safe_Routes_
to_School__SRTS__Plan_AdoptedSRTSPlanallchapters.pdf
SRTS BOCC Update (2016)
http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/WebLink8/0/doc/42495/Page1.aspx
Orange Grove Road Access Management Plan (2003)
http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/planning_and_inspections/Orange%20
Grove%20Road%20Access%20Management%20Plan.pdf
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Other than staff time, there is no immediate financial impact
associated with this item.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The staff recommends the OUTBoard:
1. Receive the information and discuss;
2. Take action to approve the SRTS Plan Implementation Next Steps Resolution; and
3. Forward a Resolution to the BOCC for its consideration.
9
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION REQUESTING APPROVAL BY THE ORANGE UNIFIED
TRANSPORTATION BOARD OF SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION NEXT STEPS
WHEREAS, The Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Strategic Action Plan was
collaboratively developed under the NC SRTS Program to identify improvements that
can help make bicycling and walking to and from school a safe and healthy
transportation alternative;
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), the Town of Hillsborough
Board, and the Orange County School Board adopted the SRTS Plan in April 2014;
WHEREAS, Project implementation action has been delayed due to revisions to
federal and state funding sources that limited future funding resources for the SRTS
program; a lack of local matching funds, funds for engineering and sidewalk
construction, and project management funding and capability; difficulties in entering into
maintenance agreements with local jurisdictions; and the metrics used to generate
project scores now prioritizing highway projects to a greater degree than other modes
(such as bicycle and pedestrian);
WHEREAS, the following identified actions can be accomplished primarily with Staff
support and/or without minimal County funding, and would serve to help make bicycling
and walking to and from school a safe and healthy transportation alternative;
WHEREAS, North Carolina State law creates a quantitative process to evaluate funding
priorities and other funding sources are also available through the Durham-Chapel Hill-
Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Orange Unified Transportation Board
(OUTBoard) recommends the following SRTS next step actions included in this
Resolution, to be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for its consideration:
Pursue projects from the SRTS Plan related to safety improvements for Grady
Brown Elementary School and Cedar Ridge High School:
o Crosswalks; and
o Sidewalks providing connectivity from Grady Brown Elementary School
and Cedar Ridge High School to bridge over I-40 and along Orange Grove
Road to Patriots Pointe, and ultimately to Churton Street (in phases as
possible).
10
Attachment 1
Continue to collaborate with the Town of Hillsborough, the NCDOT, Orange
County Schools (OCS), the DCHC MPO, and the Walkable Hillsborough
Coalition on SRTS Plan implementation:
o To coordinate proposed sidewalk projects with the Town of Hillsborough
Connectivity Plan;
o To pursue future maintenance agreements for sidewalks with the Town of
Hillsborough;
o To pursue future sidewalk easements from the NCDOT;
o To involve the School Board and critical OCS staff in project planning; and
o Should the Commissioners so direct, Planning Staff can provide support to
Orange County Schools with implementation of non-infrastructure
projects.
Request Orange County Transportation Planning staff, staff of Orange County
Schools, and the Orange County School Board to evaluate the inclusion of
sidewalks in the Cedar Ridge High School project construction plans. The
installation of sidewalks along the frontage of the school campus up to I-40 could
be on school property and/or in a NCDOT easement.
Request NCDOT evaluate areas along Orange Grove Road and adjacent roads
in the vicinity of the schools to identify possible safety improvements, including
flashing lights, signage, striping, and the reduction of speed limits;
Request Orange County Transportation Planning staff to assess the best method
to perform feasibility work for sidewalk projects including pre-engineering and
environmental assessments, which could include in-house work or the use of
consultants;
Request Planning Staff to continue to investigate potential funding sources;
Request Planning Staff to report back to the BOCC.
Unanimously approved by the OUTBoard:
This the 7th day of March, 2017.
_________________________________________________
Heidi Perry, Chair
Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard)
11
12
ORANGE COUNTY
ORANGE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION BOARD (OUTBoard)
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 1, 2017
Action Agenda
Item No. 4.b.
SUBJECT: Bicycle Safety Task Force (BSTF) Final Draft Report
DEPARTMENT: Planning
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
1. BSTF Final Draft Report with Attachments
and Appendix
Abigaile Pittman, Transportation/
Land Use Planner, 245-2567
Max Bushell, Transportation
Planner, 245-2579
PURPOSE: Discussion and consideration of the BSTF Final Draft Report, and forwarding
of the document to the BOCC for its consideration.
BACKGROUND:
In mid-2016 the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) created the BSTF, with the goal
of providing recommendations to improve road safety for cyclists and motorists in the
unincorporated areas of Orange County. The Task Force consists of eighteen (18)
appointed members that are cyclists, community advocates, business representatives,
public safety and transportation officials, school leaders, County staff, and additional
interested and concerned residents. The charge of the Task Force was to:
1. Develop a campaign for bicycle safety education and research;
2. Develop an implementation timetable with estimated funding request information
within the first five (5) meetings, and present it to the OUTBoard for review and
recommendation, and review and approval by the BOCC; and
3. Develop an implementation report and present it to the OUTBoard for review and
recommendation, and review, approval and funding commitment by the BOCC.
The BSTF and its three (3) subcommittees met numerous times over a six-month period,
with much research and deliberation resulting in the attached Final Draft Report with
Attachments and Appendices (Attachment 1). Through the Report, the Task Force
developed a set of goals and is recommending a public education and awareness
campaign directed at all rural road users. The campaign, “Drive Safely, Ride Safely” is
designed to foster mutual respect and shared interest in road safety, and focuses on the
premise that most motorists and cyclists want to share the road safely. The Task Force
recommends a series of actions centered on a public education and awareness campaign,
improved data collection and measurements, and traffic safety improvements. The Task
13
Force also recommends the creation of an implementation task force as well as a future
task force to study infrastructure improvements in areas of the County where cycling is
especially popular.
Through the Report, the BSTF is recommending and requesting a budget of $15,000 for FY
17/18 and appropriate County staff support to launch the campaign. Cycling advocacy
groups and local civic groups would also be approached, along with other possible
partners, to provide volunteer resources and possible additional funding to assist in
implementing the campaign. Additionally, participation from the County Sheriff and other
law enforcement agencies, Orange County Schools, EMS and others is anticipated to help
encourage safe ways to share the road.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Other than staff time, there is no immediate financial impact
associated with approving this Report.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The staff recommends the OUTBoard:
1. Receive the BSTF Final Draft Report and discuss;
2. Take action to approve the BSTF Final Draft Report Plan; and
3. Forward the Report to the BOCC for its consideration.
14
Attachment 1
Bicycle Safety in Orange County, NC
Report to the
Orange Unified Transportation Board
and the
Orange County
Board of County Commissioners
by the
Bicycle Safety Task Force
February 15, 2017
Heidi Perov Perry, Chair
Todd Jones, Vice-Chair
Eli Belz, Anthony Carey, Jeff Charles, Chuck Edwards,
Buddy Hartley, Bonnie Hauser, Todd Jones, Peter Klopfer,
William Langston, Clifford Leath, Peter Leousis, Sara Pitts,
Matt Day, Kim Tesoro, Alyson West, Deputy Brian Whitehurst,
Abigaile Pittman
Orange County Staff: Max Bushell and Abigaile Pittman
Orange County Commissioner: Renee Price
15
1
CONTENTS
THE REPORT
Summary
The Process
The Campaign
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
Potential Actions
Implementation Timetable
REQUEST FOR FUNDING AND AN
IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
CONCLUDING REMARKS
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Background and Timeline
Attachment 2: June 2015 OUTBoard Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety
Report
Attachment 3: June 2016 BOCC resolution for creation of a Bicycle Safety
Task Force
Attachment 4: List of Bicycle Safety Task Force appointed members
Attachment 5: Orange County Crash Report 2007–2013.
Attachment 6: NC House Bill 959 (only sections with new legislation
concerning bikes)
Attachment 7: Possible actions and rough ideas of time and cost
estimates
APPENDIX
Descriptions of Bicycle Safety Task Force Bicycle Safety Goals, with
explanations of problems being addressed and targeted audiences.
16
2
THE REPORT
Summary
In mid-2016, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) formed a
Bicycle Safety Task Force, charged to provide recommendations to improve road safety
for cyclists and motorists in the unincorporated areas of Orange County. The task force
consisted of cyclists, community advocates, public safety and transportation officials,
school leaders, and county staff.
After six months of research and deliberation, the task force is recommending a public
education and awareness campaign targeting all rural road users. The campaign, “Drive
Safely, Ride Safely” intentionally shifts from hostile motorist/cyclist conflict toward the
premise that most motorists and cyclists want to share the road safely. It is designed to
foster mutual respect and shared interest in road safety.
During its study, the task force discovered that many motorists and cyclists do not know
the laws that pertain to cycling, including new state laws designed to allow safe passing.
The group felt that education on laws and best practices was paramount, especially
those relevant to motorists passing cyclists and to large groups of riders, two key areas
identified by the task force.
Anecdotally, the group also learned that the reports available through NC DOT and
Orange County EMS likely under-report crashes and other incidents involving cyclists.
The task force recommends a series of actions designed to improve rural road safety,
centered on a public education and awareness campaign, improved data collection and
measurements, and traffic safety improvements. The recommendations include:
Motorist and cyclist education, with local signage and messaging that focuses on
common-sense safety and mutual respect. Campaign will emphasize safe
passing, the importance of motorists and cyclists yielding to emergency vehicles,
best practices for large groups of riders, and safety equipment for bicycles.
Instituting improved data collection and measurement about road incidents
involving cyclists, as well as improved data counts on all types of road users.
Improving traffic signals to be triggered by bicycles as well as cars, and
recommendations that align with the County’s adopted Safe Routes to Schools.
The task force also recommends the creation of a future task force to study
infrastructure improvements in areas of the County where cycling is especially popular.
A budget of $15,000 and appropriate County Staff support is requested to launch the
campaign. Cycling advocacy groups and local civic groups will be approached, along
with other possible partners, to provide volunteer resources and possibly additional
funding to assist in the campaign.
The plan anticipates participation from the County Sheriff and other law enforcement
agencies, Orange County Schools, EMS and others to help encourage safe ways to
share the road.
17
3
The Process
The Bicycle Safety Task Force was asked to examine the safety of our road
users, and especially cyclists, on roads in unincorporated areas of Orange
County. (See Attachment 1 for the background of the creation of the Task Force,
Attachment 2 for the 2015 safety report, Attachment 3 for the task force, and
Attachment 4 for full membership),
The Task Force began its study by going over crash data in the Orange County
Bicycle Crash Report, 2007– 2013 (Attachment 5). For the purpose of this study,
we kept our focus on unincorporated areas. During the six-year period covered in
the crash report, there were 34 bicycle crashes in the rural part of our county that
were reported to and documented by the State Highway Patrol’s office. We saw
that preventable crashes resulting in injuries or even fatalities are occurring on
our roads.
Though 34 crashes over six years does not yield a lot of data, we were able to
see that a majority of the crashes reported occurred when a motorist was
attempting to, or in the process of overtaking a cyclist, and a majority of them
occurred on straight roads with no special features. Geographically, many of
them occurred either in the area west of Carrboro or in the area between
Hillsborough and Durham along Old Highway 10. Anecdotally from members of
the Bicycle Safety Task Force, we know that numerous bicycle-vehicle crashes
go unreported and that there are many more “near misses” and “close calls” that
occur in Orange County. Additional data from Emergency Services indicate that
many more calls reporting unsafe roadway movements were received as well.
The Task Force also went over existing as well as new North Carolina laws
(Attachment 6), pertaining to cycling, with special attention to the new law
enacted in Section 5.5(a) of GS 20-150(e), which allows motorists to cross a
double yellow line when passing a cyclist.
We covered several areas in which safety should be addressed, but one area
that emerged as especially important was to encourage more respect on the
roads. In general, motorists and cyclists are doing their best to share the road,
though cyclists expressed frustration with motorists trying to pass them in an
unsafe and dangerous manner, and motorists expressed frustration at finding
themselves behind large groups of riders without opportunities to safely pass
them. We invited a member of the Highway Safety Research Center (HSRC) to
one of our meetings, and he cited studies that have shown that the best way to
change behavior is not through laws, but through presenting expected behavior
as the norm, which led us to consider promoting a theme of “Drive Safely, Ride
Safely” throughout the County. This discussion of promoting respectful behavior
as the norm guided much of the discussion in meetings and the educational
campaign that follows.
18
4
The Campaign
Three subcommittees were formed to help keep the group on schedule. The first
subcommittee was tasked with listing the specific safety issues we hope to solve
with a county-wide campaign, what the goal should be to effect change in
behavior, what the messaging should be, and which audiences should be
targeted. A summary of the nine areas that were approved by the BSTF is
below. Please refer to the Appendix for the complete descriptions.
I. Motorist and cyclist education was identified as our top priority. Though
norms influence behavior, laws are important for safety. And, in order for
people to follow laws, they need to know them, so education is of utmost
importance. New laws passed by the state are intended to make the roads
safer for cyclists and to allow safer passing, but if laws are not known, they
won’t do any good. Education of both motorists and cyclists will require
multiple forms of communication.
II. Responding to EMS, fire trucks, and law enforcement vehicles with
lights and sirens running was identified as another area where education of
all road users is needed. Emergency vehicles need to be able to get where
they are going quickly, and when cars and cyclists do not pull over and stop,
it slows down the emergency vehicles.
III. Better data collection was determined to be important in order to evaluate
the effectiveness of a safety campaign, and was also seen as a beneficial
tool when discussing greenways systems or other infrastructure
improvements in our county. While car counts and car crashes are fairly well
recorded, crashes involving cyclists and cyclists or cyclists and motorists can
often go unreported. Additionally, the number of cyclists using the road is not
known, as data counts of cyclists are just now beginning to be collected, and
only in a few locations. Better data could also lend perspective to the number
and type of users on the road.
IV. Safety equipment for cyclists, and especially lights when riding at night—
is crucial. Bicycle lights are required by law, and are important because they
make cyclists visible to other users of the road. Non-recreational riders, who
use their bikes for transportation and who travel at night, need their bikes
equipped with lights, even when cost is a hardship. Visibility during the day
and encouragement of helmet use were included in this area of discussion.
V. Education and safety in situations with large groups of riders was
discussed at length. When there are large groups of riders out on the road,
safe passing can be difficult, though new passing laws for drivers offer some
help when passing cyclists on rural roads. Although this one issue got the
most discussion time, it was also recognized that it may be difficult to resolve
completely. A combination of suggestions was discussed. Since many of the
large group rides occur on a regular schedule and largely take place on
19
5
County-designated bike routes, there may be ways to post routes so
motorists can take alternate routes. There are currently some best practices
for clubs and groups to consider when there are many cyclists riding together
or in pace lines on the roads. There are also safety reasons for cyclists to
“take the lane” which drivers may not understand. Sharing this information
and getting all to respect each other is key here. (Refer to the Appendix for
the detailed list.)
Vi. Orange County signage and messaging that focuses on cyclist and
motorist safety and respect can help educate the community. Again, using
the idea that promoting as the norm the behavior we want to see, the County
should be promoting positive messages and interactions. The Task Force
suggests that there be a motto developed that could be used for this
purpose. The BSTF suggests, “Ride Friendly, Drive Friendly”—with a graphic
showing both cyclist and motorist—be adopted as the slogan.
VII. Improvements to traffic signals to allow bicycles to trigger the traffic
signal will keep cyclists from getting stuck at intersections with loops that do
not pick up bicycles. As signals are installed, or intersections are upgraded,
bike-sensitive sensors should be specified.
VIII. Non-infrastructure recommendations of the adopted Safe Routes to
School (SRTS) plan within the County’s jurisdiction should be supported
as they come up for discussion. They are closely related to bicycle safety,
since making bicycling to school a safer and more appealing transportation
option encourages a healthy and active lifestyle from an early age.
IX. Creation of a Future Task Force to Study Infrastructure will provide the
County ways to explore the creation of new infrastructure (greenways, bike
lanes, etc.) and possible funding sources for it, since infrastructure was
beyond the scope of this Task Force.
20
6
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
Subcommittee Two of the Task Force looked at messaging campaigns and ideas
that other communities have used, and discussed their successes and
applicability for use in Orange County. Subcommittee Three took the suggestions
from that group, and compiled an action plan of suggested next steps, noting
ease of implementation along with relative expenses.
The next three pages provide a list of potential actions and a timeline for
implementation. Attachment 7 offers rough estimates of staff time and expenses
associated with the actions. We anticipate that local advocacy groups, nonprofits,
and others will partner with the County to provide volunteer services and perhaps
additional funding. These partners could reduce the amount of actual staff time.
With these implementations, we are hoping to achieve
Reduction in crashes
Better compliance with the laws
Increase in safety
Respect for and from all road users
Orange County seen as bicycle friendly
21
7
Potential Actions
STAFF TIME ONLY
Action Responsible Party
School Outreach Apps/Programs County Staff/ School
Officials
Safety Message to listservs County Staff
Create Static Website with Safety Information -
Chapel Hill/Carrboro will provide link and safety
message on their Websites
County Staff / Town of
Chapel Hill Staff / Town of
Carrboro Staff
Social Media – e.g., Orange County Facebook
Events Page
County Staff
Tabling at Community Events County Staff/ Volunteers/
Advisory Group Members/
Cycle Clubs
Coordination with Transportation Demand
Management Professionals at the local, county,
and university levels
County Staff
News/Media Integration (Earned Media) County Staff
Best Safety Video Contest County Staff
Crash Reporting Enhancements – Suggestions County Staff / NCDOT
Evaluation County Staff
Convene Implementation Committee County Staff
LIKELY INEXPENSIVE
Action Responsible Party
Bumper Stickers/Magnets County Staff
Posters County Staff
Partner with CommunityWatch to add Signage* in
Rural Neighborhoods
County Staff
Yard Signs ($15 each) County Staff/ Volunteers
Bike Rodeo for Kids County Staff/ Volunteers/
School District
Public Safety Announcements (PSAs) on Respect
between Modes
County Staff/ Volunteers
* Top Tagline Options: Ride Friendly, Drive Friendly (Winner), Expect Bikes! Pass Safely, Roll with
Respect, Courtesy is crucial! Bike and Drive Safely
22
8
MODERATELY EXPENSIVE
Action Responsible Party
Signage at Multiple Entry Points in County County Staff / NCDOT
Classes for Law Enforcement and Emergency
Response Personnel
County Staff / NCDOT /
DMV
Real-Time EMT Incident Reporting County Staff/EMT
Dispatch Staff
Data Collection (e.g., Bike Counts) County Staff/ MPO/
NCDOT
Launch Campaign Kickoff – Signs, Contests, Ads County Staff
VERY EXPENSIVE
Action Responsible Party
Radio/TV Spots County Staff
23
9
Implementation Timeline
SHORT-TERM (WITHIN 1 YEAR) NOTES
Signage Design and Placement at Multiple
Entry Points in County
Promote slogan, draw attention to campaign;
approx. $450 per sign, 5–25 signs
Bumper Stickers/Magnets $200 for 500 bumper stickers
Posters and flyers $200 for 200 11 x 17 posters; $700 for 7000
flyers
Website Development staff
Partner with CommunityWatch to add Signage
in Rural Neighborhoods
Yard Signs ($15 per sign)
Show support for all road users in rural areas;
$15/sign for 50-100 signs
May be placed on private or county property
without the restrictions of NCDOT
Social Media - Kickoff
Launch Campaign Kickoff – Signs, Contests,
Ads
$2000 for materials and ads; $600 for
prizes
Convene Implementation Committee
ONGOING POST-LAUNCH ACTIVITIES NOTES
School Outreach Apps/Programs Utilize Peachjar or school newsletters, PTAs,
etc.
Safety Message to listservs Utilize local governments and advocacy
groups, riding clubs, rural listservs; have links
from other websites to OC site OC Bicycle Website Safety Message
Social Media (Facebook Event page) Use to announce events
Tabling at Community Events
Coordination with Transportation Demand
Management Professionals at the Local,
County, and University levels
News/Media Engagement Invite media to any events held
Best Safety Video Contest Invite public to create; offer prizes
Real-Time EMT Incident Reporting $5000 in system development
Bike Counts, Data Collection $5000—15,000, depending on method
Crash Reporting Enhancements
LATER-TERM NOTES
Utility Bill Inserts
Bike Rodeo for Kids
Radio/TV Spots
PSAs on Respect among road users
Evaluation
24
10
REQUEST FOR FUNDING AND AN IMPLEMENTATION
COMMITTEE
The Bicycle Safety Task Force requests that the Orange County Board of County
Commissioners appoint an implementation committee and set a line item in the
2017/2018 budget that will allow for the completion of the short term items and
the beginning of the ongoing post-launch activities in the chart above.
With the cost estimates presented in the above table in mind, we would suggest
a line item of $15,000 for the year 2017/2018. We would also request that the
BOCC have the implementation committee report back to the BOCC in January
or February 2018 to give an update on funding and progress, and to bring a line
item budget request for 2018/2019. While much time is listed as County Staff
time, we feel there may be opportunities to work with other groups in the area to
facilitate some of the programs.
In addition to funding, we request that the BOCC, should the report from the
BSTF be accepted and approved, form the implementation committee as soon as
possible in order to have some of the staff only items addressed (such as
slogan/signage/launch planning) and ready to roll out as soon as the new fiscal
year begins. A design for the signs and other advertising materials will require
lead time, and we would hope that the launch of the campaign could occur before
the end of summer.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The Bicycle Safety Task Force provided a diverse group of citizens a chance to
discuss from many different viewpoints laws and safety measures pertaining to
cyclists and motorists sharing the road. All agreed from the onset that it was a
small group of cyclists and motorists that caused most of the problems. The
challenge, therefore, remains how to get necessary information to those who
need it, and how to bring changes in attitudes so that all can use our beautiful
county roads in harmony.
The Task Force has considered many different outlets for getting information out.
We have included churches, restaurants, schools, public centers and buildings,
advocacy groups and rural groups. We have suggested signage that can be
posted on individual mail posts (similar to the “Community Watch” signage). We
have ideas for events as well as for ways to utilize social media.
The BOCC has shown its interest in safer roads by the creation of this Task
Force. We are asking the Board now to continue that commitment with funding
and staff time. We believe that if we can educate people on the laws, get all to
follow them, AND promote positive behaviors, we can make Orange County one
of the best—and safest–places in our state for cycling, and that our campaign
can work as a model for other counties.
25
Bicycle Safety Task Force Report, Attachment 1
Background / Timeline
November 6, 2014:
The Board of County Commissioners presented a petition to the Orange County
Planning staff asking them to review policies related to bicycle and pedestrian
safety, and to begin working with cycling groups, law enforcement and
transportation officials to develop a culture of sharing the road in Orange County.
The petition outlined the following objectives:
• Review County authority and State law
• Provide copy of County-endorsed bicycle routes (map)
• Get updated on topic and recent activities
• Define current problem statement
• Create broad categories for addressing problems (education, law
enforcement, NCDOT, etc.)
• Suggest/recommend policies, procedures, etc., for addressing problems
• Identify agencies, County departments, etc. for addressing problems
February 3, 2015:
Planning Staff developed a plan to address the petition, which was provided to
the BOCC as an Information Item at its meeting. The Staff Plan addressed
representation from the BOCC, citizen participation, public outreach, and task
objectives, and proposed a report back to the BOCC in June with
recommendations and a plan.
The Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) was charged with
preparing a report with an implementation plan to address the petition’s
objectives.
June 2015:
The report, titled the Draft Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Report, was presented
to the Board of County Commissioners (Attachment 1). The BOCC received the
report and directed staff to: (1) Review the list of recommended actions (Charge
5) in the Report with regard to financial costs, staffing capabilities, and required
coordination with other agencies/entities; and (2) Return to the BOCC in fall 2015
with information relevant to implementing the lists of actions.
November 6, 2015:
The Planning Staff presented a resolution to the BOCC, and several citizens
spoke. The BOCC did not accept the resolution, but asked staff to come back
with certain aspects clarified at a meeting in early 2016.
26
March 2016:
The BOCC adopted a resolution (slightly revised in June 2016) supporting the
formation of a Bicycle Safety Task Force (Attachment 2).
June 2016:
The Orange County Board of County Commissioners appointed a Bicycle Safety
Task Force of 18 members (Attachment 3), and charged them with the following:
• Develop a campaign for bicycle safety education and research
• Develop an implementation timetable with estimated funding request and
to present it to the OUTBoard for review and recommendation, and review
and approval by the BOCC
• Develop an implementation report and to present it to the OUTBoard for
review and recommendation, and review and approval by the BOCC
July 11, August 9, October 31, December 5, 2016, January 30, 2017:
The full membership of the Bicycle Safety Task Force (BSTF) met.
February 13, 2017
The final report was submitted to the full BSTF committee for approval and was
approved with a unanimous vote of those at the meeting:
1. Heidi Perry 6. Todd Jones
2. Chuck Edwards 7. Eli Belz
3. Buddy Hartley 8. Cliff Leath
4. Brian Whitehurst 9. Bill Langston
5. Peter Klopfer 10. Abigaile Pittman
In addition to those present at the meeting, written approval was received from
Peter Leousis, Alyson West, Jeff Charles, and Matt Day, members who were
unable to attend the meeting. Written approval was received from Bonnie
Hauser, who arrived at the meeting after the vote was taken, and reiterated her
approval of the report verbally when she arrived. The following members did not
attend the final meeting, nor did they express any opinion about the report: Sara
Pitts, Anthony Carey, and Kim Tesoro. Commissioner Liaison Renee Price
attended the meeting and supported the report. Orange County planning staff
present: Matt Bushell, Transportation Planner, and Abigaile Pittman,
Transportation/Land Use Planner.
February 13, 2017:
The approved report was submitted to the OUTBoard for its review and
recommendation to the BOCC.
27
Orange United Transportation Board Report to the
Orange County Board of County Commissioners
on Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety in Orange County
Charge 1. Review County Authority and State Law.
In view of NC House Bill 232 ("An act to direct the Department of Transportation to study
the bicycle safety laws in this state and make recommendations as to how the laws may
be revised to better ensure the safety of bicyclists and motorists on the roadways."),
which was passed by the House and is currently going through the state Senate, the
OUTBoard recommends waiting to hear the outcome of that bill before putting a lot of
time into reviewing the State laws. (NOTE: Because much of our report pertains to rural
parts of the county, the focus is mainly on cycling, though through education efforts, the
importance of walking on the correct side of the road and visibility at night can be done
through posters and more.)
However, regardless of the outcome of HB 232, people who drive or cycle in Orange
County could be better educated on the current laws, and methods of doing that should
be put into place now. (See Charge 5, no 1)
Charge 2. Provide copy of County-endorsed bicycle routes (map).
Many if not most rural recreational cyclists find riding routes via online services such as
Map My Ride, 1 or through cue sheets provided by clubs such as the Carolina Tarwheels.
Even NC DOT is currently in the process of making the statewide bicycling maps
available electronically at WalkBikeNC.2 The website is currently under development, but
will be an interactive site where cyclists will be able to find, create, or comment on routes
around our state.
1. It would be useful to have an online map available for Orange County that
pointed out potentially hazardous spots or areas of high traffic to cyclists. This
information could be included in the print version of the Orange County cycling
map when it is updated. The state laws for cyclists should be included both on an
online map website and on the updated print map.
2. We recommend the county also look into providing an app version of the map
(in addition to an online version of the map) for the use of cyclists who do not
have easy access to a printed map and who are accessing routes through small
mobile devices.
Charge 3. Give update on topic and recent activities.
The most recent and possibly most affecting recent activity is state House Bill 232 which
was passed by the House in early April and described above. The Senate has referred
the bill to the committee on rules and regulations. The OUTBoard would recommend
waiting until the outcome of this bill is known before creating too many printed materials
with the state laws on them. If the bill is passed by the Senate as currently proposed, the
committee that will be formed will be asked to provide recommended legislation to the
Senate and House by the end of 2015.
28
7
In a recent related activity, the OUTBoard waspresented with a list ofresurfacing
projects at its Aprilmeeting, and it endorsed the DCHC MPO's requests for wide
shoulders as a part of the resurfacing on the following roads: Old NC 86 from Farm
House Driveto New Hope Church Road, Arthur Minnis Road from Old NC 86 to Rocky
Ridge Road, New Hope Church Road from Old NC 86 to NC 86. In addition, the
OUTBoard endorsed the Staff's request for wideshoulders on Walker Road from NC 57
to New SharonChurch Road, and on Lake Orange Road from NC86 to the End of
Maintenance on that road.
Charge 4. Current problem statement.
The problem is howto ensure the safety of all users of roads in our county. The majority
of the cyclists and motorists are respectfulof each other on ourcounty roads. There are
some in each of these categories, however, who allow feelings of entitlement to the road
to overtake their good sense, and it isin those situations that conflicts between the two
groups can occur.
The OUTBoardwould like to seethe county embrace, promote, and fundprogramsthat
could help mitigatethese conflicts. First and foremost in these efforts would be a
program to educate the public on the laws, and to humanize the potential conflict
situations thatoccur in a way thatfostersrespect, understanding, and coexistence on the
road.
Charge 5. Addressing the issues.
To improve the safety of bicycling and walking in Orange County, the OUTBoard
recommends the following actions be adopted and implemented by the Board of County
Commissioners:
1. Have current state laws posted at high-traffic rural spots. Twothat were
mentioned were Maple View and Honeysuckle Tea House. In addition, locations
such as car dealerships, gas stations, schools, churches, and car repair shops
should be approached. With permission fromthe establishment's owners, posters
could be posted in several locations. These posters would include statelaws for
both cyclists and motorists. Include on the posters the importance of respect for
all on the road.
2. Become a partner withNCDOT in their"Watch for MeNC" bicycle and
pedestrian safety campaign. They provide a large amount of information
includingposters, bumper stickers, handouts with laws, reflective gear, and even
bike lights. Combine this with a enforcement, education, and awareness program
for cyclists and motorists.3
3. Provide law enforcement officers with education tools explaining road cycling
and the state's laws— such a program has been developed by the statewide
advocacy group BikeWalk NC. It could be shown ina classroom setting with or
without assistance from local League of American Cyclists CertifiedCycling
4instructors.
29
8
4. Arrange for a bikeride or other type of"field trip" with Orange County
Commissioners, law enforcement, Orange Countystaff, andlocal cycling
advocates to allow all to seeboth the possibilities and the obstaclesthat exist for
cycling on rural county roads.
5. Have a county-wide contest to produce PSA posters or videos as a way to
bring in citizen participation. Prepare a series of PSAs to air on local radio and
television stations and in the local newspapers, and as postersaroundOrange
County, as have been promoted in other locations: See sample posters in
Appendix A. Contact the Journalism school at UNC to see if theywould be
interested in helpingcreatethese spots and helping us determine the correct
venues for placing them.
6. Meet with the regional director of Active Routes to School and with school PE
instructors to be sure they are awareof theBikeand Pedestrian Safety program
available on NCDOT's website. s
7. Support BikeWalk NC in its efforts to produce a statewide online education
class6 that could be utilized in Driver's Ed classes, and in classes for driving
offenders that are seeking to reduce points on their insurance. A component for
the younger age groups who are mainly pedestrians is also planned.
8. Utilize national resources such as theNational Highway Traffic Safety
Administration,' People for Bikes,$ andthe Alliancefor Biking and Walking9 for
materials that can be used locally.
9. Create and promote an interactive wiki map thatcyclists and motorists can use
to identify spots that need attention to improve safety. (Themap could be
referenced on all of the posters and other PSAs.)
10. Examinebicycling in Orange County as an economicdevelopment tool by
sending a local staff person (or someone fromOrange County Visitors Bureau) to
the Bicycle Tourismconference in San Diego, CA, being held Nov. 4-7 in 2015.10
11. Pursue a tourism (or other) grant to fund bicycling safety and share the road
public service announcements on popular local AM/FM radio stations.
12. Include a line item in the budget for countyfunding to useas grant-matching
funding.
13. Improvebicycle infrastructure in the community. Instruct staff to review with the
OUTBoard roads that are scheduled for resurfacing and recommend 4-foot
shoulders on roads identified as rural bikeways.
14. Explorelowering speed limits on some rural county roads to 40 mph. Beginwith
a pilot on Dairyland Road. Thisreduction in speed was recently approved by
NCDOT for a small section of Old 86 (from Calvander to the Carrboro Town
Limit).
30
9
15. Discuss with the NC DOT (District Seven Engineer) the implementation of
roadways safety shoulders (costing $500,000 or less) at blind hills and curves on
highly used bike routes. One of the following locations could be used as a pilot
for this safetymeasure:
Sugar Ridge area of Orange Grove Road
S" curve on Dairyland Road between Bethel Hickory Grove and Union
GroveChurch Roads
Dairyland Road segment between Green Rise Roadand new gas line
Old GreensboroHighway segment between Niche Gardens and Collins
Creek Roads
Old Greensboro Highway segment between Phil's Creek and Jones
Ferry Roads
16. Enhance the use ofour bikeways by:
a. Supplementing the existingOrange County Bicycle Mapwith online-
accessible "Cue Sheets" for specific preferred bicycling road. Assistance
in the development of these sheets should be sought from thelocal
bicycle organizations like the Carolina Tarwheels
b. Adding MUTCD-approvedsignage at "choke points" identified by area
cyclists alerting drivers to thelikelihood of cyclists, such as "watch for
cyclist" or"bikesmay use full lane"
c. Including multi-use paths in the vicinity of and within County Parks and
alongCane Creek reservoirperimeter.
17. Hold a Community Event. Toprovide a safe cycling experience for novice to
expert riders, a different selected segment of a ruralroad would be closed to all
but local motorist traffic and converted to a dedicatedbikeway on a weekend day
once a month from April to Octoberfor a period of about two to four hours. To
hold this event:
a. a one-weekend day pilot would be organized toprove and refine the
concept.
b. Coordination betweenexisting local bicycle clubs, rural residents, the
State Department of Transportation, Sheriff's Department and Orange
County government woulddevelop the specificparameters of the
proposed bikeway. Cue Cards for the ride would be developed and made
available on-lineand as handouts. The eventwould need to be widely
publicized, and local churches along the dedicated routecould chose to
stage events to introduce riders to their fund raising events offering items
such as baked goods, refreshments etc. Significant historic sites could be
signed and other points of interest highlighted. Experienced riders wishing
to stage a race or time trial event would go first, and thereafter the
segment would be open to all cyclists. Volunteers could be positioned
along the routeto coordinate assistance as needed.
18. Add links on the county's website to resources for cyclists from BikeWalkNC.org
and from NCDOT's bike program. Include links to laws and to safety videos.
112
31
10
Charge 6. Suggest/recommend policies, procedures for advancing bike and
pedestrian safety in the county.
1. Create a Task Force to put together an action plan for implementing the list of
actions suggested in Charge 5, and have the action plan reviewed by the
OUTBoard and presented to theBOCC. Have one member of the BOCC serve
as a member of the Task Force.
2. Charge the Task Force withproviding a list of roadways or areas in Orange
Countythat need improvements for the OUTBoard to review, and send to the
BOCCor to staff for approval.
3. Have staff create a list ofgoals for improving the roadways identified by the
Task Force, includingdesired timelines and approximate costs.
4. Instruct staff to review with the OUTBoard roads that are scheduled for
resurfacing and recommend wideshoulders or otherappropriateimprovements
on roads identified as rural bikeways.
5. Ask NCDOT to adhere to their Complete Streets manual and to their written
policies concerning rumble strips wheninstalling them on rural roads (see
Appendix B)
6. Receive semi-annual updates and annual written reports from staff regarding
progress of the above noted actionitems and goals for thepast and the
upcoming year.
Charge 7. Identify agencies, departments, groups that might work to move
this forward.
All of the following, in addition to every Orange County resident, are stakeholders who
should work together tomake our roads safer.
1. Law enforcement agencies (Sheriff's Department, Highway Patrol)
2. School representatives
3. Orange County Visitor's Bureau
4. NCDOT staff
5. County and regionalplanning staff
6. Elected representatives
7. Countybusinesses
g. Bicycle advocacy groups
g. Those who work with driver's education classes and traffic offenders
32
Map My Ride: httP://www.mapmvride.com
2
WalkBikeNC statewide map program:
https://apps.ncdot.qov/newsreleases/imaqe.ashx?id=2992&orig=1
3 Watch For Me NC program: https://apps.ncdot.gov/newsreleases/details.aspx?r=l 1035
4 The powerpoint for the presentation can be seenhere:
ttp://www.bikewalknc.orq/learn/education®resources®for®police/.
5 The program guide for Let's Go NC is here:
http://www.ncdot.gov/bikeped/safetveducation/letsgonc/
6 A similar model for a statewide online education class created for Illinois can be seen
here: http://www.bikesafet-Vquiz.com/
7 National Highway Traffic Study: http://www.nhtsa.qov/Bicvcles
8 People for Bikes: http://www.peopleforbikeg.org/
9 Alliance for Biking and Walking: httP://www.bikewalkallianpp.org/
10 NationalBicycle Tourism Conference: http://www.bicvcletournetwork.orq/
11 Bike Laws: http://www.bikewalknc.or-q/important-nc-traffic-laws-applicable-to-bicvclists/,and
http://www.ncdot.qov/BIKEPED/
Sample safety videos (from other states):
https://www,youtube.com/watch?v=A3QN5U567.jE
https://www.-voutube.com/watch?v=iXC2UFRJ5Y4
33
Appendix• Possible ideas for • ' posters
STUDENT.POLAR EXPLORER. PERSONAL TRAINER.
SISTER. DAD. DAUGHTER.
RIDES A BIKE. RIDES IT.M,a RIDES A BIKE.
I(Inlye pF]
r
rMO
N'People bikes
qe a
a"•"'- r- i Rrytlan Pblll ps—Perwnal Trzlner ei.,ii,i r. n.van
ePle bikes P.opl.sorbik..
FIREFIGHTER.TOP SURGEON. FAMILY.
DAD. GRANQFATHER. LAVES DOWN THESTREET,
RI RI E, RIDES BllA
0 OWN, CIVI HIM SOME I
OPIRVING II
BIKE
CHEF DAUGHTER. ATTQRNEY.
DAUGHTER.BUSINESS OWNER. GRANQFATHER.
RIDES A BIKE.RI E.
I I" FOR
II
BIK
Sample video PSAs can be found here:
Rlxr.cu oRG
p•
34
13
Appendix B:NCDOT Documents pertaining to rumble strips and bicycle
traffic
R-44
The beginning of a rumble strip/stripepatternshould be delineated in accordance with
MUTCD criteria(Section 9C 06)on any facility that bicycles are legally allowed to
operate.
The NCDOT Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation will be provided an
opportunity tocomment on any project implementingrumble strips/stripes on facilities
subject to this practice.
Turn bay rumbles may continue to the beginning of the full width lane,if thepaved
shoulder width remains the same as the through-lane shoulder width.
NCDOT recognizes and is sensitive to the fact that noise may be an issue.However,if
there is a documented safety problem where no other reasonable cost effective solution is
available then rumble strips should be installed.This approach has been supported
through other Departmental actions.
CONSIDERATIONS FOR BICYCLE TRAFFIC
The following should be considered for all facilities where bicycles are legally allowed to
operate:
It is desirable to provide a nominal width of four(4)feet of useable shoulder between the
outside edge of the shoulder rumble strip/stripeto theedge of pavement. However,even
though a four footnominal width is desired,it will notpreclude the installation of a
proven safety countermeasurewhere there is the presence of treatable lane departure
events. Also,the condition of the shoulder itself should be considered indetermining
whetheror not to provide the four foot nominal riding width for bicycle traffic.
The width of shoulder rumble strips/stripes may vary between 8 and 16 inches.The
engineer should determine design and placement.
Gaps in milled patterns,varying between 6 and 12 feet,may be provided to allow
bicyclists to move between the through lane and the right shoulder to avoid vehicles,
debris,etc.,but the pattern should be a minimum of a 5:1 rumble-to-gap ratio.The
Engineer should determine design and placement.
No gaps should be provided on the left(median)side of divided highways.Gaps should
not be provided on interstateor freeway facilities.
Consideration should be given to the alignment of the roadway in the direction of travel
from the perspective of bicyclists.
Consideration should be given to the grade and speed at which bicyclists may be
traveling.
Effective 3-5-12 Page 2 of 2
35
14
become sunken below the pavementsurface,utility covers should be at least four feet beyondthe rumble strips totheedge of the paved
installed mush with the adjacent street surface and/or adjusted when shoulder. Where guardrail,curb or other continuous obstructions
streets are reconstructed or resurfaced. exist.additional wldih(2 feet extra width)may be needed to provide
adequate clearance for bicyclists.
Shoulder Rumble Strips
Bicycle gaps(recurring short gaps)should be designed in the
A shoulder rumble strip is a safety feature for motorists installed on a continuous rumble strip pattern to allow for ease ofmovement
paved shoulder near the outside edge of the travel lane. It is made of bicyclists from one side of the rumble to the other. A typical
of a series of millod or raised elements intended to alert inattentivro pattern is gaps of 10 to 12 feetbetweengroups of the milled-in
drivers{through vibration and sound)that their vehicles have left elementsat 60 feet Intervals-
the travel lane. Rumble stripsare placed as a countermeasure for
drover error,rather than street deficlencres,and are typically used Decreased width of rumble strip and/or decreased offset width to
on high speed facilities in rural areas. They are less applicable on the edge lino(travel lane)may provide additional space usable to
urban and suburban street types. Where trey are used.rumble strips blcycllsts-
on shoulders should be designed to lessen impacts on other users
speclfleally bicyclists},Shoulder rumble strips with a narrow offset
Rumble craps have typically been used Iu rural areas where run-
of 9 inches or less from the edge of the pavement marking[travel
off-load crash
rban
pins
exist,and their use on urban freeways
laney have been shown to be the most effective.because the(Inver is
and possibly urban parkways should be determined on the meal of
alerted soonor and it provides a slightly larger recovery area after bring
he street Lipson
other)
and context- Rumple strips are generally
not necessary on other complete street types. Irrslallatlon will healerted-
considered on rural roads where posted speed limits and/or statutory
Characteristics of and concerns aboutrumble strips that IImIt their speeds are at 55 miles per hour and above. Installation will be
usefulnessor appllcatlon Include low traffic speeds.noise for adjacent considered along specific rural roads where signlhcanf numbers of run-
residences.limited pavement width,presence of curb aria gutter, oft-road-crashes that Include any form of motoristInattentlon has been
signlficard turning movements,and other conflicts for motorists,Identified-
pedestrians and hrcyc lists-
Bicycllsts are affected by rumble stri ps. As legal street and roadusers,
bicyclists may be In the travel lane,but where paved shoulders are
available andclear,bicyclists will often use them to avoidConflicts with
faster moving vehicles In the travel lane. As described In Chapters 3
and 4,paved shoulders.if wide enough.can bean appropriate Iacility
type for bicyclists on some higher speed roadways.such as parkways
or rural roads. There are a number of measures that should be
consideredto accommodate bicyclists when Installing rumble stri ps:
Wide outside paved shoulders improve safety for all highway and
road users.Where existing cross-sectionexists or Is available.allow
Chapter 9 18o Narih Carolina Compleir Strsets Planningand Design Gwdclinei
36
37
38
Bicycle Safety Task Force Report, Attachment 4
Membership Category Applicants
Law enforcement agencies (Sheriff’s Department, Highw ay Patrol) Deputy Brian Whitehurst
School representative Sara Pitts, Director for Environmental Health and Safety
Orange County Visitor’s Bureau Anthony Carey
NCDOT staff Chuck Edwards, NCDOT
County and regional planning staff Matt Day, TARPO
Abigaile Pittman, Orange County Planning Department
County business Eli Belz
Hillsborough/Orange County Chamber of Commerce Kim Tesoro
Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce Anthony Carey
Bicycle advocacy groups Alyson West
Todd Jones
William Langston
Those who work with driver’s education classes and traffic
offenders
Buddy Hartley, Driver’s education teacher/coordinator
Interested and concerned Orange County residents Peter Leousis
Clifford Leath
Peter Klopfer
Bonnie Hauser
OUTBoard members Heidi Perry
Jeff Charles
07/15/2016
Bicycle e y sk rce Applicants
39
Orange County
Bicycle Crash
Report
2007—2013 Bicycle Crash Analysis for
Orange County, NC
*
* Picture Credit: Sustainable Cities Collective, 2015: http://www.sustainablecitiescollective.com/global-site-plans-
grid/1118566/orange-county-poised-become-premier-cycling-destination-north-carolin
July 2016
40
Orange County Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis | 1
Introduction
In order to support and inform the efforts of the Bicycle Safety Task Force, Orange County
Transportation Planning staff has prepared this report on bicycle-motor vehicle crashes in the rural parts
of Orange County. This report analyzes a total of 34 bicycle-motor vehicle crashes that occurred in
Orange County between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2013 and includes information about age,
types of injuries, demographics, crash types, and road and light conditions as well as information about
driver demographics, driver speeds, driver vehicle types, and whether the crash was a hit and run crash.
The Town of Hillsborough was not included in this analysis as no bicycle crashes occurred within the
town limits during this time period. The final section of this document presents a crash cluster map,
indicating where bicycle crashes are occurring more frequently in Orange County. The overall intent of
this document is to provide meaningful information about bicycle safety and those people involved in
bicycle-motor vehicle crashes, allowing the Bicycle Safety Task Force to base any future
recommendations on
verified data and to
help target specific
audiences with
bicycle safety
educational
messaging.
Data Sources
The North Carolina
Department of
Transportation
(NCDOT) provides
specific locational data for pedestrian and bicycle crashes as well as associated information about each
crash in a format compatible with the most common mapping software, ArcGIS. The crash data is
provided for the entire state of North Carolina. Orange County Transportation Planning staff obtained
the data from NCDOT using their online portal (Figure 1 -
http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=b4fcdc266d054a1ca075b60715f88aef); clipped the crash
data to the Orange County boundary, also removing crash data from Chapel Hill/Carrboro; and
performed a spatial analysis on the remaining bicycle crashes. The results of this analysis are presented
in the following sections.
This crash data is periodically updated by NCDOT. This analysis will be updated upon receipt of the new
data, with 2014 data available this winter.
Crash Analysis
The report is divided into two sections. In the first section, Orange County Transportation Planning staff
will present information about bicyclist age, injury severity, race and sex of motor vehicle crash-involved
bicyclists, crash types, road conditions, and light conditions. In the second section, information regarding
the bicycle crash-involved drivers will be presented, including driver race and sex, driver age, driver
Figure 1: Web
Interface for
Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Crashes
41
Orange County Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis | 2
speeds, driver vehicle types, and whether the crash was a hit and run crash. This information will
hopefully yield some information about which types of drivers are most involved in crashes and allow
for targeted outreach efforts to these specific groups.
Bicycle Crash Information
Overall, 34 bicycle crashes occurred in Orange County (outside of Chapel Hill/Carrboro) between January
1, 2007 and December 31, 2013. All of these crashes were defined as occurring in rural areas, did not
occur in any municipality or other jurisdiction and, in each case, the bicyclists involved in these crashes
were in the travel lane riding with traffic. In all but one case, the weather was clear; the other instance
occurred on a cloudy day, just after a storm event. It is also important to note that in three cases,
crashes involved bicyclists under the influence of alcohol. All three of these cases occurred on major
roadways (NC 54, US 70,
and US 15-501) and two
resulted in a bicyclist
fatality. The two
bicyclists killed on major
roads were both African-
American men. The
other fatality occurred
around 8:00 AM in the
morning to a white
male.
Bicyclist Age
Of the 34 crashes
occurring in Orange
County between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2013, 13 or 38% of crashes involved bicyclists
between the age of 50 and 59, while bicyclists between the age of 20 and 24 and bicyclists between the
age of 60 and 69 accounted for the second-highest affected age groups. It is unclear if older adults
represent a higher percentage of bicycle crashes or if crashes are equally distributed among the age
groups of riders in rural
Orange County.
Injury Severity
Of the 34 bicycle crashes,
three (3) crashes resulted in
a fatality, seven (7) in a
disabling injury, 15 in an
evident injury, seven (7) in a
possible injury, and two (2)
in no injury. Overall, more
than one half of crashes
(64.7 percent) resulted in a
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0% 1 (3%) 0% 1 (3%)
5 (15%)
1 (3%)
4 (12%)
4 (12%)
13 (38%)
5 (15%)
0%
Age Groups
0-5
6-10
11-15
16-19
20-24
25-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
K: Killed A:
Disabling
Injury
B: Evident
Injury
C: Possible
Injury
O: No
Injury
3 (8.8%)
7 (20.6%)
15 (44.1%)
7 (20.6%)
2 (5.9%)
Injury Severity
42
Orange County Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis | 3
serious injury (disabling and evident injuries). Considering that 20 crashes occurred in areas with a speed
limit of 40 – 45 miles per hour and 11 crashes occurred in areas with a speed limit of 50 – 55 miles per
hour, these severities are not surprising. Only three (3) crashes occurred in an area with a speed limit of
30 – 35 miles per hour. These severities highlight the fact that crashes in rural areas are likely to be more
severe, based on the higher automobile speeds and limited space on rural roads to accommodate joint
bicycle and automobile traffic. It is also important to note that crashes that do not result in injuries or
“close shaves” are often not reported. This may account for the low number of “No Injury” crashes.
Race and Sex
In terms of bicyclist race and sex, 85 percent of bicyclists involved in a crash are white and 79 percent
are male. Only three cyclists involved in a crash were black and one was categorized as “other”, while 21
percent of crash-involved cyclists are female. Without good information about the demographics of
bicyclists riding in rural Orange
County, it is hard to state
definitively that one group of
people is more likely to be
involved in a crash than any
other. However, this
information generally reflects
the demographics of bicyclists
on Orange County rural roads
based on anecdotal evidence
and likely does support the
conclusion that white male
cyclists tend to be involved in a
crash to a larger degree than
female bicyclists or people of
other races.
Crash Group/Type
Perhaps the most important
information included as part of
the bicycle and pedestrian crash
data is the crash group/crash
type. This information provides
a clearer picture of how the
crash occurred and is helpful in
determining which, if any,
infrastructure or behavior issues
are creating unsafe conditions
for motorists or bicyclists. For those bicycle crashes occurring in Orange County, the “Motorist
Overtaking Bicyclist” crash group is, perhaps unsurprisingly, the most prevalent, accounting for more
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
White Black Other
29 (85.3%)
3 (8.8%) 2 (5.9%)
Bicyclist by Race
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
Male Female
27 (79.4%)
7 (20.6%)
Bicyclist by Sex
43
Orange County Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis | 4
than half (53 percent) of all crashes involving bicyclists. In examining this in more detail, the specific
crash types are “Motorist Overtaking – Misjudged Space”, “Motorist Overtaking – Undetected Bicyclist”,
and “Motorist Overtaking – Other/Unknown.” This crash type is directly related to the existing
conditions for bicyclists on rural Orange County roads, namely narrow, high-speed travel lanes, minimal
shoulders, and, at least in some areas, limited sight distances at curves. Other crash groups, including
“Motorist Left Turn/Merge”, “Motorist Right Turn/Merge”, and “Bicyclist Left Turn/Merge”, relate
directly to turning movements by either the bicyclist or the motorist as the primary reason for the crash,
while “Motorist Failure to Yield” is similar to “Motorist Overtaking Bicyclist.” Only one reported “Loss of
Control/Turning Error” crash and one “Parallel Paths – Other/Unknown” crash occurred over this seven
year period. Generally, the interaction of motor vehicles and bicycles away from intersections accounts
for the largest percentage of crashes, while conflict points during turning movements by either
motorists or bicyclists are also significant crash considerations. These conclusions are reinforced by an
examination of the
roadway character and
roadway features at the
crash locations.
Roadway Features and
Roadway Character
As expected, an
examination of roadway
features at crash locations
confirms that, while
traditional conflict points
such as driveways, four-
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
5 (14.7%)
18 (52.9%)
4 (11.8%)
3 (8.8%) 2 (5.9%)
1 (2.9%)
1 (2.9%)
Crash Group
Motorist Left Turn / Merge
Motorist Overtaking Bicyclist
Motorist Right Turn / Merge
Bicyclist Left Turn / Merge
Motorist Failed to Yield - Sign-
Controlled Intersection
Loss of Control / Turning Error
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
Driveway,
Private
Four-Way
Intersection
T-Intersection No Special
Feature
4 (11.8%) 2 (5.9%)
7 (20.6%)
21 (61.8%)
Roadway Feature
44
Orange County Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis | 5
way stops, and T-intersections can be treacherous locations for bicyclists, particularly in rural areas
where drivers may not be expecting non-motorized users, most bicycle crashes in rural Orange County
(62 percent) occur along areas of roadway with no special features. In fact, the character of the roadway
is more often straight and level (41 percent of crashes) or straight and at a grade (32 percent of crashes),
than curved at a grade, curved and level, or curved and at a hillcrest (total 26 percent). This would
indicate that, at least in a
rural context, situations
involving the interaction of
motorists and bicyclists at
speed along sections of
open road are more
dangerous for bicyclists than
at intersections, where
traffic is slower.
Light Conditions
In terms of the light
conditions at the time of a
bicycle-motor vehicle crash,
more than 80 percent of
crashes (28) occurred during daylight, with one (1) crash, or 3 percent, occurring at dusk, and five (5)
crashes, or 15 percent, occurring at night on an unlighted roadway. This is likely due the lower number
of trips made by bicycle at night in rural Orange County. Each of the crashes that occurred under dark
conditions was a
“Motorist Overtaking
Bicyclist” crash, of
which two (2)
resulted in a fatality.
The remaining four
(4) crashes all
resulted in an injury.
Crashes occurring
away from
intersections in dark
conditions were
particularly likely to
result in a more
severe injury.
Time of Crash
Bicycle crashes in Orange County occurred predominantly in the afternoon hours with only six (6)
crashes occurring during the morning hours. Two Crashes occurred between 12:00 AM and 1:00 AM,
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
40.0%
45.0%
Straight -
Grade
Straight -
Level
Straight -
Hillcrest
Curve -
Grade
Curve -
Level
Curve -
Hillcrest
11 (32.4%)
14 (41.2%)
3 (8.8%)
1 (2.9%)
3 (8.8%) 2 (5.9%)
Roadway Character
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
Daylight Dusk Dark - Roadway
Not Lighted
28 (82.4%)
1 (2.9%)
5 (14.7%)
Light Condition
Daylight Dusk Dark - Roadway Not Lighted
45
Orange County Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis | 6
with one resulting in a fatality. The crash that occurred after 11:00 PM was also a fatality. Generally,
crashes tended to occur in the afternoon, with peak commuting hours accounting for higher numbers of
crashes. The crash data does not indicate a substantial difference in the day of the crash, though fewer
crashes occurred on Saturday, possibly as a result of less automobile traffic on rural Orange County
roads.
Overall, this analysis indicates certain notable trends about motor vehicle-bicyclist crashes in rural areas
of Orange County. More likely than not, bicycle crashes will result in some kind of injury, are the result
of a motorist overtaking the cyclist, and occur away from intersections during daylight conditions. While
intersection crash types are also notable for their frequency, crashes involving overtaking vehicles on
roadways without special
features constitute the most
common bicycle crash
during this time period.
Driver Crash Information
Information about bicycle
crash-involved drivers is also
provided in the crash data
and is part of the
information collected at the
scene of the crash by law
enforcement officials.
Orange County
Transportation Planning staff presents some of the key information about the drivers in this section. As
eight (8) out of 34 crashes, or slightly more than 20 percent of crashes, were hit and run crashes,
information about a subset of the drivers is not known. The information provided in this section will
hopefully provide guidance to the Bicycle Safety Task Force in targeting education efforts to those
groups most often involved in crashes with bicyclists between 2007 and 2013.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2, 5.9%
2, 5.9%
5, 14.7%
2, 5.9%
6, 17.6%
2, 5.9% 2, 5.9%
5, 14.7%
8, 23.5%
Driver Age
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
2, 5.9% 2, 5.9% 2, 5.9%
1, 2.9% 1, 2.9%
3, 8.8%
1, 2.9% 1, 2.9%
5, 14.7%
8, 23.5%
4, 11.8%
3, 8.8%
1, 2.9%
Time of the Crash
46
Orange County Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis | 7
Driver Age
In terms of the age of drivers involved in a crash with a bicyclist, the data does not pinpoint a specific
age group that is particularly likely to be involved in a crash. People over the age of 70, between the
ages of 40 and 49, and between the ages of 20 and 29 have high representation in this data, but no clear
pattern emerges. As such, education efforts around how bicyclists and automobiles should safely
interact on rural Orange County roads should be targeted at age groups across the board.
Driver Race and Sex
In terms of the race and sex of drivers involved in a crash with a bicyclist in Orange County, again, no
clear pattern emerges. While more white people are involved in motor vehicle-bicycle crashes as
drivers, it is unclear how many people driving in the County identify as white, so it is difficult to
definitely state that white people are more likely to be involved in a crash. Additionally, male and female
drivers are likely to be involved in a crash with a bicyclist in roughly equal proportions. Based on this
information, targeting people of all races and genders with any educational messaging around driver
and bicyclist safety is likely the best approach.
Drive Estimated Speed
Speed limits on Orange County rural roads range between 35 miles per hour (mph) and 55 mph. As crash
reporting occurs after the incident, speeds can only be estimated subjectively, in fact, drivers may state
their speed incorrectly on purpose to avoid receiving a ticket. With this caveat in mind, one third of
driver estimated speeds in Orange County for those drivers involved in a crash with a bicyclist were
between 41 and 45 mph. One fifth of crash-involved drivers were driving between 51-55 mph, while a
0
5
10
15
Male Female Unknown
12, 35.3% 14, 41.2%
8, 23.5%
Driver Sex
0
5
10
15
15, 44.1%
8, 23.5%
2, 5.9% 1, 2.9%
8, 23.5%
Driver Race
024681012
2, 5.9% 2, 5.9% 1, 2.9% 1, 2.9% 1, 2.9%
4, 11.8% 2, 5.9%
11, 32.4%
1, 2.9%
7, 20.6%
0 1, 2.9% 1, 2.9%
Driver Estimated Speed
47
Orange County Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis | 8
large number of drivers were also driving at a speed of less than 40 mph. Only one driver was traveling
between 61-65 mph, at least according to this estimated data.
As indicated earlier, traveling at higher speeds increases the likelihood of a serious or fatal injury in the
event of a bicycle-motor vehicle crash. The three crashes that resulted in a bicyclist fatality involved
vehicles traveling at speeds greater than 50 mph. With this in mind, speed enforcement in rural Orange
County may be a successful method of reducing crash severities.
Driver Vehicle Type
Likely in proportion to the types of vehicles on the road, the vehicle types involved in crashes are
skewed toward passenger cars, though significant numbers of other vehicle types, including sport utility
vehicles, pickups, and vans, are
also represented in the crash
data.
Hit and Run Statistics
Of the bicycle-motor vehicle
crashes that occurred in rural
Orange County, eight (8) or 23.5
percent were hit and run
crashes, while the remaining 26
crashes, or 76.5 percent, of
drivers remained on the scene.
Crash Map
Using the data provided by NCDOT, Orange County Transportation Planning staff prepared a map of all
bicycle crashes occurring in rural Orange County. Crashes that resulted in a fatality are indicated in red
and all other crashes are displayed using yellow. One fatality occurred on NC 54 at Hatch Road, one
occurred on Pleasant Green Road just south of St Marys Road, and the other occurred on NC 751 at US
70. Green circles around the crash locations indicate that those crashes involved a bicyclist under the
influence of alcohol.
Using the Kernel Density tool in ArcGIS, the clustering of crash points was calculated and mapped using
red, blue, and yellow to emphasize high, medium, and low levels of clustering, respectively. As expected,
one major cluster of bicycle crashes is located to the west of Carrboro; this area is very popular with
recreational riders and rides originating in Carrboro often terminate at Mapleview Dairy, which lies just
outside the crash cluster. More surprising is the large crash cluster between the Town of Hillsborough
and the City of Durham, which encompasses areas of the Eno River State Park, the confluence of three
highways (US 70, US 70A, and NC 751), and a favored bicycle route, Old State Highway 10. Thirteen (13)
of 34 crashes in the entire rural area of the County can be found in this area, making it a particularly
dangerous area for bicyclists.
0
5
10
15
14, 41.2%
6, 17.6% 5, 14.7% 3, 8.8% 6, 17.6%
Vehicle Type
48
Orange County Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis | 9
49
Orange County Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis | 10
Conclusion
This analysis verifies what many bicyclists in rural Orange County already know, namely that motorists
overtaking bicyclists can create hazardous conditions for both road users and that intersections also
pose a threat in terms of safety. As most roads are narrow, have a limited shoulder, and have speed
limits higher than 35 miles per hour, bicycle crashes are also likely to result in an injury, so it is especially
important to be aware of the risks. Based on anecdotal evidence, bicycle crashes are occurring in areas
with substantial numbers of cyclists, most notably to the west of Carrboro. However, the area between
the Town of Hillsborough and the City of Durham may not have as high a volume of bicyclists, indicating
that this area is particularly dangerous. Both the area west of Carrboro and the area between the Town
of Hillsborough and the City of Durham merit special consideration in terms of safety infrastructure
improvements, education efforts, and enforcement. Additionally, more information about high volume
bicycle routes and areas where people are bicycling should be gathered to enhance this analysis. For
drivers, it is clear that drivers exceeding 50 mph are likely to cause a serious or fatal injury to a bicyclist
in the event of a conflict. Reducing or enforcing speed limits more rigorously may be a strategy to
reduce the severity of bicycle crashes in rural Orange County. This information can hopefully help target
efforts to improve safety and also inform the creation of a priority bicycle network in rural Orange
County.
50
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
SESSION 2015
SESSION LAW 2016-90
HOUSE BILL 959
*H959-v-6*
AN ACT TO MAKE VARIOUS CHANGES TO THE TRANSPORTATION LAWS OF THE STATE, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE TRANSPORTATION OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
PART I. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SMALL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS/LOCAL CONSULTATION
SECTION 1. G.S. 136-11.1 reads as rewritten: "§ 136-11.1. Local consultation on transportation projects. Prior to any action of the Board on a transportation project, the Department shall inform all municipalities and counties affected by a planned transportation project and request each affected municipality or county to submit within 45 days a written resolution expressing their views on the project. A municipality or county may designate a Transportation Advisory Committee to submit its response to the Department's request for a resolution. Upon receipt of a written resolution from all affected municipalities and counties or their designees, or the expiration of the 45-day period, whichever occurs first, the Board may take action. The Department and the Board shall consider, but shall not be bound by, the views of the affected municipalities and counties on each transportation project. The failure of a county or municipality to express its views within the time provided shall not prevent the Department or the Board from taking action. The Department shall not be required to send notice under this section if it has already received a written resolution from the affected county or municipality on the planned transportation project. "Action of the Board", as used in this section, means approval by the Board of: the Transportation Improvement Program and amendments to the Transportation Improvement Program; the Secondary Roads Paving Program and amendments to the Secondary Roads Paving Program; and individual applications for access and public service road projects, contingency projects, small urban projects, and spot safety projects that exceed one two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000). ($250,000). The 45-day notification provision may be waived upon a finding by the Secretary of Transportation that emergency action is required. Such findings must be reported to the Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee."
BROADBAND AND FIBER OPTIC IN DOT RIGHT-OF-WAY/STUDY FEES
SECTION 2.(a) G.S. 136-18(2) reads as rewritten: "§ 136-18. Powers of Department of Transportation. The said Department of Transportation is vested with the following powers: ... (2) Related to right-of-way: a. To take over and assume exclusive control for the benefit of the State of any existing county or township roads, and to roads. b. To locate and acquire rights-of-way for any new roads that may be necessary for a State highway system, and subject system. c. Subject to the provisions of G.S. 136-19.5(a) and (b) also (b), to use existing rights-of-way, or locate and acquire such additional rights-of-way rights-of-way, as may be necessary for the present or future relocation or initial location, above or below ground, of telephone, of:
51
House Bill 959 Session Law 2016-90 Page 3
prohibited by State law or a Department ordinance applicable to a specific road."
SECTION 2.1.(b) G.S. 20-119 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: "(i) One, two, or three steel coils, transported on the same vehicle, shall be considered a nondivisible load for purposes of permit issuance pursuant to this section."
SECTION 2.1.(c) This section becomes effective October 1, 2016.
DELAY SUNSET FOR SIX MONTHS ON DOT PARTNERSHIPS WITH PRIVATE
DEVELOPERS
SECTION 2.3. Section 2 of S.L. 2009-235, as amended by Section 7 of S.L. 2014-58, reads as rewritten: "SECTION 2. This act is effective when it becomes law. This act shall expire on December 31, 2016.July 1, 2017."
PART II. NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY
ALLOW ELECTRONIC BILLING FOR TOLLS
SECTION 3. G.S. 136-89.214(a) reads as rewritten: "(a) Bill. – If a motor vehicle travels on a Turnpike project that uses an open road tolling system and a toll for traveling on the project is not paid prior to travel or at the time of travel, the Authority must send a bill by first-class mail to the registered owner of the motor vehicle or the person who had care, custody, and control of the vehicle as established under G.S. 136-89.212(b) for the amount of the unpaid toll toll; provided, however, that with the written consent of the registered owner of the motor vehicle or the person who had care, custody, and control of the vehicle as set forth above, the Authority may send the bill via electronic mail to a designated electronic mail account rather than by first-class mail. The Authority must send the bill within 90 days after the travel occurs, or within 90 days of receipt of a sworn affidavit submitted under G.S. 136-89.212(b) identifying the person who had care, custody, and control of the motor vehicle. If a bill is not sent within the required time, the Authority waives collection of the toll. The Authority must establish a billing period for unpaid open road tolls that is no shorter than 15 days. A bill for a billing period must include all unpaid tolls incurred by the same person during the billing period."
TURNPIKE AUTHORITY REPORT ON ONE-TIME FACILITY USER FEES AND
PENALTIES
SECTION 3.1. The North Carolina Turnpike Authority shall report to the Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee on January 31, 2017, and in its annual report thereafter, the number of one-time toll facility users who are charged more than fifty dollars ($50.00) in processing fees imposed under G.S. 136-89.215 and civil penalties assessed under G.S. 136-89.216. With the first report on such users, the Turnpike Authority shall propose statutory changes to Part 2 of Article 6H of Chapter 136 of the General Statutes that are expected to have the aggregate effect of improving efficiency or reducing costs in collecting tolls while significantly reducing the possibility one-time users are charged more than fifty dollars ($50.00) in processing fees imposed under G.S. 136-89.215 and civil penalties assessed under G.S. 136-89.216.
REPEAL NCTA SEMIANNUAL REPORTS TO JLTOC
SECTION 4. G.S. 136-89.193(c) is repealed.
PART III. DIVISION OF BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION
REPEAL REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN OFF-ROAD CYCLING RECORDS
SECTION 5. G.S. 143B-135.100 reads as rewritten: "§ 143B-135.100. Use of State land for bicycling; creation of trails by volunteers. ... (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, any land may be restricted or removed from use by bicyclists if it is determined by the State, an agency of the State, or the holder of land purchased or leased with State funds that the use would cause substantial harm to the land or the environment or that the use would violate another State or
52
Page 4 Session Law 2016-90 House Bill 959
federal law. Before restricting or removing land from use by bicyclists, the State, the agency of the State, or the holder of the land purchased or leased with State funds must show why the lands should not be open for use by bicyclists. Local cycling groups or organizations shall be notified of the intent to restrict or remove the land from use by bicyclists and provided an opportunity to show why cycling should be allowed on the land. Notice of any land restricted or removed from use by bicyclists pursuant to this subsection shall be filed with the Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation of the Department of Transportation. (c) The Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation of the Department of Transportation shall keep a record of all lands made open and available for use by bicyclists pursuant to this section and shall make the information available to the public upon request. ... (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any hiking, walking, or use of bicycles on game lands administered by the Wildlife Resources Commission shall be restricted to roads and trails designated for vehicular use. Hiking, walking, or bicycle use by persons not hunting shall be restricted to days closed to hunting. The Wildlife Resources Commission may restrict the use of bicycles on game lands where necessary to protect sensitive wildlife habitat or species and shall file notice of any restrictions with the Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation of the Department of Transportation.species."
BICYCLE MUST HAVE RED REAR LIGHT OR OPERATOR MUST WEAR
REFLECTIVE VEST WHEN OPERATED AT NIGHT
SECTION 5.1.(a) G.S. 20-129(e) reads as rewritten: "(e) Lamps on Bicycles. – Every bicycle shall be equipped with a reflex mirror on the rear and both of the following when operated at night on any public street, public vehicular area, or public greenway: (1) A lighted lamp on the front thereof, visible under normal atmospheric conditions from a distance of at least 300 feet in front of such bicycle, and shall also be equipped with a reflex mirror or bicycle. (2) A lamp on the rear, exhibiting a red light visible under like conditions from a distance of at least 200 300 feet to the rear of such bicycle, when used at night.or the operator must wear clothing or a vest that is bright and visible from a distance of at least 300 feet to the rear of the bicycle."
SECTION 5.1.(b) This section becomes effective December 1, 2016, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date.
BICYCLE SAFETY LAW REVISIONS
SECTION 5.5.(a) G.S. 20-150(e) reads as rewritten: "(e) The driver of a vehicle shall not overtake and pass another on any portion of the highway which is marked by signs, markers or markings placed by the Department of Transportation stating or clearly indicating that passing should not be attempted. The prohibition in this section shall not apply when the overtaking and passing is done in accordance with all of the following: (1) The slower moving vehicle to be passed is a bicycle or a moped. (2) The slower moving vehicle is proceeding in the same direction as the faster moving vehicle. (3) The driver of the faster moving vehicle either (i) provides a minimum of four feet between the faster moving vehicle and the slower moving vehicle or (ii) completely enters the left lane of the highway. (4) The operator of the slower moving vehicle is not (i) making a left turn or (ii) signaling in accordance with G.S. 20-154 that he or she intends to make a left turn. (5) The driver of the faster moving vehicle complies with all other applicable requirements set forth in this section."
SECTION 5.5.(b) G.S. 20-149(a) reads as rewritten: "(a) The driver of any such vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass at least two feet to the left thereof, and shall not again drive to the right side of the highway until safely clear of such overtaken vehicle. This subsection shall not apply when the overtaking and passing is done pursuant to the provisions of G.S. 20-150.1.G.S. 20-150(e) or G.S. 20-150.1."
53
House Bill 959 Session Law 2016-90 Page 5
SECTION 5.5.(c) G.S. 20-154 reads as rewritten: "§ 20-154. Signals on starting, stopping or turning. ... (a1) A person who violates subsection (a) of this section and causes a motorcycle or bicycle operator to change travel lanes or leave that portion of any public street or highway designated as travel lanes shall be responsible for an infraction and shall be assessed a fine of not less than two hundred dollars ($200.00). A person who violates subsection (a) of this section that results in a crash causing property damage or personal injury to a motorcycle or bicycle operator or passenger shall be responsible for an infraction and shall be assessed a fine of not less than five hundred dollars ($500.00) unless subsection (a2) of this section applies. (a2) A person who violates subsection (a) of this section and the violation results in a crash causing property damage in excess of five thousand dollars ($5,000) or a serious bodily injury as defined in G.S. 20-160.1(b) to a motorcycle or bicycle operator or passenger shall be responsible for an infraction and shall be assessed a fine of not less than seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00). A violation of this subsection shall be treated as a failure to yield right-of-way to a motorcycle or bicycle, as applicable, for purposes of assessment of points under G.S. 20-16(c). In addition, the trial judge shall have the authority to order the license of any driver violating this subsection suspended for a period not to exceed 30 days. If a judge orders suspension of a person's drivers license pursuant to this subsection, the judge may allow the licensee a limited driving privilege for a period not to exceed the period of suspension. The limited driving privilege shall be issued in the same manner and under the terms and conditions prescribed in G.S. 20-16.1(b)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and G.S. 20-16.1(g). (b) The signal herein required shall be given by means of the hand and arm in the manner herein specified, or by any mechanical or electrical signal device approved by the Division, except that when a vehicle is so constructed or loaded as to prevent the hand and arm signal from being visible, both to the front and rear, the signal shall be given by a device of a type which has been approved by the Division. Whenever Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b1) of this section, whenever the signal is given the driver shall indicate his intention to start, stop, or turn by extending the hand and arm from and beyond the left side of the vehicle as hereinafter set forth. Left turn – hand and arm horizontal, forefinger pointing. Right turn – hand and upper arm horizontal, forearm and hand pointed upward. Stop – hand and arm upper arm horizontal, forearm and hand pointed downward. All hand and arm signals shall be given from the left side of the vehicle and all signals shall be maintained or given continuously for the last 100 feet traveled prior to stopping or making a turn. Provided, that in all areas where the speed limit is 45 miles per hour or higher and the operator intends to turn from a direct line of travel, a signal of intention to turn from a direct line of travel shall be given continuously during the last 200 feet traveled before turning. Any motor vehicle in use on a highway shall be equipped with, and required signal shall be given by, a signal lamp or lamps or mechanical signal device when the distance from the center of the top of the steering post to the left outside limit of the body, cab or load of such motor vehicle exceeds 24 inches, or when the distance from the center of the top of the steering post to the rear limit of the body or load thereof exceeds 14 feet. The latter measurement shall apply to any single vehicle, also to any combination of vehicles except combinations operated by farmers in hauling farm products. (b1) Notwithstanding the requirement set forth in subsection (b) of this section that a driver signal a right turn by extending his or her hand and arm from beyond the left side of the vehicle, an operator of a bicycle may signal his or her intention to make a right turn by extending his or her hand and arm horizontally, with the forefinger pointing, from beyond the right side of the bicycle. ...."
SECTION 5.5.(d) This section becomes effective October 1, 2016, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date.
PART IV. DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES
COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSE CHANGES
SECTION 6.(a) G.S. 20-7(m) reads as rewritten:
54
House Bill 959 Session Law 2016-90 Page 15
AMEND "MOPED" DEFINITION
SECTION 13.(a) G.S. 20-4.01 reads as rewritten: "§ 20-4.01. Definitions. Unless the context requires otherwise, the following definitions apply throughout this Chapter to the defined words and phrases and their cognates: ... (7a) Electric Assisted Bicycle. – A bicycle with two or three wheels that is equipped with a seat or saddle for use by the rider, fully operable pedals for human propulsion, and an electric motor of no more than 750 watts, whose maximum speed on a level surface when powered solely by such a motor is no greater than 20 miles per hour. (7a)(7b) Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Device. – A self-balancing nontandem two-wheeled device, designed to transport one person, with a propulsion system that limits the maximum speed of the device to 15 miles per hour or less. (7b)(7c) Employer. – Any person who owns or leases a commercial motor vehicle or assigns a person to drive a commercial motor vehicle and would be subject to the alcohol and controlled substance testing provisions of 49 C.F.R. § 382 and also includes any consortium or third-party administrator administering the alcohol and controlled substance testing program on behalf of owner-operators subject to the provisions of 49 C.F.R. § 382. ... (21a) Moped. – A type of passenger vehicle as defined in G.S. 105-164.3. ... (23) Motor Vehicle. – Every vehicle which is self-propelled and every vehicle designed to run upon the highways which is pulled by a self-propelled vehicle. Except as specifically provided otherwise, this term shall not include mopeds as defined in G.S. 20-4.01(27)d1.mopeds or electric assisted bicycles. ... (27) Passenger Vehicles. – ... c2. Motor-driven bicycle. – A vehicle with two or three wheels, a steering handle, one or two saddle seats, pedals, and a motor that cannot propel the vehicle at a speed greater than 20 miles per hour on a level surface. This term shall not include an electric assisted bicycle as defined in subdivision (7a) of this section. d. Motorcycles. – Vehicles having a saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground, including autocycles, motor scooters, and motor-driven bicycles, but excluding tractors and utility vehicles equipped with an additional form of device designed to transport property, three-wheeled vehicles while being used by law-enforcement agencies agencies, electric assisted bicycles, and mopeds as defined in subdivision d1 sub-subdivision d1. of this subsection.subdivision. d1. Moped. – Defined in G.S. 105-164.3.A vehicle, other than a motor-driven bicycle or electric assisted bicycle, that has two or three wheels, no external shifting device, a motor that does not exceed 50 cubic centimeters piston displacement and cannot propel the vehicle at a speed greater than 30 miles per hour on a level surface. The motor may be powered by electricity, alternative fuel, motor fuel, or a combination of each. ... (49) Vehicle. – Every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon fixed rails or tracks; provided, that for the purposes of this Chapter bicycles and electric assisted bicycles shall be deemed vehicles and every rider of a bicycle or an electric assisted
55
Page 16 Session Law 2016-90 House Bill 959
bicycle upon a highway shall be subject to the provisions of this Chapter applicable to the driver of a vehicle except those which by their nature can have no application. This term shall not include a device which is designed for and intended to be used as a means of transportation for a person with a mobility impairment, or who uses the device for mobility enhancement, is suitable for use both inside and outside a building, including on sidewalks, and is limited by design to 15 miles per hour when the device is being operated by a person with a mobility impairment, or who uses the device for mobility enhancement. This term shall not include an electric personal assistive mobility device as defined in G.S. 20-4.01(7a).subdivision (7b) of this section. …."
SECTION 13.(b) G.S. 20-10.1 reads as rewritten: "§ 20-10.1. Mopeds. It shall be unlawful for any person who is under the age of 16 years to operate a moped as defined in G.S. 105-164.3 G.S. 20-4.01(27)d1. upon any highway or public vehicular area of this State."
SECTION 13.(c) G.S. 20-171.1 reads as rewritten: "§ 20-171.1. Definitions. As used in this Part, except where the context clearly requires otherwise, the words and expressions defined in this section shall be held to have the meanings here given to them: Bicycle. – A nonmotorized vehicle with two or three wheels tandem, a steering handle, one or two saddle seats, and pedals by which the vehicle is propelled.propelled, or an electric assisted bicycle, as defined in G.S. 20-4.01(7a)."
SECTION 13.(d) G.S. 20-175.6 reads as rewritten: "§ 20-175.6. Electric personal assistive mobility devices. (a) Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Device. – As defined in G.S. 20-4.01(7a).G.S. 20-4.01(7b). ...."
SECTION 13.(e) Reserved.
SECTION 13.(f) G.S. 58-37-1 reads as rewritten: "§ 58-37-1. Definitions. As used in this Article: ... (6) "Motor vehicle" means every self-propelled vehicle that is designed for use upon a highway, including trailers and semitrailers designed for use with such vehicles (except traction engines, road rollers, farm tractors, tractor cranes, power shovels, and well drillers). "Motor vehicle" also means a motorcycle, as defined in G.S. 20-4.01(27)d. "Motor vehicle" does not mean a moped, as defined in G.S. 105-164.3. G.S. 20-4.01(27)d1., or an electric assisted bicycle, as defined in G.S. 20-4.01(7a). Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Article, liability insurance on a moped is not eligible for cession to the Facility. ...."
SECTION 13.(g) Reserved.
SECTION 13.(h) G.S. 105-164.3 reads as rewritten: "§ 105-164.3. Definitions. The following definitions apply in this Article: ... (22) Moped. – A vehicle that has two or three wheels, no external shifting device, and a motor that does not exceed 50 cubic centimeters piston displacement and cannot propel the vehicle at a speed greater than 30 miles per hour on a level surface.As defined in G.S. 20-4.01(27)d1. ...."
SECTION 13.(i) G.S. 20-51(14) reads as rewritten: "§ 20-51. Exempt from registration. The following shall be exempt from the requirement of registration and certificate of title: …
56
Action Responsible
Party
Other
Partners/Specific
Department Sub-‐Tasks
Hours
Estimated*Expenses
Initial
Coordination -‐
Kick-‐Off -‐
Content
Development -‐
Updates -‐
Ongoing
Maintenance -‐
Coordination -‐
Content
Development -‐
Content
Development -‐
Coordination -‐
Social
Media
–
e.g.,
Orange
County
Facebook
Events
Page County
Staff Orange
County
Community
Relations Content
Development
10
-‐
Set
up/Take
down -‐
Tabling -‐
Coordination
with
Transportation
Demand
Management
Professionals
at
the
local,
county,
and
university
levels
County
Staff
Orange
County
Asset
Management
Services
(AMS)
Coordination
20
-‐
News/Media
Integration
(Earned
Media)County
Staff Orange
County
Community
Relations Coordination 40 -‐
Coordination -‐
Review -‐
Coordination -‐
Review -‐
Data
Collection -‐
Document
Preparation -‐
Initial
Coordination -‐
Kick-‐Off -‐
Content
Development -‐
Meetings -‐
Document
Preparation -‐
400
440
30
80
60
30
County
Staff
/
Town
of
Chapel
Hill
Staff
/
Town
of
Carrboro
Staff
Orange
County
Community
Relations
Convene
Implementation
Committee County
Staff BOCC
Crash
Reporting
Enhancements
–
Suggestions
County
Staff
/
NCDOT
NCDOT
Traffic
Safety
Division/
Orange
County
Emergency
Services
Evaluation County
Staff -‐
*
Estimated
hours
includes
staff
time
as
well
as
time
required
from
other
partners,
including
volunteers
and
interns.
Time
and
Cost
Estimates
for
Bicycle
Safety
Task
Force
Potential
Actions
County
Staff/
School
Officials
Active
Routes
to
School
Coordinator,
Walkable
Hillsborough
Coalition
School
Outreach
Apps/Programs
Safety
Message
to
Listservs County
Staff -‐
Tabling
at
Community
Events
County
Staff/
Volunteers/
Advisory
Group
Members/
Cycle
Clubs
Planning
Department,
Orange
County
Schools,
OUTBoard
Staff
Time
Only
Best
Safety
Video
Contest County
Staff Orange
County
Community
Relations
Create
Static
Website
with
Safety
Information
-‐
Chapel
Hill/Carrboro
will
provide
link
and
safety
message
on
their
Websites
57
Action Responsible
Party
Other
Partners/Specific
Department Sub-‐Tasks
Hours
Estimated*Expenses
Design
Review
Design
Review
Coordination
Design
Review
Design
Review
Planning
Coordination
Staffing
Production
Review
**
Top
Tagline
Options:
Ride
Friendly,
Drive
Friendly
(Winner),
others
considered;
Expect
Bikes!
Pass
Safely,
Roll
with
Respect,
Courtesy
is
crucial!
Bike
and
Drive
Safely
15
50
45
50
70
Partner
with
CommunityWatch
to
add
Signage**
in
Rural
Neighborhoods
(50)
County
Staff
Orange
County
Community
Relations,
Community
Organizations
Yard
Signs
(100
for
$15
each)County
Staff/
Volunteers
Orange
County
Community
Relations,
Community
Organizations
Time
and
Cost
Estimates
for
Bicycle
Safety
Task
Force
Potential
Actions
Likely
Inexpensive
Bike
Rodeo
for
Kids County
Staff/
Volunteers/
School
District
PTA,
Walkable
Hillsborough
Coalition,
Active
Routes
To
School
group,
School
Board
$500
Bumper
Stickers
(100-‐150
stickers)/Magnets
(100
magnets)
County
Staff
Orange
County
Community
Relations,
Community
Organizations
$200
Orange
County
Community
Relations,
Community
Organizations
Posters
(100)County
Staff $1,000
$1,000
$1,500
*
Estimated
hours
includes
staff
time
as
well
as
time
required
from
other
partners,
including
volunteers
and
interns.
Orange
County
Community
Relations,
Professional
Videographer
Video/Audio
Public
Safety
Announcements
(PSAs)
on
Respect
between
Modes
County
Staff/
Volunteers $2,000100
58
Action Responsible
Party Other
Partners/Specific
Department Sub-‐Tasks Hours
Estimated*Expenses
Design
Review
Approval
Coordination
Teaching
Time
Coordination
Incident
Reporting
System
Development
Training
Coordination
Training
Data
Collection
Time
Coordination
Hold
Meeting
Action Responsible
Party Other
Partners/Specific
Department Sub-‐Tasks Hours
Estimated*Expenses
Coordination
Advertisement
Creation
140
30
100
Time
and
Cost
Estimates
for
Bicycle
Safety
Task
Force
Potential
Actions
Moderately
Expensive
Signage
at
Multiple
Entry
Points
in
County County
Staff
/
NCDOT Orange
County
Community
Relations
$450/each
x
25
signs
for
total
of
~
$12,000
70
Classes
for
Law
Enforcement
and
Emergency
Response
Personnel
County
Staff
/
NCDOT
/
DMV
Highway
Safety
Research
Center
$3,000
for
100
hours
of
course
time
Real-‐Time
EMT
Incident
Reporting
County
Staff/EMT
Dispatch
Staff Orange
County
IT
$5,000
in
System
Development
Costs/Training
140
180
*
Estimated
hours
includes
staff
time
as
well
as
time
required
from
other
partners,
including
volunteers
and
interns.
$5,000
-‐
$15,000
Dependent
on
Method
Highway
Safety
Research
Center/Institute
for
Transportation
Research
and
Education?
Data
Collection
(e.g.,
Bike
Counts)
County
Staff/
MPO/
NCDOT
Approximately
$1,500
per
TV
spot,
$1,200
per
Week
of
Radio
Advertising
Radio/TV
Spots County
Staff
Local
TV
Stations/Orange
County
Community
Relations
Launch
Campaign
Kickoff
–
Signs,
Contests,
Ads County
Staff
Orange
County
Community
Relations,
Volunteers
$2,000
to
develop
materials,
run
ads,
buy
contest
prizes
Very
Expensive
59
GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
SESSION 2015
SESSION LAW 2016-90
HOUSE BILL 959
*H959-v-6*
AN ACT TO MAKE VARIOUS CHANGES TO THE TRANSPORTATION LAWS OF THE STATE, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE JOINT LEGISLATIVE TRANSPORTATION OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
PART I. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SMALL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS/LOCAL CONSULTATION
SECTION 1. G.S. 136-11.1 reads as rewritten: "§ 136-11.1. Local consultation on transportation projects. Prior to any action of the Board on a transportation project, the Department shall inform all municipalities and counties affected by a planned transportation project and request each affected municipality or county to submit within 45 days a written resolution expressing their views on the project. A municipality or county may designate a Transportation Advisory Committee to submit its response to the Department's request for a resolution. Upon receipt of a written resolution from all affected municipalities and counties or their designees, or the expiration of the 45-day period, whichever occurs first, the Board may take action. The Department and the Board shall consider, but shall not be bound by, the views of the affected municipalities and counties on each transportation project. The failure of a county or municipality to express its views within the time provided shall not prevent the Department or the Board from taking action. The Department shall not be required to send notice under this section if it has already received a written resolution from the affected county or municipality on the planned transportation project. "Action of the Board", as used in this section, means approval by the Board of: the Transportation Improvement Program and amendments to the Transportation Improvement Program; the Secondary Roads Paving Program and amendments to the Secondary Roads Paving Program; and individual applications for access and public service road projects, contingency projects, small urban projects, and spot safety projects that exceed one two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000). ($250,000). The 45-day notification provision may be waived upon a finding by the Secretary of Transportation that emergency action is required. Such findings must be reported to the Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee."
BROADBAND AND FIBER OPTIC IN DOT RIGHT-OF-WAY/STUDY FEES
SECTION 2.(a) G.S. 136-18(2) reads as rewritten: "§ 136-18. Powers of Department of Transportation. The said Department of Transportation is vested with the following powers: ... (2) Related to right-of-way: a. To take over and assume exclusive control for the benefit of the State of any existing county or township roads, and to roads. b. To locate and acquire rights-of-way for any new roads that may be necessary for a State highway system, and subject system. c. Subject to the provisions of G.S. 136-19.5(a) and (b) also (b), to use existing rights-of-way, or locate and acquire such additional rights-of-way rights-of-way, as may be necessary for the present or future relocation or initial location, above or below ground, of telephone, of:
60
House Bill 959 Session Law 2016-90 Page 3
prohibited by State law or a Department ordinance applicable to a specific road."
SECTION 2.1.(b) G.S. 20-119 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: "(i) One, two, or three steel coils, transported on the same vehicle, shall be considered a nondivisible load for purposes of permit issuance pursuant to this section."
SECTION 2.1.(c) This section becomes effective October 1, 2016.
DELAY SUNSET FOR SIX MONTHS ON DOT PARTNERSHIPS WITH PRIVATE
DEVELOPERS
SECTION 2.3. Section 2 of S.L. 2009-235, as amended by Section 7 of S.L. 2014-58, reads as rewritten: "SECTION 2. This act is effective when it becomes law. This act shall expire on December 31, 2016.July 1, 2017."
PART II. NORTH CAROLINA TURNPIKE AUTHORITY
ALLOW ELECTRONIC BILLING FOR TOLLS
SECTION 3. G.S. 136-89.214(a) reads as rewritten: "(a) Bill. – If a motor vehicle travels on a Turnpike project that uses an open road tolling system and a toll for traveling on the project is not paid prior to travel or at the time of travel, the Authority must send a bill by first-class mail to the registered owner of the motor vehicle or the person who had care, custody, and control of the vehicle as established under G.S. 136-89.212(b) for the amount of the unpaid toll toll; provided, however, that with the written consent of the registered owner of the motor vehicle or the person who had care, custody, and control of the vehicle as set forth above, the Authority may send the bill via electronic mail to a designated electronic mail account rather than by first-class mail. The Authority must send the bill within 90 days after the travel occurs, or within 90 days of receipt of a sworn affidavit submitted under G.S. 136-89.212(b) identifying the person who had care, custody, and control of the motor vehicle. If a bill is not sent within the required time, the Authority waives collection of the toll. The Authority must establish a billing period for unpaid open road tolls that is no shorter than 15 days. A bill for a billing period must include all unpaid tolls incurred by the same person during the billing period."
TURNPIKE AUTHORITY REPORT ON ONE-TIME FACILITY USER FEES AND
PENALTIES
SECTION 3.1. The North Carolina Turnpike Authority shall report to the Joint Legislative Transportation Oversight Committee on January 31, 2017, and in its annual report thereafter, the number of one-time toll facility users who are charged more than fifty dollars ($50.00) in processing fees imposed under G.S. 136-89.215 and civil penalties assessed under G.S. 136-89.216. With the first report on such users, the Turnpike Authority shall propose statutory changes to Part 2 of Article 6H of Chapter 136 of the General Statutes that are expected to have the aggregate effect of improving efficiency or reducing costs in collecting tolls while significantly reducing the possibility one-time users are charged more than fifty dollars ($50.00) in processing fees imposed under G.S. 136-89.215 and civil penalties assessed under G.S. 136-89.216.
REPEAL NCTA SEMIANNUAL REPORTS TO JLTOC
SECTION 4. G.S. 136-89.193(c) is repealed.
PART III. DIVISION OF BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION
REPEAL REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN OFF-ROAD CYCLING RECORDS
SECTION 5. G.S. 143B-135.100 reads as rewritten: "§ 143B-135.100. Use of State land for bicycling; creation of trails by volunteers. ... (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, any land may be restricted or removed from use by bicyclists if it is determined by the State, an agency of the State, or the holder of land purchased or leased with State funds that the use would cause substantial harm to the land or the environment or that the use would violate another State or
61
Page 4 Session Law 2016-90 House Bill 959
federal law. Before restricting or removing land from use by bicyclists, the State, the agency of the State, or the holder of the land purchased or leased with State funds must show why the lands should not be open for use by bicyclists. Local cycling groups or organizations shall be notified of the intent to restrict or remove the land from use by bicyclists and provided an opportunity to show why cycling should be allowed on the land. Notice of any land restricted or removed from use by bicyclists pursuant to this subsection shall be filed with the Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation of the Department of Transportation. (c) The Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation of the Department of Transportation shall keep a record of all lands made open and available for use by bicyclists pursuant to this section and shall make the information available to the public upon request. ... (e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any hiking, walking, or use of bicycles on game lands administered by the Wildlife Resources Commission shall be restricted to roads and trails designated for vehicular use. Hiking, walking, or bicycle use by persons not hunting shall be restricted to days closed to hunting. The Wildlife Resources Commission may restrict the use of bicycles on game lands where necessary to protect sensitive wildlife habitat or species and shall file notice of any restrictions with the Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation of the Department of Transportation.species."
BICYCLE MUST HAVE RED REAR LIGHT OR OPERATOR MUST WEAR
REFLECTIVE VEST WHEN OPERATED AT NIGHT
SECTION 5.1.(a) G.S. 20-129(e) reads as rewritten: "(e) Lamps on Bicycles. – Every bicycle shall be equipped with a reflex mirror on the rear and both of the following when operated at night on any public street, public vehicular area, or public greenway: (1) A lighted lamp on the front thereof, visible under normal atmospheric conditions from a distance of at least 300 feet in front of such bicycle, and shall also be equipped with a reflex mirror or bicycle. (2) A lamp on the rear, exhibiting a red light visible under like conditions from a distance of at least 200 300 feet to the rear of such bicycle, when used at night.or the operator must wear clothing or a vest that is bright and visible from a distance of at least 300 feet to the rear of the bicycle."
SECTION 5.1.(b) This section becomes effective December 1, 2016, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date.
BICYCLE SAFETY LAW REVISIONS
SECTION 5.5.(a) G.S. 20-150(e) reads as rewritten: "(e) The driver of a vehicle shall not overtake and pass another on any portion of the highway which is marked by signs, markers or markings placed by the Department of Transportation stating or clearly indicating that passing should not be attempted. The prohibition in this section shall not apply when the overtaking and passing is done in accordance with all of the following: (1) The slower moving vehicle to be passed is a bicycle or a moped. (2) The slower moving vehicle is proceeding in the same direction as the faster moving vehicle. (3) The driver of the faster moving vehicle either (i) provides a minimum of four feet between the faster moving vehicle and the slower moving vehicle or (ii) completely enters the left lane of the highway. (4) The operator of the slower moving vehicle is not (i) making a left turn or (ii) signaling in accordance with G.S. 20-154 that he or she intends to make a left turn. (5) The driver of the faster moving vehicle complies with all other applicable requirements set forth in this section."
SECTION 5.5.(b) G.S. 20-149(a) reads as rewritten: "(a) The driver of any such vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass at least two feet to the left thereof, and shall not again drive to the right side of the highway until safely clear of such overtaken vehicle. This subsection shall not apply when the overtaking and passing is done pursuant to the provisions of G.S. 20-150.1.G.S. 20-150(e) or G.S. 20-150.1."
62
House Bill 959 Session Law 2016-90 Page 5
SECTION 5.5.(c) G.S. 20-154 reads as rewritten: "§ 20-154. Signals on starting, stopping or turning. ... (a1) A person who violates subsection (a) of this section and causes a motorcycle or bicycle operator to change travel lanes or leave that portion of any public street or highway designated as travel lanes shall be responsible for an infraction and shall be assessed a fine of not less than two hundred dollars ($200.00). A person who violates subsection (a) of this section that results in a crash causing property damage or personal injury to a motorcycle or bicycle operator or passenger shall be responsible for an infraction and shall be assessed a fine of not less than five hundred dollars ($500.00) unless subsection (a2) of this section applies. (a2) A person who violates subsection (a) of this section and the violation results in a crash causing property damage in excess of five thousand dollars ($5,000) or a serious bodily injury as defined in G.S. 20-160.1(b) to a motorcycle or bicycle operator or passenger shall be responsible for an infraction and shall be assessed a fine of not less than seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00). A violation of this subsection shall be treated as a failure to yield right-of-way to a motorcycle or bicycle, as applicable, for purposes of assessment of points under G.S. 20-16(c). In addition, the trial judge shall have the authority to order the license of any driver violating this subsection suspended for a period not to exceed 30 days. If a judge orders suspension of a person's drivers license pursuant to this subsection, the judge may allow the licensee a limited driving privilege for a period not to exceed the period of suspension. The limited driving privilege shall be issued in the same manner and under the terms and conditions prescribed in G.S. 20-16.1(b)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), and G.S. 20-16.1(g). (b) The signal herein required shall be given by means of the hand and arm in the manner herein specified, or by any mechanical or electrical signal device approved by the Division, except that when a vehicle is so constructed or loaded as to prevent the hand and arm signal from being visible, both to the front and rear, the signal shall be given by a device of a type which has been approved by the Division. Whenever Except as otherwise provided in subsection (b1) of this section, whenever the signal is given the driver shall indicate his intention to start, stop, or turn by extending the hand and arm from and beyond the left side of the vehicle as hereinafter set forth. Left turn – hand and arm horizontal, forefinger pointing. Right turn – hand and upper arm horizontal, forearm and hand pointed upward. Stop – hand and arm upper arm horizontal, forearm and hand pointed downward. All hand and arm signals shall be given from the left side of the vehicle and all signals shall be maintained or given continuously for the last 100 feet traveled prior to stopping or making a turn. Provided, that in all areas where the speed limit is 45 miles per hour or higher and the operator intends to turn from a direct line of travel, a signal of intention to turn from a direct line of travel shall be given continuously during the last 200 feet traveled before turning. Any motor vehicle in use on a highway shall be equipped with, and required signal shall be given by, a signal lamp or lamps or mechanical signal device when the distance from the center of the top of the steering post to the left outside limit of the body, cab or load of such motor vehicle exceeds 24 inches, or when the distance from the center of the top of the steering post to the rear limit of the body or load thereof exceeds 14 feet. The latter measurement shall apply to any single vehicle, also to any combination of vehicles except combinations operated by farmers in hauling farm products. (b1) Notwithstanding the requirement set forth in subsection (b) of this section that a driver signal a right turn by extending his or her hand and arm from beyond the left side of the vehicle, an operator of a bicycle may signal his or her intention to make a right turn by extending his or her hand and arm horizontally, with the forefinger pointing, from beyond the right side of the bicycle. ...."
SECTION 5.5.(d) This section becomes effective October 1, 2016, and applies to offenses committed on or after that date.
PART IV. DIVISION OF MOTOR VEHICLES
COMMERCIAL DRIVERS LICENSE CHANGES
SECTION 6.(a) G.S. 20-7(m) reads as rewritten:
63
House Bill 959 Session Law 2016-90 Page 15
AMEND "MOPED" DEFINITION
SECTION 13.(a) G.S. 20-4.01 reads as rewritten: "§ 20-4.01. Definitions. Unless the context requires otherwise, the following definitions apply throughout this Chapter to the defined words and phrases and their cognates: ... (7a) Electric Assisted Bicycle. – A bicycle with two or three wheels that is equipped with a seat or saddle for use by the rider, fully operable pedals for human propulsion, and an electric motor of no more than 750 watts, whose maximum speed on a level surface when powered solely by such a motor is no greater than 20 miles per hour. (7a)(7b) Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Device. – A self-balancing nontandem two-wheeled device, designed to transport one person, with a propulsion system that limits the maximum speed of the device to 15 miles per hour or less. (7b)(7c) Employer. – Any person who owns or leases a commercial motor vehicle or assigns a person to drive a commercial motor vehicle and would be subject to the alcohol and controlled substance testing provisions of 49 C.F.R. § 382 and also includes any consortium or third-party administrator administering the alcohol and controlled substance testing program on behalf of owner-operators subject to the provisions of 49 C.F.R. § 382. ... (21a) Moped. – A type of passenger vehicle as defined in G.S. 105-164.3. ... (23) Motor Vehicle. – Every vehicle which is self-propelled and every vehicle designed to run upon the highways which is pulled by a self-propelled vehicle. Except as specifically provided otherwise, this term shall not include mopeds as defined in G.S. 20-4.01(27)d1.mopeds or electric assisted bicycles. ... (27) Passenger Vehicles. – ... c2. Motor-driven bicycle. – A vehicle with two or three wheels, a steering handle, one or two saddle seats, pedals, and a motor that cannot propel the vehicle at a speed greater than 20 miles per hour on a level surface. This term shall not include an electric assisted bicycle as defined in subdivision (7a) of this section. d. Motorcycles. – Vehicles having a saddle for the use of the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in contact with the ground, including autocycles, motor scooters, and motor-driven bicycles, but excluding tractors and utility vehicles equipped with an additional form of device designed to transport property, three-wheeled vehicles while being used by law-enforcement agencies agencies, electric assisted bicycles, and mopeds as defined in subdivision d1 sub-subdivision d1. of this subsection.subdivision. d1. Moped. – Defined in G.S. 105-164.3.A vehicle, other than a motor-driven bicycle or electric assisted bicycle, that has two or three wheels, no external shifting device, a motor that does not exceed 50 cubic centimeters piston displacement and cannot propel the vehicle at a speed greater than 30 miles per hour on a level surface. The motor may be powered by electricity, alternative fuel, motor fuel, or a combination of each. ... (49) Vehicle. – Every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon fixed rails or tracks; provided, that for the purposes of this Chapter bicycles and electric assisted bicycles shall be deemed vehicles and every rider of a bicycle or an electric assisted
64
Page 16 Session Law 2016-90 House Bill 959
bicycle upon a highway shall be subject to the provisions of this Chapter applicable to the driver of a vehicle except those which by their nature can have no application. This term shall not include a device which is designed for and intended to be used as a means of transportation for a person with a mobility impairment, or who uses the device for mobility enhancement, is suitable for use both inside and outside a building, including on sidewalks, and is limited by design to 15 miles per hour when the device is being operated by a person with a mobility impairment, or who uses the device for mobility enhancement. This term shall not include an electric personal assistive mobility device as defined in G.S. 20-4.01(7a).subdivision (7b) of this section. …."
SECTION 13.(b) G.S. 20-10.1 reads as rewritten: "§ 20-10.1. Mopeds. It shall be unlawful for any person who is under the age of 16 years to operate a moped as defined in G.S. 105-164.3 G.S. 20-4.01(27)d1. upon any highway or public vehicular area of this State."
SECTION 13.(c) G.S. 20-171.1 reads as rewritten: "§ 20-171.1. Definitions. As used in this Part, except where the context clearly requires otherwise, the words and expressions defined in this section shall be held to have the meanings here given to them: Bicycle. – A nonmotorized vehicle with two or three wheels tandem, a steering handle, one or two saddle seats, and pedals by which the vehicle is propelled.propelled, or an electric assisted bicycle, as defined in G.S. 20-4.01(7a)."
SECTION 13.(d) G.S. 20-175.6 reads as rewritten: "§ 20-175.6. Electric personal assistive mobility devices. (a) Electric Personal Assistive Mobility Device. – As defined in G.S. 20-4.01(7a).G.S. 20-4.01(7b). ...."
SECTION 13.(e) Reserved.
SECTION 13.(f) G.S. 58-37-1 reads as rewritten: "§ 58-37-1. Definitions. As used in this Article: ... (6) "Motor vehicle" means every self-propelled vehicle that is designed for use upon a highway, including trailers and semitrailers designed for use with such vehicles (except traction engines, road rollers, farm tractors, tractor cranes, power shovels, and well drillers). "Motor vehicle" also means a motorcycle, as defined in G.S. 20-4.01(27)d. "Motor vehicle" does not mean a moped, as defined in G.S. 105-164.3. G.S. 20-4.01(27)d1., or an electric assisted bicycle, as defined in G.S. 20-4.01(7a). Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Article, liability insurance on a moped is not eligible for cession to the Facility. ...."
SECTION 13.(g) Reserved.
SECTION 13.(h) G.S. 105-164.3 reads as rewritten: "§ 105-164.3. Definitions. The following definitions apply in this Article: ... (22) Moped. – A vehicle that has two or three wheels, no external shifting device, and a motor that does not exceed 50 cubic centimeters piston displacement and cannot propel the vehicle at a speed greater than 30 miles per hour on a level surface.As defined in G.S. 20-4.01(27)d1. ...."
SECTION 13.(i) G.S. 20-51(14) reads as rewritten: "§ 20-51. Exempt from registration. The following shall be exempt from the requirement of registration and certificate of title: …
65
Action Responsible
Party
Other
Partners/Specific
Department Sub-‐Tasks
Hours
Estimated*Expenses
Initial
Coordination -‐
Kick-‐Off -‐
Content
Development -‐
Updates -‐
Ongoing
Maintenance -‐
Coordination -‐
Content
Development -‐
Content
Development -‐
Coordination -‐
Social
Media
–
e.g.,
Orange
County
Facebook
Events
Page County
Staff Orange
County
Community
Relations Content
Development
10
-‐
Set
up/Take
down -‐
Tabling -‐
Coordination
with
Transportation
Demand
Management
Professionals
at
the
local,
county,
and
university
levels
County
Staff
Orange
County
Asset
Management
Services
(AMS)
Coordination
20
-‐
News/Media
Integration
(Earned
Media)County
Staff Orange
County
Community
Relations Coordination 40 -‐
Coordination -‐
Review -‐
Coordination -‐
Review -‐
Data
Collection -‐
Document
Preparation -‐
Initial
Coordination -‐
Kick-‐Off -‐
Content
Development -‐
Meetings -‐
Document
Preparation -‐
400
440
30
80
60
30
County
Staff
/
Town
of
Chapel
Hill
Staff
/
Town
of
Carrboro
Staff
Orange
County
Community
Relations
Convene
Implementation
Committee County
Staff BOCC
Crash
Reporting
Enhancements
–
Suggestions
County
Staff
/
NCDOT
NCDOT
Traffic
Safety
Division/
Orange
County
Emergency
Services
Evaluation County
Staff -‐
*
Estimated
hours
includes
staff
time
as
well
as
time
required
from
other
partners,
including
volunteers
and
interns.
Time
and
Cost
Estimates
for
Bicycle
Safety
Task
Force
Potential
Actions
County
Staff/
School
Officials
Active
Routes
to
School
Coordinator,
Walkable
Hillsborough
Coalition
School
Outreach
Apps/Programs
Safety
Message
to
Listservs County
Staff -‐
Tabling
at
Community
Events
County
Staff/
Volunteers/
Advisory
Group
Members/
Cycle
Clubs
Planning
Department,
Orange
County
Schools,
OUTBoard
Staff
Time
Only
Best
Safety
Video
Contest County
Staff Orange
County
Community
Relations
Create
Static
Website
with
Safety
Information
-‐
Chapel
Hill/Carrboro
will
provide
link
and
safety
message
on
their
Websites
66
Action Responsible
Party
Other
Partners/Specific
Department Sub-‐Tasks
Hours
Estimated*Expenses
Design
Review
Design
Review
Coordination
Design
Review
Design
Review
Planning
Coordination
Staffing
Production
Review
**
Top
Tagline
Options:
Ride
Friendly,
Drive
Friendly
(Winner),
others
considered;
Expect
Bikes!
Pass
Safely,
Roll
with
Respect,
Courtesy
is
crucial!
Bike
and
Drive
Safely
15
50
45
50
70
Partner
with
CommunityWatch
to
add
Signage**
in
Rural
Neighborhoods
(50)
County
Staff
Orange
County
Community
Relations,
Community
Organizations
Yard
Signs
(100
for
$15
each)County
Staff/
Volunteers
Orange
County
Community
Relations,
Community
Organizations
Time
and
Cost
Estimates
for
Bicycle
Safety
Task
Force
Potential
Actions
Likely
Inexpensive
Bike
Rodeo
for
Kids County
Staff/
Volunteers/
School
District
PTA,
Walkable
Hillsborough
Coalition,
Active
Routes
To
School
group,
School
Board
$500
Bumper
Stickers
(100-‐150
stickers)/Magnets
(100
magnets)
County
Staff
Orange
County
Community
Relations,
Community
Organizations
$200
Orange
County
Community
Relations,
Community
Organizations
Posters
(100)County
Staff $1,000
$1,000
$1,500
*
Estimated
hours
includes
staff
time
as
well
as
time
required
from
other
partners,
including
volunteers
and
interns.
Orange
County
Community
Relations,
Professional
Videographer
Video/Audio
Public
Safety
Announcements
(PSAs)
on
Respect
between
Modes
County
Staff/
Volunteers $2,000100
67
Action Responsible
Party Other
Partners/Specific
Department Sub-‐Tasks Hours
Estimated*Expenses
Design
Review
Approval
Coordination
Teaching
Time
Coordination
Incident
Reporting
System
Development
Training
Coordination
Training
Data
Collection
Time
Coordination
Hold
Meeting
Action Responsible
Party Other
Partners/Specific
Department Sub-‐Tasks Hours
Estimated*Expenses
Coordination
Advertisement
Creation
140
30
100
Time
and
Cost
Estimates
for
Bicycle
Safety
Task
Force
Potential
Actions
Moderately
Expensive
Signage
at
Multiple
Entry
Points
in
County County
Staff
/
NCDOT Orange
County
Community
Relations
$450/each
x
25
signs
for
total
of
~
$12,000
70
Classes
for
Law
Enforcement
and
Emergency
Response
Personnel
County
Staff
/
NCDOT
/
DMV
Highway
Safety
Research
Center
$3,000
for
100
hours
of
course
time
Real-‐Time
EMT
Incident
Reporting
County
Staff/EMT
Dispatch
Staff Orange
County
IT
$5,000
in
System
Development
Costs/Training
140
180
*
Estimated
hours
includes
staff
time
as
well
as
time
required
from
other
partners,
including
volunteers
and
interns.
$5,000
-‐
$15,000
Dependent
on
Method
Highway
Safety
Research
Center/Institute
for
Transportation
Research
and
Education?
Data
Collection
(e.g.,
Bike
Counts)
County
Staff/
MPO/
NCDOT
Approximately
$1,500
per
TV
spot,
$1,200
per
Week
of
Radio
Advertising
Radio/TV
Spots County
Staff
Local
TV
Stations/Orange
County
Community
Relations
Launch
Campaign
Kickoff
–
Signs,
Contests,
Ads County
Staff
Orange
County
Community
Relations,
Volunteers
$2,000
to
develop
materials,
run
ads,
buy
contest
prizes
Very
Expensive
68
Bicycle Safety Task Force Report, Appendix
Appendix: Identifying problem areas, goals, messaging, and target audiences
I. Motorist and Cyclist Education
Problem: New and existing car drivers, and many cyclists, are not learning the laws
that pertain to cyclists and are not learning how to interact with each other on the road.
Because they do not know the laws, some motorists and cyclists may each feel that
the other is disrespectful of their place on the road. In addition to existing laws, new
state laws affecting cyclists and motorists, including new passing laws, went into effect
in October 2016, and the public needs to be aware of them.
Non-recreational (e.g., transportation and commuter) bicyclists include riders who
are inexperienced, who are new to our communities, or who may have language
barriers and cannot find the rules pertaining to bicycling in their language. Non-
recreational cyclists may include riders who choose bicycling as their mode of
transportation because they do not have funds for other forms of travel.
Existing crash analysis can help prioritize the messaging.
Goals:
A. To be sure that all users of the road know the laws, including cyclists, motorists,
commercial drivers, and law enforcement, so that misinformation can be
eliminated. (Piggyback on state publicity for getting word out about the new law.)
B. To be sure all users of the road understand the best practices for sharing the road
when they encounter other vehicles, paying special attention to the area of
passing.
C. To make mutual respect the norm by emphasizing and promoting best practices,
including: be courteous, be aware of your space in relation to those around you,
use common sense and courtesy, ride and drive with respect for all.
D. To move expectations beyond rights and laws to common sense courtesies.
Define what is understood as courtesy for passing and focus on safe passing.
Look at Defensive Driving/Riding courses.
Message: Cyclists fare best and are safest when they act like and are treated like
drivers of vehicles. Learn the laws of the road, including:
1) Bicycles are considered vehicles and the same rules of the road apply to
cyclists and motorists unless otherwise stated.
2) Cyclists must ride in the same direction as other vehicles.
3) Cyclists should ride as far to the right as practicable, and have the right to
use the full lane or ride abreast when that is the safest position (e.g., to be
more visible, to discourage unsafe passing, or to avoid obstacles in the road).
4) On Oct. 1, 2016, new law GS 20-150(e) allows the driver of a vehicle to pass a
cyclist or moped on a road with a double yellow line, provided the driver gives a
minimum of 4 feet between the car and the cyclist, or the driver completely
enters the other lane of the highway. (Note that all other requirements of
passing, such as having clear sight distance, must be observed). A full recap of
the new laws can be found in Appendix 1.
5) In Orange County we watch out for each other on the roads:
“Ride Friendly, Drive Friendly”
69
Target audiences: New and existing drivers, cyclists (recreational and non-
recreational), law enforcement
Safety benefits: Knowing and following the laws should make all movements safer
and more predictable, but making following the laws and courtesy on the road the
norm is the most effective tool to achieve the goals of compliance and of mutual
respect. The new passing law may also help mitigate some of the conflict currently
seen between cyclists and motorists. Lowering frustrations and raising respect
between road user groups will lead to less impatience, safer interactions, and a more
positive perception of sharing the road.
II. EMS, Fire Trucks, Law Enforcement
Problem: Vehicles, including cyclists, do not always pull over for emergency vehicles.
Goal:
A. To achieve full compliance with this law
Message: The law requires all vehicles, including cyclists, to pull over and stop when
an emergency vehicle (EMS, Fire Truck, and Public Safety vehicle) sounding its siren
and flashing its lights approaches. When cyclists do not pull over and come to a stop,
the emergency vehicles are unable to predict their movements, which hampers their
ability to pass. In addition, cyclists need to follow the directions of flagmen who are
directing traffic on the road.
Target audiences: Cyclists and motorists
Safety benefits: Emergency vehicles are traveling at high rates of speed and their
ability to arrive at a situation quickly can be a matter of life and death. Improved
compliance with this law will ensure that emergency responders arrive where they are
needed as quickly as possible.
III. Better Data Collection
Problem: No definitive way to collect data on cyclists’ behavior or on
amount/percentage of cyclist traffic on the road. No way to observe motorist behavior.
This leads to the use of anecdotal or perceptual information instead of data, and also
provides no way to judge the effectiveness of a safety campaign.
Goals:
A. To be able to measure current behavior and vehicle counts, perhaps with the use
of motion cameras as well as with other equipment, prioritizing data collection in
known problem areas.
B. To be able to measure effectiveness of the Bicycle Safety Task Force (BSTF)
campaign, and to be able to demonstrate possible need for road safety
improvements.
C. To work with other agencies (e.g., law enforcement, EMT) to get more
comprehensive and precise information for all incidents involving cyclists, and to
have information forwarded in real time to the Orange County Planning
Department.
70
Message: Data are necessary
1) To measure the extent of a problem based on data and not on personal
observations.
2) To determine if education mitigates or has any positive effect on behavior.
3) To have data available to present to NCDOT, which bases many of its
decisions for infrastructure improvements on data. (If there is no collection of
data, then proposed projects may score poorly.)
Target audiences: Transportation planners, Board of County Commissioners (BOCC),
overseers of BSTF implementation, NCDOT, law enforcement, EMT services
Safety benefits: NCDOT is more likely to respond to a request for road safety
improvements if data can be amassed to show the need and support for it. If county
funds are being used to implement safety programs, data will provide taxpayers and
the elected officials with information about the effectiveness of the use of those funds.
IV. Safety Equipment for Cyclists
Problem: Cyclists who cannot be seen are a danger to themselves and to motorists.
Some cyclists may be unaware of the laws requiring lights. Many non-recreational
bicyclists ride at night, making safety equipment for night riding especially important.
For some, the cost of lights and helmets may be a hardship. New laws that went into
effect in October 2016 require a front light, plus a rear light or reflective clothing in
addition to a rear reflector. Also, parents and cyclists need to be aware of the law
requiring helmets on anyone younger than 16 years of age.
Goals:
A. To strive to make all cyclists aware of the laws, to strive to have all bikes used at
night equipped with required lights and reflectors, and to strive to have all children
under 16 wearing helmets.
B. To recommend best practices including use of lights during the day, wearing
brightly colored clothing, and use of helmets for all ages.
C. To make cyclists aware of the importance of being visible to others.
Message: Cyclists must equip their bikes as state law requires for lights and reflectors
when riding at night, and cyclists must be seen to be safe.
Target audience: Primary: cyclists; secondary: bike shops
Safety benefit: Visibility is a key component of safety. Cyclists must be visible to other
road users at night. Helmet use has been shown in some studies to prevent or lessen
head injuries.
V. Education and Safety around Large Groups of Riders
71
Problem: Group rides can pose unique challenges and safety issues for sharing the
road, and sometimes groups can include less experienced riders who are unaware of
best practices. In addition, large groups of riders present challenges to motorists who
are trying to safely pass them.
Goals:
A. To get ideas for best practices for group riding into the hands of all who ride in
groups, and to have the best practices followed.
B. To recommend riding 2 abreast, and breaking into more manageable group sizes
when vehicles are trying to pass.
C. To define where and when large groups most often ride, and make those routes
and alternative routes available to county residents so they can plan their routes
accordingly.
D. To get motorists and cyclists to recognize a reasonable expectation for passing
time, and to use videos or PSAs to illustrate passing a large group of riders from
both cyclists’ and motorists’ perspectives
E. To make motorists aware of the new law allowing them to cross double yellow
lines to pass when safe to do so.
Message: Some motorists can become frustrated or impatient when they find
themselves behind a very large group of riders and are unclear about how best to
safely pass them. By demonstrating best practices and by getting cyclists and
motorists to see the challenges from the other’s viewpoint, a better coexistence may
be achieved.
Target audiences: Primary: riding clubs in and around Orange County; secondary:
individual cyclists, motorists, large groups (pelotons)
Safety benefits: Educating large groups of cyclists will make them aware of behaviors
that make motorists nervous and frustrated, and will let them know what they can do to
improve safe passing. Educating motorists at the same time will make them aware of
ways to pass groups safely.
VI. Advocate for Orange County Signage/Messaging That Focuses on Cyclist and
Motorist Safety
Problem: A small number of motorists and cyclists have exhibited and
experienced less than friendly interactions on the roads. For both
recreational and non-recreational riders, unfriendly interactions can lead to a
feeling of vulnerability and fear. It may also discourage beginning cyclists or
those who would like try biking for transportation or recreation. Cycling can
keep our communities healthier and our air cleaner, and cyclists also bring
tax dollars into Orange County. All who want to ride bikes here should feel
welcome.
Goals:
A. To develop a safety message that elected officials will adopt that
promotes Orange County as a bicycling destination and that will
promote respect between motorists and cyclists as the expected norm.
72
B. To evaluate the effectiveness of the statewide “Watch for Me”
campaign and to consider having Orange County participate in the
program. (Note: this program has just been evaluated by the Highway
Safety Research Center and results will be available soon.)
C. To have Orange County evaluated by the national League of American
Bicyclists as part of their Bicycle Friendly Community program
Message: Orange County offers beautiful roads for cycling, whether it is for
transportation, health, or recreation. We want cyclists who come to Orange
County to ride to know they are welcome in our county. Studies have shown
that positive words and expectations (norms) can influence behavior.
Consider promoting a ”Ride Friendly / Drive Friendly” slogan for Orange
County.
Target audiences: Primary: Orange County elected officials and staff;
secondary: motorists and cyclists who use Orange County roads (many of
whom do not live in Orange County)
Safety benefits: more cyclists and more awareness of cyclists on the roads
makes cycling safer on the roads.
VII. Improvements to Traffic Signals to Allow Bicycles to Trigger Traffic Signal
Problem: Bicycles do not trip lights at most traffic signals due to the type of tripper
used or the way it has been calibrated. This makes it difficult for a cyclist to get through
a red light on a road with little motor traffic.
Goal:
A. To give cyclists at intersections a green light to proceed lawfully through an
intersection
Message: When installing new traffic signals or when adjusting existing signals, install
and calibrate trippers, or other technologies that recognize cyclists.
Target audiences: primary: NCDOT, with county and town traffic /transportation
planners and BOCC aware so these improvements can be requested when trippers
are installed
Safety benefit: Allows safe and legal travel through signaled intersections
VIII. Non-infrastructure Recommendations of the Adopted Safe Routes to School
(SRTS) Plan within the County’s Jurisdiction
Problem: The non-infrastructure recommendations of the adopted SRTS Plan share
common goals with the charge of the Bicycle Safety Task Force in that they emphasize
education and safety. Implementation of these SRTS recommendations has been
delayed due primarily to limited funding for related infrastructure projects because of
the revision in project criteria at the state level, and lack of any local matching funds.
Goal:
73
A. To promote the implementation of related SRTS non-infrastructure
recommendations that coincide with Bicycle Safety Task Force
recommendations.
Message: The County’s school-age children are a part of our bicycling community,
and
1) Making bicycling to school a safer and more appealing transportation option
encourages a healthy and active lifestyle from an early age.
2) Facilitating the planning, development, and implementation of projects and
activities will improve safety and reduce traffic, fuel consumption, and air
pollution in the vicinity of our schools.
Target Audiences: Primary: Orange County School Board, Orange County elected
officials and staff, and parents and other residents; secondary: motorists and cyclists
who use Orange County roads (many do not live in Orange County)
Safety benefit: Make bicycling to school safer for children
IX. Creation of a Future Task Force to Study Infrastructure
Problem: Despite the efforts of this task force to make Orange County roads safer,
some cyclists or potential cyclists will prefer infrastructure and greenways
improvements. Because improvements to infrastructure were beyond the scope of this
task force, we recommend that the BOCC appoint a task force that can look at
infrastructure and possible funding sources for it.
Goal:
A. To offer additional opportunities for active transportation for residents and visitors
to our county
Message: Greenways and bike infrastructure are part of the complete streets policies
set forth by NCDOT. There are recommendations for rural areas as well as for urban
areas. Exploring these areas could enhance the cycling experience for several
different types of riders.
Target audience: Cyclists and potential cyclists (as well as walkers and hikers)
74
TIP/WBS # Description Start/Let date Completion Date Status Cost Comments
R-5787B
44917.3.3
Curb ramp improvements at various intersections in Orange and
Alamance Co.
Jun. 2017 Dec. 2017 Planning and design
activities underway.
$100,000 TAP, DMP
SS-4907BF
44271.1.FD1
44271.2.1
44271.3.1
Radius and sight distance improvements at the intersection of SR
1567 (Pleasant Green Road) and SR 1569 (Cole Mill Road) in
Orange Co.
4/18/2016 10/28/2016 100% complete $15,000 PE
$80,000 R/W
$53,600 CON
State Spot Safety, R/W plans
received 7/8/15, Constr. By State
Forces
SS-4907BS
44894.2.1
44894.3.1
Installation of traffic signal at the intersection of US70 and SR 1114
(Buckhorn Road) East of Mebane.
Apr. 2017 Jun. 2017 Signal design underway $40,500 R/W
$43,200 CON
State Spot Safety, Constr. By
State Forces, May need R/W
U-3306(L)
34913.3.2
Landscaping on SR 1733 (Weaver Dairy Road) from NC 86 to SR
1734 (Erwin Road).
Dec. 2016 Spring 2017 Bids rejected, re-let on
1/5/17
$58,645 Project funding, Division let
U-5549/SS-4907AZ
50153.3.F1
44227
44247
Churton Street Access Improvements - Traffic signal and curb ramp
revisions on east side of NC 86 (Churton Street) at SR 1150/SR
1002 (King Street), and NC 86 (Churton Street) at Margaret Street.
Grading, curb & gutter, crosswalks and signal modifications on the
west side of NC 86 /US 70 Bus.(Churton Street) from Tryon Street
to just south of Margaret Street. Grading, curb & gutter, crosswalk
and bus pull-out on NC 86 / US 70 Bus. (Churton Street) from south
of Margaret Street to just south of Nash and Koolock Street in
Hillsborough.
11/1/2016 Spring 2017 FHWA Construction
Authorization approved, No
bids received on Mar 17 let
and April 13 re-let. 3rd let
scheduled with floating
availability date, Awarded
to Carolina Sunrock,
NCDOT concurrence in
award pending
$156,000 CON
$245,000 CON
$120,000 CON
Spot Safety-State (ADA curb
ramp). Combine with Small
Construction, Contingency, STP-
DA. PCE approved Feb. 2015.
LAP - Town of Hillsborough, MA
executed
U-5550
50154.3.FS1
Intersection improvements at Fordham Boulevard (US15/501) and
Ephesus Church Rd. Improvements will include bike lanes and
sidewalks.
1/27/2016 Mar. 2017 Under construction - 60%
complete
$2,170,000 National Highway Performance
Program, LAP - Town of Chapel
Hill, MA executed
U-5846
50236.1.1
50236.2.1
50236.3.1
Construct a Roundabout at SR 1772 (Greensboro Street) and SR
1780 (Estes Drive) in Carrboro.
Jan. 2018 Mar. 2019 Planning and design
activities underway, R/W
plans complete Jan. 2017
$775,000 STIP, P3.0, PEF-SEPI, Surveys
received 3/15, DMP, Public
meeting on Nov. 14
U-5847
50238.1.1
50238.2.1
50238.3.1
Intersection improvements at SR 1010 (West Franklin St.) and SR
1771 (Merritt Mill Rd)/SR1927 (Brewer Lane) in Chapel Hill /
Carrboro.
Jan. 2019 Mar. 2019 Planning and design
activities underway, R/W
plans complete Jan. 2018
$775,000 STIP, P3.0, PEF-STANTEC,
Surveys received, traffic forecast
and analysis complete, DMP
U-5854
46382.1.1
46328.2.1
46382.3.1
Construct a roundabout at SR 1008 (Mt. Carmel Church Road) and
SR 1913 (Bennett Road) in Chapel Hill
Jul. 2017 Oct. 2018 Planning and design
activities underway, R/W
plans complete October
2016, Public comments
have been received
$775,000 STIP, P3.0,PEF-SEPI, DMP
W-5707A
44853.1.1
Curb ramp improvements for ADA compliance at the following
intersections: SR 2048 (South Road) at Raleigh Street; SR 2048
(South Road) at Country Club Road, SR 1902 (Manning Drive) at
Paul Hardin Drive, and SR 1902 (Manning Drive) at Ridge Road /
Skipper Bowles Road in Chapel Hill
3/16/2017 5/1/17 Planning and design
activities underway.
$10,000 PE
$60,000 CON
HSIP, DMP
NCDOT DIV 7 PROJECTS LOCATED IN DCHCMPO Technical Committee 2/22/2017 Item 18
Page 5 of 7
It
e
m
5
a
75
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
Nu
m
b
e
r
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
N
a
m
e
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
B
i
d
Am
o
u
n
t
Av
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
Da
t
e
Wo
r
k
S
t
a
r
t
Da
t
e
Co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
Da
t
e
Pr
o
g
r
e
s
s
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
Pa
g
e
1
o
f
1
01
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
7
No
r
t
h
C
a
r
o
l
i
n
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Ac
t
i
v
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
U
n
d
e
r
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
-
O
r
a
n
g
e
C
o
.
C2
0
3
2
7
4
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
O
F
1
1
B
R
I
D
G
E
S
I
N
AL
A
M
A
N
C
E
C
O
A
N
D
3
B
R
I
D
G
E
S
I
N
OR
A
N
G
E
C
O
.
HA
Y
M
E
S
B
R
O
T
H
E
R
S
,
I
N
C
.
K
i
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$6
,
3
5
6
,
5
2
0
.
0
0
0
4
/
2
9
/
2
0
1
3
0
5
/
2
3
/
2
0
1
3
1
2
/
1
3
/
2
0
1
6
9
9
.
0
0
9
2
.
6
0
C2
0
3
6
4
0
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
O
F
4
B
R
I
D
G
E
S
I
N
GU
I
L
F
O
R
D
C
O
U
N
T
Y
A
N
D
3
B
R
I
D
G
E
S
I
N
OR
A
N
G
E
C
O
U
N
T
Y
.
HA
Y
M
E
S
B
R
O
T
H
E
R
S
,
I
N
C
.
L
o
r
e
n
z
,
P
E
,
K
r
i
s
$
3
,
1
2
4
,
5
0
0
.
0
0
0
6
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
5
0
9
/
0
2
/
2
0
1
5
1
1
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
7
4
4
.
4
0
3
1
.
7
3
C2
0
3
6
4
1
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
O
F
5
B
R
I
D
G
E
S
I
N
GU
I
L
F
O
R
D
C
O
U
N
T
Y
A
N
D
5
B
R
I
D
G
E
S
I
N
OR
A
N
G
E
C
O
U
N
T
Y
.
R.
E
.
B
U
R
N
S
&
S
O
N
S
C
O
.
,
IN
C
.
Ki
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$5
,
9
4
0
,
3
2
3
.
0
0
0
6
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
5
0
6
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
5
1
1
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
8
3
6
.
0
0
7
8
.
0
9
DG
0
0
2
7
7
RE
S
U
R
F
A
C
I
N
G
O
N
US
1
5
-
5
0
1
,
N
C
8
6
,
SO
U
T
H
R
O
A
D
CA
R
O
L
I
N
A
S
U
N
R
O
C
K
L
L
C
K
i
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$1
,
2
5
9
,
2
5
9
.
6
1
0
4
/
1
5
/
2
0
1
6
0
5
/
1
8
/
2
0
1
6
1
1
/
1
8
/
2
0
1
6
1
0
0
.
0
0
9
9
.
9
2
DG
0
0
2
9
8
P
A
S
C
H
A
L
L
D
R
I
V
E
F
R
O
M
G
O
R
D
O
N
TH
O
M
A
S
D
R
I
V
E
T
O
S
R
1
8
4
1
A
N
D
GR
E
E
N
B
R
I
A
R
T
R
I
A
L
T
O
S
R
1
8
4
6
,
R
E
M
O
V
E
R/
R
C
R
O
S
S
I
N
G
S
TR
I
A
N
G
L
E
G
R
A
D
I
N
G
&
PA
V
I
N
G
I
N
C
Ki
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$1
,
4
9
3
,
6
0
0
.
0
0
0
6
/
0
6
/
2
0
1
6
0
6
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
6
0
6
/
0
6
/
2
0
1
7
1
0
0
.
0
0
6
8
.
2
0
DG
0
0
2
9
9
RE
S
U
R
F
A
C
E
22
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
O
F
SE
C
O
N
D
A
R
Y
R
O
A
D
I
N
SE O
R
A
N
G
E
C
O
.
CA
R
O
L
I
N
A
S
U
N
R
O
C
K
L
L
C
K
i
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$1
,
3
3
1
,
3
2
5
.
3
6
0
6
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
6
0
9
/
2
8
/
2
0
1
6
1
1
/
1
7
/
2
0
1
7
1
0
.
0
0
3
9
.
7
7
DG
0
0
3
0
2
E
X
T
E
N
D
B
R
Y
D
S
V
I
L
L
E
R
O
A
D
T
O
N
C
8
6
AN
D
R
E
M
O
V
E
R
A
I
L
C
R
O
S
S
I
N
G
TR
I
A
N
G
L
E
G
R
A
D
I
N
G
&
PA
V
I
N
G
I
N
C
Ki
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$1
,
6
8
3
,
9
0
0
.
0
0
0
7
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
6
0
9
/
2
9
/
2
0
1
6
1
2
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
7
2
6
.
4
6
1
3
.
1
4
DG
0
0
3
2
3
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
F
I
B
E
R
-
O
P
T
I
C
CO
M
M
U
N
I
C
A
T
I
O
N
N
E
T
W
O
R
K
A
N
D
RE
L
A
T
E
D
W
O
R
K
F
O
R
C
E
N
T
E
R
T
O
CE
N
T
E
R
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
I
O
N
AL
S
O
F
N
O
R
T
H
C
A
R
O
L
I
N
A
,
IN
C
.
Ki
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$8
8
5
,
6
0
5
.
6
0
1
1
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
6
09
/
0
9
/
2
0
1
7
DG
0
0
3
2
4
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
B
R
I
D
G
E
N
O
.
1
2
6
O
N
S
R
1
5
2
6
(G
R
A
Y
R
O
A
D
)
O
V
E
R
L
I
C
K
C
R
E
E
K
W
I
T
H
A
N
AL
U
M
I
N
U
M
A
R
C
H
C
U
L
V
E
R
T
FS
C
I
I
L
L
C
D
B
A
F
R
E
D
SM
I
T
H
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
Ki
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$9
7
4
,
4
7
9
.
0
0
1
0
/
2
4
/
2
0
1
6
11
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
7
DG
0
0
3
2
5
IN
S
T
A
L
L
A
R
C
H
P
I
P
E
O
N
SR
1
9
1
9
(
S
O
U
T
H
GR
E
E
N
S
B
O
R
O
S
T
R
E
E
T
)
AT
N
C
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
54
IN
C
A
R
R
B
O
R
O
FS
C
I
I
L
L
C
D
B
A
F
R
E
D
SM
I
T
H
C
O
M
P
A
N
Y
Ki
r
k
m
a
n
,
P
E
,
Ch
r
i
s
t
o
p
h
e
r
D
$1
,
9
7
0
,
7
9
1
.
0
0
1
1
/
1
4
/
2
0
1
6
1
2
/
0
7
/
2
0
1
6
1
1
/
3
0
/
2
0
1
7
1
3
.
0
0
4
.
7
7
Te
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
2
/
2
2
/
2
0
1
7
I
t
e
m
1
8
Pa
g
e
6
o
f
7
76